Billmon gives you the big picture about New Orleans.

Dude should get a Pulitzer or something.

IDesignedLifeOnEarth.Com

From Amazon.com’s entry for ‘Even Cowgirls Get The Blues’ by Tom Robbins:

Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more) way with birds, other cowgirls, crane flock, whooping cranes, pendulum time, bee hee, her rucksack, his monocle, her whip, peyote buttons

Revisit Bush’s speech to the UN, with helpful subtitles.

So, earlier I asked folks to comment on the difference between ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual.’

It was a trick question.

I’ve been thinking about this issue because of the rise of the religious right in this country. I’ve been trying to understand how you can ostensibly proclaim to follow the path of the World’s Most Important Hippie and then, for instance, call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez because he potentially (not actually, mind you) threatens the US’ oil supply. This single example of a certain kind of hypocrisy sticks out like a sore thumb, but there’s an ambient temperature of similar minor hypocrisy in America. As a culture, we’re choosing ignorance over science, and shouting matches over consensus, to our own detriment.

But those are all the physical manifestations of what I want to talk about. They exist in the world because the principle is not understood. And, according to me, the principle is that spirituality differs from religion in that it is work. It’s hard. It requires effort. Religion you can just show up and get blessed.

So the difference between ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual’ is work. But it’s not a necessary difference; some religions demand spiritual work, and are, in fact, quite effective vehicles for that work. But many are not.

When I asked the question before, most respondants made a distinction between internal and external. ‘Spiritual’ meant internal, whereas ‘religious’ meant external. There was also a line drawn between feeling and a sort of social ritual. Another line was drawn between a kind of spiritual formlessness and religious form. If spirituality is internal and unformed and feeling, and religion is external and active (and, by implication, unfeeling), where do the two meet?

To my way of thinking, the spiritual is just another aspect of being. I have thoughts and feelings and a physical and spiritual manifestation. In this sense, meditation is no different than brushing your teeth. Christians often talk about the soul, and this is their metaphor for the spiritual aspect; their spiritual hygiene program involves giving oneself over to the path of Christ, and thus salvation. Which is actually really beautiful and courageous. By doing this, one can (in theory) begin to see the spiritual implication of everything in reality. My critique of this form of Christianity, however, is that it’s like teaching a little kid that learning to ride a bike with training wheels is the same thing as learning to ride without them. Which might be a little harsh, but I have to state it plainly.

The point here, however, is not to critique Christianity. Christianity is an easy target; there are some real… well.. I don’t even know how to say it politely. I mean, start with Fred Phelps. There’s a lot of creepy shit out there.

The point is that your garden-variety Fred Phelps (and let’s hope there’s no garden where these are growing) has done zero spiritual work. Spiritual awareness challenges you to operate with integrity. It’s the judicial branch of your multicameral self. This applies to the huge glaring hypocrisies I mention (Phelps, Robertson), and the smaller, easier-to-digest ones (homophobia, racism, partisanship, you name it). These types of things are examples of a lack of spiritual exercise. They’re examples of people trying to run the spiritual marathon without having trained a day in their life.

And I have to say that the training is available everywhere you look. Everything is an opportunity. All phenomena are a potential treadmill on which to test your spiritual cardio. That this goes unrecognized is, I think, the reason so many people have a spiritual spare tire.

Question: What is the difference between ‘religious’ and ‘spiritual?’

I have an answer in mind, but I’m curious to see how it matches or differs from others’.

Today, via boingboing, we learn a new term:

Punding is a stereotypical motor behavior in which there is an intense fascination with repetitive handling and examining of mechanical objects, such as picking at oneself or taking apart watches and radios or sorting and arranging of common objects, such as lining up pebbles, rocks, or other small objects. It is thought to be dopamine-related although only a single report of punding in a patient with Parkinson’s disease (PD) resulting from L-dopa has been reported.

Just wanted to take a moment and point out that earlier this evening I went to a burger place in Ballard called Zack’s.

It’s supposed to make you feel as though you’re at an outdoor BBQ in someone’s back yard. The tables are wooden picnic tables with big umbrellas over them. The condiment bottles (mustard, ketchup, salad dressing, etc) are presented in cardboard beer six-pack containers, all Budweiser and Miller, no imports. All this contrived BS made me acutely aware that I was being scammed.

And I was. I got my burger, and it was salty. Not just a little bit salty. We’re talking Dead Sea here. The salt was around the edges, so I assumed someone had salted something over the grill, and then this hapless meat patty was place onto it.

Salty like you just emptied one of those little salt packets into your mouth. That kind of salty. But only around the edges, and I was so hungry and it had taken so long for this pretensiously pseudo-non-pretensious gourmet burger to arrive that I ate most of it.

In fact, I ate all of it. I was that hungry.

And now, six hours later, I’m still dehydrated. I’ll be dehydrated until morning and beyond. I won’t drink coffee tomorrow, because I’ll be so dehydrated.

But… The waiter asked, “So how’s your burger?” And I told him: “It’s really, really, really salty. Like, really salty. But only around the edges, and I’m really hungry, so I’m eating most of it.” He said, “Ok, well thanks for telling me.” He didn’t give me a comp, didn’t even discount it. But he got no tip.

So if I have a heart attack tonight, someone please go to Zack’s and ask for my money back.

Kite Operations! Click this picture:

I’ll add more pix later, so check back.

Well, George W. Bush was right about one thing, at least… If you give someone a deadline, they’ll use it to their advantage. He didn’t want to mention a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, saying that revealing such a timetable would embolden the enemy (AKA: the Iraqi people). Never mind that there is no timetable on withdrawal.

But, as others pointed out, Iraq’s first constitutional crisis is: Hey, where’s the constitution? Weren’t you guys working on one?

And if you’re an Islamist trying to participate in the constitutional process, you’ll dawdle until the deadline is there, then passed. You’ll then threaten the US with continued foot-dragging, forcing loss of face and and rising US casualties, unless they capitulate on one simple thing: Islam will be *the* main source of law for the new Iraq.

Earlier today, this guy from the PNAC, their executive director of middle east projects or some such title, said the following on a TV news round-up show: “Women’s social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.” If you’ll recall, one of the justifications for the war was the horrible treatment of women in the Islamic world (however horrible it may actually be… certainly suffrage would be a move forward, wouldn’t it?)

Everything. EVERYTHING they said they wanted for Iraq (and the US) has fallen apart. I think these people should be invited on these TV round-robin news shows, but if they’re treated to anything other than firm backhands every time they open their mouths, there is no justice.