We'll always have Bespin...

(If you found this on the net, I need to let you know it was written in 2009, and my opinion has changed entirely.  This is all bullshit, nearly every word. I am leaving it in place however because history should be remembered and used as a lesson to inform the future. We should never be afriad to admit we were wrong.  I recommend you please read this from several years later.)


It's always sad when a relationship comes to an end. Times shared are lost; memories once sweet become bitter; bits of your life with that other person conjure both a nostalgia and a sadness. Sometimes, you see the other person and you just don't know if you should say hi, or pretend you don't see them, and you want to be adult, but you are hurt and you consider actually accusing them and then wondering if you should forgive them. I am going through that right now.

I recently broke up with George Lucas. We've had an active relationship since I was six years old and my dad took me to the Cine Capri Theater in Phoenix (then the largest movie theater in Arizona, now torn down and replaced with an office building) to see that new spaceship movie Star Wars. It was my first time in a movie theater, so I wasn't really sure what to expect. The lights dimmed, a bunch of words rolled up the screen, and then it happened. The Imperial Star Destroyer took forever to pass overhead. It was beautiful, and every molded, sculpted, honest to god modelwork detail burned its way into my head and at that moment Dan was born- the Dan who today practices geek the way most people practice their religion.

Of course The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi followed, and though there were those damn Ewoks, this was a monumental mythology, timeless, and nothing to do with Earth, but rather some Galaxy far, far away. This was an epic that made Tolkien look like a poser. It sponsored countless hours of running around the acre of land I grew up on with a piece of aluminum pipe pinched off at one end as my mighty lightsaber. My collection of toys grew from my set of Star Wars figures. I sent in little blue proofs of purchase and got Boba Fett in the mail. I still have that Boba Fett.

Years went by. Eventually, my dear George Lucas told me he was going to give me more. He made a whole new trilogy. I know a lot of people who told me I should break it off then. People who didn't care for midi-chlorians or Gunguns, or anguished cries of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

You know what? I was good. Maybe I should he seen it sooner. Maybe it should have paid more attention to things like remastered originals and Hayden Christensen. I was an apologist though-- George may not have done it like I would have, but my kids loved the new trilogy- it did for them what the original did for me, and there were some pretty cool lightsaber fights. Nope- I just didn't notice he was drifting away.

Then, she appeared.



She wasn't timeless or mythological. She was straight American early 21st Century. Not from a Galaxy far, far away. She was from Nickelodeon. She was iCarly, Hannah Montana, Zoey 101- she was Miley Cyrus with a lightsaber. Along with her she brought funny battle droids and cute little baby hutts and some cross dressing hutts too. But I was willing to try. I watched.

About 10 minutes. This was all the imagery from Star Wars, but patronizing down to what Hollywood seems to think teenagers and kids are like, and what parents allowing such crap to be devoured by their children would support. Lame PSA after-school-special type life lessons mixed in with cutesey nicknames and slapstick. More than that, it was rewriting what Lucas allowed Genndy Tartakovsky to do in his far FAR superior version of the same story which inspired awe and cheering, and not cliches and cookie cutter story telling.

So, it's over. Maybe too late, maybe I gave him more time than I should have, but George and I are done. I will always have my movies (non-remastered) and I have my Boba Fett, but as of now, this relationship is over. Someone else can be Lucas' b*tch because I just can't do it anymore. He gave me some of the best times of my life, but I am just not willing to stay in this abusive relationship.

What kind of a world is this where Battlestar Galactica has become cooler than Star Wars?

Some rules really are golden...

I have a fundamental belief in how the universe works. I believe everything in the end balances out. One of the things which first brought me out of my “everyone has to believe just like me” shell was recognizing balance as a major factor in most of the belief systems of the world. “Karma” has several interpretations in the world of Eastern Religion, but stays true to the concept of balance. Sure, some forms of Hindu karma say it is delivered by the Supreme Being while Buddhism sees it more as one of the building blocks of natural law, but the idea is our deeds (in fact the word itself is derived from a Sanskrit word for “deeds” or “actions”) affect what happens in the world. Our actions carry repercussions, consequences, and we have a responsibility to act properly to make those consequences turn out for the best.

Just before the time of Rabbi Jesus, Judaism came under the influence of a Rabbi named Hillel. Hillel, who basically established Rabbinic law, codified the ethic of reciprocity for the Jews. As the story goes, a foreigner (rejected by another Jewish leader at the time as being unfit for God's law because he was not a Jew) complained to Hillel there were too many rules to follow in the Jewish religion. Following his rejection at the hands of the other Rabbi, the foreigner felt he could never understand Judaism unless it could be simple enough for Hillel to explain while standing on one foot. Hillel raised his foot and said, “that which is hateful to you, don't do it to your neighbor; the rest is commentary.” So, this great teacher reduces the entire Torah, Talmud, and Mishnah to little more than an explanation of why God's law is the ethic of reciprocity- balance.

Then of course, in our Western tradition, comes that Rabbi Jesus I mentioned earlier. He takes it a step further. See, the Eastern idea was one allowed the balance to happen- Karma was a matter of course. Hillel said you should adjust your behavior to not do bad things. Jesus comes along and says “do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law of the prophets (Mt 7:12).” It has become active at this point- you are to go actively do good.

One of the most important tenants of this rule is the object of its application. To whom are we to do good? Jesus makes it pretty plain he thinks it applies to everyone. In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 we see Jesus point out to a fellow Jew that the term 'neighbor' applied to the Samaritan man in the parable (this is right after the whole love your neighbor as yourself thing). We forget that to the Jews of the first century, the Samaritans were held in about as low regard as you could get. Tell yourself this story, but substitute a Christian for the Priest, a Jew for the Levite, and an Islamic Fundamentalist Mujahadin in Afghanistan for the Samaritan and you'll get the idea what Jesus was talking about. Now, it would seem Jesus himself didn't have this lesson at first- when in Matthew 15 a Canaanite woman asks him for his help in exorcising a demon from her daughter, he initially refuses saying he's only there for the Jews, but she convinces him to do more, and he does. What's the lesson?

The tenants of faith don't just apply to the adherents of that faith. You don't just do unto other Christians as you would have them do unto you, you do unto EVERYONE as you would have them do unto you. I love my neighbor as myself even if he's a lowdown, dirty Samaritan. The Laws of God are good enough to apply to everyone, whether they believe in it or not. Regardless of a person's own belief or origin, Christians must treat everyone as they treat Christians, Jews must treat everyone as they treat Jews, and karma will get you if you are chubby Gautama or skinny Siddhartha (yeah, I know really they are the same guy, but it sounds poetic, doesn't it?). What does this mean to us today?

The philosophical edict of universalizability. Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century said the only way to judge an ethical philosophy was by its application; should it be applied as a natural law? If an ethic is truly right, it has to apply to everyone. So, Kant extends the idea of the “Golden Rule,” the great balance, beyond religion and into philosophy- if a set of ethics or rules are truly good, they must be applied universally, just as karma will catch everyone, not doing bad things is the whole of the law, and even the jerk who lives down the street is the neighbor to whom you should do good things. Kant summarizes the simple fact that our ethics, like our religion, aren't only for those who share our ethics but are for everyone.

Anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows I have a passion for the Constitution of the United States that borders on, and perhaps illegally immigrates into, religious fervor. I have literally sworn a solemn oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Establishing a government ruled by the people, ensuring and enumerating rights held by the people, codifying the process for peaceful transfer of leadership as dictated by the people-- these are not just words to me. To establish Justice and ensure domestic tranquility, ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is a mantra of faith to me. To whom do we do this?

If I truly believe in the greatness of our codified law, in the power of our democratic republic, I have a moral and ethical obligation to apply to protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to everyone, regardless of their citizenship. If I truly believe the ideas of presumed innocence and right to a speedy and fair trial are morally right, I must insist on their application to everyone, regardless of their origin. Universalizability, the Golden Rule, makes it a moral imperative to grant equal protection under the law to everyone, despite their adherence to the law.




That's why we have to afford the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Holding Facility a trial by jury. See, I have faith in our system. I think our system is good enough to apply to terrorists as well as criminals. I think its good enough to apply to citizens and foreigners alike. I believe in America. I believe in the inherent rights of Habeas Corpus, and I argue here that those rights must be applied universally if we are truly to claim our system as morally just.

Should we proceed with these trials, is it possible some legitimately bad people will be acquitted? Of course, it happens in our criminal justice system every day. As Americans we accept the fact protection of individual rights is more important than locking someone up. “Blackstone's ratio” is a common edict in our courts; that is the idea that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than one innocent person to suffer. William Blackstone was an English jurist in the 1700s, and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, which heavily influenced our Constitutional framers and has been cited as recently as Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite the possibility some “terrorists” would go free, the majority will find justice in a trial by jury. Additionally, we would again show ourselves to be an example to the world as a nation and people who practice Democracy not as a convenience but as an obligation. We would demonstrate again the moral certitude and convictions inherent in a fair system which guarantees equal protection under the law. There is no better method of spreading democracy than practicing it.

That's really the key isn't it? The acts of these extremists are by design intended to change how we think. The definition of terrorism is the “use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” The political aim here was to hurt the way we conduct our nation. The unfortunate truth is, it succeeded. In response to their attacks, we adopted their methods rather than employ our own. We suspended our ideals of trial by jury, and legal representation, and presumption of innocence under the rationale of “they would do the same or worse to us.”

Of course they would. They're terrorists.

The Golden Rule doesn't say do unto others as they did it unto you, it says as you would have them do unto you. The fourteenth amendment while defining citizenship also states you can't deny equal protection to any person within the state's jurisdiction. Do we as a people really feel it's OK to circumvent these ideals by simply not bringing them within the borders of the United States? Why have we sought ways to avoid granting the guarantees of the system we seek to protect? The ethic of reciprocity dictates we must apply our laws to everyone, or else they are nothing more than words on paper, and not ideals of ethics and morality. I can't believe that's true. I didn't take an oath to protect words, I took an oath to protect ideals we as Americans should all share, despite our individual differences. Ideals which can light the world when properly exemplified.

You see, I believe in the Constitution. I have faith in its edicts, it protections and its punishments. I believe it was written for all time, and not just for times of expediency or convenience. I believe it is strong enough to survive any onslaught from a foreign enemy. I believe it is strong enough to withstand any testimony of a foreign fighter. I believe granting trial to the prisoners at Guantanamo will not weaken our Constitution, but rather will bolster it.

I believe, as with any system of faith, there is only one thing which can destroy the Constitution: its own adherents allowing it to pass away. We can do better. We can continue to ensure the blessings of liberty to our posterity. We only have to do what it says unto others, Samaritans and all.

Why I publish my own stuff!

According to this article, the Shazam movie I have been looking forward to for some time is dead in the water. Why? Because Warner Brothers is devoid of artistic recognition.

If you're not familiar with the Shazam property, it's the tale of a young boy named Billy Batson who can transform himself into Captain Marvel with a magic word ("Shazam" of course). Captain Marvel is as powerful (if not more) than Superman, and indeed he outsold Superman for the majority of the forties until National Publications (DC Comics) sued Fawcett comics for copyright infringement and ended up shelving the character for years. The comic itself though was always very tongue-in-cheek and played best when the authors understood such. Currently, one of DC's best titles is Mike Kunkel's “Billy Batson and the Power Of Shazam” which is published under the Johnny DC kids' line of comics. Please refer to me dropping Detective and Action below, but BBATPOS comes home with me every month. I LOVE the book.

So, getting back to my big gripe, it seems there was a script and early production on a movie version. Even Dwayne Johnson, the Rock, was attached in the single most obvious bit of casting since Downey Jr. played Tony Stark- Johnson was to play Black Adam, Captain Marvel's arch nemesis.



Perfect casting, absolutely perfect. The whole project however is dead because it was light hearted, and in the wake of The Dark Knight, WB believes all Superhero movies have to be dark and bleak to be successful.

I loved Dark Knight. However, I was afraid of this. Hollywood has this horrible tendency to want to clone things. It doesn't seem to occur to them TDK wasn't successful because it was dark, but because it was an appropriate setting for that character. The moody Superman Returns failed because it wasn't appropriate for the character. A dark Shazam will fail as well. Captain Marvel needs a little bald evil scientist with glasses jumping up and down calling him “the Big Red Cheese.” That's who the character is.

I assume now the next Superman movie will be dark, as will a Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash, or hell, even Booster Gold/Blue Beetle movie (that sentence gives me an excuse to add Blue Beetle as a tag. I want him uncanceled).

So now, as much as I was trying to avoid complaining about entertainment and just letting myself be entertained, I now have to do a blog entry complaining about WB. Thanks guys, you're not only going to ruin Shazam, you're ruining my New Year's Resolution. Jerks.


PS- Can I get Patrick Warburton as Captain Marvel please? Please?


(My thanks to the skilled individuals who did these manips I stole from Google.)

Be fair warned OSG...

Well Oh Shit Guy- don't say I didn't warn you. I mean, read this. I, for the record, do not support shooting the Oh Shit Guy. I am much happier with publicly embarrassing him and pointing out his rude behavior, followed by force 9 glares each time he again opens his mouth. Putting bullets in someone is a bit of an extreme reaction (and further disrupts the movie I might add), but if the OSG had kept his damn mouth shut and exhibited a modicum of courtesy, it wouldn't have happened. Please enjoy the movie you paid twelve bucks for in silence.

I guess I'm just saying I thought I was an ass about people talking in the theater, but obviously I am not as big a jerk as I thought I was. I still let them breathe.

I have a droid.

So, I had a recent realization, an epiphany if you will. It started when I was reading Warren Ellis' "Doctor Sleepless." This is a really brilliant comic title, but not for everyone. If you're not familiar with Ellis, I warn you he's not for the squeamish, but one of the best conceptual futurists I think we have, despite simply stunning amounts of subversiveness and vulgarity.

While reading Doctor Sleepless though, the title character says something to the effect of "you are living in a science fiction world, and you don't even realize it." He goes on to talk about people (like me I must admit) who gripe about being in the 2000's and not having a jetpack or a moon base, and the fact they are missing what's going on around them.

I started looking around. Let's start with where I am right now. I am sitting in my living room in Washington state, and pushing little Chiclet-like buttons and making words appear on screens potentially anywhere in the world. Last week, I bought Star Trek toys online from someone Japan. I have a little box about three inches by six inches. I have over a hundred movies on it, the complete classic Star Trek, and about nine other TV shows. On the same box is 15,000 or so books, and somewhere around 11,000 pieces of music. I can put these on a smaller box and take them anywhere. That same smaller box tells me where to drive if I am going somewhere I haven't been before. I can put it to my ear, push a series of buttons, and speak to anyone in the world who has one of these boxes. While in Babylon last time, I could use a version of one of these magic boxes to talk in real time video with my wife on the other side of the world.

And that darling wife bought me one of these for Christmas:



I have a droid. When I tell him to, and I mean tell- no buttons- he roams around the house and tells me when someone is coming. He gets moody and I have to tell him to behave himself. Can he do everything in the movie? No, but it's beginning. This is the first step toward response trees emulating personality in an automaton. If only there were lasers.



That was the Spyder II GX laser. It has a visible range around 15 miles and is powerful enough at close range to light a cigarette.

My point is this. Ellis is right- we are living in a science fiction world. I haven't even gotten into important things like prosthetic limbs which react to your actual nerves, light sensor implants for the blind resulting in 20/80 vision, and life expectancy going from 73 to 78 in the US between 1995 and 2006. All the tools we need to BE Star Trek are there. As much as I love my Mac though, it is time to start using this future tech for what ANY technology's proper use should be- making life better for humans. That doesn't necessarily mean "easier." Think of what we could be capable of doing. And that's without a jet pack.



Oh. Jetpacks too. What an incredible time to be alive. Happy Brave New Year...

Shameless plug!

OK- for lack of a better term this is a commercial. I've been writing since I was just a little kid. I remember when I was in Mrs. Coash's third grade class we were supposed to do a three paragraph story about something we had done. I wrote six pages on the first manned mission to Saturn, complete with illustrations of the Saturnian snakes. In fifth and sixth grade when we were supposed to be writing journals, I wrote fiction including speculation on where we were all going to be in the distant future of 2001 (my buddy James Kemery was president, and I was a brain surgeon out to save his life after a horrible hover-limo accident). I did sequels to movies I'd seen (my Mad Max III predated Thunderdome by about two years). In High School I started writing creative fiction as research papers, complete with made up references and footnotes. Why my high school teachers let me get away with it, I will never know. I suppose if you demonstrate the ability to cite work even if you made that work up in the first place, they're good.

When I joined my current firm, I'd been in about two years when I was reintroduced to something I'd played around with as a kid, but then hadn't seen in a while- the Computer. Specifically, programs like WordPerfect and later Word which allowed me to do things like "editing" or "revising" stories and moving them around without needing anything more than a 3.5" floppy. I started not only writing new stories but accumulating them.

So, my current firm helped me out, but it also held me back. I wanted to write professionally, but the simple fact was, there was no agreeing to any contract or deadline when you might at any moment head off to odd parts of the world to do 18 hour days.

On my last little jaunt into Babylon, I started a new habit. I was sending out draft reports each day, distributed to various organizations who needed the information to do their jobs. I'm not going to get into the types of reports, but they were dry, very dry, and there were a lot of them. I started sending out little music quotes or pop culture references in the subjects of the message just to break the doldrums inherent in the work. Then, late December 2007, one of my recipients recommended I do a little serialized story. A little bit a night, just to see who was reading.

So, on January 1st, 2008 I did. I started a story, one sentence a night for a week. I continued to write stories after that one ended, and they became more complex. I started experimenting with genres I'd never done before, with success (40's detective stories) and less success (western...yikes). People seemed to really enjoy it though, and when I left Babylon there were a few fans lamenting the fact I wouldn't be entertaining them any more.

As I've been back home, I have missed having the reason to write. It was a great challenge to have a daily deadline, but one that wouldn't get me fired if I missed it. I had a backlog of stories. So what did I decide?

Time to self publish.

So here I announce the birth of my Draft Distro Online. There will be two sections- one accessible to everyone with fan fiction allowing people to sample my writing. Then, a members-only section with my original work which I plan to update every two weeks or so. I invite everyone to check it out here. I hope you enjoy my tales- they won't change your life, but hopefully they will entertain you for a few minutes out of your day. Heck, you may even see a cameo appearance someday of the Saturn Snakes...

OK- end of commercial, we now resume my regular ramblings.

Joining the Great Bird.

Well, what a week. Forrest J. Ackerman, Bettie Page, and now Majel Barrett-Roddenberry. She has been an integral piece of Star Trek since the very beginning. Most people remember her as Nurse Chapel on the Classic show, or later fans remember her as Lwaxana Troi on Next Generation. She was of course the voice of the Enterprise's computer in several incarnations of Trek (to include the new film currently in post-production).

To me though she will always be Number One, the unintentionally mysterious first officer of the Enterprise under Captain Christopher Pike. See, when Gene Roddenberry developed the first pilot for Trek, he included a female first officer, referred to in the episode only in grand naval tradition as "Number One." We never hear her real name. We never find out why she is stoic while even the young Spock is smiling. She never shows up or is mentioned again (unless you read Peter David novels regarding Morgan Lefler). She's the consummate Starfleet Officer, holding her own when Captain Pike disappears, and deciding at one point the answer is to use the biggest goddamn gun she can find to negotiate with the Talosians. The idea of such a character in 1965 was so radical, the network made Gene Roddenberry drop the character. So, in real life he married her, put a blonde wig on her, and cast her as Nurse Chapel when the show was finally picked up. I, however, still miss Number One.

Bye Majel- say hi to Gene, DeForrest, and James for me.

As the inauguration approaches...

Wow- there's some very surprised liberals out there, and some very stymied conservatives. It seems the "change" the President-Elect wants to bring isn't change from the current administration, but rather change from the status quo. See, rather than come in and install all Democrats and Liberals, President-Elect Obama is doing something unprecedented in American politics; he's picking the people he things are the right people for the job. This even means Republicans. Secretary of Defense- Republican. Secretary of Transportation- Republican. Did you see who's giving the invocation at the inauguration? This is not the left wing tidal wave the liberals were expecting.

Meanwhile, Republicans over at Fox News are having to make things up to talk bad about. With the Blagojevich thing blowing up, but no sign of an Obama connection, the investigating attorney asked the President-Elect's office to keep their mouth shut until things could progress. Reasonable. Fox has decided to insinuate no such request was made. The RNC chairman also wants the President-Elect to say more. This got the RNC chairman chewed out by Newt Gingrich of all people. The whole conservative side seems to not know where to go.

So- Obama is not the Left Wing Pelosi whipping boy the Republicans expected, and he's not the Leftist crusader the Democrats expected... he would seem to be his own brand of shrewd politician who's going to take advice from both sides and then make the decision himself. Wait a minute... is that the gentle hum of equilibrium I hear? Not partisan politics, but an honest attempt to do what's right for America? Now THAT'S change I can believe in.

Hurray for balance.

Sad update on Bettie...

Just saw online that Bettie Page didn't wake up from her coma, and has passed on. I will not go in depth into Bettie's story here, but if you don't know it, I highly recommend looking into it. She had the type of life you would think someone just made up for a David Lynch or Charlie Kaufman movie, but indeed she was real, and yet not real all at the same time.


I first discovered Bettie when I was about 19 (and no, it wasn't in the 50s!) when Buck Henry wrote an article on her for Playboy about '90 or '91 called "The Case of the Missing Pin-up" or something similar. This was still back in the days no one knew she was still alive, or where she might be. Most of the stuff I found on her even misspelled her name as "Betty" rather than "Bettie." I found the mystery fascinating, and in my further investigation into this mysterious figure I discovered not only Dave Stevens and the Rocketeer (God rest him as well), but also a past America I didn't know existed.



The only 1950s I knew was Elvis and Buddy Holley, and shows like Happy Days. My parents were more than happy to agree that the cozy little fifties the Cunninghams lived in were nearly documentarian in their presentation. As I found books and card collections on Bettie, I had to wonder- if Fonzie was the least behaved character the fifties had to offer, who had been ordering 8 X 10 glossies from Irving Klaw of Bettie all tied up? Why had there been hundreds of small format publications (convenient for under mattress hiding) featuring Bettie on the beach, or in Jungle Girl costume? And dear God, who were these guys taking the pictures?



I don't know if we can credit Bettie Page with changing America, but I will credit her for revealing it to me. Perhaps she revealed it to all of us, and showed us we're fooling ourselves if we really think there was some mystical moral age to which only previous generations were privy. We've always been a little kinkier than we want to admit publicly. Maybe if we admitted it a little more we could get over it more easily.



Bye Bettie, and thank you.

Ouch... it hurts a little.

Seriously, I am a little sore. I walked out of my comic shop on Wednesday night and I did not buy the newest issue of Detective Comics or the newest issue of Action Comics. I honestly cannot remember the last time I did not buy these two titles. For me, these two titles ARE the comic industry. This is Superman and Batman in their oldest titles. And yet, I left them sitting on the shelf at Olympic Cards and Comics (the greatest comic shop in the world, BTW). Why? How could I betray my childhood idols and ideals this way?

Well- In Detective, we were starting the "Last Rites" follow up to "Batman RIP." Since I am not really sure how Batman RIP ended, I didn't feel ready to dive into its follow up. So, I am (here it comes)... waiting for the trade.

Over in Action, DC was continuing the very interesting "New Krypton" storyline. It's really compelling- the idea of 100,000 people as powerful as Superman who did not have the benefit of an all-American, Norman Rockwell upbringing in Kansas. Geoff Johns is writing it, and I like his stuff. He also says its going to take up to two years to fully tell this story. Two years. So I made a decision. I am waiting for the trade.

I read a lot of comics each month, and usually two or three novels, a couple a magazines, tons of internet sites and articles, watch a couple hours of news a day, try to write fifty pages a month, watch the appropriate cartoons and Star Trek, run 15 miles a week, and be a soldier, husband, and father. I admit my sharp geek mind is not what it was. I can't keep up with all the details sometimes, and as it is I keep having to go back a reference stories from two months ago because the majority of stories are six issues long. DC has obviously decided six issue story arcs are too short, and we are going for the long haul. Well, I can't keep up. So, I am going for the trades so I can sit down on weekends and get the whole story at once. Maybe when the current "Crisis" is over I can go back to picking up "floppies" on Detective and Action.

I will miss them- I like 22 full color pages of escapism each month. Don't get me wrong- I like the Watchmen like stories that plumb the depths and bring true literary merit to the genre. More often than not though, I just want a comic book. I like Lagavulin scotch, but more often than not, I just want a beer (though I want it good, and I want it bottled). So, for the time being Detective and Action will have to wait until they are all collected for me to read. Ouch.

By the way, did I mention Blue Beetle is still canceled?

Geek talk!

OK- I have been bad and talking about everything but my usual geeky subjects, so let em take a moment to talk some full frontal nerdity.

Mouse Guard: Read it. Read it now if you can. The colors are gorgeous, the story adventurous, and it's a good tale with no giant crossover anywhere in sight. Eat it up, yum.

Star Trek: That movie is going to make Star Trek mainstream, and bring in all kinds of cash for Paramount. I don't want Star Trek mainstream. What makes Trek Trek is it ISN'T lowest common denominator. Maybe they can pull it all off, and it will appease me the guy who can give you Kirk's serial number off the top of my head (SC 937-0176CEC), and still appeal to everyone. Good luck. Regardless, they can't take my Classic Trek DVDs away, so either way, I win. Wow! I don't believe in the no-win scenario!

Batman RIP: Should have been called "Batman WTF." This was really written by the guy who gave me All-Star Superman? Yikes.

Batman- Brave and the Bold: New cartoon on Friday nights. Very much the old 1950s Dick Sprang Batman, and well worth your 22 minutes a week. This being out with Dark Knight so popular really speaks to the greatness of this character. Lot of fun to watch- can't wait to see their version of the Joker.

New Guns 'N Roses album: Not bad- not Guns 'n Roses. Just heard my first 'Apocalyptica' song though. Metal version of Bowie's "Heroes" sung in German by the lead singer of Rammstein. Neat!

That's all for now. Be on the look out, I will soon be shamelessly plugging a new website I will have rolling after the New Year. Thank you God, for the internet.

Look! Everyone's an asshole!

So, this sign is now in the Rotunda at the Olympia capitol, stirring up all kinds of trouble, since it is right next to a Nativity scene. Seriously boys and girls, what the hell is this? I roll with diversity, I think everyone has the right to say and believe what they want. I think there SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be an opportunity for Atheists to have a place in any festivity, particularly one as religious as Christmas or Hanukkah can't help but be. This sign however, is just there to insult people. It starts off well, but gets pretty snotty as it goes. In the interest of us all coming together and making the world a better place how about:

"In the coming New Year, the Atheists of Washington ask us to look ahead with logic and reason."

Bam- done. Just like that you're in on hoping next year's better than this one, and it's not hateful. This sign is rude.

But guess what? The Christian reaction is just as stupid. Right now, while intelligent Christians are looking at the sign, shaking their heads sadly, and walking away quietly, there's a very vocal contingent throwing out violent invective insults, and talking about how the people who made the sign will "sizzle like Jimmie Dean sausages in Hell." No really, some jackass really had to say that. So basically, a bunch of ignorant Christians are demonstrating the behavior that made the ignorant atheists put up the sign in the first place.

So, to summarize:
Atheists- your holiday or not, try a little goodwill toward men this solstice and New Year. How about you demonstrate the type of behavior you think not being "superstitious" should engender. Look at the pretty trees and enjoy the egg nog.

Christians- How about extending a hand of forgiveness since, oh I don't know, Jesus' birthday is coming? How about demonstrating the type of behavior your Lord and Savior thought having faith should engender. Little bit of Matthew 10:14, "And if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your message, shake the dust off your feet as you leave that house or that town." Look at the pretty trees and enjoy the egg nog.

Right now, you're all being assholes, and that's not what we're supposed to be about, regardless of your belief or philosophy.

My best to Bettie...

Here's to thinking of Bettie Page who had a heart attack this week and is in a coma. She's the girl who taught me the 50's were NOT like my parents told me they were... All my best, Bettie.

OK- this one's gonna get me in trouble...

In my previous post, my sole reader (maybe I should just email you? :) ) mentioned I was parsing my words in regard to salvation coming only from Christ. Do I believe salvation comes only from Christ? Yes. As quoted "no one comes to the Father except through me." Do I believe only Christians will be saved? No. The concept is far deeper than a simple yes or no can summarize.

Perhaps that makes me not a Christian. Well, that applies to 57% of Evangelical Christians then. Of course, majorities have been wrong before- we elected W. twice.

However, I have to look at what God is, and what He says. Unfortunately, except when I am in the most ecstatic of prayers, the only reference I have for God's will is the Bible. I think the Word is infallible. Man's Language, particularly translated language, has no such claims. Perhaps God acted to secure meaning in translation so His word is unblemished in the new versions- so then which translation should I go with? King James, which was politically motivated? Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic Bible meant as poetry? NIV, NRSV, RSV, Schofield, Peterson's Message, New World Translation, Jefferson's? Even when Jesus speaks the line above, he SPOKE Aramaic, and we have the line in Greek, then translated into English. Is the translation wrong? Probably not, but I bet it is missing subtlety.

So what is Salvation? It would seem to mean Eternal Life. Entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Continued existence despite the state of the world. I am sure it is much deeper than that, but let's go with it. Who gets it? Anyone God chooses. Paul confirms for us in Romans that the promise God made to the Jews- His chosen people- will not be cast aside despite the coming of Christ. (Chapter 11.) Indeed, the Jews play a specific role bringing the grace given them by God to the Gentile. Paul has already told us that GOD defines His people (Rm 9:6-9) by the Covenant (promise here from the Greek) and quotes Moses from Exodus 33:19 when he states God says "I will have Mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and compassion upon whom I will have compassion." Sounds like it is up to God who gets saved. Of course, I argue with Paul a lot, so I had to see if someone else also showed Hebraic salvation despite belief in Christ.

Well, Christ does. In Luke 15 Jesus gives us the parable of the prodigal son when asked why He hangs with sinners. Remember however, Luke is written by a Gentile for the Gentiles. The deeper meaning of this parable is not only a sinner returning to the fold, but the Gentiles having opportunity to receive the grace God the Father has already bestowed on the child who stayed, the Jews. Notice, at the end of the parable, the good son is not kicked out of his inheritance. Further, look at the parable of The Vineyard Workers. Those who came late (the Gentiles) received the same pay as those who worked all day (the Jews), but the ones who worked all day did not lose THEIR jobs.

So, here plainly in the Bible (and I haven't even gotten into James who implies you can work your way to Salvation, or The Great White Throne Judgement in Revelation where all who were ever born are resurrected and judged according to their works) are an entire people who receive salvation by virtue of their ancestors and not because they choose Christ as their personal savior- God chooses them, not vice versa. The Children of Abraham are spread far and wide, and indeed we have no idea how many descendants of the Lost Tribes are scattered among the population of the world. So already we have Biblical precedent showing there will be people saved who have not made the literal acceptance of Jesus as their savior. Jesus/God has instead chosen them.

So, how can I reconcile these thoughts with "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life- no one comes through the Father but through Me"? First, there's the deeper question of how separate God and Jesus are. Since the seeds of our modern Christianity lie with Athanasius who beat out Arius in the Nicean debates, we believe in a God who is "una substancia, tres persona" ("a single substance with three faces") rather than Jesus being, as Arius argued, "tertium quid" ("something different"). Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, and God and Jesus are of the same substance. Indeed, Jesus says in the same book (John) "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). John also argues Jesus as "The Word" made flesh, and "In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God."

So, in simpler language the first quote can read "no one comes to Me but through Me."

So, does the "Me" in this divine case mean specifically the Jewish Carpenter, or the idea of Mashiah, the Christ, our Messiah? What IS the Messiah, what IS Jesus as God and man, and how does His sacrifice equal salvation? Humanity sins. Sinning, doing "bad," must have a fundamental effect on the state of the universe. Offending God creates a debt, an imbalance, which must be equalized. The debt must be paid, the balance restored, and the effect minimized. Somehow, and I make no claims to know how, God living as a man and dying one of the most heinous deaths we as humans have ever concocted pays this debt. God in the form of Jesus says, "I made these rules, yet I also made you inclined toward breaking them. However, I am not just holding you to the standard and throwing you to the proverbial wolves, I am taking PERSONAL responsibility and showing you how to meet my standards, and paying the price of not following the rules for you."

The price has been paid, or as my Buddhist friends say, the karmic debt is even. God has walked into the Universal Taco Bell and declared anyone can have a free taco. How do we redeem that? One way is certainly acknowledging the payment of the debt by accepting Jesus' salvation. Remember though, God WANTS ALL of us to have our free taco. It's already been purchased. It is still up to us to take the taco, but I think there must be more than one way to take delivery. Otherwise, there's a lot of leftover taco. God loves the world; God will stack His salvation in the world's favor.

Remember- the idea of being saved only through Christ all but originates with Augustine, then flows through Thomas Aquinas, and John Calvin- Augustine comes along some 400 years after Jesus left us. Politics and mankind's prejudice already got into the mix. Many very well regarded Christian scholars argued against exclusive salvation including Origen, John Wesley, and even CS Lewis. So why don't we ask Jesus how to attain the Kingdom?

The basis of all the Law, all the prophets, the entire Kingdom, according to Jesus in Matthew is:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ (22:37-39)

Jesus never even utters the word "Salvation" in the course of the Bible. He speaks only of entering the Kingdom, and He says it is at hand. See above for how He says you must come to Him through Him. There's not much to prove Jesus would agree with Calvin.

In Matthew 7 Jesus says "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." Is Jesus putting the idea of serving God's will ahead of calling on the name Jesus? Just food for thought...

It seems God will cast the nets and choose which fish to keep and which to throw back. I will not claim to know how He plans to do this, but neither can I limit which of His children He will save, and the evidence He leaves in the Bible, unencumbered by man's theological doctrine, doesn't seem to either. I know the word "Jesus" means salvation, though. We keep coming back to God IS salvation.

Then comes the "reason" argument, and I don't think God would have given us reason if He didn't want us to use it. Why would God make a system which automatically excludes anyone who had the misfortune of being born before Jesus? There must be a condition to offer them salvation. How about those who die as infants? Those who perhaps hear the name Jesus only as distant trivia of a foreign religion? Those who even in our modern world never hear the name? This is a God who "so loved the world He sent His only begotten Son" to save us- is that the action of an entity who would be so exclusionary? I don't think God breaks his own rules of Salvation, but I think His rules are far deeper and more intricate than we can understand, including the simple acceptance of Jesus, but expanding to more.

So Jesus is God, and God again grants salvation as He sees fit. Should we begrudge the idea that God may extend His salvation to those who in our eyes don't deserve it? Does that make us the vineyard workers who were there all day?

Finally, I can't limit God. God is much more than I can understand. Much more than human language can express in any one religion, book, or philosophy. If this is so, I must reserve judgment on how God will do things, and finally accept that Salvation comes from God, however He wants to hand it out. And it makes no logical, theological, or Christian sense that He would be so elitist as to exclude children from His grace based only on the idea they didn't follow/understand/hear the ideas of one particular group.

I expect no one to agree with me, and nor do I in anyway want to disparage anyone else's faith. I want only to state what I believe based on my conversations with God, and deep study of other similarly baffled humans. I am the first to admit I am likely wrong, or at least limited in my understanding. God is hard to listen too sometimes, and I have certainly misinterpreted Him before... but I was asked. Isn't it far more important however that we follow the example Jesus gave us in life? We care for our weak, we strive for peace, we are merciful, and are pure of heart. Once we all get there, then we can take the time to begin to work out exactly how God's salvation applies to we His children.

Amen.

My last comment on the 2008 Presidential election.

I want everyone who reads this to understand something right up front: I am not being snarky or sarcastic. I know it can be hard to tell in blogs and emails whether or not someone means what they say. I want to assure everyone, I do mean this, I am not being facetious. I really would like my Christian friends to consider the following.

On October 22nd, Governor Sarah Palin said "God will do the right thing on election day." Indeed:

“And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

In response the renowned and popular minister James Dobson, with whom Governor Palin was speaking, said that he and his wife were praying for the right outcome as well. I am sure millions of faithful conservatives prayed all year, right up to the election, that God would do the "right thing" on election day. That's a lot of prayers going to God. Yet, at 8PM Pacific Time (when the West Coast polls closed) on the 4th of November, every major news network declared Barack Obama to be the President-Elect.

I honestly, honestly want my conservative friends to consider something. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the outcome God wanted.

I know President-Elect Barack Obama does not seem to have the exact Christian values espoused by a lot of more Conservative Christians, in particular regard to salvation exclusivity. Would this however be the first time God made someone who was not orthodox in their beliefs to do His work?

Pharaoh gave the Israelites sanctuary during famine at the behest of Joseph. He was obviously not a follower of the God of Abraham. God chose a man raised as an Egyptian to lead His people back to Canaan after successive Pharoahs enslaved the Hebrews. Nebuchadnezzar assisted Daniel and in some stories is the first human to proclaim the Christ. The Roman Empire's roads, language, and technology carried Christianity to the world when it should have been nothing more than a minor sectarian disagreement in the First Century. Saul was a man who actively persecuted the nascent church until he was quite literally knocked off his ass. Jerome, a monk who couldn't keep his hands off the Nuns, gave the Church the Latin translation of the Bible, which would be the Word of God until Vatican II. Thomas Jefferson, a man whose "Christian beliefs" were FAR more unorthodox* than Barack Obama's, rolled the Word of God secularly into our nation's birth with the phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So why do we have to think that everyone who does God's work agrees with a specific orthodoxy? Isn't God far more able and capable than to be stymied by a presidential campaign? Isn't He perfectly capable of having someone be part of the plan, regardless of specifics?

So, I ask only for a moment's consideration, and perhaps a prayer tonight to ask the Lord His opinion: Governor Palin said God would do the right thing on the 4th. Maybe, just maybe she was absolutely correct.


So that's it, I am done with politics here for a while. Next post will probably be about how much I am starting to dislike the new Star Trek movie, while I am keeping a close eye on the new President since it's We the People's job as his employer. Hopefully this President remembers that far more than the outgoing administration.




*If you don't believe me about how unorthodox Jefferson was, check out his Bible Translation with a miracle-free Jesus...