Eden Hill Journal

Comments, dreams, stories, and rantings from a middle-aged native of Maine living on a shoestring and a prayer in the woods of Maine. My portion of the family farm is to be known as Eden Hill Farm just because I want to call it that and because that's the closest thing to the truth that I could come up with. If you enjoy what I write, email me or make a comment. If you enjoy Eden Hill, come visit.

My Photo
Location: Maine, United States

Friday, February 25, 2005

More GannonGuckertGate

An article in WorldNetDaily by Bill Press, author of the book Spin This
Dated today, Friday February 25
"Sex to go: Call White House press office"

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Ann Took the Bait

It was brought to my attention that right-wing political author Ann Coulter has written an op/ed commentary in defense of the Internet reporter/Republican gay hooker Jeff Gannon/James Guckert.
Ann asks, "Are we supposed to like gay people now, or hate them? Is there a Web site where I can go to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?"
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
Jerry Falwell referring to 9/11
Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
The question no longer is what do the Democrats want the Republicans to believe, now the question is what do the Republicans actually believe. Ann's article defending Guckert proves this point. The Guckert scandal isn't about left-wing gay-bashing. It is about right-wing hypocrisy. Ann took the bait and has made a real fool of herself as a result.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

It's all about ass Posted by Hello

Religion Part 2

On Wednesday last week, I began what I hope will be a series explaining my personal religious views. If all goes well, I'll write from time to time about religion and God, two separate topics in my view, and about my speculations, hopes, and experiences. Heck, maybe I'll even write about the drugs sometime.
Today, I want to follow up on the Daniel Quinn thing that I brought up last time. I have read two Quinn novels, Ishmael and The Story of B, both about a big old talking gorilla by the name of Ishmael who has a novel view of mankind's roll in the world. While we all know that we are just as much animals as are any of the world's other animals, we also know that we are somehow different and we spend countless hours pondering that difference, trying to figure out what it is that places us above our animal ancestry.
The Judeo-Christian religions generally use denial. Man isn't an animal. But common sense, DNA research, and archeology are slowly breaking down those defenses for anybody who doesn't have his head completely buried in the sand.
Ishmael approaches his theology from the Judeo-Christian perspective starting with the story of Adam and Eve. When I read about this, it blew me completely away. I had the sensation that the shroud of mystery about the story of the fall of man into sin, a mystery that the church could never explain to me, had suddenly been torn down and I was looking at the truth for the very first time.
Well, anyone who reads Daniel Quinn books is going to have a different opinion on what they say, so let's get one thing straight right away. This is my opinion. OK?
The Bible story about the fall of man comes in the first book of the Bible, Genesis chapter 3. God wasted no time here introducing sin. Create light. Create the world. Create plants and animals. Create man and woman. Bring on the sin. But sin was brought on when Eve, at the advice of the serpent, tasted the apple, the fruit of the forbidden "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which is introduced in Genesis 2, verse 17.
What has always been a puzzle to me is why it would be sinful to have knowledge of what is good and what is evil. Isn't that the basis of self-preservation? Aren't we supposed to do what is good and avoid what is evil?
What Ishmael tries to say, and what is followed up on in The Story of B, is that about 10,000 years ago, mankind went through a transformation in how he thought and how he lived. He chose to part ways with the natural way of living, the way that had evolved through the ages, the way that was in touch with all of the rest of the creatures on earth. Mankind parted company with sustainable living and entered on the path of civilization and domination that has brought us to where we are today. We are set on consuming the very world which sustains us. In the process, we have virtually destroyed any sustainable lifestyles.
While Ishmael's message is fascinating, what struck me the most was that for the first time in my life, I felt I had a handle on the story of "original sin." For the longest time, I wondered what the sin was. Was it that Adam and Eve disobeyed God? If so, then why did God put that tree there in the first place? To tempt mankind into sin? Does that make sense? Why would God create the perfect world and then tempt man to make the whole world fall into sin? I could never buy this argument.
But reading Ishmael, it dawned on me that it was the fruit itself that was the sin. Think about it. What is the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if not that knowledge itself? But what is that knowledge? What does that term refer to? I have finally concluded that it refers to morality. What is morality if not the knowledge of good and evil? But to understand why it is a sin, I think the definition here needs a little twist. I don't think this refers to knowing what is good in God's eyes and what is Evil in them. I think this refers to humans defining what is good and what is evil. I see a huge difference here.
I don't think there is sin in knowing what God's plan is, why creation exists and what the future offers. Nor do I think there is sin in identifying God's truth from the false truths of deception. But as soon as sin was introduced into the world, what was the first thing Adam and Eve did? They made clothes. Right? And we all know the connection between clothes and morality. So the original sin was that they established human morality. The freedom God allowed them wasn't enough. Perfection of nature wasn't enough. They needed morality and rules to live by. And that was a sin! The sin!

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Chalabi? Again?

When you read political news about Iraq, it gets hard to figure out just who our enemies are and who are our allies. In this weekend's edition of the Bangor Daily News there was an article on page A5 written by AP writer Maggie Michael titled "Controversial Chalabi could be Iraq's first PM" and yes, PM means Prime Minister.
Like what!!?
I thought the CIA outed Chalabi last year or something, accused him of slipping classified information to Iran or something, raided his place and dragged off his computers and all that. Shortly after that, though, I did read that Rumsfeld and the Neo-Cons were at Condi Rice's door asking for her to do something to help out the Pentagon's choice, Chalabi, and restore him to influence. A little while later, George Tennet resigned as head of the CIA.
I guess that now with Bush's fellow Skull and Bones man as head of the CIA, things got turned around and now Chalabi has been forgiven and slipped back into Iraq's government as part of the January 30 election's winning party.
The strange thing to me is that other than one sighting of him on a talk show on Public Television the night after the election, the only mention I had heard of Chalabi was when Juan Cole recently wrote that he was a distant and unlikely prospect for the Prime Minister slot. Now he's the number 2 choice in a two-way secret ballot vote to be held by the United Iraqi Alliance. (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/10907734.htm)
How can all of this take place beneath the radar of mainstream US media?
My impression of Chalabi ever since I first began noticing him during the 2003 war was that he sure seems like slime. He reminds me of the Mafia. Word has it that he is wanted in Jordan for embezzling $300 million from his own bank before slipping out of the country. It is reported that much of the false information about Iraq's weapons production and stockpiles came to the Pentagon from Chalabi's group. Since the war in 2003, there have been reports of corruption involving family members of Chalabi. In my mind, there's no doubt about it. If Bush wants a corrupt leader in Iraq, Chalabi is the man for the job. But hey, that's just my impression of the man.

Hot Potatoe

Does anyone remember Dan Quayle?
Potatoe, anyone?
There seems to be another hot potatoe in another Bush White House now, the Jeff Gannon thing. It almost looks like it is so hot it is being pretty much avoided by the mainstream media (MSM). But if you've been reading any of the less-than-conservative bloggers regarding this guy, this little issue seems to be just about to blow some serious steam. Maybe not, though. The Bush people seem to have a way of quieting stormy waters. But according to what I have read this weekend, it appears that there may be one or more White House guys who have somewhat less than a right-wing take on "family values" and "Moral Majority" - shall we say - "orientation"?
The real fun is happening here:
I'm no prude. A guy can sell his body to the gay community if he wants. I have no beef with that. Sure, it's against the law, but so are a lot of things. But when a guy's day job is gay-bashing while his night job is gay prostitution? Or maybe when his day job is defending the Bush morality agenda while at night he seems otherwise oriented? What can I say?
This should help a struggling America to learn something. Anything. OK, maybe not Quayle, but at least somebody might learn something!