My capsule review of ‘The Passion of Christ:’

According to Mel Gibson, there’s a place and a role for each and every sick fuck in the universe, and that’s all OK, because Jesus forgave them.

I wanted to update this because it’s not as clear as it could be.

Gibson’s film goes beyond simply saying that you’re forgiven by Christ.

It says that the sadistic glee with which Jesus’ torturers yank the blades of the cat-o-nine-tails out of his ribcage where they had gotten stuck is part and parcel with salvation. Your salvation.

Seriously. It’s doctrinally accepted that Jesus knew every aspect of the fate before him when he was hauled out of Gesthemene. Now, thanks to the film, that fate includes insane torturers dancing around in Jesus’ spraying blood, playing their role in our salvation.

This is one harsh movie, and it reminds me again of that Stark Raving Chandler bumpersticker: “If Jesus died for my paltry sins, I figure he over-reacted.”

Why does time pass differently during the day than at night?

A moment expands into hours under daylight. Without the sun, time stretches slowly like a cat.

Ok, I’m disappointed, to say the least.

Orson Scott Card wrote a column in, well, I guess it’s his web-zine ‘blog thing, where he comes down hard on the gay marriage issue. Here’s a link to it.

He says things like this:

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for “hate speech.” The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a “homophobe” and therefore mentally ill.

I’m terribly disappointed, because his novels always seemed to have something straightforward and commonsensical to say. Now, however, he’s doing the wounded reactionary conservative dance.

As in:

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of “marriage” to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

…which is utterly wrong. Gays have been getting hitched and committing to their relationships to each other since there have been gay relationships. And Orson, that’s not just this generation, ya cutie pie.

But gays who wish to be legally married are discriminated against, in that there are quite a few benefits to being married in the eyes of the law. Not the least of which is that you can get into your partner’s hospital room in the event of an accident, or not being forced to testify against them in a trial.

These things are ensconsed in law, and they make sense. It makes sense that someone’s life partner should be with them when they’re ill, right? So such laws aren’t the problem. The problem is that all life partners should have such legal protection, because of this little thing called the United States Constitution. Here, let’s ask the Constitution to weigh in on the matter:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

‘Equal protection of the laws.’ Seems pretty reasonable to me. Doesn’t seem reasonable to Orson Scott Card, which is why I have ceased to respect him as of now.

Ok, this made me laugh. Via guido.

I’ve been reading about bristlecone pines, some of the oldest organisms on the planet.

So naturally, now I want to go to the California-Nevada desert mountains and see them.

I also have to wonder when their birthdays are. Happy 4770th, ‘Methusela!’

Write your own Mel Gibson movie.

FUTUREDOG!

As for my futuredog: Here’s one. Here’s another. You have to wonder who named this pair. Get it? They’re BLACK. And there are a zillion pit bulls in the pounds, but few are as cute as this one.

And a note for any XangaGhods who might be reading: If a link URL contains the word ‘target,’ then Xanga won’t add target=”_new” to it. No biggie, but certainly not spec.

I almost had another apartment. 1br, half a duplex, fenced yard (for some future dog I might own), two blocks from the Shui House where my friends live.

I decided it was just too expensive. My current method for figuring out if a place is too expensive goes like this:

I’m paying $X/month for rent now. The asking price for the place is $Y/month. Then: Z = ((Y-X) * 12) * .1 (the 10% I could get on it in an indexed mutual fund). If Z could buy me an iPod ($250 for a mini), it’s too much rent.

Actually, that’s not how I’m doing it. But the iPod factor does exist.

Basically, I need a house-share situation with two or three other people who don’t mind living with a strange man who seldom leaves the house. Or, in actuality, that’s not what I need, unless I want to buy an iPod with the interest off an investment; I could just stay here a while longer.

Have I mentioned lately that I’m a fan of the Mills Brothers?

You might be, too, after you hear ‘Swing Is The Thing‘

Karen Kwiatkowski: Archives

“Karen Kwiatkowski is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.”

She says things like this:

That George W. Bush enjoys his executive role is clear. All smirking aside, young George told Tim Russert he intends to remain in power for years. And Bush really wants us to see it the way he does.

“Well, I don’t plan on losing.  I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country.  See, I know exactly where I want to lead.  I want to lead us – I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom.  I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.”

Actually, I don’t “see.” How nice for him to want to “lead this world,” and change it “in positive ways.” Could he be a bit more specific? Closer to home, maybe? I’d also like to know more about what the dry drunk in the White House means when he says, “We got changing times here in America, too.”

It’s all wonderful and bitter and worth reading if you want to see a real conservative tear BushCo a new one.