Recently I picked up Spike Gillespie’s Pissed Off: On Anger and Women since it looked provocative on amazon. Halfway through it and I don’t like it. Read the rest of this entry »
Archive for June, 2009
Time to pay the pipers
Between 2002-2006, I lived in cash and debit only, no credit cards. Partly because the cards I’d owned before then ruined my credit, but it was also a personal choice. This has been discussed elsewhere on this blog – what I’m thinking about today is knocking out what new credit card debt I do have (and also paying back that stupid DFAS overpayment – innocent payroll errors, my ass). The debt’s not much really, certainly well under $5,000 (will have to tally later), all with very high interest rates. Mostly all I’m paying is interest even when doubling the minimum payment (and continuing to use the cards as a matter of convenience).
I don’t plan to close the accounts, just pay them off and try not to spend anything on them that can’t be paid off within a couple months. Nothing too novel.
Credit cards aren’t my boogeyman – student loans are. 
Borrowed from Yes! Magazine:
“Vacuum-packed for your protection.”
Disputing the “Myth of Redemptive Violence”
I like that term, having moments ago learned it in the below article from Yes! Magazine (Winter 2002 edition), written by Walter Wink, discussing how Jesus did NOT advocate pacifism but that doesn’t mean violence is the only remaining answer:
Can Love Save the World?
“I don’t see myself as a pacifist. I see myself rather as a violent person trying to become nonviolent”
Michael Kelly thinks he has killed pacifism. In an editorial in the Washington Postof September 26, 2001, he cites George Orwell’s 1944 description of pacifism as “objectively pro-Fascist.” “If you hamper the war effort on one side you automatically help out that of the other,” Orwell reasoned. Applied to “America’s New War,” Kelly finds the logic irrefutable. “Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.” Hence the pacifist position is “evil.”
Would that life were so logical! For what Mr. Kelly overlooks is a third way, neither passive nor aggressive. For millions of years his error has been endlessly repeated. It is the fight/flight response. But that third way has occasionally been tried, and, wonder of wonders, it has frequently succeeded. Religions pioneered the third way as a nonviolent protest against those two invidious alternatives. Starting with the Hebrew midwives, nonviolence was elaborated by Jainism and Buddhism, given political bite by Jews like the prophets and Jesus, articulated by Christians like St. Francis and Martin Luther King, Jr., and made programmatic and practical by the Hindu Gandhi and the Muslim Badshah Khan.
Nevertheless, I agree with Mr. Kelly that pacifism must go. It is endlessly confused with passivity. In the nations in which Christianity has predominated, Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence has been perverted into injunctions to passive nonresistance, which, as we shall see, is the very opposite of active nonviolence. Jesus had said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your outer garment, give your undergarment as well; and if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, go two” (Matthew 5:38-41). As it stands, this saying seems to counsel supine surrender. If you are a woman and you are struck by your spouse on one cheek, turn the other; let him pulverize you. If you are sued for a piece of clothing, give all your clothes voluntarily, as an act of pious renunciation. And if a Roman soldier forces you to carry his pack one mile, be a chump: carry it two. And the crowning blow: don’t resist evil at all.
For centuries, readers of this advice have instinctively known something was wrong with this picture. Jesus always resisted evil. Why would he tell us to behave in ways he himself refused? And that’s where the trouble starts. The Greek word translated as “resist” (antistenai), is literally “to stand (stenai) against (anti).” The term is taken from warfare. When two armies collide, they were said to “stand against” each other. The correct translation is given in the new Scholars Bible: “Don’t react violently against the one who is evil.” The meaning is clear: don’t react in kind, don’t mirror your enemy, don’t turn into the very thing you hate. Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil, but only not to resist it violently.
Jesus gives three examples to explain his point. The first is: “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” Most people picture a blow with the right fist. But that would land on the left cheek, and Jesus specifies the right cheek. A left hook wouldn’t fit the bill either, since the left hand was used only for unclean tasks, and even to gesture with it brought shame on the one gesturing. Jesus is speaking about striking the right cheek with the back of the right hand. This was not a blow to injure. It was symbolic. It was intended to humiliate, to put an inferior in his or her place. It was given by a master to a slave, a husband to a wife, a parent to a child, or a Roman to a Jew. The message of the powerful to their subjects was clear: You are a nobody, get back down where you belong.
It is to those accustomed to being struck thus that Jesus speaks (“if anyone strikes you”). By turning the other cheek, the person struck puts the striker in an untenable spot. He cannot repeat the backhand, because the other’s nose is now in the way. The left cheek makes a fine target, but only persons who are equals fight with fists, and the last thing the master wants is for the slave to assert equality (see the Mishnah, Baba Kamma 8:6). This is, of course, no way to avoid trouble; the master might have the slave flogged to within an inch of her life. But the point has been irrevocably made: the “inferior” is saying, in no uncertain terms, “I won’t take such treatment anymore. I am your equal. I am a child of God.” By turning the other cheek, the oppressed person is saying that she refuses to submit to further humiliation. This is not submission, as the churches have insisted. It is defiance. That may sound a bit idealistic, but people all over the globe of late have been taking their courage in their hands this way and resisting, nonviolently, those who have treated them thus.
Jesus’ second example deals with indebtedness, the most onerous social problem in first century Palestine. The wealthy of the Empire sought ways to avoid taxes. The best way was to buy land on the fringes of the Empire. But the poor didn’t want to sell. So the rich jacked up interest rates—25 to 250 percent. When the poor couldn’t repay, first their moveable property was seized, then their lands, and finally the very clothes on their backs. Scripture allowed the destitute to sleep in their long robes, but they had to surrender them by day (Deuteronomy 24:10-13).
It is to that situation that Jesus speaks. Look, he says, you can’t win when they take you to court. But here is something you can do: when they demand your outer garment, give your undergarment as well. That was all they wore. The poor man is stark naked! And in Israel, nakedness brought shame, not on the naked party, but on the one viewing his nakedness. (See the story of Noah, Genesis 9.) Jesus is not asking those already defrauded of their possessions to submit to further indignity. He is enjoining them to guerrilla theater. Read the rest of this entry »
Jung Typology Test Results
According to HumanMetrics.com, I am an INFP (Introverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving) on the Jung Personality Test. Having taken a number of these tests over the years, the results come back as INFP or INTP about 50/50, demonstrating my tendency toward both feeling and thinking to guide my choices and responses. Personally, I think the reason is because I’m female, which comes with heavy socialization to encourage empathy toward others. If born a male, it’s likely I’d be an even greater asshole. 
hehe
Funny that they peg me as an introvert considering my family and friends tend to consider me an extrovert. Over time I’ve come to refer to myself as an “extroverted introvert.” I can be really outgoing in certain social settings and am very talkative with my own people, but then can be shy and nervous with new folks, especially females, preferring to speak as little as possible (lest my foot find its way to my mouth, as it typically does).
Here’s what Keirsey.com has to say about INFPs: Read the rest of this entry »
Mind vs. Myth Test
Your result for Mind vs Myth Test…
Agnostic
You might also be interested in Buddhism or Pantheism!
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
Socrates
As an Agnostic, you know that you don’t have the answers to the mysteries of the universe. But perhaps you find comfort in understanding myth, and seeing the poetic and metaphorical meaning behind religions. If you’re new to Agnosticism, you might be struggling to know which church is true. The answer is ALL of them… or none of them. You can learn a lot about yourself through mythology, but if you prefer, you can also find meaning in music, art, and poetry. Myth and art are the music of life, food for the soul.
You Scored:
64% Science vs 36% Faith
47% Mind vs 53% Heart
Joined the gym today! Yay!
It was time. Costs about the same as my old gym did, $44/mo. with a one-year membership. I’m damned determined to lose 10 lbs. in the short-run, 20+ lbs. being the ultimate goal, bringing me down to weighing approximately 140 lbs. or less. Read the rest of this entry »
How’s this for a comparison?
Since we’re still (forever) on the topic of prostitution, human sexuality, ethics and morality, and the thin lines drawn all across the board, I’ll bring up another comparison between your “civie” (i.e., civilian) society and choices contrasted against sex worker ethics. Read the rest of this entry »
Rethinking clients’ motives
Hey blog. Not feeling too well today. Sick with a cold. I wanted to mention something that’s been on my mind lately. Ya know, as soon as I type something, immediately I’m forced to reconsider my assertions. One in particular that’s been bothering me relates with my “escorted” clients and how my perception is warped by my own life experiences, causing me to take leaps at times that are broadly overly generalized and unnecessary. Read the rest of this entry »
Need to quit being such a bitch
That’s a note to self. Not sure what my malfunction is lately but I’ve been a testy little jerk around my guyfriends and clients, bringing up shit that serves no one to rehash, griping, belly-aching over my own past. Ugh. You know what my problem is? I really do like my industry, in THEORY. In actual practice, it’s as overrated as most anything else. The sex industry has potential and needn’t be the way it is, and we women have power to decide its future. But it’s the sex industry…how much change can one realistically expect? Read the rest of this entry »
It grieves me so to see you in such pain
“The problem is all inside your head”, she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I’d like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your loverShe said it’s really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won’t be lost or misconstrued
But I’ll repeat myself, at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover
She said it grieves me so to see you in such pain
I wish there was something I could do to make you smile again
I said I appreciate that and would you please explain
About the fifty waysShe said why don’t we both just sleep on it tonight
And I believe in the morning you’ll begin to see the light
And then she kissed me and I realized she probably was right
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover
A favorite song that whispers in the back of my mind along with the rest of the soundtrack to life, wafting in during encounters and in the past while out at night at bars.
My buddy stopped over this morning to cuddle and talk. For some strange reason, I associate this song with our time together despite him having no desire to leave his lover, nor would I wish him to. His presence tends to make me tear up a little, saddened by his personal and professional trials, unnerved by the tension and concern flowing both directions. I sincerely wish him well and pray he finds a new job soon.
Always melancholy. That’s how I feel these days. Life is such a strange illusion. And now I must head out to work.
Thoughts on sexuality and love
There’s this thought that’s been on my mind a lot lately. Began bugging me again yesterday as it does from time to time, springing up with questions I can’t possibly answer. Spoke with guyfriends and clients, less with girlfriends and family, on this and a few issues/concerns interconnected with it. This isn’t new; it’s a thought that’s crossed my mind since adolescence, but it feels different now. More urgent, more pressing. Probably because I’m not the same girl as back then – more jaded, more cynical, more contemplative. Either way, it keeps coming back to mind and I’d like to get to the bottom of it.
It relates with my sexuality, my sexual preferences. It should be obvious enough by now that strict categorization of people’s preferences, lifestyles, and beliefs irks me, so I’ll avoid referring to it in black-and-white, gay vs. straight terms. Read the rest of this entry »
The Men Behind Obama
Webster Tarpley on the men behind Obama and his future policies:
Part 2
Zbigniew Brzezinski. Hmm. Heard the name before but no clue on who he is. Here’s a clip of him promoting Obama on Al Jazeera News (October 10, 2008):
Why Americans ought to be angry (WAKE UP)
A video titled “How to create an Angry American”:
Incredibly, my respect for Rachel Maddow has just been restored:
Back it up and listen to what he says a few times (nevermind the ads in the beginning and end, I pull these clips straight off of youtube). We will “construct a system” that involves “judicial and congressional oversight”, “an appropriate legal regime.” How again does Obama differ from Bush? Can we honestly keep chalking this shit up to politics-as-usual?
Good god-all-mighty, watch this CNN story on right-wing “recession radicals” declared a “homegrown terrorist threat”:
They are talking about our soldiers, comparing them to Timothy McVeigh, evoking language like “homeland security” and “right-wing militia movement.” Waco? Ruby Ridge? Are you kidding me? This propaganda is truly scary. My god. Painting the “militia” people as the real “Nazi threat.” Talk about kettle meet pot. Man. That is so fucked up. Liberals, take note at 2:45 Anderson predicts “extremist groups” will continue to grow “both on the right and also other forms of extremists.” Who might that be? Besides PETA and ELF?
Keith Olbermannn (April 2009) criticizing Obama for clinging to the Bush Doctrine and professing immunity for the government in all wire-tapping and telecom matters. Pure bullshit:
Glad Olbermann is trying to remain level-headed without being dismissive.
It’s enough to make any American go ballistic, if we’d stop to take the time to acquaint ourselves with reality outside of our little bubbles. Most prefer not to. An honest discussion of politics is considered impolite in most crowds. We are cowards, but more importantly, we’re easily distracted and deceived. Seems the inevitable plight of the common man up through the ages. What’s new?
Wish for once it could be different. Where the few were stopped from ruling and manipulating the many. But remove the top and the tier right below will be itching to rise up and take their place. Dismantle big industries and what do we have? Their cooperation would be necessary in the event of a major transition, so I’d imagine.
How do a relative minority of concerned Americans go about affecting change in this stage of the game? Signs are viewed more as a nuisance than informative. Most folks act like they really don’t care about anything that doesn’t directly affect them, save for maybe a couple of ‘pet issues.’ That’s people for you. Our forefathers even bitched about the public way back in the 1700s and early 1800s, basically saying we didn’t appreciate the power bestowed upon us. And sure enough, we fouled it up. Just as pretty much every society that’s come before us. Why is that? Is it possible we humans aren’t adjusting successfully to living in nation-states? Makes you wonder.
Some care. Here’s one Southerner’s lament: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80659159/ (wouldn’t let me embed)
Cincinnati Tea Party – March 15, 2009:
Lou Dobb’s remains upset, this time with what Obama and the British Prime Minister refer to as a “global new deal” (March 3, 2009):
Another scary one – Lou Dobbs (May 2009) on Obama pushing a national gun registry in conjunction with an international treaty:
The 2nd amendment was designed for useful purposes, if we hadn’t blindly forgotten what those were. And now, here we are.
So much is going on it will take forever to catch up on news…
Considering Zarathustra and Modern Religion
Sitting here this afternoon, feeling fluffy, with a little time to burn before heading out for a quick job. Oddly enough, the topic to capture my interest today was found quite by accident: the writings of Voltaire discussing omnipotence in a god. I’ve never read anything by Voltaire before aside from a couple of errant quotes and find his view on this particular subject very intriguing. He mentioned Zarathustra, a legendary religious teacher whom history has forgotten the details about. Joseph Campbell, I recall, mentioned him in his text The Inner Reaches of Outer Space. Hmmm…
I’m enjoying this Livius.org site:
In a vision (more…), Zarathustra was ordered by a spirit named Good Thought to start preaching against the bloody sacrifices of the traditional Iranian cults and to give aid to the poor. Gradually, the prophet began to understand that Good Thought had been sent by the supreme god Ahuramazda, a name that can be translated as Wise Lord. Zarathustra sometimes addresses his god as Ahura, lord, and as Mazda, wisdom.
From the Gâthâ’s, we learn that Zarathustra started to preach that Ahuramazda had created ‘the world, mankind and all good things in it’ through his holy spirit, Spenta Mainyu. The rest of the universe was created by six other spirits, the Amesha Spentas (‘holy immortals’). However, the order of this sevenfold creation was threatened by The Lie; good spirits and evil demons (daeva) were fighting and mankind had to support the good spirits in order to speed up the inevitable victory of Ahuramazda. The believer could side with Ahuramazda by avoiding lies, supporting the poor, several kinds of sacrifices, the cult of fire, et cetera.
Zarathustra also warned the people that there would be a Last Judgment. At the end of times, angels were to lead all men and women across a narrow bridge, where they would be judged by Spenta Manyu (which is described as a beautiful maiden); the friends of The Lie would fall into a large chasm of fire called Worst Existence, but the followers of Zarathustra were to reach Paradise, which goes under the name of House of Best Purpose.
Farther down the page:
The Gâthâ’s are only a small part of the Avesta, and it is possible to distinguish (on linguistic grounds) between old and young texts. The most important innovation by Zarathustra’s disciples is the personalization of evil. According to Zarathustra, the enemy of the divine order had been The Lie, an abstract concept. There are several texts, written in the same language as the Gâthâ’s, which give evil its name: Angra Mainyu, ‘the hostile spirit’. He is described as the leader of the demons.
It may be doubted whether Angra Mainyu has ever figured in Zarathustra’s own thoughts. The fact that he does not mention this demon in the Gâthâ’s is significant; there are seventeen Gâthâ’s and they are of a considerable length, so it may be argued that Zarathustra had sufficient opportunity to mention Ahuramazda’s opponent. Instead, he speaks consistently of The Lie.
On the other hand, the name Angra Mainyu is very old. It is, therefore, either a very early innovation, or it was a very common name which Zarathustra sought to replace by the more abstract concept of The Lie, which implied a greater personal responsibility. However this may be, it seems certain that the name of the hostile spirit was not very important to Zarathustra.
Joseph Campbell explained that religions once existed where life wasn’t viewed as a definite struggle between “good and evil” but instead accepted in shades of gray where nature and mankind conformed to physical limits. Then somewhere along the way, apparently stemming up in the Middle East spreading west, came this notion of separate good and evil hashed out by two conflicting forces. A major difference, as I understand it, is how Zoroastroanism began with the notion of a central god and six lesser deities fighting against demon forces running rampant, not necessarily under the control of a single, evil god; Christianity, however, does offer this black-and-white duality, taking personal responsibility off the individual and blaming an external, eternal, Devil for leading us astray, offering a different take on the internal struggle of human nature.
It’s very interesting studying the progression of religions and human perception of spirituality over thousands of years and seeing 1.) how slowly social and religious change does occur; but 2.) how monstrous the change can be after a couple thousand years, distorting original intentions to where it’s anybody’s guess what the founders envisioned; and 3.) this is all part of the evolution of humankind, forcing us to think and reason in a new way, even if that poses a challenge to the modern religions of the world.
It’s a hell of a time to be alive. To live in the comfort of air conditioning in a decent apartment with an Internet connection that brings an infinite amount of info into our homes, fingertip-accessible. Unprecedented. That I can sit here in 2009 in Midwestern USA, blogging on a computer to strangers around the globe, researching an ancient religious leader’s teachings preceding Judaism and Christianity, all spurred accidentally by a tattoo design search – in one word: amazing. lol It truly is astonishing how far humanity has come, though equally surprising how little we’ve learned. We take it all for granted, as though this material world were our birthright.
Ah well. Time to tend to that errand and I’ll be back.
Newsvine
