Democracy Hobbles Forward

2007 was the year of waterboarding. No other issue had a larger impact on United States foreign policy, sparked more anti-American sentiment around the world, or caused more political stir at home than this one.

From a PR perspective, that the infamous interrogation tapes have been destroyed is of almost no consequence whatsoever. Equally irrelevant is the fact that CIA Director Michael Hayden lied to the public when he told reporters that the tapes were destroyed because they no longer had "intelligence value." What matters now is the truth. We learned today that the real reason for their destruction was concern over the safety of the interrogators and the image of the United States overseas.

This truth is as stunning as it is unsurprising and ironic. Our image abroad might not have needed as much protecting had the CIA been as concerned for the safety of the prisoners as it was for the safety of the interrogators. (The fact that they had medical doctors present during interrogations sends more chills up my spine than the Hostel films.) We'll never know exactly what was on those tapes, but that doesn't seem to matter either. The story has been spun, the world has moved on, and the contents of the interrogation videos are left up to the imagination.

In 2007 waterboarding bubbled up in everything from magazine articles to political debates, from news exposés to popular film. It has found a home in our collective consciousness. Our new Attorney General, whose confirmation was nearly derailed by it, surely knows its power. The oft-used quote, a civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest members, can surely be extended to include the torturing of war prisoners. The measure of our excellence will be determined by future generations, and I fear their judgment.

Yet our civilization hobbles forward. The United States will elect a new leader in 309 days, leaving behind a legacy of post-Cold War era unilateralism. Venezuela's student movement is afire with revolution, intent on ousting Chávez and imposing democracy from within. Pakistan, a hand grenade desperately in search of a pin, may actually get the legitimate election it so desperately needs now that 19-year-old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the newly named chairman of the PPP as of this morning, has effectively taken his mother's place. Kenya's leader, President Mwai Kibaki, was just barely re-elected today amidst cries of corruption and deadly rioting in the streets.

Carl Sagan, speaking through Jodi Foster's Dr. Arroway in the 1997 Oscar-nominated drama Contact, wondered out loud if the human race could make it through "technological adolescence" without destroying itself. It's been ten years since those words were spoken, and we aren't one step closer to an answer. Democracy hobbles forward, but it's walking wounded.

The specter of torture, specifically waterboarding, will haunt the halls of our great republic for years, maybe decades. The specter of corruption, specifically tainted elections, will haunt politically unstable capitols of the world for years, maybe decades. We mustn't avert our eyes. We must work to undo the damage that has been done. It is my sincere hope that in 2008 we will begin to do just that.

We must ask ourselves but one question on the eve of this new year. Who are we?

Conservapedia Comes Down From The Mountaintop

Sometimes I feel like I live in a parallel universe. There's a rip in the space-time continuum, just big enough for me to peek into the other side, and I can see the neo-con freak show in full-tilt boogie. There the laws of physics and biology are more like guidelines than laws, cause and effect fold backwards onto each other in a spiraling dance of denial and fantasy, and saying something out loud on television makes it true.

Setting aside the ridiculous name, isn't it glaringly obvious that Conservapedia is an alternate version of Wikipedia? Heck, it even looks just like its competitor. I guess the idea is that once you get tired of looking up reliable information at Wikipedia (considered to be as reliable as Encyclopædia Britannica), you can surf on over to Conservapedia and get your fix of knuckle-dragging, hair-brained, racist, homophobic, sexist, and otherwise rednecked version of the exact same material you just read. Mmm... it's not just for breakfast anymore!

Just for kicks I decided to look up three hot-button issues in Wikipedia and Conservapedia, and compare the entries side-by-side. I used the pseudonyms Resource A and Resource B, and I challenge you to figure out which one is which. (I was careful to hold my tongue during the analysis, choosing instead to let the entries speak for themselves. The notes of correction are parenthetical and italicized, and I back up my corrections with professional, third-party citations.)

Are you ready? Here we go!

Topic #1: Homosexuality

Resource A starts out with the requisite summary/overview which includes a definition of the word, a brief note on etymology, and usage in modern language. Considered next are history and demographics, followed by homosexual influences on and by law, religion, art, and literature, a note on anthropology, and finally a bibliography and a few external references.

Resource B skips over etymology and a general introduction, choosing instead to open with a few Biblical statements regarding homosexuality. A connection between sexual abuse and sexual orientation is next on the menu, followed by ex-gay ministries, more on homosexuality and the Bible, the archeology of the city of Sodom, promiscuity and domestic violence, and the connection between homosexuality and murder. (Note: Homosexuality is referred to as "a choice" throughout the entire entry, a claim The American Psychological Association roundly dismisses.) Then we move on to the dangerous health effects of the homosexual lifestyle, homosexuality and illegal drug use, and something titled, "HIV Infected Adolescents and Young Adults in America and Infection by Older Men." Following this are entries on activist ideology, the encouragement of homosexual activity by public school teachers, and the homosexual agenda. We then look at the homosexuality-in-animals "myth" (Note: it's not a myth), the link between gay activism and abortion, and finally influences on and by history, law, and the military. The entry wraps up with external links and references.

Topic #2: Evolution

Resource A opens with a definition and a brief discussion of the theory of evolution and how it relates to biological reproduction and adaptation. Heredity, variation, mechanisms, and outcomes are explored next, followed by evolutionary history of life, history of evolutionary thought, social and cultural views (including the creationism/evolution debate), and applications in technology. The entry finishes up with further reading, references, and external links.

Resource B begins with a definition copied from Merriam-Webster. The third sentence of the opening summary reads, "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." The rambling opening summary then tackles the cultural debate over the origin of species, firing shots over the bow of evolutionary biology. The first topic after the introduction is mutations and life sciences in general, followed by an entry titled, "Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process." (Note: There is a very large consensus among professional scientists regarding an evolutionary process). Up next are entries on fraud, hoaxes and speculation in the field of evolutionary biology, and an assertion that there are no clear transitional lifeforms. (Note: Paleontologists just found a fossil of a clear transitional lifeform.) Next we have more on general biology, holes in the fossil record, the issue of whether the evolutionary position qualifies as a scientific theory, implausible explanations, and creationism. We then move on to evolution in scientific journals, the age of the earth, macroevolution, and social effects of the theory of evolution. The entry wraps up with a chapter titled, "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates."

(Debates aside, let it be noted that the famous 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, in which creationism and intelligent design were linked and summarily forced out of public school science curricula, received exactly one paragraph and one citation in Resource B, and an exhaustive, pages long entry in Resource A. The only citation in Resource B is an article written by the Discovery Institute -- the fathers of intelligent design theory -- on the tough and unfair tactics used by ACLU attorneys during the trial. Aside from the rudeness of opposing council, not one single scrap of information on the trial or the outcome of the trial can be found in Resource B, but one can find the following information: conservative, Bush-appointed Judge John E. Jones III is referred to as an "activist judge," and the ruling is claimed to be copied verbatim from the ACLU's proposed findings of fact, although no citation is given to back up this claim.)

Topic #3: Abortion

Resource A begins with a definition of the word and a general introduction to the topic. The contents of the entry begin with a list of other definitions and usages of the word, incidence, forms of abortion, and health considerations, including mental health. The history of abortion is next, followed by an entry on the social ramifications of the abortion debate in American politics, including public opinion, and abortion law.

Resource B begins not with a definition and introduction, but with a 2,500 year-old admonition: "The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." (Note: Conservapedia does not back up this assertion with a citation.) The list of sub-topics starts off with a discussion of the health-risks of abortion, including an entry on the hypothesized connection between abortion and breast cancer. (Note: this hypothesis has been shown to be patently false by the National Cancer Institute.) There are more warnings of health risks, including severe and adverse mental health effects, and claims of higher death rates for women who have the procedure. (Note: the claim of high death rates due to legal abortions is also not supported by the scientific medical community. The only citation offered by Resource B in support of this claim is an article in the Southern Medical Journal, a thinly-veiled and largely ignored propaganda vehicle for the far right.) Then we move on to abortion alternatives, political action committees, legal history of abortion in the US, and a charge that the billion dollar "abortion industry" largely targets minority communities. (Note: The only citation given for this claim is an article written in the Eternal World Television Network/Global Catholic Network website, hardly a neutral, well-respected socio-economic research outfit.)

Time's up! Did you guess which one is which?

Conservapedia would be funny were it not for the serious damage it can do. It is a cheap grab for scientific legitimacy by the dream team that comprises the neo-con movement, and it is my hope that it will be laughed out of the court of public opinion. Seriously, how much longer can two separate camps look at one piece of information and disagree so vehemently on what is actually in front of them? It's as if two people, looking out of the same window onto a stormy afternoon, have the following exchange. One person says, "It's raining outside right now," and the other person says, "Homosexuals caused 9/11."

I'm going to go eat my own arm, now.

Barebacking For Cash

I like porn. So do most men, but I'll go out on a limb and say that most men won't admit to as much on a public blog. Now that I've opened up to you about this part of my life, I'd like to express my frustration and confusion about what is now a raging debate in the gay porn industry: unsafe sex.

Because I'm such an aficionado of smut, I've had the benefit of viewing porn from a wide variety of production houses. The style varies from company to company, but one detail stands out clearly: mainstream porn houses show their models having safe sex. You know, using condoms. Makes sense.

Then there are the barebacking videos.

Barebacking, the practice of anal intercourse without the use of condoms, is an increasingly popular sub-genre in gay porn DVDs. Now, I haven't done any scientific study or anything, but it seemed to me that most barebacking DVDs are coming out of northern European countries. Lots of Nordic studs fresh from their 18th birthday on a camping trip, that sort of thing.

So what's the deal? Because there is such a consistent policy in U.S. American gay porn -- where HIV is an obvious threat to models -- why are these other countries bucking the trend?

I was discussing this on the phone with a friend of mine earlier tonight, and he assured me that there are no laws regulating the use of condoms in gay porn DVDs. (It turns out he's right.) I wondered aloud how this could be possible, and my friend walked me through to the other end of the conversation: forcing models to submit to HIV tests just to be in porn movies is an ethically shady area. "Right," I wondered out loud, "but what the hell is going on with all the European barebacking DVDs out there?"

I guess my point was that HIV infection rates must be dramatically lower in Scandinavian countries than here in the US. "Otherwise they wouldn't be engaging in such risky behavior, right?" That's when I got my bony gay ass handed to me on a platter.

My friend was adamant that the infection rate has nothing to do with the prevalence of barebacking videos coming out of a given country. Even if the rates are a bit lower in countries like Denmark and Sweden, it doesn't mean that porn actors are all clean as a whistle. In fact, some models could unwittingly be getting infected right in front of the camera while making videos of unsafe sex.

I suddenly felt the urge to purge my pornfolio of all condom-free movies. My friend on the phone asked me why I should care, and I was forced to answer -- for me as well as for him. Why should I care? I'm not the one getting infected. Unsafe sex can be kind of hot to look at.

But wait a minute. AIDS is a global health crisis. If the disease is becoming less and less manageable to treat because drug-resistant forms of HIV are spreading -- and if drug-resistant forms of HIV are spreading party due to the demand of unsafe sex videos -- doesn't that affect all of us? Guys who engage in unsafe sex for cash are making it worse for people who aren't trying to get infected, and this eventually trickles down to countries like South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe. Does that mean we should police porn producers and enforce safe sex laws? I don't know.

Yet another twist is the advise/consent policy of porn makers and their models. If an 18 year-old wants to make some fast cash performing unsafe sex in front of a camera -- putting his life and possibly others in serious jeopardy -- is that his business? Well, yes and no. Who is making sure that he is being advised and giving consent? Is there a disclaimer he must sign? Are there laws in place that mandate this? Who writes them? Are they local, state, federal, or international?

In a way I feel like this is a foolish question. The infection prevalence in southern African countries is 15 to 50%. That's almost half of the population. These are real people getting infected and dying, not living out their lives with treatment. And here I am ranting about pornography, which seems like a luxury by comparison.

My friend told me that he enjoyed our conversation, even though we didn't come up with any answers. I guess coming up with questions is a good place to start. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to have exclusively safe sex -- and stick to watching gay porn with condoms, thank you very fucking much.

I Do Believe In Spooks, I Do Believe In Spooks, I Do, I Do, I Do...

Crossing your fingers and closing your eyes while the crucible of faith closes down around you is maybe not the best policy. The late, great Carl Sagan reminded us that science is a candle in the dark, and the darkness to which he was referring certainly included the black and red landscape that terrorizes the children of Christians every Sunday morning.

Herein lies the ultimate hypocrisy. I think even the most pious parents would advise their young children to not believe everything they're told, to think for themselves, to be careful. Now get in the car, we're going to church. Teaching and encouraging critical thinking is far more valuable than we suspect, and it should start at the church.

But wait a minute. The First Amendment gives every U.S. American freedom of -- and from -- religion. So I'm torn. I want to at once encourage critical thinking and celebrate the religious freedom that comes along with being a citizen of the United States of America. May I do both? (Oh, let me try.)

I reject the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I do it openly and I do it often. I jokingly told a friend last night that while I would probably say no, it would be nice to at least be asked to join Satan's dark army, ala Al Pacino's fantastic offer to Keanu Reeves in The Devil's Advocate. I then reminded myself aloud that such musings would assume the literal truth of the Bible. In order for Satan to be real, a host of other characters must also be real. Here's what I said next: "Some people believe in that sort of world-view, but I don't." So the likelihood of a dark visitor is slim.

This is exactly what Carl Sagan was warning us against. Some people believe in that sort of world-view while others don't? Were this allowance taken to a logical conclusion, an epic battle between good and evil, fought on the dead landscape of trampled angelic soldiers, with a literal cast of thousands, would blink in and out of existence with the changing of one's mind. Think about that.

I don't want to presume to tell people what they may or may not believe, but isn't it time we actually examine what we're talking about? I wrote in a previous blog that the freedom to select one's beliefs should be tied to the legitimacy of the beliefs themselves. A friend once asked me years ago whether or not I believed in UFOs. I surprised myself by responding that the existence of UFOs has exactly fuck all to do with whether or not I believed in them. The same exact psychological phenomenon was on display at last summer's Republican debate, i.e. the infamous raise your hand for creationism moment. Believing in evolution doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of biological research and evidence. Evolution doesn't flicker on and off like a cheap neon motel sign.

So I'd like to revise my earlier comment. Unless and until the epic battle between good and evil -- along with all the requisite Biblical characters -- is shown to be actually true, I will continue to dismiss all religions as fairy tales, and I will not make room for the political correctness that the faithful demand but simply do not deserve.

Do Not Play

Every six months, in an homage to my former life as a dj, I make a mixtape. This last October I pulled together a collection of post-punk, new wave, gothic, and lo-fi gems from the early 80's, a few evil cut & paste sonic creations to make the listener's hair turn white, and an introduction by Vincent Price. I called it Do Not Play.

Then I unleashed a campaign of guerrilla dj warfare on the city of Minneapolis. I surreptitiously left copies in second-hand clothing stores, on flier tables at indie record stores, in between aisles in gift shops, and of course, in angsty coffee houses from Uptown to Dinkytown.

The CDs weren't marked free. In fact, they weren't really marked anything at all. The only thing an unsuspecting victim would see was a blank CD in a black, slim jewel case with the words Do Not Play scrawled hastily across the disc in jet black marker. It was completely up to the hapless hipster to leave the disc where it lay or dare to bring it home. (I secretly, though probably naively, hoped the disc would spawn an urban legend in the vein of The Ring.)

Anyway, it was a complete blast. I must have left 60 or 70 copies in my wake. But about halfway through my campaign of sonic terror, I realized that I was probably breaking the law. Flier tables are fine, but I was intent on leaving copies actually inside local businesses, folded in between sweaters or next to shelves of used LPs.

It turns out I'm in good company. An article in today's New York Times describes exactly this practice, known as shopdropping. (The opposite of shoplifting, get it?) The idea is to plant your product amidst legitimate merchandise -- for free, of course -- in hopes of promoting your wares and your name.

I love this idea! While it probably drives business owners crazy, it's hella fun for people like me. I wasn't so much interested in promoting myself as a dj, though. The Do Not Play project was completely anonymous, right down to the playlist submitted to CDDB. I just wanted to spread a little Halloween joy, and perhaps scare the hell out of a couple of teenagers on acid.

They say if you can reach even one person...

Curiosity Aroused, Indeed!

Rebecca Watson, my favorite skepchick, is now my favorite NPR hostess.

Ms. Watson, one of the esteemed finalists of the Public Radio Talent Quest, has pulled together a very impressive pilot in Curiosity, Aroused. News reports of ghostly video images, warnings of lead levels in lipstick, and fortune tellers all receive a raised eyebrow in a seamless blend of music, interviews, and snarky commentary.

I first encountered Rebecca on the Skeptic's Guide To The Universe, one of my favorite podcasts. I was delighted to learn that she is one of the founders of the Skepchick phenomenon, which is exactly what it sounds like. I am always excited about movements that promote science, reason, and critical thinking, and doubly so when its aim is to destroy social stereotypes. (Anybody remember "Math class is tough!" Barbie?)

You go, Rebecca. Keep the fantastic shows coming.

What Videotapes?

Videotape-gate has legs. A sexy story about the CIA caught doing its dirty laundry always sells, and it's always good for a solid two weeks of media smack-down. There's only one thing... it doesn't matter anymore.

We could learn tomorrow that Dick Cheney drinks the blood of Muslim babies for breakfast, and after the initial outrage and a few throaty news cycles, it would be back to business as usual.

We just don't care anymore is the message we're getting from the White House. We're going to do what we want, and there is no God. Go fuck yourself.

So the damning interrogation videotapes were destroyed. Who cares? The toothless 9/11 Commission wants to haul the CIA before the Justice Department for violating the law when it refused to hand over the tapes before they were destroyed, but it won't do any good. Goddammit, it won't do any good. Here's a telling line from this morning's New York Times:

"A C.I.A. spokesman said that the agency had been prepared to give the Sept. 11 commission the interrogation videotapes, but that commission staff members never specifically asked for interrogation videos."

They "never specifically asked for interrogation videos"?! Are you kidding me over here? I think I remember having a similar exchange with my father when I was, like, nine. ("But you never said to give back the bubblegum that I stole from the 7-11.") If a CIA spokesperson tosses out this groaner, then I think it's safe to assume that the forces of evil have stopped caring whether or not their collective disguise is slipping.

So take a trip into the future with me. It's October, 2008, and Bush has pulled a Musharraf on our ass. A state of emergency has been declared, elections have been suspended, and marshal law is in effect. Now fast forward to April, 2009. Bush, still in charge, pulls half of the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and invades Tehran while Congress stands idly by. Cable news shows, newspapers, and blogs are quietly shut down one by one, the Murdoch empire becomes the official state news outlet, and lawyers are marching in vain outside of courthouses and capitols. The American people, meanwhile, roll over obediently to get fucked in the ass without lube... once again.

Go rent the brilliant 1985 political chiller Brazil this weekend. It's as timely a movie now as it was 22 years ago, and it even takes place during the Christmas holiday.

Don't ever say we weren't warned.

The Final Countdown

Ah, the sweet smell of final season. There's nothing like hunching over a desk nine hours a day for six days straight until you can't turn your head to the left anymore.

And then there's the actual final itself! I just love the feeling of Satan breathing down my neck while I have six minutes to evaluate an integral using the Riemann sum before the President is assassinated.

But now it's all over, and I have three weeks to clear my head before a new season of pain begins. I think I'll start by dropping acid and going to the Mall Of America on the Saturday before Christmas in the middle of the afternoon.

In the meantime, here's to winter break. Let's get fucked up!

Blame It On The Homos

The bossa nova is happily off the hook now that we can officially blame the homos for, well, just about everything.

Mike Huckabee has really shown his true colors in the last month, and the wince-inducing remarks just keep coming. As if it wasn't bad enough when Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on, among other things, "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, [and] lesbians," we now have a leading presidential candidate who likes to nail the faggots to the cross in the name of national unity.

Mother Jones tells us that Huckabee, in a 1998 book, linked school shootings to abortion, pornography, media violence, out-of-wedlock sex, divorce, drug use, and, of course, homosexuality.

Gosh, is there anything we gays can't do? Seriously, if I'd known I had the power to cause school shootings, I would have started a lot younger. Gay boys and girls don't have an easy time of it. How many times was I shouted at, spitted upon, cursed, and otherwise emotionally tortured during the Viet Nam of my youth? Well, lots. I'm not a violent person, and I never fought back. But every now and then, while idly flipping through my mother's Vogue, I would fantasize about serving up a cold dish of revenge.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Don't blame the fucking victim, dude. It's usually the mentally unstable outcasts who are driven to such extremes, not upper-crust socialites driven to insanity by hordes of hairdressers at the gate. When was the last time prom royalty opened up a can of Chuck Norris during the lunch hour?

Any kind of random shooting is a tragedy. We do have a responsibility to ask questions and seek answers, and inevitably our politics will come into play. But honest to Christ, do we really think that homosexuals are a more likely culprit than, say, poor gun control? We can talk about the moral decline of our country if you want, but let's ask ourselves how these people actually got the guns to do the shooting, because that, you know, seems to be a more immediate part of the fucking problem. (By the way, it turns out that homos don't run the NRA or the gun lobby.)

If a supermodel has a bad hair day, blame the homos. If your interior decorator goes way over budget, blame the homos. If your daughter's wedding is badly lit, blame the homos.

Otherwise, leave us the fuck alone.

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

Hey, speaking of Christmas, guess what? I just read a fantastic article about atheism and politics in today's New York Times opinion page. Just in time for the holidays!

In it you will find a succinctly written argument for the virtues of non-belief, and the tacit admission that a homosexual Muslim will become president of the United States before an atheist will. Mmm... can't you just smell that fresh-baked Christmas goodness?

Reading this article reminded me of the atheist's best argument, made by the likes of James Randi, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. The argument is that we're all non-believers in one way or another. Even the very pious are atheistic inasmuch as they do not believe in the tenets and claims of other religions: devout Christians are atheistic with respect to Islam; devout Jews are atheistic with respect to Buddhism; (almost) everyone is atheistic with respect to the Greek gods of antiquity. All this is skipped over gleefully by the faithful, which is what makes rabid objections to pure atheism so confounding.

One might say this doesn't hold true for interfaith enterprises like Universalism and Pantheism, or moderate, modern congregations that embrace cross-scriptural dialogue. ("Tonight! Christianity and Islam! Christianity and Judaism! Judaism and Islam and Christianity!") But here we run into the problem of pure atheism again. Interfaith-minded churchgoers are either secretly skeptical of other faiths or they are more likely to embrace a universal spirit that manifests itself as a god, and the whole thing lurches closer to a new age sensibility rather than an open-minded inclusion. Rationalists and naturalists are shut out yet again, forced to huddle together in the cold, damp back alleys of post-modernism.

So what does this mean? The deepest irony of our fanatical (and mostly Christian) American faith is that is was brought to us wholly and completely by the atheism of our Constitution, in which neither Jesus nor God are mentioned. (Yes, that annoying fact does keep popping up.) Religion does not require freedom to thrive, but religious tolerance does. By not allowing the state to endorse or enforce any one religion, all religions are allowed to blossom. It's akin to refusing an answer to a demanding child regarding one's placement in the order of favorites.

And yet a passionately faithful public casts a weary eye towards atheism. Stay away from my children, that sort of thing. It's completely lost on such folk that their religion owes its current form of existence to the artificial division of church and state. You're welcome. (If such folk need a reminder of what it might be like to live in a country where ideological devotion is required -- something often pined for by conservative Christians -- they are invited to summer in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.)

So despite the fact that a non-believer will probably never be elected president, our country owes a debt of gratitude to atheism. Let us remember this during the busy holiday season. Besides, it's not about the birth of Christ. Who needs an excuse to buy a $200 laptop?

God bless us, every one.

Dude, Don't Bogart That Hypocrisy

I'm not a parent, a nanny, or a teacher, so I have no idea what it's like to lay down the law of the land for a bunch of grade-schoolers caught in a smack-down. Or do I?

When little Polly, mud-caked and fussed, takes it upon herself to tell on Johnnie for ruining his good Sunday clothes, while Billy -- the leader of the pack -- is rolling about in puddles and sticks, we have a pretty good analogy for modern politics.

According to articles in the Huffington Post and the New York Times, a top Clinton adviser recently wondered out loud if Barack Obama's drug use as a young man would render him politically vulnerable against an attack from the GOP. William Shaheen, speaking (supposedly) without the consent of top Clinton officials, told the Washington Post Wednesday that should Mr. Obama gain the nomination, the Republican Party would find ways to exploit his hazy past, jeopardizing the chances for a Democratic White House.

To be fair, I didn't know that Mr. Obama used marijuana and cocaine when he was a young man. But that's only because I didn't read his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father. So, you know, not exactly a gotcha moment for the Clinton camp.

Why the rehash? And anyway, who cares? Our sitting president is no stranger to alcohol and illegal substances, and neither is Ms. Clinton's husband. The only way that Ms. Clinton could "remind" the American public of Mr. Obama's drug use without losing face is by employing back-door methods straight out of a bad soap opera plot. "These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way," whined Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director.

Sure they weren't.

Giuliani Loves The Sinner, Hates The Sin

Now that we're coming down the home stretch -- only 329 days until election day! -- the jungle-red claws are really starting to come out.

We're not a nation of gay-bashers, but you wouldn't know it by the rhetoric that gets tossed around during an election cycle. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. I wrote in a previous blog about the hypocrisy of courting/spitting upon the GLBT community on the run-up to a big election, and I'm here to tell you that the journey through the quantum singularity has only just begun.

The Caucus reports today that Mr. Giuliani is still busy picking out his uniform while the culture wars rage on without him. Like all other spineless political candidates caught in the vortex of meaningless polls and ever-shifting public sentiment, Giuliani's record of comments on social values comes off like a strung-out William S. Burroughs character with Tourette syndrome. The latest tic:

My moral views on this come from the, you know, from the Catholic Church, and I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality, as a way that somebody leads their life is not, isn’t sinful... It’s the acts — it’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have.

Oh, is it now? So a god created me gay - which is OK! - but acting on my (god-given) gay nature will get me a one-way ticket to hell? Let's get one thing straight, asshole. You may court the gay vote with integrity or you may court the social conservative vote with integrity, but you may not attempt do both at the same time without looking like a complete idiot.

How did it escape Giuliani's attention that gay-bashing -- a cheap grab for the redneck vote -- comes at the expense of alienating the very people who helped get him elected as mayor of New York City? This latest ramble is probably just as insulting to the GLBT community as it is to the Wichita Falls Ladies' Christian Auxiliary. Why, you know, in the world does he think anybody will fall for this?

(And by the way, what exactly constitutes the "various acts that [gay] people perform"? Does this include watching Mary Tyler Moore re-runs and tastefully arranging hors d'œuvre platters?)

My bitterness increases daily as this endless election cycle drones on. Oh, how I pine for a presidential candidate with more integrity and character than a sniveling Dickensian villain.

Sober Without God... Or AA

December 2007 marks the second anniversary of my rejection of belief in the supernatural, and my refusal to believe in god.

I wouldn't normally make such a big deal about this, but it's a personal milestone that directly involves a lifelong battle with alcoholism and drug addiction.

My family counselor diagnosed me as a drug addict and alcoholic when I was in my early 20's, but it wasn't until the summer of my 25th year that I decided to clean up my act. That's when I joined the program of Alcoholics Anonymous.

I was an active member for almost ten years. I sponsored dozens of other men in the program, and had a sponsor myself. I told my story at AA speaker meetings, sang the praises of Bill & Bob, and volunteered for countless parties, events, and workshops. I talked the AA talk and walked the AA walk.

My faith in the program of AA (since it seemed to work for me) was directly linked to faith in a higher power, which I was immediately encouraged to cultivate. So when it dawned on me in 2005 that I was leaning towards a world-view inspired by scientific naturalism, I found myself standing at the edge of an unbridgeable chasm.

Many people in the program told me that sobriety without god was not possible. I began to feel shut out. Friends stopped returning my phone calls. I was openly chastised at a meeting for revealing that I was an atheist. Someone told me recently that he was encouraged to not listen to me because my ideas were somehow dangerous. I guess the term "program of honesty" is a bunch of hot air. It's more like a program of parroting. (Polly want a platitude?)

What's so ironic is that my atheism was less of a problem than I first imagined. What turned out to be the real unbridgeable gap was my insistence that I think for myself. When I started to do that, I noticed something peculiar; Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't deliver the goods. That's right, it doesn't help people stay sober. (Penn & Teller did a fantastic exposé on the ineffectiveness of 12 step programs.) Knowing this, I realized that I couldn't bring myself to be part of a mechanism that offers false hope to vulnerable people. The victim is always blamed when the inevitable relapse comes along, and all that talk of "powerlessness" is quickly forgotten. (I was starting to wonder why all those recently institutionalized characters never seemed to stick around meetings -- or Minneapolis -- for very long.)

I am sober today because I made the decision to get sober, not because I joined AA. I met some wonderful people in recovery programs along the way, and I'll always cherish the memories of those relationships. I've received an enormous amount of love and support through the years, and I've had a lot of fun. But here's the snag... you don't have to be in AA to get these things. AA doesn't have a corner on the sympathy and strength-in-numbers market. Besides, who needs friends that shut you out when you stop talking like they do?

I am living proof that if you have a problem with alcohol, you do not need god or Alcoholics Anonymous to stay sober... and to thrive.

Kara Herrboldt Update

I finally got through to my father. He said he got in touch with Kara last night. My step-mother arrived in Omaha last night around midnight, and Kara was able to go home to her apartment late last night (also in Omaha).

Kara's sister Ailee left college to come home yesterday, but everybody is out of town; my father is away on business in Wisconsin, and Karen (Ailee & Kara's mother) is in Omaha with Kara. Ailee is staying with other relatives here in town until everyone gets back.

By the way, my father told me today that Kara was on the second floor of Von Maur, not the third, when the shooting began. She was near the area where a man was shot in the head. She did not see anyone get killed, but my father said he isn't sure if she saw any bodies. He only spoke briefly with her last night. She and some others fled to a stock room behind the shoe department to hide. They pushed a table up against the door and waited. That's when Kara borrowed someone's cell phone to call her mother.

My father also told me that Kara & her mother are coming back to Minneapolis soon, if the police will let her go. He said that Kara sounded very matter-of-fact and sober on the phone. I know she is a strong person, and I know she and my family will work through this tragedy.

That's My Sister On The News

I'm a little angry that news outlets like MSNBC and CNN have elected to use this photograph of my half-sister Kara (right) and another young woman as their "mall tragedy" logo. It's a constant reminder that my family -- along with the families of countless others -- has been terrorized.

My sister is a Von Maur employee who was on the 3rd floor when the gunshots were first fired. She's was able to escape unharmed. Neither I nor my family have been in touch with her as of last night, as she left her cell phone and other belongings in the mall when ushered out by the police.

My father called me from his cell phone shortly after the news broke. We only spoke for five minutes, just long enough for him to tell me what happened and to assure me that Kara's OK. He was away on business in Michigan, and his wife -- my stepmother -- was on her way from Minnesota to Omaha right after she learned about the shooting.

Apparently my sister called my stepmother from her cell phone while she was cowering in a storage closet as the tragedy unfolded. I don't know if she saw anyone killed in front of her, but she was in the immediate vicinity of where the shootings began. I can't imagine what that must have been like for her mother. No parent should ever have to receive such a call, ever. They only spoke for a few brief moments, and as of last night my family was not in touch with her.

Later yesterday afternoon I received an e-mail from my sister's fiancé:

Hello everyone,

Sorry for a mass e-mail, but I wanted to let all my loved ones know what has happened to Kara Herrboldt, my fiance. There was a shooting in the store where she was working this afternoon. She is alright, a bit shook up. She doesn't have access to her cell as she left [the] building as soon as she heard gun shots. I've only spoken with her once and she didn't speak much. I ask that you all keep everyone involved in your prayers and pray that Kara remains strong.

Below is a link to an article about the shooting. If you don'tk know Kara's face she is the one on the right in the red blanket.

Gunman opens fire at Omaha mall, killing 9
A sniper opened fire at a busy Omaha mall, killing at least eight people, wounding at least five others and then killing himself, police officials said. The shooter left a suicide note saying, "I'm going out in style," police said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116784/from/ET/

Yesterday afternoon I was also able to speak with my other half-sister, Ailee, who is a college student at Luther in Iowa. I have not yet spoken with my step-mother, and my father's cell-phone is not working this morning. I have no idea if my family has been able to establish contact with Kara yet.

It's way too early to reflect on what's happened. I'm still a bit numb. But I do know that despite my relief, I'm angry that this was allowed to happen.

My thoughts are with Kara, her fiancé, and the families of all who have been touched by this mindless tragedy.

Boy Scouts Get The Well-Accessorized Boot

According to an article in this morning's New York Times, Boy Scouts may no longer continue their frat-like policy of gay bashing while enjoying next-to-free real estate courtesy of Philadelphia taxpayers.

This has been a long struggle, and I'm overjoyed that we're finally starting to see the fruits of our labor.

I've always known that the Boy Scouts were -- shall we say -- less than friendly towards artistic boys and good-with-tools girls. But until I watched an exposé on Penn & Teller's wonderful show Bullshit, I had no idea just how much of a snow job this organization has done on our taxpayers.

If a private organization feels it must discriminate against minorities, I suppose there's nothing that can be done. But if a private organization discriminates against minorities and gets to set up shop in our public schools and governmental buildings for free, well, then it's time to have a little come-to-Jesus conversation.

The Boy Scouts are not above the law.

Into The Abyss

Well, here I go. The end of a very plush semester is drawing rapidly to a close. I haven't had to work this last fall, and I've only elected to take two classes with the exception of a very curious relaxation class. (More on that later.)

Anyway, calculus and physics finals have arrived like twin rapists in the evening mist to relieve me of my dignity and chastity. I suppose I shan't blog for the next week or two, unless we finally invade Iran. Then I'll be blogging from Vancouver as an illegal immigrant, I imagine.

Be brave, my breathless, gentle readers (all five of you). More will always be revealed, and something tells me this is going to be a wonderfully strange winter in the realms of politics, science, and general human poppycockery. I'm sure we'll have much to discuss while avoiding shopping malls and inhaling our weight in Christmas cookies.

Meanwhile, I'll be studying. There will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Oh, yes -- there will be blood. Making a deal with Satan is not entirely out of the question.

My Cocteau Twins collection is really the only thing keeping me from committing vehicular homicide, and I ride the bus. Let's pray for my sake (and for the sake of all Edinans who live on or near the #6 line) that my iPod doesn't break down in the next 15 days.

Ciao for now.

"Common Sense Has Prevailed"

Chalk one up for the side of common sense? No, it's just blind luck. That English schoolteacher, who allowed her young pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad, will not be allowed to succumb to the insanity of Muslim law, according to an article on the New York Times this morning.

Gillian Gibbons came uncomfortably close to being jailed for six months and whipped, but Sudan's president, under enormous pressure from 10 Downing Street, decided to pardon her and allow her to return to England later today.

What's so interesting is not that Ms. Gibbons was released with a slap on the wrist, which is sure to result in riots in the streets (ala the Danish cartoon flap). It's the fact that the Sudanese president used Ms. Gibbons as a pawn in his foreign policy calculus. Sudan, let's not forget, is the country of Darfur, and is right in the middle of begging the rest of the world for help.

This is cruel and unusual. One's fate should not swing wildly in the political wind, especially when it involves such disproportionate consequences. Kathy Griffin does not fear for her life after telling Jesus to "suck it." Surely allowing one's preschoolers to name a teddy bear -- a teddy bear! -- after the most popular name in the Muslim world doesn't deserve anything more than a strongly worded op-ed piece or two.

I don't pretend to know what to do with Muslim rage, but I do know that it's time for this insanity to be dissolved in the name of human rights. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was "delighted and relieved" at the news and that "common sense had prevailed,” according to the BBC, but I'm sad to admit that common sense had fuck all to do with Omar Hassan al-Bashir's decision.

I sincerely hope that this madness will not see the light of day in the coming generation.