Strange Obama and stranger Omaha

I’m committing the ultimate social sin. I’m talking politics, and I’m doing so as an outsider look into American politics, pretending that I have an idea what’s going on in that country.

Allow me a moment. If I were an American and if I had to vote I would probably vote for the Democrats. My reason is purely based on the principle that it is more likely that Church and State will remain separate under a liberal government. Unfortunately there seems to be a strangeness about the Democrats that will make me think a little longer about who gets my vote.

The favorite democrat candidate is probably Senator Barak Obama. However let me share some quotes by Sen. Obama from a recent online debate on Yahoo! that had me frowning.

“And we've got to unify the American people, getting them to come together around a long-term national security strategy in which stabilizing Iraq is only a part. It also has to include going aggressively after al-Qaida…”

I thought the Democrats are pursuing an anti-war policy. Or does “going aggressively after al-Qaida” mean something other than war?

“And so it is an imperfect system. As you know, Charlie, money is the original sin of politics, and when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning when it comes to raising money because otherwise you can't compete.”

So in a Democratic paradigm doing “some sinning” is okay as long as the end justifies the means? So that was what Bill Clinton was thinking when he sinned with his secretary.

From one senator to another – Sen. Ernie Chambers, the “Maverick of Omaha”, recently sued God. Sen. Chambers filed the lawsuit, seeking an injuction to order God to “cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic [sic] threats…” Apparently the suit requests the court waive personal service, since God is Omnipresent, the plaintiff is of the opinion that God has knowledge of it.

“Chambers asks for the court to grant him a summary judgement. He says as an alternative, he wants the judge to set a date for a hearing as ‘expeditiously’ as possible and enter a permanent injunction enjoining God from engaging in the types of deleterious actions and the making of terroristic threats described in the lawsuit.” (MSNBC)

So who're you gonna vote for? The scary conservatives or the crazy liberals?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20823832

The Scary Right

I recently watched CNN’s third installment of their documentary series “God’s Warriors” [http://www.hvc-inc.com/clients/cnn/warriors/index.html]. The third installment, “God’s Christian Warriors” centered on the Religious Right in America.

My blood chilled.

Although many of these people are most sincere in their purpose and convictions, they are moving the country away from separation of Church and State. The strong emphasis on political rallying is scary, to say the least.

Has it been so long? Is it already forgotten that one of the great causes for the “New World” was the fleeing from religious persecution by government? Doesn’t the First Amendment stand as a grand testimony to the terrifying past that infringed religious freedom?

The only Christian on the “God’s Christian Warriors” installment that I could associate with was Greg Boyd, and a little bit with Richard Cizik. The latter is an environmental activist, saying that we are stewards of God’s creation and that this should get just as much attention as other worthy causes, like prayer in schools.

Greg Boyd is a controversial pastor that denounced the Religious Right’s political agenda. Although Boyd is conservative in his moral views (e.g. disagrees with abortion and Gay marriages), he is paradoxically critical of the Christian Right movement. Last year he authored the book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church as a theological response to the Christian Right agenda.

Boyd is considered a heretic by some for adhering to the idea of “open theism”. I’m yet to read up enough on the topic, but as for Boyd’s focus on Jesus Christ as our model, and condemning the marriage of Church and State, I passionately agree.

Fearful will be the day when the United States of America becomes the Religious States of America. Persecution of those (including other Christian denominations) that do not believe exactly as the church-backed government dictates will follow closely behind. If ever there was a time to learn from history, now is such a time.

The problem is of course much more complex than the Christian Right wanting control of government. The reason for their power hunger is because they are experiencing an infringement on their constitutional rights themselves. In a secular society where Christian values and beliefs are frowned upon, and the slightest mention of one’s beliefs are considered hate-speech, it is no wonder that they feel the need to fight .

I sympathize. It is crucial for me to be allowed the freedom to worship freely, to live out my convictions proudly, to share my faith openly. Permit me also the choice to learn and appreciate various models of origin, not only one state approved hypothesis. These are all civil liberties we all should have access to.

However, if I want this freedom of choice for myself, I must also allow it for others. Not only now, but even in times to come. Throwing religion and politics into the same pot is sure to bring a gloomy future.

After all, did Jesus not say that His Kingdom is not of this world?!

Trashy sensibilities

I took out the trash.

I feel empowered. I have accomplished something. Of course I accomplished a lot of other things during the week, but nothing as tangible as taking out the trash. Disposing of filth is very evidential. There was a bag of things both dirty and questionable in nature, but now it is gone. Dirty – Clean. Bad – Good.

I’ve made the world a better place!

The Scary Right and the Frightening Left

In the previous post I flayed the idea of Darwinian Evolution. That must make me a Religious Right fanatic, right? Nope, definitely not. There are few things in this universe that scares me as much as the Religious Right. If not one of the “Righteous Right” then I must be a Liberal Lefty, isn’t that so? Wrong again. The Liberal Left, although slightly less scary, is still a terrifying monster in my books.

So where does the Paranoid Prophet stand? Well, basically I’m torn into a terrible side split like Van Damme in Bloodsport (in picture), with my left foot dangling limb on one side and my right foot in a spasm on the other.

God’s government is based on Love. Love cannot exist without the freedom of choice. What I’m seeing in both the extreme Left and far Right, each of course with their own slant, is a peculiar movement towards taking away our freedom to choose.

The Religious Right is moving towards the integration of Church and State. This has proven to be disastrous in every historical case, leading to persecution of those that do not believe like the State Religion dictates. I vehemently disassociate myself with such a movement, which is, by the way, contrary to the First Amendment of the United State’s Bill of Rights. Also can I not, for the life of everything that enjoys Häagen-Dazs ice-cream, associate myself with those (rather big) fringe movements in the Religious Right that claims Global Warming is a farce invented by the socialists, or at least irrelevant because the End is nigh!

On the other hand, the Liberal’s attack on religion, Christianity in particular, frightens me too. The strong emphasis on down playing ones religion and claiming that witnessing is equal to proselytism (i.e. unethical means of religious persuasion) and akin to a Human Right violation is worrisome.

In the end, it doesn’t matter which side is ruling. With fanatical Republicans ruling religious freedom will have to be state approved. And with fanatical Democrats in government religion (especially denominational Christianity) will become ostracized as an enemy of Human Rights.

Either way, Freedom of Religion (as prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 18) will become a relic of the New World, unwelcome within the New World Order.

Man, don’t listen to me. Prophet Kangnamgu is gifted with the spirit of paranoia, not the Spirit of Prophecy.

Finding God in an untidy room

It is hardly the middle of the week yet and my apartment is already in a state of high alert. I’m just waiting for some terrible sequence of events to occur. The elements are all there: open computer boxes; a tangled web of power, USB, network and other miscellaneous cables that will make the ARPANET suffer from performance anxiety and pull back its spawning tentacles like a frightened amoeba; way too many power sockets draining from one power source always screaming “Feed me!”; all kinds of flammables, including ESL-notes, books ranging from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” to a mini Bible library; enough CDs and DVDs to fill a section at a music store; half empty cups, dishes and cutlery, each breading a unique bacteria, of which one or two colonies have already invented the wheel and another is experimenting with creating fire; partnered shoes and separated socks; deodorant canisters and me.

And this leads me to believe that God exists. Not due to my providential safety in such a hostile environment (although it does help), but rather what it reminds me of.

Entropy: A spontaneous tendency towards disorder in a system, where differences (e.g. in temperature, pressure, the tidiness of an apartment, etc.) are smoothed out, as potential energy is released. (See also the Second Law of Thermodynamics.)

Or to put it simply – if you want order, you have to put in energy. Without effort your room (desk, marriage, business – you choose the noun) will decay into a heap of dust, or a den of chaotic atrocities. The latter not being the lively kind of atrocities you find in your local pub, but rather the fluidy kind you find splattered on the pavement outside of the pub.

A simple example of entropy is to drink your coffee shortly after it is prepared, unless you like it cold. The temperature of the hot cup of mocha smoothes out until it is in equilibrium with its environment. That’s entropy. To keep it from happening you would need to give your coffee an external heat source.

However, regardless of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the entropy-principle, there is still so much order, variety and vibrancy in the world. Go think this over. It is case in point for the existence of God.

The great preacher Morris Venden so eloquently argues the existence of God by means of one word: “Life!”

…ooOoo…

Now what a great closing it would have been if I could have ended this post just there. However, that would not give the scientific community an opportunity to counter. So allow me to do it on their behalf.

To all the geeky ones out there – did you know that entropy can produce order? This is according to the Law of Maximum Entropy Production, which basically says that the system will choose the path (or assembly of paths) that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints.

Think of it this way. Imagine you had a tank of water with two draining pipes, a big one and a small one. The “system” would “choose” to use the bigger pipe over the smaller one to drain the water. This Law of Maximum Entropy Production produces a predictable orderliness. The claim is that the planetary entropy (entropy on our planet and within the context of our solar system) are using an assembly of paths “that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints.” And according to the Law it is argued that Life and biological, psychological and sociological order are such paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate.

Seeing how quickly we humans are destroying the Earth, rushing it towards a once more state of being void and without form, I can almost agree with such a fanciful interpretation of Life, the Universe and Everything.

However, even this rationalization far from adequately explain the original impetus, une poussée formidable, as the French philosopher – of Polish, Jewish, English and Irish descent (don’t ask!) – Henri-Louis Bergson exclaimed; the seemingly continuous sustenance; the fantastic variety* and complexity of everything; the wonder of Life and the witness of Providence – generally, but also as experienced subjectively in individual lives.

...ooOoo...

* Some would have you believe that Evolution is the cause for all the variety we see. Stop and think about this. Darwinian evolution is based upon natural selection. Natural selection do not encourage variety, instead it weeds out variety. A creature with any mutation that is “less fit” goes instinct. What we see in nature is more adherent to an entropic model (increasingly fewer species are surviving), than a survival-of-the-fittest-produces-more-variety-model. The entropy principle is one of many death-strokes for traditional Darwinian Evolution. Practically no self-respecting Scientist would still admit to being a traditional Darwinist.

Real victories start at home. Real defeats too.

It happened on Friday. I slugged out of bed at around 10am. The demigod Chaos had made nest in my apartment again. Socks and other smelly objects mingled with notes, unmarked papers, trash, half read books, unsorted DVDs, dirty dishes, and I lay strewn about.

“It’s Friday.” Fridays are supposed to be preparation day. I’m supposed to use it to exorcise Chaos from my space and prepare for the blessed peace and orderliness of Sabbath. But on this Friday there is an important post-graduate workshop which I need to attend. The topic is “boundaries and liminality”. And since I am planning to commence with a PhD I guess it would be good to show my face.

I dress up: White button-up shirt with striking blue tie, enveloped by a black waistcoat to hide the creased shirt, formal pants, black shoes, and black framed glasses to match. The effect will work. It will say “young, smart and confident”. It’s a lie. Today I do not feel confident. I feel like a loser, unsure about my future and my place in it.

I pad myself with sun block, mount my bicycle and leave Chaos home alone. Maybe he will have mercy on me, get bored and leave before I get back.

The workshop started hours ago. I try to sneak in, but everyone is too happy at the disturbance. It gives them something to do. It breaks the monotony of listening to one academic blah-blah after another. They all look at me. Wait for me to find a seat. Some pretentiously frown at my complete disregard for timeliness or disrespect at unsettling a highly qualified scholar in the middle of her highly academic discourse.

The literary professor seems untouched by my fashionable entrance. She quotes someone: “Die dood spreuk tog vanself.” [Death speaks for itself.] The title of her presentation is “Still lives and the still life of death; voices and silences in Memorandum by Marlene van Niekerk and Adriaan van Zyl”. If death speaks for itself why such a long discourse about it, I ponder.

Next up is an old classmate. She reports on her PhD. It is about Oliver Schreiner’s The Story of an African Farm. (Schreiner is probably best known for his quote: "There was never a great man who had not a great mother.") She quotes passages from the book and I’m struck by “only the milk bushes, like old hags, pointed their shrivelled fingers heavenward, praying for the rain that never came.”

And so it goes.

Hours go by.

We are fed.

More hours go by.

We listeners are confronted with death, nostalgia, vengeance, banality, gender issues, Apartheid. . .

“What does it all mean?” I ask myself. “In the greater scheme of things, what does this matter?” I’m frustrated with the futility of it all. “Are we changing the world? Does this help anyone? Is this of value to anybody, except us handful scholars sitting like mythological gods on a mountain, removed from reality – our only interaction with it is through the arts.”

And then, everyone is finished. There is actually some time left and I’m put on the spot. I have nothing to say about my own future studies. “Tell us about your master’s degree.”

I stand up, armed with a white board marker.

I start by explaining the difference between Literature and Creative Writing. “Literary scholars are like connoisseurs,” I flatter them. “They taste the food, dissect the flavours, discuss the qualities and write critical reviews.” I smile. “Creative Writers are like the chefs. Both the connoisseurs and the chefs work with food. They just approach it from different sides.” They nod their heads in understanding. The analogy has caught its prey.

“The creation and representation of a postmodern character identity in prose” – the title of my dissertation. I explain my research and methodology on the white board and begin a flamboyant discussion concerning the creation and representation of character, postmodernity and pop culture. I answer questions eloquently and at length. I throw my knowledge of Postmodern Identity and Creative Writing around like candy to a crowd. I make references to Nobel prize winner, J M Coetzee, to Frank Miller’s film adaptation of his comic books, to the imago’s in Dogville, to the stereotypes in The Simpsons and American Dad, to the blend of classical and contemporary music in The Matrix, to postmodern subcultures, to narrative layers, to E M Forster.

And I hear my alter-ego cry out: “What does it all mean?!”

I return home, uplifted with the endorphin rush of academic acknowledgment.

Chaos awaits me. Valiantly I put up a fight. I start in the kitchen. I wash the dishes and wipe the stove. But Chaos’ martial experience outwits me long before I reach my room.

“You think your small victory can dissuade me?” He asks. “I’m not a scholar persuaded by rhetoric. I’m not overcome by white board markers. I’m not subdued by analogies. I’m not awed by your knowledge of Postmodernism. I am the Cause of Postmodernism.”

And that . . . that was Friday.

Who's scared of Facebook?

Facebook is the handiwork of Satan’s bedfellows. Their intention is to easily gather personal information of everyone as part of a secret profiling project. Once part of Facebook it is practically impossible to get out. It’s like joining the Mafia or the Freemasons.

Okay, maybe not Satan’s bedfellows, but Facebook is creatively linked with the Information Awareness Project (IAP), which did use a fabulously symbolic logo seeped in Masonic imagery. (The all-seeing-eye spying on the whole world. I wonder what that means?!) If that is not enough to freak you out, how about this statement saying that Facebook is collecting information about you from “other sources”?

"Facebook may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook,” Facebook, Privacy Policy.

Not scared yet? Okay, dear Facebook-user, did you know that you signed a contract with Facebook agreeing that you will keep your personal information “current”, and “promptly” update any Registration Data changes (the registration Data is your personal information).

"In consideration of your use of the Site, you agree to (a) provide accurate, current and complete information about you as may be prompted by any registration forms on the Site ("Registration Data"); (b) maintain the security of your password and identification; (c) maintain and promptly update the Registration Data, and any other information you provide to Company, to keep it accurate, current and complete; and (d) be fully responsible for all use of your account and for any actions that take place using your account."Facebook, Terms of use.

Now why would Facebook be so interested in you keeping them abreast of all your personal details? I guess it is because they are so very concerned about your wellbeing.

You thought that the stuff you post on Facebook belong to you; did you?

“When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.” Facebook, Terms of Use.

Whatever you post on Facebook becomes Facebook’s and the “Company” can do with it what the “Company” wants. True, it is necessary for Facebook to have a limited license over your work in order to perform the functions of their service, but an irrevocalbe, perpetual, transferable, fully paid worldwide license, with the right to sublicense?!

Hey, don’t take my word for it:

http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook/

http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/424

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t34949.html