Thought Theater

The Onion: It's All About The Gap...Between The Have's & The Have Nots

2008-05-12T17:09:56Z

In this episode of The Onion News, the network takes a look at the Gap's new clothing line...the one that is made by kids for kids. Nothing like American children being able to wear the right tags...even if those tags are sewn on by children in sweat shops.

After all, isn't that why we Americans are the envy of the world...what with giving our children generous allowances to buy the products they need instead of having to sell them into virtual slavery to make those products.

Yes, without capitalism, what would parents in third world countries do with their children? Thank goodness we provide the demand that allows them to be productive individuals. Otherwise, they might spend their time playing video games, participating in club sports, and trying to one up the neighbor's children by wearing the latest fashions.

Now if we can only get these same foreign children trained in providing first rate customer support for American companies that have been "forced" to hire adults in third world countries. Thank goodness these folks are willing to do the jobs that Americans won't do.

It certainly makes one feel good to know that we're continuing our efforts to prove our unyielding commitment to assisting the underprivileged people of the world...at a significant profit to U.S. corporations, of course!

Tax Exemption Without Limitation - Now That's Christianity

2008-05-11T15:45:46Z

The gall of the religious right never ceases to amaze. Time and again, they demonstrate that hypocrisy is an essential element of their ideology. While many of these zealots frequently demonstrate their willingness to preach one thing and do another, their latest endeavor seems determined to take it to a whole new level.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal advocate for the right wing, is calling on churches to voice their positions on political candidates en masse on September 28th in order to create the grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the current tax code. As it now stands, the IRS guidelines prohibit churches from directly endorsing or rejecting political candidates in order to maintain their tax exempt status. The ADF wants to overturn the provision on the grounds that it circumvents their First Amendment rights and is therefore unconstitutional.

From The Washington Post:

The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.

Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.

However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.

The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.

From WorldNetDaily:

"Churches have for too long feared the loss of tax exempt status arising from speech in the pulpit addressing candidates for office," the ADF's white paper on the campaign confirmed. "Rather than risk confrontation, pastors have self-censored their speech, ignoring blatant immorality in government and foregoing the opportunities to praise moral government leaders.

"ADF believes that IRS restrictions on religious expression from the pulpit, whenever the IRS characterizes it as 'political,' is unconstitutional. After 50 years of threats and intimidation, churches should confront the IRS directly and reclaim the expressive rights guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution," the group said.

"The intimidation of churches by leftist groups using the IRS has grown to a point that ADF has no choice but to respond," said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the ADF. "The number of threats being reported to ADF is growing because of the aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church.

Where to begin. First, I doubt the courts would rule in favor of the ADF since churches have always had the option to forego their tax exempt status. The bottom line - they elect their tax status knowing the conditions. I personally believe they shouldn't be tax exempt and it wouldn't surprise me if this misguided effort opens the door to discussing that possibility.

Beyond that, the dividing line between church and state is a complex matter that has been addressed numerous times by the courts. I suspect that the ADF believes that the shift to the right in the Supreme Court under the Bush administration may be to their benefit. Regardless, there is ample precedent that would need to be ignored in order for ADF to prevail.

Setting aside the legal argument, I want to focus on some of the inconsistent positions that emanate from the religious right...positions that lead me and many others to decry their penchant for hypocrisy. Two issues jump off the page.

The first is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush and his supporters have argued that the government shouldn't provide funding for such research. The rationale for their objections is predicated upon ethical concerns that have their origin in religious doctrine. At the same time, he and those who support the ban on federal funding loudly note that they aren't preventing state and private funding for this research.

Hence the inconsistency is revealed. On the one hand, the religious right believes that it is appropriate for the president to deny funding for research that could assist numerous Americans that have no religious objections to the use of embryonic stem cells. They argue that those in favor of doing so can still conduct the research...just without the endorsement (funding) of the federal government. In other words, no one's rights are being denied so long as the research is allowed to proceed. If you favor it, fund it privately...but your federal government isn't going to use your money to do so.

On the other hand, those who endorse the logic in the above argument believe the federal government shouldn't be allowed to prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politicking in exchange for granting them an exemption from taxation. Where does that leave us? Well, it says that these individuals want the government to forego funding research that conflicts with their religious beliefs while also allowing them to use the pulpits of the churches they support to influence the outcome of elections...without those churches ever being required to pay taxation. If that isn't wanting to have it both ways, what is?

Contrast that with the secular citizen who pays taxes and wants the government to fund research that might save lives and one begins to see the absurdity of the system these religious demagogues favor. Truth be told, many of these religious organizations have already established "arms length" political entities that circumvent the IRS codes. Anyone who doubts their aspirations for the establishment of a theocracy ought to think again. The ADF directive is simply the next step in a well-crafted agenda.

The second item that illuminates the inconsistency in the rationale of the religious right is gay marriage. Proponents of measures to ban same-sex marriages contend that same-sex couples can achieve many of the same benefits that are afforded to married couples by utilizing the appropriate legal documentation. Of course they fail to mention that the lion's share of benefits cannot be achieved through any means...especially those that relate to taxation.

At the same time, they argue that the preservation of the institution of marriage and it's religious connotations is reasonable so long as the government isn't preventing gays from forming the relationships they choose. In other words, it's reasonable to restrict marriage to one man and one woman so long as the government allows gays to form the relationships they choose. The bottom line message to gays - you elect your tax status knowing the conditions.

When gays assert that this is an unfair system, the religious right is the first to cite those objections as evidence of the militant homosexual agenda and the desire of gays to force society to accept and embrace their alternative lifestyle.

Again, we begin to see the inconsistency. On the one hand, the religious right argues that the government has no obligation to recognize same-sex unions...and those who enter into them do so knowing the precedent conditions. You want a gay spouse, you don't benefit from the advantageous tax status afforded to recognized marriages. On the other hand, they want the government to recognize religious doctrine when determining whose marriages will receive beneficial treatment while also wanting their churches to receive preferential tax status absent conditions...conditions that are simply intended to uphold the separation of church and state.

Similar arguments can be made with regards to the religious right's positions on a number of issues. This includes a woman's right to have an abortion and the rights of an individual or their family members to make end of life decisions. Time and again, the religious right seeks to insert and impose their beliefs on those who do not share them while simultaneously asking the government to adopt a laissez-faire mentality with regards to monitoring the separation of church and state.

I find it amusing that those who routinely point out that the spiritual realm supersedes all else spend so much of their time in the pursuit of all things political and material. Then again, the newly emerging prosperity theology suggests that the attainment of success (wealth and worldly measures) is undoubtedly evidence that one is appropriately aligned with the Lord.

Silly me...why on earth would I conclude that any of the above positions are hypocritical. I just pray that God will help me abandon rational and reasoned thought in favor of the fabrications that come with faith. I need to accept that the teachings of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with today's Christianity. Come to think of it, maybe that's the reason the religious right insists that everyone has to be born again.

Image courtesy of TBogg

Lewis Black On The Economic Stimulus Package

2008-05-10T04:00:32Z

In the following video clip from The Daily Show, Lewis Black shares his skepticism regarding the recently authorized stimulus checks that are intended to jump start our stalled economy. Needless to say, Black has some choice words for a program that he views as a waste of taxpayer money that he can endorse...as opposed to the endless war in Iraq.

Black laments that the government has skimped on the allowance for children...stating that he can get easily get more than $300 dollars for them on the black market. He's also of the opinion that consumers will spend their windfall on the same junk that has led us into this mess. Black closes by telling us he's spending his $600 dollars on lottery tickets.

Having More Babies Makes You A Better Mommy?

2008-05-09T20:49:41Z

OK, forgive my disdain for the content of the video below, but how does the story of a 41 year old woman whose pregnant with her eighteenth child merit being a Mother's Day story on The Today Show? When did we reduce motherhood to a quantitative measurement? I'm sorry, but I just don't equate the number of children one births with the determination that a woman is a super mom. In fact, on virtually every imaginable metric, I find the choice to have eighteen children to be an example of short-sighted and self-centered aggrandizement.

The fact that this family believes that God is deciding how many children they will have only makes recognizing them on Mother's Day all the more misguided. Yes, they're entitled to their faith and to have all the children they want, but presenting that election as evidence of selfless devotion seems to ignore the obvious. Perhaps being the poster family for Christian values is a noble pursuit, but I fail to see how it is in the best interest of the mother's health, the children's well-being, or the world's already limited resources.

Having eighteen children also strikes me as a demonstration of faith that Jesus would have viewed with skepticism. In my estimation, he would have chosen the obscure single mother...who is raising a disabled child and struggling each day to make ends meet...as representative of maternal sincerity and sacrifice.

I never understood Jesus to be interested in those who sought the center stage to announce the fact that they were engaged in empathic endeavors. In fact, I think Jesus instructed that acts of sacrifice would, by their nature, provide all the reward one would ever need. Further, I believe Jesus thought that those who imagine the rewards before commencing to act weren't actually making a sacrifice and didn't deserve any of the recognition.

Look, the Duggar's may well be wonderful people, but in the end, I suspect this family's choice isn't properly motivated nor is it representative of the sacrifice that we should associate with motherhood. In our me first, top of the heap, number one or nothing chain letter society, this looks to be another example of the thinking that underlies our pyramid scheme psychosis...a pathetic pathology that values victory and despises defeat while routinely diminishing and discarding our humanity. It is the one characteristic we should cherish...the one thing we all share equally...and the first thing we set aside in our race to capture and claim the perceived pinnacle.

I don't know how many children the Duggar's will end up with...but I'm willing to concede that they win the award for churning out more children than most would ever consider. I'll also stipulate that their God is aware of their willingness to bear as many children as Mrs. Duggar's body can endure.

Beyond that, I'm not willing to conclude that having eighteen children makes Mr. & Mrs. Duggar exemplary parents, conscientious Christians, or honorable humans. The skeptic in me says their actions betray their intentions. If I'm right, they may have won the battle but lost the war. At least they have enough children to build their own perfect pyramid.

Pam Ann Airlines - Like No Other In The World

2008-05-09T19:54:16Z

If you've never seen Pam Ann perform, you don't know what you're missing. I first saw her on a cruise a few years back and thought she was hysterical. The following videos give the viewer a sense of her act though nothing can replace the in person experience.

In her act, she plays an airline stewardess for Pam Ann Airlines. As you might imagine, Pam Ann is the epitome of every bad experience one has ever had while flying. She's utterly and completely irreverent and nothing is off limits for Pam Ann.

The first video is a promo for her show and gives you a glimpse of the many faces of Pam Ann as she switches between different stewardess personae....from stodgy British flight attendant to one that will remind you of an uptight German general to a sheepish server from Singapore wearing her signature spectacles.

In the second video, Pam Ann presents the airlines preflight safety instructions.

If you ever have the chance to see her show, you're in for a treat.

Pam Ann - Come Fly With Me

Pam Ann Airlines Safety Instructions

Former Surgeon General Carmona On Health Care In The U.S.

2008-05-09T17:15:18Z

I remember when Richard Carmona was appointed as the U.S. Surgeon General by George W. Bush. At the time, it was uncertain as to his actual ideological leanings though he seemed to be a thoughtful individual. As it turned out, he was an apolitical advocate for the betterment of health care in America...and thus often at odds with the Bush administration.

In the following video, Carmona offers his insights and observations into the job of Surgeon General and what is needed to address our growing inability to provide affordable health care to so many of our citizens. His own assessment is that a focus on wellness will do more to transform our health care system than would the adoption of universal health care.

Carmona cautions that the rapid expansion of costs to care for accelerated incidences of chronic illness must be addressed if we are going to be able to provide better health to more people. Further, as income disparities grow, the potential to address chronic illness becomes less likely. He appropriately notes that we don't actually have a health care system in America; rather our system is only focused upon providing care for those who are sick.

He points out that chronic disease is also preventable...though he wisely notes that addressing these diseases requires an awareness and a willingness to repair the underlying socioeconomic factors that enable them. Carmona explains that poverty contributes significantly to the inability to make prevention a focus.

In the video, Carmona provides a comprehensive look at the factors that impact our ability to insure the health of Americans. It is an excellent primer on the obstacles we face and the reasons they exist. The question and answer session covers a number of specific health topics including immunizations, the Bush administration's opposition to stem cell research, aging, and others.

What Will America Look Like If Oil Is 200 Dollars Per Barrel?

2008-05-09T03:43:16Z

I don't generally watch Glenn Beck nor do I usually find his observations to be palatable. The following video is a notable exception. In this clip, Beck discusses the impact of $200 a barrel oil with Byron King, an oil industry analyst. Should oil reach this price...and there are some who believe it will happen by the end of this year...we can expect major changes that we can't even fathom at this moment.

It amazes me that our president continues to tell us the economy is just experiencing a rough patch while the escalating oil prices suggest the clouds of calamity may be on the horizon. In a worst case scenario, the word recession would likely be inadequate to describe the financial crisis we would experience should we fail to address this looming energy nightmare.

What scares me the most about this situation is my recollections of the handling of other emergencies by this administration. I keep thinking about Katrina and the clear indications that the storm would likely devastate New Orleans...and yet the president was nowhere to be found for four days and we were totally unprepared for the storm's aftermath.

Now that Bush is nearing the end of his presidency, just how interested is he in averting an energy meltdown? I'm afraid our best hope is that this energy crisis abates on its own. Having to rely on the critical thinking skills of George W. Bush hasn't proven to be in our best interest.

Patriot Act's National Security Letters: We Ask, Don't Tell

2008-05-07T20:42:14Z

With the passage of the Patriot Act, the potential for the government to abuse its newfound authority to snoop on its citizens was expanded. Unfortunately, along with that expansion came the ability to prevent those who contest such inquiries...and succeed...from discussing the details of the case in question.

Hence, the FBI and other agencies have no deterrent to pushing the limits of their authority. In fact, recent successes in preventing such inquiries have all been met with the same strategy...a sudden withdrawal of the request accompanied by a gag order on the party served.

From Wired.com:

The Internet Archive, a project to create a digital library of the web for posterity, successfully fought a secret government Patriot Act order for records about one of its patrons and won the right to make the order public, civil liberties groups announced Wednesday morning.

On November 26, 2007, the FBI served a controversial National Security Letter on the Internet Archive's founder Brewster Kahle, asking for records about one of the library's registered users, asking for the user's name, address and activity on the site.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive's lawyers, fought the NSL, challenging its constitutionality in a December 14 complaint to a federal court in San Francisco. The FBI agreed on April 21 to withdraw the letter and unseal the court case, making some of the documents available to the public.

The Patriot Act greatly expanded the reach of NSLs, which are subpoenas for documents such as billing records and telephone records that the FBI can issue in terrorism investigations without a judge's approval. Nearly all NSLs come with gag orders forbidding the recipient from ever speaking of the subpoena, except to a lawyer.

Brewster Kahle called the gag order "horrendous," saying he couldn't talk about the case with his board members, wife or staff, but said that his stand was part of a time-honored tradition of librarians protecting the rights of their patrons.

Though FBI guidelines on using NSLs warned of overusing them, two Congressionally ordered audits revealed that the FBI had issued hundreds of illegal requests for student health records, telephone records and credit reports. The reports also found that the FBI had issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs since 2001, but failed to track their use. In a letter to Congress last week, the FBI admitted it can only estimate how many NSLs it has issued.

The Internet Archive's case is only the third known court challenge to an NSL, all of which ended with the FBI rescinding the NSL, according to the ACLU's Melissa Goodman.

"That makes you wonder about the the hundreds of thousands of NSLs that haven't been challenged," Goodman said, suggesting that the FBI had collected sensitive information on innocent Americans.

The settlement with the government puts an end to that challenge and still keeps Kahle and his lawers from discussing -- even in the most general terms -- what the FBI was after and what public information the Internet Archive turned over to the FBI. For instance, the lawyers declined to say what kind of information the target was looking at or uploading -- such as animal rights information or Muslim literature.

[...] The Internet Archive case is only the second time the courts allowed the recipient of a Patriot Act National Security Letter to reveal his or her identity.

The history of such efforts to surveil Americans was altered in the aftermath of the Nixon presidency and the events surrounding Watergate. At the time, the ability of the government to conduct such operations was curtailed and virtually eliminated. With 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act, the floodgates of federal snooping were reopened...and the evidence suggests that some of the same abuses that facilitated the ban in the past have reemerged under the new guidelines.

Unfortunately, the latest foray allows the government to silence those who may have been compelled to participate in committing the abuse. Under the auspices of national security, questionable activity isn't allowed to reach the public's view - thereby preventing any of the accountability that would naturally be driven by public outrage with any revealed improprieties.

A program of this nature, when coupled with an administration that is prone to misguiding voters and utilizing the mechanisms of government for political advantage, has the potential to trigger abuses that far exceed those committed under the Nixon administration.

With George Bush's disapproval numbers surpassing those of all the presidencies previously measured, one can't help but wonder if the unknown abuses also exceed those of his predecessors...especially those of Richard Nixon...who found himself in the unenviable position of being forced to make an early exit from the White House.

9/11 was a defining moment in American history. Sadly, we may never know the degree to which the current administration used it to restrict and/or remove our civil liberties. That possibility makes it difficult to endorse the efforts George Bush tells us are designed to protect our way of life from the terrorists. Preserving freedom and liberty at the expense of both should never be optional.

Oops, That Ban On Gay Marriage Took Away Other Rights

2008-05-07T17:19:23Z

Don't be fooled by the religious right's assertion that they simply want to protect marriage and the family. Implicit in their efforts to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage is an intention to slam the door on any measure that would grant rights or recognition to gays.

Should there be any doubt, take a look at today's Michigan Supreme Court ruling. In a case designed to determine the scope of an amendment passed in the state in 2004, the court upheld an appeals court ruling that prohibits Michigan's universities, colleges, and municipalities from providing health coverage to the partners of same-sex couples.

From The Associated Press:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Local governments and state universities in Michigan can't offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.

Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefit policies covering at least 375 gay couples. After the appeals court ruled, universities and local governments rewrote their policies to try to comply with the gay marriage ban -- so the effect of Wednesday's decision is unclear.

The voter-approved law, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

The language utilized by proponents of amendments to limit marriage to one man and one woman has been left intentionally vague in order to allow the restrictions to be expanded following passage. Ironically, the same people who accuse Democrats and liberals of favoring "activist judges" seek to use the courts to further their agenda to remove any recognition of rights for gays subsequent to the passage of these amendments.

The lack of clarity leaves the door open to arguing that these amendments actually intend to limit more than just recognition of same-sex marriages. In fact, the goal of those sponsoring such amendments is to nullify all prior state or municipal legislation that remotely seeks to recognize or codify the rights of gays. Specifically, these amendments are often targeted to overrule recognitions passed by large urban municipalities that have typically had a greater concentration of liberals or Democrats.

Time and again, the proponents of these amendments attempt to first pass the broadest possible language, and should that be struck down, they grudgingly expand the language...but only enough to pass judicial muster. The first such amendment to garner nationwide attention was passed in Colorado in 1992. Amendment 2 would have voided laws passed in cities like Denver and Boulder that were intended to grant protections to gays in housing and employment. Fortunately, the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ruling that found the amendment to violate the equal protections discussed in Colorado's constitution.

Amendment 2 was a miscalculation on the part of its proponents. They predicated their efforts upon an assumption that the courts were by and large unsympathetic to measures passed by city councils and their removal was simply a matter of forcing those items to be reviewed by the higher courts. The strategy failed miserably. Since the Colorado amendment drew so much attention, sponsors of subsequent amendments have used that case as a guide in crafting the language of future amendments. No longer could they count on the inherent bias against the passage of rights for gays that had previously dominated the court system.

The new strategy focuses on protecting the institution of marriage in order to win the approval of more voters. Knowing that a majority of Americans likely object to gays being able to enter into traditional marriages, these measures are designed to capitalize on that sentiment while secretly being crafted to allow them to go much further.

The Michigan case is a classic example of this bait and switch strategy. Most observers do not believe that the state's voters intended to revoke the provision of health care coverage for same-sex couples...or to restrict or rollback any other measures intended to protect gays from inequitable discrimination. Unfortunately, the supporters of the amendment wrote the measure with such objectives in mind and they regularly consult with legal scholars to determine the eventual outcomes that can be achieved with the chosen language.

Look, I realize that politics is a contact sport. Nonetheless, I am troubled when these individuals, who seek to be portrayed as bastions of Christian values, become the primary purveyors of disingenuous measures designed to promote their discriminatory ideologies. And yes, I realize they believe they are simply seeking to enforce the precepts of their faith...as they choose to interpret it from the Bible. Regardless, I don't recall that the good book endorses deception and deceit as an acceptable means to expand dogma.

The WorkOUT: Using Homoeroticism To "Repair" Gays?

2008-05-06T21:10:29Z

This is priceless. The following video is apparently a legitimate advertisement for men seeking to overcome their homosexuality. The fact that it is filled with homoeroticism only reinforces my belief that many of these men are tortured Christians with a limitless ability to disguise their sexual orientation by engaging in acts of denial that are intended to demonstrate their heterosexuality...as well as their devotion to the religious dogma they seem hopelessly driven to embrace.

Honestly, when I first saw the video clip, I thought the program had to be a joke. However, after tracking down the site where it is advertised, it appears to be a "legitimate" attempt to offer services intended to "repair" homosexuality. Of course I know nothing about the credentials of the gentleman offering the program. For all I know, he could simply be an opportunist attempting to play upon the insecurities of men who feel compelled to reject their homosexuality. Even if he is sincere in offering this program, it doesn't negate the absurdity in suggesting that homosexuality can be washed away.

Yes, I believe there are individuals that will go through the motions needed to assert that they have abandoned their homosexuality...but I have to say that I simply don't believe they have actually changed their sexual orientation. Keep in mind that Ted Haggard (the minister from Colorado Springs who hired a male prostitute on numerous occasions) proclaimed his heterosexuality after completing a program that lasted just a few weeks.

Call me a skeptic, but are we to believe that a reversal of sexuality is the equivalent of joining Jenny Craig for two months? I'm sorry, but believing that would be an unrivaled act of faith. On the contrary, I see it as evidence of the sham that is being sold as "reparative therapy".

On that note, there isn't much more that can be said about these ridiculous programs. Instead, it is far more productive to exploit the humor that is so abundantly attached to this particular program and the video by which it is being marketed.

With that said, the following is a list of everything you need to know about the WorkOUT program:

Number Ten:

WorkOUT will help you find your manhood...though this process will require you to frequently drop your pants.

Number Nine:

While it may take several rounds of being in and out (of the program), men who participate in WorkOUT have proven they have the ability and the stamina to go much deeper.

Number Eight:

Every life coach is under 25, sufficiently buff, on standby for urgent emergencies, and very reasonably priced. "Happy endings" are always guaranteed.

Number Seven:

If your manhood doesn't increase during the first phone conversation, you'll have access to videophone encounters designed to jump start the process. Face-to-face meetings are available though the fees for these "meetings" are dependent upon the length of time it takes to maximize your manhood.

Number Six:

911 calls cost $1.99 per minute and the charges will appear on your credit card statement under the name - Meet Christian Singles.

Number Five:

Absolutely no women are involved in administering the WorkOUT program...every man is assured that treatment will be provided by a man who previously entered the treatment regimen and remained engaged until completion.

Number Four:

WorkOUT gear is available on the website. Access to this page requires confirmation that you are over the age of 18. All models have been verified to be at least 18 years old (though definitely not much older).

Number Three:

David Pickup is the founder of WorkOUT. This is his real name and it does not imply that David attends gay bars or frequents online gay chat rooms in order to solicit men for sex. Should you encounter Mr. Pickup in either setting, he is simply seeking men (attractive, fit, and well-groomed) who would be interested in joining WorkOUT and discovering the "benefits" of Christian manhood.

Number Two:

A full understanding of homosexual sex is a prerequisite for admission into the WorkOUT program. Men simply curious about gay sex will not be accepted.

Number One:

Participants in WorkOUT are discouraged from dating women during the time they are enrolled in the program as it may serve to deflate their emerging manhood.

48 Hours: The Lord's Boot Camp

2008-05-06T16:07:54Z

The following series of videos comprise the 48 Hours special title The Lord's Boot Camp. Much like the previous documentary, Jesus Camp, the piece chronicles a group of teen aged children; including their attendance at a Christian boot camp and the subsequent missions they are assigned to complete.

I'm sure the parents of these children believe they are doing the right thing but the camp is little more than an indoctrination process designed to reinforce the beliefs parents have sought to impose. Unfortunately, what I noticed first and foremost was that many of these children have simply been fed their beliefs as well as the words they express to prove them. Independent thought is clearly not encouraged and likely not allowed in many of these children's homes.

As I watched these children working in their assigned mission locations, I couldn't help but see the inherent manipulation in the program. In Africa, the camp participants have been transported to a country filled with desperate people in need. Their objective is to give those they encounter some measure of attention and care. In exchange, the impoverished children listen to the beliefs and suggestions of their newfound benefactors.

In other words, these vulnerable African children are told that if they believe in Jesus, their lives will improve and their souls will be saved. I suspect the real outcome of these encounters is to set the table for these African children to experience more disappointment and despair as their lives do not improve and they return to their squalid existence.

In Indiana, the camp children are told to conduct surveys with young people at county and state fairs in an effort to bring them to Jesus. The fact that they set a goal for the number of people they will save strikes me as rather absurd...but it's also a key element of the indoctrination. Essentially, it trains these children to accept rejection and to crave compliance. That's a very effective tool when seeking to ingrain these children with the beliefs of their parents and their handlers.

The last thing I recognized was the level of desperation found in some of these young people. In particular, I thought the girl who was in tears while talking about missing her boyfriend seemed intent on finding an outlet to escape her surroundings. Once she returned home, she announced her intentions to marry her boyfriend...a clear means to achieve some level of independence that isn't apt to be found if she remains at home with her parents. She also speaks of subsequently working in Africa which I view as more evidence she subconsciously seeks a means to escape.

The other child of note was Nicole, the troubled teen with a history of drinking and drugs. Once she returned home, she continued doing both and rather than addressing her underlying issues, her mother elects to remove her from public education and enroll her in a Christian home schooling program. I suspect Nicole's problems center on her inability to reconcile the strict beliefs of her mother with the world in which she lives. I also suspect her mom has characterized the divide Nicole sees as nothing more than good versus evil...right versus wrong. That likely leaves Nicole in a constant state of turmoil which only facilitates her efforts to escape through self-medication.

In the end, these children are forced to see a completely gray world as nothing more than black or white. They are also pressured to adopt uncompromising belief systems that are presented as incontrovertible ideology. While these parents and the camp founders may embrace this as a process of completing the Lord's work, I suspect it is more akin to full conscription into a cult.

The Lord's Boot Camp - Part One

The Lord's Boot Camp - Part Two

The Lord's Boot Camp - Part Three

The Lord's Boot Camp - Part Four

The Lord's Boot Camp - Part Five

Why Yes, God Put That Banana In My Pocket

2008-05-03T15:38:03Z

We've all heard about the images of Jesus, Mary, or some other godly persons face being found in the strangest of places...whether it be on a pancake, a potato chip, a section of tree bark, or the reflection on a window. Each new finding is touted as evidence that God exists and the faithful flock to witness each new miraculous image...some seeking cures for illness...others simply looking to be in the presence of a divine apparition.

Well according to the following God Tube video, the same can be achieved at the dinner table in every home. Yes, if you simply take a closer look at the vegetables you eat, you will find all the evidence you need that we exist as the result of the great works of an intelligent creator...and we are not the outcome of a lengthy evolutionary process.

I like to call all of this the science of random recognitions and coincidental comparisons. Essentially, if one were to look at every rock or every potato chip, there would be numerous examples of recognizable images. It's simply inevitable...just as it's likely that someone somewhere in the world looks remarkably similar to each of us.

In my sarcastic moments, I like to think these replications are evidence that God is prone to laziness. Yes, it seems that God is often a temperamental artist. Apparently he has days when creating is just too damn boring or he's simply out of ideas and he pulls out some of the older molds and sprinkles the world with batches of duplicates he hopes no one will recognize as identical 'carbon copies'.

Once I watched the video, it all started to make sense. No wonder so many people don't like vegetables. I imagine that somewhere in the outer reaches of our psyches, we have this strange suspicion that eating an avocado is just too closely connected to cannibalism. Fruit, on the other hand is a different story. I now realize why men can't resist grapefruit and women love bananas.

Musings On Prudes, Perverts, Photographs, & Polygamists

2008-05-02T19:22:26Z

Two recent news items led me to today's musing. The first is the Texas polygamists and the second is the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus. Both serve to demonstrate the fact that numerous American's have yet to resolve the unhealthy dissonance that seems to accompany any event that can be seen as remotely sexual. That inability provides the backdrop for countless conflicts that surface with virtually every event that remotely triggers the trepidation.

With the Texas polygamists, we have a group of men who seem to be obsessed with having numerous females available for their sexual gratification...couched of course as part and parcel of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that obsession apparently leads to a virtual paranoia with regards to insuring that the appearance of their women won't display the slightest hint of sensuality.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't you think that if you were going to have multiple wives, you'd want each of them to have a look and an identity of their own? Crass as this may sound, can this preoccupation simply be about having access to numerous vagina's? At the same time, are these individuals so driven by the fear that other males might covet their women that they embark to dress them alike...in garments designed to make them sexually unappealing? No, I don't claim to understand polygamists, but if you look at the pictures of these women, it seems to me that they have been transformed into the equivalent of low budget Stepford wives.

As I look at their prairie day's dresses and their caricature coifs, I can't help but feel for these women and their seeming inability to break free from their oppressive overlords. I'm even more disturbed by their willingness to indoctrinate their daughters into a life that has to be viewed as little more than a patriarchal prison. The structure and the system exude an array of pathologies. It also speaks to an imbalance that seems to be ingrained in many aspects of our society at large.

An example of that manifestation can be found in the recent events surrounding Disney sweetheart Miley Cyrus and the Vanity Fair image taken by renowned photographer Annie Leibovitz. The photo drew tremendous attention and elicited a level of outrage that struck me as rather odd...and abundantly indicative of America's inability to distinguish between puritanical prudery and limitless licentiousness.

In my estimation, the Leibovitz image was harmless...especially when juxtaposed with many of the images, inferences, and adult themes found in the Disney movie that propelled Cyrus to stardom. Frankly, I suspect that this battle between priggery and perversion is a permanent resident in the minds of many adults. As such, they are intent on attaching sexual connotations to each and every event.

The perpetual conflict this creates simply results in irrationality and an inability to strike a reasoned moral balance. It also facilitates calls for the erection (no pun intended) of barriers designed to keep the individual from acting on impulses they feel remiss to control voluntarily. I see religion as an adjunct in this effort to deter desires...one that often exacerbates the inclinations to act out in ways that are apt to sabotage the self and subjugate the actual identity.

Freud compared this to placing the lid on a tube of toothpaste without alleviating the pressure that is being applied to force it's expulsion from the inner layers of it's dark domicile. In this unnatural state, the toothpaste...or in the case of the individual, the often subconscious psyche...seeks out alternate outlets. Rarely are those outlets advisable or compatible with the process of self-awareness.

Returning to the tumult created by the Vanity Fair photo - truth be told, the image of Cyrus has been depicted in classical art forms for centuries and it needn't be viewed as sexually provocative. In fact, it is far less sexual than much of the clothing parents purchase for their children as well as the endless commercials that dad watches during any televised sporting event.

I see the outrage as evidence of an alternate outlet...one that fails to address the underlying discomfort or serves to diminish the dissonance that drives the demands for deterrents and/ or the squelching of subtle triggering events. Like the pendulum in a clock, this approach necessitates extremity as the individual (and therefore often the society) careens from one side to the other until such time as it can be pulled back towards the center.

In the end, the clothes worn by the Texas polygamist women or the lack of clothing worn by Miley Cyrus are simply outward evidence of an internal upheaval that requires recognition. Only then can the individual and the society begin the process of resolution. In the meantime, we're just a Janet Jackson breast away from our next moment of misguided moralizing.

In the following video, Mo Rocca and Tim Gunn take a tongue-in-cheek look at polygamist fashion. I get the impression that both men think the look is more akin to recidivism than with a retro revival.

Following the video are two graphics that seek to capture the intertwining, and the essence, of these two events. Hopefully they will also trigger a few moments of reflection as well as an honest assessment of the hypocrisy that has come to typify our convoluted culture.

Radical Religious Right: As If It Were Only About Marriage

2008-05-01T14:46:49Z

The religious right likes to be seen as the moral compass of the country...though they rarely want the country to fully understand that their focus on denying any rights to gays is their primary objective. Yes, they talk incessantly about same-sex marriage and frame it as the pivotal issue facing the American family. At the same time, they seek to keep the bulk of their mean spirited efforts working quietly in the background. The latest to surface is an attempt to force Wells Fargo to remove all protections for their gay employees.

From 365Gay.com:

(San Francisco, California) A motion by a Wells Fargo shareholder to remove protections for LGBT workers from the company's non-discrimination policy was defeated this week at its annual meeting.

The motion called for the company to "to formulate an equal employment policy ...that does not make reference to any matters related to sexual interests, activities or orientation."

It said that homosexuality has been "condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more".

The motion was crafted by Pro Vita Advisors, a group that helps promote conservative values.

The motion said that "While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern."

The proposal was easily defeated.

Conservative groups have attacked Wells Fargo for the past three years over its "pro-gay policies".

In 2005 Focus on the Family withdrew its funds from Wells Fargo.

"Focus on the Family has elected to end its banking relationship with Wells Fargo, motivated primarily by the bank's ongoing efforts to advance the radical homosexual agenda. These efforts are in direct opposition to the underlying principles and purpose of Focus, and thus a decision of conscience had to be made, and a stand taken," said a statement from FOF at the time.

Little did I know that protection from being fired for one's sexuality or providing health care for one's partner is a radical concept. Little did I know that protection from being harassed at work for one's sexuality is a radical departure from basic civil rights.

What I do know is that these fanatics have always had the punishment of gays as their goal though they like to couch it as simply being against special rights for gays. Frankly, their argument is ludicrous. The reason the rights of gays need to be recognized and documented is primarily because these fanatics see nothing wrong with denying them.

In their perfect world, gays would be ostracized and pressured to remain in the closet. Beyond that, I suspect they believe that those gays who expose their sexual identity should be chastised and condemned by those in their midst. After all, the mindset of these bigots justifies the punishment of 'sinners' and don't think for a minute that they wouldn't happily administer it.

Take a look at an excerpt from the resolution that was voted down.

From Christian News Wire:

The resolution reads in part:

Whereas, our company seeks to hire the most qualified person and has never had a policy discriminating against any person, or groups of persons, for any reason.

Whereas, it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal to ask a job applicant or employee about their sexual interests, inclinations and activities.

Whereas, it is similarly inappropriate and legally problematic for employees to discuss personal sexual matters while on the job.

Whereas, unlike the issues of race, age, gender and certain physical disabilities, it would be impossible to discern a person's sexual orientation from their appearance.

Whereas, unless an employee chooses to talk about their sexual interests or activities while working, the issue of sexual orientation is, essentially, moot.

Whereas, domestic partner benefit policies pay employee benefits based on the employee engaging in unmarried, homosexual relations. These relations have been condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more.

Whereas, the Armed Forces of the United States is one of the largest and most diverse organizations in the world. They protect the security of us all while adhering to a "don't ask, don't tell policy" regarding sexual interests.

Whereas, marriage between heterosexuals has been protected and encouraged by a wide range of societies, cultures and faiths for ages.

Statement: While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.

How ironic that they disguise their hatred of gays with statements intended to sound unbiased. Do these idiots think gays don't know that it's inappropriate to be asked about their sexual orientation? It isn't the actions of gays prying into the sexual lives of their co-workers that have facilitated the need to protect gays in the workplace. All too often busy body Christians seek to expose their gay co-workers and begin the process of making them the object of derision and discrimination...all in the name of upholding their Christian values.

Truth be told, this effort is akin to the application of a scarlet letter. Many of those opposed to gays want to be able to identify them for the purpose of shaming and ridicule while simultaneously demanding that gays be forced to remain silent with regards to their plight. In essence, actions of this nature seek to establish that the sin of homosexuality is accompanied by a preordained guilt that allows society to judge while also requiring gays to accept that judgment in silence.

The notion suggests that the sin of being gay is so great as to nullify the possibility that those who aren't gay could ever commit a sin large enough to exceed the punishment that God wants them to impose on gays. After all, they believe the Bible justifies far worse than scorn. As such, gays should be happy that society is willing to allow them to exist.

In the end, one of the prevailing problems with religion is that its doctrines often seek to make measures of sin nothing more than a numerical holiness hierarchy. As such, practitioners often feel embolden to attach labels premised upon cursory information about the individual...while frequently ignoring any cumulative measure of the many transgressions they themselves have committed.

Last time I checked, God's alleged words still posit that only he can judge what's in the hearts of those he created. I'm happy to leave it at that. Of course, given the certitude of many of my Christian friends, maybe their ability to judge others leads them to think they can slap a scarlet letter on the one who supposedly created all these gay people. Then again, I've always had my doubts about who created whom.

The Daily Show: Abstinence - The Global War In Your Pants

2008-04-30T20:16:13Z

In the following video, Jon Stewart tackles the question of abstinence-only sex education (with all of the appropriate sarcasm) and the fact that it has proven ineffective in reducing teen pregnancies and the transmission of STD's.

He first offers us a look at some of the techniques used and some of the arguments being offered by those opposed to comprehensive sex education. You're bound to love the dirty toothbrush example as well as the "god stick and shame cave" analogy that Stewart attributes to the likes of Senator Brownback. It's a good thing we've advanced from more primitive deterrent strategies and adopted these advanced measures of preventing children from exploring their sexuality.

He closes the segment with a pubic service announcement promoting dry humping as a reasonable alternative to getting 'dirty'. Stewart tells teens that dry humping is safe...it avoids the need for those disgusting condoms...and it allows you to still get into heaven.