A Specter is Haunting the Republican Party

A Specter is haunting the Republican Party and it is not communism. It's not even socialism or liberalism. The Specter is the voice of moderation. As in, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He basically called the Republican bluff. The evangelical wing(nut) base of the Republican party is fanatical (FANATICAL!!!) about conservativism. In fact, they are so fanatical about their ideology that they still cling to the myth that conservativism hasn't failed. Nope...the reason why Bush was an unmitigated disaster of Titanic proportions is because he wasn't "conservative enough."

Can you imagine?!? The most right-wing, retro-reactive president in our nation's history is considered too "liberal" by this group of fanatical purists. Bush was so right-wing (reich-wing?) that he actually made Nixon look pretty liberal. Even conservative Barry Goldwater would've been embarassed to know how far to the right Bush took the Republican party. And yet, these reactionaries think the way to win elections is by moving even further to the right!

So, these group of activists who make up the majority of the primary voters decided they've had enough of the "liberal" Republican Senator and found a candidate with conservative credentials to run in the primary against him. He saw the writing on the wall. His career since 1980 will be finished in 2010 if he remained in his party. What's the most logical step? Declaring himself independent of party and trying to run that way (a la Joseph Lieberman, who faced a liberal primary challenger in 2006 and lost his party's nomination, but decided to run as an independent and won reelection). However, that's still a risky move. His best bet was to cross the aisle and become a Democrat, where his views put him square in the middle (there are actual Democratic Senators more conservative than him). Plus, it gives the Democrats power as they creep closer to the filibuster proof 60%.

This move stunned the stupid Republicans because they obviously didn't consider that forcing him into a primary challenge from the right would force his hand and give it to the Democrats. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Kind of reminds me of the Republican Senator who switched in 2001 from Republican to Independent after President Bush insulted him, which ended up tipping the dead-even Senate to the Democrats by one vote.

With Senator Specter's announcement, Rush was quick to say "good riddance" with the advice to take Senator McCain and his daughter with him. What a pompous dick! He truly is such a "big, fat idiot."** The Republican Party is quickly becoming the world's shrinkiest party. We don't hear talk about "the big tent" anymore. In fact, I haven't heard Republican pundits use that term since their party went all anti-immigration in 2006. Their hope for having numbers to compete with the Democratic demographics was to earn the loyalty of a large block of hispanic voters. Their litmus test of being pro-life on abortion prevented Senator McCain from selecting Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison or Olympia Snowe, or former Governor Tom Ridge as running mates. Any of those VP choices would have gained him some much needed independent votes, whereas Palin's ideological purity (and Rush-approved endorsement) cost them respect, votes, and the "experience" argument.

The Republican insistence on conservative purity in their ideology reminds me of Soviet communists in the last days of the USSR. Die hard communist ideologues saw Gorbachev as a traitor to the party. Gorbachev was actually correct because he wasn't blinded by ideology. He knew what they all knew. Communism wasn't working by the mid-1980s. The common joke in the Soviet Union was "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." Communist planned economies couldn't compete with the capitalist west. No where was this more starkly obvious than the two Germanys and the two Koreas. The communist counterparts in both nations fell far behind in standard of living than the capitalist counterparts. Something had to be done. Yet, for all Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika, the ideological communists believed that if communism was failing, it was only because true communism hadn't been tried.

What good is ideology if it leads you further and further away from rationality, facts, and the record? We have countless historical examples of right-wing economic policies (not just in our country during the Bush years, the Reagan/Bush years, the Nixon/Ford years, and the Hoover years, but also in Nazi Germany, Peronist Argentina, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain). Right-wing economics DOES NOT WORK people!!! The war mongering and tax cuts for the wealthy are the surest way to wreck an economy. Economic growth is spurred on by investments, incentives, and protecting the middle class from being fleeced by corporations or over-taxed by government. How many times are we going to have to go through a tricked-out economic scheme for evangelical conservatives to understand that they are only screwing themselves and their children's future livelihoods by drinking the poisonous Kool-Aid of Republican ideology?!?

I must say, however, that I am thrilled to watch the Republican Party self-destruct in such a daily fashion. Ever since Hurricane Katrina finally ripped the mask off of the ruse "compassionate conservativism" and revealed the true snarling demon beneath it (like those beautiful people who make up Al Pacino's firm in The Devil's Advocate). That is the true face of conservatism and it has been a non-stop parade of corruption scandals, sex scandals, hypocrisy, and blatant lying that didn''t fool anyone (except the die hard true believers). The constant parade of Republican self-immolation for the past three and a half years has been a small consolation for the nastiness they've unleashed on good people since their reign of terror began in 1994 with Gingrich's Republican Revolution that took control of the Congress away from Democrats for the first time in forty years.

Is it right to take pleasure (schadenfreude) in the destruction of a political party? A former friend had criticized me for it, saying that it wasn't very Christian...but, the way I see it...a bully deserves his comeuppance. In movies, audiences always cheer when bad guys get the justice due bill delivered by the hero at the end. In the fictional world and the sporting world, Americans seem to side with the underdog. However, when it comes to politics, too many Americans take the opposite view. They side with the bullies, even when the bullies' self-destruction leads to the destruction of our national village. What good is that? So, I think it is okay spiritually to be grateful that these bullies were their own worst enemies and destroyed themselves. Let's not ever forget what they did to our country, though, okay?

If the Democrats (my party) ever fall into the kind of arrogant hubris that the Republicans found themselves in from 2001-2006, I would hope that they, too, get the thumpin' they deserve. Our country is greater than either political party and my loyalty is to America first, before the Democratic party.

However, based on what I've learned since coming into political awareness in 1989...Republicans and Democrats are held to different standards and go by different set of rules. If a Democrat criticizes a Republican president, he or she is called a traitor or worse. If a Republican criticizes a Democratic president, he or she is considered a patriot. Republicans hold the Democrats in power to very high standards, while Democrats tend to cower and not hold Republicans to a high standard for fear of having their patriotism called into question. When a Republican politician has committed an act so hypocritical and outrageous that it can't be ignored by even the corporate media, the Republicans close ranks around the accused politician. In the Democratic party, they have no such loyalties (think John Edwards or Rod Blagojevich will ever get elected again? Only if they had chosen to be Republicans at the start of their careers!). To put it simply...Republicans are like sheep and the Democrats are like cats.

Seeing the self-destruction of the Republican party reminds me of how a runaway ego ends up destroying a person's life. When you live by complete ego and don't allow reality checks (whether through friends and family who keep you grounded, or by reading alternative opinions from your own, or by being exposed to different ideas), it's easy to become isolated and think you know everything and lose all touch with reality. We've seen this happen with O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. They went so far from reality that they lost any respect as well as their careers. Both men are walking punchlines for a Jay Leno joke.

Thus why the Republican Party has done itself a huge disfavour. It had become so arrogant during the Bush years, so obsessed with ideological purity that they could no longer see that the reality they believed in was not the same as the reality that the rest of the world lived. That's why they imploded like those Soviet communists who clung to their ideology. Ideology is the problem. It's always the problem.

I know evangelical Christians hate it, but...the Buddha learned from his own experience. He grew up in wealth, then gave it all up to live an asthetic life. What he found was that neither brought him close to enlightenment. His "eureka moment" occurred when he realized that moderation in all things was the proper way of being. A Greek philosopher wrote about "the Golden Mean." Moderation is a good thing. Take it from a liberal guy who has an incureable conservative nature. I believe that my natural conservative instinct keeps me from going off into the liberal extreme. My ideas on politics and spirituality might run more liberal than most people, but as I apply these ideas to my life, I find a balance that works. Moderation doesn't mean a compromise to one's morals...it just means that you're centered, grounded, able to see the dangers in following extremist ideologies.

Maybe the Republicans will have to go through their ideological purging and forty years in the political wilderness before they come to their senses and realize the wisdom in moderation. In the meantime, I welcome any of the remaining voices of reason within the Republican party to defect to the Democrats now. That means you, McCain, Hutchison, and Snowe. Abandon the sinking ship that the Republican Party is and join us on a new adventure towards the center. You have nothing to lose but your chains and a whole world to gain!

(** From above: the "big, fat idiot" line was from the title of Al Franken's 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot. I read recently that there is speculation that the reason why Norm Coleman won't concede defeat to Senator-elect Franken is because of pressure from Rush Limbaugh, who does not want to see Franken become a Senator. It's all about ego! Rush, after all, led the charge in 2000 that Al Gore (who was ahead in votes nation-wide) was a "sore loserman" for pursuing legal action to count all the votes. Why the double standard? Isn't it obvious? It all boils down to a satirical book published a decade ago. Proof that Rush can't take a joke.)

One Hundred Days, One Hundred Ways

The first major milestone of President Obama's Administration: the First Hundred Days, that unfair standard all presidents are held to because of a certain Democratic president who set the standard in his first one hundred days in office. That president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had to do something after the do-nothing President Herbert Hoover basically took the Republicans favoured "hands-off" approach to fixing a thoroughly collapsed economy.

Seems like Democrats are always coming into power during a recession. Kennedy inherited Eisenhower's recession, Carter inherited the oil shocks and inflation of the Nixon years, and Clinton had the soiled baggage of Reaganomics to deal with (and the first Bush's S&L bailout mess). But none of them hold a candle to the mess Obama had to deal with, prior to taking the oath of office on January 20th. Though his First Hundred Days pale in comparison to FDR's, I think he has done a fair job overall. Already, he changed the tone of our government, meeting with world leaders and letting them know that the America they knew and respected is back, under new management.

Throughout the past three months and ten days, we've seen him overturn Bush policies like torture, going so far as to make public exactly what our government has been doing...to the dismay of a certain Dick-less Cheney. In fact, Cheney has broken with standard decorum that the outgoing administration doesn't criticize or comment on the current administration (at least until the first war is launched). Cheney has no right to bitch. He had eight years and left America worse off than when he and his protege found it. All the waterboarding in the world hasn't turned up Osama Bin Laden. So much for "wanted: dead or alive."

Also during this benchmark period, Obama had his first major international crisis to deal with: the pirate hijacking of an American ship off the coast of Somalia. While Republicans were criticizing him for not acting, news was released on Easter that Navy SEALS had taken out the Somali pirates who held the captain of the tanker hostage. The American crew was rescued, some baddies lost their lives, and egg was left on conservative faces. They thought Obama would be like Carter, and it turns out he's a bigger bad-ass than Will Smith fighting aliens.

I can't tell you how much I love seeing and hearing Republicans in their desperation to find relevancy in the post-Bush years continue to snipe at Obama with petty concerns, such as his "missing birth certificate", calling him a fascist or Nazi or even a black Hitler, threats to teabag him, and other such nonsense. The more they harp on non-issues, the dumber they look. I'm sure one day, there will be a serious gaffe or mistake worth criticizing, but by harping on petty little things, they are only building an immunity against future scandal.

Republicans need only to look at Clinton for this. By the time the Monica Lewinsky scandal hit (sixth year in his administration), Americans had already heard about Troopergate, Filegate, Travelgate, Paula Jones, cocaine-running, rape and even murder that he was immune from any serious threat of removal from office. He was riding pretty high in the polls throughout 1998 and the Democratic party even picked up seats in the mid-term elections. Though his scandal hurt his successor's chances in 2000, I believe that if Republicans had not been so nitpicky in trying to bring Clinton down since the moment he took office, he might have had a rougher time during the Lewinsky scandal. But, Clinton build up immunity because he was subjected to nonstop personal attacks since day one of his administration.

The Republicans are repeating the same mistake with Obama. However, they are even more outrageous in their claims, which is proving to be a major backfire as more and more people see Obama as a "Cool Hand Luke." It reminds me of the line in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. The Sheriff of Nottingham doesn't understand why the poor won't turn Robin Hood in for the reward money. His aide tells him that the bigger the reward, the more the people seem to like him. Besides, Robin Hood gives the money he steals to the poor. Obama strikes me as the kind of no-nonsense guy who won't embarrass us the way Clinton did. He's disciplined, he has a wife who probably won't tolerate any hanky panky, and he also carries the hope and aspirations of an entire race on his shoulders. He knows that there are a lot of racist people in our country still who would love to see him live up to their stereotype of a wild-eyed black man. He can't afford to give Republicans the kind of amunition that Clinton gave his detractors. Obama wants to rank in the top tier of American presidents and by God, I hope he succeeds.

So far, I'm pleased with the First Hundred Days. He's a hundred ways different from his predecessor. Hearing him speak, seeing how he handles things, showing humility and confidence in his dealings with foreign leaders...it's a definite change from the arrogance and hubris of the Bush era. I go to bed every night thanking God that Obama is our president now. I'm still amazed that the Bush era is history, that our long national nightmare is off the scene (but the stench of his economic, foreign, and war policies remain). Hopefully by the time reelection comes around, Obama will have turned our country around onto solid footing, with a booming economy as the Republican naysayers cry and wail and still claim that the sky is red and falling.

The only major concern I have at the moment, though, is that the stimulus plan is not large enough to make a difference. It's a gamble, for sure, but if he made the wrong bet, we're in for some possible inflation...which would be awful (but something Republicans are hoping for, no doubt). Its sad that a bitter segment of society, the very people who rah-rahed the entire Bush agenda on the American public despite some internal dissent, are hoping that Obama fails. All because their beloved, second coming of Reagan proved a disasterous failure. They had eight years to prove that their policies worked and they were dead wrong. The best they should offer us is to Shut The F Up! Let the Obama Administration attempt to rescue the economy, and allow the American people to render the verdict in 2012.

The above photo was supposedly taken on Obama's first day as president. It caused an uproar among conservatives because the president was in the Oval Office without a jacket on (gasp!). Somehow, that's disrespectful. In the age of the Internet, it didn't take long for people to find photos of Bush in the Oval Office without a jacket on. I didn't hear any outrage on conservatives' part for that. To me, that's proof of conservative hypocrisy. They create false outrage and hold double standards. Democrats are held to impossibly high standards (the way it should be), but Republicans are held to ridiculously low standards (which can only be disasterous for our country). Message to conservatives: stop being hypocrites and hold your own people to high standards first. Since you love to quote Jesus, here's one to munch on: "Take out the beam in your eye before you pluck the splinter in another's eye."

Here's to President Obama on the next milestone: the Thousand Days. Pass universal health care and create a national service plan. I'm anxiously looking forward to the next eight years.

The Media's Mass Panic Time Again

Once again, it's panic time according to the mass media. We've been through this before. Bird flu. Ebola. Killer bees. SARS. Scary, scary. Now, the pigs have their shot at scaring people worldwide with fears of a global pandemic that might kill off millions.

Am I worried? Nah. Give me some of that swine flu. Life is so much better when you don't fall into the mass hysteria of corporate media's latest scare tactic. We all have to die sometime. If my number is up because of some swine flu...well, at least I won't be working in my current job anymore (and that's a good thing).

Watching several of the national news programs (ABC, CBS, and PBS), they all featured lengthy stories about the "crisis", which originated in Mexico. Already, cases have been reported in not only the USA and Canada, but Spain, as well. What can we say...we live in a globalized world where people travel everywhere all the time. The European Union has recommended that people not travel to the USA or Mexico for the time being, and our country is telling citizens not to go to Mexico if they can help it. That's no problem with me. I've never had a desire to set foot in Mexico. The closest I came was last year, when I walked to the border at San Ysidro (south of San Diego CA), the most frequented border crossing in the world.

It was interesting to hear the news report on technology that many airports have where they can spot a person with a fever in a mass crowd at customs. Anyone sporting high body temps are pulled aside and questioned/examined for possible quarantine. It's like a scene out of a Michael Crichton thriller (I'm thinking The Andromeda Strain). Or the 1995 movie Outbreak.

When I first heard about "swine flu" a few days ago, I thought it was a joke. It made me think of a sailor I knew on my last ship, who told me: "the swine will mess up yo' mind!" When he told me that, I asked if he was Nation of Islam. He said that he wasn't, but he went on to denigrate pigs. Being born "year of the pig", I feel a special affinity for these animals. I do eat ham, and maybe a pork chop on a rare occasion, but its not my favourite meat (I love salmon the most...so if that produces a deadly outbreak, I'll truly be at a loss). From my understanding, the outbreak of swine flu was traced to a village in Mexico where people lived in close proximity with pigs. That's pretty disgusting and unsanitary. It sounds like a problem of poverty, more than anything else. Now, it's gone global, after shutting down Mexico City (with a population of 20 million people in a dense area, with lots of filthy neighbourhoods). As if Mexico doesn't have enough problems already (with the drug wars increasing beyond the Mexican government's ability to fight back).

When I retook my Biology 110 course a few years ago, one thing that really stuck out in my mind was our planet's "self-correction mechanism." When an animal species gets too overpopulated for the habitat's "carrying capacity", predators move in as well as disease to get rid of the excess. The balance returns to normal. Well...humans have been able to "cheat" mother nature through technology and the manipulation of the environment. We are well over-populated. Things like climate change, water shortages, drought, crop failure, species extinction...all stem from our over population of humans. At some point, you would think that our earth will have had enough of our abuse and really let us have it in ways that create a massive die-off, like we saw during the heatwave in Europe a few summers ago that killed tens of thousands of people, or earthquakes and tsunamis that have killed hundreds of thousands. Is swine flu part of this trend? Or is it just another media manufactured scare tactic?

I'm not scared. Whatever happens, will happen. No use getting into a panic about it. But, I may ease off on partaking of the swine. No more ham sandwiches for me. I won't wear a surgeon's mask, but maybe I'll have to remember to wash my hands more thoroughly. Other than that, I won't bother with any other precautions. The government doesn't have to tell me not to go to Mexico, because that country has never been on my list of places I wanted to visit. When the hysteria dies down, the media will come up with the next thing to panic over and we'll go through this again. I'll just hit the mute button.

Music Video Monday: Johnny Clegg and Savuka

Fifteen years ago, South Africa experienced its first fully-participatory democratic election. According to my calendar, today is called "Freedom Day" in South Africa. After an election spanning several days, Nelson Mandela was pronounced the winner (I can't remember the exact percentage of the vote, but I believe it was over 60% and there was about 15 parties on the ballot). This year, there is yet another election and the international media laments the lack of candidates of Mandela's wisdom and stature. The African National Congress has run the post-apartheid South Africa, but the younger generation is not as loyal to the ANC like their parents are, so there is a need for a good opposition party (monopolies have a tendency to self-destruct because they coast on their laurels, ignoring the current needs of the people). South Africa faces many challenges: continual violent crime, illegal immigrants competing for limited number of jobs with citizens, HIV/AIDS crisis, tyrannical lawlessness on their northern border (Zimbabwe), and the global economic meltdown. In 1994, the ANC promised houses and jobs for all, but 15 years later, promises have proven expensive and more difficult to deliver.

In honour of this significant anniversary, I decided that a Johnny Clegg video is most appropriate. His "One (Hu) Man, One Vote" single is the opening song on the Cruel, Crazy, Beautiful World album. When I first bought that album in 1990 as part of a promotional sale at a music store, it was that opening song which made me realize that I was about to go on a musical journey I had never experienced before. The album quickly became my all-time favourite, as I've heard nothing like it before or since. It's a true masterpiece. The video is great as well. Johnny Clegg was inspired by the revolutionary events of 1989 and probably hoped the worldwide yearning for democracy in China and Eastern Europe would also sweep his country (which it did). I would love to know what Johnny Clegg thinks of the election of Barack Obama in our country.

Enjoy!

More Nostalgia about 1999

For yesterday's Flashback Friday, I wrote a nostalgic post about 1999, but completely forgot about my trip to Las Vegas in November with a group of Young Adults in my church, in the Utah area. A freshly graduated (from the church's Graceland College) young lady had moved to Salt Lake City in the summer of 1999 and since there was at least four young adults in the area, we got together a few times, including a trip to Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake and the road trip to Las Vegas during a weekend in November (before Thanksgiving).

The trip brought up some issues that went to the heart of integrity for me. Because I know our church is not wealthy, I don't expect the church to fund Young Adult activities. A group of us wanted to visit Las Vegas and we knew it was cheaper to travel together (splitting the costs of gasoline and hotel). The self-appointed Young Adult leader (the Graceland grad) decided to ask the church to fund the trip. I made it conditional. As in, if the church is funding this trip, then we need to visit a church congregation in Las Vegas on Sunday morning. She nixed that idea and got the funds anyway. She didn't want to do anything church related, which offended my sense of ethics.

But the real kicker was when she and two guys from the Salt Lake City area carpooled down to Provo and met me at the Orem Congregation. We had decided to ride in my car. Before everyone piled in to my car, this lady pulled out a liability waiver form for each of us to sign, absolving both her and the church from any responsibility in the case of an accident. Never mind that it was my car and I was driving, so I was responsible. I made a huge deal about it and we argued. For me, it was a violation of trust. Never in all my years in the church had anyone asked that of me. Especially since we were just a group of young adults going on a roadtrip. Who thinks in legal terms? Not someone I care to know. Though she was romantically interested in me, this stunt really killed it for me (besides, I was more interested in the Mormon lady from the Dominican Republic that I was dating at the time). She refused to get in the car until I signed the waiver and I relented. Las Vegas was on my list of places to visit while I attended school out west and in two months, I would be back on the east coast.

Vegas was amazing! Cheesy, but exciting. The Young Adult leader booked us in the Las Vegas Hilton. I didn't realize until much later that it was the same hotel that was the site of the notorious Tailhook Convention in 1991 that caused a huge scandal in the Navy. For those who aren't aware of it, a group of Naval Aviators held a convention every year in Vegas. In 1991, an admiral's aide claimed that she was forced to walk a gauntlet of drunken aviators who groped and harassed her. The party included the infamous "Rhino" (a punchbowl-type container shaped like a rhino, where the drink comes out of the male organ like its urinating into your cup). The admiral's aide was offended, told her boss, who ignored her complaint and she went higher up until the shit hit the fan. It was no surprise this would've come out in 1991, because the selection of Clarence Thomas for Supreme Court Justice and the Anita Hill testimony put sexual harassment front and center in the public consciousness.

The Tailhook Scandal broke in 1992 and as a result, the Navy forced all personnel to undergo sexual harassment training (I endured that three times in 1992 alone). The Navy's heavy-handedness in trying to do damage control put too much power into a female accuser's hands and scarred me for life. I worried about being falsely accused, just for showing an interest in female sailors, so it made me have the tendency to move much slower in terms of approaching women and asking them out.

Anyhow, I think it's kind of ironic that on this Young Adult trip to Vegas, I would end up staying in the same hotel where this scandal occurred 8 years earlier. I wasn't the one who booked the hotel (the Graceland grad did), because if it was up to me, we would've stayed in the Luxor Hotel (still the hotel I hope to stay in the next time I make it to Vegas). The lady who booked our hotel rooms picked the Hilton for the simple reason that it was the site of the Star Trek Experience and Quarks Restaurant. She was a major Trekker...to the point where she had to read every single word on the "Timeline of the Future" that led to the entrance of the Star Trek Experience ride (I preferred to go on the ride, and had to make do with talking to a Klingon when he made the rounds THREE times. He would say odd things like, "I don't trust that Captain Kirk!"). The ride was pretty cool. The restaurant was awesome, though. I had a triangle shaped burger and drank some Romulan Ale.

During our weekend, we hit up all the Casinos and took away souvenir plastic cups from each that were stacked next to the slot machines. When I was home last year getting rid of stuff, one of the things I got rid of were the Casino cups, which I would not have done had I known that casinos have done away with them now (according to a co-worker of mine). I have a couple of the casino cups, but not all of them. They made a cool and cheap souvenir.

My favourite Casino shopping center was Caesar's Palace. My favourite casino on the inside was Paris Las Vegas. I also liked the Venetian. Mandalay Bay has the best name and the best swimming pool. The Bellagio looked really nice. Luxor is my favourite, though. Wasn't wild about the Hilton, Excalibur, New York, or MGM Grand. We didn't ride on any of the rides or go to the top of the Eiffel Tower or Stratosphere.

What I took away from the experience was how sad it was to see people sit in front of slot machines feeding coins into it. Workers came around with drinks. No clocks anywhere, nor windows to the outside so you would know what time it was. It was a 24 hour city, with most of the places worth seeing on that one main strip. I did wonder what the actual downtown looked like (for those with real jobs) as well as the residential neighbourhoods. We did go to a drug store off the strip and it was like any normal city. Just one block in either direction from the strip and the whole city feels bland. The different themes of the hotel casinos were fascinating, but fake (when you've been to the real Paris, New York, and Venice, there's no comparison). It's a plastic world, with a lot of unhappy people hoping to become rich.

I managed to spend a mere $1.25 on slot machines. That's how long the thrill lasted for me (these were quarter slots). I could've spent $10 (my limit), but I just lost interest. Good thing I don't have a gambling addiction! I did have a mischievious side, though. I had worn a sweatshirt with a BYU logo on it as we wandered through the casinos. I even wore it when the two other guys wanted to go into an adult store. I didn't care, because I wanted to give Mormons a bad name to anyone who saw my sweatshirt (that's the result of the intolerance I experienced at BYU after two years: my way of getting back at the Mormons!).

When we left back for Utah, it started snowing and I had never driven on a freeway during a freshly falling downpour. At one point, a car in front of me slowed down and I had enough of a cushion between us, but slowed down as well and ended up sliding off the road. That was a scary moment for all of us, but through the grace of God, we made it back safely.

The following weekend was Thanksgiving and the lady invited me to spend the holiday with her, but I decided to spend it with Yudelka, the Dominican lady I was very attracted to. I don't regret it. I don't think I spoke with the Graceland grad ever again. In all the times I've spent with fellow Young Adult members in my church (before and since that Vegas trip), not a single one has asked me to sign a waiver absolving them of any liabilities. For me, trust is very important. I can't forsee myself ever suing a fellow church member for anything, especially if it was accidental.

In 1999, I also made a second trip to Seattle over Labour Day weekend to visit Nathan again for his 25th birthday and to meet his girlfriend, whom he had indicated wanting to marry (which he did in 2000). That was an interesting trip. Unlike the spring roadtrip to the Pacific Northwest, I flew roundtrip for this one.

Sometime in October, Nathan's way of announcing his engagement was an email asking me to be his best man. I was shocked, but honoured. How could I say no? I thought he would've asked one of his brothers, but to this day, I still consider it one of the greatest honours of my life to be his best man. Last year, when I visited him in San Diego, a Navy buddy of his on another ship happened to be in port and we went to pick him up for a barbecue at Nathan and Lisa's place, Nathan introduced me to his friend as "the best man." I was touched that he would do that (he had said back in 2000 that I would be forever known as "the best man" and I guess he wasn't kidding).

So, that was my 1999. I saw Missoula, Coeur d'Alene, Seattle, Victoria, Vancouver, Olympia, Astoria, Cannon Beach, Portland, Salem, Boise, Shoshone Falls, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Atlanta, Seattle (again), Bremerton, Las Vegas, Santa Fe, Dallas, and Atlanta again. When I think back to that amazing year, I wonder how I was able to travel to so many places on so little income. I really knew how to make my money stretch.

My dream job still remains any where I would travel several times a year. Even if its just for business, with conferences and meetings. I just can't get enough of seeing different places and I always find something of interest in every place I've been. Where can I find such a career?

Flashback Friday: 1999

Above is a photo of me taken in Victoria, British Columbia on April 24, 1999.

In thinking about the past ten years of my life, I wish I could go back and party like it was 1999 all over again. There are a few changes that I would make that would probably change the trajectory of my life (namely, not failing Biology 110 my last semester on campus). Besides that, it was a great year. I was regularly working out in a gym and saw impressive improvements before getting lazy. I saw the end of the tunnel of my lonely BYU experience, taking mostly upper level political science courses (having finished the other courses, except for the science ones). My favourite CDs at the time were New Radicals Maybe You've Been Brainwashed, Too (an appropriate title, I thought, for what I felt I was going through at BYU), Garth Brooks recording as Chris Gaines (a rock concept album that was supposed to lead to a film role as the imaginary Australian rocker, followed by a film soundtrack), and Eric Clapton's Pilgrim (a truly great CD).

My best friend Nathan had gotten back from his West Pac, where he got to see Australia AGAIN (and happily rub it in, knowing that its been my dream vacation since I was 11 years old), and was leaving Hawaii for his new duty station at the Naval Hospital on the Bangor submarine base in Bremerton, Washington. He convinced me to make a spring break trip up to visit him and since Washington and Oregon would be two new states for me (states # 47 and 48) as well as possible places I wanted to live after college, I couldn't resist.

BYU doesn't have an actual spring break, which has its plus and minuses. That means we have to endure winter semester without a week long break, but it also meant that we finished the semester a month earlier than most universities. I had to explain this when a police officer caught me speeding on I-15 between Pocatello and the Montana border. I had left Provo late, due to unusual strong winds that had completely blown 18-wheel trucks on their sides in northern Utah. News casters didn't recommend driving in it but didn't say when the winds would die down. I kept waiting and waiting, until finally leaving three or four hours later than planned. I had promised Nathan to be in Bremerton by midnight. We had planned to catch the early ferry from Port Angeles to Victoria on Saturday, 24 April.

The cop thought I was skipping school and asked what the rush was. I told him that I was headed to Seattle and wanted to be there by midnight. He let me off with a warning and the advice to return to school after my vacation. Once I crossed the border into Montana, I let it rip (this was when Montana didn't have speed limits. They just advised you to drive at a "safe and prudent speed"). I pushed the pedal to the medal and saw my speedometer hit 100 mph. I even laughed when I passed a BMW (my car was a 1991 Saturn SL1). I also started getting sleepy, and since a friend of mine had died by falling asleep on a long distance road trip, I decided to pull over at a rest stop somewhere on I-90 east of Missoula and take a short nap. I grabbed supper and filled the tank up in Missoula, where I saw plenty of cars without license plates (a sign of anti-government extremists). The scenery between Missoula and Coeur d'Alene ID is the most beautiful I have ever seen (and I've seen some pretty gorgeous scenery around the world). In fact, as I drove into Coeur d'Alene around sunset, with the interstate high above Lake Coeur d'Alene, I heard a voice say "this is it--this is heaven on earth!"

When I called Nathan from a gas station west of Spokane, he thought I had reached Seattle already. I wouldn't reach Seattle until 2 a.m. and then I had at least an hour more to go, by way of Tacoma onto the Olympic Peninsula. But I made it, and it was great to visit with my best friend again, who was kind of a jerk when I visited him in Hawaii during Christmas break in 1997. Of course, I didn't get much sleep since we had to arrive in Port Angeles to catch the first ferry to Victoria. He insisted on driving (no complaints there). We stayed overnight in Victoria with a Canadian lady he had met when his ship made a port visit there. She took us around the quaint capital of British Columbia and then we saw The Matrix for our evening entertainment, even though Nathan had already seen it. It was one of those films that I would not have seen without a friend's insistence that I see it (I was concerned about the violence, and that some people had blamed the movie for influencing the killers of the Columbine massacre).

Besides a great visit, during that week in the area, I visited the guy who had baptized me into the RLDS Church in 1980 (he was formerly a Mormon who converted to our church, who eventually left our church to become a member of a Christian religion I can't remember now, but I think it has Calvinist roots). He shared with me his thoughts about the LDS and RLDS Churches and admitted that he viewed the RLDS Church as a "stepping stone out of Mormonism." I kind of felt sorry that he felt that way about our church, but it was nice to visit him and his wife (who was from Belgium). He and my dad have exchanged letters over the years.

I made the trek up to Vancouver and only spent a day there. I fell in love with that city. It's amazing that 10 years later, I was able to visit it again three more times, seeing all the things that I missed on that single day trip a decade ago. Out of the two cities, Victoria and Vancouver, I'm definitely more of a Vancouver guy. Victoria is too prissy for my tastes...basically a quaint English town of proper virtues and culture. It's the kind of place you'd honeymoon or stay in a bed and breakfast with the love of your life. Vancouver is exciting with a very young, energetic vibe. If it was an American city, I would've moved there after college.

Seattle had some interesting places. I was really interested in seeing the Lenin statue in the funky neighbourhood of Fremont and got photos of it. I also wanted to see the Pierside loft that hosted MTV's The Real World: Seattle the previous year. Of course, I went up the Space Needle, rode the monorail (disappointing), and walked through Pike Place Market.

By the end of the week, I drove down the coast with stops in Olympia, Astoria, Cannon Beach, and over to Portland to stay at a college friend's house in La Center, Washington. He and I visited Salem and Portland on Saturday, May 1st. The next day, I left back for Utah, with a stop in Boise and supper at Shoshone Falls (Niagara Falls of the West!). Without a doubt, this was the best roadtrip of my life. I packed a lot of places into those 10 days. The trip also spoiled me, though. In my disappointments in being unable to find a better job as I'm stuck in a job that I hate, I wonder if I was truly meant to live here. This part of the country was where I wanted to settle down and start a family. I would give up a career in D.C. or overseas to settle here...but now, I'm not so sure. If living here means being stuck in my current job for the rest of my life, or leaving to find career satisfaction, I will have no choice but to give up living here. Career satisfaction is more important to me than location.

Nathan with his friend Joanne in Victoria, BC

After winter semester, I took spring term off because my sister was graduating from high school and I didn't want to miss that. I had been attending school nonstop since September 1997, so I definitely enjoyed the break. I worked two part-time jobs and really went crazy over the new Star Wars prequel (which I ended up seeing 13 times in the theater that year--a personal record). When it was time to return home, I decided to go on Greyhound so I could catch up on reading (I was reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance at the time) and relax. Though my brother still lived at home, somehow, he missed out on attending our sister's graduation. It was an outdoors ceremony (something I wanted for mine).

I resumed school for the summer term and when there was a week long break between summer term and fall semester, I took another Greyhound journey to visit my relatives in Bloomington, Minnesota. I kind of felt guilty about choosing my Great Uncle Jim and Great Aunt Effie over my grandparents...but my grandmother's memory had been fading and she was kind of uncharacteristically short with me the last time we had talked. Besides, I hadn't seen my Great Uncle and Great Aunt in a long time, nor their son and daughter. The last time I was in Minnesota was 1985, so I played tourist to the hilt.

My Great Uncle Jim thought it was crazy that I thought their Governor (Jesse "The Body" Ventura) was cool, but he took me to the state capitol to see if I might be able to meet him (fat chance!). The photo below and to the left were taken on the state capitol grounds of St. Paul.

It was a great visit.

Fall semester, I was busy with my final courses and prepping for the Washington Seminar that I kind of neglected studying Biology. Big mistake. Well, the first mistake was taking an honours course. I only did so because it was the only one that did not require a lab session. I also liked the innovation that we would learn from CD modules instead of a textbook. However, this meant going to computer labs on a regular basis, where I learned the joys of "chatrooms" (I only chatted on the RLDS website's webboard and "met" people who knew people I knew...that strange phenomenon in my church). If I could redo any part of my life, it would be to study harder for Biology so that I would pass it and graduate in 2000 like I wanted, instead of having to retake it and postponing it until 2006. It might've made all the difference in the world if I had my college degree by the summer of 2000 when I was looking for my dream job in D.C.

By Thanksgiving weekend (I didn't go home, since I would be home for Christmas), my parents called me with the news that they had received a large envelope from the White House. They asked my permission to open it. When they did, they read me the best words that I had wanted to hear. I was accepted into the White House Internship Program for Spring Semester 2000. I had applied to 12 places for internships: The White House, The Democratic National Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein (all three accepted me for internships), Senator Evan Bayh (rejection), Senator Bob Kerrey (no response), Congressman Leonard Boswell (the only RLDS member of Congress--no response), two other members of Congress (no response), and some non-profit organizations (no response).

I was actually quite torn between The White House and Senator Dianne Feinstein's office. I wanted to experience both the White House and Congress. Feinstein accepted me first, but when the White House offered, I really couldn't pass that up. Its funny to reflect on how torn I was, and how I discovered in D.C. that I got my wish to experience both. I was the only White House intern assigned to work in the Capitol building, where I saw Senators up close and personal each day (it was a lot more exciting than working in the dreary Old Executive Office Building). I view this as the universe's perfect fulfilment of my wishes. Out of all the places I could've been assigned, why was I the only one (out of 184 interns) to be assigned in the OVP's office in the U.S. Capitol building? Amazing!

Because I had so much last minute things to pack, I didn't get to leave Utah on time. In fact, I was still packing boxes on Christmas Eve! My car had some mechanical problem around finals time that added to the stress, so I lost time packing. The church gave me money out of the oblation fund to help cover the expenses of the repairs (to which I'm eternally grateful). One lady from church who lived in Scofield, Utah (south of Provo) kept insisting that I spend Christmas with her, rather than on the road. My parents were concerned about my not finding a gas station open on Christmas Day. I'm glad that everyone insisted, so I spent Christmas with a nice lady from church at her house, with her husband, sister, nephews, and dogs (photo below of one of them).

The day after Christmas, I headed to Santa Fe, which was a stopping point on my journey to Utah two years earlier. I like that symmetry of my experience. I shopped for Christmas gifts in Santa Fe to bring to my family and spent the night in the same adobe-style motel that I had stayed in two years earlier. I love Santa Fe, New Mexico! Definitely worth a vacation.

The next stopping point was east of Dallas, Texas. I had driven through Lubbock, down to I-20. When I drove through Dallas, I played the theme song to the famous 80s television show on my car stereo and got a kick out of it (one of my favourite TV theme music; Knots Landing's theme is my favourite, though). The next morning, I noticed that my car had a flat tire. My car was fully packed, so I had worried about possible vandals at night. At the gas station, I bought one of those spray can tire fixers and drove eastward until Longview, when I went to a mechanic, who fixed the tire for me.

I stopped for lunch in Meridian, Mississippi, where I had attended Navy "A" School just eight years earlier. When I think about that, I just shake my head because it felt a lot longer than eight years between those two moments in time when I was in Meridian. By contrast, the last eight years have zipped by. In 1999, I felt worlds apart from who I was in 1991. I hate how time speeds up as you get older!

When I arrived home on the 28th of December, my family celebrated a belated Christmas (they gladly pushed it back for me because they wanted to enjoy the season a little bit longer). The photo above was to be my "unofficial" graduation photo (in my BYU gear, rather than cap and gown). I didn't plan to return to BYU to participate in the ceremony, which my dad thought was not a good idea. But, because I failed Biology, that didn't matter anyway. I understand that the graduation ceremony feels like closure on the college experience, but I felt that I had done that in high school and it was enough to experience once. College commencement was just more people who didn't know me. I didn't get the closure from my college experience. I consider the end of it that sad day in April 2000 when nearly everyone on the Washington Seminar program left D.C. with only a few stragglers remaining, and I went into withdrawal symptoms of missing everyone as I began my job search in earnest.

Hard to believe that was ten years ago...when I finished college, made three trips across country (turns out that 1999 was a record travel year for me...I went through or set foot in 25 states!), and was anticipating my White House internship. It remains one of the greatest years of my life. It is also the year I pinpoint to where my life went wrong (not passing Biology). The decade that followed has been difficult, as nothing seemed to go right in my life after my internship ended. This past decade has been one of loss after loss. My only wish is that I will end this decade with magnificent and well deserved gains (a publishing contract for my novel, a great new job with a salary that matches my age, and meeting the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with).

Great News from the Literary World

This week, I learned the great and long-awaited news that Dan Brown has finally, finally!, completed his third Robert Langdon novel that was due to his publisher in 2005. He was rarely seen in public since the movie version of his Da Vinci Code was released in May 2006. Vanity Fair Magazine did an expose article about the rumours surrounding his plagiarism of another novel that was published earlier in the decade that covered a similar story and plot.

I forget the details, but the research into Dan Brown's life showed someone who started out as a musician, who taught (English?), and wrote some techno-thrillers (Deception Point and Digital Fortress), which didn't become bestsellers until his Da Vinci Code was published in 2003 and slowly gained a huge following, becoming a phenomenal smash. He was portrayed as a guy searching for a way to become famous and stumbled upon the idea of writing something so controversial that it would create a huge outcry. That view of his success is hard to buy, though, because who knew that his Da Vinci Code would become such a phenomenon? It captured the zeitgeist, whereas the novel he was accused of plagiarizing bombed and didn't make that writer rich or famous.

The Da Vinci Code has sold around 80 million copies worldwide. To understand what this means, just think that John Grisham sells about 1 or 2 million in hardback. A book that sells 50,000 copies will catch the notice of the publishing world, and many bestsellers only sell in the hundreds of thousands in hardcover. How and why did this novel become so huge? Dan Brown definitely touched a nerve, because it spawned critics, lawsuits and condemnation from Christian churches. Some churches even held courses to debunk the claims of this novel. They wouldn't have done this if the novel hadn't caused Christian readers to question the history we've all been taught about Jesus.

Because of the controversy, and his announcement that the third Langdon novel would be surrounding the Freemasons and the founding of our country, I thought he was as good as dead. Secret societies don't want their secrets revealed and after the success of the Da Vinci Code, I'm sure the last thing Masons want is for their esoteric beliefs to be served up for mass consumption.


According to the news article I read, The Lost Symbol (previously known as The Solomon's Key) takes place over a 12-hour period in the life of Da Vinci protagonist Robert Langdon. “Weaving five years of research into the story’s twelve-hour timeframe was an exhilarating challenge,” said Brown in a statement. “Robert Langdon’s life clearly moves a lot faster than mine.”

The publication date is September 15, 2009, the 222nd anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Coincidence? Is anything a coincidence with Dan Brown?

The Da Vinci Code was released in March 2003. I remember seeing the novel in a prominent display at the Buckhead Barnes and Noble in Atlanta. Since I've been interested in Leonardo Da Vinci since childhood, I thought it looked interesting, but I didn't buy the book for several reasons. First, it looked like a genre novel (formulaic and the kind that you find on drug store racks). Second, I generally don't buy novels in hardcover (unless its Crichton, Sparks, or a literary novel featured in Barnes and Noble's "Discover New Writers" seasonal promotion). I decided to wait until paperback, which is normally a year.

2004 passed with no sign of paperback because it was still on or near the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. When 2005 rolled around, I found out that my dad had bought it and read it, so I borrowed it from him. I couldn't put the book down. It was better than I thought, for "genre fiction." Kind of reminded me of a Crichton novel. I love books that make me think outside of the box about fascinating topics (like that we've been lied to about the truth regarding Jesus). The novel was finally released in paperback in 2006, in time for the movie. However, my parents gave me for Christmas the Illustrated Edition of the book (along with the Illustrated Edition of Angels and Demons), which is fantastic. When I read the novel and his descriptions of paintings (such as Da Vinci's Last Supper), I had to go online to see a picture of the painting so I could see what he was talking about (the idea that Mary Magdalene is one of the disciples in the painting).

In early 2006, I read Angels and Demons and found it to be an even better book than The Da Vinci Code. I was hooked and could not put the book down. It is fantastic. I'm really excited about the movie this May. Though I loved The Da Vinci Code movie, because I had read the novel a year before the movie's release, the story and plot was still fresh in my memory so I found the movie "predictable." The movie is loyal to the novel (a very good thing). With Angels and Demons, Director Ron Howard promised to have a faster pace with this one, and since it has been over three years since I read the novel, the plot is not so fresh in my mind.

I'm really excited about The Lost Symbol. I only wish that it would be released in May, instead of in the fall season (always a big pocket book hit, as the best movies, best music, and high profile books are released in the fall). As one who worked in the U.S. Capitol building for the four months of my internship in 2000, I am really excited to learn the history behind the symbols found on that building and others in our nation's capital.

The other great news is that my favourite writer Michael Crichton has left behind a completed novel that will be published this November. It's about pirates. Quite timely (with the piracy off the coast of Somalia), though his is a historical novel set in 17th century Jamaica, which makes me think he was influenced by the Disney movies. He was working on another novel and was a third of the way through it when he passed away last November. Though he has notes that give an indication of where he would take the story, his publishers are going to hire a techno-thriller writer to complete Crichton's "vision" for the novel. I'm not sure how I feel about that or how the soul of Crichton would feel about it. Would it really be a Crichton novel? That remains to be seen. He's such a fantastic writer that his death left a huge void in the literary world. If I could write the way he does, I would love to fill his niche, but my interest is more literary than techno.

Anyhow, when this year began, my hopes for this year included: an awesome President Obama Inauguration; the new U2 album; novels by Crichton and Brown; and Spielberg's Lincoln movie. Could this year get any better? Oh...a great new job for me and finding a literary agent for my novel. That would really cap my year.

Music Video Mercredi: Midnight Oil

In honour of Earth Day, this week's music video selection is by Midnight Oil, who recorded a great environmental album in 1990 called Blue Sky Mining. With songs like "River Runs Red", "Blue Sky Mine", and "Antarctica", they offer tributes to our planet and humanity's impact on our environment.

The music video is for their song "Antarctica," though I don't know if its truly their music video or something someone put together and posted on YouTube. The song is simple, but powerful. When I first heard their Blue Sky Mining album, I thought the album as a whole would make a great musical for Broadway. "Antarctica" is the perfect closing song on a brilliant album.

This Earth Day, I will continue with my annual tradition...which is watching Gore's An Inconvenient Truth documentary. Its such an inspiration, and I need a reminder on what personal habits I need to adopt that leaves little to no impact on our planet.

So, have a happy Earth Day!

Tenth Anniversary of the Columbine Massacre

Ten years ago on this day, the mother of all school shootings put Columbine High School on the tragedy map. Like a bad repeat of the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 (also in April), both tragedies occurred just days before I went on a road trip (in 1995, it was from Norfolk VA to visit friends and family in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri; in 1999, it was from Provo UT to the Pacific Northwest to visit one of my best friends and to see if I wanted to live in this region someday). Both tragedies made me think a lot on the long road trips.

When school shootings happen, I always tire of hearing people ask "why?" Its a natural question, though, but kind of ridiculous. We live in a gun-obsessed society with violent movies, video games, and music. The social structure of high school is probably the most superficial you'll find in society. Who does the shootings? The loners, misfits, bullied. Why? Because they want other people to feel their pains. They lash out. People get shocked and ask why and cry a lot, but our society doesn't ever change. Obama gets elected president and there's a run on guns with ammunitions actually sold out and on back order in many places.

Guns. A false sense of power. So long as Americans love their guns, we shouldn't be shocked and ask "why?" and cry when more shootings happen (as this month has shown all over the country, with frustrated men externalizing their pains in deadly ways for others to feel).

Above are the photos of the students and teacher who lost their lives that day.

Though I lost interest in the Columbine massacre shortly after the event, I read in a recent article that there is a new, comprehensive book about the tragedy that clears up the myths that have developed. One of the shooters was a psychopath, the other was a follower who was capable of compassion. They weren't picked on, nor part of a "trenchcoat mafia." The leader of the duo thought he was God, who had the right to administer fatal judgment.

This past weekend, I finally finished reading Prophet of Death, about Jeffrey Lundgren, the former church member who formed a cult. It was a chilling read, especially when he claimed to his followers to be "God of the whole earth" who had the right to end human life for their sins (despite sinning himself, often far worse than his followers). I can't help but think how dangerous religious beliefs can be for people with psychological disorders. I will be writing a post soon about my thoughts on cults, especially in light of this book that I finished reading and the accusation by a former friend that I was "prone to join a cult" simply because I admitted admiring politicians like Gore and Obama.

Back to Columbine, though. A few years ago, I saw Gus Van Sant's film Elephant, which had a disclaimer that any resemblance to actual events was purely "coincidental." Yeah. Right. He basically followed the news accounts of the Columbine shooting. The only difference is, he filmed the movie in Portland, not Littleton, Colorado where the tragedy occurred. The film is horribly bad and dull. I've read in reviews that that was the point of his movie. You were lulled into the boring routine of the students and when the shooting happens, its truly shocking. I get it. But its still a boring and pointless movie to make.

One of the theories that came out of Columbine was that the shooters were influenced by Hitler. Considering how many deadly events occur around April 20th (Hitler's birthday), it makes you wonder if his soul is still wandering the earth looking for susceptible minds to influence towards deadly actions. In the past couple decades, on or around April 20th included Jeffrey Lundgren's murder of the Avery family in Kirtland OH in 1989, the Los Angeles riots in 1992, the Branch Davidian compound fire in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Columbine High School in 1999, and the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007.

I shake my head wondering how ten years can pass by so quickly. The students who died that day were deprived of the joys of young adulthood, of self discovery, of possibility. All because some deranged loser with access to semi-automatic weapons thought he had the divine right to rid the world of people he considered losers. Another rumour at the time was that he was influenced by The Matrix movie, which was a major hit in the spring of 1999. I can see how the shoot-em-up scene in the lobby of a building could inspire certain psychopathic people into wanting to replicate it in reality. In the movie, the scene looked cool...but it was just a movie!

While the tragedy scars the people who witnessed it or were victimized by it, the rest of the world moves on to the next tragedy. Nothing ever seems to change. We are shocked, we cry, we chatter, then we resume our gun buying compulsions. Truly how many guns do people need to feel safe? I don't own a gun at all, yet I feel completely safe. I wish more Americans would ignore the media hype about these shootings. We need to do a better job with easing people's pains of an isolated, lonely existence. The lack of compassion in our society for those on the margins (those who don't fit in the school culture that values the jocks, cheerleaders, student council, and affluent kids). We just never know when a young mind will snap, causing blood to flow and tears to fall. We can do better than buying more guns. We must try.

Secession Talk in the Republic of Texas

Above is a map of how our country would look without our second largest state, Texas. Our country would look kind of funny with a Texas-shaped hole. Americans wouldn't be able to drive cross country on Interstates 10, 20 and 40 without going through customs. This is just one problem of many that would occur if the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, was serious about his talk of secession.

On Wednesday's Tax filing day deadline that Republicans, through their propaganda network the Fox News Channel and think tank lobbying groups, used to hold teabagging protests against Obama's budget plan, the Texas governor actually said the following:

"Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."

I find it sad that there is still talk of secession, particularly when we have a historical president who shares some important things in common with Abraham Lincoln, the president whose election in 1860 did cause Southern states to secede from the union over the issue of slavery (or as the Southerners claim: "states rights"). On April 1st of this year, the state legislature in Atlanta, Georgia actually passed a bill in the Senate that granted the state of Georgia (my former home) the right to secede from the union. When I read this, I was shocked. What is going on in our country? Why no talk of secession when the 2000 election was unlawfully resolved in the popular vote loser's favour? I imagine that if Gore had lost the popular vote and the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, conservatives would be up in arms and perhaps talk of secession from the Union. When they can't get their way, they sulk like children on the playground do. Get real.

What I learned in the Bush years is that if you protest against a Republican president for any reason at all (of waging illegal war, of the use of torture, of spying on American citizens, of violating civil rights and international treaties and laws, of operating concentration-type camps, of denying due process guaranteed by our Constitution, etc.), you are considered unpatriotic and you need to "love it or leave it." On the flip side, if you protest against a Democratic president, you are patriotic, and talk of secession isn't considered treason. In the conservative mind, treason is a label that only applies to disobedient liberals who dare say that the Republican president is not wearing any clothes. We're supposed to drink our Kool-Aid and fall into the mass delusions of a Republican president's fantasy world view, even when such policies and beliefs go against standard norms previous presidents have followed (Bush's father, after all, had the good sense to keep the neo-conservatives locked in the basement like the crazies they are).

The double-standard is baffling and outrageous. I just wish that conservative people could be honest with everyone and admit to their own biases and to hold their own people to the same standard that they hold Democrats to. I'm not against holding Democrats to a high standard, because I believe its important to only have good, ethical people in government. Thus why on my blog, you have read my critical posts against John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, and Rod Blagojevich, all Democrats who violated certain principles and committed gross acts of hypocrisy. As far as they are concerned, I hope none of them are ever elected to public office again. They had their chance and they blew it. There are plenty of up-and-comers who can fill their shoes. When it comes to Republicans, they defend the indefensible and keep their bad seeds: Senator Larry Craig, Senator David Vitter, and Congressman Mark Foley (who lost reelection in 2006 because the voters and not his party threw him out). I would respect the Republican party some if they held their politicians to the same high standard they hold Democrats. But they don't. It's always the good American people who end up throwing the rotten Republicans out (such as Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Mark Foley).

So...about this secession talk. I find it strange that Texas, of all places, would be wanting to secede from the Union. Texas, after all, is majorly responsible for the mess our country is currently in. They were the state that gave us President George W. Bush, who was so thoroughly incompetent, inexperienced, incurious, and uneducated that Texas voters should have not even voted him Governor in 1994. Our country has had three presidents from the state of Texas (or at least made it the adoptive home): Lyndon B. Johnson, George Herbert Walker Bush (who originally hailed from Connecticut and owns a family compound in Maine), and George Walker Bush. These three presidents have been some of the most war mongering presidents our country has seen.

Lyndon Johnson expanded the war in Vietnam from Kennedy's commitment of a small number of military advisors. That war went well for him. After hearing nightly taunts by protestors of "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and seeing how divisive his presidency became, he announced in the spring of 1968 that he would not seek nor would he accept the nomination of the Democratic Party to run for another term.

George Bush senior committed troops to invade Panama in 1989 to go after a former CIA-employed drug thug Manuel Noriega. In 1990, one of his diplomats had told Saddam that the U.S. had no interest in the Iraqi dispute with Kuwait, which some believe signaled to Saddam that it was okay for him to invade (the rest of the story goes that the whole thing was designed to give the U.S. an excuse to go to war so that we wouldn't have to slash our military budget in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War). So, in 1991, we got our victorious Gulf War and liberated Kuwait from Saddam's army. After calling Saddam "worse than Hitler", Bush wimped out and decided to leave him in power rather than continue onward to Baghdad. Finally, after losing the election in 1992, Bush committed the U.S. military to another disaster. He ordered the invasion of Somalia. So, that's three military actions during his four year term.

His son, George W. Bush, ignored CIA briefing memos warning of Osama Bin Laden's determination to strike the U.S. with acts of terrorism, then milked the 9/11 tragedy for all he could by enacting some of the most repressive and un-Constitutional powers our country has ever seen. He launched a war in Afghanistan that we're still in and when the neo-conservatives complained about the lack of good targets to blow up, he moved on to invade Iraq without any provocation on Saddam's part. Had Iraq been the cakewalk promised by Cheney and others, he might've rolled on into Syria and the neo-conservatives wet dream of Iran. I think it was Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz who had said: "everyone talks about going to Baghdad these days, but real men go to Tehran." It seemed like the kind of locker room jock-boy taunt to see if Bush was "man enough" to do what they wanted him. We'll never know how close they might've come to war, but I like to think that Condoleezza Rice was the saving grace who convinced Bush not to (I've read that she and Rumsfeld didn't get along, and since she wasn't a neo-conservative, she wasn't part of that group desiring war against Iran).

Besides engaging our country in expensive wars and military actions, Texas has also given our country Enron and its brilliant accounting scheme that magically takes money from hard working employees and puts that money into the pockets of the executives who lived large until the company went bust in the most spectacular crash (a foreshadowing of the financial crisis to come). In politics, war, and finance, it seems like Texas is responsible for the mess our country is in. There's just something Toxic about Texas, which should rename the state Tax'us.

If that weren't enough, Texas gets federal disaster money each time they experience flooding (which seems like every summer), tornadoes (it is part of Tornado Alley), and hurricanes (with Rita in 2005 almost hitting Houston, the fourth largest city in the country). Think of the money our country would save if we didn't dole out disaster aid to this state every year.

A current crisis that is brewing regards the increase in violence in the Mexican city of Juarez, just across the Rio Grande from El Paso. Drug cartels are waging a war against the police and military that the corrupt and ineffectual Mexican government can't handle. Especially not with guns and dollars flowing freely across the American border and into the hands of the cartel in the border cities. If Texas secedes from the Union, they would not have U.S. Border Patrol agents and the U.S. Military anymore. They would have to fend for themselves with their militia groups. If we remember what happened at the Alamo, the Mexicans kicked their Texan asses, so for all their macho talk, Texas couldn't function without being part of the United States of America.

True, Texas might have lots of oil, but considering how much money they take from the federal government, I think they have no right to bitch and complain about the federal budget being too large. It was their beloved governor who became president that squandered the surplus that Clinton left behind, and set about ballooning the debt that got us into this mess. Launching two wars with two tax cuts was not the smartest idea, either. Never in the history of our planet has any empire waged a war without increasing people's taxes. Its simply not done. War is expensive and it has to be paid for somehow. Putting it on a national credit card issued from a Chinese bank is the dumbest idea anyone could come up with. Now that Americans have gotten the bill from Bush's excess, they have balked and don't want to pay. Too late. You wanted these wars and tax cuts and you accused the liberals who protested against them of being traitors and "surrender cheese monkeys."

If Texans truly want to secede from the United States of America, I say "good riddance!" Don't let the door hit you on the way out. We'll see how you handle the border wars with Mexico. And if you do become an independent country, I hope you make George W. Bush your "president for life." You deserve one another. Blood-thirsty for war, corrupt in business, disaster-prone of Biblical proportions. Yeah. Our economy would do so much better without you in our Union.

I'm hoping, though, that Texans will view their current governor as the kind of loopy extremist they don't need and decide to elect Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as their next Governor. She's the one McCain should've picked for a running mate instead of Sarah Palin. The women of Texas are plenty tough, but they have one good thing in their favour. They don't have machismo, which is what often gets men into trouble (ego that writes checks the body can't cash). We've seen all too painfully what happens when tough talk is not tempered by reason. I hope to God that Texans come to their senses. Governor Rick Perry is a dangerous demagogue who joins the pantheon of pathetic Republican politicians who don't have a fucking clue about anything.

Intense Political Debate on Facebook

Thursday on Facebook, I was shocked by how quickly a debate degraded between an old friend and I. The pattern is always the same when I discuss political or religious ideas with a conservative. I stick with my opinion and back them with facts. The conservative doesn't like what I say and automatically goes PERSONAL, with name calling ("commie" or "hater") and the standard line, "love it or leave it."

Yeah. So mature. I keep thinking that I can have a meaningful discussion with someone I consider a friend, but I never learn my lesson.

First, the photo you see is of Mark Diggs (with me in the background), who was my best friend in the 10th grade (1987-1988) when we lived in Fulda, Germany as military dependents. Mark is racially mixed like me. His mother is from Korea, and his father is African American. Because of this racial distinction, I thought he might be a supporter of Obama, but I was wrong! I didn't hear from him after 1991, until late last year when he had contacted me through Classmates.com to let me know that a bunch of our Fulda High School classmates were on Facebook. Since Classmates.com costs money, Facebook was the natural networking site to meet up for an online reunion.

When we were friends, we mostly talked music. He and I both preferred Debbie Gibson over Tiffany. We rarely talked politics since I wasn't really into politics until the 12th grade (due to my influential government teacher). Because we became friends Before Political Awareness, its easy to maintain a friendship even if we disagree about the other's views. However, I was a little miffed about the trajectory of the "debate" on our Facebook walls.

Here's the gist of it. He had posted a status about wanting term limits on politicians (three term max). When I posted the comment "They already have term limits. Its called Election Day," his response was: "Nicholas with all due respect, that statement goes to the top of my list of the most idiotic statements of 2009."

I explained why I'm against term limits for legislators (because continuity of experience and institutional knowledge are important) and that people tend to like their member of Congress because of the pork barrel projects that are brought home to the district (the more senior the member of Congress, the more money seems to get brought back), that's why the member of Congress wins reelection. If people really want to end a Congress member's term in office, they have the opportunity to do it every Election Day.

He responded with: "Career politicians ruin the system no matter what party you are for. I don't mind you having the opinion that the system is good the way it is, what I found ridiculous is your statement that election = term. I have no idea what pork has to do with what you said. But in defense to the American people, most would prefer not to have it. What I would consider hypocrisy is how peeps like yourself ridicule others who invoke their rights to protest when it goes against what you want. Spending and government growth under Bush was whack and so is spending and government growth under Obama is whack also. Quit being such a hater of America and following party lines. Debt is bad. Raising taxes is bad. Entitlement is bad. Regardless of party, you want more government there are plenty of other countries in the world you can move to. I respect your opinion and healthy debate, but it is your blanket statement that is ridiculous. I still have no clue why you mentioned pork. Wrong is wrong."

In his comment, there were the attack words: hypocrisy, hater, and suggesting that I could move to a country where there is "more government." The former friend I had a falling out with a month ago had also accused me of being a hypocrite (to which I would say that I am not, because I don't hold other people to a higher standard than I hold myself) and being hateful. Gosh, these conservative people seem to know so well what I'm feeling when neither of them have made a point to keep in touch with me or call me or even send me a birthday or Christmas card. I don't presume to take their opinions to be full of hate or call them hypocrites or tell them to leave America. Sheesh. Yet that's how it is when you try to have a reasonable disagreement with conservatives.

I believe the reason why they attack when they don't like your personal opinion is because they can't argue with facts. Also, with Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, and Hannity as examples, if you listen to any or all of them, you're subconsciously influenced by their style. I posted earlier a transcript of Rush's response to a Republican military veteran who disagreed with Rush. Instead of making an intelligent counter-argument, Rush went into personal attack mode with insults and claiming that the guy wasn't a Republican at all because he disagreed with Rush's beliefs.

When I lived in Europe as a young man, I had great conversations with Europeans and Middle Eastern people where our disagreements never devolved into personal attacks. I learned how to debate from people who are secure in their belief systems to make a convincing argument. So that's why its frustrating to disagree with conservative Americans. They always question your patriotism and think if you disagree, you should be exiled. And pointing out a politician's flaws isn't hating. How is ridiculing Sarah Palin's vapid ignorance "hating"? Don't conservatives understand the difference between pointing out examples of Palin's ignorance is not hating, but talking about killing Obama is? Hating is an action, which showed itself at Palin rallies all over the country last year. Though I did ridicule Palin a lot on my blog, I never felt a hatred for her. Nor have I felt a hatred for Bush. I just believe that their ignorance about the world should automatically bar them from positions of power in our government. That's not hating. Rushing to a gun store to buy guns because you believe Obama is going to take them away, and making racist statements about him IS hating. Big difference between the two and people who can't distinguish between those two concepts are truly out of touch.

After Mark's comment, I wrote: "I love how I'm supposedly the hater. I have an honourable discharge from the U.S. Navy, I got my degree in International Politics, I interned in the Clinton White House, I pay my taxes, and I vote." Mark took the debate offline and let me know that he was annoyed that I gave my "credentials." I kind of felt like I needed to, since he was accusing me of hating America just because I was making fun of Republican teabaggers.

I know it unnerves conservative people when a military veteran could be anything other than conservative. However, it was seeing the hypocrisy of conservatives in the Navy that really pushed me into the liberal camp. I actually considered voting for President George H.W. Bush in 1992 because I didn't trust Clinton during the primaries. However, personal attacks on Clinton only pushed me towards voting for him (selecting Gore as a running mate sealed the deal for me). I'm essentially a conservative person in terms of how I live my life (even if I am liberal in my thinking regarding politics and religion), thus why I was shocked in the Navy that "conservative" guys were actually quite "liberal" in their personal behaviour. To me, that's hypocrisy. You want to regulate what other people do in private while you're free to do what you want? Wrong! I much prefer to live by my high standards and not be concerned with how others choose to live their lives (unless hypocrisy is involved...such as a politician running on a family values platform when he's engaging in sexually deviant behaviours in private that becomes known). When that happens, it becomes everyone's business because that person's credibility is completely impeached and they should be rejected from public office.

Anyhow, Mark did have the good sense to take the debate offline into personal emails. This is something the lady I had a falling out with did not do. I told Mark that he would always have my friendship because our friendship began before our political awareness kicked in. I just don't appreciate the personal attacks. But, I guess I should wear it as a badge of honour. If a person was truly secure in their beliefs, they would not be namecalling and attacking or telling people to "love it or leave it."

Truth is, I love America and don't want to leave it. I want us to be the best country on earth. The conservatives gave us a president who took us to the dark side and bankrupted our country. We have a long, difficult road to recovery ahead of us. It didn't have to be this way (we would've been better off with either a President Gore or McCain from 2001-2009). We started the new millennium on such a positive note (booming economy and a surplus). So, I can understand why conservatives are angry and taking it out on liberals like me. I feel your pain, peeps. You got screwed by one of your own but you don't realize it. You're like an abused wife who defends her abusive husband as she lashes out at her concerned and loving parents. Its not how to "win friends and influence people" though.

I'm not the enemy here. I'm just a guy who likes to engage in meaningful debate. That's how the circuits in my mind work. Having your mind challenged makes you a better person. Its the reason why I believe people with huge egos end up self-destructing (see cult leaders, Rush Limbaugh, Bush, O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson as examples). They don't want to hear anything that goes against their reality and it leads to a mental breakdown or self-destructive behaviours. Only exposure to different ideas keep your mind young and fresh.

This probably won't be the last of the Facebook political debate wars. Stay tuned.

Flashback Friday: The Lundgren Cult

Twenty years ago today, cult leader Jeffrey Lundgren executed the Avery family on a farm commune in Kirtland, Ohio. News of this slaying was not the kind of national attention my church wanted, especially when the media reported Lundgren's membership in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The actions of one former member and self-proclaimed prophet brought shame on the rest of the church. With around 250,000 members worldwide, one bad apple did spoil the bunch and gave more ammunition for evangelical churches to portray my church as a "cult."

To me, "cult" is a charged word. The dictionary definition makes it sound like another word for any religious group. However, in the public's mind, thanks to the likes of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, cults have taken on a more sinister image. People think of charismatic leader who runs a commune where members give him complete control of their lives. Because of this modern-day impression, I always object when I hear evangelicals call the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesss a cult. I'm still iffy on whether Scientology classifies as a cult, because most members are able to live independent lives and hold regular jobs and maintain contact with non-member family and friends.

When people call my church a cult, I get really incensed because the Community of Christ is probably the furthest you can get from being a cult and still be a church. What I mean by that is that my church is so liberal and leaders don't tell members how to live their lives that its baffling that a more authoritarian church would accuse ours of being a cult. Yet, evangelical churches do. Even more surprising, when I was at BYU, I was shocked to hear some Mormons call the RLDS Church "a cult devoted to the Joseph Smith family." The authoritarian and conservative Mormons consider the democratic and liberal RLDS Church a cult?!? I found this funny because in all the church services, reunions and retreats I've attended, I never hear people talk about Joseph and Emma Smith as much as they talk about Jesus. And we don't talk about the Smith family nearly as much as the times I've heard Joseph Smith mentioned in the Mormon church services, classes, and other gatherings I've attended. A matter of perspective, I suppose.

But, this post isn't to knock the LDS view of things, but to focus on the event that gave my church a black eye in the public mind. In fact, in 1990 when the news reported on the cult killings and linked Lundgren to the RLDS Church without emphasizing that he had left the church to form his own group, I wrote a letter to the editor in a couple newspapers at the suggestion of my atheist government teacher Tom Malone and it was actually published in the DeKalb County paper.

Sometime late last year, I was browsing Powells bookstore (where I go only a few times a month because its too painful to see so many books I want as I strive to maintain my book buying ban as a money-and-space saving gesture). They have three shelves in the religion section devoted to the Latter Day Saints. Well, one book attracted my eye: Prophet of Death by Pete Earley. The subtitle was a very provocative and inaccurate: "The Mormon Blood-Atonement Killings." I read the flaps and was intrigued by the final paragraph:

"Based on hundreds of hours of exclusive interview material and trial transcripts, Prophet of Death reaches behind the well-reported headlines in this case to reveal the shocking innermost secrets of Jeffrey Don Lundgren, his immediate family and followers, and the almost equally strange world of the schismatic Mormon sect from which he sprang."

Obviously, I did not like the last sentence. "Almost equally strange world"? "Schismatic Mormon sect"? No one in the RLDS Church refers to themselves as "Mormon" or our church as a "Mormon sect." There is nothing strange about our world. That would be the FLDS, the other branch of Mormonism...perhaps the furthest away from the RLDS as one sect could get. When I read the flap and saw how the writer was describing my church, I put the book back and debated whether or not to buy it. I wanted to read it because I don't know all the details about the cult, but on the other hand, I didn't want to read anything negative about my church (I have a longstanding policy not to get emotionally involved in church politics). Which is funny that I felt that way, because sometimes at BYU, I would ask Mormons if they read any of the critical books on their church. If they said "no," I'd taunt them with a "what are you afraid of?"

A few years back, Jon Krakauer came out with a book on some renegade Mormons, called Under the Banner of Heaven. Of course, I had no problem reading that. I decided that if the Prophet of Death was still around when I came to Powells on another day, I'd buy it. When I went there a week later, it was still on the shelf and nicely priced at $6 for a hardback (its out of print and used), so I bought it. It took awhile for me to get into reading it, but I finally got motivated when the former friend of mine I had a falling out with on Facebook a month ago had accused me of having the tendency to fall for a cult leader just because I had admitted admiring some politicians, which she thinks are all scum (yet she admires and puts military members on a pedestal, which I don't because when I was in the military so many of the enlisted guys I knew were alcoholic, adulterers, un-spiritual and/or vulgar--hardly admirable qualities in my book).

Anyhow, this lady was once part of the Jeffrey Lundgren cult but left before it got deadly. When we first became friends in the mid-1990s, I was fascinated by what she told me about the cult and about Lundgren. However, her accusation this year that she believes I am prone to join a cult proved that after all these years, she doesn't know who I am at my core, so I had no problem ending the "friendship." In the past month as I read the book, I've been equally disgusted and hooked, even though the writing isn't all that great.

The first thing that struck me was the similarities in story between Jeffrey Lundgren and the Lafferty brothers in the Under the Banner of Heaven book. Though Lundgren grew up a member of the RLDS Church and the Lafferty brothers grew up in the LDS Church, all of the men felt that their respective churches became "too liberal" and betrayed the Founder's (Joseph Smith, Jr.) original vision for the church. As they became obsessed with the purity of the faith, they began to believe that they were the true prophets, while the prophets of their respective churches were false. They claimed to have received direct revelation from God, which led to murder of certain people deemed "unworthy" or a necessary sacrifice to appease an angry God.

I think its important to understand the common traits of aspiring cult leaders so you can know what to look for. And yes, there are common traits. The most obvious one is sexual deviancy (and I consider polygamy--whoever brought it into the Latter Day Saints movement--as part of that). Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Herb Applewhite. Sexual deviants all. The grossest aspect of Jeffrey Lundgren's sexual deviancy is that he got off on treating his wife as his toilet. And I'm not talking only "water sports," either. That part of the book was hard to read because Lundgren's deviancy is truly sick. His wife believed in submitting to the will of her husband, so she went along with it even though she claimed in later interviews that she was disturbed by her husband's sexual fascination with excrement.

Other traits include compulsive authoritarian control of other people. The obsession with some kind of religious purity. The fanatical conservativism and insistence on maintaining the same beliefs as an earlier group of members. The fascination with guns and belief in blood atonement as the only way to redeem one's sins. As I read this book, I see evidence of ego ego ego throughout Lundgren's actions...and my personal belief is that our egos keep us separated from God and from each other. Ego might make you feel powerful, but God won't appeal to your ego. Anyone who claims that God is telling them to kill unworthy or wicked people are truly in the grip of a mental illness of some kind.

Above is a photo of the Kirtland Temple in Kirtland, Ohio that I found in a Google search. I've never been there and regret not attending a CyberCongregation retreat there a few years back. This temple was built in 1836 and is considered sacred by all churches that trace its origins to Joseph Smith, Jr. However, the Community of Christ (RLDS) has the ownership rights due to a court case in which the judge determined that the RLDS Church was the true branch that maintained the teachings, beliefs, and revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr.

This temple played a central role in Jeffrey Lundgren's delusional beliefs. In the mid-1980s, he worked for the RLDS Church as a tour guide at the Kirtland Temple. His knowledge of scripture impressed visitors and church members alike. He soon gained a following in church, where he taught a Sunday School class. He became pretty divisive, though, and caused trouble in the local branch over the groundbreaking Doctrine and Covenants Section 156 that allowed women to serve in the priesthood. Conservatives cried foul after that revelation and accused President Wallace B. Smith (great-grandson of Joseph Smith, Jr.) of being a false prophet. When Lundgren was asked to leave the church (he was suspected of stealing money from the Kirtland Temple donation box and gift shop register that he was assigned to keep track of), he maintained his Sunday School scripture study at a conservative member's house.

Lundgren's main obsession was "chiasmus", in which he supposedly could decifer the mind of God by finding the isolated verse in a chiasma. He also believed that he found the location of more golden plates to translate as well as "the sword of Laban" in a secret cave beneath the rocks in Chapin Forest near the temple site. He believed that God was calling him to lead a fundamentalist revolt to oust President Wallace B. Smith, rescind Section 156, and become the last prophet who would welcome Jesus's return to earth in the Kirtland Temple in 1989. Like I said, delusional!

As I read this book and the crazy views of Lundgren, I'm still baffled that the former friend believes that I could be swayed by a guy like Lundgren. Just because she was taken in by his charisma and fell into his cult for awhile doesn't mean that I would. Here's why...

I was 12 years old when Section 156 was revealed to the church for members to vote on at World Conference in April 1984. My parents didn't have a problem with women in the priesthood, so I was obviously influenced by my parents views. To me, it was a non-issue. I didn't understand why people were so upset. This revelation caused an exodus of 50,000 members to form the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They still badmouth the church on the church's webboard to this day. I find it sad that twenty-five years later, they're still obsessed with Section 156, thinking the liberal members offended God by allowing women to serve in priesthood roles. People take their religious views too seriously to the point of excluding people. In the New Testament, women were the first to seek Jesus at his tomb on Easter morning. His male disciples were cowards. Why wouldn't Jesus want women in the priesthood? Because man created religion, not women. Conservatives want their women silent and submissive.

According to the book, Lundgren's first sermon was all about the wrath of God, which offended some church members enough to complain to the pastor, who told Lundgren that in this church, we preach the God of love. When I read that, I cheered, because that's the church I grew up in. Since my single digit years, whenever someone yelled in their sermon or sounded angry, I would ask my dad why they were so mad. To this day, I can't sit through an angry sermon or anyone preaching wrath of God stuff. Once, in 1994, I attended my parents Contemporary Christian Congregation and was shocked when the elder who gave the sermon started the service by claiming to have felt "the presence of Satan" in our midst and offered a gibberish sounding "rebuke" of this supposed evil interloper. This was too Assemblies of God for my liking and I had threatened to walk out in the middle of church the next time I attended if they did that again. I told people I didn't go to church to hear about Satan. I'm sure that if I had heard Lundgren's sermons as a teenager, I would've been equally repulsed by his talk of an angry God.

That's why I could never be swayed to follow a guy like Lundgren. I don't like angry sermons, I'm liberal in my beliefs, I have been a fan of Wallace B. Smith all my life (when I was about 6 or 7, he even sat across the table from me at reunion during a meal and I was thrilled at the honour), and I support the focus of the church leadership at World Headquarters in Independence, Missouri. Any member talking smack about the leadership wouldn't sit well with me. My personal frustration with the church is often with the older, conservative members who want the church to remain as it was in the 1950s or maybe the 1830s, perhaps. That's not me. I'm modernist to my core. I want more inclusion, more diversity, and I even think it's high time we allow our gay members to marry and hold the priesthood if they are called.

Even though I'm only halfway through Prophet of Death, I'm actually quite impressed with my church regarding the Lundgren matter. Particularly Dale Luffman, who was the stake president in Kirtland and sought to have Lundgren removed from teaching at church and from giving tours of the temple, after hearing him preach dangerous views that were not in keeping with the church's vision of promoting peace and building Zionic communities. The author presents our church pretty fairly, which I appreciate. Though there were some instances where he refers to members as "Mormons", most of the time, he uses the accurate "saints" nickname that we call ourselves.

As I read this book and remember what I read in Under the Banner of Heaven, I can't help but think about what it is about the Latter Day Saints movement that inspires some people to go off the deep end in claiming to receive revelation from God that they are to be the next prophet-presidents of whatever branch of Latter Day Saints they are a part of. Perhaps its because Joseph Smith, Jr. himself was audacious in claiming to have been visited by God, Jesus, the Angel Moroni, John the Baptist, and others to establish a new religion. One roommate of mine at BYU made strange claims about what God told him and a lot of it was violent and disturbing. I'm of the view that some of these "revelations" might be from non-Godly sources. Anything with a hint of violence or lacking an individual's free will is not from God. Of that, I'm certain.

My church may be small, but I love our family aspect and the number of coincidences I have when I meet fellow members for the first time. I consider the church to be "my tribe." Though I don't believe all of the doctrines and have doubts about the founding mythology (as well as the authenticity of the Book of Mormon), I am loyal to this church. One thing I really love about it is that no one has ever told me how to be. I grew up seeing adult members lead by example, not by word. I'm intelligent enough to figure out the expectations members have. That's what being in a tribe is all about. You grow up with "an understanding" and thus don't need to have things preached at you all the time. You just know, from the good example of your elders.

I don't understand why some members, in their frustrations with the liberal nature of the church leadership, seek out charismatic, literalist-obsessed, self-proclaimed prophets. One family of five lost their lives because they fell for a charlatan. Jeffrey Lundgren was finally executed on October 24, 2006. I can't say that I think that was an unjust outcome. In my belief system (not necessarily the church's), Lundgren might be in a self-imposed hell due to his delusional belief til the end that he was indeed the last prophet of God who was meant to lead the church back to its pre-1984 conservativism.

Here's one more thing about my beliefs. I don't believe Jesus is coming back, so anyone who claims that he is will not get my attention or interest. We've heard many self-proclaimed prophets give dates of the apocalypse that have come and gone and Jesus still isn't here. Why not? Because I believe it would violate humanity's free will, which is the gift God has given to all. We'll see Jesus in the afterlife if we live with a spiritual mindset during our days on earth. Our purpose on earth is not to usher in the apocalypse, but to experience the consequences of all of our choices and learn as much as we can about our universe and everything in it. Most of all, we are challenged to love one another as Jesus advised. How sad, then, that messengers of hate and violence can manage to dupe well meaning members who want to be obedient to the literal "word of God." That's the sad irony of the whole thing. Jesus criticized the pharisees for their obsessions with following the letter of the law as they violated the spirit of the law. Some things never change.

However, we've seen enough cult tragedies to know what to look for so this can't happen again. Unfortunately, it probably will because there are people who are easily taken in by the charisma of a charlatan. Despite what the former friend thinks of me, I am not easily duped or gullible. I'm a free thinking individual who supports the leadership of our church and its move towards greater inclusion and understanding.

Who Wants to be a Slumdog Millionaire?

A couple weeks ago, I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire at PSU's Student-run theater (its only a couple blocks from my apartment and cheap). This film was totally not on my radar screen during the Fall movie season. In fact, I only heard about it when the film won the Golden Globe for Best Picture in January, which is considered the bellweather for the Academy Awards. How did I miss this film? Last year, I was disappointed with the big releases (Australia and Valkyrie) and I wanted to read the novel Revolutionary Road before I saw the movie (after I finished the novel, I disliked the main characters so much that I didn't want to pay $10.50 to see the movie version in theaters. I can wait until it comes to Netflix). I vaguely recall hearing the title Slumdog Millionaire, but ignored it because I thought the title sounded dumb (who wants to see a movie about a "slumdog"?).

After film critics predicted that the film would win big at the Oscars, I started paying more attention to it and learning what the story was about. It did sound pretty interesting and I wanted to see it in February, but with the Portland International Film Festival offering plenty of films that I wanted to see but couldn't afford to see all the ones on my list, I decided to wait until March.

It took me awhile to get into the film. My first impression of the first 30 minutes or so was: "geez, there's a lot of running around going on!" The kids are always running through the slum streets of Mumbai (by the way, I still prefer the name Bombay). The film has a very cool, hip visual style, probably the freshest cinematography I've ever seen in a Best Picture Oscar winner. The music is fantastic and I plan to get the soundtrack.

However, during the early scenes, I kept wondering what made this film so popular and Oscar-worthy. Granted, the other nominated films were lacking in the true epic style of past winners, but this film just didn't seem up to par on what you expect a Best Picture winner to be (though to be fair, neither American Beauty nor Crash were "Best Picture worthy" either). Then, there was a scene that truly hit me at the core and I was hooked. The scene was when the young kids are taken in by a middle aged man who runs a crime gang using kids to beg for money. In order to gain greater sympathy to earn more money, this man pours acid in select children's eyes in order to blind them.

The film doesn't shy away from the ugly side of poverty. We see it in spades. The children of the slums live in trash landfills (which I've seen once in person and its always the foul smell I remember most). In this film, we also see how tourism plays into the livelihoods of the poor. Wealthy, white westerners touring Taj Mahal throw easy money around. Its great to see tourism from the perspective of an impoverished native trying to earn a living. I must admit that I thought while watching these scenes how stupid western tourists look and behave. The scene at the Taj Mahal is classic hilarity!

I also loved the scenes of Indian call centers, as we get to see that side of the phonecalls we've all gotten at some point in the past decade. I admit that as soon as I hear an Indian accent on the phone, I'm annoyed. Many of them are hard to understand. Even more annoying is how they pretend to be in the same town and try to make small talk. I'm more interested in their actual location and what its like over there. I suppose its opposite for most xenophobic Americans who don't like the exporting of jobs...but who wants to be a telemarketer anyway? When I talk to one, I just wish they wouldn't keep up the pretense of being an American in an American city. So, I quite enjoyed the lead character trying to convince a Scottish client that he was just down the road from Sean Connery's castle near some Loch.

The gameshow portion was mildly interesting. I've never been a fan of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" because it represents what is wrong with American education. In fact, it represents what is wrong with Bush's No Child Left Behind policy. As a student in high school, I learned some "tricks" about multiple choice questions. The standard is that there are four answers. One is usually an obvious throwaway. And two are pretty close to one another. Its supposed to test your knowledge. If you learn the tricks, though, does it really? And because of No Child Left Behind, the focus became less on actual teaching and more about "teaching to the test." In college, I was shocked when students wanted to know which facts would be on the test, so they could study that instead of actually learning whole concepts.

I'm more of an overall big picture person. Anal compulsive details about historical dates, names, and events mean less to me than an actual narrative. In college, I preferred short answer and essay type questions because they offer the opportunity to show the professor that I understand the overall scheme and not just the regurgitation of individual facts.

With the gameshow "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" each question is not related to the one before or after. At least "Jeopardy" offers categories. With "Millionaire", you never know what you will be asked. Many of the questions are pop culture questions that really have no bearing on life or evaluating if someone is intelligent. That's what's so weird about this gameshow. In one question, you could be asked about a historical event, then the following question is about some forgettable pop cultural tidbit like Pokemon or something.

In Slumdog, we see the cultural bias of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" as some questions are asked which only an Indian might know. Thus, the various versions of the gameshow are tailored to the audience of that particular country. So much for universalism! Such questions based on pop cultural knowledge only encourages narrow-minded shallowness in people who watch the show. When it first debuted on TV a decade ago, it was on ABC primetime three nights a week! Thank God it was appropriately moved to the wasteland of TV where it belongs: daytime, when I'm at work.

I might do relatively well on the American version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" but on the Indian version, I'd be clueless (with questions about Indian composers and writers, and famous British cricket players). I liked the scene in which the gameshow host gives the lead character an answer to a tough question during a bathroom break. It was a moment of tension and intrigue. Was the gameshow host telling the truth or lying? I loved the suspense that simple scene created for the movie. I also loved how each question on the gameshow was connected to an experience by the lead character. Very well thought out!

While it was pretty brave to center a movie around a gameshow, the film is essentially a love story crossed with a rags-to-riches tale with shades of Oliver Twist. The love story aspect, however, was kind of lame. Though the audience is meant to root for the nice lead character to win the girl, I had a problem buying it based on personal experience. Throughout the film, the girl he loves is taken from him and often chose to be with the bad boy or bad man. A woman who consistently chooses the "bad boy" rarely breaks out of that pattern because its a deeply rooted psychological issue (I suspect that women who gravitate towards bad boys have fallen into the trap of thinking that through her love, she can transform the bad boy into the man of her dreams...while the reality is, she gets physically and psychologically scarred for life). Unfortunately, scores of romance novels promote the possibility that a woman's love can transform any bad boy into the gentleman of their dreams. It's just a literary device, ladies!

The Indian beauty in this film, though, comes to her senses in the end...but maybe its because her slumdog friend since childhood has become a multi-millionaire. Great...so that's two stereotypes about women. You'll get the girl if you're a bad-ass bad boy or you're super rich. They finally share a kiss and go Bollywood on us with an awesome dance sequence to "Jai Ho" just before credits roll.

I admit that I left the theater beaming. It definitely is a feel-good movie with some depth. I'm also glad that the film showcases the kind of poverty that exists in developing world nations. Most Americans have no idea of true poverty because they've never been to these countries where vast majorities live on less than $1 a day. I, personally, have never seen a more impoverished place than Soweto, South Africa...but even Soweto was worlds better than the slums of Mumbai, where orphaned kids live in tents in the middle of landfills of mountainous trash.

Though eradicating the misery of poverty should be the developed world's main priority, I'm also concerned with the statistics that if everyone in the world lived the American standard of living, it would require four planet earths to sustain such a lifestyle. We don't have four planet earths to provide our natural resources, so what can we do? Reducing consumption and devoting more of our energy and income to the developing world is probably a good place to start.

The film offers a lot to think about. Though I don't need to see it again, I think it was worthy of the Best Picture Academy Award. Out of all of the films that have won that prestigious award, none are as hip and fresh as Slumdog Millionaire. The visual style is a sign that the new generation of filmmakers has come into its own.

Republican Teabaggin' With a Dick Armey

Bloggers on the DailyKos make me laugh with their witty comments about conservative wingnuts. Who knew the Republicans could provide so much comedic fodder for liberal bloggers?

The latest sign of crazy from the wingnut crowd is their plans to protest all over this great country of ours Obama's tax policies. Taking a page from history (there's the saying that history plays itself first as tragedy, then a second time as parody), these Republican protestors are attempting to outdo the Boston Tea Party in pre-Revolutionary America. The protest includes sending a teabag to the White House to send a message. Though some are claiming its a "grassroots" movement, the Huffington Post and the DailyKos and several cable networks are claiming that the idea sprung from a lab in the basement of a neo-conservative thinktank. They're calling it an "AstroTurf" movement led by the likes of Dick Armey and Senator David Vitter (the Republican from Louisiana who paid a prostitute to put him in a diaper and spank him).

Does it get any better than this? Hell, yeah! Think about it. A Dick Armey is going to lead Republicans in "teabaggin"?!? Do they even know what teabaggin' is??? In case you don't know, um...I recommend you look it up on "urbandictionary.com." Calling it teabaggin' gives the whole thing a totally different meaning. Thus, the sign I found in a Google search is just hilarious:

What will I do on Tax day? One thing for certain is that I won't be teabaggin' anyone! In fact, I will be filling out my state income tax return that I owe money on and procrastinated completing because its the first time I won't get a refund. Fortunately, its not that much, but its money I'd prefer to spend on other things. After reading about Portland city government people getting overpaid for jobs they underqualified for (at least as far as the Mayor's staff is concerned), I'm not happy to pay state taxes to fund that.

Hopefully post offices will be open through midnight to drop the forms off for the cancellation mark so I don't have to pay a late fee penalty. Shouldn't have procrastinated, but honestly, this year has zoomed by even quicker than last year. I wish I could slow time down a bit. My sister is less than a month away from married life! Yikes.

After I mail off my tax return, I'll read online any news updates about the Republican Teabaggin' events across the country. I'm hoping that it will be hilarious, loony, and show just how illogically crazy these people have become since their beloved Bush left office. I have to admire the ability of Obama to drive opponents into complete derangement. He always ends up walking through sunshine while opponents in their desperate attempt to bring him down only end up emploding. May this streak continue today with the Republican teabaggin' Dick Armey.

Music Video Mercredi: Vanessa Paradis

For this week's mid-week music video selection, I'm going with another French singer: Vanessa Paradis. She scored her first Euro-hit in 1987 with "Joe le Taxi" at the age of 14. When I heard that song, I thought it was Cyndi Lauper singing in French. Her voice sounds exactly like the American singer. On a trip to France in 1988, I bought Paradis first album, M & J. Most Americans probably haven't heard of her, but in 1992, she released her third album in English. Lenny Kravitz put his retro-70s style to work on her grown up sound and it was an impressive album.

The video is from her 1992 single "Be My Baby." In case you ever wondered why I've been attracted to French women since I was a teenager, this video will clue you in. She has that French feminine seduction down to an art. American actor Johnny Depp is the lucky guy who won her heart and married her.

When she first appeared on the music scene, she was France's answer to the Tiffany and Debbie Gibson "teen queen" pop invasion. However, if I compared her to anyone, I think Paradis was more along the lines of Alicia Silverstone. Like that American actress, Paradis made her film debut playing a Lolita-esque girl and won the Cesar (the French Oscar) for Best Actress. I haven't been able to find that film anywhere, unfortunately. Vanessa Paradis is definitely one to watch. What can I say? French women are the sexiest in the world!

The clip below is not an actual video, but I hope you will give it a listen. It's my favourite Vanessa Paradis song, "Chat Ananas." I absolutely love the sound of it and would love an instrumental version to listen to. Enjoy.

One Step Closer to Adventure

On Friday after work, I was about to enter the elevator at my apartment complex after checking the mail when Christine called me. So I decided to stay in the lobby and talk instead of risk losing the call once I got into the elevator. As we talked, I noticed my former co-worker enter the lobby with a pizza box. She saw me and indicated to me not to go anywhere while she made her delivery. What an odd coincidence, I thought. While she was a part-time worker at my current place of employment, she also worked as a delivery person for Pizza Hut. In fact, that's how she heard about the job opening a year ago. She was making a pizza delivery to someone at my office and saw the job notice.

After she returned to the lobby, I asked Christine if I could call her later so I could talk with this former co-worker. The first thing the former co-worker asked me was if I knew that she was going to be let go. She claims that I knew and believes that I told management about her intention to leave, which is delusional. I rarely tell management anything because I'm of the opinion that the less they know, the better. They keep us in the dark about stuff, so why should I act as an informant? I pride myself on having knowledge that others might not know. Anyhow, she took an innocent statement I had made at our last lunch (I had asked her if she could take extra shifts at her Pizza Hut job in order to make ends meet since she complained about not having friends who would let her live with them rent free) as proof that I knew.

Her tone was the same sarcastic and sassy tone that I always hated when speaking with her. She claimed that she was happy to be let go because now she was entitled to 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, whereas if the office had let her quit a few weeks later, she wouldn't have that money to draw upon. Great...so now she's a leech on our government. She's not looking for work because she's moving back to Nebraska at the end of the month and then plans to go into the Peace Corps (which I still believe she won't get). She was nasty about certain people at work and also complained about not having a boyfriend for six years and revealed that she hadn't had sex in a long time. I can't believe that she got nasty at me in previous conversations when I asked her why she wanted to join the Peace Corps or why she owned three cats (she responded both times that it was none of my business)...but is so casual about her sex life, which I consider to be private information (though I have no problem using her statements as an illustration to make a point).

Before she left, she wanted to know if my name was on the outside call box. Last time I checked, it wasn't. That might be a blessing now. She always was a bit forward about wanting to see my apartment. I'm hesitant about it because I don't feel comfortable around her and can easily imagine her coming on to me in the privacy of my apartment. I've never found her attractive for multiple reasons and this final conversation between her and I only reiterated my first impression of her being exactly like Monica Lewinsky. When she ripped on some of the people at work, I let her rant and didn't tell her that she was let go because of her personality. She rubbed so many people the wrong way with her neediness and pushiness. Until she self-examines her personality, I don't believe she will find the Peace Corps as a saving grace. She might rub the selection board the wrong way as well. Based on what I know about her, the Peace Corps might be a good experience for her, but I don't think she would be good for the Peace Corps. Especially when her first thought about living in a hut was about neighbours hearing her have sex! This woman is a character and I was glad to see her leave. Hopefully she won't keep in touch.

Yesterday, I met her replacement at work. So, management was being nice by telling her that they were eliminating her position. Hopefully her replacement is free of drama and dysfunction.

Also last week, I did not receive any call or email asking me to interview for that church position that I had re-applied for. I guess they aren't interested in me. I admit the interview I did last October was not a great one, as I had little sleep the night before and I was unpleasantly surprised to see a certain person on the panel that I never felt comfortable around. Even though he resigned and moved into a new job, who knows what he told the rest of the panel about me. I am disappointed in not having a second chance to make my case why I'd be great for this job, but I'm not devastated like last time. The reason is because the night before the selection for interviews would be made, I had prayed to God for the direction I should pursue in my life. I've asked God for over two years for guidance on the direction I need to take to find my career and have been met with nothing but silence. In the past, each time I had prayed for direction, I got a clear answer, but this lack of any kind of guidance has led to a personal crisis of faith in the past year.

However, after this prayer, I had an incredible dream. I had arrived in Iraq and was strangely happy. As I met people I would be working with, I couldn't help feeling that I belonged. I saw it as a great adventure, where the pay was more than I ever made. I was excited to be in an environment among internationals. I woke up happy and thought this was confirmation that a year in Iraq is what I should pursue after my sister's wedding. The reason why I see this decision as possibly where I am destined is because when I moved to Portland in August 2006, I had the coincidence of finding a job similar to the one I had left in Atlanta. I thought this coincidence would lead to something greater, so I accepted it even though I wasn't thrilled about it. I had another job interview lined up that paid more with better benefits, but I played it safe (my conservative nature coming through). That decision (of playing it safe) led me to the greatest despair of my life. As I searched for job after job, culminating in this church position in which I have the exact experience they are looking for, I have found no success, which is unusual. I've never had a problem finding jobs before until the last two years in Portland.

In my personal crisis, I have read so many spiritual books and psychology books. I even found a guidebook that utilizes the principle of "the Hero's Journey" to apply to your own life. I discovered the Hero's Journey earlier in the decade when I met with a spiritual discussion group twice a month and one guy always talked about it. He and I became friends and have remained friends after the group dissolved in 2002. If you're not familiar with the Hero's Journey, Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" is a good place to start. The above photo illustrates the cycle the hero goes through in life. Many movies use this formula (Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix).

What it tells me about my own life is that in 2006, when I left my last job, I had a chance to do something completely different. I failed when I played it safe and accepted the same type of job as the one I had left. By playing it safe, I was led to my worst nightmare and have lived out my worst fear (being stuck in a job I hate for the rest of my life). In the past few months, I've been thinking about what is the opposite of my job and I always come back to the exciting adventure that being a private contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan entails. By contrast, the church job would be on the same path as my current job, so I would probably be bored with it in a couple of years, so maybe that's why I'm not being offered the job. God knows that I'm capable of doing more, not more of the same.

Part of my restlessness stems from the internal feeling I have every three years that a change is necessary. August will mark three years in Portland and as I think about what I had hoped to achieve when I moved out here, I realize that it is marked with failure. The whole point in moving to Portland was to land a better paying job with a career track, where I would pay off my debts and finally buy a car, and where I could be actively involved with my church congregation. What I found instead was a lower wage job than the one I left, a higher cost of living expenses, a dismal job market that's harder to land an interview than in Atlanta, and a congregation that's not warm and friendly like others I've attended. A change is definitely in order.

I blame my three year itch for change on my growing up experience. Because my dad was in the Air Force, we moved every two to three years. Since 1982, in particular, it has been a three year interval. In 1982, we left Hill AFB for Offutt AFB in Nebraska. In 1985, we moved to Germany. In 1988, we moved to Georgia. In 1991, I went off to Basic Training and moved to Sardinia for my first duty station. In 1994, I returned to the U.S. for my final duty station in Norfolk, Virginia. In 1997, I went to college in Provo, Utah. In 2000, I left D.C. for Atlanta. Though I also made moves in 1996 and 1999/2000, each three year cycle saw me in a different place. In 2003, I had hoped to leave my job in Atlanta to work on Howard Dean's presidential campaign, but I was waiting to see what would happen in 2004. I decided to invest in my company's 403k, which proved beneficial when I cashed out in 2006 to move west. The six years I lived in Atlanta this decade was unusual, but I realized that I needed to make a move to a location where I wanted to settle down into a career, then focus on dating that leads to marriage and a family of my own.

The last three years have been a waste, as I accepted a lower wage than what I wanted, in an office I had no intention of making a career. This August, I'm three years older but even further away from my dream of a career and marriage than I was on the day I arrived in Portland. As I sought what lesson I learned in all this, only one comes to mind: I played it safe and went against my own best interest. All the signs were in front of me, but I was tricked by the coincidence of the job offer and thought it would lead to better opportunities. It hasn't. What it led to was despair, more debt, bad vibes, abusive co-workers, aloof managers, a dysfunctional office environment, and no hope of ever changing my circumstance unless I am ready to take the biggest risk of my life...seeking adventure in a war zone in the hope that the money I make will completely pay off all of my debts with major savings in the bank so that I can come back after a year to finally live out my dream: an international career with a foreign wife.

After I get back from my sister's wedding, I will be starting the process. I'm giving up on Portland. I will enjoy the rest of my time here, but unless I get a job offer, I'm ready to embark on the greatest adventure of my life this summer. To risk is to live. No more boring jobs with boring minds for me. I crave the adventure I've been seeking since 2006.

Reflecting on the Legacy of Jefferson in the Obama Epoch

The photo above was taken in November 2005 at the museum beneath the St. Louis Arch. Since the early 1990s, Thomas Jefferson has been my favourite president (prior to the 1990s, he was my second favourite president, after Abraham Lincoln). He was a true man of the Enlightenment Era, and my goal this year is to read his version of the New Testament. As president, he managed to find time to cut out passages from two copies of the Bible he had bought, and paste them into a blank book. This became known as "The Jefferson Bible." Basically, he cut out any references to miracles, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and raising Lazarus from the dead. His Jesus was a moral teacher, like Socrates, but not "the Son of God." Jefferson believed in the Deist view of God...which is a belief in a Creator who left the universe to run on its own without any intervention on God's part (a "watchmaker" was the apt comparison they made).

A lot of African-Americans I've talked to in the past have been surprised when I told them that Jefferson was my favourite president. They pointed out his ownership of slaves and only releasing some of them upon his death. Some of his writings reflect a kind of racist view of those who trace their heritage to Africa. Most unnerving of all, Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" (feminists also have a problem with Jefferson because of his "sexism" supposedly apparent in that statement, though that was the common term back then), yet didn't see the contradictions in his ownership of human beings.

When Jefferson ran for president in 1800, his opponents ran a smear campaign claiming that he had sexual relations with his slave Sally Hemings. Jefferson was only married for ten blissful years and swore on his wife's deathbed that he would never marry again. What an oath to make, but he kept it. However, Jefferson does seem like a very sexual being (the Bill Clinton of his day), so what's a guy to do? Though he had a relationship with the married Maria Cosway during his time in Paris in the 1780-90s, there was also the mulatto slave girl who was his late wife's half-sister. The dirty secret of slave owners is that they often had sexual relations with their slaves.

Some children of Sally Hemings were so light skinned that they could pass for white. When visitors to Monticello saw some of the children running around, the physical resemblance to Jefferson was unmistakeable (they inherited his reddish hair). Jefferson was private about his personal life and never acknowledged his special relationship with Sally Hemings. For years, this knowledge was passed down through the generations. In the 1990s, DNA testing in the descendants of Hemings proved that they shared the same heritage as Jefferson's descendants. This was vindication for a group of African Americans who were denied membership in the organization devoted to connecting and maintaining the Jefferson family heritage.

Knowing what we know about Jefferson and his views on race (he believed that African Americans were incapable of independence and if America were to abolish slavery, the former slaves should be returned to Africa rather than live among the whites), it would be interesting to hear what he might think about our current president Barack Obama, who is a product of a mixed racial heritage. When genealogists traced Obama's heritage, they learned that he shares a common ancestor with Vice President Dick Cheney (talk about having nightmare relatives!).

It's not surprising that the first African American President would be half-white. Part of Obama's appeal to white people is that he is not threatening like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, who obsess over racial issues. With mixed-heritage, Obama can understand both sides and somehow serve as a conduit in our ongoing debate about racial reconciliation. During the first year of the presidential campaign, Obama found skeptics among African-Americans, who were mostly in the Hillary Clinton camp for most of 2007. I was struck by this and wondered why, so I read some articles which were enlightening. One of the concerns among African-Americans was his lack of "slave ancestry", which some feel is an important part of the African-American experience.

At my former high school, a teacher told me a few years ago that African students didn't seem to get along with the African-American students. I was shocked to hear this. However, my dad also mentioned this when he spoke about tensions at work between co-workers from Africa and African-Americans. What's the root of this conflict? Experience. Africans who immigrated to the U.S. come from countries which have brutal dictators and corrupt governments. They've also seen tribal conflicts. All of it is black versus black. In the U.S., some African-Americans hold a grudge against white people for slavery and segregation. This is especially common in the South. In matters large and small, the accusation of racism often comes up in all kinds of situations. In 2006, when my Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was questioned by a Capitol Hill policeman, she slapped him. She's known for making race an issue in every little thing (in 1996, she called a decent liberal university professor who ran against her as being "a racist holdover of the old South"). It was this prevalent obsession with race as the underlying motive in all things that made me want to leave the South for good. At my last job, some blamed their lack of promotion or not getting Employee of the Quarter as being indicators of racism.

In talking with African immigrants, what strikes me is the lack of having a chip on their shoulders about race. I believe its because they have seen the poverty in their own countries, have endured the corrupt governments of the countries they have come from, and they are glad to be in the land of opportunity where even the poor live better than many of the people in their homelands. Africans have a positive attitude about our country and don't find racism in every little decision or slight or comment. It's refreshing, because not everything boils down to race.

Unfortunately, though, despite Jefferson's Enlightenment views on government and the pursuit of knowledge, his views on race are still common in some extremist elements in our country. Since Obama has become president, sales on guns have increased tremendously. The recent rash of shootings have also raised alarms that people are being influenced by propaganda spouted on right-wing radio that Obama will take their guns and create a socialist country with reeducation camps for their children. I kind of thought this would happen if Obama was elected president, because we saw the rise of right-wing fanatics during the Clinton years.

The Republican Party is to blame for this because they've been playing on racist fears for forty years, since the 1968 election of Nixon, who correctly guessed that the Civil Rights Era would create a backlash, which they could exploit to win elections for a generation. In fact, when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill in 1965, he mentioned that he probably guaranteed Democratic defeat for decades to come. To his credit, he didn't let fear of electoral defeat keep him from doing the right thing.

What is the essence of the racial resentment that Republicans exploit in white voters? It's the idea that no matter how poor they are, they will always be superior to the black person. Republicans never had the intention to improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans. They have been able to trick poor, uneducated white people in voting against their own economic interest by exploiting racial fears. When Ronald Reagan announced his run for the 1980 presidential race, he made the speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the murder of Civil Rights workers. States Rights was a euphemism for segregation. With decades of seeing real losses in terms of wages, purchasing power, and quality of life, poor whites who continually vote for Republicans and buy into the hidden racism of various issues (such as expansion of public transit, the death penalty, crime control) are threatened by the emergence of a multi-cultural America where whites are no longer the ruling class. Even more alarming to these people is seeing an intelligent, classy, and cool black man as the leader of the free world. How can they continue to believe that they are superior to black people when one family is living in the White House while they're still living in a mobile home and shopping at Wal-Mart?

However, its not the rise of a black middle class or the recent arrival of Hispanic immigrants that is keeping the white race down. Its the preference for remaining in ignorance and supporting a political party that is loyal only to its wealthy backers and religions that consider education to be a threat against God. It is conservative religion and politics that have made slaves of the impoverished class of resentful whites who see the Presidency of Barack Obama as a sign of an impending apocalypse.

So, on this birthday of President Thomas Jefferson (born April 13, 1743), I think the irony is noteworthy. The man who wrote that all men are created equal didn't believe that Africans were truly equal in mind and thus were incapable of being functional, educated people able to lead. In contrasting President Obama with his predecessor Bush, there's no question. Obama is far smarter, more capable, and highly rational than Bush could ever dream of being. No, it's not race that's the problem. Its ignorance. Some white people have changed from enslaving others to enslaving themselves. Its time that they emancipate themselves from the shackles of conservative politics and religion, and evolve into a more enlightened era.

Christianity Needs a Reboot

Above is a photograph I took in the early 1990s when I lived in the town of La Maddalena, Sardinia. This shrine to Jesus embedded in a wall is an example of religious images you will often see throughout Italy. When I lived there, I thought it was cool that Italians had these in some unlikely places, and that they were free of graffiti (Italians tend to respect their elders and Catholicism, even if they are rebellious). This shrine happened to be on the path I walked between my barracks on the west side of the island and downtown.

The town of La Maddalena was named after Mary Magdalene, whom some believe was a prostitute that Jesus had saved from being stoned to death by hypocritical and adulterous Jewish men. Gnostic Christians believe that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' closest disciple and wife. When I lived there, I knew nothing about that view of Christ and Mary Magdalene. What I do remember, though, is that Easter 1992 was the best Easter I ever experienced. A Boatswain's Mate Chief Petty Officer who worked as the Liaison between the Italian and American Navies kind of "adopted" me as his son. His wife was an Italian lady from the mainland. They invited me to attend Easter service with them at the main cathedral in town. I can't remember if the mass was in Italian or Latin but I enjoyed it quite a bit. After the service, there was a parade through town and the main pedestrian areas were full of people. The weather was pretty warm, as spring should be. It was a beautiful day, made all the sweeter with the news that I would be promoted to E-4 after just one year in the Navy (pretty rare. It was because I had finished #1 in my "A" School class as well as passing various inspections), and that I was selected to spend 3 days on a submarine to Naples.

Life was awesome. I love Christmas and Easter in Italy. Maybe its their Catholic traditions that make the holiday seem appropriately pious, rather than the crass commercialism we experience in the USA. However, I was no fan of Catholicism, and Italy is probably the most Catholic country on earth (surprise, surprise!). Early on, when I was new in my command, I made some controversial statements about Catholicism (such as saying that Pope John Paul II could be masturbating to a Madonna video for all we know about his supposed celebacy). Around that time, Pope John Paul II finally issued an apology to Galileo, which was about 400 years too late. If you recall, Galileo correctly claimed that the sun was the center of the universe and that Earth revolved around the sun. This was contrary to the Catholic Church's view that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo was made to recant his claim under threat of torture. That's the prime reason why I dislike the Catholic Church. I know, I know...it happened centuries ago. However, a church that claims to have the absolute truth about the world got that one wrong and tortured a scientist/astronomer who studied those things just because he presented an idea that the Church found threatening? It's hard to respect a religion like that.

This isn't a Catholic-bashing post, though, because I believe that Christianity got it wrong since the Council of Nicea met around 425 A.D. That's when early Christians met to vote on which ideas to canonize into the Bible as well as establish the creed that a true Christian "must believe" in order to have salvation (the creed is basically along the lines of: "I believe that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, lived, was crucified for our sins and resurrected on the third day, then ascended into heaven..."). What was excluded from the Bible were the Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Gnostic Christians were mystics, who have ideas in common with Kabbalah in Judaism and Rumi in Islam.

The Christianity that endures today is the one shaped by the Emperor Constantine, who had a "deathbed conversion." He had a dream or vision in which he saw the Christian cross on shields, which came true during the era of the Crusades. I believe this is where Christianity went off the wrong track, because Constantine incorporated what was once a tiny religious sect separate from Judaism, devoted to a peace-talking, love thy neighbour advocating hippie, into an empire. What resulted was the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the oppression of the medieval age, the colonization of the new world, the African slave trade, and the colonial wars of the 1800s. America has added its own warped capitalistic values to Christianity to the point where Jesus would not recognize the religions that have popped up bearing his name and life mission. In fact, we should call Christianity by its true name: Constantinity or Capitalistianity.

I read a recent article that many evangelical Christians are supposedly disillusioned with politics because the Republican Party continues to court their votes and fail to deliver on their main points of contention: making abortion illegal; having schools teach creationism and allowing prayer; and winning "the culture war" against Hollywood-promoted values. I'm glad that the Republicans won't deliver on those points because a theocracy is the last thing I want to see America become.

Its sad to me that many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have ignored the basic message of Jesus as they confused conservative politics with religious principles. Jesus was all about free will and not judging. The politicized evangelical voter who supports the Republican Party want to deny others the right to choice. They believe a theocratic government would "return America to the greatness of the 1950s." I don't know why they are nostalgic for the 1950s, but I would hate to see our country return to that sanitized, conformist, and bland era.

On this Easter Sunday, I am reiterating what I feel Christianity needs to do in order to return to its authentic roots (I'm not talking about the 1950s). The main problem I have with Christianity is the Nicene Creed. Its illogical to think that God would base our salvation on a mere belief about an event we weren't a personal witness to. I've thought about this concept for years and never could find any sense in it. If God is all-knowing, God would know when a person was faking a belief for the benefit of others (social conformity). God would also understand why some people are honest enough to admit that they don't know if an event happened or not.

In my short life, I've met sincere people who believe all kinds of things. Beliefs doesn't mean a whole lot because beliefs can change or be made in error or be absolutely wrong. This is where Christianity needs a serious reboot. Reject the requirement about believing in the immaculate conception, the crucifiction, and the resurrection. Most of all, reject the idea of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of humankind.

It is actions, actions, actions that matter more than belief. How one treats another person. It's the only thing that matters. Actions, not beliefs, are how things get done. Jesus said to his followers that if one wants to know if a person is a false prophet, just look at the fruits of his actions. Fruits are the visible signs everyone can see. We've seen too many false prophets in our lifetime who speak one thing and do the complete opposite. The divide between belief and action is wide for these hypocrites.

If Christianity as a whole could admit the error committed at the Council of Nicea, then perhaps it could reverse the trends towards secularism and fundamentalism (an absolutist belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible). Mainline Christianity is the moderate middle between fundamentalism and secularism, but its losing members because many educated people have already come to the logical conclusion that Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, the entire earth wasn't flooded at once, a snake didn't talk to Eve, and other fairy tale elements that Christians are expected to believe literally happened. We need a set of beliefs about Jesus that doesn't require suspending our reasoning abilities and logic. Doesn't Jesus deserve a higher class of followers, instead of the mass of proudly "ig'nant" people who find any evolution in thought to be a threat to their way of life?

Let me put it like this...no amount of knowledge we attain on earth will ever come close to all the accumulated knowledge of God. Anyone who claims that God would want us to remain ignorant worships an inferior god that's not worthy of our time. Give God more credit than that, people. There is a much needed place for logic in Christianity. We can't evolve to the next level of being if we're still stuck on elementary thinking. It's like a refusing to go to college when you're 18 because you prefer sticking to what you learned in the 3rd grade year after year. Ah...no thanks, for me. I'll take knowledge every day of the year for the rest of my life.

The Truth As Close As We'll Ever Get

Last week, Senator John McCain made a remarkable statement about the Republican prospects for 2012. He refused to endorse his Vice Presidential selection, Sarah Palin...going so far as to only say that he would like to see her compete against candidates like Governors Jindal and Pawlenty, who happened to be two Republicans on his VP shortlist. Wow. Amazing.

Now, McCain will never admit publically what he really thinks about Palin, so this is probably as close to his real feelings as we're likely to get. He will go to his grave keeping secret what he really thinks of Palin, what his real motive for selecting her was.

Due to the cynicism inspired by the Bush years and Republican politics of the past couple decades, I've learned never to take anything at face value. To get to the truth, you have to pay attention to what is said, what is not said, facial expressions, and body language. Plus, leaks by disgruntled staff.

My questions to McCain about his selection of Palin are numerous. Did he let his little brain make the decision? Judging by the way he stared at her ass and played with his wedding band during the announcement speech last August, it makes you wonder. Did he really think she was the best qualified, or did he select her thinking he would get disgruntled Hillary supporters? Did he pick her knowing that he was going to lose and wanting to destroy the Republican Party from within? Or did he pick her thinking that she was the best hope for victory by exciting the base of evangelical Christians?

When he picked her, did he know about her daughter's pregnancy? Would that knowledge have made him choose Jindal instead? Did he know that she was clueless about foreign policy? Did he know that she was even more ignorant than Bush? Did he really care about our country in the event that he won and didn't live to see the end of his first term?

Does he regret that selection? It seems like he did when he chaperoned her later interviews on national TV after her disasterous interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. Then there were all the leaked info about Palin's extreme makeover at the expense of Republican donors, and that she thought Africa was a country, and that she thought she was talking to French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a radio prank.

On election night, I was surprised to see that McCain did not look sad or disappointed at all. He actually looked happy and relieved, as though he staged the whole thing in order to lose one for the Republicans, possibly in a strange way to get revenge for 2000. Maybe McCain knew he didn't have a chance at winning, so his selection of Palin was to force his party into some much needed soul searching after eight years of Bush.

We'll never know, of course. John McCain is a decent man, whose sense of fairness and decency was apparent on the campaign trail when some of his rabid supporters accused Obama of being a Muslim terrorist. While Palin encouraged people to think that about Obama, McCain refuted it and reminded his audience that Obama was a patriotic American who loved his family and country. He is a far greater man than his party deserves.

I think its very noteworthy when a presidential candidate does not endorse for the next election cycle the person they had selected as their Vice President. This happened in 2003 when Vice President Gore endorsed Governor Howard Dean for president instead of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who was his running mate in 2000. Gore even did this without giving Lieberman a head's up. Of course, Lieberman was shocked, hurt, and possibly angry about it. I remember pundits saying that Gore had stabbed his former running mate in the back.

Why wouldn't he endorse his VP selection? Well...as I learned from reading about the Florida recount in 2000, Lieberman had played into Republican talking points by agreeing with the Bush team that overseas ballots should all be counted, even if they did not have a cancellation mark indicating that they were mailed by election day. That made it harder for the Gore team to advocate discarding them, and played into the whole "sore loser" taunt and criticisms about counting only the votes that would help him win Florida. However, Lieberman and the Republicans were wrong. It would've been all too easy for a sudden cache of ballots without a cancellation mark to show up to be counted, all marked in Bush's favour.

Other than that, by 2004 Lieberman was showing his true neo-conservative colours, being a pro-war lapdog of Bush, while Howard Dean represented Gore's view against the Iraq War (which Gore had spoken out against in 2002). Just because a politician picks a candidate in one election cycle to be the running mate does not make it obligatory that the politician will always support that candidate's future campaign.

Based on what I know about McCain, he's a smart guy who loves our country. He had to know that Palin would be disasterous for our country if she were to become president. If he didn't believe this, why would he have played chaperone during interviews? Why did she have to be shielded from the media for weeks after her debut, as she took a crash course in global politics 101 at Neo-conservative University?

I don't think she will do well in 2012 because the knives will be out from other ambitious Republicans like Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, and Newt Gingrich. In fact, Newt is talking about running and even raised the spectre of a third party challenge if the Republicans continue to go down the path of self-destructive ignorance. You can bet that he doesn't see Palin as presidential (but I wouldn't put it past him to dump his third wife for Palin if he thought he had a chance with her).

My money will be on Romney to take the Republican nomination due to the pattern of the GOP in nominating the person who had run before. Nixon was the nominee in 1960 and won in 1968. Reagan ran in 1976 and won in 1980. Bush senior ran in 1980 and won in 1988. Dole ran in 1980 and 1988 and won the nomination in 1996. Bush junior only got the nomination because of inheritance to redeem his father's defeat in 1992. McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008.

So, looking at the pattern, we have to see who of the 2008 class has the best shot at the nomination. Huckabee? Hardly. The financial elite don't like or trust him. Giuliani? His strategy to bet on the late Florida primary to shoot him towards the nomination was laughably lame. Plus, with his baggage, he never had a prayer. The further away we are from 9/11, the less relevant he is. Everytime he mentions 9/11, people are reminded of Joe Biden's joke about a Giuliani speech being "a noun, a verb, and 9/11." Thompson was lazy and ran a lackluster campaign. The other candidates were inconsequential or scary (particularly Tancredo). So, that leaves Romney, the candidate favoured by the party elite and friend of the Bush family. His only problem is his Mormon religion that the evangelicals Christians of the party despise. But if they hope to have a chance at winning, wouldn't they just hold their noses and vote for Romney?

Though 2012 is a long way away and the legacy of Bush will still be rotting in our country for the next couple of years, I believe that the Republicans are going to go with a Romney/Jindal ticket (or Romney/Jeb Bush). I'm excited to see how Romney will eviscerate Palin's campaign. I hope he tears her credibility to shreds. Out of the pathetic band of Republican aspirants for president, Romney is the least objectionable (because he has shown a tendency to pander to the left in order to win, which makes me think he's not a hard-core Republican rightwing extremist like Bush or Palin).

My only wish is for McCain to tell us the truth about Palin. If he loves our country like he says he does, he needs to tell Americans the exact reason he selected Palin over other qualified candidates. But, I'm getting the impression that the reason why he wants to see her compete is so she can embarrass herself and show once again why she's too shallow-minded to make an effective president.

Whoever they go with though, will most likely not have what it takes to defeat President Obama, which will be a great thing. I hope Democrats hang Bush on every Republican hopeful for president for decades. Our country can't afford any more Republicans regimes.


In other delicious news, Levi Johnston has spoken on one of the morning news shows about how snobby the Palins are and that he was shunned after the election. He claims that he was dumped, rather than the one who dumped Bristol Palin. Of course, its hard to know who's telling the truth, because Levi probably knows he'll look bad if he's seen as the one who dumped Bristol. Playing the victim card is more sensational, especially when it makes Sarah Palin look hypocritical.

Whatever the truth is, he should be grateful that he doesn't have to marry into that dysfunctional family. Palin's ambition for fame at all costs exposed her pregnant daughter to the public eye, even as she demanded that her children were off limits for media and bloggers alike. Well...when you parade your children in front of the world on your debut and talk about family values while your daughter is trying to hide her pregnancy behind a blanket, it's just kind of hard to hide things in our YouTube, Facebook, Blogging world.

I have a personal message to Sarah Palin: Yes, I am a blogger who added my voice to criticize your lack of depth and audacious insistence that you have sufficient foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from an island off the coast of Alaska. No, I don't live in my parents basement and blog in my pyjamas. Yes, I have a day job. Blogging is my nightly ritual. I can work and blog within a 24-hour period. Your fifteen minutes are up. The only reason why you wanted to be VP or even President is not because you care about our country. Your true motive is because you want to go down in the history books. That's not a good enough motive. Intelligence about our complex world and personal experience matter. You have neither. Stay in Alaska where you belong. The lower 48 don't want you (aside from some rednecks in the Bible belt who don't want any leader who is smarter than they are lest they be reminded of their mediocre inferiority).

Flashback Friday: The Last Temptation of Christ

I've never seen The Last Temptation of Christ, but this year, I decided to finally watch this controversial film instead of Mel Gibson's ultra-violent The Passion of the Christ for the third time.

Back in 1988, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians protested nation-wide any theater that showed The Last Temptation of Christ. When it was released on video, this angry demographic group managed to scare Blockbuster Video into not having copies available for rent, which is a form of censorship. If you are offended and don't want to see it, fine. No one's gonna make you watch it. But to deny others the right to see it is wrong.

In fact, my favourite teacher (Tom Malone, see post in February of this year for more about him) staged a one-man protest in defense of this film in 1988. His solitary protest in the face of angry evangelicals harassing movie goers walking into see this movie actually affected one of the evangelical protestors. Later, Malone received a letter from a man who admitted that he was among the crowd protesting the film and noticed this brave, lonely protestor speaking out against censorship, and it caused him to think about religion and what he really believed. He ended up rejecting fundamentalist-style Christianity. Proof that we never know who we influence by our actions. Its just one aspect that made Malone a personal hero of mine when I was an impressionable teenager.

Though I've been wanting to see The Last Temptation of Christ for over 20 years now, my hesitation was not about the controversial views it presents (that Jesus supposedly had sexual fantasies about Mary Magdalene and thought about giving up the cross in order to marry her and raise a family of his own), but the fact that Willem Dafoe was selected to play Jesus. To me, that's the most sacriligious part of the film. I've never liked this actor. He gives me the creeps. When The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004, I was pleased that Gibson hired actor Jim Caviezel to play Jesus, because when I saw Pay It Forward in 2001, I was impressed by Caviezel and thought he would make a great Christ in a movie.

It's interesting to see how The Last Temptation of Christ inspired fundamentalist Christians to demand a boycott of the film or theaters that showed it...while in 2004, these same people saw The Passion of the Christ as a great missionary tool, despite its excessive (and some say, almost pornographic) violence. Gibson's film wasn't without controversy, though. Most of it centered on Jewish groups afraid that the film would inspire a rise in anti-Semitism. The film made over $300 million (and I believe it only cost $30 million...quite a payback!). It was a gamble that paid off, though Gibson's career has suffered with the increased attention on his anti-Semitic father as well as Gibson's own drunken tirades against a police officer in the summer of 2006 when he said something like "the Jews are responsible for starting all wars!" It's interesting that he hasn't been seen in a film since then.

In 2006, not even The DaVinci Code inspired as much protest as The Last Temptation of Christ. Though there were churches that gave special programs, classes, and sermons about the errors in The DaVinci Code, and a few protests at some theaters, it wasn't enough to scare away theater owners from wanting to show this guaranteed summer blockbuster. While The Last Temptation of Christ only hints at Jesus being tempted by Satan to get down from the cross and give up his mission for the sake of marital bliss with Mary Magdalene, The DaVinci Code presents the theory that Jesus did, in fact, do exactly that. Gnostic Christians believe that Jesus faked his own death and moved with Mary to what is now southern France to become a family man.

When I was at BYU, Mormons claimed that Jesus was married, which was the first I ever heard such a theory and I found it preposterous. Even more preposterous, Mormons told me that the proof that Jesus married is right there in the Bible. I asked them to show me, because I somehow missed that detail whenever I read the New Testament. Their response was, "the fact that the Bible doesn't mention Jesus's wife is PROOF that he was married." Talk about illogic! It's like saying that I'm a millionnaire and the proof that I'm a millionnaire is that my bank account doesn't show it at all! Loopy and loony!

From their standpoint, though, Mormons believe in a Mother God, who is never mentioned, nor is Jesus' wife, because these divine female beings are supposedly so sacred that we cannot acknowledge their presence because of our unworthiness. Famous psychic Sylvia Browne (who publishes several books a year) also claims that there is a Mother God (named Azna). She's no Mormon, but her views validates some of the more controversial aspects of Mormon theology, which I find intriguing and worth further study.

Anyhow, though I don't believe the claims of Gnostic Christians about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and faking his death, I do find the ideas presented in The DaVinci Code to be very intriguing and worth pondering as a possibility. It wouldn't upset my faith at all if that was the true history of Jesus, rather than the one we've been led to believe. Since I don't believe that Jesus "died for our sins", the whole idea of death and resurrection is more metaphor than literal in my beliefs. Whatever the truth is, we'll never know until we die, thus why I don't believe God would base our salvation on what we believe about an event we never witnessed personally.

So, this Good Friday, I will finally watch this controversial film from 21 years ago. I'm sure I'll wonder what the big deal was. Hopefully, it'll inspire me to finally sit down and write my story about Jesus in modern America. A kind of "Gospel of Nicolodius di Sansego." Nicodemus ain't got nothin' on me.

But I have to ask again...seriously...Willem Dafoe as Jesus?!? Sacrilege!!!

Rush Excommunicates a Republican Veteran

I'm pre-empting an already written post about Senator McCain's recent statement about his party's prospects for 2012 to comment on Rush Limbaugh's conversation with a Republican caller on Tuesday. It's a huge hit on the DailyKos and the Huffington Post (where you can hear actual audio of the conversation). Want proof that Rush is off his game? A caller managed to slip through screeners and criticize Rush about losing the last election for Republicans with his endorsement of torture, propaganda-spouting lies, and plea for listeners to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primaries to cause chaos so Republicans could win one more election.

I've highlighted, bolded, italicized, and enlarged the best quotes in the conversation, when Rush finally cut the caller off (after Charles had mentioned being a veteran of the USMC and the Army) before adding his closing insults. It's telling in what he says. Rush's ego has gotten so big now that he believes he can declare who's "authentically" a Republican, while fake ones supposedly supported McCain (instead of Palin).

He called everyone who helped Obama get elected president as "ignorant." Um...interesting that he thinks that because the Republican party depends upon ignorant voters to not know who they really are and what they really represent in order to win elections. The Fox Propaganda Network routinely lies to its viewers (one example is that when Republican Congressman Mark Foley was exposed as a child predator who had x-rated conversations with underage male pages in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Fox Propaganda Network had a "(D-FL)" after his name instead of "(R-FL)". True, Congressman Foley did start his career as a Democrat, but he switched parties years ago and the Republicans can have him!)

The Republican Party depends on the ignorant vote because their true agenda is so toxic that no person of any reasoning ability would ever vote for that party to be dog-catcher, much less hold any position in government. What you end up with is corporate looting of the U.S. Treasury, bankrupt companies requesting bailout money, cities left to drown, CIA warnings about terrorist attacks ignored, and a whole host of other important details that's supposed to make life in this country among the best in the world.

What I find most intriguing is that Rush is going to talk to a veteran of the U.S. military that way, as he often claims that liberals hate the military and are unpatriotic. Anytime someone mentions that Rush avoided Vietnam by playing up a wart on his ass as some kind of special medical exemption, he gets defensive. Rush is a true bully and coward. He seems to be losing his control or he is not quick in a heated exchange. He can't present any kind of ideas, other than to attack the other person and basically EXCOMMUNICATE the Republican caller from his party.

I used to think that maybe it might be good to get Rush off the air...but he is becoming quite entertaining as further evidence of the spectacular train wreck the Republican Party has become. They are so angry, bitter, and hateful and it just seems to pile on since Clinton won in 1992. That has been the biggest surprise of the Bush years for me. Even through the first six years when Republicans controlled all three branches of our government, Rush and his ilk still spewed hatred towards liberals and Democrats, who were out of power and acting like scaredy-cats. They didn't seem to enjoy the Bush years...but can you blame them? A colossal failure who destroyed everything he touched...Bush is the prime reason why the Republican Party is so hated or disregarded by the majority in this country. America has had enough of their toxic brand of politics and propaganda.

Memo to Republicans: Please, please, keep Rush on the air through the Obama Epoch. The more Americans see contrast between the way both parties operate, the less chance Republicans will ever win control of anything. Anger, hate, and bitterness doesn't get you anything. It makes you wonder what ever happened to Reagan's sunny optimism. I think what we're seeing is Rush's slow devolution into serious mental illness. All the Oxy-Contin in the world ain't gonna make you happy, Rush! Neither will Viagra and some high priced call girls. Your ego is gonna kill you someday.

LIMBAUGH: We're going to go to Chicago. This is Charles. Charles thank you
for waiting and for calling. Great to have you here. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks Rush. Rush listen, I voted Republican and I really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But you know Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing. First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you just kept harping about, it's okay, or it's not really torture. And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners were killed under torture.

And it was crazy for you to go on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt.
It's like you're all brainwashed. And my last comment is, no matter what Obama
does, you will still criticize him because I believe you are brainwashed. You're
just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone
who can believe in torture has got to be -- there has got to be something wrong
with them.

LIMBAUGH: You know --

CALLER: And I know Bush wanted to keep us safe and all of that but we're
not supposed to be torturing these people.

LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they are brainwashed it
would be you.

CALLER: No, no, Rush. I don't think so. You, Hannity, and Levin are all
brainwashed --

LIMBAUGH: Charles, you said at the beginning of your phone call that you
didn't want Obama in there. But you voted for him because of me.

CALLER: I didn't vote for him. I voted for McCain. I voted Republican.

LIMBAUGH: Oh, so you're saying I turned people off --

CALLER: You turned people off with all this vote for Hillary and all this
BS.

LIMBAUGH: That was Operation Chaos. That was to keep the chaos in the
Democrat primaries --

CALLER: It didn't work and what we have with you Hannity Levin and Hewitt is sour grapes. That's all we have. And believe me, I'm not -- I'm more to the right than I am to the left.

LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course you are.

CALLER: I am.

LIMBAUGH: Of course you are. You wouldn't be calling here with all of these
sour grapes if you weren't.

CALLER: Well I'm tired of listening to you go on and on with this --

LIMBAUGH: I don't know of anybody who died from torture.

CALLER: We're not supposed to torture people. Do you remember World War II, the Nazis? The Nuremburg trials?

LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama --

CALLER: What's the matter with you? You never even served in the military.
I served in the Marine Corps and the Army.

LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama is president of the United States today
because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do. You pose - you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has. You think you know everything. You don't know diddly squat. You call me a Nazi? You call me someone who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You're just plain embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn't surprise me that you're the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you're no Republican at all based on what the hell you just said right here.

Ah...what can I say? Rush is doing his part to keep the Republicans from their dream of "the big tent." Only ideologues are welcome in their party now. Anyone with a differing opinion than Rush is "no Republican." That's a great strategy for expanding a shrinking party. I encourage him to continue what he's doing. The Democrats have more war veterans in Congress than Republicans, so we are the party of inclusion. Charles is more than welcome in the Democratic Party. We don't do "groupthink" or call torture "enhanced interrogation." Best of all, we have no Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, or Coulter in our party. Everyone is free to have different opinions and even criticize the Democratic leadership. I love my party!

Music Video Mercredi: Indochine

For this week's music video selection, I wanted to feature my all time favourite foreign language song, "Salombo" by the French rock group Indochine. Though it's not a music video, this version of the song is my favourite and the images show the band in their various styles. I first heard this song in 1987 when a French penpal I had at the time, sent me a cassette tape of his favourite rock group. It was an instant hit with me. I would compare them as a cross between Depeche Mode and Duran Duran, with maybe a bit of the Cure thrown in for good measure.

I have no idea what they are saying in this song, but it's one of those where I can feel the emotional power in it. In fact, this is one of the rare songs that I just love to listen to with my headsets and lose myself in the melody.

My favourite album of theirs was released in 1990, but I didn't discover it until my trip to France in 1992 when my ship went to Toulon for a port visit. On first listen, I was blown away by their Le Baiser album, even though I had a couple tapes of theirs through my French penpal. The album is perfect from first song to the last and still remains in my Top Five favourite albums of all time.

The First Generation Y Member of Congress

Congressman Aaron Schock of Peoria, Illinois became the first member of Congress born in the 1980s when he was sworn in earlier this year. Soon afterwards, he won a poll conducted by the Huffington Post as the "hottest freshman in Congress." Just 27 years old, one could say that he as a long political future ahead of him. As a Republican, you could even say that the best hope for that party's future rests on his shoulders.

Who is Aaron Schock, you ask?

An overachiever, that's what. He has an impressive background. He wanted to finish high school early, but when the school board denied it, he decided to run for the school board and actually won in a write-in campaign. You know how hard it is to win in a write-in? That accomplishment was impressive itself, even moreso when you learn that he was all of 19 years old at the time. After serving on the school board, an opportunity came up to run for the state legislature, which he won at 22. He also completed college in just two years, attending Bradley University in Peoria. A friend of mine from 7th grade (Christian Hawkinson) attended Bradley in the early 1990s and had political aspirations until he became more interested in his Catholic faith to consider joining the priesthood. I lost contact with him after 2000.

Aaron Schock is a conservative who won the Congressional election last year by a whopping 69%. He even got around 30% of the black vote, many of whom also voted for Senator Obama for president. Apparently, he's quite personable, sharp, and comfortable with his various constituencies. He's everything the Republicans need in a future presidential candidate. If he plays his cards right, we'll be hearing a lot more about him in the next couple of decades.

I'm impressed that he managed to win a seat in Congress at age 27. At 28, I was an unpaid intern in the OVP office in the U.S. Capitol building. I would love to be a Congressman someday but that dream will only happen if I become a successful novelist with a few books under my belt and enough name recognition to make a decent run for an open seat. As a member of Generation X, I'm all in favour of electing more young people of our generation (and of Generation Y, which Schock is considered a part of) to political office. The sooner we get the boomers out, the better our chances of making some major changes.

Since taking office, Congressman Schock has already been invited by President Obama to ride in Air Force One to attend a rally at a Caterpillar plant where the president spoke about his stimulus bill. President Obama hoped to influence the new Congressman to break rank with his party and vote for Obama's bill. Didn't work, Schock voted party line. That's understandable...as he was probably promised prestigious assignments that will increase his national profile if he voted party line, or threatened marginalization if he didn't stick with his party.


Which brings me to the rumours circulating online. The rumours floating about concern his sexuality, which I think is unfair. The skeptics point out that he is single with no history of having a girlfriend. His Republican opponents in the primary for the open Congressional seat had mentioned this detail while emphasizing their own marital status. A candidate's relationship status should be a non-issue, but we are talking about a political party obsessed with family values and banning gay marriage, after all. The rumour goes...here's this good looking guy who should have girls crawling all over him and he's not in a relationship?

Well...he's also an over-achiever who invested his money into real estate, ran for public office since 19, and finished college and all its demands in a mere two years. Where does all those time consuming commitments leave time for a relationship? He should be commended, not criticized.

Another thing to consider is that some people aren't relationship oriented. Ralph Nader has been single all his life but no one seems to question his sexuality. He's viewed as a celebate saint, married to his social crusades to improve the lives and safety of American citizens.

When I was an intern in the U.S. Capitol, there were many beautiful ladies in their 20s working all over Capitol Hill. Congressman Schock won't have any problem getting dates from female staffers and interns alike. Hopefully, he'll have a loyal Chief of Staff who can spot people's motives for meeting him and prevent Lewinsky types from coming into contact with him.

I remember reading in a newspaper while I lived in D.C. that the word in Republican circles is that female Democratic staffers were easier to get into bed, but the advice was to marry Republican staffers. That reminded me of what I heard guys in the Navy said...that it was okay to have sex with Asian or black women, but don't marry them. I thought that was a weird idea to have. Why is interracial (or trans-party) sex okay but not marriage?

The photo above is of Meghan McCain on the left and a photo of Aaron Schock in 2007 on the right that has surfaced online and in gossip news shows. The "schock-ing" photo represents what the new generation brings to Congress...a complete lack of decorum. The generation that grew up on "sex sells" with homoerotic type ads produced by Calvin Klein and Abercrombie and Fitch has finally arrived in the halls of Congress. Senator John McCain's own daughter is already smitten, as she wrote about the young Congressman being the future of their party.

According to cynical bloggers online, many seem to think Congressman Schock is a closet case who might be outted in a scandal in the near future. I hope they are wrong. Schock seems like an earnest and honest guy, conservative but with personal integrity. He's in the mold of other conservative Republicans I admired for their personal integrity (former Congressmen Steve Largent and John Kasich, former Vice President Dan Quayle). The Republican Party needs more people like him rather than the bullies like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, and Newt Gingrich who don't live the values they profess.

Though I don't care if Congressman Schock is gay or straight or a celebate monk, I would feel bad for him if he is gay because as a Republican, he will have a tough time climbing the ranks to become a major contender for higher office. He's in a party intolerant of anything non-white, non-heterosexual, and non-Christian. He would have more success as a Democrat regardless of his sexuality. For his sake, I hope the cynical bloggers are wrong. I'd like to think of him as a role model for people that you don't need to rush into a relationship and marriage. That you can achieve something for yourself first before settling down and starting a family. As a member of Congress, his dating pool of choice women is huge. When I interned in D.C. almost a decade ago, bachelor Congressmen Patrick Kennedy and Harold Ford, Jr. got all the enviable attention of young female staffers on Capitol Hill. Didn't leave unpaid interns like me a serious shot at all.

So, give Congressman Schock some leeway. He's a sharp guy and the Republican Party's future is secure with people like him in the party. If they can only purge the religious extremists and neo-conservatives in their party and return to the sensibility of the Eisenhower era, they would do much better in elections from here on out.

The video clip below is from a CBS segment on Congressman Aaron Schock. I hope he has a bright future in politics. He seems like a likable and smart guy...two qualities his party is in very short supply of. However, am I the only one who thinks he looks like Doogie Howser?

A Day to Celebrate Church Heritage

Above is a photo I took of the Community of Christ Temple in Independence, Missouri in November 2005. The design was unveiled to much fanfare in 1990 and four years later at World Conference, the Temple served as the centerpiece, a dream finally realized as Saints the world over rejoiced. Also in 1994, the idea for renaming the church from The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to the Community of Christ was introduced.

At first, I hated the temple design and the new name. But that's proof of my natural conservative nature. The reason why I didn't like the temple design was because I grew up with pictures of the Kirtland Temple, saw drawings of what the Nauvoo Temple looked like before it was destroyed, and admired the Mormon's Salt Lake Temple. I guess I was traditional in thinking that Temples were meant to be rectangular buildings. After reading all the symbolism involved in the new temple, however, the design grew on me. And when I saw the Temple for myself in 1995, I was struck with a sense of wonder and awe. It truly is a magnificent sight. In fact, in 2000 and again in 2005, when I made it back to Independence for church events, the first time I saw the Temple, I always had a deep emotional reaction, the equivalent of the feeling one has after being away on long trip and coming home again.

At BYU, I was shocked to hear Mormons make fun of our temple (they are one to laugh...with the lame designs of the Provo and Ogden Temples...a yellow pointy thing emerging out of a square box). Mormons obsess over their temples as being sacred, but when it comes to other religion's sacred buildings, they make fun. Am I the rare person who finds all religious buildings sacred? I'm not a Muslim, but I appreciate the beautiful architecture of some of the world's greatest mosques. I'm not a Buddhist, but I long to see the gorgeous Buddhist Temples of Thailand someday. I'm not a Mormon, but I love the Salt Lake, Oakland, and San Diego temples. I'm just a fan of great architecture, regardless of who it belongs to. So, show some respect, eh?

Anyhow, the reason why the Community of Christ Temple is designed that way is because the architect was inspired by a sea shell. If you're familiar with the conch, it's used as a calling device, bringing people together. Also, from the inside of the sanctuary, when you look directly up into the spire, its like you're looking into eternity. To me, even though we don't do any Masonic temple rites, the Temple is a sacred site. A piece of heaven on planet earth. I can easily imagine such a building in the spiritual realm and I feel close to heaven when I'm inside this beautiful building. Because of the inclusive nature of our church, one doesn't have to be a member of our church to enter. All are welcome.

As for the name change, I was hesitant at first because I liked the name, though I shared the same frustrations as every other member who tells people what church we belong to. People never seem to hear the "Reorganized" part and only hear "Latter Day Saints" and thus think we're Mormons, which causes us to have to explain how we're different from the Mormons. It was a nuisance, so changing the name was vital.

When I first heard "Community of Christ", I thought it was bland. I understood some of the criticisms...we don't have "church" in the title, we don't have "Jesus" in the title, we don't have "saints" in the title (all my life, members were called "saints" but for non-members who find this arrogant, its really not, because the connotation is different than the one used when referring to a person as a "Saint." Used in our church, "saints" is a nickname like "Mormon" is used to refer to a member of the LDS Church). I thought it was a good starting point in the debate over the new name. My preference was "World Community of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days." I thought it captured all the missing elements and was distinct enough, but still didn't solve the problem of a long name.

By introducing the new name in 1994 but not making it official until 2001 was actually a brilliant move on the part of the church leadership. It gave people time to get used to the new name. By the time 2000 rolled around, I accepted the new name. Especially when I learned that on April 6, 1830, when Joseph Smith, Jr. held the first official church service, the name he selected was simply "Church of Christ." It had evolved over the years, but by renaming our church "Community of Christ", we are returning to our roots with a note of our evolution also apparent. We have evolved beyond "church" to reflect an actual "community." I've also learned that the word "church" has negative connotations for some people, whereas "community" has a warm, inviting feel to it.

These days, whenever people ask me what church I belong to, I'm not hesitant to tell them as I was when we were known as the RLDS Church. Each time I've told people "Community of Christ", the Mormon church never comes up at all. I can instead share what my church is all about. Defining who we are for what we are instead of what we are not.

At work, though, some people thought that I'm a Mormon. When I've explained the difference, they are dismissive of it because they see all splinter groups that trace its heritage to the founder Joseph Smith, Jr. as being the same. In reality, though, the doctrines of the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are so different that we (Community Christians) are closer theologically to the Methodist Church than we are to the Mormon Church. If I wasn't a member of this church, I would either be a Quaker or a Methodist before I'd ever join the LDS Church.

However, on this day of remembering the birth of the faith movement founded by Joseph Smith, I stand with members of the largest breakaway group, the LDS Church, and the various splinters (Church of Christ Temple Lot, the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and others). Though we disagree on all manner of doctrines and history from Nauvoo onward, we all exist because of one man's vision to bring back to our world a Christian church that was more in line with the movement Jesus led during his time on earth. Though my view of Joseph Smith can be controversial to some (he displays all the traits of what we know about cult leaders), I am grateful to be a part of this community of Christians, with our interconnectedness and extended family feeling among members. A questionable origin has resulted in good fruit, so who can fault the founder for that? I'm just glad that his wife Emma did not follow Brigham Young west to Utah and helped to form the reorganization, purging the church of nearly everything that was introduced during the dark years of Nauvoo. I am of the belief that Emma would have been proud of Section 156 that finally allowed women to serve in the priesthood.

Whatever branch you are a member of, Happy Church Heritage Day!

The Obamas' European Tour

This past week, President Obama and the First Lady made their first trip to Europe as leader of the free world, to attend the G-20 Conference in London before attending a NATO conference in Strasbourg, France. Seeing Obama in action among the leaders of the world's 20 largest economies (which covers 2/3 of the world's population and 80% of the wealth) was amazing. He was the center of attention, as the leaders of the other countries vied to talk with him like he was the most popular person in school.

What a contrast to the previous president, who was so hated that some leaders wouldn't even acknowledge his presence or shake his hand. It's fantastic to have a leader seen as a superstar again. I know that Bush and Cheney loved to say that being liked doesn't matter...but of course a hated person is going to say that. The unspoken aspect to that claim is that Bush and Cheney were hated for a reason...their policies, which alienated allies and created enemies. Unilateralism made us the world's pariah nation, putting us in the same category once occupied by South Africa during its apartheid days, and Iran.

At the G-20 Conference, it was great to read that Obama used his personal diplomacy skills to bring together Hu Jintao of China and Nicolas Sarkozy of France after they had a spat about policy. Slowly, but steadily, I believe that Obama's natural skill at bringing people together will transform our world. There's no denying Obama's personal power of inspiration, as he even draws huge crowds of foreigners much like he did in the U.S. last year on the campaign trail. We're talking Mandela-sized crowds of admirers.

Michelle Obama showed her star quality as well, particularly at a London school for girls. Seeing girls of various races and religions (some wore veils) speak of their admiration for the American First Lady was amazing. Laura Bush was the invisible First Lady (the dream woman for conservative men: in the background, seen but not heard), but Michelle is front and center, not afraid of the limelight. Her message is one of personal empowerment, where despite her modest middle class upbringing, her parents valued education so much that they sacrificed to put her and her brother through a prestigious university (Princeton). Of course, a First Lady is only in the position due to marrying well when the boyfriend was a nobody, but that's part of her amazing story.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy tries to play it cool by offering the "fist bump" as Obama opts for a more traditional handshake.

The Obama-style campaign image has been replicated in Europe as Sarkozy gets the pop-culture makeover, though it looks like vandals don't agree. Sarkozy is no Obama, though it seems like all the world's leaders want Obama's popularity. However, I believe a lot of Obama's popularity is over-inflated due to the deep hatred many feel towards the disasterous Bush presidency. Anyone who isn't Bush would be popular. Obama's popularity only has one direction to go...down, which it will when difficult decisions are made, especially when Americans are still not out of Iraq or Afghanistan by the time reelection rolls around.

At a Town Hall type meeting in Strasbourg, France, Obama spoke to an audience made up of Germans and French, with some Americans in the audience (two of which managed to ask the president some questions, which prompted Obama to plead with Americans to allow the Europeans to have a chance to ask him questions). His asking of Europeans to help Americans in Afghanistan was probably his most unpopular idea among the crowd. They see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as "America's problem", not Europe's. Thanks a lot, Bush!

Because Bush pre-emptively committed Americans to two wars, it won't be easy to bring allies on board, even though Bush is no longer in office. The wars will always carry the banner of Bush and if we don't internationalize the nation-building efforts, we'll never be able to exit without risking our future security. More reason why I believe Obama should offer a huge carrot to bring Europe onboard in the peacekeeping missions. My idea is to turn over key Bush Administration officials to the Hague to face the War Crimes Tribunal in exchange for European commitment of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This would send a signal that the people who got our nation into war will face the consequences of their actions while the disaster they created will be cleaned up by a multinational effort. Whatever future success might be achieved in Iraq or Afghanistan should not be credited to the Bush Administration in the history books. They need to be thought of as pyromaniacs who lit the match that burns down the house, while Obama and the European allies are the firefighters putting out the fire.

President Obama also met with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. In a joint press conference, he quipped that his German wasn't as good as hers. At the NATO Conference, he opened with a greeting that I had never heard of in my high school and college French courses or in all my travels all over France or with my friendships with French people. He said "bon apres-midi!" Yes, "apres-midi" is "afternoon" but I never heard that term used ever. I'm thinking it's a gaffe. The French usually say "bon matin" for "good morning," "bonjour" for "good day" (or "hello"), "bon soir" for "good evening," and "bon nuit" for "good night." But I've never heard "bon apres-midi" used by any native French speaker.

The Obamas pose with Queen Elizabeth II. I read on one blog about the strangeness of the Queen carrying a purse in Buckingham Palace. Actually, it's not strange, because I've read before that the purse Queen Elizabeth is never seen without is a visual signal to her security people. Supposedly, if she moves it from one arm to another, it's time for security people to get her out of there. Such a signal is more dignified than touching her ear or nose or whatever gesture that would be unbecoming of the Queen.

Michelle Obama committed a major faux pas by touching the Queen. It has caused a mini-scandal in England where everyone knows you NEVER touch the Queen. You don't even shake her hand unless she offers to shake yours. Buckingham Palace, however, released a statement indicating that the First Lady's gesture meant no harm and the Queen was perfectly fine. These strange rules of royalty is the reason why I'm glad our country doesn't have a monarch. I'm grateful that our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson especially, rebelled against it and did not want to establish one for our country.

On the flip side, though, America is a bit too casual in comparison with other countries. I noticed this when I traveled in Europe. Americans stand out like an eyesore...with the printed T-shirts, short pants, and tennis shoes. In many Cathedrals, people in "tourists uniforms" are barred from entering (only shirts and slacks will do, thank you very much!). In the famous Casino de Monte Carlo, men had to wear jacket and tie (I wore my version of the Bond tuxedo when I went there in 1992 and 1993).

It is because of our casualness that I believe Obama committed the worst mistake of his young administration. The British press had made a fuss over the gift he gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown in a recent visit. The Prime Minister gave Obama a pen holder made out of the wood from a ship that once transported slaves. What did Obama give the Prime Minister? A set of DVDs!!! In the wrong format (NTSC instead of PAL)!!! When I heard that, I was shocked. Seriously! DVDs. The Obamas need to hire me to be their gift consultant because I love trying to find the right gift for people. If they'd hire me, I would learn the interests of all the world leaders and consult with their staff to find out what gift would speak to their hearts. The President of the United States of America needs to utilize his ability to manifest obscure items to get the gift that touches world leaders at their most personal. DVDs of Hollywood movies that one can buy in any store is the world leader equivalent of buying a chia pet on Christmas Eve on your way to your in-laws.

Obama's gift to Queen Elizabeth was little better. An iPod! Turns out, she already had one. But can anyone really visualize the Queen listening to Kanye West on an iPod? In all fairness, Obama also got the Queen an autographed song book of composer Rogers (of Rogers and Hammerstein fame), which she's a big fan of. The Queen's gift is standard to all world leaders she meets with: a silver framed photograph of her. Oh joy! On Saturday Night Live, Seth Meyers in the Weekend Update called it right on the whole gift exchange, saying that giving an 83 year old woman an iPod is one of the last things she'd want and likewise, giving a 46 year old cool black guy a photo of an 83 year old white woman would be the last thing he'd want.

The whole gift giving thing is kind of ridiculous though and should be banned between heads of state. Everyone knows that world leaders aren't shopping for the gifts to give to each other. Their staffers do this kind of work, and the gifts are reported in the press, which is ripe for gaffes aplenty. The whole gesture is a farce and if its a farce, there's no reason for it to be done. Gift giving is a private gesture and personal. Instead of world leaders giving one another gifts, the leaders should give gifts to the people of the country they visit, such as the government of Japan giving the people of the United States the Cherry Blossom trees that surround the Tidal Basin in Washington, D.C. That's the kind of gift that keeps on giving every year.

Despite the gift giving gaffe, the Obamas trip to Europe is a success in terms of showing Europeans that the America they once loved and admired is back with a change in direction from the unpopular Bush years. While we still face disagreements in various policies (economic, war, and the environment), this first trip by our new president is a good beginning. Its great to return to the community of nations once again and bury the arrogance of unilateralism.

Saying Goodbye to Negative Energy

On Friday, I learned that my workplace's part-time employee was let go Thursday at the end of day for "money saving elimination of position." This was the employee who didn't speak to me for six weeks after I had told her my honest opinion about why she wasn't hired for the full-time positions that she had applied for in our office last year. If you recall from the previous post I had written back in February about the difficulties in being honest with people, I had told this lady that people at work view her as "needy, pushy, and flaky." She got offended and cut me out of her Facebook friends list, and wouldn't speak to me for six weeks. I wasn't too torn about it because I never viewed her as a friend. I was just an empathetic co-worker trying to help her understand the office environment.

What I learned during the six weeks she didn't speak to me was that my energy level was higher and I felt blissful and happy. My work circumstances haven't changed. I still don't love my job, but I had a different outlook. In the past week, though, I felt my energy level sagging. On Wednesday, this lady asked if I was eating out for lunch. I said that I had planned to eat at Hye's (a breakfast and lunch only place that is popular among the people I work with) but she wanted to eat at another place. When I told her that I had my heart set on Hye's, she made a resigned gesture of "fine!" and invited herself along. She has that annoying trait. I figured that she wanted to talk.

Her conversation was all negative and complaining about work, which I get tired of. I tried to present a different way of looking at our work environment. Instead, she was focused on her paranoid delusions about management knowing that she was planning to leave at the end of April, complaining about the low wages, and her inability to pay bills. She was so desperate that she complained about not having friends in Portland who would let her move in with them RENT FREE because she had three cats! When I asked why she had three cats, she gave me an odd look and said in a snotty manner, "I don't think that's any of your business!"

I let it bounce off me and tried a different approach. I told her, "don't you realize that having a pet hinders your freedom of movement? Why would you have three of them?" She tried to explain it away, but seriously...there is a reason why people joke about "the cat lady." It brings to mind a certain stereotype of a lonely, older lady who has no relationship other than with her cats. In fact, when I search personal ads on Craigslist, any lady that mentions owning more than one cat is an automatic red flag to me. That might be a bit unfair and "judgmental", but cats are very independent animals. You only need one to take care of. Any more than that indicates a sign of something deeper that I really don't want to deal with.

Anyhow, the conversation was just energy draining to me. I held my tongue as she complained and complained about not being respected by anyone at work, how people don't even seem to know her name and how her supervisor is incompetent and hates her. Yadda yadda yadda. When our lunch was over, she put her trash on my plate and then asked if she could do that. It was such an off-putting gesture and reminded me of what I dislike about her. At work she has a tendency to impose on me demands she has no right to make. I believe she does this out of her own neediness, but it puts me off (and others as well). It's also part of her pushiness, which she also had denied when I brought it up in February.

So, I held my tongue because I learned from last time that she can't handle an honest dialogue. I find it sad that this mid-forties woman has no self-awareness at all. To even broach the subject opens the door to possible wrath. For example, when she "reconciled" with me on Friday the 13th back in March, she let me know that she was still hurt by my telling her that she was "needy, pushy, and flaky." Yet, she displays those traits everytime we interract!

I'm the kind of guy who tries to be friends with anyone...especially anyone who comes to me for friendship. I don't like to reject people and I aspire to have a positive impact on people. Yet, I'm also consciously aware of my own energy level and when I feel a person is draining it, which this lady did. A friendship is virtually impossible if I can't be honest with the other person. I don't say those things out of a mean spirited attack to bring her down. She had asked for my honest opinion about why I thought management did not want to hire her as a full-time employee when two positions became available last year and didn't like what she heard.

In other recent conversations, she had heard me talk glowingly of my teenage years in Bellevue, Nebraska that she suggested to me that I ought to move to Omaha with her this summer. Yikes! Proof that she doesn't get me at all. First of all...I've never been attracted to her for multiple reasons I will not share online. Second of all, when I thought about moving away from Atlanta in 2006, I made a list of 5 cities I wanted to move to, with pros and cons for each. They were Boston, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, and Portland. Yes...as a teenager, I loved living in Bellevue. But I had a great group of friends there, was involved in my church's Young Zioneers program, and at that point in life, I didn't experience Europe yet. Living six of the most impressionable years of my life in Europe spoiled me to the point where that famous saying is true ("How do you keep the boy on the farm once he's seen Paris?"). I need to live in a city that matches my vibe, and sorry to say but Omaha ain't it. Even if a lady I wanted to marry asked me to move to Omaha with her, I'd say, "sorry, but I can't."

In the past week, anytime I was alone at the office, this lady would approach me to say some strange, paranoid things. She was worried about management overhearing what she said, that her plans to leave had been found out, and that no one likes her, etc. Her negative energy affected the wave of bliss I had been surfing for several weeks now. I think I even thought at some point this week that the best thing management could do for the office is to let her go. Talk about instantaneous wish fulfilment!

While I feel bad for her and her financial situation for the month of April, I can't say that I disagree with the management's decision at all. She rubbed too many people the wrong way with her constant neediness and demanding nature. There was no sweetness to her. Everyone could taste her bitterness. She's been here for almost a year, and now it'll be interesting to see if the office energy level changes for the better in her absence.

It didn't have to be this way if she had listened to my honest opinion about her and made changes to the way she comes across to people. But, my impression is that she lacks complete self-awareness and that is her fault. Instead of making demands on people to get her needs met, she should have focused on how to meet the needs of others, particularly at work. A part-time employee is in no position to make work demands on the office manager. As a full-time employee, I don't do that kind of thing. Work doesn't meet my needs nor should it. It's my time outside of the office where I find my needs met through doing things I enjoy and the books I read to become a better person.

The most amazing thing about this whole experience in knowing this lady is that I guessed correctly from early on what she was all about. I owe it all to the Ken Starr Report, Monica Lewinsky's tell-all biography, and all the articles I read in 1998 about that scandal. The lady at work reminded me so much of everything I read about Lewinsky: man-crazy, needy, pushy, and unpopular with co-workers. She even looks the way one might expect Lewinsky to look like at mid-40s.

My disappointment in this former co-worker is that she wasn't who she presented herself as being. Its annoying when someone tries to make a false connection based on my interests when we first meet and get to know each other, and then in the course of many conversations, show a disinclination to talk about our supposed "mutual" interests. For example, she had led me to believe that she was interested in new age spirituality, Democratic politics, international events, and writing...but each time I tried to talk about these things, she always returned the conversation to our office environment, with all of her negative impressions attached. No wonder why my energy level has been drained for much of the past year. I allowed myself to be her sympathetic ear without protecting myself from her negative energy.

When I heard the news on Friday about her being let go, I was relieved. That doesn't mean I wish her ill will. The way I see it, she was very unhappy about working here and focused too much of her energy on why she hated working here, and the universe delivered exactly what she wanted: to get out of here. She never got a chance to say goodbye to me and I'm hoping that she won't contact me. All I wish for her is that she will spend considerable time in a deep soul search to get to know who she is at her core (something people should be doing in their early 20s). My spiritual advice for her would be to get to the root source of her neediness, because it's the one trait that everyone who has known her at work would say about her. I don't think I've ever met a more needy person. It truly is an undesireable trait to have.

The epiphany I received about my work situation is that while I don't have the power to change the way things are done, I can choose to focus on the good things I learned in this job...the kind of skills that I will take with me on that glorious day when I walk out of there into my dream job. I don't need a negative person in my life to remind me constantly all that is wrong with the job. This year, of all years, I'm saying goodbye to negative energy and anyone around me who wants to dwell in it. My intention is to have one of the greatest years of my life.

Flashback Friday: 1979

For this week's Flashback Friday, I'm writing on one of the most significant years of my life: 1979.

In this year, my dad received his Bachelor's degree in Microbiology from the University of Kansas and his commission as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. Near the end of summer, we moved from Lawrence, Kansas to State College, Pennsylvania, where he attended additional courses at Penn State University to become a meteorologist.

The photo of me on the right was my third grade photo from 1980, as I missed out on picture day at school (in 2nd grade in 1979) because dad took us on an awesome roadtrip to New England. The memory is kind of faded now, but what I remember most was Bar Harbor, Maine (loved it!), Hotel de Frontenac in Quebec City (and probably where I fell in love with the French language), the Thousand Islands, taking the ferry across Lake Champlain from Vermont to New York. We also made a separate trip to New York City, where I thought every man wearing a newsboy cap and sunglasses was a movie star. My parents claimed that I loved Jersey City so much that I had said that I wanted to live there when I grew up (I have no recollection of saying such a thing, because I was more impressed with NYC).

Though we only lived one year in Pennsylvania, my dad took us on roadtrips to Washington, D.C., Niagara Falls, and Ithica NY to visit his buddy from his enlisted man days of the early 70s. We never made it to Palmyra to see a significant church history site, though our year in Pennsylvania introduced me to Mormons for the first time.

Because the local RLDS congregation was in another town that was too far to drive each week, we shopped around for a church to attend during our year in State College. We went to an LDS Church and the first thing I thought was, "there are way too many kids!" I remember thinking that I would feel lost in a church like this. In primary class, they served communion (or in LDS parlance: "sacrament") and because I was not yet baptized in the RLDS church but was always curious about the ritual I watched adults partake the first Sunday of each month, I decided to see for myself what the big deal was. Maybe there was some kind of brainwashing toxin in the sacrament, because after church, my dad praised my brother for not partaking of it. I felt so guilty, but I didn't see what the big deal was. To this day, I'm the only one in my family to hold a deep interest in the LDS Church and love for Mormons (hello! I went to BYU!)...so maybe there was something in that piece of bread or water that I partook!

My parents did invite some LDS missionaries over to our apartment. I remember not being able to distinguish age, so anyone of adult age was the same to me (except for people who had gray hair, which I saw as grandparents age). When I met with missionaries during my Navy years, we were the same age and I remember wondering how they thought they knew all the answers, when no one our age does. As a kid, though, the missionaries were adults and obviously knew more than me. My dad said that he met with the missionaries to compare differences between our two churches, not because he was interested in joining, but the missionaries didn't realize it.

The church we ended up attending was the Calvary Baptist Church, which had a great children's program and friendly people. I really enjoyed this church, but one thing I remember not understanding was when we were taught in Sunday School about the Tower of Babel. I remember talking to the other kids about the Jaredites, but no one knew what I was talking about. I didn't understand that the stories were from different books and that these children knew nothing about the Jaredites (who were at the Tower of Babel and had asked God not to give them different languages from each other) from the Book of Mormon.

We lived in an apartment complex with a swimming pool, which I enjoyed going to. I had an inflatable Spider-man inner tube. I also enjoyed playing basketball with my parents (basically just trying to get a bouncy ball into the net). During this time was the beginning of my Japan craze, due to my love of the Shogun miniseries and the Godzilla movies (Rodin was my personal favourite). I became friends with a Japanese lady in my apartment complex.

Also in the apartment complex were a bunch of Sudanese families with rowdy and dirty children. They would play on a nearby field with a shopping cart they permanently borrowed from a store. The children didn't speak English and weren't very friendly. I didn't like that they hogged the front seats on the bus to school each day, so I ended up sitting in the back of the bus. In retrospect, it seems funny that kids fought over who sat in the front seats (so they can get off first, I presume)...because as a teenager, the back seat was the most coveted spot (the furthest from the prying eyes of the bus driver).

I first started attending one school, where I was in a combined 1st and 2nd grade class. I remember not liking it because as a second grader, I thought I would have to learn 1st grade all over again. I also didn't like the way teachers arranged the desks (it was backwards, so we couldn't store things inside the desk...we had to put our things in plastic tubs, which were put in a slot along the wall at the end of the day). I thought it was a dumb idea.

One of the best things that happened to me was that my dad said that I would be switching schools. I found the picture above in a Google search. Second grade at Corl Street Elementary School was the best year of my elementary school years. Why? Because they made education truly fun. If I was an elementary school teacher, I would use a similar format.

Being the new kid was difficult at first, because I was introduced by the teacher to the class as "Khoram" from Pakistan. No, that was another kid I knew from my previous school. I was thrilled that he would be in my class, but he was coming a week later. He got made fun of by the other classmates, especially when we did jumping jacks because he couldn't do them right. Kids thought he was retarded because of the way he did jumping jacks. I was probably his only friend in the class. This was one of the events of my childhood that has proven consistent over the years...I often get along better with foreigners than fellow Americans.

I had a crush on a girl who reminded me of Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon. But she liked a friend of mine, who didn't like her. I was kind of sneaky about it because she wanted to give him a sheet of stickers or something like that but he didn't want it. I told him to accept it, then give it to me. When he did, she found out about it and got angry at me. She never liked me.

My best friend that year was a girl named Sharon Dunn. During recess, we would always play together. We had a pretend ice cream shop under a tree outside and that's where we'd often go to play and talk. She had a pet hermit crab and said that I should get one. She brought it to school for show and tell, and I thought it was pretty cute. When my family moved to Hill AFB, Utah in 1980, Sharon became my first penpal and we kept in touch until 1984. I wish I had saved her letters, but my mom made me throw away a lot of things in 1985 as we prepared to move to Germany, so I have none of the letters from the girls I kept in touch with in the early 80s or my early attempts at journal keeping.

The reason why I loved second grade at Corl Street Elementary School was because they used our imaginations to teach us about history, science, and geography. For instance, in learning about the states, the classroom was arranged like a train. We had to draw items onto cardstock paper shaped as suitcases. Half the class was selected to play roles of engineer, conductor, ticket taker, baggage handler, etc. The other half was passengers. Each state we passed through, we filled out maps and learned the details (state capital, state flower, state bird, state seal, state flag, state motto, state nickname, etc). When we arrived in Kansas, that's when I had informed the teacher, Mrs. Smith, that she was mistaken. Topeka was the capital, not Kansas City, as she had told the class.

When we "arrived" in California, we learned cowboy songs (I remember "Don't Fence Me In" and "Get Along Little Doggies") and had a real chuckwagon serve us lunch in the classroom.

For Thanksgiving, we made our own pilgrim hats and collars. When we learned about prehistoric man, we created a paper mache cave in the classroom and got to make our own cave man drawings on the walls inside the cave. We also had to bring in our dad's old t-shirt to create our own caveman shirt. It was during this year that I learned about woolly mammoths, macedons, and saber-toothed tigers. My first exposure to the general concepts of evolution. The cave remained when we learned about the sea.

The year was to culminate in a special program for parents with a play about the animals of the sea. I was selected to draw a dolphin for the play, and it was an art project of joy for me. I loved to draw and as I learned about dolphins, it became my favourite animal (still holds true today and one of my dreams is to swim with dolphins).

Unfortunately, we had to move before the school year ended, so I missed out on the play. I was upset about it, partly because I wanted to keep the dolphin cutout I made. All that work for nothing.

There was a girl I knew from the back of the bus who had a crush on me and kept wanting to give me something as a farewell gift. I wasn't really into her but when she kept insisting that she wanted to give me a farewell gift, I told her that there was something she could give me. She was the one who had told me about Sand Dollars, so I wanted one. She said that she would bring it the next day, but I forgot that I would not be riding the bus the next day. My family would be leaving Pennsylvania for the road trip west.

During that second grade year, I remember arguing with other kids about reading because during silent reading time, other kids would read aloud to themselves and I insisted that they could read without moving their lips. They didn't believe me. I was annoyed because it was hard to read silently when the others were reading to themselves.

Also during this year, I realized that everyone had a middle name except me. When the teacher asked what my middle name was, for some reason, I liked the name "Charles" and claimed it as my middle name. However, because I didn't know how to spell it from memory, I always had to go to the bookcase and retrieve the Peanuts book so I could see Charles Schultz's name on the cover and copy from that. When I asked my dad about a middle name, he said, "how about Noel?" All I heard was "No L" and I thought it was a dumb name because my first name had an L, my last name had two Ls, and that middle name also had an L. But, my dad liked it and it became official when I got baptized into the RLDS Church in December 1980 just nine days before I turned nine.

I didn't realize that a baptismal record is a legal document, so when I joined the Navy...because of the threats against providing false information, I insisted that I had no middle name, so in my Navy records, my middle initial is officially "NMN" (for "No Middle Name").

As I reflect on my life, 1979 was a significant year because it set into motion the constant themes of my life...my ease among foreigners, my attraction to girls/women I view as an intellectual equal, my desire to travel and always see new things, my love of learning about different places (even in pretend voyages), and my lifelong fascination with our "Mormon cousins." I've read somewhere that who you are at eight years old defines the rest of your life. Thirty years later and I would have to agree. I'm pretty much the same person at my core as I was at age 8.

A Piece of My World

Some of you may have already seen these photos on Facebook. These were all taken by my dad last fall when my parents visited my brother and I in Oregon last October. Above is a view of my tiny kitchen in my studio apartment. That's mom, watching me wash dishes. Yes, my refrigerator has a lot of magnets on it. What's a fridge without a magnet? Boring!

My latest personal project is converting photos to digital and uploading them to my Facebook page. In case disaster ever strikes, at least I'll have my photos online! I will be developing a couple more rolls of film today, along with reprints of old photographs from my 20s, when I traveled all over Europe. Can't wait to add those to my Facebook albums.

I've been meaning to post these photos on my blog, but I've had way too much to write about that I never found an open day until now. Because I still don't have a digital camera, I have gotten to the point where I am far behind in developing photos. I have about 14 rolls of film to develop, and it seems like each time I develop about three rolls of film, I end up taking four more rolls! With my sister's wedding and the family reunion coming up, I'll never make a dent. Don't know when I'll get around to developing the photos I took on our family vacation along the coast of Oregon last October. So, enjoy the ones my dad took...

With my mom on the Pacific coast near Florence, Oregon. We wanted to see sand dunes...but you have to pay for the privilege.

I'm staring out into the great wide ocean and thinking I see China! If I had Sarah Palin's vision, I probably could.

This goat was all over me. I guess it was attracted to my Capricorn nature. We goats like to stick together.

Feeding the goats at the Blue Heron Cheese Company in Tillamook. The goats were very friendly to people who bought a feed bag in the store. Its nice to be popular.

Goats are loving me because I got treats.

Posing with my mom at Haystack Rock in Cannon Beach. During low tide, you can walk out to it, which we did.

The view from the column at the top of the hill in Astoria as we waited for the sunset. The view from the top is gorgeous, where you can see the Columbia River flow into the Pacific Ocean. Astoria is called the San Francisco of the North, though it also reminds me of my grandparents' hometown (Atchison, Kansas) due to the Victorian homes, steep hills, and being next to a river. Both towns also have a similar population (10-12,000 residents).

With my mom and brother at Multnomah Falls, one of Oregon's must-see destinations.

With my mom and brother at Mount Hood.

Taking Us for Fools on This Day of April Foolery

Are they for freakin' real?!? General Motors in a global partnership with Italian-auto giant FIAT?!? Americans in Italy joked that FIAT stood for: "Fix It Again, Tony!" While Italy has given the world the ultimate in luxury sports cars: Lambourghini, Ferrari, and Maserati...the vast majority of Italians own a FIAT. You'll see the occasional Lancia or Alfa Romeo on the roads all over Italy, but probably two thirds of the cars are of the FIAT brand, with nearly half of all cars in Italy being a white FIAT Panda, as seen below:

The FIAT Panda is one of the boxiest and most uncomfortable cars I've ever been in. It's barely a step above the disasterous Yugo automobile that sold in the U.S. in the late 1980s for $5,000 brand new. The FIAT Panda has a similar body design as the notorious Yugo. The reason its so popular in Italy is because its the cheapest car you can buy. If you can't afford a Panda, then you're stuck with mopeds, the primary mode of transportation for Italian teenagers.

When I lived in Italy, Americans were recommended not to bring their cars with them for several reasons. One was that American cars are generally bigger and this poses a problem in some towns where streets are barely big enough for a Smartcar to fit through. The bigger reason, though, is the high rate of vandalism committed against American cars (or even foreign brand cars with American license plates). This is one of the things Italy is known for, unfortunately. My best guess as to why Italians target American cars for vandalism is out of jealousy. When nearly half the country drives a white FIAT Panda because its the most affordable car option for Italians, its probably disconcerting to see these American military people stationed in their country and driving nice cars.

The best advice for Americans stationed in Italy is to buy a local car to use when they live there. I knew several Americans who owned a "rock car" (what sailors in Sardinia called local cars). I even had the unfortunate experience to ride in the backseat of a FIAT Panda. It was uncomfortable. The seat didn't even have a cushion. It was basically a metal frame covered by cloth. This wasn't fun to sit on when the car bounced on bad roads (no suspension, either!). I couldn't imagine a worse car than the Panda.

Now, to hear that American auto giant General Motors (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn) is in such financial dire straits that the only way to keep the company in existence is to partner with FIAT?!? What kind of sick joke is this? You can't even buy a FIAT brand car in the U.S. (probably because they can't pass our strict safety requirements). Why would we want the maker of one of the world's crappiest cars to bail out our auto company? Why can't Honda partner with General Motors, or some other international brand with a reputation for reliability and quality? Nothing says failure more than news headlines that FIAT wants General Motors!

If automakers and government bureaucrats are reading this blog by chance...let me tell you about why our economy is in such a shithole and what they can do to get us out.

I went to college to get a degree so I could land a career that pays a good salary. What happened? I got saddled with college loan debt and only found low wage jobs, which pays the exact salary I earned BEFORE I went to college. When my car (a Saturn SL1) died on me in 2002, I couldn't afford to buy another car because my college loan repayment each month was more than a car payment. I would love to own a car again someday, but until I get a better wage job, I can't afford one.

If you really want me to buy a car that keeps autoworkers in jobs, then either hire me in a job that pays a liveable salary ($35,000 or more) or forgive my college loan debt. If either happen, I promise you that I will buy an American car (I really like Chevrolet's Malibu Maxx) instead of one of my dream cars (Honda Element or Scion tC). But if you sell out to FIAT, the deal's off. You can do better than FIAT. Anyone can do better than FIAT. Well...except for the Italians. They are kind of stuck with them because its the cheapest brand. If all Italians could afford a Ferrari, they'd all be driving it, wouldn't they?

FIAT is a perfect companion company for Ford (Found On Road Dead or Fix Or Repair Daily). They deserve each other, but General Motors can do better. I really hope this is just a bad April Fool's Joke.