Toilet-Pod

Toilet-Pod.JPG
Originally uploaded by jmichaeli.

well, i suppose this is a logical step in a successful trend. people think about these things, but it takes the right kind of mind to put it into reality.



or is it reality?

just asking...

you can see/buy it hear (sic): gizmodo



[there are a million lines inside my head that would fit this post - all too sick! the first one that pooped into my head was "Shit and listen." and that's mild!]

a trip to the seashore, a trip to the seashore...

evrybody on your flying steed...

what you believe in...

If you've been reading along with me, you must realize that I stand pretty left of center. Not all the way left, but pretty well left. I strongly acknowledge that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want and to be whomever they want. The one exception I make is that no one is harmed in anyway, unless consenting.

If you want to believe in the Great Spaghetti Monster, who am I to deny you. However, if I want to eat spaghetti, I have that right. [Wait a minute - they eat Jesus and drink his blood!] No one is being harmed. [I don't believe that spaghetti can feel pain.] And if anyone believes in the GSM and objects to my eating spaghetti, well, I'm not physically harming them. If they say it hurts their feelings and beliefs, that's their problem and they will have to get over it. Actually, they need to understand that there is nothing to get over. I am not stopping them from believing in the GSM.

The same goes for Christianists, Muslimists, Republicanists, Marxists, Communists.... You get the picture. They can be free to believe whatever they want. As long as they allow me the freedom to believe whatever I want, AND be whomever I want or am.

Unfortunately, there are too many 'ists who don't think that this is my right or freedom. They want that you and I should only believe in their way. Well, they are free to believe that too. However, they can't make me do it, and in a democratic society they don't have the right to put limits on things for everyone who cannot believe as they do. Again, the one caveat is that no one is harmed.

There are just too many things going on in this country, and world, that are caused by people wanting everybody to be the way they think. Actually, it seems to be human history. Control by one person over others appears to be de rigueur for a long time.

why can't we all just get along and accept the differences???

i was fretting...

(that's the best way to put it)

...after reading an article [Society now accepts gay men as equals. So why on earth do so many continue to behave like teenagers?] in the April 21, 2006 Guardian Unlimited. There was a gnawing in the back of my head from it. It hit home yesterday when I made an infreqent trip to the cemetery to visit the grave of (though I won't use the word, others do) a lover. We were no longer together, if we ever had been, when he died, but we were closer being apart than when we were.

RT died 16 years ago last Tuesday. He died of complications from AIDS. I was holding his hand at the moment he died. A promise I made to him about his greatest fear - dying alone. His entire family was in the room except for his current partner. (I think RT planned it that way.)

I had forgotten all about the date and, yet, I was in a funk all last week. I put it all on a return from France the previous week and to overcoming jetlag. I'm sure that did have a major part in it but when I realized on Friday that I forgot this anniversary [the first time since that April 18, 1990], I was still surprised I didn't remember it. I also wondered if this hadn't helped the funk along unconsciously. Though it is true that time does heal old wounds.

However, when I visited the cemetery, I immediately thought of the Guardian article I read the night before. I thought of it in terms of myself and also because of RT. I hoped over the last 20+ years the community had become more adult, yet I realize from the article neither the community nor I really have, and I'm not sure I want it to either.

I've written other posts on this blog on how I truly believe the beauty of the LGBT community is "diversity." Yes, I know, just like any other community there are going to be some who will decry diversity and harbor prejudice, but that is part of the diversity in the community.

As a result, you have the more conservative members condemning the more flamboyant trannies or effeminate members as a bad image for the rest of the country, and they have that right. They say that this is the image that the rightists and others see when reporting is done on Pride events and on TV programs. Maybe it is. What they don't have the right to do is wish them away and I hope many do not.

You also have them censuring young gays, and others who hold onto the concept of youth, best described by Simon Fanshawe, the author/creator of both the article and documentary [The Trouble With Gay Men] as: ... living the lives of teenagers, still obsessed with sex, bodies, drugs, youth, and being "gay". (sic) Excuse me, but hasn't Mr. Fanshawe or the rest of the world been watching any television lately? Except for the "being 'gay'" part, that's all that's on the tube, especially if you're hooked on the so-called reality shows, and most all of them are not gay-oriented they only have an occassional token.

With all of this, there is nothing wrong; only things that are missing. Everything is all right just the way it is.

There is something that all of us need to do. Each of us must find the things that are missing and put them into place.

The conservative wing of our community has the responsibility to protect the right for ALL members to be who they are. After all, it was the drag queens at the Stonewall who pushed the organized movement for the LGBT community into being!

The drag queens have the responsibility to make certain that the conservative members of the community have the right to be who they are. They are the ones keeping the organized movement going.

We all have a much bigger responsibility. We have to make certain that everyone has the right to be who they are - rightist, islamist, athiest... everybody. We must put into place the things that are missing for everyone to see that.

So, if you read the article you will see that the author/documentrian sees members of the community, most especially the men, behaving as if not giving up their teenage behaviors. And his point is...? We need to grow up.

Why? Who is deciding the standards for growing up? What is the definition of an adult?

In my drive to the cemetery yesterday, I realized that RT, though in a relationship when he became positive, was not a saint. Neither was I. Neither were many other people of my generation. Neither is anyone today.

I felt guilty very, very briefly when I had this thought. I mean briefly. In a very fleeting moment I rued the things I did; I remembered the survivor guilt trip; I thought of RT and how much I still miss him; and I laughed at the irony of what it all meant.

I was not raised gay. I was raised straight. To the best of my knowledge and observation, so was everyone in the LGBT community. What was the major difference that happened? Genes? Chemistry? Psychology? Who knows? Who cares? We are what we are. Everyone is who they are. What I am not is someone else's idea of who and what I am.

That's where the diversity comes into play and that's where I'm going to restate what my reaction was to the article in the fourth paragraph above: I hoped over the last 20+ years the community had become more adult, yet I realize from the article neither the community not I really have, and I'm not sure I want it to either.

It is what it is. Everyone wants to give meaning to what it is. It just is what it is. It is not good. It is not bad. It is.

As far as the best reaction to the article, I think one of the commenters said it best:

My guess is that, like me, most gay men don't do Crystal Meth, don't cruise, don't use rent boys, don't moisturise, don't live in London... I could go on. I've nothing against the minority who do behave like this, but to assume we all do is pretty foolish. My guess is that most of us live in suburban neighbourhoods where the main difference between us and our straight neighbours is that we're less likely to have kids. This article is irrelevant nonsense.

no more fretting...

j'aime paris tout le temps...

12 avril 2006

c'est ma deuxieme maison...

et je vais sortir a demain...

tant pis...................

we're in trouble now...

Ultra Orthodox Jews in prayer shawls use a mobile phone and a camera to take pictures of the sunrise as it is seen from Masada, a cliff overlooking the Jordan River where Jewish rebels defended a fortress from Roman soldiers in 73 A.D., in this early Monday May 24, 2004 file photo. Talks are under way between Mirs Comunications Ltd, an Israeli subsidiary of Motorola, to introduce a " Kosher phone " to Jewish communities in the United States and other nations possibly later this year. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov/FILE)

the christianists are going to want their own fer sure...

[click the title above for the full story...]

when all else fails...

impeach the bastard, already...

what if...

...christianity is built on a false foundation?

...there is no historical jesus?

...the entire story is a figment of paul's (saul's) imagination?

...jesus just wanted to be a good jew?



just asking...

i wonder...

if the reason that the move to censure/impeach Bush doesn't have much support in Congress is because everyone from McCain to Obama are thinking that someday they too could be president and want the unchecked powers that W is grasping for?

just asking...

nobody ever thought...

...a clip aired on CNN, Scalia told students at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, "Question comes up: Is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question." Scalia again draws criticism...

Now, most people, especially gays, will read that what's scary about Scalia's statement is that it is about homosexual conduct. That's not the really, really scary part.

The really scary part is "It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct." Why it's scary is if you put this way of thinking [...when the Bill of Rights was adopted...] into play it puts in jeopardy many other things.

The number one example would be slavery. For example, ...nobody ever thought that when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to freedom for slaves. In fact, most all of the framers owned slaves. Shouldn't it be all right to own slaves by Scalia's way of strict construcitonist thinking?

OR

...nobody ever thought that when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to use cell phones.
...nobody ever thought that when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to own a car.
...nobody ever thought that when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to give women the vote.
...nobody ever thought that when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to a woman's right to choose.
...nobody ever thought that when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to ____________[put in anything that didn't exist on September 25, 1789]

scarier and scarier, isn't it?

just asking...

...a declared war?

There has been a lot as of late on the alleged war on Christianity. [see here, here, here, and here]

All of the rhetoric, if you look even at a glance, is coming from the Christianists on the right. The Left seems to keep the faith by acceptance of others religious beliefs and quietly trying to live the words of the gospels. The Right constantly is preaching their wisdom of exclusion and hatred. They refer continually to the United States as being founded as a Christian nation. Nothing seems to be further from the truth:

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

They play the victim of persecution and apostasy. No one is giving them their due and everyone is attacking them for their beliefs. It seems to me that it's just the other way around. By their pronunciations of victimhood they are trying to put the blame on everyone else for what they perceive as the decline of the US. They don't see that their line of thinking and acting is what is putting the face of derision on what has been the dream of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, et.al. These men meant for the US to be a haven for all beliefs, thoughts and religions for the greater good.

The title of the reference above refers to the Treaty of Tripoli, still in effect, that was approved during the final days of George Washington's presidency and into John Adam's. It was ratified by the Senate on June 7, 1797. John Adams viewed Christianity with a more constricted eye:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

The acrimonius [or is it sanctimonius at this point in his situation] words of Tom Delay [DeLay Says Justices 'Don't Get' Criticism] ring soundly of this victimness.

"Our faith has always been in direct conflict with the values of the world," DeLay said. "We are, after all, a society that provides abortion on demand, has killed millions of innocent children, degrades the institution of marriage, and all but treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition." [March 28, 2006]

However, if you read carefully, you can see the solution to the problem in his own words.

"Our faith has always been in direct conflict with the values of the world...." Yes, and if this is true, what does it really tell you, Mr. Delay? Could there be something wrong if it is in conflict with the rest of the world? Is the rest of the world wrong? Are only you and your cohorts right? Does no one else have a chance? Do you doom everyone who doesn't think the way you do to the violence of "the cross?" It seems ironic that a religion whose messiah preached peace and acceptance began in such a violent way. And to say that it was his choice to die this way, as many Christians believe, makes no sense.

Christianists do not have a market on tolerance and acceptance. It is contrary to their very nature. According to religioustolerance.org they are unaccepting of any other belief.

Conservative Christians viewing non-Christian religions:

Their beliefs differ:

Many conservative Christians are exclusionists (i.e. they believe that their own denomination and those who agree with them are the only valid faith, while all other groups are in serious error).

Some are inclusionists (i.e. they believe that their group's beliefs are fully true, while all other groups only have part of the truth).

They see their own faith group, as based upon the Word of God as expressed in the Bible. Generally, they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Most believe in the traditional Christian belief that an individual will be sent to Hell when she/he dies if she/he has not first repented of their sins and then been "saved" by trusting Jesus as Lord and Savior, while still alive. This would include essentially all members of non-Christian faith groups and many members of Christian denominations.

They may view other world religions as one of the following:

only partially true, or
mostly worthless, or
influenced by Satan or
actually controlled by Satan, or
a variety of Satanism.

In addition, many conservative Christians do not recognize other Christian denominations as being truly Christian. This is seen in their local ministerial associations which are frequently separate from the mainline/liberal Christian ministerial group in the same city. It is also seen in their attacks on more liberal Christian denominations and on new religious movements which teach beliefs that are different from their own, and at variance from historical Christian beliefs.

By "non-Christian" they mean anyone not believing the way they do. Catholicism is Christian. United Church of Christ is Christian. Unitarian Universalist is Christian. Oh, and by the way, Catholicism is the largest and number one religion in the US at 62%! Does this make the US a Catholic nation like Italy, France, or Spain?

just asking...

the naked truth...

Will Ferrell-Bush and Global Warming on Transbuddha

huh?

oh, now I understand...

I think...(?)

that's it, athiests should not be allowed to marry...

...AT ALL

andrewsullivan.com has a link to a study done at the University of Minnesota's American Mosaic Project that reports that Americans distrust athiests more than any other group. [Permalink above]

huh?

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Then why not let gays and lesbians marry? Or at least those who belong to Dignity or Metropolitan Community Church?

...just asking.

how do i love thee...

Now, this should really be very simple. A man in Rhode Island, whose husband recently died, wants a memorial marker placed on his marker that tells the world that he loved someone.

"I just want this to be recognized," Paolino told WJAR in Providence. "In two or three hundred years when that name is there, I want someone to know that this person loved this person."

The cemetery, St. Anne's in Cranston, Rhode Island, refused to allow it because of the Catholic church's beliefs on gays. What a bunch of horsepatootie. You can't even be dead without someone telling you what to do based on their mythological beliefs.

I was raised in the RC church. My mother was what most people would call "devout." She wasn't unrealistic though. One night at dinner a story came on the news [my father had this thing about watching the news during dinner.] about a lesbian couple being discriminated against in housing because of being lesbian. My mother's comment was pure and simple: "It's nobody's business who sleeps with who." My father, who was not RC, and I turned to her in unison and shock! We never really expected that out of her mouth.

My mother was always very accepting of people. She didn't like my being gay, but she accepted it quietly and with dignity. She supported me 150% at all times. When Ron died, she and my father were there for me. My father even came to the funeral, which was unheard of for my father!

I left the RC many years ago. The final straw for me had nothing to do with gayness. It had to do with money. I was fed up with the hypocrisy of the church always crying poor when it is richer than Queen Elizabeth and Bill Gates put together. If they were serious about following the words of Jesus they would pay heed to this verse: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." Matthew 19:21.

It is their mythology not mine. Yet, they do not follow the teachings of the man they say is god.

love thy neighbor as thyself? horsepatootie

"love thy neighbor as I say" is more like it...

...a new twist?

i've chosen lately to stay away from most serious things on the site lately. not that i'm still not outraged by a lot going on in the world. it's just that everyone else is saying it well, discussions are continuing, and arguments are still waging. sometimes between ideologues; sometimes between evil and good; sometimes between idiots and savants; sometimes between genius and fool; sometimes between pundit and pragmatist.

i've taken a lighter hand in what i'm including in the blog for a reason: cynicism.

i have always been intrigued by cynicism.

The Oxford English Dictionary describes a cynic as a person "disposed to rail or find fault" and as one who "shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasm." In short, the cynic is "a sneering fault-finder."*

that about sums up the modern definition of cynicism...

The name Cynic actually comes from the Greek word kynikos, meaning "dog-like." Members of the school apparently hung out on the streets like a pack of dogs ridiculing the pretentious men and women who passed them by. The term may also have originated as an unflattering reference to the simplistic lifestyle practiced by many members of this school.*

it still kind of fits...

The ancient school of Cynicism was founded in the fourth century BC by Antisthenes. The role model of the Cynics was Socrates, whom they saw as the perfect illustration of self-sufficiency (autarkeia). Seeking to follow his example, the Cynics urged both men and women to follow a way of life in harmony with nature and to reject all unnecessary civilized luxuries. They also rejected all social conventions, customs and laws. The satirist, Lucian, for example, has a cynic in one of his dialogues give the following bit of advice, "Do not hesitate to perform the deeds of darkness in broad daylight. Select your love adventures with a view to public entertainment." Clearly, these were not men and women who cared very much what people thought about them.*

ah, wait a minute. this is really like a hippy commune, if you stop and think about it.

well, i took the test on the website. i admit it. i'm a cynic. but the new twist is that it's marked with sarcasm.

isn't it supposed to be impossible to be cynical and sarcastic at the same time?

just asking...

*Cynicism, Sophia On-line Philosophy Courses