Stand Up or Shutdown: The Government Shutdown & National Default Explained

For the record, "The Grand Daily" is currently a figure of speech more than an actual delivery schedule. But a little more product should be shoved onto these digital shelves, to be sure. It's a work in progress.

When this post was initially named, government shutdown was a likely, but not realized cliff over which the United States was peering. Domestic affairs were for the moment secondary to international attention: newsworthiness ranged week to week from Egypt (completely ignored by the media by this point) to Syria (equally forgotten since the -inspectors returned in what continues to be startling analogous to Iraq pre-2003).

But, as the cliche goes, time makes fools of us all, and the most dangerous threat came from within. Here we find ourselves, fallen from one cliff and ready to jump off another. Taking a broader view, Congress has been jumping off more cliffs than an annual base-jumping team, which this author believes may be a suitably improved brand for the clusterfuck that currently claims to represent the country.

The funny thing is, in hindsight, it's all too obvious. This story began in 2011, when this author was still a contractor for the Federal Government (working on the FAA NEXTGEN program at the time, and hating every moment). For those who have opted to spend their attention elsewhere, allow the following to catch you up.

In July of 2011, the time of the year had come around for Congress to raise the debt ceiling for (roughly) another year-- this being the official estimate by the U.S. Treasury, who operate as the nation's internal accountants.

At this time Congress (or to be more accurate, the House of Representatives), the Republican Party having recently reclaimed a majority, decided to use this opportunity to flex their muscles as deficit hawks. Or, in plainer English, they seized the opportunity to demand a reduction in the deficit of the Federal budget.

Not to treat any potential readers with mittens, but the Deficit is the annual difference between what the country budgets (and then spends) and what its revenues are. Income - Spending = Deficit (or a surplus if that number is positive, as it was in the 1990's under Bill Clinton before the Bush Tax Cuts,).

The Debt is a scary ~17 trillion dollar figure which is the accumulation of monies owed by the United States government. Deficit hawks (a figure of speech for individuals who are aggressively vocal about the need to reign in spending) sometimes use the rhetorical tool that everyone in the nation, from grandparents to infants, own a personal share of ~$50,000 of that debt. While this sounds like a lot, consider: 1. this is a lifetime debt, not something that will be due in one, two, or ten years (and this nation, hopefully, has a long, long lifetime), and 2.  this also ignores revenue streams such as the corporate tax rate, which, while grossly flawed, does redistribute the weight of this burden. All of this is to say, yes debt it a problem, but the sky is not falling nearly as fast as some of those scary numbers, and the deficit hawks who use them, might imply.

Let this be perfectly clear: raising the debt limit is analogous to receiving an increase in a personal credit limit, but NOT to granting permission for a spending spree. The spending spree would be more accurately compared to the construction of the annual budget, which Congress also (separately) approves.

So this was already a move of poor form: radical elements from the "Tea Party" refused to raise the debt limit, which is usually a procedural and ordinary happenstance. Awful, right?

Unfortunately, President Obama, as a Senator, once did the same thing in 2006. The debt limit was being raised, and he voted against doing so, making a speech about the irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and its spending habits, which produced an enormous deficit within its eight years. He knew it was going to be passed, and that nothing would come of it, so this was a moment of political grandstanding. And now people doing the exact same thing, in greater numbers, are causing an economic calamity. Awkward.

So what happens if the debt ceiling doesn't get raised? Well, legally the United States government would not have the authority to borrow any more money, and barring a "continuing resolution (CR) government services would thus have to shut down. The CR has been the modus operandi for keeping the Federal Government going under the Obama Administration, because it 1. keeps all agencies funded at their current level and 2. is much easier to pass politically, as a short term fix. That's how bad Congressional gridlock (inability for Congress to do anything) has been: they've been operating on temporary budgets for years now, including when the Democrats still had the majority in BOTH houses of Congress in 2009-10. Fail.

There is a crazy legal maneuver out there where the President could mint a coin of infinite value, or something like it, and that's Constitutional. That's how absurd things have gotten, and I'm not going to get into that right now.

Political negotiations went to the literal 11th hour, and minutes before an official imminent government shutdown, a compromise was reached and passed: the Budget Control Act of 2011. What this did was pass a budget for the year without details, but a requirement that a new budget be compiled by a "Super Committee", who would be tasked with responsibly cutting 900 billion dollars from the national deficit over ten years, which would pretty quickly stabilize the national level of debt.

If this grand "Super Committee" could not, over the course of several months, agree to a proposed budget, then something called "sequestration" would go into effect. Sequestration, sometimes called sequester, is the automatic, across the board cuts to both Defense spending and non-Defense budgets (the prior being sacrosanct to the GOP, the latter being protected by the political left).

The idea of the sequester was that it would be So Stupid that they could not possibly let it happen, and Congress would force itself into compromise. This was pretty close to its official description. So guess what happened? Was Congress so stupid to allow sequestration, the thing they intentionally made to be stupid?

Of course.

The Super Committee failed brilliantly, and horrid cuts (which conservatives like John McCain warned could put national security in peril) were made. The idea had been to use a scalpel instead of the sledge hammer, and Congress opted for the sledge. Well done. What's been cut? Things like WIC (a nutrition program for women and infant and children). Political home runs. They opted to not only stop kissing babies, but kick them in the gut.

The NIH  (the National Institute of Health) was cut as well. The nation's best cancer research, disease study and pharmaceutical science arena has been crippled.

What's more, as a result of the political strife, S&P downgraded the United State's Treasury Bills (T-Bills). S&P is responsible for basically saying how safe an investment is, and U.S T-Bills were (forgive the pun) the gold standard, AAA rated. Now, due to the political risk of having a party that has embraced the risk of default, the proud rating has declined to AA. Funny enough, the economic dip that occurred because of this resulted in MORE T-Bills being purchased, because the markets became unstable and T-Bills are still considered reliably safe investments.

As anyone who has ever been in debt knows all too well, climbing out of debt takes some time and patience. It doesn't happen overnight, and even the sequestration takes ten years to completely eliminate the deficit (which has, indeed, plummeted).

But then, the debt limit came back, like that outbreak of herpes you thought was gone for good. And this October, it flared back up.

This time, the CR was going to need to be passed around the time that ObamaCare (or, as those who know what it's actually called, The Affordable Health Care for America Act) was going to go into effect. And the GOP, who control one house in a bicameral Congress, decided that some of its components need to be delayed, or they would NOT vote for a budget.

They've voted for a few budgets, but all of them have attempted to rescind, repeal, delay, or defund ObamaCare, a centerpiece of the Obama Administration on which they spent enormous political capital (think of this as popularity points, and there are a finite number). Guess how many times they've tried to do this before? Seeing as we have a resulting government shutdown, just take a stab? 3? 4? 5?

42. The answer to the universe. Douglas Adams would roll in his grave, to see that 41 times prior they had tried to do this.

The Senate, still held by the Democrats, absolutely will not pass a CR with an attachment that demands repealing The AHCAA. And every CR that the House keeps putting out there has included this.

So the Government shut down.

NASA shut down 97% of their operations. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson why this is a bad thing.

The monuments shut down, causing a publicity stir. Because of trash, vandalism, etc, the monuments have been officially closed-- difficult decisions made by low-ranking bureaucrats abiding by necessities of the shutdown. The Republicans have not only used the WWII veterans as political props, but they've had the gall to blame the Democrats for the shutdown, and implied conspiracies by the President and his party.

And now we are days, HOURS away from default. Where we truly have not enough money to pay Social Security, to pay for T Bills. Defaulting on either one will be an economic calamity which will require another article.

In Defense of Speciesism

From http://www.filemagazine.com/thecollection/

The vegetarian community can be safely assumed to be a substantially liberal. This assumption I make without citation, but it is self-evident from the cultural zeitgeist, identifiable leanings of organizations such as PETA, and the absence of a modern conservative archetype known to adhere to vegetarian or vegan diet. In reality, no obvious dogma prevents the most conservative, evangelical, gun-loving, hard-right winger from becoming an enthusiast of the Whole Foods produce aisle and stir frying every known recipe of tofu. But the thought of Ted Nugent picking that lifestyle up seems absurd.

Sure, Hitler was a right-wing vegetarian. Most vegetarians are not Hitler.

            Meanwhile, the liberal stance in American politics squarely sits in support of gay marriage and the repeal of legislation such as The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the woeful legislative compromise signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Other advances on this agenda have been made under the Obama administration, such as the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which required even greater sacrifice from gay American soldiers than is already required by their service. This is an encouraging step for gay rights activists, and while progress may be slower than liberals desire, progress it is.

            Moreover, several states have begun recognizing the legal right to gay marriage. This allows same-sex couples to enter the same union that is recognized by the government--a union that must be agnostic to religious dogma if it is to respect the First Amendment and particularly the non-establishment clause. An occasional counterargument from opponents to gay marriage is that “Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion.” This is a direct assault on a quickly growing, and equally valid segment of the population: the agnostic, atheistic, humanist and free-thinking individuals amongst us. These individuals do not demand that God delivered morality to be deciphered and disseminated by a lucky few religious elite, but that ethics and morals come to us as innately and intrinsically as the ability to speak or walk.

            Using consistency of reason and thoughtful assembly of ethical principles is essential in a free and moral society. Without deliberate and reflective moral pondering, the absence of discrete transcendent authority does leave the danger of a poor moral compass --a danger not remotely alleviated by erroneous claims of heavenly knowledge. The requirement to personally create ethical boundaries will produce better results than those relying on non-existent heavenly command.

            It is the quest for moral consistency that disrupts my ability to support the ethics-based vegetarianism.

            The bridge between the morality of gay marriage and vegetarianism requires two assumptions: first, we are mammals, primates—the descendants of evolutionary and ordinary biological processes. Should I lose half the country with that first assumption, but so be it-- the scientific community supports my assumption.

The second and more cumbersome assumption is that while human beings may be animals, human life and other animal life cannot be held with the same moral regard. This is obvious at least on a certain level-- even the gentlest vegan will at some point accidentally trample an ant with his or her bare feet and not need suffer cries of (conveniently named) manslaughter. It would be enormously surprising if the most organically-minded beatnik could shrug off a mouse or roach infestation in their food supply. And all this is to ignore all other types of life-- no one bemoans the plants. The degree of sentience and intelligence a being possesses may excuse it from becoming livestock, but cultures will disagree to this point. Dogs of certain breeds are still an acceptable food source in China; Scooby might become the snack itself if he isn’t deemed cute enough. Although pigs have shown intellectual promise comparable to dogs, bacon persists.

Healthy people don’t want to eat their pets. But how do we decide what will make a happy pet and what will make a happy meal?

            Food taboos are clearly and enormously defined by cultural norms and consensus. How do we draw this line? PETA has engaged in a prolonged campaign for tuna meat not to be simply dolphin-safe, but tuna-safe as well. The American culture that abhors Shark Fin Soup will feed its schoolchildren “pink slime”. It is difficult to break down these preferences without entirely arbitrary boundaries.

From the other side of the argument though: was Cruella DeVille really not so bad? What degree of cruelty will we permit animal life to suffer?

And…. how does this come back to gay marriage?

            In 2003, Rick Santorum made comments that referenced the “slippery slope” grounds as a defense against LGBT equality. Columnist and activist Dan Savage at that point began the neologism for “Santorum” in protest—redefining the politician’s last name as “the frothy mixture of lubricant and feces that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex.” Ouch.

            And Dan Savage was right to object—the entire gay population being compared to the guy in Montana who has sex with his horse? That’s ridiculous, absurd, and insulting.

            

But.

There is a man in Horry, South Carolina who has sex with his horse. A fascinating Internet search will reveal the much longer sordid human history of beastly flings between man and horse, dog, and even octopus.

Still, a horse cannot provide legal consent, so does that render the point is moot? Two gay people can affirm their mutual affection, where the horse-man relationship is not capable of dual confirmation. After all, it’s just a stupid animal.

Here we find a breach in logical consistency—excluding bestiality from sexual liberation requires an entirely different perspective on human beings from what has been previously established. Suddenly it is assumed that we are, in fact, uniquely special—God’s chosen children, so to speak. Let us assume that animals can—in some shape or form—provide consent. Granted, animals probably will not recognize our legal mores and social norms, but it is fathomable that they have sufficient behavioral autonomy to make some choices for themselves—to provide some form of acquiescence. If that can be deciphered, an animal’s will is not so different from a human’s.

And if this is the case, why unconditionally condemn interspecies relationships? Humans have played their hand at controlled interspecies breeding: take the mule or the liger, for example—horses and donkeys create a hybrid similar enough that it offends no one. If phenomena can occur in nature, is it not natural? And are human beings themselves not a part of the natural order? Certainly bestiality is rare—rarer than any other sexuality—at least so far as we could possibly know and safely assume. Nonetheless we could choose to decry it as “unnatural”, “sinful”, “disgusting”, “depraved”, or any other word that comes to mind when this subject comes to mind.

All of these terms and arguments, of course, have been used by the heterosexual majority on the LGBT minority, and that segment of the population has had their behavior and identity suppressed for generations in American society. A recent one-shot comic book story called “Our Love is Real” explores a dystopian (utopian?) future where sexual relationships between humans and animals, vegetables, or crystals are quite ordinary.

It is argued to this day that homosexuality is a choice; the gay population and a growing majority of America disagree. Is it possible that the horse-loving population also claim their attraction is ingrained in their DNA? If not… why do it? Arousal from watching “Seabiscuit” is incomprehensible and revolting to those who do not experience it; the same, again, could be said of gay pornography.

This equivalence is not just disagreeable—it is unacceptable.

The fulfillment, love, and mutual benefit of same-sex relationships are inarguable; society has “evolved” to an era that (while not advancing in lockstep) is growing friendlier to the gay community year by year. Those who claim to know divine truth or tropically argue that “marriage has always been one man one woman” are not only ignoring history (Athens, anyone?) but also sit on the clear losing side of history. The same form of argument (using Biblical endorsement of slavery, for example) has been used to obstruct civil rights in the past; future generations will inevitably look back with disgust.

But any argument is fundamentally flawed if permitting acknowledgement of the first assumption and dismissal of the second. The idea that society should embrace bestiality is laughable, and it is simply not something that is or should be permissible by civilization. Human beings must be held in an elevated regard—a regard that is paradoxically a tad arbitrary based on the first assumption-- but a higher standard nonetheless. Species solidarity must supersede fealty to outside species. We are built as social creatures and both logic and nature demand loyalty to homo-sapien.

To that end, it is not wrong for a human being to eat animal meat; the mass-industrialization of farming may have some unwanted effects, but there can be no doubt that it feeds a hungry population. Once it is accepted that it is far better for one hundred chickens to die than for one human being to starve, this conclusion becomes inescapable. Vegetarianism as a healthy choice is still valid—it is believed (in somewhat spurious calculations and studies) to be energy-saving as well as (less questionably) a healthy lifestyle. But there exists no moral high-ground for the vegan to perch.

The GLBT Package Problem

It stands to reason that GLBT issues are the civil rights cause of the time. Progress has cascaded from the recesses of special interest to a mainstream position of advocacy. Thirteen states that have legitimized gay marriage, a new (and still slight, but growing) majority of Americans support an expansion of rights, and the Supreme Court decision Hollingsworth v. Perry reversed the infamous Californian Proposition 8; these developments have snowballed into a victorious trend. And of the many individuals, institutions and organizations that have won these battles (from Dan Savage  to Andrew Sullivan) should be credited. But one nonprofit stands above the rest, both in terms of brand success and efficacy, and that is the HRC: the Human Rights Campaign.

There's a small complaint though, that might be worth filing against these honorable and decent institutions, and liberal society as a whole. There is a "politically correct" way of referring to, shall we say less tactfully, the gay issue. The token term, the verbiage du jour, the acceptable fragment of lexicon is "the GLBT community". That's all well and good-- broad strokes cover broad territory. But by creating a label-- a brand, if you will-- for the sexual minority, entirely different groups are bundled together. And while these groups have like interests, as time goes on and freedom prevails, there stands a chance that this unwieldly categorization will mask the subtle differences in each group's goals.

What does that mean? Let's take a look.

G(ay) and L(esbian)

As this author sees it, these two parties are closely aligned in their presumptive objectives and goals. These are people who consider themselves homosexual, seeking legal recognition of their rights to pursue their hearts.

The similarities is amplified in part by an accident of history. Were gay rights being explored prior to the vast success of the women's movement, there might be more differences. For simplicity sake, consider when a wife was legally considered tantamount to property for the husband. If this was still the society we were living in, a lesbian relationship would have a clear absence of command; gay men could find themselves in an equally awkward position where patriarchy would need either division or an official decision.

(B)isexual

The Bisexual aspect of GLBT is far more interesting than the Gay or Lesbian, which requires a thought experiment to have any real distinguishable features that are not mutually comprehensive. But consider: a person cannon be monogamously bound to a bisexual relationship! Bisexual, by definition, is a preference or an orientation towards both sexes; but in marriage, there ultimately is only one choice: someone of the same sex, or a different sex. Even if we decided to be creative and consider a third transgender option, monogamy is monogamy.

This, in a way, implies a tacit endorsement of polygamy, which is absolutely not one of the current (or foreseeable) goals of the GLBT movement, so it's interesting that bisexuality is almost always listed along with the others. Certainly individuals identifying as bisexuals need protection of their private choices, and can easily unite with the opposition to sodomy laws. But that is a victory achieved in Lawrence v. Texas, and has diminishing relevance as more and more rights are protected and enabled.

Polygamy is one of the current scare tactics against the GLBT movement by both the religious right and the conservative movement (assuming some fissures between those two entities). The argument that "if we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy?" This is justified further, and not unreasonably so, by religiously permissible history of polygamy in Islam. Mormonism, however, is not usually mentioned due to its semi-Christian nature, although it obviously should be.

(T)ransexual

This topic is the one where I differ slightly from many of my reasonable friends and activists. No doubt a reader could interpret this author's views as slightly "transphobic", and that's probably a reasonably valid criticism. So let me preface with a disclaimer that I harbor no personal malice, and that this is an abstract consideration.

Transexuality involves the surgical switching or the change of identity from male to female, and vice versa. A number of transgender individuals describe feeling "trapped" in a body of the opposite gender. Those willing to commit to the full change may take hormone therapy, undergo surgical procedures, and take on new names and identities.

Personally, this author has no problem with allowing a consenting adult go through the surgery, and while he may feel uncomfortable with that, by no means should any grown person be prevented from pursuing happiness by that account.

However, there have been some recent reports of children assuming different gender identities, and then it does not become a strictly personal decision. There is often an imposing request that the masculinity or femininity of grammar be changed for an individual, for example. While this may be considered a sign of respecting their life choices, it also is requesting that we create some cognitive dissonance: I knew you as a man, now you are a woman, and I will address you as a woman. So your identity has changed. Or was it always a woman, and now I am addressing you correctly, where previously I was mistaken. But you simply were, physically, a man, and using the opposite gender can be found insulting quite easily as well.

This is further complicated by using children; could a doctor follow the Hippocratic oath faithfully while giving, say, an eight-year-old child a sex reassignment? What if they are "certain" of their choice? It seems extraordinarily difficult, and while I doubt caprice is common, it's not unthinkable. If you think this is just alarmist talk, read the case of David Reimer and the unfortunately named Dr. John Money.

Then, of course, there is something that strikes some men in a type of "body horror": the idea of being bamboozled, by being tricked. It's evident in our media from Futurama to South Park to The 40 Year Old Virgin: the accidental romantic entanglement with a transgender person, unaware of that status. If a man or woman feels uncomfortable with having a physical relationship with a person who has gone through a gender transformation, is there a burden on the person who has undergone that procedure to be transparent? Otherwise seems dishonest; actually, dishonesty is difficult to separate from the entire issue, as judgmental as that sounds.

Let's elaborate: consider living in a state where gay marriage is illegal. Two men who identify as men cannot marry. But then, another man has a sex change and can be recognized legally as a woman, and she can marry a man now. As you can see, there is conflict in lumping these groups together, because advancement is not in lockstep between the different communities.

GLBT is a packaging problem, for good causes that are tied but not uniform. Let's hope this is acknowledged, lest a risk that the package may unravel from within.

Satan & Prometheus: Different Tongues of the Same Flame (Part 2)

... Continued from Part 1.

To summarize, we have a devious god-entity that rebels against the Chief God, brings a gift to humanity (which, in turn, ultimately curses them) as brought about by a woman.

Are they precisely the same? Yes? No? A little bit? It makes sense if you consider both characters in an evolving mythos, similar to Batman. Comics, TV, animation & film from the 1940's through the 2000's have used the Batman: they capture the same essence but the surrounding mythology adapts to the times. Shark repellent, sadly, will eventually expire.

Different skins of the same Batman, as seen in Batman: Arkham City, showing the different stages in the character's evolution

And Adam West, using Shark repellent

This is not citing Batman for the sake of Batman-- although that is a valid argument, because... Batman. There is a point here.

But imagine: in the 70+ years of exploring America's favorite superhero (sorry Kal-El). The character has been written, discovered, reimagined, revamped and retooled.

Then compare that timescale to the legacy of Greek & Christian mythology/theology: thousands of years in which tales are retold, retooled, perfected. We know that the Romans directly borrowed from the Greeks for their mythologies: the similarities between Zeus and Jupiter are so blaring that no one pretended that were were different Gods throwing different lightning bolts in between civilizations.Some day in the future, perhaps historians will note the way the King James translation of the Bible "borrowed" the same scripture from its Latin, and before that, Aramaic/Hebrew roots.

The proof is in the art & literature that is used as Christian poetry. Dante's Inferno has a space for Medusa and the Furies. Figurative poetry for the eternal torments? Perhaps, but does that not tread a dangerous line between fantasy and, er, "reality"? Sisyphus himself, pushing the boulder up an eternal hill, is one of the crisper images that Hell provides. He grossly predates Christianity.

from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_long_spoons"

So what are the implications?

Some Christians, particularly of the Fox News variety, take exception to the God of the Bible being referred to as the same Allah in the Quaran. Why is that? Because the Quaran is not Biblical canon. Similar to the Greek/Roman dilemma, the objection is not raised with Judaism, because Christianity simply added on to the books from the Old Testament, and gives accounts from four apostles.

But if a character from the Bible, which the pious and devout hold to be divine words provided and inspired in Man, are clearly based on fictional mythologies... that is a question that needs to be addressed. Is there a Devil, or isn't there? And if there is not, then why would there be any danger of falling into sin, if sin is as imaginary as its chief harbinger?

http://www.newcovenantgrace.com/how-to-deal-with-a-sin-problem/

The answer is not that there is no morality, nor that we must lose ourselves to the unnavigable seas of moral relativism. Instead, it is more wise and of better moral soundness to embrace the truth of the matter, and appreciate the stories as fables. Few wars have been led over Aesop.

Moral victories are difficult when embracing the "here and now" as the only realm of concern. No cosmic ears to hear our plight, no kindly eyes staring down. But how kindly would deaf ears be, that reject prayers? Were all unanswered prayers too selfish?

But these are victories, once won, worth winning. What is the best, most moral path? Perhaps there are two. Which is the best way north might have different answers, depending on the situation, but there are incorrect answers, such as heading south. Yes, if someone travels south long enough they may reach a place where it is no longer to go further south, and North is the only option (the bottom pole). And that's the point, the proof that cries of relativism are vapid: Sam Harris writes that if there is a polar "worst possible misery for everyone" them any step away from it is a step in the right direction. Sam Harris is walking the right way there.

There may be some who are unconvinced that the alignments that have been outlined are meaningful, or that they're applicable enough to cause a crisis of faith. To that, this question must be answered: what Rosetta Stone must be provided to convince you? What Dead Sea Scroll, what possible Gospel of Judas will prove suitably damning? That is the real crisis of faith: the convergence between an elegant leap and a gullible stumble.

Would a revelation by the authors of the Bible be sufficient? It was Miriam Ferguson who allegedly said in Texas, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas." Derided, because clearly this is ignorant in the extreme. This woman, by the way, was governor of Texas, and sadly Texas does not seem to have progressed much further with the likes of Rick Perry. The point being: leaps of faith have a dangerous way of overriding our other faculties, and reducing or level of scrutiny on extraordinarily broad and important claims.

The commonalities overwhelm this author's sense and sensibility, but it may be fair that the case is not compelling to all. After all, Satan tempted Eve after his battles with God, while Prometheus' gift of fire came while he was still on relatively good terms with Zeus. But does it not at least give pause that these events are startlingly similar? Am I the only one who sees this? I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS HERE!

It's generally regarded as taboo to criticize religious beliefs, but such taboo does not seem to be in place for criticizing mythological tales. So perhaps these analogies can serve as more than filler for a Venn Diagram demonstrating certain correlating attributes. The fundamental elements of the stories need to be examined, and appreciated for what they are; then and only then can they be taken down from the pedestal of Biblical inerrancy. As written on previously, fictional stories hold plenty of value and can teach profound truths. But appreciation of what is fiction-- that is the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

Breaking Bad Recap: Ozymandias

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:

And on the pedestal these words appear:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

All empires fall. That's the lesson of the poem "Ozymandias", a poem Bryan Cranston used to tease for Breaking Bad season 5 part 2. And boy, have things crumbled.

Ozymandias, the episode, begins with a strange flashback-- Walter and Jesse cooking, way back when they were in the RV. It's unclear exactly when this cook took place; Walt lies on the phone to an unsuspecting Skyler, who is naive to his having quit. There are no bullet holes in the RV. And, to be honest, Walt and Jesse are showing their age, even if their hair is more or less what it was int he early episodes. It's possible it's not meant to be a ;literal flashback, but a corrupted memory of Walter's, where he remembers people half as they are and half as they were. Who knows. The RV, Walt and Jesse disappear, replaced by the trucks and cars in the shootout confrontation from last week's episode.

Cue the Breaking Bad intro.

We find ourselves at the end of the shootout now, and Hank has been hit in the leg. Gomez, it turns out, didn't live to see this episode-- he's been shot dead. His shotgun is nearby, and Hank begins crawling towards it, but it is entirely in vain. Uncle Jack stops him, and prepares to shoot him. Walt objects, of course. He lets Jack know that Hank is his brother-in-law, that he is family, and that he will even pay him an immense amount of money just to not kill him. But no, no such luck. Hank is defiant to the end, correctly reading that Uncle Jack decided to kill him ten minutes ago; Jack is a man who is long past his dilemmas in the basement, deciding whether or not to kill Crazy-8. So is Walt, for that matter, but Walt thinks he can talk his way out of almost any situation. He failed, and he's truly distraught by Hank's dramatic death. Meanwhile, Jesse has gone missing-- but not for long. He is hiding under Walt's car, somehow evading being seen right away.

Jack, after having killed Hank, is naturally still interested in digging up the money, so he does this pretty quickly with his gang of Aryan thugs. They even brought a shovel, as luck would have it. Due to Todd's respect for Walt, and the fact that they want to end things there, they decide to leave Walt one barrel-- something around 11 million dollars, which is enough, right? This is going to make them "square" for the time being-- Walt is ordered to get in the car and drive away. Before he does, he points out Jesse, and reminds them that they never carried out the hit. Todd suggests they take Jesse back with them for all MANNER of unpleasantness and torture, to find out what exactly he told the DEA. Walt consents, but before Jesse can be carted off, he looks at him almost sympathetically. Then he tells him, stone cold, that he watched Jane die, and chose not to save her, even though he could have. Stone fucking cold, man.

In what's clearly a little bit further in the future (and after some beatings and torture, since Jesse let them know everything he had) Jesse is dragged out of the pit he was being kept in. He is unshackled but tied to a makeshift leash that follows a tract on the ceiling in a lab-- he's going to be cooking again, similar to how we was cooking for Gus Fring at the end of that venture.

Walter Jr. has been informed about the crimes of Walter White through the actions of a smug yet sympathizing Marie. Marie demands Skyler erase all tapes that she has of Walt's "confession" framing Hank; she then forces Skyler to tell Walter Jr. everything. He, of course, is upset with everybody. MArie is in the position to do this because, of course, last she knew, Walt was in handcuffs and being taken into custody.

But no, Hank's dead. Shot by the Aryans. We know this, and so it's all the more tragic to watch.

Walt, on his drive home, runs out of gas. This would be a sillier plot point until it's revealed that in the blaze of gunfire, a bullet hit the gas tank, which is now leaking. It didn't explode, it just is leaking; good work, Breaking Bad, the Mythbusters will be happier for a sequel episode. So opening the trunk, Walt realizes he needs to roll the barrel through the desert, where he finally meets a Native American from whom he can buy a truck that's not really for sale. After all, if you can't do that with a barrel full of money, what's the point of having one at all?

At the behest of Marie, Skyler and Walter Jr. drive home, to find a strange car parked there; it's Walt. Walt is packing for them, telling them that they need to get the hell out of town. With everything on the table and Walt's last known whereabouts being in Hank's custody, it's quickly assumed that Hank was murdered by Walt. Walt objects, and asks that they simply, just now, trust him. Skyler grabs a knife, which is a true Chekov knife after being shown in the flashback from the beginning of the episode next to the phone. She tells Walt to get the hell out.

Walt thinks this is a bluff, until she cuts his hand. Then it gets a bit violent, and before we know it they're tumbling in a life-or death fight, until Walter Jr. interjects, protecting his mother and calling the police-- telling them it was WALT who attacked with the knife and that he's gone crazy and may have killed someone. Yikes.

'Walt is angry and defeated-- but not entirely. He grabs Holly before Skyler can realize what he's done, and he drives off with her in the car. Skyler calls the police, since this is now a kidnapping situation. Holly misses her mommy-- blurting out the words "mamma" to break Walt's heart. Walt calls Skyler, and probably knowing that police are there, is absurdly intimidating and threatens to kill her like he killed Hank-- all a show, but probably to keep them safe from legal problems he's caused them all. Eventually Walt decides to sneak into a fire station, star an alarm light and reveal his baby, tucked worriedly in a new car seat. Walt then is shown getting in the van of the mysterious vacuum guy, changing his identity as we knew he would.

Closing Thoughts:

1. Will we EVER see the guy driving that pick-up van, for all the times someone has almost/actually "disappeared" themselves?

2. We knew Hank was toast after he called Marie. Never celebrate too early. But seriously... let's all pour some Schraderbrau on the curb. Respect.

3. Todd is an interesting guy. "I'm sorry about your loss." he says to Walt, after having just orchestrated the execution. Man, don't get in Todd's way. He's not brilliant, he's even courteous, but he's numb to sympathy when you get in his way. He's come a long way from a "B&E" guy at Vamonos Pest.

4. Gomez, we hardly knew thee. But we love you, buddy.

Satan & Prometheus: Different Tongues of the Same Flame (Part 1)

Not long ago, this author had a revelation of something so blatantly obvious that he was surprised to have never heard it presented. Not to say that it is a subject which has not been noticed, but analysis seems to be lying dormant in the archives of academic literary criticism, gathering dust and pedantic commentary in online messaging boards. Here, there be other dragons.

So what is this "obvious truth"? It's something upon which the religious among us will object, but the case must be presented; declared absolution of guilt from any hurt feelings.

Satan and Prometheus are the Exact. Same. Person. One is the eternal villain, one the perpetual martyr. One bad, one good, although that may depend on perspective. One is regarded by serious followers of the Abrahamic religions as a factual entity, where the other is laughed off as a mythological trope. But looking at the two characters, there is no question that the Devil is derived from the Titan Prometheus himself.

First, let's begin this claim by ignoring the contextual differences between a polytheistic and monotheistic religion. Although the existence of the devil & demigods challenges the "mono" of... well.. monotheism, if you really think about it. Instead, examine the attributes of the character.

A Fallen Demigod

Satan famously started out as the "Morning Star", Lucifer, one of God's angels in Paradise Lost. It is understood in Biblical texts that "Lucifer" became "Satan" after his fall from heaven-- he then proceeds to such villainy as tempting Eve and projecting doubts to Christ. At some point prior to the Fall, the Devil decided that he did not want to be subjugated by God and his Son, and that it might be "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." It seems that Lucifer just wanted to live free-- a Patrick Henry of the clouds. So he leads an American Revolution of the Heavens, loses (no help from the French, probably), and is condemned to live in Utah. Err, Hell, that is.

From "The Passion of the Christ"

Prometheus, on the other hand, was not one of the many Gods of Mount Olympus but instead a child of the predecessors & competitors to the Olympian Gods, the Titans. Prometheus was NOT cast into Tartarus with other Titans, as he chose the right team and did not side against Zeus in the uprising against Kronos & the Old Gods. Other Titans & children of the Titans fared far more poorly--  for example, Atlas had to literally carry the weight of the heavens on his shoulders for all of eternity.

Betrayal of the Big Cheese on the Behalf of Man

Prometheus, either to spite Zeus or for love of mankind, stole fire for the heavens so that men could warm their homes and cook their meat.

Satan, it will be argued, condemned us to suffer outside of Eden after tempting Eve with the apple from the tree of wisdom. But wisdom is a gift if ignorance is a curse; to argue otherwise seems... ignorant.

Satan was Lucifer in heaven, and he "became" Satan after his fall; interestingly, this means that an angel-- a subservient being, presumably created by God-- became the embodiment of evil and temptation. The name "Lucifer" betrays the Greek roots in Christian mythology. "Lucifer" in Latin means "The Morning Star", or as an adjective, "Light Bringer". So Satan, before his punishment, brought light instead of fire.

But as any good Christian would point out, it was "God" who said "let there be light" and saw that "it was good". So in that case, what was the light that Lucifer was bringing? Perhaps the kind of light that might warm homes and cook meat? A light called fire?

Punishment for Betrayal

"Prometheus Chained" by Nathan Rosario

Prometheus was sentenced to being chained to a mountaintop for the end of time. There, an eagle would come each day and eat his liver. Then, overnight, his liver would regrow, like Wolverine from the X-Men, to be eaten horrifically the next day.

Satan, on the other hand, was cast out of heaven and condemned to Hell, a place that's just awful because you don't get to fawn over God and Jesus and friends. But ignoring a few recent "soft Hell" submissions from apologist ideation, most descriptions of Hell utilize fire, brimstone, and ironic forms of sadistic punishment on those who sinned in life. Hell is a place akin to the torture of the eagle.

Eventually Zeus, growing soft as years went by, relented on Prometheus' torture and sent Heracles to rescue him and shoot the eagle with his arrows, dipped in the poisonous blood of the Lernaean Hydra. God, on the other hand, has not seemed to forgiven the Devil for his war against Heaven (or whatever).

So Zeus, usually described as both capricious and jealous, is apparently a softer deity than Yahweh.

More Punishment: Femme Fatale

Here the chronology differs, but the essence stays eerily similar.

Prometheus: 

Before Zeus softened up, he knew how to hold a grudge, and felt that mankind needed to suffer for Prometheus' gift of fire, a gift that could not be revoked once given. So he devised a "gift": a wife named Pandora, the first woman. She was given to Epimetheus, Prometheus' brother (who somehow sounds like a human being... don't ask) to be his bride. Zeus made sure that she was given all sorts of gifts from the other Olypmian Gods-- including curiosity. Zeus also gave Epimetheus a box (or, originally a jar) containing all the Evils of the world that would never plague mankind-- they were under his protection. Pandora was told to, you know, stay away from the thing.

http://www.cgarena.com

Naturally, the curious Pandora could not help herself, and one night she opened the box. Out exploded all the evils of the world-- famine, disease, plague. Pandora slammed the box shut, and a small voice from inside cried "Let me out too! For I am Hope!" Hope had been locked up with the other evils, to provide for humanity against all the other ills. Whether Hope makes it out or is stuck in the Box is never explicitly said, and depends on how pessimistic your interpretation might be. Or you might consider Bane from The Dark Knight Rises, who claimed that no true despair can exist without Hope.

Abrahamic Religion:

Eve is created by God from one of Adam's ribs (a reference to a condition where women sometimes, not always have one extra set of ribs-- approximately 0.2%-0.5% of the population, most being women).

God does this to keep Adam company, because being single is terrible. So while they're chumming around the Garden of Eden, they've been forbidden from eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A serpent suggests to Eve that she should, and curiosity and innocence get her-- she eats of the fruit, and has Adam do the same. And they are cast out of the Garden of Eden, into the cold, harsh world. In this case, Satan is doing the tempting, but it is God who punishes the formerly innocent (who realize their nakedness) and banishes them from paradise on Earth.

To Be Continued....

Breaking Bad Recap: To'hajiilee

Halfway through the last "half" season, Breaking Bad is digging up the past, and getting ready to bury the present.

Tonight's episode, which shall only this once be referenced as "To'hajiilee" for spelling reasons, opens with Todd & Company. There is a cute, subtle anti-smoking piece, where Todd recommends that Uncle Jack wear a mask as to not breath in toxic fumes; he repeats his sentiments about precaution (mirroring the previous episode in which he bemoaned the nanny state) and asked Todd to hurry up so he could go smoke.

Todd, hurrying, takes out his meth: not cooked but in its final stage. It currently holds a 76% purity: an improvement, although (as Lydia there points out) marginal. But a bigger problem is that it is not blue. Blue is the brand. It was Fring's Blue, Hiesenberg's blue. They're willing to dye it, like farm-raised salmon or something, and Todd thinks he can fix it the right way by following Mr. White's teaching. Lydia is nervous about all of this (what's new) but is expresses her somewhat desperate faith in Todd. Todd offers to have Uncle Jack "straighten things out" with people pressuring Lydia, which she politely declines. There are some funny moments in this set of scenes:

1. Arguing whether or not the not-blue meth looks a tiny, itty-bitty bit blue. Maybe aqua-marine? Color fight!

2. All the guys are checking out Lydia. Kind of creepy.

3. Todd's ringtone is "She Blinded Me Science". Apparently Walt's teaching has inspired him into the halls of geek.

Awesome. Cut to Breaking Bad intro.

Then we move to the Hank-Jesse-Gomez out-brief, following the disastrous non-meeting that took place at the end of last meeting. Jesse points out that Walt would never destroy his money, and knows someone who might know where Walt's money is. Then there's some mischievous photo work with some steak for Jesse's brains.

Next we quickly see that Hank and Gomez have obtained Huell, our favorite bodyguard. The DEA (unaware about Walt still, naturally) has "encouraged" him to stay at their place, while he is absolutely not under arrest. Then they fool him into thinking that Jesse had been executed with their steak-brains Jesse pic. They sell a tale of Saul selling out his henchmen, and Walt trying to tie up loose ends. One of these loose ends, you might recall, is the poison cigarette being taken from Jesse, something with which Huell absolutely did have something to do. Huell, upset at seeing Jesse's "body", spills the beans that seven barrels of money went off in a van, not knowing where but knowing the van came back dirty. He also shares that Kuby rented the van from a specific place, a place that USED to have GPS (but doesn't anymore, as it turns out-- more on that soon). Huell is told not to try to call Saul through nasty intimidation tactics-- calling Saul would lead to his death, as far as Huell knows.

Walt is meeting with Todd and Uncle Jack, where we find that Todd doesn't have too high an opinion of Jesse's badass level (although that might have been different if he had any idea about Jesse's part in the Cartel Extermination in "Salud"). The Aryan boys want Walter to cook with Todd, since any money he offers pales in comparison against what they could make cooking his meth. Walt reluctantly agrees to do ONE cook-- after the job is done. Uncle Jack says they could kill him tonight if he wants-- just let him know where he is.They're willing to kill on a dime, and for nothing more than some Walter White tutor time. These are not people you want to mess with-- they're proving themselves as scary as the cartel ever was, but with less drama and more down-to-business. Walt doesn't know where Jesse is, but he thinks he can flush him out.

Walt goes over to Andrea's place, and sees Brock once more. Always an awkward meeting between these two-- always adding mystery to how he got poisoned in the first place. Walt gets Andrea to call Jesse, using Jesse's "using" as an excuse for extra concern. Of course, the Aryan boys would have been waiting for Jesse, who would have died before he knew what was happening (the way Walt intended). Lucky for Jesse, who probably would have fallen right into THIS trap, Hank intercepts the message that Andrea leaves. Nice try, Walt.

Hank comes back after finding out that the van rental does NOT have GPS on it that tracks all its movements-- ACLU lawsuit or something. But Walt doesn't know that.... a trap!

Walter Jr. is working in the car wash, wishing everybody an A-1 day. He asks what we all ask: why say that? But it reinforces their brand. Saul comes in, and has to PAY FULL PRICE at the car wash. Jr. recognizes him from the commercials, for which Saul has good humor. Saul's bruises are still showing-- occupational hazard. He gets a great Saul line: "Don't drink and drive... but if you do, call ME!"

Saul. I love you. Saul, however, is not feeling the love, despite his big ol' billboard in the background-- Huell is missing and Saul is worried that Jesse has him. Radio silence. 

Jesse photo-texts a picture of one of the "barrels" of money, and tells Walt that he found six more.Jesse tellsWalt that he will be burning 10,000 a minute until Walt meets him where his money is, AND he can't hang up on him to try to get help or something awful. Walt tells Jesse that his cancer is back, and the money is for his children-- "CHILDREN? Are you seriously going to go there" is Jesse's reasonable response.

Walt tells Jesse that all the murders he did, he did as much for Jesse as for himself. It's not true-- except for the gang-bangers, who Walt totally killed mostly for Jesse. That's the one weird fly in the Breaking Bad ointment that's always been confusing-- why not just let Jesse die then? But Walt is paternalistic towards Jesse, who he still thinks is too stupid to see that he was trying to help. With friends like these, who needs enemies.

Walt arrives, and quickly realizes he's been conned. He starts scoping out different positions-- in part to see anyone coming, and in part to make sure no one is already there. He calls the Aryan guys, and tells them the coordinates of the place. He sees Jesse, who he would have approached violently himself-- but then sees that Hank and Gomez are with them. Check. They see Walt's car. Check. He lets the Aryans know--nevermind, Hanks is there and he is off limits, so the hit is off. Check. Hank eventually gets Walter to step out, and puts the man in handcuffs. Checkmate. Hank got 'em.

But this is Breaking Bad, and there is always another move for the king. 

Walt is in handcuffs, and calls Jesse a coward (who then goes full Flavor of Love and spits on him). Hank calls Marie, and tells her the good news and that he loves her (that can't be good). They put Jesse and Walt into different cars and get ready to drive off....

...And, of course, here come the Aryans. Armed to the teeth, and their guns are quickly aimed at Hank and Gomez, who return a firing stance aimed opposite.

Open fire. Bang, bang bang. Hank and Gomez seek cover, Walt and Jesse duck in their respective cars. Bullets are whizzing around everywhere.

End!

No, that can't be the end! I won't make it... another... week... GAHH!

Final Thoughts:

1. Tough Aryan guys having a color fight reminds me of Steve Buschemi during Reservoir Dogs, probably an intentional reference.

2. The barrel photo was in the backyard for Hank, where the dirt might not match, but Walt would be too freaked to notice. Where they BBQ'ed plenty of times.

3. It's the first place Walt and Jesse ever cooked. We knew that, but still-- very sweet, Walt. 

4. Hank having a sweet, tender "I love you" moment with Marie is a TERRIBLE thing for Hank, because this is Breaking Bad and it kind of sets him up for an entirely appropriate death. A death where he got his final goodbye to Marie in-- in a way. "Why is there what looks like brains in our garbage can?" might foreshadow Hank's brains getting thrown out of his skull very soon.

5. I thought Gomez had a good chance of surviving to the end, but it's not looking too good for him either right now. So far so good, though. As the actor said in the post-show talk, he's the one guy who never broke bad. He also got a "good job, buddy" in-- another sweet moment that might mean he's soon to be toast.

6. Walt was trying to warn Hank when the Aryans showed up. But what was he really going to tell him?