Reason and Freedom

I recently started reading about cheese making, and I've found it to be very similar to bread making and beer brewing (and I suppose wine making, but I have yet to try that). Cheese making works due to yeast and bacteria doing all the hard work. Before the days of refrigeration, cheese was the way that the extremely-perishable milk could be stored.

I found this awesome page on making cheese here. It's done by a professor of biology and chemistry who also happens to raise goats and make his own dairy products. He took the time to document his efforts with photographs and explicit instructions as well as explanations behind why things are done. This site is right up my alley!

Since I already have a healthy Lactobacillus Sanfrancisco (and yeast) culture in my refrigerator, I felt very comfortable reading about starter cultures for cheese. As it turns out, home cheesemaking is very popular in Europe.

I went to Star Provisions today to buy raw milk. It turns out that it's not legal to sell raw milk of any mammal in this fine state of Georgia. Stupid laws! Why can't they let us make our own informed decisions and suffer the consequences? Anyway, I ended up buying two quarts of (ultra-pasteurized) goat milk from Publix. My first project: yogurt.

The older I have become and the longer that I have been a gay parent makes me feel ever more annoyed by the special rights that straight, married couples get in our society. For instance, straight couples' childbirth is paid for by their insurance company (premiums which gay men like me pay), but we had to pay dearly for our adoption. Straight parents can have their children subsedized by gay people. In fact, the law demands it. That's just one of many examples.

I suppose that the proponents of "traditional marriage" will argue that such rights and priveleges are necessary to support the family, ostensibly for the purpose of raising children. Well, since more than 50% of marriages fail, it seems like these rights and priveleges are being wasted on the ungrateful. Unlike straights, gay people rarely have children by accident (or subsedized).

So what could be the reason for such ugly disparities between the rights and privileges that gay families receive verses those that straight families receive? Well, namely, the fact that many people, particularly Christians, hate gay people.

As a parent, this frightens me. It frightens me with the gripping, "Don't you dare take my child!" primal fear that I started feeling once I became a parent. It's made me feel resentful of Christians and suspicious of their motives and actions. I was expressing this much to my partner, and he warned me that I may be becoming too angry over nothing. He indicated that, sure, there were some loonies out there, but, for the most part, things are changing are most people are coming around to a rational frame of mind about gay people in general and gay parents in specific. I disagreed. I told him stories of some things that I'd heard Christians say which I felt supported my point of view.

Then I had a different thought. What if I was right and my partner was wrong, but it was better for me to believe my partner's lie than it was for me to believe my truth? Meaning, what if the Christian threats would never materialize into depriving me of life, liberty, family, or property? "All talk, no action."

Is "believing a lie" merely code for my desire to remain paranoid?

There is only one race: the human race. All other concepts of race come from culture, not from science.

Do you disbelieve it? Tell me, what is the scientific division between a person who is "asian" and a person who is "hispanic"? You can fill in any two races you with within the double-quotes and you're going to have equally a difficult time trying to answer the question. Let's take it further. What if a person who is "black" and a person who is "white" have a baby? What race is the baby? Are they a new race? What if a person has all "white" ancestors except for one "black" great-great-great-grandfather? Is that a different race from the person who is "half and half"?

We all rely on our culture to define races for us. In the South, "one drop" of "black" blood was all it took to make you "black." Of course, this betrays the "white verses black" mindset that pervades so many people in the South, but it might as well: that's part of Southern culture (and boy I wish that part of Southern culture would die).

I recently saw this fantastic movie called Europa Europa which tells the true story of a German Jew who joins the Hitler Youth as a means of survival during the Third Reich. There is a very instructive scene in the movie that takes place in a classroom. The teacher, a middle-aged German man, acts sinisterly in front of his attentive Hitler Youth students, intimating th
at Jews are, by nature, hideous and treacherous. Then he calls the protagonist to the front of the class. The protagonaist, still terrified that someone may learn his secret, stands in horror as his teacher begins measuring the dimensions of the protagonist's face. Then, after much measuring and judging, the teacher reveals to the class that the subject is a member of the "Eastern Baltic Race." So much for science!

There is a terrific website that I recently found at zompist.com called How to tell if you're American. It basically makes a bunch of generalized statements about American culture. What made this site interesting is that repres
enatives of other cultures then translated the statements into similiar ones that are relevant in their own culture (in English, thankfully). It's a fascinating view into cultural differences. For example:

American: You like your bacon crisp (unless it's Canadian bacon, of course).
English: You've never come across crispy bacon.
Turkish: You never eat bacon, but you will have kokoreç (fried sheep intestines) after a good night's drinking.

And so on. Fascinating, huh? But, more relevant to this discussion, check out what one of the authors (representing Brazilian culture) had to say about race:

"Between 'black' and 'white' there are many shades of race. Someone who is not very distinctively black looks white to you. You probably think you are white yourself, and it is only when you travel to the U.S. that you find out it is not necessarily so."

The reason why someone from Brazil could think that they were "white" but then learn that they are "black" when they travel to the USA is because race is defined by culture, not by science.

Hence, I reject all cultural definitions of "race." There is one and only one race: the human race. All racist thinking originates in the belief that there are separate races to begin with.

I recently found this wonderful writer named Kurt Andersen who writes for the magazine "New York." You can find his archive here. I like his writing for several reasons.

1. His vocubulary is very impressive
2. His writing style is informative, entertaining, and honest
3. His attitudes betray exactly why New York Leftists are scum and worthy of mockery

Here's a choice quote from one of Andersen's articles:

"For New Yorkers, this massive dark cloud does have a
silver lining. We can now feel special again, and revert to
full-bore smugness: We choose to live in New York because
we are superior, and we are superior because we live in New
York."

Here's another one:

"New Yorkers think we are smarter than other Americans,
that the richness and difficulty of life here give our
intelligence a kind of hard-won depth and nuance and
sensitivity to contradictions and ambiguity. We feel we are
practically French. Most New Yorkers are also liberals. And
most liberals, wherever they live, believe that they are
smarter than most conservatives (particularly George W.
Bush)."

Hence, Leftists suck in general, and New York Leftists suck in particular. I would just love to see that caustic bitch Ann Coulter tear this guy a new asshole (without getting snot on her hands). Maybe I can get an artist to draw me a picture of Ann Coulter tearing Manhattan a new asshole.

Kaffir (I've also seen it spelled "kafir," "kaafir," "Kufr," etc.) is the term for "non-muslim" used by extremist, violent muslims. I'm talking about muslims who fully believe that force should be used to convert or punish non-muslims. Kaffir is a term of extreme derision. You can see it in this article about muslim extremists interrupting a moderate muslim event in the UK. Here's the link:

link

Here's a quote: "Kaffirs. MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] are dirty kaffirs."

In other words, kaffirs are odious people worthy of being on the receiving end of the muslim extremists' violence.

Other persecuted groups have made a wise decision to take the epithets of their enemies as terms of pride. Gays have chosen to call themselves "queers." Anti-Scientologists have given themselves ficticious SP ("Suppressive Person," Scientology-speak for bad guy, worthy of being on the receiving end of violence) levels in mockery of the Scientologist OT ("Operating Thetan") levels. Blacks have co-opted the notorious "N-word" as a term of brotherhood and pride. It's a smart way of refusing to allow yourself to be defined and harmed by your enemies' hateful labels.

Personally, I don't believe pride comes from being. That's called "elitism" and is immoral. Pride comes from doing. So I wouldn't say that I am "proud" to be a kaffir. But I would say that it's time that non-muslims claim this word. Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Pagans, Buddhists, and all other non-muslims who do NOT want to convert to that religion and who reject the violence associated with its wicked extremists can then say, "Yes, we are kaffir, and it is good and right that we are kaffir!"

I made sourdough pancakes from my sourdough starter and boy am I impressed! I can say with no doubt that they are the best pancakes I've ever made. They had the perfect texture (light and fluffy) with just the right amount of sweetness and tang. Add to that some real butter and some grade A maple syrup and you have achieved the pinnacle of pancakes. I, my partner, and even my 5-year-old son all ate three of them.

Here was the recipe:

2 c starter
2 T sugar
4 T oo
1 egg
--- mix all that up
--- heat the pan
1 T warm water
1 t baking soda
1/2 t salt
--- mix all that up in a separate bowl
--- just before you cook, add the soda mixture to the starter mixture and fold. The base (baking soda) will react with the lactic acid produced by, in my case, L. Sanfrancisco and make it foam up *a lot*.
--- immediately cook the pancakes

Yum yum yum yum yum! The sourdough starter has already paid off in a big way. I feel like I'm on my way to lots of yummilicious baking. Next I'm going to make sourdough bread. Or maybe sourdough Balut.

For those of you who don't watch "Fear Factor" (I don't) and don't know anything about the Phillippines, "Balut" is a part of the national cuisine. It is a fertilized duck egg that is 17 days old. You boil it and eat the contents. A duck embryo (beak, feathers, feet) is contianed within along with a veiny (!) yolk sac. I would eat cockroaches ALL DAY LONG to not ever have to eat this.

I received my sourdough starter from sourdo.com in the mail yesterday. For those of you not in the know, this is the dried remains of millions of little yeast and bacteria that are used to make sourdough bread. The bacteria in question are Lactobacillus Sanfrancisco, so you can probably guess that my goal is to create San Francisco sourdough bread.

I mixed the dried powder with AP flour and clean water last night, and I added water and flour this morning. According to Steve, who is at home today, the started showed a lot of bubbly activity and a layer of hooch was forming on the top. It seems to be doing its thing, though it doesn't yet seem active enough to be deemed healthy enough to cook with.

Reading about Kim Bannon has re-ignited the fire under my butt about HIV and AIDS. I am, of course, an AIDS heretic. I do not believe the dogma that eminates from the priests of the HIV=AIDS death religion. I had felt somewhat discouraged when I thought all of the recent news about HIV and AIDS skepticism was, well, not so recent. A little internet reading changed all of that.

First, Kim Bannon:

http://www.kimbannon.com

Brave Kim is suing for having been given an "HIV positive" status. Bravo, Kim!

Then there is the journalist Liam Scheff who broke the story about orphaned and kidnapped children being used as human guinea pigs for toxic AIDS drugs. This story is ongoing and is horrible. Do not read it if you can't bear to see pictures of tortured children. If it's true, then I won't be surprised. If it's false, then I'll be greatly relieved.

http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm

The most important aspect of the HIV=AIDS church is that the church be maintained. Human health and human life are secondary considerations.

Ann Coulter's recent column on Brian Nichols and Ashley Smith was interesting. It was interesting because it proves one of the most overlooked dangerous aspects of Christianity that exists: disingenuous forgiveness.

To get the ball rolling, I can't help but comment on the tone that Coulter takes about the role of women in society. I personally loathe just about every bit of vomitous tripe that comes casually spilling from the hideous mouths of most self-styled, testicle-chopping "feminists." But listen to what Coulter writes:

"The escape and capture of Brian Nichols shows women playing roles they should not (escorting dangerous criminals) and women playing roles they do best (making men better people)."

One of the things that women do best, according to Coulter, is "making men better people." That's right, women, of all the great things you can do, make sure you remember that up there among the most important is prostrating yourself to the men of the world! When Coulter writes idiotic things like this, she freely hands mortar shells to the feminists she hates so much.

Well, on to Christianity. Most of the country is now aware of what Brian Nichols did, and some are now becoming aware of what Ashley Smith did. If you aren't, then read Coulter's column. Brian Nichols, having killed a few people, having every police officer withing a 200-mile radius on a death-hunt for him, and having his name, image, and exhaustive list of atrocities continuously displayed on every local and national news media knew that his options were running out. He was going to get caught, and the pressure was high.

Ashley Smith, Nichols's prisoner, calculated a way to launch herself into immortal Christian fame. She would minister to the most famous "bad guy" in present Christendom.

So she read from him from the newest protestant tract, The Purpose-Driven Life, and from the Bible. She made him a deal. It was long and drawn out, but here it is in its simple form:

"You will become a star and people will love and forgive you. If, and only if, you convert to Christianity."It's a pretty good deal for Nichols. Sure, he still has to go to prison, and he may still lose his life. But he was going to get that anyway! What she was offering was a boat-load of attention and love from a public that was keenly aware of who he was. And, for Christians, it's very clear why it is in their best interest for Nichols to accept the deal. If he becomes Christian, then Christians receive two valuable things out of the deal.

1. They get to use his conversion as evidence of the "transforming power of Christ." Coulter even goes as far to call it a "miracle," which is, to Christians, "proof" that miracles (and, by extension, their god) exist.

2. They get to show the world how morally superior they are for forgiving a human such as Nichols.

So there is massive self-interest for Christians in the Nichols conversion. Dare I call it "selfishness"?

But what does scripture say about forgiveness? Let's go to the words of Jesus himself to find out:

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Mat 6:14-15Jesus says this immediately after he teaches the Lord's prayer to the disciples, just in case the words of Christ aren't powerful enough in this instance. In any case, there is no room for confusion. Christians are supposed to forgive "men" because if they don't then their sins will not be forgiven. So much for "the blood covers all." Apparently there is an important stipulation: Jesus's blood will wash away all of your sins ... IF AND ONLY IF you forgive men their sins.

Note how we have heard so many people on the radio say rather bluntly that they will NOT forgive Jane Fonda for her communist-pleasing, and-and-comfort-to-the-enemy-giving antics during the Vietnam war. Did the Christians of the world righteously bring up Matthew 6:14-15? No, they were silent at best, in punitive agreement at worst.

So take the Christians' forgiveness of Brian Nichols with a Jupiter-sized grain of salt. They forgive him because they get something out of it -- two important somethings, specifically -- and not because they are being true to their scripture. They are, in fact, following one of the unwritten rules of their religion: the end always justifies the means when it comes to gaining converts to Christianity.

Myself, I do not forgive Brian Nichols. He chose to live like an animal, he deserves to die like one. For that matter, I don't forgive Jane Fonda, either. Let's round it out by my saying that I also don't forgive Ann Coulter for her stupidity and her mendacity.