Embryo of Philosophy

I came a cross a very interesting article the other day. Apparently, Keith Olbermann offered to make a donation to Sean Hannity's charity of choice, if Hannity would undergo waterboarding. Hannity didn't take him up on the offer, but another Fox commentator did.

The article is also under the cut. It's short.

( Olbermann's offer to Hannity off the table )


I think this clears things up. People who have been waterboarded consider it torture. And one of those people is a probably-Christian white guy, so his opinions actually count, unlike those Islamic brown people. (EDIT: Er, that last sentence is heavy sarcasm. I think that's obvious, but...)

I think it's time to round up members of the Bush administration and change their minds. And plenty of people in the current government. (No, I am not serious advocating that we round people up and torture them. I'm a Liberal.)

But a good percent of the American people need a wake up call too. Slacktivist AKA Fred Clark is my favorite blogger. He's a liberal Evangelical Christian (no, seriously) who writes about economic inequality, civil rights, and how very crazy the current Evangelic movement is in the U.S. His running critique of the Left Behind book series is one of the most fascinating things on the internet. His latest post is about a recent poll stating that 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants said torture of a suspect could be often or sometimes justified, while 40 percent of the "religiously unaffiliated" held the same stance. Now, while the "religiously unaffiliated" stats are nothing to brag about (Almost half? My god.), they're a damn sight better than the white evangelical Protestants. (For white, non-Hispanic Catholics the rate was 51 percent, and for white mainline Protestants it was 46 percent.) I find this both horrific and darkly amusing. See, plenty of people have defended religion by saying that we need it to define morality. This implies that people without religion must be somehow less moral. But, as it turns out, in the United States, being a white Christians makes you more likely to be a horrible person. So, the next time someone tells me that we can't have morality without God, I'm going to tell them to shove it.

First of all, what the fuck, Colorado weather? I've gotten used to the seventy degree January days, and I've realized that it's never more wintry than in late April, but it's nearly June, so these grey, wet days have to stop. Or at least don't go changing it so much. Google weather said it would be seventy one degrees today, so I dressed for that. When I got on the first bus, it was warm. When I got off, it was chilly and windy. I was not alerted to this possibility! It was still chilly when I got on the second bus, but by the time I got off, it was warm again. Oh, Colorado, I will never understand you.

I had a doctor's appointment today, to check on my boobs. It was somewhat of a trek, just because walking still hurts a bit.

On the bus I encountered a wacky conservative Christian whom I had debated last semester at CU. He was quite eager to talk to me. I was trying to write, so I didn't really want to talk to anyone, but especially not a fundamentalist Christian. He was pleasant and polite, certainly. I have no doubt that many fundamentalist Christians are overall quite good-natured, with concern for others. However, this man, however nice he was, thinks that I'm going to hell. He believes that I face endless agonizing torment after death because I like to kiss girls, and because I pray to a goddess and the wrong god. Not only will I suffer unceasingly for eternity, but quite deservedly so. It's hard for me to think of someone who believes that as a truly good person.

However, he spoke about a talk he was going to give at his church about various literary genres in the Bible (didactic, poetic, apocalyptic, etc.), which sounded genuinely fascinating. (I'm a religious studies minor for a reason.) Of course, he's probably one of the people who thinks that the vast number of different genres and literary styles in the Bible prove that it was written by God, rather than offering evidence that it was written by a great number of people over a very long time. But what are you going to do?

Also, I saw a road sign on the way to the doctor's office that gave me pause. It was next to a creek and said "Ice may exist." And, yes, all right, I know what it meant, but it sounds quite existential to me. "Ice may exist. But perhaps it's simply our subjective perceptions telling us that the ice exists. Who can say?"

...Well, I was at least amused.

I did finally make it to the doctor. I'm healing nicely, and she removed most of the steri strips. And now I can shower! Seriously, bathing became a serious chore when I couldn't get my chest wet.

Before, when my breasts were still numb, I expressed concern that it might be the first stage of horrible zombie disease, and that I had zombie tits. My fears were allayed today. No, instead, I have frankenboobs! (I just can't decide if that should be capitalized or not.) They had to cut off my nipples then reattach them, so it's quite gross looking. (That, uh, might have been more than you wanted to know.) But it's only eight days after surgery, so I'm not worried. Plus, the doctor told me that I'm still quite swelled up, and that my breasts should get even smaller. I'm so excited!

Just like I'm oh so certain that you care about the state of my breasts, so I assume that you care about how my writing is going. I've finished one of my springkink stories, and started the other one. These stories are the reason that I've been researching Victorian carriages and trains. Don't laugh, I find it interesting. And my remixthedrabble entry is in beta.

All in all, my life is going well. This scares me. Surely something must go horrible wrong soon. Well, I'm starting my summer class on Monday. That will probably count.

Why do people continue to Not Get It? Today's post isn't about stuff that's jaw-droppingly rage inducing, but still makes me go "Argh!"

Yesterday, in my lesbian lit class, we were discussing Stone Butch Blues. Since the book deals with Diné/Navajo culture and transgenderism, it's no surprise that the topic of of third genders within Native American Cultures would come up. The problem came when one woman used the word "berdache." While this is indeed a word used to describe non-gender-conforming native peoples, it's an insulting word, first used by European conquers to insult the people they were destroying. Also, using berdache as a blanket term ignores the multitude of differences across tribes. (I really hate it when I hear something described as a "Native American custom." Which tribe are you talking about? Cheyenne? Arapaho? Iroquois? Mohawk? I demand details!) When I brought this up, I was all but attacked, with the woman insisting that the work should be used for convenience's sake. The professor tried to cool the situation and made a note that perhaps someone should research the history of berdache. Which is exactly what I did. I looked in Transgender Warriors by Leslie Feinberg and Sex Changes by Patrick Califia, and found confirmation for my statement. (I would hope so, considering those books are where I got the information in the first place. But it's nice to have straight textual evidence.) I fully plan to bring this up tomorrow. The professor better have meant it when she said that someone should look into this. I do my research! And my research does not support the "Yay Western Imperialism!" viewpoint.

By the way, a blanket term for gender nonconformity within Native American Cultures that actually used by native people is two-spirit. That's respectful. Of course, if you come across someone who doesn't like the term, you shouldn't use it to describe them. (I shouldn't have to point that out, but.)

Later the same day, in my Christianity and Democracy class, I encountered a different time of privilege. We were discussing Christianity and Democracy by John De Gruchy. Of course, it's severely difficult to discuss the problem knowing that it's highly unlikely that anyone reading this has also read said book. To give you an overview of my issues, I'll just put up my response paper that I wrote for the class.

( Read more... )

All right, there you go. Little more than you strictly needed, but you understand my issues.

There are times when something seems incredibly clear to you, and you're shocked to find that people disagree. This happened in class. Two people thought that De Gruchy wasn't privileging Christianity. That's right, saying that an ideal society would be modeled after the Holy Trinity has nothing to do with concept of Christian supremacy. One woman couldn't see what the problem was. "If you like his ideas," she said, "why does it matter how he expresses them?"

I wonder what it would be like to go through life seeing absolutely nothing oppressive about saying that people not believing in the Christian God is responsible for society's ills, or that God should be a "necessary working hypothesis with regard to science, ethics, or art." It's classic Christian privilege. (Of course, it's possible that the woman wasn't a Christian. There will always be people who defend oppressors without being them. Look at the sheer number of sexist and misogynistic women. But I find it more likely that she's Christian.)

I'm reminded that in the same class, someone expressed the belief that the presidential inauguration wasn't explicitly Christian. Multiple preachers, swearing in the president with his hand on the Bible, and reference to God in the speech, and it's not Christian! People don't seem to get that the concept of Christianity as default in our society is problematic.


But now we reach our last point for today. And this point deals not with other people's privilege, but with my own. (So much harder to deal with.)

I'm not sure how much any one person on my flist has been keeping up with Racefail 09. I know that there's a lot that I've been missing. If you want to catch up, rydra_wong has an extensive (and impressive) collection of links.

A post that really stuck with me is this one by seperis. To quote:

Speaking for myself, sitting here in comfortable privilege and mulling how much new material I have to read, I'm ashamed that in this, I had nothing to lose and everything to gain and I've profited immensely by way of clicking links like some progressive online course. And I have to be grateful, and sickened by it.

This is so true. And it's not just this one instance. It seems that every time there's an explosion of racism in fandom, I get to learn stuff. I find fascinating, worthwhile information from brilliant people. People of color? Well, they get stepped on and hurt.

Does that make me a bad person? No, of course not. Privilege 101: Having privilege does not make you a bad person. But it's something I need to keep in mind. Something that frustrates me.

That said, the least I can do is plug some lj communities that are trying to make a difference. 50books_poc challenges you to read fifty books written by people of color over the course of year. Or more than a year. Or read fifty short stories. Or keep count of the books you read that are written by people of color. Or just read books written by people of color and post reviews. The point is to read work by people of color. I want to fulfill the original challenge: fifty books in a year, but right now, with my school schedule, the idea of being able to finish a book for fun seems like a distant dream. But I'll make the effort. I read What I talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami earlier this year, and right now I'm in the middle of The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall.

Also, Verb Noire is a small press publisher dedicated to celebrating "the works of talented, underrepresented authors and deliver them to a readership that demands more." They're currently accepting submissions. Check them out!

Ok, I should probably get started on tidying up the condo, just a little.

It's not often that i really and truly make the 0_o face, but after the past ten minutes (Ten minutes!), it's the only logical reaction.

First it was a a website for Christian t-shirts. Christian t-shirts are an attempt to make Christianity "cool." (I wasn't aware that religions needed to be cool, but what do I know?) For a while, it was very popular for t-shirts to have imitations of well known products replaced with some Christian-like text (for example, a shirt with Budweiser logo, with text that read "King of Kings" instead of "King of Beers), that may have gone out of style by now. I don't think that it's impossible to have a well done t-shirt with Christian theme, but you're not likely to find one at this kind of site or stall. I'm used to these shirts being silly or foolish, but sometimes... When I saw this one, I actually exclaimed out loud. It's just so... tactless isn't a strong enough word. I very weird thing about this specific type of Christian is the feeling that I accord their religion more respect than they do.

If that doesn't horrify you as much as it does me, I have something else for you. Have you ever thought that semen has been underused as a cooking ingredient? No, you probably haven't. As well you shouldn't. But some people did, and that's how Natural Harvest - A Collection of Semen-Based Recipes came into being. I really do think that I may be scarred for life. You thought Rocky Mountain oysters we bad. They've got nothing on "man made oysters." Or how about, "Fresh tuna and fresh semen are a splendid food combination." "Creamy Cum Crepes"!

I like to think that I have made your day a little more surreal.

There's going to be a debate between Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great and Dinesh D'Souzaat, author of What's So Great About Christianity at CU, put on by the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought. I got a free ticket, but I'm not sure if I'm going to go. I kind of hate Hitchens with a passion, you see.

I haven't read either Hitchens or D'Souzaat's books. I should read the latter's before the debate. However I don't want to touch Hitchen's with a ten foot pole. I know that I should read his book before condemning him, but after reading excerpts of him in Chris Hedges' book I Don't Believe in Atheists I just want to avoid him. I've seen valid criticism of Hedges' book, but Hitchens' quoted hateful comments about Muslims wouldn't be acceptable in any context. I see enough racism (because when people bash Muslims, they aren't thinking of white people) without seeking it out. Richard Dawkins seemed at least less hateful, so I was prepared to give him a try. Now that I know that he's planning on writing a children's book about the possible negative effect of things like fairy tales and Harry Potter, I'm feeling a little differently. He states that those things might have a "sort of insidious affect on rationality."

One can't help noticing the similarities between the rabid Christian right and over-zealous atheists. They both believe with absolute one hundred and ten percent certainty that they are right; they both believe that their beliefs make them better than people who believe otherwise; they're both unbearably smug; and they both hate Harry Potter for promoting witchcraft. It's like two sides of the same scary coin.

It all goes to show that total bat shit has no religious denomination.

I probably should still read Dawkins and even Hitchens, if only for the sake of being informed. But I have so many, many books that I have yet to read that I actually expect to enjoy that I'm not sure that I can convince myself.

And I should probably go to the debate.

Ugh, I am so done with OASOS. Just being there sends me in an anxiety attack. Too many giggly, hyperactive thirteen year olds than any one person should have to deal with. I wanted to stay in order to have coffee afterward with terryn73 and two other people, but I knew that I would lose my mind if I didn't leave early.

I just finished reading A History of the Devil by Gerald Messadie and translated from French by Marc Romano. Overall, I say it's worth reading. The first few chapters are dry and tedious and imperialist prejudices keep popping up. Non-Western cultures are continually referred to as "primitive." Even when the author is describing the jungles of an area that can only be trekked through using a "primitive" tool made by the natives. So, it's the best tool for the job; hell, it's the only tool for the job, but because it wasn't made by white people, let's call it primitive. However, after about five or so chapters it becomes much more readable, and in the chapters about Africa and the Americas, the author takes Western scholars and religious figures to task for their racism. It makes me wonder if the book wasn't actually translated by two different people.

Sometimes the book feels too simplistic, and I don't always agree with his interpretation of the mythology he's discussing. He states that when we think of Greek gods, we think of heroes lounging on Mt. Olympus. I guess I can't speak for anyone else, but when I think of Greek gods, I think of spiteful, jealous, petty, rapists... lounging on Mt. Olympus. Then again, maybe I'm the unusual one. (But also the right one.)

Messadie's description of our current conception of the devil of a sort of "hero of the loser" and a figure to liberate us from the oppressive idea of sin made me think of the Lucifer comic series that starred the Lucifer that Neil Gaiman thought up in his Sandman Series.

( Spoilers for volume four, The Divine Comedy )

Despite the book's flaws, I wouldn't dissuade anyone from picking it up. Once it got going, it was really interesting.

I also saw The Dark Knight Today. I hadn't seen a movie in the theaters in over a year (Ratatouille was the last one), but I wasn't going miss this one. It was awesome! The first scene with the bat-cycle had me practically jumping up and down in my seat. And it was funny too!

Yep, it was all around great. Except...

( Cut for spoilers )



END DARK KNIGHT SPOILERS

In other fandom news, I'm just getting into Heroes. It's enjoyable, though I find myself despising nearly every character at least on occasion. The only characters who escape my sometimes wrath are Hiro, Jessica, and Micah.

( Possible spoilers for up to episode nine. I have not seen beyond this. Please do not spoil me )

And that's just about all that I have to say. Hm, I wanted to bake cookies tonight, but it may have gotten too late.

So, I'm writing a paper on Catholic Just War Theory and it's relationship to the war in Kosovo/the Balkans during the Clinton administration. I chose that conflict specifically, because I figure that everyone in the class will choose the current war in Iraq, and because while I want the war to end, and I hate Bush as much as anyone, I dislike the common view that's very much "This is all the Republicans' fault, and bush is the most evil president since Nixon, since he got us into a war." The democrats are not heroes, people.

But, that's not the revisionist history I came here to talk to you about.

While doing my research, I came across this quote:

The desire to avoid war is a fundamental idea in the Christian view of politics, just as the romanticization of war is a pagan one that reflects a disregard for the sanctity of life.

Tell the first part of that sentence to our current administration. As I've stated, Bush isn't unique in going to war, but I'm fairly sure that his constant invoking the power of God is not usual. Presidents usually talk about democracy, freedom, and justice when they want to justify war. It's propaganda meant to tug at your heartstrings, but it's secular.

Also, tell it to Emperor Constantine, who converted to Christianity specifically to gain victory in battle. Tell it to Pope Urban I, who called on his followers to go "retake the holy land" (kill Muslims), and so started the first crusade. Unfortunately, his speech was among the most convincing in history, because a mass of peasants did go out and try to "retake the holy land." Along the way, they slaughtered a lot of Jews, until they finally reached Jerusalem... and were promptly all killed by the Muslims, because the Muslims had an army, and the peasants were... you know, peasants and sightly lacking in military training.

And you know I have a warped, morbid sense of humor, because I envision this last battle as a kind of Eddie Izzard-esque farce. (I'm also adding in Eddie Izzard's voice, which automatically makes it funny.)

Muslim One: What the hell is up with these guys?
Muslim Two: Some Christians. They're revolting.
Muslim One: I'm not going to make the obvious joke. What are they armed with?
Muslim Two: Well, they've got some shovels.
Muslim One: Shovels?
Muslim Two: A few of them might have pitchforks.
Muslim One: That's not going to be much of fair fight.
Muslim Two: I don't know. You don't want to know what they did to the Jews along the way.
Muslim One: ...We can't make that funny.
Muslim Two: Better end the skit, then.

And that's how it happened.

As for the second part: "just as the romanticization of war is a pagan one that reflects a disregard for the sanctity of life," well, that's just insulting.


EDIT: Another quote!

Just war doctrine wasn’t so widely ignored at one point in U.S. history. During the Civil War, Tom Woods of Columbia University has pointed out, Catholic newspapers in the North-at the direction of the bishops-editorialized on behalf of the South, the region that fought with a just cause in mind, first for the principle of subsidiarity, and to protect homes and property from invading Union troops. Slavery has long been discouraged by Catholic teaching, but Just War doctrine could not be violated to abolish it.

That is, the greater evil-war-could not be used to end a lesser evil. Slavery should have been discontinued, as is was in all other countries except Haiti, by peaceful means

The words, they fail me. I don't see how fighting for the right to own human being can be thought of as just cause. And who is this guy to decide that slavery is the "lesser evil"?