Serrated Prose

Ever since I was child, I had a fascination with science. I loved dinosaurs as a toddler and youngster (more than most kids; I learned the names and eras they lived in) and as a tween I watched the entire Cosmos series. One would think my parents would expect me to become a scientist or at the very least, do something useful with my life. Unfortunately, my appallingly average intellect and above-average slothfulness prevented me from entering the sciences. In fact, it's a bit laughable that science interests me at all. What do you think of when someone says "science"? After I think of that Thomas Dolby song from the eighties, I think of math. Lots of math with indecipherable symbols and abstractions and plenty of square roots canceling out fractional imaginary numbers. Impenetrable math. Truth be told, I was terrible at math. Not just terrible in a average sense -- but terrible in the sense that I was put into a special remedial math program when I was in fourth grade, ...

So, here's a twist: The normally super-patriotic, love-to-kick-brown-people's-asses Republicans are now criticizing the no-fly zone over Libya. Unlike the mamby-pamby Democrats of the Bush era, these Republicans aren't saying we shouldn't be bombing the hell out of brown people (again), but that we're not doing it enough. The typical over-the-top right wing talking heads say we should go to Syria, while we're Libya kicking the ass of governments killing their own people for protesting. In a left-handed way, the wing-nuts are trying to play some kind of turnabout "Ah-ha!" bullshit, by implying that the whiny Democrats have a double-standard when it comes to making war in the Middle East. OK, so here's a little clarification: America was attacked by terrorists (mostly from Saudi-Arabia) on 9/11/01 -- a year we will never forget in the States. Then Bush attacked Afghanistan because that's where the al-Qeada training ground was and those Taliban ...

I'll start with the least important first: Charlie Sheen. Trainwreck? Oh, yeah. "Winner"? Um, no -- but I'm not looking down my nose at the latest Hollywood manic. Let's face it, guys -- he's living a man's dream. Two great looking women, lotsa money, and more leisure time than anyone should have. Frankly, if a man between the ages of 18 and 85 says anything bad about that arrangement, they're either lying or so uptight that they need lube to shit. It's the drugs that are the problem.The other stuff, I could live with. But he's gone off the deep end, maybe not because of genetics, but possibly because of extended meth use. And his ex-wife is not much better. Damn shame for the kids, really. Chances are, they'll be raised in the same bubble Charlie grew up in and become adults who think they're entitled to all the hedonistic pleasures the world has to offer. Who knows? Maybe they are. Maybe God just likes the rich folks better. With th...

Ah, the Tea Party never ceases to entertain, if nothing else. It's like a political reality show in its bald-faced righteousness, vague passions about imprecise words, and shameless contradictions. The kooks on the other side of the aisle are just as entertaining, but for now, I'm commenting on the latest clown to enter the political circus -- Christine O'Donnell. The Tea Part is decentralized, which makes it less of the Tea Party and more of a Teflon Party. Whenever some Tea Party candidate turns out to be kookier than they expect, the hot-beverage party can shrug its collective shoulders and say "We didn't do it." Christine O'Donnell is going to be one of those candidates. Politically correct folks might call her "polarizing," but in fact, she's just a fool. A fool without sufficient sense to understand what everyone is laughing at. The witchcraft thing, which I won't recount since it's been all over the news, is small potatoes....

What kind of mess do we make with monotheism? I ask that question because I don't think many people give it much thought. One god is easy, I suppose; you only have one name to remember, anyway. But he's lonely and there's that sticky subject of where one lone god came from. But aside from that, when we create a single god to hang our fears on, he ends up being a lunatic. He has to. We can't blame the lonely god for needing to be angry, loving, jealous, petty, expansive, omniscient, lacking foresight, piteous, and pitiable. He has no choice. We made him that way. Consider Yahweh. Job is regarded by scholars as the oldest book in the Bible... and what do we get in the book of Job? Some very interesting stuff, with hints of polytheism. God is the book, having a conversation with Satan; it's an amiable conversation between beings that are far beyond human understanding. Satan makes a friendly wager with God and they proceed to torture some wealthy, pious man to see if...

Pretty poetic title, huh? Well, it's all I could think of in this off-the-cuff free-writing exercise of mine. But it ties in with the thoughts going through my mind. Sorry if it's not so hot, but we all have our limitations. I just finished watching the 50's version of  On The Beach . If you don't know what it's about, I'll summarize: The world sank into a sudden nuclear conflict and now a massive radiation cloud is swirling around the globe, eventually killing all those who weren't killed in the initial blasts. There's no explanation for the nuclear exchange. The only survivors are people living in Australia, but only surviving for so long. The cloud is coming. It's relentless, unstoppable. I find something charming and wonderful about a film like this -- mostly, because it would a bitch to make now. It was a movie with a grim ending. At the risk of spoiling the ending of a sixty-year-old movie -- no one survives. In fact, most folks choose gove...

We're currently in the throes of yet another battle for the word "marriage." Here's the legal definition from www.lectlaw.com: A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. This is by no means inclusive of all states in the union, but it's enough for the folks on the right to latch onto and say "Look, it says 'man' and 'woman'!" Well, yes it does. But let's also consider that for congressional representation, slaves only counted for three-fifths of their total population -- not to mention that slavery was legal. Women also weren't allowed to vote. That went on for an embarrassingly long time. The afore...