The Semi-True Adventures of Lar!
8Jul/100

Let’s Celebrate “Offend Yourself Day!”

As an author of fiction, I often hear there are only a handful of stories in the whole wide world and all tales are based on those few. I like to assess that concept with, "Duh" before raising the stakes and noting there is really only ONE story and all stories are a variation of it.

That one story is this: Stuff happens.

I award myself points for smart-assery, but demerits for inaccuracy because I use over-simplification myself. You can really buzz through the news that way. Scanning today's headlines, I've got "Political Sex Scandal" here, "Natural World Dying" here, and "Right-Wing Media Personality Promotes New Book By Scapegoating the Powerless." Nope, nothing new today, but, what's this?

Oh, never mind. It's just the classic: "Religious People Offended Again."

That's the mental bin into which I tossed the news that some Muslims were offended by cartoons of Muhammad. Most items in the RPOA category provide light entertainment (as in the allegedly gay Teletubby) but this time, some Muslims were so offended they rioted, burning and killing. We in the western world are appalled at such barbarity. Everyone knows a civilized culture only riots, burns and kills when their sports team wins a championship.

So because of the violence, this story popped free of my mental "yawn and ignore" file and begged further analysis. A stand needed to be… um, stood. Unfortunately, I was vaguely unimpressed with the knee-jerky reactions exemplified by the sort-of movement, "Draw Muhammad Day."

Some background: after receiving a threat, Comedy Central partially censored a South Park episode because it featured parodies of Muhammad. Those who care about freedom of expression were offended, first at those who made the threats and second at those who seemed to cave into them. In protest, lots of people agreed to republish toons of Muhammad and/or draw their own. "Draw Muhammad Day" was one result.

So, while I agree it's silly to get offended at a cartoon, especially when doing so on behalf of a being you believe is all-powerful (I've written about that before) I must say I'm unimpressed with "Draw Muhammad Day" and the other efforts to reproduce the Danish cartoons that began this anti-cartoon jihad and the anti-anti-cartoon crusade.

Why so jaded? Because offending extreme Muslims proves nothing. It's just too easy. In the excellent documentary Afghan Star (about Afghanistan's answer to American Idol) one female finalist removed her headscarf and took two steps. This was called a "dance" and it sent the men into a murderous rage. They talked (seriously) of wanting this woman executed. For as close as those few simple moves were to a dance, Afghan women better be careful not to trip on any pebbles lest they be branded bootylicious. (Would that be burqalicious?)

All this talk of new generals and new strategies for Afghanistan. Who needs them? Project a music video of any modern female pop star on an Afghan mountain in the night and the Talibanis will spontaneously combust. The Graveyard of Empires has endured countless bombs but is no match for the merciless vibrations of a female's jiggly buttocks.

So now that I've solved the Afghan war, what I want to see next, from the people determined to prove their support for freedom of expression, who think they are so much better than extremist Muslims, is this: I want them to draw and/or publish something that offends THEM. If you're so pro-free-expression, let's see you express something that offends YOU. No more offending someone thousands of miles away, who surely won't riot and burn your home or kill you. You want to really promote free expression? Offend yourself.

Can anyone really do it? I have my doubts. I'm pretty sure I can't. I tried (see above) but it just seems lame. I'm offended by the mentality, but somehow not upset by it in cartoon form. Plus, I couldn't help making the sarcasm obvious. I don't want to go further, because well, I'd be offended. Can one offend oneself?

An effort was attempted in a June 2006 Harper's article (Drawing Blood by Art Spiegelman.) Responding to the Muhammad-cartoon issue, some Jewish artists drew cartoons that allegedly offended themselves. I'm still skeptical. Seemed to me they were simply mocking concepts that they had no respect for, like I did above.

Regardless, the Harper's article was a noble effort and yes, there is a difference between being offended and calling for the execution of the offender. Even so, before getting righteous, I think we all need to pass this test. If nothing else, it will be a lesson in humility. So have at it, my fellow freedom fighters. Nice job getting in the face of oppressive jerks, but can you take the heat as well? Are you really pro-freedom? Can you offend yourself?

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

29Apr/100

How Hate Can Bring Us Together (or, Is The Path to Heaven Paved with Evil Intentions?)

God giving the Westboro Baptist Church the middle finger.
I've always distrusted pretty-sounding quotations. Too many people think that just because a statement is said concisely, or a famous person said it, or it has a poetic ring, that it's true. Context doesn't matter. It's "set it and forget it" for the mind. More like "just repeat and your thinking's complete."

This happens all the time when people quote America's "Founding Fathers," but just because the founding fathers said something doesn't mean the thought was codified into U.S. law.

Tangent: Notice there are no "Founding Mothers." Gay marriage may not be fully legal in America yet, but the USA had multiple daddies. Scandalous!

Anyway, one quotation I've found to be true as often as not is, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Tangent: So Jesus himself is in Hell?

What especially interested me about that quotation was flipping it around. Since it's often true, that would imply the precise opposite is also often true. But how can the path to heaven be paved with evil intentions? Hold that question, we'll come back to it.

You may have heard of this horrible news story (link.) Here's a summary: a man's son was killed in Iraq. At the funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church (link) showed up with their obnoxious signs, claiming that God was turning away from the USA because our nation tolerates homosexuals, and soldiers can expect to die due to God's wrath.

This is something the WBC does often. Sick, right? No matter what you think of America's endless war(s) anyone with a shred of decency can empathize with a grieving parent burying a child and searching for some measure of peace.

So as the story goes, the father sues the Westboro people, and wins. Awesome! But the Westboro jerks appeal the verdict, and then they win. So now, this poor man is required to pay their court costs, but he refuses, which I believe means he could go to jail.

Now here's a twist that supports the "truth is stranger than fiction" pretty-sounding quotation. Professional blowhard Bill O'Reilly offers to pay the court costs. That right there should be a warning to the Westboro cult: when Bill O'Reilly makes you look like a douche bag, your douche baggery is off the charts.

Yet even as I bust on Billo, I have to say I'm not entirely surprised at his kindness. No matter how much I disagree with him or anyone else, I am sure of one thing: most would never sink low enough to turn someone's funeral into a circus for an agenda unrelated to the deceased or their family. Most would never dream of turning someone's funeral into a circus, period.

To do so is disrespectful, foul and the lowest of the low. Just as free speech has some common sense limits (the "no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" clause) funerals should be off limits to demonstration. I say that as a lover and frequent user of the First Amendment. I promise you that small restriction on free speech will not cause the U.S. Constitution to spontaneously combust.

While I wouldn't know what goes on in the Westboro cult's theoretically existent minds, and they clearly have no hearts or souls to speculate about, it's obvious they want to divide. They want people to turn against gays, kick off an orientation-ocide, if you will.

However, Westboro's attempts at division have the reverse effect because they serve as a common ground. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Straight, Gay, Black, White, I'm confident we ALL realize that the Westboro Baptist Church's habit of disrupting funerals make them the most vile creatures on earth.

Even Jesus Christ himself, the Original Hippie, would take a huge steaming dump on the Westboro Baptist Church people and kick their leader in the shriveled slug carcass that surely passes for his balls.

So in the most oblique way, the Westboro Baptist Church, by being so hateful, gives me hope. They bring Americans together under one big tent of disgust. Their hate brings us together, shows us that despite our differences we share a common bond, and maybe even paves the way to heaven with evil intentions.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

2Feb/102

Hey Religious Extremists, Why is Your god Such a Wimp? (or, A Male’s Guide to the Impending Lesbian Apocalypse)

I've never understood the common usage of the word macho.

To be clear, I'm referring to the dictionary definition (ultimate masculinity) and not the informal one popularized by The Village People (ultimate gayness.) The word macho is intended to define the pinnacle of tough, but it ends up representing supreme insecurity.

Understanding that contradiction, it's clear that extreme religion is precisely macho. Because I live west of the Prime Meridian, extremist Muslim behavior is more easily noticed, since Islamic tradition isn't intertwined with our culture and considered a part of just how things are. Examples of Islamic macho/insecurity may be more obvious to us Westerners, but anyone who opens their mind even slightly will notice there is little if any difference among Christianity, Islam and Judaism in the extreme.

At their distant ends, all three focus their restrictions on women. When it comes to the religious fringe, it's all dudes all the time. Yet these are the same people who are also violently homophobic.

Another paradox, yes, and it gets worse. Even the gods of extremism reflect the bi-polar nature of macho. A classic example is when the Taliban claimed they had to destroy Buddhist statues in Afghanistan because the statues were just too much for the mighty Allah to gaze upon. (Link.)

Now I'm just a mortal, but I'm proud of the fact that I'm secure enough not to demand my friends blow up anyone who doesn't worship me. Hey, that's their loss!

So here's my question for religious extremists: If your god is such a badass, why does he need mortals like you to fight his battles? Why is your god scared of statues? Or cartoons? Or same-sex love and marriage? Or women thinking, saying and doing what they want?

Silly extremists! Either your faith in your god's power is lacking or your god is a total wimp.

Actually, we all know the real reason for macho's split-personality, why men (and male-like gods) talk tough but act fragile. I'll break the rules and say it out loud: Because females have all the power. They can do anything a male can except make sperm.

That's not to say I would complain if the world was taken over by women and we men were used simply for sperm harvesting. To the more sultry and flexible of our female conquerors, I say harvest away! Sadly, with advances in reproductive technology, even sperm isn't necessary.

A lot of reports and studies appear to support the idea that extremism is on the rise. How much is being fueled by insecure men, aware of their accelerating (or already present) obsolescence? I swear it's only a matter of time before lesbians take over. Name me a single lesbian that isn't damn good at what she does. You can't do it! That's right, men. We are biologically useless! Accept it! Or make a fool of yourself by acting macho.

One who works against the efforts of power-hungry people of their same "race" are often referred to as race traitors. So, being a male who admits to male pointlessness, does that make me a sex traitor?

I hope so, because frankly, I'm down with that. Oh wait, I thought you said trader. Dang it.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.