The New York Times Explains LOST To You

Well, I too cried all through the finale’s two hours. But I wouldn’t have (I don’t think I would have...but who knows?) if I had known they were all dead the whole last six years. Now that’s where the NYT and I differ in our opinions. This morning, the NYT’s Mike Hale said everything that happened on LOST’s island was real. I guess Hale and I saw a different finale. Hale says he too thought they were all dead from the beginning and then he watched the finale a second time. I’ve only seen the LOST finale once, and I haven’t read Doc Jensen’s finale final in EW yet. But, by me, from the moment Jack opened his eye in Segment One, Season One, they were all dead and going through a sort of Judgment Day reconciliation for the next six years, which could have happened in an eye-blink in eternity time. And actually did, by me, when Jack closed his eye last Sunday night and Judgment Day was over. And I really hate that idea, but that is how it played out for me in the finale. Ugh! And even through my tears (before realizing the last scene would be a communal funeral carrying everyone into the white light), I was disappointed in the hokey end. OHMYGOD! So much hokum. So many laughably contrived scenes. So much giggle-inducing crappola...like all that rope stuff and the guys not looking like they were really pulling on anything but ropes tied to n0thing. Oh well...I do like the idea (my belief, not Mike Hale’s) that Hurley was the honcho all along through all the six-year-long Judgment Day proceedings and Ben was his assistant. Love that! And BTW, is there a better actor in this world (and maybe the next) than Michael Emerson? Here’s to you Ben Linus/Michael Emerson...long may you live in all possible worlds!!!

What’s The Tea Party About?

If the words “deep” and “Tea Party” are not mutually exclusive, deep in the founding of the Tea Party has been a plan for betrayal. The people who encourage other people to put up money and start an association always have their own agenda. The Republicans at the heart of the Tea Party recognized there was a dissatisfied faction in America that felt disconnected from the mainstream. These were the people who hated the idea of a black president, the people who wanted big government to bug out of their lives, the people who hated the idea of homosexuality. the people who hated abortion and birth control and the people who felt a gun pointed at anyone’s head would solve any problem. The Republicans who organized this disaffected fringe decided that if this bloc could be corralled and brought into a cohesive group, they could be a major voice in all elections. However, no group with political power can be effective unless it works within the established system. Hence, betrayal was built into the very foundation of the Tea Party. All the aims of the little people in the Tea Party, all the complaints, all the bigotry, all the prejudices, all the little angers and piss-offs were going to be sacrificed, and the big guns who started the Tea Party knew it from the git-go. Hence, the Tea Party was based on betrayal. Right about now when Rand Paul’s unfortunate racist comments are making Tea Party bigwigs uncomfortable, the little people are beginning to realize that not only do Tea Party moguls want them to shut up about the US needing to go back to its segregated heyday, but racism, white supremacy and gun-totin’ militias were planned from the beginning to be sacrificed by the founders of the Tea Party. But the biggest betrayal in the Tea Party is going to be directed not only at, but will come from Sarah Palin. The organizers knew she would be a terrific draw to get the little people on board, and so far, she has done her job to a fare-thee-well. But it won’t be long before the powers in the Tea Party tell Sarah Palin exactly what she is going to have to say and do in order to be effective. They got Palin to sign on because they knew she wanted to be a celebrity and make lots of money. But the Tea Party big guys are just about to present to the public a manifesto detailing what the Tea Party is FOR and Palin’s playbook is only about what she is AGIN. She doesn’t even know what she’s for. But when she gets the Tea Party’s guidelines enlightening her about what she is for, very soon they will hear from Palin’s own lips, “I didn’t take this job to be told what to do and how to do it!” Oh yes, Sarah, you did. And if Palin thinks these good ol’ boys are mesmerized by her charms, she should rethink her whole grandiose image 0f herself. Not only are these guys totally prepared to tell her to “take a hike” if she doesn’t agree to go-along with their plans to make the Tea Party a viable group. They are totally prepared to ruin her financially, and personally if she balks. It would be well for the Palin family to start counting their money and socking some of their ill-gotten gains into a rainy day account. Because a morning line is assuredly in the offing about what is going to happen first-- Sarah walks out on the Tea Party in a huff or the Tea Party kicks her out.

Specter Out, Thank God!

This morning, a headline in the New York Times says: “Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents”. It may be true that there is a wave against incumbents, but the Specter defeat is not about a general dissatisfaction with guys who are in office. The Specter defeat means that Pennsylvanians have had it with Arlen Specter and we decided to oust him. The Specter defeat means that Pennsylvanians think Arlen Specter is too old and too unwell to cut the mustard. The Specter defeat means that Pennsylvanians don’t want a Senator who has flipped from Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat in order to get elected during his thirty (THIRTY YEARS!) as a career Senator. The Specter defeat means Pennsylvanias don't want Specter to ever run for office again. However, I do hope the Specter defeat is a signal that Congressmen must have term limits.

We’re Waiting, Pope Ratz

When can we expect your Wow Finish? For decades now, you’ve been protecting pedophile priests and throwing little kids under the bus. Then when the truth finally came out about the Vatican’s uncharitable, immoral and callous behavior and your own culpability in the international priest abuse scandal, you immediately pointed the finger at others and publicly prayed for their repentance and for their souls. So how about it, Ratz? When can we expect you to climb up on your holy pedestal and say, “Mea culpa! I am one of the worst offenders! I protected pedophiles for decades and I am truly sorry!” We’re waiting, Ratz! When are you going to act like a man, stop pointing at others and admit your own woeful, fallible and unchristian behavior?

Oh, And Sixthly...Good Lord Deliver Us

The New York Times reminded me this morning that Senator Arlen Fucking Specter has always supported Republican nominees to the Supreme Court and was outrageous in his “contentious questioning of Anita Hill, the law professor who testified against Clarence Thomas in 1991.” That, in and of itself, is enough to pray God that Specter doesn’t get a sixth term.

From Senator Specter, Good Lord Deliver Us

First, there is his certifying the magic bullet theory regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The magic bullet theory is ridiculous and Senator Specter should be ashamed of himself for having supported it as assistant counsel for the Warren Commission investigation in 1963. And he should really be ashamed of himself for defending the theory 47 years later. But secondly, and more importantly, Senator Specter has made a career of being a US Senator. He has been in the Senate for 30 years. NO ONE should be a Senator for 30 years. The job was never intended to be a career. Six or 12 years is more than enough. And thirty years should never be sought after. Even if there is no term limit, which there should be, any man or woman with integrity and with a view toward wanting the best for the US Senate should NEVER want to be a Senator for 30 years. Thirdly, there is Specter’s age and health. The man was 80 this past February and in 2008 he informed the public that he had a recurrence of lymph gland cancer. Both facts make him a horrible political prospect. IMHO, he has always been a horrible political prospect, but now his age and health put him completely out of the running. Fourthly, he has switched from Democrat to Republican and now he’s back to Democrat, all in aid of remaining a US Senator for 30 years. Ugh! Not a good thing. And fifthly, who can stand to look at the man and listen to him for whatever time he has left on this earth? He is a walking cadaver and much of the time he makes no sense. Ugh! Really not good! Good lord deliver us!

WHY? The Big Question for the Vatican

The Vatican has to be able to answer the big question before it can come to terms with the current scandal: Why have there always been pedophile priests in the Roman Catholic Church? The current scandal is the result of modern technology, which makes it impossible for the Vatican to continue to hide its pedophile priests. But this perversion among Roman Catholic priests has been going on for centuries. WHY? The simple answer is that in the Vatican pedophilia is not seen as a perversion or a mortal sin. It’s a quirk. And again, WHY? Protecting the virginity of women has nothing to do with women. It has to do with men wanting to ensure that their heirs are legitimate. In that regard, in many Latin American and Mediterranean countries, it is acceptable for men to have anal sex with women before marriage because the entrance to the womb has been kept sacrosanct. In the same way, since both women and children are viewed as chattel, it’s acceptable to have sex with little boys because this is not sex as such, since REAL SEX is SEX only when a male penetrates a female's vagina. This is doublethink nonsense that has been accepted as right and proper in the Vatican for centuries. It’s the same skewed logic as was used by Michael Jackson when he called his little boy friends "Rubba". The name explained what he was doing with the little boys in bed. He wasn’t having sex with them, he was being gentle and kind and affectionate. He was rubbing himself against little boys to be loving. To the priests in the Vatican who have been engaging in pedophilia for centuries, they were not doing anything wrong since little children have no importance and the priests were just being kind and affectionate. To the men in the Vatican who protected the pedophiles, they weren’t protecting criminals; they were simply giving God and their religion priority before children who weren’t very important. And besides, what the priests were doing was just an idiosyncrasy that wasn’t hurting anyone. The outrageous medieval attitude about women and children in the Roman Catholic Church has to stop before progress can be made regarding the abuse of children by priests. It may be that Pope Ratz is a brilliant theologian...I’ll give him that, grudgingly. But that said, he is also a hopelessly backward, ignorant, underinformed, unreconstructed cretin about human sexuality and relationships.

Vatican Says, “Better Eight Innocents Suffer...”

Turning Blackstone’s formulation on its ear, the Vatican says “it’s better that eight innocent men suffer than that millions lose their faith”. So, forget that a foundation of criminal law dates back to Genesis 18-23-32 when Abraham importuned God not to destroy the innocent along with the wicked. And never mind that the Biblical passage in Genesis was used by jurist William Blackstone in the 1760’s when he wrote “Blackstone’s ratio“, which is—“better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. And never mind that this understanding of criminal law has been used as a basis for the presumption of innocence since the 1880’s. Now the Vatican says, Screw that! Better that eight innocent men suffer than that the Roman Catholic Church be shown to be a hollow mockery. It takes a lot for the Vatican to shock me these days. But I am SHOCKED!!!! Here’s the backstory. In 1998, a Vatican canon lawyer, Martha Wegan, told two of Father Marcial Maciel’s victims at the Legionaries of Christ in Mexico that she had “bad news” for them. The two men--Jose Barba Martin and Arturo Jurado--along with six other men who had been raped by Father Marciel had brought a formal complaint to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, led by Cardinal Ratzinger. Martha Wegan told the men that the Vatican had decided not to investigate the matter further because, Ms. Wegan said, “It is better for eight innocent men to suffer than for millions to lose their faith. Now, later, it's true, Cardinal Ratz changed his mind for political reasons. But let’s be very clear. The idea that it is better for eight innocent men (read, innocent children) suffer the horrors of the damned at the hands of perverted pedophiles than that the Roman Catholic Church should get bad press, has been the ruling idea and pervasive modus operandi at the Vatican, in the Curia and with all the popes for the last 1500 years. AND THIS MODUS OPERANDI STINKS.

Here’s My Point...

...and I do have one. The Vatican and the hopeless Curia and Pope Ratz may bloviate and steam and rant that reporters are being unfair to them by releasing documents about all the pedophile priests who have been attracted to the Roman Catholic Church and who have been protected by the Roman Catholic Church. But the fact is, the Vatican has been more concerned with protecting the reputation of the church than with protecting the children who attend the church. THAT’S MY DAMN POINT!!!! Even this morning the PR division of the Vatican is grinding out stories about how the RCC is going to be transparent and throw all abuse cases to the civil authorities now. But the Vatican is still defending the fact that in the past, for 1500 years or more, the RCC has protected its pedophile priests rather than protect the little children who go to church. And the Vatican announced this morning through it’s mouthpiece Father Lombardi that the facts the Vatican uncovers in its investigation of Father Maciel, the head of The Legion of Christ who molested little boys and fathered a number of children, will not be made public. And I don't understand how protecting Father Maciel and other pedophiles can be a good thing. Even if you are Pope Ratz and stand on your head and scream and yell that you are a good person, I don't see how protecting pedophiles and letting them continue to molest children for years and years and years can ever be a good thing. The RCC forced children to sign oaths that they would not tattle on pedophile priests. How is that a good thing? How can that ever be a good thing? How can calling children liars and swearing that a lie is the truth ever be a good thing? How can it even be defensible? That’s what I don’t understand. AND THAT’S MY POINT!!!!!