Wind Storm in Seattle - power out

Seattle is a beautiful place. It's green all over. The problem with all this great greenery is when Mother Nature decides to throw some wind at it, it all falls down. On top of power lines.

Between that and the rain this place is a mess. I've been out of power for two days now. Everything's pretty higgeldy piggeldy around here. They expect it to take a few more days to get things back on track.

They got the power back on in my office and that's where I'm at right now. I brought the kids in and we're hanging out until things are charged and then we head home. They brought the poker set and they're playing Texas Hold'em in the conference room. At least I can charge up my cel phone and stuff. In an ironic note, the only warm place in the building is my server room, which is about 80 degrees because the air conditioning's been off in there with all those computers blowing heat since the power came back on in here this morning. The HVAC still hasn't gotten it's ducks back in a row and I don't expect it to until next week sometime.

It looks it's trying to snow on top of all this. We're back in the freezing range and with no power that means no heat for a lot of people around here. We have a fireplace in my apartment and stuff so we're good, but it's been interesting. I haven't chopped firewood in a LOONNNGGG time and boy does my back know it.

Needless to say, this was not in the schedule for getting Christmas ready or anything else.

We're all okay. I'll be in and out as time/power permits. For the usual over-wrought news portrayals, you can go to http://www.king5.com

Truth and Beauty

Guest Volokh-Conspirator Fernando Tesón has a post titled "AGAINST POLITICAL ART."

Some excerpts...

Art is a type of concrete imagery, and as such it evokes a “fact” that may activate default theories in the audience. Those willing to challenge the political stances represented by the artifact have to overcome the suggestive power of beauty.

The implication here is that the beauty of a piece of art gives it unearned credibility. I disagree.

I think truth has a certain beauty, and that the ease in which an idea can be translated into something beautiful can serve as an indicator for its truth.

Political art’s appeal to emotion usurps reasoned political argument. If you think big oil is responsible for the evils in the world, make an argument. The movie Syriana[sic] will not do.

For small questions, like whether a specific modern political party is better, or whether Saddam had WMD, or if big oil is responsible for the evil in the world, a work of art should not convince anybody. JFK was an entertaining movie, but it shouldn't have convinced anyone there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.

For the purpose, I'm not considering things like documentaries. Obviously, it would not be out of line to be convinced an event ocurred by documentary film footage of that very event.


But for larger questions, like what kind of society we want to be, I think art servers a role. It can show us the perspective of people we might not otherwise encounter. It can filter out some of the complications and noise so we can see a question clearly.

But this can go wrong, too. I'm obviously biased, but in my opinon, the makers of The Cider House Rules abused their power as filmmakers by stacking the deck in favor of their point of view.

Political satire is an interesting case. One reason it is particularly effective is that it generates an additional cost for those willing to challenge its purported message, for in that case the challenger becomes the “party pooper” who spoils the fun by taking the satire seriously. So comedians like Jon Stewart not only ridicule political figures or views. Whether intentionally or not, they also preempt objections to the intended political message (“Give me a break! Where is your sense of humor?”).

This is interesting in terms of Volokh's long-running criticism of the Bushism feature. Satire can be a bit of a coward's game. If you have a point, you land a blow. If you don't, hey -- it's just a joke -- what are you getting so upset about?

Obviously, satire can be deployed substantially and effectively. But in the modern discourse, it does seem that cleverness serves as a substitute for rigor.

We expect David Letterman to throw some cheap shots. I don't think we should expect them from publications like Slate.

Thus, a novel may convince readers that their prior belief in the kindness of the police is wrong, and that in reality the police are henchmen of the ruling class. No doubt these readers may regard this novel as having transformed their beliefs on the matter, and in that sense political art may be seen as challenging their beliefs. At a deeper level, however, the novel may well have appealed to the reader’s default theories, for example by showing the role of the police in making some people rich at the poor’s expense – a zero-sum explanation that is inferior to explanations derived from reliable social science.

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. Mostly because I think people are basically decent, but get worn down by life and some of the messages they receive. If a film can remind us of our nobler instincts, things like, "hey -- invading countries causes a lot of suffering, so we ought to be sure before we do it," and then we re-examine our positions in light of this reminder, I see that as a good thing.

Thoughts on Cyber-Identity

Reposted from Best of the Fray (now purged), with permission.

Anonyms as Antonyms
By Zeus-Boy
May 18 2006 11:53AM

The true nature of cyber-subjectivity is quite inscrutable, especially when the Fichtean Tathandlung of the ego may be disrupted, decentered, disintegrated and multiplied. If any one identity can fragment itself into multiple anonyms, then how can we assert any trust in who we 'meet'? It is quite possible to inaugurate a 'kairotic schizophrenia', whereby the same subject who is adored and reviled by another subject, can himself adore and revile that same subject or multiple subjects in turn. Normative constraints no longer exist and we have truly entered Georgias' ontological triad (Nothing exists; If anything existed, it could not be known; and if anything existed and could be known, it could not be communicated). The cyber-dystopia we now inhabit is Zeno's world of irreconcilable contradictions run rampant: everything is fluid, heterogeneous, playful and malleable; power is decentralized and dispersed; egos continually change, put on new masks, become their own antinomies, then become like floating signs, plastic, shape-shifting entitites, that are unstable and unknowable, all of which makes any supposition of building a cyber-community impossible. As one thinker on the topic put it,

If fluid subjectivity in total disintegration is a virtue welcomed in cyberspace, the subject who takes part in any activities of virtual communities would hardly achieve any identity. How can a group of fragmented, fluid, disintegrated subjects perform identification to reach a possible identity? At best, what they can work out is only an identity of non-identity. If a communal identity is possible to achieve out of subjectivity, then this subjectivity will never be totally fluid and disintegrated. Thus the subjectivity-identity relation in this postmodernist context is no more than an oxymoron, an aporia. (Mark Poster)

Thus, any attempted reconciliation of subjectivity with communal identity will only lead to total loss of identity because, if we follow Jean-Luc Nancy, we know that any attempt to form a traditional community, even in cyberspace, is only a means of fixing identity, tying it down so that the political cannot fully open up: multiple identities (whatever their source) oppose community, so that the corollary, the urge to form a community is only another way to constrain otherness, or subjectivity, to rein in the proliferation of identities. In psychotherapy, multiple personality disorder is a way of blocking ego formation, therefore fixing identity and, in a way, subverting the threat of a multiplicity of identities. Similarly, in cyber-space, many anonyms, especially if they are antagonistic, stand in the way of forming the orderly, structured society. The possibility of identity-shifting, mask wearing, being all in one is anathema to that which cannot exist in the first place, the perfectly structured cyber community. Who knows or can predict what it does to the ethics of communication: can honesty be truly expected of an anonymous gaming stranger? The only safeguard against total chaos, or cyber-anarchy, is either to dispense with trust entirely, or to pretend to trust only those who pretend to trust you. Hostility is suitably reserved for the unknown unless, squaring circles, we can verify each anonym before it shifts again and becomes endlessly unknowable.


TenaciousK's Response:

Postmodernism gives me a headache. It’s not so much I object to throwing out organizing frameworks, I’m just left wondering how it is I know anything.

But from that perspective, I have a response.

Although Tathandlung (or, in the vernacular, “identity”) can be “disrupted, decentered, disintegrated and multiplied,” there is a cost associated with ego-fragmentation. Nor is the sum of your ego fragments equal to the sum of the unified whole – fragmentation destroys the gestalt; there is no synergy because there is no synthesis. So when you talk about “kairotic schizophrenia” and refer to each ego fragment as through it were equivalent to a unified self, I think you’re deluding yourself.

Even your quote starts with an implied caveat: “If fluid subjectivity in total disintegration is welcomed in cyberspace…” Are we sure it is? There are certainly subjects present – we sense their cohesiveness in the unexpected surprises we encounter in their responses, that despite their unpredictability, are congruent with our evolving impression of the identity behind the words. As we abandon our preconceptions and allow ourselves to be surprised by the unexpected, we become familiar with the individual as a cohesive identity. We seek congruence, and become suspicious when we don’t encounter it. So when the author asks, “How can a group of fragmented, fluid, disintegrated subjects perform identification to reach a possible identity?” The answer is, they can’t – at least not a cohesive one. Yet there are distinct communities nonetheless. The only conclusion I can draw is that communities are composed of more than “fragmented, fluid, disintegrated subjects.”

Your example of multiple personality disorder is certainly appropriate, yet you don’t address why this may not be a preferable state of identity development. Without a cohesive sense of self, it is impossible to resolve various ambivalences about the universe. Without a coherent sense of self, organized behavior becomes increasingly impossible – for every push, there is an equal counter-force. Ambivalence is played out over time through vacillation, instead of a stable, nuanced, sophisticated impression that more closely approximates both the object in question, and the person’s relationship to it. If you allow ego-fragmentation to continue unabated, eventually you are left with a never-ending argument: entropic paralysis.

If one were to take your argument a step further, one would have to wonder how it is we ever really know anyone? The cyber-world is not really that different from the world of meat and dust and bones – despite your attempt to define is as such. Can honesty really be expected of anyone? Anywhere? Although you may believe you leave your sense of self behind when you log on, you bring your shadow with you. Can we ever really trust anyone? Each of us answers that question ourselves.

Your apparent delight in the power of being the playful, mutable, masked, unknowable being who delights in toying with the reactions of those less fragmented by allowing the identity schisms to evolve unrestrained is noted, however. But your conclusion about the impossibility of building a cyber-community is flawed – based on a faulty assumption about the characteristics of community members, and your unwillingness to acknowledge the essentially organizing nature of identity. Although there will certainly be betrayals and breaches of trust (primarily due to this fragmentation you champion*), a cohesive community will also evolve. We all crave recognition. The most satisfying recognition is when you reflect something to me that I couldn’t already see. Given the apparent value you grant ego-fragmentation, and the unpredictability this entails, this does speak to your point at last. If I truly took you as you presented yourself here, you are a person I would not trust.

But I'm not you.

*Unresolved feelings of shame also entail an identity schism, and we are subject to their evocation as we see these divorced aspects of ourselves reflected in others. We can’t get past them until we can acknowledge them and incorporate them into our global impression of ourselves – ego integration. This is the opposite of what you espouse here.


_{Note: These are only the first two posts in the conversation. The rest have been lost.}

Bearing Gifts

Because I was spoiled by my father as a child, and because my mother bought me something after every one of her drunken benders, I’m hard to buy gifts for. Gifts are not merely a nicety between loved ones on special occasions, they’re an indication of how much you love me or of how much it’ll cost before I forgive you. When my new boyfriend asked me what I’d like for Christmas, I told him that he could either spend hours agonizing over what to get me and then wait anxiously to see if I’m devastated or thrilled with his choice, or he can give me something I can return for something I want. Best of all, I said, is to give me something he likes. At least that way someone will enjoy it.

But really, how does one buy gifts for anyone these days when we all have two of everything we ever wanted? We live in Instant Gratification World. If I want something, I just go get it, and it’s usually not candles so smelly that they make my nose itch, nor is it bath products that make the water form into a geyser with little dancing fairies on top.

Not that I don’t appreciate consumable gifts. At least one can make them go away. If one doesn’t use them oneself, one can regift them to that unsuspecting acquaintance at the office who passes out jars of her home-made pickled bananas every Christmas. My Aunt Linda just loves those. She lets out an excited little squeak every time she unwraps a jar. There are certain consumable gifts that I just can’t get enough of, like gift certificates for pedicures, or for any other service which takes place in a spa. A brazilian wax might be a bit off-side, though — besides which, I take care of that the old-fashioned way: with a razor.

We all just have too much crap. I don’t want any more. The clutter bothers me. It makes me feel confined, tied down when I want to be free. In a market glutted with consumer goods manufactured in China for next to nothing, we all have more fashion accessories and kitschy ornaments than we could ever have dreamed of owning a decade ago. How many beaded evening bags does one person need? None, actually, because who goes out anymore? And how many silver-plated pasta servers is one too many? I’ll tell you: it’s one, because the one I received as a gift seven years ago sits in my kitchen drawer, black with tarnish, never used. Maybe I’ll polish it up and give it to someone I love like know this Christmas. Really, someone should invent a generic sort of gift that one is supposed to unwrap, admire, and then immediately pass on. It could go round and round among friends, briefly loved by all, and reducing the amount of crap in landfills. The "Environmentally Friendly Regift." It could be a jar of pickled bananas.

I always appreciate getting gag gifts, because rather than imploring me to wear them with pride or display them prominently on my mantle they merely hope to give me a few moments’ amusement. For this reason, they often end up displayed on my mantle (if not worn). The gold-and-green-and-red glitter-covered moneycat I got as a wedding gift enjoyed a place of pride in my home for the six years of my marriage, and my husband and I included it in the division of property when we drew up our separation agreement. I agreed to let him take it, but I still miss it a little.

I like giving gag gifts, too. A couple of friends of mine have a suburban backyard farm. They started with five cats and a couple of dogs, and then began taking in foster-rabbits. They planted vegetables. They got some chickens. A pot-bellied pig followed. Christmas shopping one year, I spotted a fat green ceramic chicken and had to get it for them, but it was just too ridiculous to part with, and I ended up keeping it. It’s perched atop one of my speakers in the living room. Whenever I look at it, I think of them.

My dad was the best gift giver, if a little extravagant. I’ll never forget the $100 clock radio when I turned 14. In 1978. On my 20th birthday, when I was living in Ottawa, he FedExed me a fresh B.C. salmon. I complained that since he’d failed to include the barbeque, I would have to bake it in the oven, and I described the spinach and pine nut dressing I was going to stuff it with. Sounds great, he said. Well, come on over, I said. A couple of days later he showed up at my apartment door. The salmon was gone by then, so he took us all to his friend’s Turkish restaurant, and we drank Ouzo into the wee hours of the morning. One of those little table-top gas barbeques arrived in the mail the following year on my birthday.

The worst present I ever got was a posthumous gift from my stepmother. My father only lived another seven years after sending off that gas barbeque, and when he died, he left all his assets to his second wife. She remained a part of our lives, and every year on Christmas and on birthdays, she gave us gifts she’d found at garage sales. She died fourteen years after my father, leaving the house they had built to her sister. She’d pre-paid a videographer to record her funeral for posterity, and we all got a copy of that. I think I recorded The Larry Sanders Show over top of it.

What I really, really, really want:

A palm-like device that’s a mini-pc with an MP3 player, a phone, a voice recorder, GPS, internet, email, and tivo/pay-per-view account. I want it to have all the computer software that I use now, with on-line storage for all my data so that I don’t have to own another computer, and access through two or more networks, so that I’m never locked out. I want a bunch of peripherals that sync with it: an LCD monitor (living room and office); a keyboard (a folding one, or one of those projection thingys); a sound system. I want everyone else to have one of these, too, so that everywhere I go, I can plug into the existing peripherals and shop, work, dance or surf porn. I want to be able to wear this device on a chain around my neck, or have it physically implanted into my body. I would consider replacing one of my ribs with it. Who needs all those ribs, anyway? I want to be free.

What do you want for Christmas?

Iraq Study Group Minutes Leaked

A Brief Glimpse Inside A Think Tank
Secret Notes Prove Diplomacy Alive And Well In Fantasy Land
By switters™
Posted Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 9:18 AM CST

Talk about a Hot Document. Man. I just hope nobody's preggers! Caution: Many Bothans died for this information. Proceed at your own risk.

"September 20, 2006

8:45 AM – 8:52 AM, Discuss whether or not Iraq is a country
8:53 AM – 9:08 AM, Conclude that it is, and that it's somewhere in the middle of The East
9:09 AM – 9:12 AM, Discuss Iran as a future threat to U.S.
9:13 AM – 10:21 AM, Discuss the slow, sad, painful toilet swirl that is Britney Spears' career and reputation, and the giant, huge enormity of her sow-like weight gain
10:22, Break for brunch
1:35 PM – 1:46 PM, Discuss possible troop withdrawal as early as next Spring
1:47 PM – 3:15 PM, Discuss possible candidacy for presidential run and campaign as early as this Spring
3:16 PM – 4:44 PM, Smoke break (for Hamilton, trying to quit, 5th time now)
4:45 PM – 4:48 PM, realize it's almost 5:00 PM and call it a day

September 21, 2006

10:15 AM – 10:23 AM, Waiting on Baker in the bathroom (apparently a piece of his sausage biscuit "broke off" and Jimmy Dean decided to "throw his hat into the ring", P and U)
10:24 AM – 11:56 AM, Heated discussion on how loose stools are responsible for more diplomatic snafus than any other single bodily function
11:57 AM – 12:09 PM, Discuss Alan K. Simpson's "Daisy with a Smiley Face", and unanimously vote it Best Doodle of the Day
12:09 PM – 12:35 PM, Read aloud the minutes from yesterday's session
12:36 PM – 12:45 PM, Conclude yesterday was quite productive, break for lunch
2:47 PM – 2:51 PM, Discuss Iran's nuclear capabilities and how that relates to uranium enrichment
2:52 PM – 2:55 PM, Conclude that it doesn't, or won't anyway
2:56 PM – 4:35 PM, Discuss whether or not TomKat's baby Suri is an alien space robot
4:36 PM – 4:40 PM, Conclude to leave it up to further discussion
4:41 PM – ???, quick Boggle™ tournament snowballs out of control, track of time lost

September 22, 2006

11:30 AM – 11:32 AM, Discuss breaking for lunch
11:33 AM – 11:34 AM, Conclude to agree to break for lunch
2:36 PM – 2:41 PM, Discuss Syria's influence over Lebanon
2:41 PM – 3:45 PM, Get sidetracked and conclude Mel was definitely "under the influence"
3:46 PM – 4:30 PM, Get sidetracked further and discuss "the Israel influence in America"
4:31 PM – 5:50 PM, conference call with The Bilderberg Group
5:51 PM – 6:36 PM, get sidetracked further and discuss Jolie's influence over Pitt
6:37 PM – 6:40 PM, get sidetracked even further and conclude that Johnny Depp's eyes are "dreamy"
6:41 PM – 6:43 PM, (Allegedly) destroy today's minutes, adjourn 'till tomorrow, 7:30 AM, to get an early start and avoid the eerily early holiday traffic

September 23, 2006

9:48 AM – 10:12 AM, Discuss if we weren't the only ones trying to avoid the eerily early holiday traffic
10:13 AM – 10:15 AM, Conclude that we weren't
10:16 AM, Break for brunch (Ed Meese made poppy seed muffins, Yum!)
1:20 PM – 1:35 PM, Discuss Lebanon's influence over the Palestinian people
1:36 PM – 2:10 PM, Discuss Beverly Hills 90210's influence over The OC
2:11 PM – 2:33 PM, Conclude that they shouldn't have killed off Marissa last season because Mischa Barton was one of the few reasons anyone watched the show in the first place
2:34 PM – 5:31 PM, Discuss Mischa's career, from playing a little girl whose mother is feeding her Cream of Drano soup in The Sixth Sense all the way to Closing The Ring, which, concluded excitedly, could be what Pulp Fiction was for Uma Thurman
5:32 PM – 5:46 PM, Discuss whether or not Sandra Day O'Connor is "holding"
5:47 PM – 5:50 PM, Conclude that she is
5:51 PM – 6:09 PM, Rolling papers search
6:10 PM – 6:11 PM, Eureka! Thanking god for Georgetown grad students
6:12 PM – 6:23 PM, Pass to the right
6:24 PM – 9:15 PM, Discuss how the Gilligan's Island episode with the Japanese soldier who thinks World War 2 is still going on could so totally happen in real life
9:16 PM – 9:45 PM, "Munchies Patrol", locate vending machine, Panetta breaks glass with his head, score
9:46 PM – ???, ???

September 24, 2006

12:24 PM – 12:36 PM, Look at each other somewhat embarrassed in silence
12:37 PM – 4:15 PM, Read yesterday's minutes aloud and try to piece together exactly what happened
4:16 PM – 5:01, Conclude that those incidents will stay in this room forever
5:02 PM – 5:14 PM, Discuss insurgency thingie
5:15 PM – 5:18 PM, Conclude that we need to tell Iran and Syria to knock it off in a stern letter in so many words
5:18 PM – 6:35 PM, Discuss tonight's upcoming episode of Deal Or No Deal
6:36 PM – 7:01 PM, Conclude NBC is trying desperately to keep the contestants very "melting pot-ish" looking
7:02, Larry Eagleburger shows up with case of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a Giant bag of Funyuns (conclude he's still high)
7:03 PM – 9:05 PM, "Belch-off"
9:06 PM – 9:43 PM, Discuss how Shallow Hal was robbed at the Oscars
9:44 PM – 9:50 PM, Group hug, goes on a little to long, Vernon Jordan blamed
9:51 PM – 9:52 PM, hurried leaving and goodbyes

Septemeber 25 – December 2, 2006, Much deserved group hiatus

December 3, 2006 ("The Day Of Conclusions, And Atonement")

9:15 AM, Conclude that The United State of America did indeed at some point in the last 4 years or so in fact invade Iraq, which is indeed in fact a country

9:30 AM, Conclude that everything was going just fine in Iraq right up until the midterm elections, at which point it started going not just fine, and that it's almost as if the Iraq thingie turned into a giant, civil war quagmire virtually over night (weird)

9:40 AM, Conclude that O'Connor should apologize to Baker for calling him a useless has-been with breath that could stop an American military invasion that's sort of not legal

9:45 AM, Conclude that it's imperative that the new Democratically controlled House and Senate work with President Bush, unlike how uncooperative the House and Senate were when they were controlled by the President's own party (also weird)

10:10 AM, Conclude that there really is something to The Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force (not to mention the switters Doctrine of Overwhelming Cocktails), and that it's almost always a good idea when you're invading another country to bring 3 more divisions than you think you really need (and one more keg than you think they can drink)

10:20 AM, Conclude that playing partisan politics is almost never a good reason for 11 soldiers to die

10:30 AM, Conclude, ultimately, that talk is still pretty cheap these days, and that, on account of inflation, should be a real feather in the cap for you supply-siders"

McGwire Post Summary...

My post on Mark McGwire was getting way too long and I don't have the will to finish it. You can see what I have here.

Basically, I think it makes sense to discount McGwire's accomplishments because he played under conditions favorable to home run totals, and there's no reason to think he benifitted from that less than anyone else.

I think the most apt discount would be to compare his relative accomplishments (in terms of awards, All-Star appearances, league leadership) to that of other power hitters, and see where that places him. His HR total would ordinarily suffice to get him in the Hall of Fame, but not under these circumstances. If he led the league in home runs as often as, say, Mike Schimidt or Ralph Kiner, he should be in. If it's more like Jim Rice or Dale Murphy, then he should share their fate.

My cursory look at McGwire puts him closer to the near Hall of Famers than the Hall of Famers, a borderline candidate. But then he's got pretty much nothing else going for him, so I don't think he should be in.

Football Roundup

How bad can your QB be?
Bill Simmons writes of the Ravens:

Very good defense, crummy offense. We've been here before. We'll be here again.

and then the Bears:

I'm a big believer that you can win the Super Bowl with a great defense and a mediocre QB. You can even win with a great defense and a streaky QB. But you can't win with a bad QB. It's never happened before.

Here's my take -- the QB has to be good enough that the team can credibly believe in him, and have enough charisma that the team wants to believe in him.

A guy like Jeff George had the talent, but the teams didn't really want him to succeed, so his career never really took off.

For the Bears, Grossman is fast getting to the point where it is hard to credibly believe in him. The team might like him; they may want him to succeed, but it's hard to put forth maximum effort when this guy might piss it all away.

For the Ravens, Steve McNair may not be the same QB he was before, but the team trusts him. They think that if the work hard enough to put him in a position to win, he'll come through. For them, that's enough.

Jags defeat Colts
The Colts are officially in trouble now. They've got a huge weakness, and the Jags showed how to take advantage of it.

Saints thrash Cowboys in Big D
I guess the Saints are for real now. They've got to be considered a contender to get to the Super Bowl now.

Eagles move to 7-5
Guess they're not dead yet -- we'll see how they do tonight.

Bears/Rams tonight
I wouldn't bet on either starting QB finishing this game, and I think the Bears roll.

Responses without links

1. I sense an impending clash of conspiracy theorists. Let me know when to make the popcorn.
   
   
2. “h” “i” , you fucking moron.
   
   
3. You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
   
   
4. Sometimes I read your posts aloud because I enjoy them more that way. In addition to your other proficiencies, you have a remarkable ear for the music of language.
   
   
5. Donate it to charity, and have them send a thank-you note.
   
   
6. I want to fuck you.
   
   
7. You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
   
   
8. Your mean streak has circled back to meet itself. Congratulations on becoming a giant anus.
   
   
9. You’re drunk again, aren’t you?
   
   
10. No, no — I want to know what turns you off. Is there a switch?
    
    
11. Aw, geez. You’re sweet.
    
    
12. I wasn’t worried.
    
    
13. Must you do that in public?
    
    
14. You’re a sad, strange little man.
    
    
15. Yeah, well – bad news: the rest of us see it, too.
    
    
16. You’re drunk again, aren’t you?

Why Santa is Better than Jesus

by the ReverendAlBacon

• Santa keeps his promises; Jesus makes hollow threats. Santa actually comes when He says He will. Jesus is always coming, but never actually arrives. The coming of Santa is a promise of delight yearly fulfilled; the coming of Jesus is a perpetual threat, never delivered.
  
  
• Santa claims to save no one, nor extorts belief. The democratic gospel of Santa assures us that He provides unstintingly even to non-believers; the churches of Jesus are a private club, for which the price of admission is obedience and the cost of exclusion is the threat of eternal pain.
  
  
• The churches of Jesus are a cult of death, and life as subservient to death. Santa is about life, and celebrating the superfluous pleasures that grace this life.
  
  
• The worship of Jesus revolves around discomfort, shame and cannibalism. The celebration of Santa revolves around food, drink, family, and gift-giving. Jesus attempts to extort near-constant attention and obeisance; Santa only claims our attention once a year.
  
  
• They're both voyeurs, but Santa doesn't care about our sex lives; Jesus has an unhealthy obsession with them. Santa is happily married; Jesus was a sexually confused virgin who hung out with prostitutes.
  
  
• There is no church of Santa. There are no priests of Santa. There will never be a crusade for Santa, no Santa Inquisition. We may suspect that some shopping-mall Santa Clauses have pederastic sub-motives, but this is as nothing compared to the documented abuse of children within the churches.
  
  
• Santa loves the least among us -- drunks, drug addicts, the homeless -- and gives them a job every year, impersonating Him and His minions. Jesus claimed to love the poor, but he never provides them with seasonal employment.
  
  
• Santa loves to laugh and eat; Jesus bleeds and weeps.
  
  
• Santa gives to believing children all that is benign about an authentic religious experience, and little or none of what is disgusting.
  
  
• Above all, Santa is better than Jesus because everyone accepts that it is right and appropriate to stop believing in Santa as you start to become an adult; yet millions continue to think that adults can and should continue to believe in Jesus.

_{Reprinted with permission.}