Thursday, December 25, 2008
Merry Christmas
Over the years that I matured, I vacillated back and forth with faith in the divine. As I wavered between full blown atheism, agnosticism and Catholicism, I tried to keep my mind open to the possibilities of what life was about; all the while trying to see the subtle details that we tend to overlook. I wanted, like anyone else, to know the truth, whatever it was.
My initial problems stemmed from my lack of inspiration in attending mass. I simply could not get excited about reading scriptures or discussing biblical lessons in CCD. When you're young, all you want is...well...whatever it is that you want at the time. Trying to take scripture and interpret it into my daily life just didn't make sense. I started going to church less and less.
Finally, I just stopped believing altogether.
When I was in college, I went to a fair with some of my friends, and on the way back to the parking lot, I encountered some Christians witnessing the Word to some people they met. They weren't making a lot of friends anytime fast, but people were mostly politely declining. Curiosity overcame me and I approached them. After I introduced myself, I gave them a brief history of what I knew and believed (and didn't believe). I asked the man who was the leader of the group about himself, mainly just wanting to know from him about how he came believe and have such a strong faith in some higher power he couldn't prove exists.
He was very frank in his answer. He was an abusive and unfaithful husband, a liar and a drinker. One day, he stopped and listened to a street preacher and realized there was another aspect of life he hadn't considered until that moment. Once he heard the Gospel and felt nothing but guilt and regret for his actions, he wanted to set his life right.
I asked him "If you knew the decisions you made in your life were wrong and hurting yourself and others, why not simply change because it's the right thing to do?"
He responded with a question. "Under what authority do you determine what is right and wrong?"
"My common sense, my opinion, my..."
"...and what happens when your opinion conflicts with others who's opinions differ?"
"We argue."
"Then how do you settle who is right when you reach an impasse?"
After thinking about it for a few seconds, I just said that we'd have to agree to disagree. He just sighed and said "That is the inevitable result of what happens when what is right and wrong is defined by individual choice. I stopped making my own choices of what was moral and embraced God's Word."
I never forgot that exchange, and for a while my mind was open to the possibility of God.
A few years after I graduated, I was introduced to a nice girl who my cousin set me up with. We enjoyed spending time together, and both of her parents liked me. But her sister, a manic/depressive who had become a born again Christian after she was introduced to Prozac, began to undermine our relationship by getting my girlfriend to attend her church. They slowly ate away at her self confidence and initiative, eventually convincing her that I was a bad influence because of my Catholic upbringing. It was the first time in my life where it ever occurred to me that Christians of other denominations would undermine someone because they were Catholic. Seeing as our collective systems were all centered around Christ, I just couldn't figure out what the big deal was. That incident gave me a profound sense of distrust of Born Again Christians; not because they were different, but because I saw deceit in their methods. It frustrated me because the passion and strength of their beliefs was something I respected, and separating that aspect of their faith from the experience I had was difficult, and it left me shaken and doubtful.
Later, I watched my cousin, who had married a Jewish woman, not only suffer the pain of losing her to Hodgkins Disease, but also suffer the indignity of being insulted and mistreated by her family because he was not really Jewish. It didn't matter that he never left her side and never wavered in his devotion, or that he converted before they married. He never fully recovered from it, and after a few years of failing health, he died in his late 30's. I watched the happy horseshit he went through and it chapped my ass royally that in the end of his life, it seemed that all the aggravation and sacrifice he went through in the desire to appease the religious expectations of others had amounted to nothing. That turned me off to religion in a huge way, and my mind closed up again.
Then something happened I didn't expect. While I was working for Merrill Lynch, I met a person who, of all things...made me give up atheism altogether. He was the epitome of all the things that I had been taught were wrong. He was chronically dishonest , with people he worked with and even with people he regarded as his friends. He was boorish, crass, snobbish, elitist and demonstrated a massive ego.
Through the normal course of our days at work, we got to know each other. Invariably, the subject of religion came up, and I was quite surprised at how seemingly interested he was in hearing my thoughts on the subject. After hearing me out, he shrugged and told me that I had been wasting my time trying to find answers or hem and haw over finding meaning in everyday events. As he saw it, life was a brief flash that ended, and then there was nothing. When I tried to use an example by pointing out the consequences of a business deal he related earlier where a customer had effectively been ripped off after not getting what he paid for, he said "So what? Shit happens, he'll get over it."
When I expressed my incredulity at his response, he told me I needed to avoid the trap of looking at things in black and white.
Now, it was at this moment that the conversation I had with the man at the fair back in college came back to me, and I suddenly realized something that made me feel very uneasy. If my co-worker's concept of morality was just as justified by his own point of view as my own, then what he believed could never be wrong. If life did not continue beyond this, and there were no ultimate consequences to our actions, then nothing, no matter how horrible, beautiful, loving or hateful could ever...EVER mean anything.
While I know that my co-worker was no more a representative of all atheists as the Westboro Baptist Church is to all Christians, it left me aghast that a person who was otherwise intelligent and educated with an MBA could feel justified in acting the way he did. Then it occurred to me that what I saw as decency or a desire to do the right thing was not common sense or shared by everyone. Anyone who has ever had children have seen that, left to their own devices, kids will act selfishly, bully, tease and prey on others that show weakness. Concepts such as compassion, morality, selflessness and generosity are not inborn traits, but lessons that need to be learned, enforced and taught by example. A religious upbringing had given me a moral compass and center that continued to serve me in a positive way, even when I was too immature to appreciate it.
My negative experiences and observations of the consequences resulting from the extremes of both zealotry and secular hedonism made me a better person. I learned that I didn't have to become a fire and brimstone preacher to accept the simple message of forgiveness and love taught by Christ, nor did I have to give up reason and critical thinking just because I rejected the vapidness or moral malaise of secular humanism. That balance has made me a happier, successful and more well-rounded individual.
So it is in that good spirit and happiness that I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, and God Bless us, everyone.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Ghost of Fitzmas Past
With the inevitable arrest of Governor Blagojevich of Illinois, there is, of course, a lot of speculation regarding the extent of Barrack Obama's relationship and communications with this product of the idiocy of Illinois voters. It has also brought about the opportunity for another sad example of political disingenuousness to once again rear its ugly head: Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
In November of 2005, the political lexicon was treated to a new holiday: Fitzmas.
For those who need a reminder, Fitzmas was the embodiment of the irrational giddiness felt by liberal moonbats who sought to promote Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame affair into a claim that the President conspired to leak the identity of a former CIA employee in order to smear her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, because he later criticized the grounds for the Iraq war.
But it didn't work out as they planned. The President wasn't indicted. Dick Cheney wasn't indicted. Karl Rove wasn't indicted. The leaker, much to the dismay of moonbats far and wide, was an employee of Colin Powell by the name of Richard Armitage. What was even worse was that Patrick Fitzgerald found out that it was Armitage a mere two weeks into an investigation that took the better part of two years.
Two years.
And what did Fitzgerald have to show for it? A process crime brought about during an investigation that should have ended two weeks after it started.
The moment Patrick Fitzgerald found out that it was Richard Armitage who confessed to leaking Plame's identity only two weeks into the investigation, the matter should have ended on the spot. Instead, he ignored Armitage and ends up prosecuting Libby because he asserted that Libby was lying when he could not answer for sure about exact dates and the order in which conversations took place, where they took place or what the circumstances were that initiated those conversations. Hell, couple that with asking for specific details on matters that are months or even years old, and you could probably convict virtually every person alive for giving answers that are incorrect or contradict one another.
Now, also understand this: The entire time that the investigation went on beyond that point, we were all treated to all manners of conspiracy theories about how this all came down as an order from the President and Vice-President! It was Karl Rove who did it! They tried to out Plame as revenge!
Only none of that was true.
The entire time that the Bush Administration was being accused of all manner of treasonous acts in outing a supposedly "covert" agent, Patrick Fitzgerald, knowing full well that it was Armitage, questioned Libby, Rove and other Administration officials at length regarding the details of who they spoke to and when...questions meant to find the answer he already had.
The worst part about this entire fiasco was that after all was said and done, with Libby hung out to dry, Fitzgerald closed the case, brought no charges against anyone else, pranced away and left the entire central focus of the investigation unpunished and abandoned. After the trial was ended, we were all treated to the confused and angry exclamations on the part of jurors about how they wanted to know why they weren't going after Rove, or what about questions regarding the war in Iraq? Why wasn't the President and VP charged with anything? Then after convicting Libby, a number of jurors came out and felt that Libby deserved to be pardoned!
If neither the President, VP or Rove were specifically under investigation, and the jury was informed by Fitzgerald as to who they were focusing the investigation on, where would a supposedly impartial jury get the idea that someone else was going to be brought to court, or ever expect questions be asked beyond the scope of the trial? It's simple: That DC jury went into that courtroom with expectations that were fostered by every moonbat conspiracy theory that had been feeding the media with speculation and baseless accusations for over two years. How many of you remember people claiming inside information that Rove was to be indicted any minute and Libby was going to turn in Cheney, only it turned out that all of it was bogus?
Liberals whipped their base into a frenzy and used this case as a foothold to point towards the "culture of corruption" platform that they used as a campaign slogan all the way up to the 2006 elections. They used it as a character attack on countless occasions against both the President and VP, knowing full well that because it involved an active judicial case, they were not allowed to comment on anything. There is little doubt that between this event and the outing of Mark Foley, you have the very foundation upon which the 2006 elections turned.
So the result? Armitage walked, Fitzgerald did nothing about it and not one person who made false accusations about Rove, Cheney or the President concerning this case ever got called on it, but what does the truth matter so long as you win elections, right?
Fitzgerald supposedly set out to find the leaker, found out early into the investigation that it was Armitage, then proceeded to conduct the whole affair as if he hadn't found what he was looking for to begin with.
Fitzgerald should have been disbarred and brought to trial for abusing his role as a prosecutor, as he acted in no less of a dishonorable manner than that other ass-bite, Mike NiFong, the democrat party District Attorney who intentionally sought to promote false charges of rape against innocent students of Duke University to secure the black vote during a close election. Upon close inspection, the two are virtually no different in that both prosecutors had evidence early into their investigations that showed that the premise for their investigations was unfounded, yet they refused to act on that evidence. One gets disbarred and the other prances away without even charging the guilty person for the so-called crime he was charged with finding.
So...for any of you conservatives out there looking to promote this guy now out of sense of SchadenFreude simply because he is taking out yet another corrupt liberal democrat from Illinois, just remember: Patrick Fitzgerald proved before that he is just another political hack from the same corrupt Illinois/Chicago political machine as Blagojevich. Fitzgerald told newspapers to sit on the story for months prior to the presidential election and intentionally closed the investigation sooner in order to prevent felonies from being committed. His abrupt ending of the investigation limited the number of counts against Blagojevich to such an extent that he only needed to post bail at an amount of less than $5000. Fitzgerald's timing in this haste arrest and the mad dash being made to impeach Blagojevich is yet another example of partisan, political expediency in the name of saving yet another liberal Illinois democrat from potential embarrassment and scandal: Barrack Hussein Obama.
In November of 2005, the political lexicon was treated to a new holiday: Fitzmas.
For those who need a reminder, Fitzmas was the embodiment of the irrational giddiness felt by liberal moonbats who sought to promote Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame affair into a claim that the President conspired to leak the identity of a former CIA employee in order to smear her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, because he later criticized the grounds for the Iraq war.
But it didn't work out as they planned. The President wasn't indicted. Dick Cheney wasn't indicted. Karl Rove wasn't indicted. The leaker, much to the dismay of moonbats far and wide, was an employee of Colin Powell by the name of Richard Armitage. What was even worse was that Patrick Fitzgerald found out that it was Armitage a mere two weeks into an investigation that took the better part of two years.
Two years.
And what did Fitzgerald have to show for it? A process crime brought about during an investigation that should have ended two weeks after it started.
The moment Patrick Fitzgerald found out that it was Richard Armitage who confessed to leaking Plame's identity only two weeks into the investigation, the matter should have ended on the spot. Instead, he ignored Armitage and ends up prosecuting Libby because he asserted that Libby was lying when he could not answer for sure about exact dates and the order in which conversations took place, where they took place or what the circumstances were that initiated those conversations. Hell, couple that with asking for specific details on matters that are months or even years old, and you could probably convict virtually every person alive for giving answers that are incorrect or contradict one another.
Now, also understand this: The entire time that the investigation went on beyond that point, we were all treated to all manners of conspiracy theories about how this all came down as an order from the President and Vice-President! It was Karl Rove who did it! They tried to out Plame as revenge!
Only none of that was true.
The entire time that the Bush Administration was being accused of all manner of treasonous acts in outing a supposedly "covert" agent, Patrick Fitzgerald, knowing full well that it was Armitage, questioned Libby, Rove and other Administration officials at length regarding the details of who they spoke to and when...questions meant to find the answer he already had.
The worst part about this entire fiasco was that after all was said and done, with Libby hung out to dry, Fitzgerald closed the case, brought no charges against anyone else, pranced away and left the entire central focus of the investigation unpunished and abandoned. After the trial was ended, we were all treated to the confused and angry exclamations on the part of jurors about how they wanted to know why they weren't going after Rove, or what about questions regarding the war in Iraq? Why wasn't the President and VP charged with anything? Then after convicting Libby, a number of jurors came out and felt that Libby deserved to be pardoned!
If neither the President, VP or Rove were specifically under investigation, and the jury was informed by Fitzgerald as to who they were focusing the investigation on, where would a supposedly impartial jury get the idea that someone else was going to be brought to court, or ever expect questions be asked beyond the scope of the trial? It's simple: That DC jury went into that courtroom with expectations that were fostered by every moonbat conspiracy theory that had been feeding the media with speculation and baseless accusations for over two years. How many of you remember people claiming inside information that Rove was to be indicted any minute and Libby was going to turn in Cheney, only it turned out that all of it was bogus?
Liberals whipped their base into a frenzy and used this case as a foothold to point towards the "culture of corruption" platform that they used as a campaign slogan all the way up to the 2006 elections. They used it as a character attack on countless occasions against both the President and VP, knowing full well that because it involved an active judicial case, they were not allowed to comment on anything. There is little doubt that between this event and the outing of Mark Foley, you have the very foundation upon which the 2006 elections turned.
So the result? Armitage walked, Fitzgerald did nothing about it and not one person who made false accusations about Rove, Cheney or the President concerning this case ever got called on it, but what does the truth matter so long as you win elections, right?
Fitzgerald supposedly set out to find the leaker, found out early into the investigation that it was Armitage, then proceeded to conduct the whole affair as if he hadn't found what he was looking for to begin with.
Fitzgerald should have been disbarred and brought to trial for abusing his role as a prosecutor, as he acted in no less of a dishonorable manner than that other ass-bite, Mike NiFong, the democrat party District Attorney who intentionally sought to promote false charges of rape against innocent students of Duke University to secure the black vote during a close election. Upon close inspection, the two are virtually no different in that both prosecutors had evidence early into their investigations that showed that the premise for their investigations was unfounded, yet they refused to act on that evidence. One gets disbarred and the other prances away without even charging the guilty person for the so-called crime he was charged with finding.
So...for any of you conservatives out there looking to promote this guy now out of sense of SchadenFreude simply because he is taking out yet another corrupt liberal democrat from Illinois, just remember: Patrick Fitzgerald proved before that he is just another political hack from the same corrupt Illinois/Chicago political machine as Blagojevich. Fitzgerald told newspapers to sit on the story for months prior to the presidential election and intentionally closed the investigation sooner in order to prevent felonies from being committed. His abrupt ending of the investigation limited the number of counts against Blagojevich to such an extent that he only needed to post bail at an amount of less than $5000. Fitzgerald's timing in this haste arrest and the mad dash being made to impeach Blagojevich is yet another example of partisan, political expediency in the name of saving yet another liberal Illinois democrat from potential embarrassment and scandal: Barrack Hussein Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)