Silver

By request - the text of my audio story published by the Dunesteef audio fiction magazine.


Something was wrong, but you couldn't quite figure out what it was.  You were hiking through the Black Forest, following those leads.  The girl who reported the sighting may not have remained a virgin, but that didn't mean that her story was false.  It just meant that the experience would never happen to her again.

You were still pure, however, and your hope and faith made you a beacon to draw them, if they were there.  If they wanted you.  But something was wrong.

Her description was flawless; everyone gets the pure white coat, the flowing mane, and that damned horn.  But she knew the details.  She heard them speaking their names.  Names you recognized.  Names you first heard when you were a young girl, and you wandered away from your family's campsite on that trip to the Black Forest.

And she saw the tattoos and the scars.

Which brought you back out there with your gear and your plans.  This time, you were determined to get the proof that you needed.  It had gone beyond an obsession, long before your job was lost and your reputation was gone.  Certainly, you wanted to put a stop to the snickers and the pity.  But this desire was older than that; it was much more than that.  You had given up on that dream of proving yourself to doubters early on, and you learned to pay lip service to their disbelief, so they would believe you had recovered your senses. 

The doubters couldn't help you get what you wanted, anyway.

It was that desire to see Them again; to touch them; to ride one of them again.  That desire kept you alone - and intact - throughout your adult life.  It kept you aloof and distant, focused on your career.  Your success as an interrogator was attributed to that detached focus.  But in hindsight, your whole life was a balancing act between lies that hid your obsession and the truth that smoldered beneath, like embers hidden by wet leaves.  No one could lie to you.  You could smell the feeble smoke of their falsehoods, and fan the truth into flame.

On the interview tape, you were different, though.  The girl's story was feeble; it was plain they had stolen that car and headed for seclusion.  You were your usual, competent self, cold and taking notes, waiting for the holes in the tale that would inevitably show themselves.  She veered from the unlikely into the fantastic, telling you of the sound of hoofbeats, and the flash of silver through the trees.

You froze at that.  Your detachment melted away.  You ought to have torn her lies apart right there; exposed her fraud and closed the case.  And yet you listened, and instead of cutting apart the lies with logic, you asked for more.

Where did you go? What did you see?  How many were there?  Can you describe the marks...

You wrote down everything, squeezing her for details until the chief came and ended the interview.  They took the girl away, and you screamed at them to stop; you needed to know more.  The tape captured your frenzy, and words that you were shouting.  Words that couldn't be heard on replay, because no two listeners heard the same sounds.

They detained you, and made you wait for the chief's decision.  You simply stared intently, stroking a lock of your silver hair, which had fallen out of your normally severe bun as you clutched your notes and eyed the maps on the walls of the station.

They took away your badge and your car; they revoked your investigator's license.  After the magistrate reviewed your case, they were going to offer you a small pension, and a quiet, part time desk job at some village in the southern part of the country. 

It was strange that you had become so intent; that you lost your control.  If you had stayed calm, you could have interviewed the girl again later; you could have taken your notes, and pretended not to believe her.  You could have held on to the dignity and respect of your peers.  Would that have made a difference?

You went alone, with the illegal gun you had found during a drug raid, and a pack full of modern camping gear; microfibre bedroll, piezoelectric generator, and basic protein sequencer.  You went with no radio, no GPS, and no phone, but you took a long, thin silver chain and wore it coiled off your belt.  You wore the night vision goggles, but didn't really believe those would help you.

It was your blood they would smell, and they would find you.  Or they wouldn't.

You wandered, uncertain for the first time in your life.  Something was wrong, but you couldn't figure it out.  You could only roam through the woods, clutching your hopes as they wilted into doubts.

And then, as you approached a stream, they surprised you.  They appeared out of nowhere, surrounding you, and pinning you where you stood on the road; a ring of tall white equines with their long, thin horns forming spokes that seemed to emerge from your body and radiate out to their foreheads instead of the other way round.

You knew that a distant part of you felt fear.  The old, weary part of you felt that, but it was far away, and it was sinking beneath the waves of joy that were radiating from the young, innocent virgin still within your heart.  The joy of a faith long held, and now rewarded; the joy of anticipation fulfilled on a wedding night, after a protracted engagement; this was what you felt, even before they spoke to you.

But they did speak to you, and if you had swooned when they did - swooned as you had all those years ago when they came upon you, lost and afraid - they would have escaped you again.  This time, though, you were ready with your silver lasso, and you revealed to them your secret.  You reminded them why, for so many centuries, they had avoided wise, older women who wander through the forest in favor of those innocent, young virgins.

As quickly as they had appeared, they were gone... scattered like brilliant aspen leaves, first shimmering silver, and then flipping into the dark green that dominates the trees of the forest, giving it its name.  All but one, which strained at the end of your chain, trying to flee.  You leapt upon his back, chain coiled around your fists; fingers balled into his mane.

He was not the same one you rode in your youth.  That time, you had found yourself astride a young stallion with a pattern of swirls that wove around his middle in the shape of a saddle.  This time, you were riding their king.  No swirls on this back; no hint of domestication.  This skin was covered with the story of their kind.  Tales of their migrations across time; their conflicts with other creatures; the Flood that ended their rule.  Scars told of the battles that followed, the encroachment of humankind.  And one symbol, on his shoulder, where the pommel would be... this you recognized as the seat of their power.

You caressed it with a finger, risking your grip to ride one-handed.  This tattoo, on the back of their king, was the key to their continued existence; this symbol was the Meme - the Idea which kept them alive in the hearts of the world.  It kept them anchored, despite their secrecy.

You should have let it go, then.  You would have been filled with their magic, returned to your golden youth.  Nothing could have harmed you until you let it, and no one would have doubted you with the knowledge that you held.

Instead, you wanted too much.  You wanted to be seen, in the city, riding triumphantly upon the King of the Unicorn.

You believed that nothing could harm you, though you ought to have realized the danger.  The Meme that had revealed itself to you should have filled you with their caution.  But hubris is not a trait of the Unicorn; it belongs to us.  And to you.

And so you rode him to the city, where you were able to charge to the center square; a highway, choked with fools and machines.  And when you stopped, you dismounted, holding onto his chain, expecting all eyes to be on you, and on him.  You honestly believed that the world would stop and take notice.  Most did, but certainly not all.

The humble car should not be enough to kill the King of the Unicorn, but he is a creature of magic, and it is a creation of iron.  It was simply unfortunate that the car struck him from behind, and that you were in front of him, arms upraised and shouting for attention.  When the horn pierced you, it lifted you off the ground, and the weight of the beast carried you both over a wrought iron fence (yet more iron), and into a fountain.  The horn snapped off at the very base when it struck the stone, leaving it in your body.  The Unicorn fell away, and a mighty flash of silent, heatless light blasted from his forehead.

By the time the authorities arrived, the water of the fountain was a dark red.  The blood and moss had obscured whatever strands of white were left in his coat, which had mostly turned a dingy grey.  The horn had remained, but as a charred and blackened stick.  And the proof you wanted so badly was reduced to this sooty shaft through your torso, a dead horse in a fountain, and the uncertain memories of witnesses who had barely noticed the event.

They took your statement, for whatever it is worth, capturing your last breaths on tape.  Legally, it will be inadmissible.  The pain and trauma would have robbed your credibility even if they hadn't given you the pain killers.  But it has been transcribed, and notarized, for the public record.  Reading it, one could assume only that you had broken from the strain of police work.  No one would believe the tale you told in this age of miracles and wonders.

Not that anyone ever will read it.  Such a humiliating incident is certain to be buried as deeply as possible.  As will you, and the King of the Unicorn.

How to Tell If You Are a Bigot

First, the definition - so that the bigots can't pretend not to know what it is:

big·ot·ry   [big-uh-tree]  noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry    

Second, the Golden Rule:

The Ethic of Reciprocity -- often called the Golden Rule in Christianity -- simply states that we are to treat other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
Almost all organized religions have such an ethic. It is normally intended to apply to the entire human race. Unfortunately, it is too often applied by some people only to fellow believers.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm/
http://notaboutreligion.com/2009/01/04/the-golden-rule-a-list-of-2-dozen-versions/ (Note: this second link includes Humanism's version.)

And third, a concept that too many are having trouble with: Fact vs. Opinion

Like many of you, I feel overwhelmed by all of the chatter over marriage equality - between the Boy Scouts and Chick-Fil-A, the amount of stupid is burning up my Twitter and Facebook.  (And yes, I'm adding to it. Thank you, Captain Obvious.)

But there are a few recurring (and stupid) ideas that keep popping up that I've addressed elsewhere, and think you should have this response in your arsenal.

A distressingly large number of people have tried to turn all of this into an attack on "normal" people. They say "why can't you just 'live and let live' - leave Chick-Fil-A and the Boy Scouts alone?"  The reason is because both of those groups are ignoring the Ethic of Reciprocity (Golden Rule) and are actively picking on a minority group.  I made my case against the BSA already.

But someone asked me in a Facebook thread, to "Show me proof that Chick-Fil-A has done something to harm another human being." Done, and done. THEY proved that with their press conference announcing that they had donated money to the Family Research Council, and intended to continue "defending traditional marriage."

This is proof of harm, because despite their name, the council has done no "research" to show that allowing free U.S. citizens to marry each other does any damage whatsoever to "traditional" families. (The FRC is also listed as a hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, by the way, just to head off the whiny cry of "why are you people calling Chick-Fil-A a hate group, now". There is ample reason for criticizing their Insincere Bigotry.)

The reason that the LGBT community is fighting - and the reason that I am increasingly fighting alongside them - is because the current state of U.S. law and the laws of the several states regarding marriage is unconstitutional. These laws - DOMA, DADT, State-level bans on gay marriages - are pushed into legislation by groups like the FRC, funded by donors like Chick-Fil-A, despite the fact that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

Who is harmed by these laws? Every family which is denied their rights under DOMA. Sally Ride and her partner of 27 years. Children of gay or lesbian parents, like Zach Wahls. My friends, their partners, and their children.

If you recall the trial over California's Prop 8, this is what the Judge said in that case:

"Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 2-1 majority, therefore argues that "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort.' ""

So, there is my proof of harm.  Unconstitutional bigotry, funded by a wealthy organization to which I will no longer give my business. Now, a challenge to all of you who think you are being victimized by Scary Gays who are fighting to get this changed:  Show me proof that gay marriage has done any material harm to you or anyone else. If you think you can, you should go find the attorneys in the Prop 8 case and give it to them - because when the judge asked them for it, they couldn't offer any.

Do not bring your unsupported assertions about how They are eroding "family values," or your smears equating homosexuality with pedophilia and molestation. Do not bring your offended sense of entitlement because you think "gays are gross" and because you think the minority should conform to your sensibilities.  And do not lie.  Do not tell me that your opinion is based in anything other than bigotry.  You can't claim that, because it isn't true.

One last thing - do not tell me to "shut up and stop trying to infringe on their free speech."  Because if you don't see the epic ironic stupidity in that quoted statement, then you are beyond hope.

Violations

A few months ago, I heard about Jennifer Tyrrell.  She was being kicked out of the Boy Scouts organization after nearly a year as a Cub Scout leader because she is gay. She objected to this treatment - and rightly so.  Her story is shocking, and if her allegations are true, then the Council in Ohio is behaving badly enough without adding a national controversy.

But despite a national outcry, and more than 300,000 signatures calling for a change to their discriminatory policy, the BSA has decided to violate their own mission statement and embrace exclusion and bigotry.

From the Boy Scouts of America website:

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law
A Scout is:
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
Brave, Clean, Reverent

This week, the Scouts' chief executive Bob Mazucca said, "The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting. We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society"...

This is a dishonest statement.  



There is no basis in claiming that a change in policy to allow gay leaders and scouts - many of whom are already quietly there in the organization - would deny the "vast majority" of parents their right to address any issue they like within their family. Scout meetings are not about sex or sexuality.  It is not in the manual; it is not on the agenda.

It is certain, though, that the subject will come up; my boys picked up the nasty habit of calling each other "gay" as an insult when they were 8 and 9 - from boys in their scout pack. Regardless of the orientation of any scout leader or scout, the appropriate way to handle that is to point out that such behavior is Unkind, Discourteous, and Unfriendly, and put a stop to it. As far as I am concerned, teaching respect for all is required in Scouting.

If you still want to teach your children to hate gays in your home, this policy would not prevent you from doing so.

In defending the BSA's discrimination, some have implied that it is in place to protect the children.  This is also a lie.  Youth Protection training and a two-deep leadership policy are in place to protect the children AND any adult leaders from being at risk from predatory behavior. Child predators are not limited to the LGBT community.

[UPDATE: In October 2012, the court-ordered release of a vast number of documents showed that BSA has done a terrible job of protecting youth from predators; and the pattern of protecting those predators by not even reporting a third of the cases to the police further demonstrates the lie behind the discriminatory anti-gay policy.]

In announcing their decision to stick with a policy of bigotry, the Boy Scouts have abandoned the fourth line of their Oath - "To help other people at all times" - and have added a twist to the already ambiguous duty to keep "morally straight" by embracing an immoral policy.  By expelling someone they invited into their fold, they have proven to be Disloyal, Unfriendly and Unkind. I suppose they feel Brave for taking a stand, unfortunately, they are standing against a group which they consider to be beneath their standards - and standing in particular against one of their own, which betrays Trust, Helps no one, and certainly reveals something Unclean beneath their Cheer.

I know from talking to parents in my boys's Troop that this policy decision is not universally popular. I know that I probably don't have to worry about it directly affecting us, because as far as I know, no one in our Troop is gay.  But it is still wrong, and it's still an injustice being done in our name, and with our consent. In the end, it will be up to my sons to decide whether they will resign or stay with the program - as I have said elsewhere, I believe in making peaceful change from within.

But what about my family?  We don't believe in God - and God is all over this program.  He is in the Oath, and if you read the materials, they do not consider my healthy appreciation for the universe to be proper "Reverence."  I skip the "Under God" garbage in the Pledge of Allegiance, and I politely stay silent during the Lord's Prayer.  Are we next to be asked to leave?

I have wrestled for years with the way Faith is laced throughout the Boy Scouts program. My first impression of the first troop we considered did not go well, but I was convinced by the Scout friends we have now to practice the tolerance that I ask of religious people, and find a way to get along.

As an atheist, I have long questioned the sensibility of an organization which insists it is not a religious organization, yet which also insists that without a religion, one cannot be moral. If this policy is based in religious views, then I don't see how religion improves morality; if it is not based in religion, then I don't see any basis for maintaining the discrimination. (Neither do many of the Faithful..)

As a mentally awake American veteran, I have found that compassion for those who are different from myself or from the accepted norms and active acceptance of their differences is usually the moral thing to do.

As a private organization, they are free to ignore the dictates of morality as I, and as an increasing number of Americans, see it.  But I hope the Boy Scouts will reconsider, and join me, as well as many disappointed Eagle Scouts in correcting their mistake.

On their honor.

Sooner or Later, This Needs Fixing

I knew when I heard that President Obama had announced a new policy for immigration what I would see coming from his critics.  And of course, the bile and bigotry has flowed through my Facebook stream and Twitter as predicted.  If you're one of those posting that crap, you're certainly free to do so, but I urge you to reconsider your position.  For one thing, I think the Slacktivist hit the nail on the head in calling out the hypocrisy of Americans who revile "rule-breaking immigrants" while celebrating themselves as motivate go-getters - he has suggested a better name for both groups on his blog.


But more immediately, I think we need to recognize that the President is doing the right thing for the sub-group of children of immigrants who were moved here before they were able to make the decision whether to do so - either legally or not - for themselves.  My cousin is married to one of these "illegal kids." He found out he was here illegally when he was 18, and went to marry my cousin; he had been here for 15 years and did not know he wasn't supposed to be here - though he felt pretty stupid when he looked back and saw all of the obvious clues.

Unfortunately for him (and for my cousin) the whole myth of the "anchor baby" isn't true; and to answer those who ask "why don't you just go through proper channels like everyone else," the trouble is that there are no "proper channels" for someone like him. The "proper channel" would have been to abandon his new wife and infant for the 7 to 10 years that it would take for him to leave the States and re-apply for admission. He had nowhere to go in Mexico - his Spanish was okay, but he didn't know anyone there, and would have had no where to live, no job, no family, no way to support himself or his wife and kid, etc. 

So he was stuck between two lousy choices, and he made the one I would have made: stay with the wife and kids, support my family, stay out of trouble, and hope that since this is such a "hot issue" the U.S. Congress would come up with a plan. George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, sounded like they had the right idea, but just lacked the Constitutional power to do anything about it; and the Congress has lacked the cojones to act in the face of widespread racism.

By the way, this family I'm describing is largely Southern Baptist (myself being an exception) and tends to vote Republican. My cousin's first pregnancy was scandalous, but "the right thing to do" was for the boy to marry the girl and support her, and they stepped up to help as much as they could. One thing they could not do: they couldn't help change a "legal status" that the law didn't recognize.

Oh, but what about the law these people were and are breaking? I don't want you to think I am ignoring the law... but did you know it is only a misdemeanor? Speeding is more dangerous, and littering does more damage. Would you insist that everyone stop driving until we hold all of the speeders accountable for their crime?

Do you want to hold people accountable for the identity theft, tax evasion, and fraudulent claim of benefits? Great - let's do that! But you also need to make it so that a kid who turns 18 and finds out they aren't actually a citizen of the only home they've ever known can pay the fine for his misdemeanor, start the naturalization process - and still stay to support his American family. Take into account the fact that a minor isn't responsible for the identity theft his parents committed; and focus the harshest punishments on the drug runners, human smugglers, and money launderers (who currently tend to go free precisely because we fail to make a legal distinction between them and the trespassers).  My cousin's husband finally found a way to return to Mexico and enter the country legally after only 6 months; but he had to wait until the kids were old enough and the family was established enough to take that leap.


And please, please stop telling me that your position on this isn't racist. I see the things you're posting and saying - the stereotypes of the macho thugs, illiterate migrants, and other tropes you trot out to show how different these people are. It's like you forgot how your Irish and Eastern European ancestors were treated by the white protestants in their day.

You don't have to like Obama or support Democrats to get this problem fixed, but you should certainly reconsider your virulent anti-immigrant stance, and tell your representatives to come up with a better plan. Because we are better than the way we have been behaving for far too long.

Alone in a Crowd

"We have an informal association of radically individualistic rationalists, but we've reached a plateau. Now we need to find a way to come together with a unified vision for a better world, even if we have to sacrifice 'every man for himself'."    - Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers

I keep saying that I don't like groups. I don't.  With a group comes baggage - labels, commitments, disappointments, betrayals (whether large or petty) and miscommunication. With a group comes scrutiny of your motives, judgment of your choices, obligation of your time and effort, and no real privacy.

And yet...

"Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships... The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all."     - from The Humanist Manifesto III

I've said for years (though not always out loud) that I don't need a supernatural being, and I don't need the irrational, institutionalized group with its fear and guilt being imposed from outside in order to control what they have no business controlling.

I managed to break free of the groups I was raised to believe in - ironically, by joining other groups - and I've found my way to where I am now.  I follow my gut, and I strive to make the best choices; I am good, except when I fail, and when I do, I fix it as best as I can.

I feel like I'm in a good place.  I like it here, and have no real need to drag anyone else along who doesn't want to be here.  I don't need a group to affirm or support who or what I am.  I simply am, and I have come through pain and fire to get here - on my own, without any mystical help.

And yet...

Have I really been on my own?  There has been no mystical help, but my personal journey has taken me through the lives of many others who have helped me along the way.  I've written about many of them, in some form or another.  Some have slept by my side; others I have never met in real life.  But we've shared time, and ideas, and while I can't guarantee I've always enriched their lives, they've certainly played a role in enriching mine.

But they're people. And in groups, they behave unpredictably, and cannot be completely trusted - so my instinct is to retreat, taking only what I need from them and giving back the minimum necessary.  I share my words on the internet, I measure my time carefully out for some, and try to devote myself to a few who really seem to appreciate me - and whom I appreciate in return.  And that brings me to the puzzle I'm facing right now.

Because, you see, while I have not tried to advertise, proselytize, witness, or otherwise claim any kind of mantle of wisdom, I still find that people approach me - behind the scenes, offline, sotto voce - because I'm visible with my lack of belief and I express the questions they are afraid to ask.  I haven't defined myself, I won't accept a label willingly, I argue constantly, and I'm confusing as all get out - but still they ask me for ideas and advice.  They are searching, and they've come to me.  But what do I have to tell them?

That's the question I've avoided for so long.  What do I have to offer to others; what is it that they sense in me that they think will help them?

I was not able to attend the Reason Rally in DC a few months ago.  Our calendar was triple-booked that weekend, but the following weekend saw us sitting at home with little to do, so while my lovely bride caught up on some scrap-booking, I watched the videos from the Rally. She listened across the room as Adam Savage (probably our favorite speech), PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, Sean Faircloth, and Richard Dawkins spoke.  They varied from the upbeat and positive, to the thoughtful and scholarly, and to the fire-breathing and angry.  I was enjoying it immensely, and watching the crowd, and wishing I could have gone.

At some point, I realized she had stopped working, and was just listening intently.  I thought that I must be annoying her with the videos.  I was about to offer to put on some music or do something else - but then she said:

"I had no idea there were so many people out there who believe what I do."

It almost broke my heart to hear my dearest companion, and best friend across two decades say something like that.  She sounded alone.  And that's what my friends sound like when they tell me privately how they enjoy my posts on Facebook, my stories here on the blog, or my comments on Twitter.  They sound slightly shocked that they are not alone.

“Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake (Honorary president of the American Humanist Association)

And that's the answer.

It doesn't matter to me if you "agree with me" - whatever that meaningless phrase has come to represent - or if you believe what I believe about legal points, political machinations, science, or history.  I don't care if you like the same music, writers, movies, or art. But if you feel like you are alone in your doubt, if you feel lost in a cold universe, or if you are just tired of living inside of lies for the sake of the group around you - if you're lonely in a crowd... I can tell you that you're not the only one.  That's my gift; I can be here, visible, letting you see and hear that I am here.

For whatever it may be worth, I'm joining a couple of groups.  I will see what I can learn from them, and what I can bring to the table.  I don't intend to give more than I have; I certainly won't be impressing anyone with my organizational or time-management skills. I don't intend to bend or conform; I certainly won't wear a uniform or toe any lines. I won't drag anyone into it with me if they don't want to go.  I'll just do what I do best: think, read, share, and laugh.

But I can't hide in plain sight without making sure that those around me know this:

You are not alone.

And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

I saw that someone had posted the 76 Things Banned in Leviticus, and wanted to see how I scored.

(If you want to share yours in the comments, I'll happily approve them.)

• 3.  Eating fat (3:17) - BACON: it's worth hell.
• 4.  Eating blood (3:17) - did this one in England; not worth hell, unless I meet a Klingon
• 6.  Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) - that would be hearsay, and it is inadmissable
• 7.  Touching an unclean animal (5:2) - how the hell do I wash my dog??
• 8.  Carelessly making an oath (5:4) - I promise not to do that.  D'OH!
• 11.  Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) - have you seen our firepit?
• 12.  Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) - submitted by the Barber's Union of Judea (not to be confused with the Judean Barber's Union - they're splitters)
• 13.  Tearing your clothes (10:6) - I am clumsy.
• 14.  Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9) - LOL, Catholics!
• 15.  Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:4-7) - Again -Bacon is worth Hell.  God *really* needs to set the bar a little lower.
• 16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8) - Oink.
• 17.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) - Sushi was NOT worth Hell.
• 20.  Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27) - LOL, Del Taco
• 36.  Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) - No comment; I'm not incriminating anyone else.
• 38.  Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) - ...but I took it back.  Does Molek do "take-backs"?
• 41.  Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4) - My birthday present on my 5th birthday: C-3PO action figure.
• 45.  Lying (19:11) - I always do this.  #seewhatIdidthere
• 46.  Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
• 50.  Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) - Uh-oh - between the Tea Party and OWS, we're ALL guilty of this one.
• 51.  Spreading slander (19:16) - I forwarded a FoxNews link once.
• 52.  Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) - I drive a car.  Duh.
• 53.  Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) - You won't see it coming, either, you bastard.
• 54.  Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) - With my fashion sense?  Yeah, I've probably done this.
• 55.  Cross-breeding animals (19:19) - Does singing "Skullcrusher Mountain" count?  "I made this half-pony/half-monkey monster to please you..."
• 56.  Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) - It shouldn't count if you forget to water them and they die.
• 59.  Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) LOL, "Left Behind" series
• 60.  Trimming your beard (19:27) - Well, Duh.
• 61.  Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
• 62.  Getting tattoos (19:28) - Oh, wait - I thought this said "tacos."  Kater is the tattooed one.
• 64.  Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) - Madame Brent read my tarot once.
• 65.  Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) - The whole TIME?  
• 66.  Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”  (19:33-34) - I am mean to Koreans.
• 67.  Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) - Oh, like YOUR bathroom is a house of honesty!
• 68.  Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) - I swear to God it was just an Impedimenta (oops... #46 again.)
• 70.  Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11) - Wait, now - is the priest playing a dead body, like in the musical version of "Weekend at Bernies" starring Father Guido Sarducci? Or is the dead body dressed as a priest?  Or am I the dead priest?  Well, she looked 18...
• 72.  Working on the Sabbath (23:3) - God don't pay Sunday shift differential.
• 73.  Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) - Gleefully - I suspect this post alone counts.  And if the stones start flying, that will only make me do it more loudly and often.
• 74.  Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22) - LOL, turning the other cheek!

So I scored... 35 (or did I violate #67 again?).  I'd try to up that, but there are a lot of non-existent and existing people I don't want to fuck on that list.  I'll have to be content with low-30's grade evil.  With a small "e"...

Are You What You Eat?

I don't often have the chance to take a position that puts me on the "side" of the conservatives, but here's one:

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

My opinion on this is that the government (in this case, the municipal government) oversteps its authority when it bans things. Furthermore, prohibition does not work; for evidence of this, I submit the 18th and 21st Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the dismal failure of the "War on Drugs." 

The lessons learned from those examples should apply to food and health policy, as well. I appreciate the intent, but as the Scientific American recently pointed out, the government is working against itself on these issues:

Conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and arthritis are strongly correlated with excess poundage and run up medical bills of nearly $150 billion every year. The government has poured billions of dollars into dietary campaigns, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new MyPlate recommendation (half of daily food consumption should be fruits and vegetables) to programs aimed at providing more produce in schools and in military cafeterias.

Agricultural subsidies undercut those efforts by skewing the market in favor of unhealthful calories. Much of the food we have to choose from—and how much it costs—is determined by the 1,770-page, almost $300-billion Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (commonly known as the “farm bill”). This piece of legislation, up for renewal this year, covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to land conservation efforts.

The largest problem with trying to address the Farm Bill's many flaws is that it is so large and covers so much ground. It's easy enough to find it online and read it... but how many people are going to do that? So while people talk about elements within it all the time - food stamps, nutritional assistance, food safety, conservation, and subsidies - few realize that this bill even exists. And yet it is central to so many debates - all controversial, and all politically tied to planks in every platform.

For most people, finding out what's what is hard. Trying to slog through it or read other opinions on it usually results in throwing one's hands up in despair, and voting on other issues. People tend to prefer to let their party frame the problems while ignoring the root problems describing in that Scientific American editorial.  In an election year (which is coincidentally exactly when these Farm Bills seem to come up for renewal), it's all but impossible to have an intelligent conversation about the policies that need to be changed.

But actually changing policy is only half the problem anyway, when it comes to addressing obesity and health.  Many folks claim that if the government stayed out of things and let people make up their own minds about things, that people would make the better decisions for themselves.  I find this theory does not often play out that way, as people tend to be short-sighted, self-destructive, and prone to rationalization.  In addition to sound policies creating a healthier marketplace, people need to focus on their habits, too - which really is (or should be) beyond the scope of our government.

Science is always inexact, and the human body is one of the most complex of complex systems - even more complex that food policy legislation! While I like to think I'm smart and capable of sorting these things out, I personally get a lot of information from friends who write more intelligently on this (like Chef Shawn) or defer to folks who write about managing their own small farms (like Sharon Astyk of Casaubon's Book). It's a lot of work, but I suspect that anyone who digs in and asks questions will learn that most of the hotly debated issues that we keep battling would solve themselves if we paid more attention to this one.