Words and Deeds

May 29, 2008

In yet another display of someone succumbing to the politically correct thought police, Sharon Stone apologized for her remarks about the earthquake in China being karmic retribution for the country’s abhorrent treatment of Tibetans.

Here’s what she said yesterday:

“I’m not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don’t think anyone should be unkind to anyone else,” Stone said, according to footage widely available on YouTube.

“And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma — when you’re not nice that the bad things happen to you?”

The Backlash: Christian Dior has pulled their ads featuring Ms. Stone in the Chinese media, and folks are all in a tizzy because she called the Chinese on their blatant human rights abuses.

A contrite Stone gave in to the criticism: “My erroneous words and deeds angered and saddened the Chinese people, and I sincerely apologise for this. “I’m willing to participate in any earthquake relief activity and to do my utmost to help Chinese people affected by the disaster.”

 Why should people be so afraid to speak their minds these days? I suspect she’s right about China’s bad karma. In addition to their oppression of Tibetan citizens, human rights workers, and other marginal populations, they might also be answering for their abject disdain for women and girls in their practice of female infanticide.  Not that I’m an unfeeling person, but it seems to me that the quake made a small inroad to the overpopulation problem of China.

Sharon dear, stand your ground. If anyone should apologize, it should be China. Why aren’t they sorry for their atrocious animal olympics? Trafficking of Korean women? Tolerance of violence against women?

Sharon, where is your backbone lady? Don’t you have enough money and stability to say to the house of Dior, “Look, I meant what I said, I stand behind it, and if you’re ready to capitulate to the Chinese because of your greed, you go right ahead. I don’t need this job and I’ve said my piece.”

Understand this, I don’t have it in  for China. They’re just one of the many socially backwards cultures on this planet. I’m not particularly sympathetic with the plight of Tibetans, and I don’t really care about celebrity opinions on anything. I just wish that people would grow a pair and own their points of view. Why are people so quick to apologize for having an opinion these days? It’s not a crime to say what you think.

 Well, in China it is.








Hello…Is This Thing On?

May 22, 2008

Thought I’d write about a little experiment I conducted a few weeks ago as I was coming to the difficult conclusion that there is no Cosmic Daddy, Mommy, or even a Cosmic Customer Service Rep up/out yonder.

I was reading another blogster’s posts about signs. He’s really gung ho about how the Universe communicates with us, answering our questions, so that one does not have to resort to eeny-meeny-miny-mo, coming to a decision in such a random fashion.

Following his advice, I thought of a question I needed an answer to, and gave a 24 hour time limit for receiving the sign. I dialed up the Cosmic 411 and asked, “Should I sell my car?” Over the next 24 hours nothing jumped out at me. I didn’t see “For Sale” signs on cars, I didn’t hear any songs or announcments on the radio or TV that seemed pointed at my question. Nothing.

A week later, I asked again, this time I asked for a specific sign: a white feather. “If it’s a good idea to sell my car right now, please indicate with a white feather within 24 hours.”

No white feather. No gray, black, speckled or any other kind of feather. No real feathers, no pictures of feathers or songs about feathers. Nothing.

According to Berlitz’s Angelic Signs to English traveler’s dictionary, No sign means a “No” answer. The answer was ‘No, don’t sell your car right now.’ Really? Hmmm….

I wanted to verify the ‘answer’, so I posed the question in reverse: If I should NOT sell my car right now, please send a white feather as a sign over the next 24 hours.”

No feather or any other indication that the Universe was entertaining my enquiry appeared.

Conclusion: Nobody’s home. Angels/God/ To Whom It May Concern–all busted.  It seems then that the decision, as it always has been, is up to me.

Come As You Are; Leave the Same Way

May 17, 2008


Wait–Come back! The Bible…it’s a COOKBOOK!”


No longer having a spiritual agenda, I struggle to occupy my thoughts with other things. This is no easy task, as I’ve spent most of my life–since my early childhood, in spiritual contemplation. I’ve lived the live of a monk, and now, godless, I’m at a loss of what to wrap my mind around.

Get a life might be your first suggestion, and it would be a good one. Perhaps I’ve indulged in spiritual inquiry as a way to avoid life. Now I’m forced to either take action or languish in ennui. I’ll probably mope for a while, since it’s just my way. But not having to worry about how my thoughts might be affecting my life is freeing, and I can move through it without judgment. I’m becoming convinced that there are no wrong choices and no right choices. There are just different outcomes, and they are what they are. All paths lead you to exactly where you are. Duh.

This will get easier.

About Sides and Signs

May 9, 2008

I stayed up late the other night watching The Messenger, one of the many versions of the Jeanne D’Arc story.
Dustin Hoffman played her Conscience, and the dialouge between his character and Milla Jovovich’s Joan was a revealing, naked account of what Catholics and Christians would certainly interpret as the sin of doubt, and dwindling faith, and what I would call critical thinking.

Joan was trying to justify the events that had led to her circumstances, second-guessing her defense to the tribunal’s interrogation. Of course she had done the right things, of course she was on the correct path, she had seen the signs, and obeyed the divine directives.

“The signs? What signs?” presses her Conscience. “The wind; the clouds, the bells!” says Joan. You can see doubt darken her expression as she realizes how nebulous these phenomena are as signs.

“…the sword! The sword in the field–surely that’s a sign!” She’s found her irrefutible sign from God…she thinks.

“A sword in a field a sign from God?” her Conscience disparages. “It’s a sword in a field.” Hoffman goes on, postulating some of the different ways the sword could have wound up in that field. “For every action there is a cause; nothing exists in a vacuum.” Of course, this would be terribly sophisticated reasoning for a 15th century illiterate peasant girl. But at least in this film, she couldn’t refute the logic; her bubble was burst.

And the whole Joan of Arc story is about bursting bubbles. The English needed to find her guilty of heresy to restore morale and faith to its Catholic soldiers. If God is on France’s side, how can we, the English faithful, believe that he hears our righteous prayers? This conundrum might cause one to question how many side God can take, and if he would choose one faithful adversary over another, what then is the point of belief? And if one cannot make sense of religion as a team sport, then maybe the rest fails in reason also. Here is the slippery slope of doubt that the Church and England wished to avoid with Joan’s trial and execution.

If you find a sword in a field, it’s just a sword in a field.