So this evening, when my son directed me to a similar website called Wondir, after so many years of doing without, I was full of hopes. Alas! The new site is a dud! Repetitive, dull questions from mostly incredibly, eye-rollingly stupid people, half of which seem to be pregnant and the other half looking for answers to their homework questions.
I'll give them a month or two to clean up their act. But the search continues. The quest is still on.
It's a sad thing, really, because nothing could be more pure and innocent. I'm talking about the handholding of course, not the mercantile relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi kingdom.
In the Middle East, as well as in Asia, it is perfectly normal and common to see men walking hand in hand with other men or women holding hands with other women. When I was a little girl in Vietnam, during the war, a frequent sight would be a couple of RVNA soldiers on leave, walking hand in hand on the street. Soldiers with guns and grenades hanging from their belts, holding hands, for crissake!!! It didn't raise any eyebrows, then. On the other hand (pun barely noticed), if it were a woman and a man holding hands in public, the disapproving scowls or the contemptuous smirks from the crowd would be enough to shame the couple into hiding.
It was only later on, when I went to Europe to study, that I realized that the Western culture considers such mark of affection between two people of the same sex as exclusively sexual. Consider these two contradictory paradigms. In the West, touching is ok between a man and a woman, but depraved between two men or two women. In the Orient, touching is sinful between a man and a woman, and perfectly normal between men and between women. Which culture is right?
This is what I suggest: how about taking our minds out of the gutter, or rather, how about taking love, sexual or otherwise, out of the gutter, and accepting any consensual demonstration of affection as normal or even desirable, 'cause, really, what's more heartwarming to you: two people hugging or a fistfight?
And speaking of movies, I’m really fed up with white people critiquing non-white films, especially Oriental films. Now, being a reasonable person, I don’t think that one’s race should interfere with one’s judgement, but when it comes to film critiquing, it seems like a white critic only has two attitudes: paternalistic backhanded compliments («It’s not bad,… for a Chinese film») or paternalistic extravagant compliments («Superb scenery, an unforgettable story infused with deep poetry and profound wisdom»). As a Vietnamese individual, I can tell you that all Vietnamese films have shitty dialogues and barely acceptable actors. It’s nobody’s fault: the country has only been at peace for the past 30 years and actors have traditionally been considered by society as scum, the equivalent of gypsies and prostitutes. It will take some time for the industry to gain experience and enough prestige to build a local pool of writers, directors and actors worthy of international esteem. But because of the prevalent political correctness and the physical beauty of the land, Vietnamese films have been riding on a wave of sympathy at various film festivals to collect numerous prizes and awards. My theory is that these awards are given to foreign films because the white judges are dazzled by the exotic scenery and the strange clothes and interior decorations. In the case of Vietnamese films, the stories are practically non existent, the action usually switches between slow and very slow and the dialogues are artificial and woodenly read. BUT the landscapes are gorgeous.
The same incompetence is displayed by food critics, although the situation is not as bad as in the film critique field. I once read a critic (I think he was Indian, Ashok something) complain how bland a Vietnamese dish was, adding in the last paragraph: «At the end of our meal, the waiter asked us why we didn’t use the dip sauce provided». And God knows how many food critics have been comparing the Vietnamese «pho» noodle-soup to bouillabaisse, oblivious to, or more likely ignorant of the fact that, as a country, Vietnam predates France by thousands of years. Apparently, these people get a salary, on top of having a corporate credit card to pay for their meals. So I’m just gonna say it and deal with any flaming afterwards: Food critics, economists and meteorologists are the three professions where you can say just about any nonsense you want and still keep your job.
Well, the whole incident was videotaped and you can watch it here: http://www.sptimesphotos.com/video/office.html
According to the tape, this was not the first incident where the police had to be called. I don’t know her medical situation, but she probably has some kind of attention-deficit or hyperactivity problems that should be looked at. My ex has a daughter who displays the same behaviour, although in her case it was compounded by a complete laissez-faire policy from the father. My point (and I’ve already made it in a previous post (http://samsarashmamsara.blogspot.com/2005/02/to-spank-or-not-to-spank.html) is that sometimes, you have to physically snap a child out of an emotional turmoil manifested in a temper tantrum, by force if necessary. In the case of the girl in the video, the handcuffing was a good move, and seemed to be the only trick that broke down her hostility and defiance. Maybe it’s my Asian side, but I don’t think it’s normal to let a five year old child wreck up a place, because the adults are afraid to be forceful and take charge of the situation.
Your Linguistic Profile: |
60% General American English |
30% Yankee |
10% Dixie |
0% Midwestern |
0% Upper Midwestern |
And speaking of mispelled words, I love these mistakes recently found in various spots: «my boyfiend» and «Allerte aux alergies» [This last one is a poster at a Metro grocery store. Somebody must have told them: Hey guys, there's a spelling mistake on your poster, it's spelled with two «l» and not just one. So they corrected it. True story (I have a picture of the poster).]
And, cause I'm in a good mood, here are some country music song titles: «If I Can't Be Number One In Your Life, Then Number Two On You», «I Still Miss You Baby, But My Aim's Gettin' Better» and «You're The Reason Our Kids Are So Ugly».
Back to Google. This time type: «moron». Illico Presto! You are at President Moron's website!
I could do this all afternoon, but the boss is lurking in the hallway.
The myth of the brave and noble soldier
Let me explain first that, although I am a pacifist and abhor all wars, I am not always non violent, at least in thought. Being of a rather impetuous nature, I sometimes have fantasies of pounding somebody’s face in with a hammer or inflicting some other truly painful punishment to people I don’t like. But it’s just a harmless way of releasing my frustrations and normally it takes a lot to make me angry.
I have to confess however that I don’t hold soldiers in very high esteem, ranking them on the same level as, say butchers or baby seal clubbers, all bad karma inducing professions that are nevertheless considered necessary. That is why I don’t buy into that «brave and noble soldier» myth that’s permeating all the blogs I’ve read. All blogs, from all sides of the political rainbow in the US, would say something like: I approve/disapprove of the Iraqi war, but I support our brave soldiers. Why does the simple act of enrolling in the army automatically makes a person brave and noble? Recruiting officers may try to tart up a soldier’s horrible job description by appealing to his patriotism and to the noble mission of protecting his loved ones from the nation’s evil enemies. But in the end, he is still being paid to go out and kill other human beings.
Jack London said it better than me [duh!]:
«Young men, the lowest aim in your life is to become a soldier. The good soldier never tries to distinguish right from wrong. He never thinks; never reasons; he only obeys. If he is ordered to fire on his fellow citizens, on his friends, on his neighbours, on his relatives, he obeys without hesitation. If he is ordered to fire down a crowded street when the poor are clamouring for bread, he obeys and see the grey hairs of age stained with red and the life tide gushing from the breasts of women, feeling neither remorse nor sympathy. If he is ordered off as a firing squad to execute a hero or benefactor, he fires without hesitation, though he knows the bullet will pierce the noblest heart that ever beat in human breast.
A good soldier is a blind, heartless, soulless, murderous machine. He is not a man. His is not a brute, for brutes kill only in self-defense. All that is human in him, all that is divine in him, all that constitutes the man has been sworn away when he took the enlistment roll. His mind, his conscience, aye, his very soul, are in the keeping of his officer. No man can fall lower than a soldier—it is a depth beneath which we cannot go.»
You’ll go to hell where you will burn for all eternity
When Ask Jeeves used to be free, I used to go on religious forums and have long, impassionate arguments with Christian and Islamic members. I was not being provocative, I just wanted to understand how faith works, and why modern, well educated and well-read people could still believe in an anthropomorphic God, a father figure that literally forces mankind to worship him or else risk his wrath. What kind of god would be so insecure as to need to be worshipped? God created the whole universe, supposedly, but the devotion of the inhabitants of one tiny planet among zillions of others is that important to his ego? Why would he care? What is the purpose of a life whose goal is simply to go to heaven? Why did God bother creating humans at all or if he created them, why not plunk them in heaven right away, instead of making them jump through numerous hoops in order to eventually land in some kind of Disneyland, to live another tedious life, but this time with 72 virgins or with angels and harps, for all eternity. Of course, I never got any satisfactory answers to my questions. Eventually, I always ended being threatened with the burning fires of hell. Again, I had questions about that. If I’m dead and only my soul survives in the afterlife, why would I care about physical pain? I could be tortured forever, I wouldn’t feel a thing without a body with nerves, now would I? And if it’s damnation for all eternity, the worst fate in hell (or in heaven for that matter) would probably be boredom. And speaking of eternity, what kind of loving father would stay angry with his children forever and ever until the end of time?
Tous pourris
Vous êtes choqués par le scandale des commandites au Canada? Vous êtes bien naïfs! Une réaction plus réaliste à mon avis serait de grommeler un peu, de hausser les épaules et de retourner ensuite à vos activités habituelles en espérant qu’il fera beau ce week-end pour enfin pouvoir prendre votre café sur le balcon.
Bien sûr que c’est dégoûtant! Mais est-ce vraiment si surprenant? Répétons-le une fois de plus, pour éliminer tout doute possible: les politichiens sont tous des pourris, tous sans exception, à tous les niveaux!! Ceux qui sont dans le mauvais parti politique du moment iront se cacher, tandis que les autres iront faire leur petit numéro d’indignation («Je suis choqué, outré vous dis-je!») devant la télévision, en attendant la prochaine fois où ce sera à leur tour de se cacher et aux autres de crier au scandale.
Aux prochaines élections, vous aurez le choix entre voter pour votre parti habituel ou pour le parti adverse. Comprenez bien cependant que, quel que soit le parti qui sera élu, les politichiens continueront de se remplir les poches, les membres de leur famille et les petits copains continueront d’être nommés à des sinécures bien rémunérées et les représentants municipaux continueront de faire des voyages d’étude à Venise, à Hongkong ou à Tahiti avec leurs conjoints et/ou amants/maîtresses, à vos frais. Plus ça change…
Calorifère? comme disait Lénine. Pas grand chose. Il y a longtemps que les élus «gouvernent» tout seuls et font leurs magouilles entre eux, sans être vraiment inquiétés par la populace bovine qui les a mis au pouvoir. Si M. Martin était remplacé par, disons M. Harper, au poste de Premier Ministre du Canada, il n’y aurait aucune différence sensible, sinon que le Canada deviendrait une succursale des États-Unis. C’est pourquoi je dis bravo à tous ceux qui trichent dans leurs déclarations d’impôt ou qui payent cash sous la table. C’est illégal, malhonnête et injuste pour les autres contribuables, je vous entends tonitruer. Ben, évidemment! Mais expliquez-moi en quoi il serait normal, honnête et juste qu’un citoyen confie une bonne partie de son argent à des gens qui vont l’utiliser pour construire un jardin à Shanghai, par exemple, alors que les rues de Montréal sont trouées comme du gruyère. En quoi un effectif accru et des bureaux plus luxueux à la délégation québécoise à Paris apporteraient-ils plus de bonheur au peuple?
TOUS. POURRIS.
TOUS.
Two separate events made me realize how much my thinking has changed over the years.
The first one was my recent purchase of a necklace made of coral branches. When I was young[er], I was very keen on protecting the environment, saving the whales, teaching my children about the evil of littering, etc. [When my older son was about three or four years old, he scolded a man for littering in a shopping mall and shamed him into picking up the candy wrapper he casually dropped on the ground, to the thunderous applause of the crowd who witnessed the event. For a long time, we talked about this with great pride in our family reunions.] I wouldn't eat tuna fish (because of the dolphins) or wear a fur coat or coral jewelry. Then last week, I saw this wonderful necklace made of small coral branches. The artist-jeweller, who's a very good friend of mine, explained to me how he bought a whole bunch of coral branches in the 70s, which he is using only now in his work and how it's impossible to find them anywhere today. It struck me right then and there that this coral, had it not been bought up and saved by my friend, would have disappeared a long time ago, killed by trawling fishing boats and pollution. It's the same paradox as the one presented by those antique Egyptian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. statues or columns that were stolen by European invaders and brought back to European cities where they can still be admired and studied to this day, whereas had they been left in their respective countries of origin, they would have been destroyed by local thieves and vandals or left unprotected from the ravages of time or the political vagaries of the moment. I bought the coral necklace.
The second event happened today, during my lunch hour. I was strolling in the mini-mall next to my office where there was an exhibition-sale of butterflies and rare insects, all neatly mounted,labelled and framed. Their colours and their shapes were just gorgeous, but as I went from frame to frame, I had this uneasy and creepy feeling. I used to collect butterflies and bugs when I was a little girl and I am still irresistibly attracted to these shiny colourful wings. But now, for some reason, I look at them not from the collector's point of view, but from the collectee's perspective. I felt the same revulsion as if I were in an alien museum looking at a collection of stuffed physically perfect human beings. I didn't buy any butterfly.
Some Reflections on the Recent Papacy of JPII
by Matthew Fox, Ph.D.
www.OpEdNews.com
While the media responds profusely to the telegenic pope who has just passed, and while he accomplished some good things such as taking a stand against the Iraq war and against capital punishment and against the idolatry of consumerism, I really do believe that history will not be kind to this papacy. This pope and his self-appointed German mafia headed by Cardinal Ratzinger will have to face the judgement of history (and very likely God also) over issues that include but are not limited to the following:
A pre-occupation with morality as sexual issues even when this morality is deeply flawed. I include the following examples:
--The forbidding of one billion Catholics world wide to practice birth control even while the human population explodes at the seams.
--The forbidding of the use of condoms even in a time when AIDS is killing individuals and whole populations the world over.
--The head-long pursuit of Augustine's theology of sexuality (all sex must be legitimized by having children)
--Ugly attacks in the pope's name against homosexuals and the complete ignoring of what science and professional psychological associations have learned about homosexuality (for example, that it is a natural phenomenon for 8-10% of any given human population as well as over 460 non-human species).
Other attacks include documents against yoga (yes!); against Buddhism (calling it "atheism"); against Thich Naht Hahn (calling him the "anti-Christ") [Note: The proper spelling is Thich Nhat Hanh]; against feminist philosophers; against women (girls cannot serve at the altar; nor can women be priests); against theologians in general. Priests are forbidden to use the pronoun "she" for God at the altar.
A prolonged effort to render fascism fashionable. This includes the rushing into canonization of the card-carrying fascist priest who founded the Opus Dei movement even though this man actually praised Adolf Hitler and also denounced women and has been accused of sexual abuse of six young men who are alive today.
The taking of Opus Dei under the hand of the papacy granting it legitimacy and power within and without the Catholic structure.
The conscious destruction and systemic dismantling of the Liberation Theology movement and the very vital base communities it spawned in Latin America in particular--a move which has opened up Latin America to an onslaught of Pentecostal and right wing religious huckstering. The demise of the Catholic Church in Latin America is now well underway--Pentecostals are sweeping away the population--now that this papacy (with the encouragement and support of the CIA) has destroyed liberation theology and replaced it with opus dei bishops and cardinals.
The effort to eliminate theology and replace it with ideology by spreading fear among theologians. The expulsion from the priesthood of three prominent theologians on three continents in the 1990's sent fear into the ranks of theological thinkers since. Those 3 theologians are Leonardo Boff from Latin America; Father Eugene Dreuermann from Germany; and myself in North America.
The sorry appointment of ideological Yes Men as bishops and cardinals and with it the scandalous pedophile priest situation where the scandal is less about individual priest's crimes than about the cover-up of these crimes by churchmen who, lacking either moral integrity or intellectual smarts, moved these criminals from parish to parish and from diocese to diocese. (One legal commentator points to a Vatican document on dealing with pedophile priests as "an international conspiracy to obstruct justice.") Three close bishop friends of this pope in Europe were themselves forced to resign for sexual misconduct.
Even more curious, is the elevation of one key American churchman, Cardinal Law, head of the Boston archdiocese where the U.S. pedophile scandal first went public, to a plum parish assignment in Rome this past year.
The rigid sticking to celibacy as a requisite for being a priest (as well as the requisite of having exclusively male genitals) means fewer and fewer Catholics have access to the sacraments and fewer and fewer persons are drawn to study for the priesthood. The attendance at Mass on Sundays in San Francisco alone has plummeted 70% during this pope's reign.
As a result of his policies the demise of the number of practicing Catholics in the Northern countries including Ireland and United States continues unabated. In a few years 2/3 of parishes in Germany will have no pastors and no Eucharistic celebration. Already, 1400 priests in Germany are from outside the country and the number of new priests ordained there has dropped from 366 in 1990 to 161 today. The average priest world wide is over 60 years of age.
The obstruction of Ecumenism and Interfaith to the point that most Protestant bodies have, in the words of a key player in Canada, "given up a long time ago" on the Catholic Church supporting ecumenism.
The raising of the papacy to a 'cult of personality' aided and abetted by the fawning media.
Speaking of the fawning media, this papacy granted a "man of conscience" award to Rupert Murdoch (who, the year after he got the award, divorced his wife of many years to marry a young woman).
The Holy Spirit is far smarter and forward looking than any papacy and thus this destruction of Catholicism's past may well be the Spirit's way of creating a flatter playing field for Deep Ecumenism and Interfaith in the future. Meanwhile, though, many good Catholics are deeply hurt and alienated from their church--there are a lot more recovering than practicing Catholics out there--and little leadership appears on the horizon since this pope's appointments and policies have stifled so much talent and blockaded so much potential for intelligent faith.
When I think of this pope I think of a hard-working priest who came to see me a year ago from southern California. He cried as he told me how ALL of the budget for the ministry to the poor was being cut to pay for a big new cathedral and for priestly misconduct. He himself was close to leaving the priesthood. I think of another priest who came to me three years ago and who was the person who actually ran his entire diocese on behalf of his bishop. He was at his wit's end with the hypocrisy and lies emanating from Rome--he knew many secrets. Rather than leave and rather than play the game, he quit his position and diocese and found a ministerial position in another diocese thousands of miles away.
Now that this pope has passed, let readers reflect on the seriousness of these matters. And pray for this pope. I for one would hate to have to face my Creator with a track record like this one.
Matthew Fox, PhD
Theologian and president emeritus of the University of Creation Spirituality, Oakland, California
Je n’ai rien contre ce Pape qui, de son vivant, n’a suscité en moi qu’un agacement diffus et dont la mort me laisse indifférente. Les photos des foules éplorées sont toujours émouvantes, bien sûr, mais bon, il fallait bien qu’il meure un jour, ce brave homme, il avait plus de 80 ans! Je ne suis pas non plus particulièrement impressionnée par les avalanches de louanges et d’hommages que le monde lui rend. Ses succès (ouverture à d’autres religions [mais non au bouddhisme sur lequel il a dit plein d’âneries, mais bon, c’est le Pape, qu’est-ce qu’il peut vouloir connaître du bouddhisme?], condamnation de la guerre d’Iraq), jetés sur la balance avec ses décisions plus douteuses (protection des prêtres pédophiles, position antique sur la sexualité, les femmes et les homosexuels), donnent un bilan plutôt médiocre. Bref, pour moi, Jean-Paul II était juste un pape qui faisait son boulot de pape.
Ce qui a éveillé en moi un soupçon d’intérêt, c’est la grande probabilité qu’il acquière bientôt le statut de saint. Il me semble que la qualité de saint devrait être plutôt difficile à obtenir, non? En quoi Jean-Paul II était-il plus qualifié que d’autres? Je constate non sans amusement que les personnes qui occupent les positions les plus élevées dans certaines classes ou catégories sociales bénéficient souvent d’une indulgence qui est refusée à la plupart d’entre nous. On loue par exemple Jean-Paul II pour son multilinguisme. N’est-ce pas la moindre des choses pour un pontife? D’ailleurs, ce pape-ci et ceux qui l’ont précédé, n’ont jamais démontré ce talent que par quelques courtes phrases lues urbi et orbi (souvent péniblement et avec un accent épouvantable) dans 36 langues à partir d’un page dactylographiée. Pas très convaincant, à mon avis. De même, Ms Condi Rice n’a pas prononcé une seule phrase en russe pendant son séjour récent en République de Russie, malgré sa soi-disant parfaite maîtrise de cette langue. Quand au Président Bush, censé être bilingue (anglais et espagnol), ses discours initiaux en espagnol a tellement fait sourire les gens qu’ils ont été rapidement éliminés (les discours en espagnol, pas les gens souriants). J’ai aussi lu quelque part que le Prince William (ou je ne plus quel membre de la famille royale britannique) savait piloter un hélicoptère. Ma réaction: Big deal, il a tout le temps et tout l’argent du monde pour prendre des cours de pilotage! Bref, ces gens là reçoivent l’admiration des foules pour avoir fait preuve de la moindre qualité ou d’une compétence minimale dans les domaines les plus insignifiants. Le fait est que les gens ont besoin d’aduler quelqu’un, que l’idole choisie le mérite ou non. Si ce n’est pas le Pape, ce sera la Princesse Diana, dont la mort avait également provoqué l'hystérie générale. Si ce n’est le Président Bush, ce sera Britney Spears. Même Charles Manson a son fan club.
Jean-Paul II deviendra donc un saint et les fidèles qui lui adresseront leurs prières verront leurs vœux exaucés, ce qui prouvera qu’il est un vrai saint et non pas le simple porteur du titre de Saint Père. Sinon, s’il n’y a pas de miracle, ce sera parce que les priants manquent de foi, ou parce Dieu en a décidé autrement, ou quelque chose. Ce qui compte, c’est que la masse humaine dispose de ses idoles.
Vous trouvez que je manque de respect pour le Pape? Vous avez parfaitement raison. Mon irrespect n’est cependant pas dirigé contre Jean-Paul II en particulier, mais plutôt contre tous les prêtres en général qui font partie de cette structure hiérarchisée para-militaire caractéristique de toutes les religions organisées. Cet irrespect vise également les fidèles de toutes les religions qui acceptent que des vierges et des célibataires vivant en vase clos dans des communautés subventionnées leur disent comment régler leurs problèmes maritaux et familiaux, comment gérer leur comportement sexuel et leur liberté de reproduction, et pour quel parti politique il faut voter. Jean-Paul II était-il un bon pape et un saint? Je n’en sais rien et je m’en fous. Les catholiques, tout comme les Américains, ont et auront les dirigeants qu’ils méritent. Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.
It's the most hilarious thing, almost as funny as Kim Jong Il's fake diary: http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__/
P.S. I'll post a very serious essay on women and men and their fucked up relationships soon.
My blog is worth $2,258.16.
How much is your blog worth?
