Time for a lighter entry than normal, I think.

Back in 1999 one of the movie review sites I visit (probably www.stomptokyo.com) mentioned a website for a movie called The Blair Witch Project. I checked it out and was immediately hooked. I sent the page to all of my co-workers and friends with an interest in movies and saw it opening week. And i really, really enjoyed it. During the credits, though, I noticed that it was produced by a guy named Gregg Hale.

"Huh," thought I, "I had a close friend named Gregg Hale. I wish I'd kept track of him."

Like much else from those years, the thought of finsing my friend never quite took - the pressure from my aneurysm was getting severe, making me forgetful and unable to focus. If I had only known....

Gregg and I went to the Defense Language Institute together in 1985-86 where we were in class together, studying the Farsi language. We both loved Japanese food and drinking, so we hung out a lot. He introduced me to punk music and the ideological aspects of cultural dissent. He was 2-3 years older and we had a lot of fun hanging out, going to the e-club, and playing D&D. After DLI I went to the 519th at Ft. Bragg and he went to 5th Special Forces Group, also at Bragg. 5th Group eventually moved to Ft. Campbell and I lost touch. At the time my first marriage was collapsing, so I had little opportunity to track him down and, after, my illness kept me from thinking too much about anything.

Well, about 4 months ago I'm trying to track down someone else when I encounter an email address for a Gregg Hale. Not too hopeful, I dashed off an email - and it is my old friend! Very cool.

I asked, and found out, that he was, indeed, the producer of The Blair Witch Project. Super cool.

Which brings us to the meat of today's entry. Monday night my wife, who is certainly NOT a fan of horror movies, or even just scary movies, finally sat down to watch Blair Witch with me. I pop in the DVD and hit play.

She stopped actually watching the movie during the events of the second night. As the characters were preparing to camp for the fifth night, she finally demanded that I turn off the movie and leave all the lights on. I was further instructed, quote, "Tell your friend Gregg that I don't really like him much right now," end quote.

I'm pretty sure Gregg will be happy to hear that.

The story keeps on going, though. Tuesday morning at breakfast Jen is kinda' mad that I "made" her watch as much as she did. Our oldest, Jack (who is 6 years old), asked to watch the movie with me. Jen told him, "Remember how the movie Them scared you so badly? This is 100 times scarier."

Jack's eyes got really big and he asked, "Does it have ants 100 feet tall?"

While Jen tried to hide her laugh, I chimed in, "Well, you really don't see what is after the characters, you just... hear things."

Jack smiled and said, "Oh, just like Forbidden Planet. I loved the part where the Monster from the Id left those scary footprints in the sand. That was awesome."

He immediately jumped down from his chair and ran off to play "Monsters from the Id" with his brothers.

Jen and I were laughing quietly while I beamed with pride over my son's knowledge of horror and science fiction film. Even Jen was impressed, considering Jack saw Forbidden Planet only once and that was more than a year ago.

Dinner table discussions of theology, science, horror films, and science fiction. Such is life in a home full of geeks. I wouldn't trade it for NASCAR and wrestling for all the money in the world.

Well, my final final of the semester was Friday. I spent yesterday trying to relax. I'm not very good at 'working on relaxing', so today will be much less productive, I hope.

And I am having serious trouble with the entire italics html tag in my blog. Please forgice me, but I have brain damage. Maybe I'll ask my good buddy Hjalmer to debug this page. hmmmm.

I had two interesting philosophical encounters over the past few days. Most people don't seem to have any - but they probably aren't looking! Me, I look and listen because I think that what and how we think is important and needs to be examined and discussed. Of course, my friend Gregg Hale would counter that I just like to argue. He probably has a point.

Anyway, my first issue was with a local radio personality named Todd Friel with KKMS (look up www.kkms.com) in the Twin Cities. Now, politically-liberal religiously conservative Catholic that I am, I have many problems with the far-right wing evangelical protestants of KKMS in general. But I listen to find out what people who don't think like me are talking about, something I feel is very important.

Todd is a talk-show host that I find to be a mass of contradictions; he likes to make proclamations like "Good Christians don't do x", or ""This book/movie/whatever is evil and no Christian should buy/see it", while claiming he doesn't think about theology much. He seems to really dislike the very word 'theology'.

Huh.

Now, whenever you say or think things like 'this is evil', or 'this is something a Christian/Buddhist/Zoroastrian should or shouldn't so', you are engaged in theology. And most religious people know and admit this. I usually find that when someone who is religious rejects the concept of theology one of three things is going on; 1) they think 'theology' is some weird, esoteric thing like church Latin and is not part of everyday life; 2) they haven't figured out what they actually believe yet, can't detail their beliefs, and therefore avoid discussing particulars; or, 3) both A and B.

I think Todd is more B with a bit of A along the lines of 'theology equals complexity'. Mainly, though, he joins the vast ranks of evangelicals who have strong beliefs - but don't know how to detail or defend them.

Now, before you think I'm a jerk, I don't think that only people with a developed theology are religious, or that religious people with a fuzzy theology are weak, poor cousins, etc. Far from it. But I do think that if you are going to spout off about Good and Evil and what 'good Christians' should or shouldn't do, you have an obligation to have a solid theology behind you.

Todd doesn't. And he doesn't see a problem with that. Like a lot of people I encounter, he knows what he knows and if you don't agree then you are deluded. Facts, logic, and rhetoric don't matter - he's right, you're wrong, he's moving on.

Lest you think I'm picking on poor Todd, let me assure you - I am convinced most of us (amd i include myself) think like this most of the time. Indeed, it is the only way to be productive. We don't wonder if the sun will come up in the East tomorrow, nor do we worry that the next time we turn the tap the water will flow up just this once. Making assumptions and working off preconceived notions keep sus efficient and productive. even sane.

But we can't let this stand when it comes to such issues as politics, religion, relationships, etc. We must ensure that we check our premises every now and then. And even if you are certain that you will never change your mind about something (such as my faith), you should understand it, be able to explain it, and make logical extrapolations from it.

My other encounter - well, I'll talk about that some other time, I think.

I apologize for the scarcity of posts, but 1) its the end of the semester for me and I'm taking 20 credits (including three 300 level courses), 2) I just moved to a new home, 3) I have 4 children under the age of 7.

I've been busy.

During the move, though, something special happened. Our new place has the magic that is cable TV. Normally, I don't watch TV very much (see items #1, 2, and 3, above) but I have been watching some cartoons with the kids. Anyhoo, I was able to experience my oldest son's first encounter with the Hunting Trilogy of Chuck Jones.

The cartoons called the Hunting Trilogy are the three cartoons titled Rabbit Fire, Rabbit Seasoning, and Duck! Rabbit, Duck!. These cartoons have some importance to trivia buffs like me (they are the only three Warner Brothers cartoons to feature Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, and Bugs Bunny together), but virtually every North American recognizes them as 'the ones where Daffy and Bugs argue that its either rabbit season or duck season'.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself "So his kid saw a cartoon; so what?"
Let me illustrate with a bit of dialogue;
After being shot by Elmer when he expected Bugs to get shot, the following exchange takes place,
Daffy: "Let's run through that again, shall we?"
Bugs: "Sure, Doc."
Daffy (dispassionately): "Its rabbit season, shoot him."
Bugs (also dispassionately): "Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?"
Daffy: "Shoot him now, shoot him now."
Bugs: "You keep out of this, he does not have to shoot you now."
Daffy (the light dawns): "A-ha!" (looks at the camera) "Pronoun trouble".

Folks, this isn't 'just a cartoon', this is art. And I don't mean as in 'Fantasia is art', I mean this is good, important, you should learn about it in college art. Where Fantasia was created by a group of guys who wanted to 'prove' they were artists, Rabbit Seasoning and the rest were made by artists trying to make something they would love and be proud of. And the difference in how people react to Fantasia and Rabbit Seasoning shows this. All sorts of TV specials show you the sorceror's apprentice and talk about how 'important' it is. But you don't go to work and talk about fantasia with your co-workers. On the other hand, people watch Rabbit Seasoning all the time and talk about it with each other over the water cooler even though the cartoon was made in 1952. There isn't anything artificial about it, no attempt to be relevant - and that's what makes this 7 minute animated short so cool - the guys who made it just wanted to make the viewer laugh. And we have been laughing for 51 years.

If you think this stuff hasn't seeped into our culture, try this - next time you see two people arguing over some matter (in a friendly way) just interject "rabbit season!" - they'll get the reference. Or look at the movie Drive where two guys are arguing when one suddenly yells "Don't try that Bigs Bunny shit on me! I am not going to tell Elmer to shoot me!"

Or just look at my son, Jack. He laughed his head off at Daffy's spinning beak. And I suspect that 30 years or so from now while his kids are laughing at Daffy's beak, he will be laughing at the same line that gets me every time.

"Pronoun trouble".

In general, I think talk radio is a vast wasteland. Most talk radio hosts either have a too narrow focus, too skewed position, or both. If 'truth in talk radio' laws existed, most radio 'personalities' would be in jail for a loooong time.

But I spend a lot of time listening to talk radio, nonetheless. Why? I listen to the people I disagree with most just to keep an ear on the opposition, as it were. Just as theologians are mainly responding to questions and dealing with problems, I listen to prepare for attacks and respond to questions. Just doing my part to be prepared. And besides, the research I do often teaches me new things and occasionally changes my mind [for example, my research has led me to think Mumia Jamal did kill that cop, but I also think he didn't get a fair trial. So I think he shouldn't be executed, but should spend some time in the big house].

It also makes me realize how the Catholic Church needs to make its full position on many topics much more widely known. Here is an aexample.

Yesterday I heard a local marriage counselor talking to a woman with a problem. While she was pregnant her husband started an affair with another, younger, woman. He returned to his wife when she gave birth - but now his mistress is pregnant with his child, too, and he's waffling. This is a horrible situation and the counselor mentioned that he's seen this before and has plans to deal with it in an attempt to save the marriage.

Seen this before? Church of the Holy Sepulchre, what is going on?!

But I know what's going on. A huge number of males in this society have no concepts of responsibility of the results of their sexual activity. And almost as many females concur that sex and consequences have nothin to do with each other. I refuse to refer to these adults as 'men' or 'women' because these attitudes are immature and 'men' and 'women' are words to describe mature humans.

And why should a young man feel that he should face any consequences from being sexually active? After all, birth control means that a woman can't get pregnant, right? And condoms also prevent STDs, right? Well, no - not really. A condom combined with a spermicide is (according to the FDA) about 85% effective - meaning that about 1 in 6 times the woman will get pregnant. And the FDA calculates that a condom without spermicide (the method of choice for many) can be no more than 97% effective. Indeed, the FDA calculates that a diaphragm with spermicide is statistically about as effective as withdrawal. And remember, the FDA is dealing with statistical means here - hurried young people with little experience are going to actually be in danger of slipping down to the 50% to 60% effectiveness of such sloppy birth control. But these young people expect the effectiveness to be 100% - so they really don't think about the potential consequences. And if there is a failure, then just get an abortion, right?

Again, this is ducking the responsibilities in herent in sex. After all, according to the CDC about 10% of all abortions result in immediate health complications (ranging from second-degree burns to intestinal perforations) and about one-fifth of these complications (or 2% of total abortions) are considered life threatening. That means that about 80 women are suffering life-threatening complications from abortions not every year, not evey month, but every day. And the CDC also reports that many deaths directly related to abortions are not reported as related to abortions, increasing the number of women who die as a direct result of abortion by at least 50%, to no less than 40 women a year.

Scary numbers - who wants to die because of sex? And we haven't even started talking about STDs, which are more likely to bypass contraception!

So beyond any emotional connectedness, spiritual directives, moral issues, or just plain compassion for your sexual partner, having sex instantly creates a situation where at least the woman's future is potentially at risk.Having sex is a risky business and human societies have historically recognized this and placed moral, cultural, and societal demnds on those who engage in sex.

But current society tells youngsters that sex should be and is free of all consequences as risk. Indeed, many parents oppose abstinence education because it 'doesn't work'. Actually, as everyone from the Pope to the CDC, FDA, and NOW continue to state/freely admit only abstinence is 100% effective in preventing disease and pregnancy. The only nation in Africa with a declining percentage of AIDS infection is Uganda. Its secret? Abstinence education and a strong emphasis on monogamous marriages with no infidelity. So they have a declining percentage of AIDS infection, a sharp drop in all other STDs, and a steep decline in unwed mothers and teen pregnancies. And the basic message of their abstinence program is 'if you have sex you will eventually get pregnant or catch a disease'. And it works.

Let's repeat that - teaching people that sex has consequences is shown to reduce teen pregnancies, unwed mothers, STDs, and the percentage of AIDS infection. And I do mean a declining rate of AIDS infection, which means the total number of AIDS patients is still growing, albeit slowly - I mean a declining percentage of AIDS patients, meaning the total number of infected people is going down. This information is available from Doctors without Borders and in a number of medical journals - but not the WHO, yet. Many at the UN oppose abstinence programs because it might take funding away from condom programs.

Let's repeat that, too - some want to suppress the abstinence and monogamy programs (that have been proven to work in the real world) because it might reduce the funding for condom programs (which have been proven to fail in the real world).

This is all part of a continuing pattern of people confusing the acceptance that sex has consequences with being repressed. People think that teaching others that having sex will lead to children, that abortion is inherently dangerous, or that condoms don't prevent AIDS (statistically) is somehow infringing on their 'rights'. Read the news stories about these issues and see if you can see this pattern. Or write me and tell me I'm crazy - either way, think about this. Its more important than you think.

Friday was an interesting day in my American Political Thought class (I'm working on a degree - BA this Winter, Master's program immediately after). We are reading and discussing various themes in American political history and this section is on class and economics - this means people like Brownson, Sinclair Lewis, etc. Well, while discussing middle class/working class issues and poverty several students used the term 'the poor' in ways that meant that they were envisioning only urban "people-of-color". Not only is it unfair to Blacks to assume that 'poor' equals 'unemployed Black man' it ignores the fact that the majority of poor Americans are employed Whites in rural areas. A vast majority, actually. Unemployed Blacks just tend to be much more convienient when a politician or reporter wants an image - they are close, and they are so stereotyped in American thought that they are perfect for framing a soundbite.

That's OK - these kids are in college to learn, so I spoke up a mentioned the statistics (giving some references I had at hand) so they could do some research and learn some facts about poverty.

Then the fun began. A student started a rant about how the poor aren't doing to well for themselves politically because (close quote, but not exact) 'they're so ignorant that the vote to block abortions for someone else when they don't have healthcare. I mean, how stupid is it to care what someone else does with their body when you don't have insurance? They have their priests and ministers telling them what to do and they just do it because they don't know enough to think for themselves.'

No, really. A kid going to a Catholic university said this. In front of people, and stuff. On purpose.

I broke in and said "You might want to be more careful before you equate being pro-life with being ignorant or stupid. Or claiming that its only an issue for the poor."

And he actually tried to reply! he said, "I'm just saying that the poor are more likely to be religious and that they don't have the education to realize they don't have to do what the priests tell them to do. I mean, why don't priests care about wages, or insurance? I'm not trying to be offensive."

I said, "You're failing. Badly."

Where was the professor, you ask? Standing there, letting me correct this kid.

Just so you know, the Catholic Church has been officially promoting the concept of a 'living wage', or a minimum wage sufficient to support a family, since the encyclical Rarum Novarum in 1891. Many bishops, theologians, etc. have advocated similar concepts since at least the 3rd century, but it became the official stance of the Church as a whole with this encyclical on Capital and Labor. And the Church remains heavily active in the modern living wage movement (Santa Fe springs to mind) to this day.

And while the Church has no official declaration on universal health care, two millenia of building hospitals, educating doctors and nurses, and providing free care to the poor and indigent speaks loudly enough, I think.

This kid was obviously made nervous by my words and literally bolted out of the room as soon as class ended. I think that tomorrow night I might write up a little note for him including all the stuff I've written about here (with a bibliography) as well as a statistical snapshot of pro-life voters. Wht go to the trouble, you ask?

Too many people today assume that if you do not agree with their opinions (a popular opinion) then it means that you are misled and that you are not worth listening to. I do my best to introduce people to one of my favorite pastimes - trying to change my own mind. By this I mean taking something that someone disagrees with me about and researching it to see if I'm the idiot. I've discovered that I am wrong about enough things that I try to spread this wonderful idea around a bit.

Wish me luck.

According to the best numbers available the Catholic Church has a touch over 1.1 billion members. This is based upon the number of people who are officially members of a parish, nt just 'self-reporting' Catholics (although some estimates were made for 'secret Catholics', or Catholics in nations where being Catholic can get you arrested or killed, like China - but that is a fraction of the total). This means that about 16.5% of all humans are Catholic, making it easily the largest denomination on Earth. It also means that Catholics just barely outnumber all other Christian denominations combined (there are about 2 billion Christians, or 33% of the total population).

Not too bad for a church that has been called 'irrelevant' or even 'dying' by the media, huh?

And the Catholic Church is growing, by the way, at about 10% per decade. While this may seem like small growth, in actuality it means that in 2010 there will be about 110 million more Catholics than there were 2 years ago. Compare this with, say, the Pentecostal churches which have about 1 million congregants world-wide. And a large number of 'new' Catholics are converts, always dynamic members that are usually very active (in any religion).

In America about 25% of all citizens are Catholic, or about 70 million people - easily the largest single denomination in America.

Yes, I'm getting to my point now.

Traditionally, American Catholics have voted Democrat for about 120+ years. Rain or shine, as the party changed it usually changed to match the opinion of Catholics. This all began to change in the late 1920's and accelerated in the '70's, especially post-. Since the 1980 elections more and more Catholics are voting Republican until it is clear that soon Catholics may become majority Republicans. So what has the Democratic party done to win back this massive voting block?

Nothing.

That's right, nothing. While the changes are many, the main sticking point for most Catholics is the abortion issue. After that are other 'socially conservative' issues, like homosexual marriage, sex education, etc. In the main, though, surveys reveal that many Catholics that vote Republican prefer the Democratics position on issues like fiscal policy, legislation, welfare, medicaid, etc. In other words, Catholics are largely socially conservative but fiscally liberal (the opposite of Jesse Ventura); they are pro-welfare, anti-war, and don't want tax cuts for the wealthy.

As more turn to the Republicans on social issues, though, this is changing and Catholics are sloooowly becoming more fiscally conservative, too, in response to what they see as a total failure of the Democratic positions.

So it seems that it should be fairly easy to reach out towards Catholics, doesn't it? Indeed, a survey done in 1996 by Father Andrew Greely (Catholic Priest and sociologist) indicated that a fair number of American Catholics would vote Democrat (either instead of voting Republican or not voting at all) if the Democrats would simply talk about differing viewpoints on abortion, etc., being acceptable within the party. A staunch Democrat himself, Greely published the information and sent a copy to the Democratic National Commitee. When nothing happened Fr. Greely confirmed his first survey with another, again learning that many Catholics indicated that they would vote Democrat if the party leadership would simply let their dissenting voices be heard.

Nothing like that happened. And some estimate the Democrats effectively abandoned maybe as many as 2 million votes in the last presidential election - an election where the Republican candidate visited Bob Jones University, a notorious center of anti-Catholic hate. Even is the actual numbers were 1/4th the large estimate it would have made a huge difference in places like, say, very Catholic Florida.

In one of his books Fr. greely spoke of when he entered the headquarters of a Democratic candidate in Chicago. In street clothes, Fr. greely eventually spoke to the campaign manager and asked,


Why aren't you working on the Catholic vote?"


The reply? "We have been working on the blue-collar vote."

Greely left, angry and dismayed at the ignorance. He then lists the statistics for Catholics in America. Of all gentile (i.e., non-Jewish) religious groups in America, Catholics; are the most likely to have a PhD; have the highest average salary; are the most likely to have a management or administrative position; and have the highest average IQs. The days of Irish Catholics driving railroad spikes with hammers are over 100 years behind us, yet many think of Catholics as being just like they are portrayed in the films of 1930's and '40's Hollywood.

So why have Democrats abandoned Catholics? I'm not sure, but I suspect it may be because many leaders within the Democratic party disregard all religious people. Oh, they'd never admit it, but many people who see themselves as intellectual completely reject all religions and believe people who embrace religion are deluded at best and fools in general.

What are Catholics to do? I suspect we either have to do one of three things; 1) get very involved in local politics AND be very vocal about our religious beliefs so that people finally realize how many of us their are; 2) promote our social and justice concerns in secular terms and hope for the best (although this seems to be failing as we speak); or 3) start our own political party.

I bet you can guess which one I suspect is most likely to succeed.

You know what one phrase instantly makes me ready to be offended?

"I don't hate Catholics."

This is usually immediately followed by "...I just hate [their beliefs/their traditions/their way of life/my stereotypical view of x element of being Catholic]. I love the people, I hate [x]."

Very offensive. There was a survey done of media about 6 years ago now by an ecumenical group that investigated religious bigotry. What religious group is most discriminated against? Catholics, hands down. From cartoons to oped pieces to sitcom plots Catholics were portrayed negatively and the Catholic faith system fared worse. And the more orthodox (i.e., faithful to Catholic belief) the characters were, the more negative the portrayal.

This is no news to Catholics, especially the devout. As a recent convert to Christianity at all, I am constantly appalled. I know a man who would never utter a racial slur who refers to Catholics as "idiots" (as in "I saw the pope and his idiots on TV today. Must have been a few thousand idiots at that rally!" "That was a public mass, 'Bob'"). I know a manager that fired a sales rep for using the phrase "I jewed them down" but goes out of his way to tell offensive Catholic 'jokes' to the Catholics that work for him. His boss didn't understand what I was upset about, either. And I know a college student with a 'celebrate diversity' sticker on his car that "...doesn't think the anti-christ [he means the Pope] should be allowed in the UN".

And let us not discuss the portrayal of Catholics in movies or (please no!) television. Let's just agree that as far as TV writers are concerned Catholics are either evil or the village idiot.

So why is this permitted? Why do professors who teach diversity feel free to call the Catholic Church evil? Why do TV shows that would never dare portray gays, Jews, or Asians in a negative or stereotypical light consistently portray Catholics as ignorant, repressed hicks (or morally corrupt villains)? And why is the portrayal of Catholicism in the popular media so mistaken, so error-ridden, and so flat-out wrong that even many Catholics have seriously flawed concepts as to what the Church actually teaches and believes? If your documentary on the Discovery Channel claimed that Jews controlled all moneylending in Renaissance England you'd lose your job as producer for not fact-checking (although Jews were moneylenders in that period of English history, the Italians were dominant). Yet I saw a documentary on that same channel proclaim that the Catholic Church sold indulgences as "forgiveness of sins in return for money" - a 'fact' so well established that 'everyone knows its true'.

And, naturally, it isn't. Indulgences were not a forgiveness of sin in return for money. What they were is more complicated. In Catholic theology confession of your sins to God (in the presence of the priest, the representative of both God and the members of the Church) God then forgives you sins. BUT, there is a penance, as well. The penance is a 'payment' made by the forgiven to expiate, or puge the effects, of the sin. For example, if I stole $5 from my Mom when I was 12 years old and then confessed, my penance might be to replay the $5 and to give $5 to charity to teach me that money isn't everything, that giving is more important, etc. Of if I had committed adultery my penance might consist of months of prayer and reflection, working with the poor, and parayer with my wife to ingrain in me the importance of my family, my love for my wife, and how adultery corrodes my character as a life of deceit.

Some penances, especially in the Euope of the 1300-1600's, were pretty hardcore. Like a pilgrimage from Paris to Vienna. On foot. In Winter. Or 1 hour of constant prayer every day for 3 years. This is where indulfences entered the picture. In certain areas Bishops of the Church announced that certain charitible causes were innately beneficial; thus, giving money to these causes would help expiate the effects of sin. So, if you gave x amount of money to, say, building a hospital or feeding the poor in a famine-ridden area you were counted as having done some certain level of other penance. This was called 'an indulgence from penance' or just an indulgence (the theological explaination of this involves a concept called the Communion of the Saints and the manner in which the Church can determine what is or is not meritorious - don't worry about it too much). And, yes, you could 'buy ahead' on penances that you had not yet been assigned by a priest. However, this did not mean that you were forgiven for sins you had not yet committed. Indeed, many people 'bought ahead' out of simple charity in the concept of 'a good cause is a good cause'.

Did some people misunderstand what indulgences were? Probably, especially among those too poor to purchase them. And were fake indulgences sold by con men? Sure. And were some bishops selling indulgences for things that didn't seem very meritorious? Yup (that is what Luther was most upset about, per his notes. That and all 'works', actually). But $1 billion worth of indulgences wouldn't have forgiven a single sin and the Church never said they would, just that you could substitute giving to certain charities for certain other actions required by your faith.

Of course, understanding this requires time, and some knowledge, and some history - hence, people just repeat the anti-Catholic accusations of certain Protestants without ever checking the facts. And after a few hundred years of this legend being repeated everywhere from Lutheran pulpits to college classrooms I have to convince cradle Catholics that it just ain't so.

Happy Easter!

On this most important of all Christian holidays I doubt that I will have time to blog... but you never know. So on this day that the Lord has made, try to remember the importance of the day. By His death and resurrection Christ has broken the bonds of sin, freeing us from death.

Food for thought, geopolitics. You learn that situations are as important as ideologies. After all, communists, capitalists, libertarians, and royalists are all human. That is one of the core conceits of much political theorists (at least macro theorists); that capitalists, et. al., will react in similar manners to similar situations, they will just use different rhetorical excuses.

In broad terms, I agree with this. Exceptions must always be made for those political actors who are 'strict' ideologues like, say, the Vatican, or Cuba. To these political entities ideology often does override typical reactions.

A few days ago I discussed the ways that America is beginning to act as a hegemonic power, or empire. But what sort of empire are we? Early Rome was a Republican Empire (not that way! They were a Republic that acted as an empire) while later Rome was a Dictatorial Empire. I suspect that America is becoming an Oligarchy, or 'rule by a few'; more precisely a Plutocracy, or 'rule by the richest'. I also threw out some (U.S. Government supplied) numbers on how the richest 1% of America out earn the lowest 90% - they control much more than that - after all, they make all that money by controlling massive corporations. So the richest 1% also decides who among the rest has a job, how much that job pays, etc. Rarely discussed, this power disparity is much more dramatic than the income disparity.

And this power is actually much more effective in the US, and its use much more naked. In virtually every other democratic (or non-democratic, for that matter) nation on Earth it is illegal for a corporation to give millions of dollars to a politician or political candidate - its called 'bribing someone'. Here, its called 'fund raising'. Ditto for private individuals giving huge sums of cash to, say, a chief of police, or mayor, or president. Heck, our big argument is if some big donors even have to be publically revealed! The 2000 presidential election cost $3 billion dollars; you can't tell me that the people who 'donated' over $1 billion to the winner don't expect something in return for their money.

Not that long after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, Unocal (aka United Oil of California) starting working on negotiations to complete a pipeline from the Turmenistan accesses to the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea area to the Indian Ocean ports of Pakistan via Afghanistan. Indeed, in December 1997 they were training Afghans to build this pipeline. And despite the already notorious actions of the Taliban, Unocal and other American energy companies were more than willing to do business with them.

Except, of course, for the continued instability in the region. It was too dangerous to build a pipeline. And a broken pipeline would send stock prices down. What to do?

Then the Bush Redux administration came in, an administration where most of the 'top players' (the President, the vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and many others) were all ex-oil corporation executives. And most still had close ties *cough, cough, stock, cough* to the 'energy sector'.

And Eurasia (the very eastern edge of Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia) is estimated to have about, oh, 75% or so of the energy reserves (oil, gas, coal, and fissionables) on Earth. Controlling this region, militarily, politically, or economically, would go a long way to making a lot of oil people much richer than they already are. and they are already rich enough to donate billions of dollars to politics.

And lest you think I am on a "blood for oil" rant I learned from Chomsky, there are many other reasons to be involved in the region.

It is politically very important. Arab nationalism is in some ways finally catching up to the sentiments felt in other regions in the '60's, '70's, and early '80's. Just as the political oligarchs felt it was critical for us to blunt the 'extreme effects' of nationalism (like local people and governments controlling and profiting from local resources, rather than watching multinational corporations strip the land reap the benefits) in places like Latin America and Africa, there are certainly people very interested in curbing this disturbing notion on the part of some Arabs that they are perhaps getting a raw deal from existing governments and maybe they want newer, more representational, governments. And lest you think that America, child of revolution that she is, would never prevent the people of another nation from determining their own destiny, may I point out that in the late '50's/early '60's when the people of Iran ejected their King and tried to go to a representational democracy based upon the American model the CIA stopped the revolution, helped grab the elected leaders, and placed the Shah back on his throne. Why? Because the Shah would keep the existing contracts in place (to the incredible profit of a number of foreign multinational oil corpoprations) rather than nationalising the industry (so that well-trained Iranians would pump, process, and profit from Iranian oil). So the Iranians had their democracy squashed by the CIA, British Petroleum and its American partners kept their fat profits, and Americans paid a higher price at the pump (after all, BP had to ship the oil a few times to process it. It maximized their profits, but resulted in more expensive gasoline than if it was all done centrally in Iran).

Is it any wonder the Iranians were so very angry at America when they had their next revolution?

A military reason to be quite interested in the region is its central location. From this area you can directly 'project power' (also known as 'threaten') all of Europe and Asia, as well as northern Africa. Russia, China, and India - all potential major political and military powers of the future - can all be watched very closely. Currently, to launch a ground war on any of these nations would require some other nation allowing us to base ourselves in their territory before attacking their powerful neighbor. In some cases even air attacks are very, very tough because of distance. The solution would be army, air force, and naval bases in the Middle East and Central Asia. This is currently not possible.

Well, not exactly. Afghanistan has been considered strategically critical to the region since about the time of Alexander the Great. Since its central location provides access to Russia, Iran, China, and India its probably more important now. Great location from army and air bases. But where to put the navy? I mean, carrier groups travel the high seas all the time - how do we increase our influence on the local waterways?

Unless you have lived in a cave since the opening of the Silk Road, you know I mean the Persian Gulf. But where in the Gulf? There is a place that is politically and militarily important - it has a deep water port; its location gives an excuse for travelling the entire Gulf; the surrounding territory borders Iran and the splinter Russian Republics (also getting nationalistic); and it can threaten virtually every nation in the Middle East. It is, of course, Iraq.

So if you want to begin to politically, economically, and militarily dominate Eurasia, where would you start? Almost certainly Afghanistan and Iraq - they are strategically important, politically isolated, and militarily pathetic. Seizing either or both would allow you to continue hegemonic activity/empire building/economic-political-military aggression against the immediate neighbors of that state.

So, do i think that some shadow conspiracy is running this thing? Not really. As a matter of fact I thinks its almost certainly not truly coordinated. What I do think is happening is a confluence of events that make certain things virtually inevitible. In broad strokes they are;

the beginnings of a true plutocracy in America

America's position as hegemonic power

The power vacuum caused by the lack of a true coalition in opposing America's hegemony

The social and political turmoil of growing Eurasian nationalism

A morally and ethically weak administration and legislature that has no core ideology with which to resist the tides of political and economic interests.

The last is important. You see, no matter how common human reactions are in similar situations, they are not fated. Most people flee a fire in terror - some save others at risk to their own life. Geopolitics are the same: some react like "most people", some change the world. And history has proven time and again that one person can change the world and, indeed, individuals are effecting change all of the time. But without some core ethical and moral framework it is virtually impossible to resist these "common reactions" - that's why they are common.

Our current political climate, with its soundbites, soft money, and reliance on polls, is probably not the place to find many people with a strong, internally-consistent moral/ethical framework. Hence, the growth of Imperial America.

Well, my wife tells me that she thought my post on post-modern feminism was


"Weak. Not bad, just... weak".

I'll admit, feminism is not my strength. Being a man I am, essentially, an observer of the dynamic. Much like childbirth; I sympathize, and man! it looks painful. But, in the end, all I can do is say "You can do it! Don't quit! Almost there, now!"

Actually, during labor my wife tells me to shut the Hell up.

Maybe the feminist movement and childbirth have more in common than I thought.

Whatever. Later tonight I will return to two of my favorites - geopolitics and theology.

Funny story: during the birth of our third son, Sam, I was quietly moving about, keeping everything neat and orderly, when the midwife commented,


"You are awfully... distant, aren't you? Most husbands are coaching their wives."


I replied, "She needs to concentrate. She knows that I'm here, she knows that I love her, and she knows that I'll do anything for her."


"Aw, that is so sweet."


Behind her, Jen was glaring at me to shut up.

Our topic this evening is post-modernism and the decline of modern feminism.

No, really.

I feel that, as a human, I can comment on both post-modernism and the current state of the feminist movement. Not quite as an 'insider', but that doesn't mean I can't have insights.

The feminist movement is, at its core, a very Christian movement. Its core concept is that women are just as intelligent, worthy, and human as men with the exact same rights. And if you say 'duh', let me remind you that my dear grandmother, who is still alive, can remember clearly the day women gained the right to vote in America. So it wasn't that long ago that the US Senate still had a member that also remembered a time when women weren't considered responsible enough to vote.

That being said, I have a problem with a great deal of current educators that call themselves feminists. They advocate an "anything goes' sort of version of this where if you like it (or it makes you more popular, or gets you a raise) do it. This is an absurd proposition normally, but even more so when it is intended to be a central moral and ethical tenet of 51% of the population. And the other common facet of current 'feminist' thought is that career success=feminism. In other words, if you're rich, you're a good feminist. If you are poor, you are a failed feminist.

Both ideas suck. The 'if you like it, do it' concept is the attempt at wish-fulfillment of immature people who want to relive their teenage years a little better, this time. If I can do whatever I want I'll be happy, right? Hardly. And the idea that feminism is about careers is a buckling of some feminists to the capitalist concepts of the oligarchy (more on the oligarchy in the future). Being a worthy human is about a lot more than how many female vice-presidents a company has and there is far more depth to the souls of women than meetings and memos. And I don't think Betty Friedan would ever 'dress for success'.

And where does post-modernism come in? You probably aren't too surprised to learn that I plan to explain.

The basic idea of post-modernism is that you can never be absolutely certain that you are right: there is always the chance that you are wrong. Therefore, never assume you are right and be open to learning new things and changing your mind. Pretty simple.

Many people (whom I politely refer to as 'intellectually lazy') twist this to the schoolyard argument of "I'm rubber, you're glue" by denying everything (the 'there is no truth' crowd). They use this fuzzy thinking to claim that everything is OK, everything is equally valid, there is no such thing as 'quality' or 'truth' so do whatever you want. Sort of an even-more-pseudo-intellectual veneer to the ramblings of Anton LeVay.

They fail to grasp that post-modern theory doesn't say you can't be right, just that you can't be sure you're right so you need to be growing continually(a pretty good Catholic concept, really; since Man is tinged with sin, Man needs to always be vigilant for errors in thought or application). And post-modernism certainly leaves room for you to be flat wrong.

So that's why you have some "feminists" making money off pornography ('all the girls volunteered to pose to become empowered about their bodies'. Sure they did) or talking about how to perform sex acts that you don't really like.

Don't get me wrong - there are some who are keeping the faith out there, especially women like Becky Whisnant of UNC - Chapel Hill (who has some excellent essays out there that I recommend to anyone). And there are some good resources out there that repeat that empowerment does not mean 'learning how to smile through it' but does 'learning how to not put up with it'.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with everything Becky says. But I like that she teaches me things and makes me uncomfortable.

So the Bush regime is sending not-so-subtle warnings to Syria to get behind the US or end up in front of an armored column. At least they are being upfront about the expected changes in world climate - obey or pay.

I was lucky to take a class with Dr. Organski at the University of Michigan on political science. Organski is one of those political scientists who isn't popular with the media or the governments because he happens to be right most of the time. Hence, he disagrees with government "experts" and the "leaders in the field" most of the time. He co-developed a theory of warfare called (if I remember correctly) the 'power transition' theory. Boiled down, it states that in large wars the victor is determined by economics and that large wars occur when either 1) a formerly lesser economic power feels it is now economically dominant or 2) the economically dominant power feels it is in danger of losing its economic pre-eminence. This theory nicely models everything from the late crusades to Desert Shield/Storm with numbers that make solid predictions.Predictions that tend to be true.

So, since we are in broad generalization territory (and remember - everyone who makes a broad generalization is an idiot), let's talk some numbers.

The European Union is being formed in an attempt to create a single, unified European economy in the hope that this economy will rival the American economy. It isn't certain that this will happen. Heck, with all of their oil wealth the Kingdom of Saudi Arabiahad a GDP of only $241 billion in 2001. "Only $240 billion+?" you say? Yes, only. After all, California had an estimated GDP of $1.3 trillion the same year. Yup, trillion with a 't'. Or roughly the GDP of France.

Let's take a quick break and talk about hegemonic theory. This is the concept that if there is only 1 superpower it will act as a hegemon, or consolidator of power. According to political theory, this is inevitable. Dr. Organski said in lecture that with strong presidents imperial attitudes and actions on the part of America could be delayed until 2050 or so. With average presidents until 2025 or so. But with one weak president it could happen almost instantly.

Guess what?

What is the natural reaction to hegemonic (or imperial) actions? 'Lesser' nations will band together in attempts to create power blocs that can balance the hegemon.

Remember power transition theory? It predicts that when these blocs look like they are surpassing the hegemon it will result in war. Let me repeat that - if either side believes the challengers are a serious economic threat it will result in a major war. And with a hegemon like the US, that almost certainly means a world war.

Of course, that might be a few years down the road. After all, like I said, California is an economic power roughtly equivalent to France. Heck, Indiana has a GDP equal to about 150% the GDP of Finland - the European Union will not actually challenge America ecomically for some time. BUT, if either side thinks that they do, it could be vey, very bad.

More importantly, one of the actions of a hegemonic power is to weaken its potential foes and consolidate power. And there are certainly some people in the current administration who are conversant with political theory and economics. So I am convinced that we are seeing a knowing and deliberate attempt on the part of political leaders, under the guidance of political advisors, to begin the process of hegemonic activity by the US. Not only for the influence and power it gives current leaders but because there is another side to these theories - once the US is deeply involved enough into hegemonic activities it will be virtually impossible to cease those imperialist activities without a major weakening of America either by economic disaster (natural or imposed) or the loss of a major war. Let me say that again - if we are led far enough down the path of imperialism the only way out is by the economic or military defeat of America so that it can no longer threaten the non-hegemonic powers.

"But Deep Thought," I hear you ask, "why would anyone purposefully do such a thing?". Well, two main reasons.

First, being an hegemon is pretty nice for ideologues. Don't like a foreign government? Change it! Don't like a particular strain of political thought? Crush it. Rome certainly tried to remake the world in its own image and succeeded well enough that they have strongly influenced Europe, Northern Africa, Western Asia, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere for over 1,500 years since they were destroyed. There are plenty of ideologues in the current administration who would kill or die for a fraction of such a legacy. And with a long-lasting, aggressive hegemonic power it is certainly possible.

Second, being an aggressive hegemon is pretty cushy for the ruling elite. Face it, America is controlled by the wealthy. And being hegemonic is about making the wealthy both wealthier and more powerful. If you are the 1% of Americans control 36% of the wealth of America, or about $1.2 trillion a year. And no one really knows how much of the world's wealth they control (no on seems to research that....) but if they could use hegemonic action to control 50% of the Wworld's wealth....

Who could say no?