Hot Enough For You?

I spent last weekend in Dallas. It was hot outside. I have known hot. I have sweltered. I grew up in Tennessee, went to college in Alabama, pulled a summer gig in Arizona where they tell you it's the heat, not the humidity, but they LIE because it is both, and you break into a back-drenching sweat when you wiggle your eyebrows violently outdoors.

One hundred degree temperatures and I -- we are not close, but we have history.

This heat in Dallas though was qualitatively different. I have been burned, pierced, and baked by heat, but I don't ever recall it weighing on me. This heat was a presence. It was heavy, trying to force you to the ground for the crime of breaking daylight curfew. This heat was angry. It personally disliked you and gave you the silent treatment so you couldn't even ask what you'd done that it thought was so wrong. It was as though all the greenhouse gases threw a party over Dallas and no one wanted to be the first chlorofluorocarbon to leave.

And I'm going back this weekend.

T-rex plays the role of "me."

Today is a good day I think for linking to Dinosaur Comics.

Exquisite Corpse Flower

For years and years I would hear about things going on in New York City, and they would sound great and fascinating, just as you imagine a fairy hootenanny sounds like a great time in the fantasy world of Zordenlandia. But you don't know exactly what that is, and you'll never find out.

These days, I still feel giddy when I remember that I am -- tops -- a three-hour train ride from NYC, where strange and wonderful things happen with alarming regularity.

Here is the latest, which I hope to visit later this week: the blooming of the corpse flower at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

The titan arum (Amorphophallus titanum) is one of the world's most remarkable plants. Native to tropical forests in Sumatra, it produces a monstrous four- to nine-foot-tall flower head, which releases a monstrous stench of putrefaction at peak bloom (another name for the plant is the corpse flower!). The species rarely flowers in cultivation—the last time one bloomed in New York was 1939. However, Brooklyn Botanic Garden's ten-year-old specimen recently began to flower. It's in peak bloom right now!

It's so monstrous, they used the word twice!

Sadly, all my New York friends simultaneously moved to other states, so I don't have free places to stay overnight anymore. But clearly, the opportunity to smell a putrefied Audrey II is worth a day trip if I can swing it.

August Linkdump

More stuff I found lately.

Scientists study using ketamine to lift depression
Down at the club, this is known as a "recreational drug." Here's another one for you, science dudes: Bourbon might be an excellent sedative!

Billy Graham facing mortality
Newsweek rides the Christian bandwagon again.

Also, I think I found out why Newsweek is so Jesusy. The managing editor, John Meachum, is a flagrant Christian, if you can even believe, who wrote this here book.

Churches that give you what you want, not what you need
Nothing new, but certainly nothing wrong here. Plus, they have big headshots of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton in their banner, and I am just the target demographic to be suckered by that.

Why is Google paying MySpace to be their search provider?
I don't have a MySpace page, and I own no stake in Google. Following this seems like a nerdy version of caring what Brittney Spears and Kevin Federline do. But still, I do so desperately care.

My Election Year Rant

See, what happened is, Jan, with big innocent doe eyes, unwittingly asked me to deliver one of my favorite politics rants here.

I usually wait for presidential election years to pull this out, because that's when it's most likely to come up in casual conversation, and people will be most tolerant of my crackpot ideas, and I can deliver the 30-second soundbite version to my close friends. Sometimes repeatedly. To their delight.

But since Jan asked so nicely, it has become clear that impending mid-term elections are as good a time as any to inflict this upon you share.


You, the discerning reader, know that democracy is broken in the United States.

You also know why: The electorate does not care to make well-informed choices, candidates prefer obfuscation to clarity, and people with a lot of money hold great sway over the decision-makers, and thus, their decisions.

I would be more dismayed if I thought this was different from the early years of the American experiment. Instead, I am just regular-style dismayed.

However, democracy in a less-broken form means that anyone can run for an office, provided he or she meets some established criteria. (Like, you have to be 35 years old to be POTUS. That sort of thing.)

This will sound eerily similar to my economic theory: We make the government. (Unlike my economic theory, I think the government DOES make us back, however.) Any time a number of us decide to act differently, the government will act differently.

We intrinsically have the power to vote for the most qualified candidate, because anybody we want to vote for is running. Furthermore, it is a citizen's duty to lead if elected by the populace. If everybody think you're the shit, you'd better get up there and be The Shit.

If I lived in Dallas, and I thought Jan would be a great mayor of Dallas, I could vote for her as a write-in candidate (assuming she met local established criteria, of course). I don't even need to get the petition signatures to get her on the ballot. I could just write her name and walk out of the polling booth feeling unconflicted about my choice. Wouldn't that be awesome?

And if there's, oh, I don't know, say, a majority us who think the same way, whether or not Jan thinks she'd be a good mayor, it's her responsibility to try anyway, because it's what we all want. Because that's how democracy works, see.

Given this truth, the idea of a lesser of two evils becomes looo-dicrous. It's really our job to choose a LEAST of all available evils to vote for.

But even trying to figure out which one of two basically indistinguishable faces to vote for in an election can be taxing. How do you search every citizen for the best choice?

Well you don't. You've got better thnigs to be doing. But as an intermediate step, I recommend spending about 10 minutes googling third parties in your district/state/nation and looking around.

Especially for presidential elections, there are a dozen fairly serious political parties to consider. You won't have to consider many of them long -- the Prohibition Party does not have a popular enough platform for you to spend time on.

But what if you like non-intrusive government, but don't care for the Republicans' devotion to the drug war? Then you might look at the Libertarian Party.

What if you've recently reread the Constitution and noticed how far the current federal government has drifted? What if you like a Biblical foundation for law, but don't agree with the current administration's particular take? You might want to read up on the Constitution Party.

What if you like the idea of science playing a larger role in government? Consider the Natural Law Party.

I haven't even bothered mentioning the Green Party, The Reform Party, or the dark horse Socialist Workers Party.

This is real. There are millions of people in the United States working and thinking on how we can make the government, and those millions of people are not locked into "Democrat" or "Republican" mindsets.

Though they don't have the resources to make competitive stabs at the Presidential elections, they run pretty competitive state and local races. Which is good, because more local races are coming up in a few months. Currently, there is one independent senator: Sen Jeffords (I), VT. But there's no reason why we can't choose more of them in November.

Assuming that you're thinking about voting in the next available election, do just a little homework in Wikipedia or Google about third parties. You might find someone you actually WANT to vote for instead of the latest models of Brand X and Brand Y. And if enough people do that, we might find ourselves with leaders we WANT to follow.

The Real Ruling Party

A friend recently accused me of not being conservative.

Me? Not conservative? WTF? I'm in favor of small government and fiscal accountability and such.

He was unswayed. To prove his point, he asked me, "Which do you prefer, people taking responsibility for themselves or handouts to poor people?"

And I was all like, "Why can't I be in favor of both?" He assured me I couldn't be.


When I lived in Birmingham, Alabama and attended a Christian university, people called me a liberal. When I worked for a game company in Seattle, Washington, people called me conservative.

You know what I call it when extremes label you the opposition? The elusive "moderate" position. But moderation doesn't eschew either end of a spectrum. It consists of both. I mean, duh.

But this current executive branch is neither conservative nor liberal. It is authoritarian.

John W. Dean expounds in a useful article in the Boston Globe saying things I wish were said louder and sooner:

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in "conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

I'm not ready to go with him on Reagan's disbelief in relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. His eco-sins are carefully listed in a commentary at grist.org.

But the rest of the article has some useful points for the plaintive American moderate.

America is depending on me, Mr. President. And by America, I mean the World.

This is the pilot episode of The Amazing Screw-On Head at the Sci-Fi channel Web site.

According to the flashing light on my monitor, it is Condition: Awesome.

The animation is a little rough, but if you're even partly nerdy, it's worth the 23 absurd minutes you'll spend watching. If you're not nerdy, then, you know, watch sports or something.

Covenant Member

I covenanted with (i.e. seriously joined) my church tonight. A covenanter is expected to say a few words about how he or she got here, and why he or she is covenanting.

Most people ad lib their way through it, and everybody's basically on your side, so it's about as big a deal as you want to make it. I wanted to make it a sufficiently large deal. This wasn't a silly formality to join a club for me. I read and considered and chose to covenant -- to commit, to promise -- to be with a group of people. There were things I wanted to be sure I said, and I wanted to do it well.

Here's the transcript:

I came here two years ago, to Philadelphia, to Circle of Hope, pursuing a relationship. Unfortunately, the relationship has not turned out the way I wanted it to. But note that I’m still pursuing it. This is a useful metaphor. I’ll come back to it.

I have called myself feral, and preferred to stay out in the dark rather than come into the light by the house. Because in the light you have to look at the people who are beating you up, people who you thought were your friends, bloodying your lip, sometimes in the name of Christ.

People who seem to take “You hurt the ones you love” as a command rather than a rueful observation. At least out in the dark it’s not a betrayal when you get hurt.

I tend to wander. I started wandering out of curiosity, out of joy, but somewhere wandering also turned into flight from things that aren’t joyful. I still love wandering, but after a lot of it, I’m ready to rest. I’m ready to come in out of the dark.

I know I’m screwed up. I want to come home. So I’m leaving the dark and the feralness, and I’m going to come into the house and put on clothes and sit by the fire.

Some of you may still beat me up, some of you might still be mean to me, and the relationships I pursue may stay out of my reach. But I want to stay in the house this time because I am loved and wanted. I’ve learned that coming inside and pursuing relationships is better than wandering away from them.

In addition to the feel-goods, I also want to challenge you. Now that I’m coming into the house, now that I’m committing to you, I hope you will take as seriously your commitment to me. Do not be mean to me. Do not ignore me. And for the love of God, if I start to wander again, do not let me disappear.

Thanks for your love and friendship. I look forward to being in the house with you.

Loose Truth

There was a girl in college with whom I was stupidly in love. I mean skipping class, ignoring friends, staying up all night in love. She named her cat Buechner after Fredrick Buechner, the theologian.

I read some of Buechner’s stuff in college because of her, and it threatened my religion. I knew that was a dance with heresy, and I was neither sure-footed enough in my orthodoxy nor carefree or desperate enough in my rebellion to step on that floor.

The girl was a deeper, more troubled person than I was, and she meant to use her dance card. She read Buechner and wondered and wandered and eventually became a missionary in Russia. The Baptists didn't think she was ready to be one of their missionaries, so she raised money and went her own damn self.

I remained safe, which has its own rewards, but I've learned that precariousness in the name of Christ is so much more worthwhile. Now I'm digging like fuck, trying to remember where I buried that talent.

So maybe I'm deep and troubled enough now. This all comes up because I read Buechner recently, Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairytale, and that guy blew through the back of my head. I would be a slightly better man if I had read more of him earlier.

He points to John 18:38. Right after Jesus says, “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” And Pilate says, “What is truth?”

I don’t know why I keep being surprised that the Bible keeps surprising me. I had Bible drilled into my marrow as a kid. But bits of that thing keep surprising me, things I did not know were there.

Jesus says something sublime, which those of my religious ilk have taken down and stuffed into our own mouths and repeat with the comprehension of parrots.

This is not a boast, what Jesus says. This is a metaphysical fact. If you align with truth, then you’re listening to Jesus. Jesus followers tend to invert this, and think that because they listen to Jesus they are on the side of truth... which is true, but not how Jesus puts it. You don’t choose Jesus and get truth as a side order. When you choose to side with truth, you are inescapably listening to Jesus.

Whether you know Jesus, whether you like Jesus, you are listening to him. This association makes truth and Jesus nearly indistinguishable. When I think about him that way, I slough layers of dead religious tradition. In addition to being the Way and the Life, he is, notably the Truth.

And then Pilate comes back with existentialism modern as toasters, yet apparently, old as carnivores. “What is truth?”

Cynicism or questing? Can’t it be both? I guess that Pilate wasn’t seriously asking the question, because if he had, maybe he would have had a shot at seeing Truth damn near incarnate.

The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus answered that question. But he stood there, being the answer.

This is all stuff Buechner brings up. And there’s more.

Drunk Think Tank

A couple of weeks ago for the first time in my life, I went out on Friday night with intent to get drunk.

A friend remarked, on hearing this story, that I was still responsible enough to hand my keys over to let someone else drive. Which is true. But I didn’t want to get drunk and stupid. I wanted to get drunk and obliterated.

I’ve been drunk before, of course, but always accidentally, at parties, never as a mission. However, a series of events which I will not relate here drove me to think that I would like to not be me for a while.

I have the alcohol tolerance of a spider monkey, so it’s not a long trip from sober to blotto. About 30 ounces of beer later (on a completely empty stomach) and I was weaving to the bathroom.

I had a girlfriend who I loved in Seattle, and who I guess I still love a little, who spent her 20s getting smashed with impunity. When I knew her, I had no mental frame for this behavior. I’ve been plenty miserable in life, but I never medicated.

I asked the Seattle girlfriend one time, “Why do people do this? Why get drunk when it doesn’t make things better, and it really only hurts you in the long run?”

Seattle girlfriend was beautiful and smart, but not a verbal person, so explanations came hard to her. She said, “You can just not be yourself for a while.”

When explains jack to someone looking in from the outside. Now that I’ve been inside though, I ken it. It is beautiful. I was raised to fear alcohol. Now I know better.

A couple of weeks ago I went out to not have to be myself for a while. For a few hours rejection and aimlessness -- companions so close I should carry wallet photos -- took a walk. I didn’t feel good, but I didn’t feel bad. For a night, I call it a win. And the next day, I put away some childish things. That I call a victory.