Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Winlar! Sayin' Stuff! October 22nd! INFO!
Hey all! Here's the quick and dirty info on my upcoming show!
Winlar! Sayin’ Stuff
Winlar! Sayin’ Stuff
Oct 22nd
7pmLocal comedian Brian “Winlar” Wennerlind rocks the right with brand new funny songs, fun diatribes and other odd behavior. The former writer for Almost Live and NPR’s Rewind w/ Bill Radke delivers jokes on politics, working, and life in general. Comedy for the 99 percent. Humor from the very tip of the left wing.
Come see this brand new stand-up comedy with (mostly) original songs and ukulele!
Tickets available at door, first come first
served.
$10
Check out some sample work at www.winlar.blogspot.com or www.youtube.com/kazootv
(Video sneak peaks of the
show to be posted soon.)
See you there!
-winlar
See you there!
-winlar
Friday, March 29, 2013
Thought I'd Caught the Easter Bunny...
Here's a little song I wrote an Easter or two ago. Safe for work and kids and all. Why not spread the Easter cheer herein by liking it and making it viral?
Happy Easter,
-winlar
It’s a well-known fact at Easter
That I need not repeat
That if you catch the Easter Bunny
He’ll give you all the chocolate eggs you can eat!
So every year I set up traps
All around my yard
To catch that sneaky cottontail
You wouldn't think it’d be that hard...
And this year I thought I had him!
Right there in my trap!
But on investigation
I’m afraid he beat the rap
Every springtime the same thing
So frustrating dagnabbit
I thought I caught the Easter Bunny
But it was just some other talking rabbit
Man, this year I was so sure
That I had the right guy
How many rabbits could there be
Who wear a suit and tie?
Who also just so happen to be
Out on Easter’s eve?
But it turned out it wasn’t him
It was just some bunny named Steve
I really really thought this time
That I finally had it
I thought I’d caught the Easter bunny
But it was just some other talking rabbit
Br.So I let him go
He’s just some schmo
No lagomorphic prince
Why is it that I never catch hide nor
hare of consequence?
It looked a whole lot like him though
That there’s no denying
It seems absurd, but he gave his word
You don't suppose he could have been lying?
Nah!
So my dream of a lifetime egg supply
This year is done
because I stink at Rabbit
Identification 101
The whole sordid adventure
Reminds me of that day
when I swore I saw Santa Claus
But it was just some random flying sleigh.
Here's hoping all these near misses
Don’t become a habit
I thought I’d caught the Easter Bunny
But it was just some other talking rabbit
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Newt Newt Newt!
Here’s
a little song about a phenomenon called “Gingrich Envy.” My apologies to the Sherman Brothers.
I need a new video camera, so sorry about the poor quality. You'll want to read along to the lyrics below.
He’s the king of the swingers boys,
In this year’s G.O.P.
He reached the top, but had to stop
For rampant hypocrisy
Wantsa be the white man’s white man
The Republish nominee
wants His face in its rightful place
In revisionist history..,
Oh, Newt Newt Newt
I wanna be like Newt Newt Newt
I wanna run like Newt, have fun like Newt
The big galoot
A lotta high falutes
Think he’s so -astute
He’s arrogant and crude to boot
So don’t mess with him white man
He’ll make a deal with you
He’s gonna need ya’ to blame the media
For all his graft and woo
Give him the nomination
This greedy legislator
Give him the seat, or he’ll treat
Ya’ like a CNN Moderator!
Oh, Newt Newt Newt
I wanna be like Newt Newt Newt
I wanna get irate during debates
And ballyhoo
An empty suit
With an ugly snoot.
He’s proof that who
you choose is moot
Bridge:
Moon base fat face, Palestine’s ficticious race, Saul Alinsky
radicals
A tryst with Callista, a lesbian sista’, and Long Greek
cruise Sabbaticals
Go-Pac , talk
smack, back track, Dream act, campaign staff disparagin’
He’s polling behind, he’s got a closed mind but he’s got
a very open marriage
Oh, Newt Newt Newt
I wanna be like Newt Newt Newt
Oh I want kick backs from Freddy mac.
Wanna be hirsute
he’s a hypocrite, but his name ain’t Mitt
He’s a total Dick, but try googlin’ Rick
That don’t compute
Soooo, Newt Newt Newt
I wanna be like Newt Newt Newt
He's the non-Romney nominee
There’s no dispute
That this rude blue coot, of ill repute is now en route
To Pennsylvania ave- Newt Newt Newt
I wanna walk like Newt, talk like Newt,
Newt Newt Newt
I wanna walk like Newt, talk like Newt
Newt Newt Newt
But mainly I just want to have,
Affairs with interns
I wanna walk like Newt Talk like newt
Newt newt nudity newt di newt newt
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Mango Mentality as applied to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. A theory.
Here's a theory as to why we humans have trouble understanding economics: For most of our time on this planet as a species, the economic system looked nothing like today's. We evolved in a hunter-gatherer economy. This hunter-gatherer economy was radically different than today's yet our attitudes towards work, wealth, and fairness are still based on that model.
An example: Say you're in a hunter-gather society and you're foraging about for, let's say mangoes. (I have no idea if mangoes even existed then, but you know what I mean. It's a thought experiment and the word "mango" is fun to say. Just roll with it.) Now say that you don't have a mango. You're hungry, but no worries. Mangoes are plentiful. They're everywhere in this thought experiment. If you don't have a mango, it's pretty much your own fault. Go get a mango. You may need to forage a little farther, climb a higher tree, whatever, but it's always perfectly possible for you to get your own darned mango, and thus, it's also perfectly reasonable for others in your tribe to tell you to "get a mango you dirty hippie and stop your whining." There are infinite mangoes to go around, and just shut up and go get a mango. But that was three economies ago. That hunter-gatherer model is long gone. However, we've changed economic systems three times in roughly 20,000 years, a mere hiccup in evolutionary terms, which is why our mentality hasn't changed much. But we need to change the mango mentality. It's long overdue. Because...
Because now we have MONEY. Money is not mangoes. Mangoes were everywhere, but money is not. The important thing to know about money is this: Money is FINITE. There is only so much of it by design. If money were infinite, it would be worthless. Silly pieces of paper cluttering the house. But we purposely make it rare and the rarer it is the more people want it. For money to have value, it has to be scarce.
So new thought experiment. Imagine a world with only say, 100 mangoes. Enough to go around, but not an endless supply. Now it isn't just a matter of working hard and finding a mango. Now if you are mangoless, you can't just increase the mango population with effort and toil, now your only choice is to figure out a way to get one of the previously existing mangoes. You need to cajole, entertain, make a deal, steal or physically remove one from someone who already has a mango. Now it becomes a game of mango musical chairs, and when the music stops and you don't have a mango times get desperate indeed. Oh, and one guy has like 60 mangoes and he ain't sharing.
Now is it OK to accuse the mangoless of laziness? If one person is sitting on 60 mangoes, won't share them, won't spend them, won't even LEND them so that you can start a small business (See what I did there?) is it not then appropriate and logical to suggest that the system needs change? If the finite mangoes aren't circulating hard work and true grit aren't going to change that. The only thing that will change anything is a revolution (to be avoided at all costs) a war (to steal someone else's hard earned mangoes) or some other kind of a shake up to get the mangoes moving around again. I have to say I prefer the non-violent shake up of the system. Not talking about giving out free mangoes. Talking about creating ways to earn the mangoes. We can't create more mangoes. It's not allowed. So we have to invent ways to make sure there are existing mangoes available to reward a hard day's work.
Yet, so many of us are mired in moldy mango mentality. We still base our concepts of fairness and worth on a model of infinite resources even though we now live in a society of purposely finite ones. It's a mentality we've held for a million years that hasn't kept pace with the developments of Agriculture, Industry, and the Information age. This attitude is an impediment to change and it has to change. Our attitudes need to catch up to the last 20,000 years. So let's evolve already. Ditch the mango mentality for a better vision, and stop the name-calling of those who are pointing out the problem.
Thanks,
-winlar
PS: Here's a cool link.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
An example: Say you're in a hunter-gather society and you're foraging about for, let's say mangoes. (I have no idea if mangoes even existed then, but you know what I mean. It's a thought experiment and the word "mango" is fun to say. Just roll with it.) Now say that you don't have a mango. You're hungry, but no worries. Mangoes are plentiful. They're everywhere in this thought experiment. If you don't have a mango, it's pretty much your own fault. Go get a mango. You may need to forage a little farther, climb a higher tree, whatever, but it's always perfectly possible for you to get your own darned mango, and thus, it's also perfectly reasonable for others in your tribe to tell you to "get a mango you dirty hippie and stop your whining." There are infinite mangoes to go around, and just shut up and go get a mango. But that was three economies ago. That hunter-gatherer model is long gone. However, we've changed economic systems three times in roughly 20,000 years, a mere hiccup in evolutionary terms, which is why our mentality hasn't changed much. But we need to change the mango mentality. It's long overdue. Because...
Because now we have MONEY. Money is not mangoes. Mangoes were everywhere, but money is not. The important thing to know about money is this: Money is FINITE. There is only so much of it by design. If money were infinite, it would be worthless. Silly pieces of paper cluttering the house. But we purposely make it rare and the rarer it is the more people want it. For money to have value, it has to be scarce.
So new thought experiment. Imagine a world with only say, 100 mangoes. Enough to go around, but not an endless supply. Now it isn't just a matter of working hard and finding a mango. Now if you are mangoless, you can't just increase the mango population with effort and toil, now your only choice is to figure out a way to get one of the previously existing mangoes. You need to cajole, entertain, make a deal, steal or physically remove one from someone who already has a mango. Now it becomes a game of mango musical chairs, and when the music stops and you don't have a mango times get desperate indeed. Oh, and one guy has like 60 mangoes and he ain't sharing.
Now is it OK to accuse the mangoless of laziness? If one person is sitting on 60 mangoes, won't share them, won't spend them, won't even LEND them so that you can start a small business (See what I did there?) is it not then appropriate and logical to suggest that the system needs change? If the finite mangoes aren't circulating hard work and true grit aren't going to change that. The only thing that will change anything is a revolution (to be avoided at all costs) a war (to steal someone else's hard earned mangoes) or some other kind of a shake up to get the mangoes moving around again. I have to say I prefer the non-violent shake up of the system. Not talking about giving out free mangoes. Talking about creating ways to earn the mangoes. We can't create more mangoes. It's not allowed. So we have to invent ways to make sure there are existing mangoes available to reward a hard day's work.
Yet, so many of us are mired in moldy mango mentality. We still base our concepts of fairness and worth on a model of infinite resources even though we now live in a society of purposely finite ones. It's a mentality we've held for a million years that hasn't kept pace with the developments of Agriculture, Industry, and the Information age. This attitude is an impediment to change and it has to change. Our attitudes need to catch up to the last 20,000 years. So let's evolve already. Ditch the mango mentality for a better vision, and stop the name-calling of those who are pointing out the problem.
Thanks,
-winlar
PS: Here's a cool link.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Way of the Draining Lizard
Blast from the past time! Out of the blue, I've been sent an mp3 file of The Way of the Draining Lizard sketch that I wrote for NPR's Rewind. I put it up on my reverbnation site, and now clicking on the title of this post should take you there. (You have to hit the play button I think.)
Enjoy!
PS. Thanks Frank!
Enjoy!
PS. Thanks Frank!
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Professional Info for Winlar, writer for hire
Reviews:
“Hilarious. Amazing! Grade A.”
-Seattle Post-Intelligencer
“Pee-in-your-pants fun”
-Seattle Weekly
“Unusually strong comedy—Witty, wise & weird.”
-Seattle Times
“Kazoo! is sketch comedy Nirvana.”
-Seattle Weekly
WINNER: Best of Seattle Fringe Festival
Solo Shows (Written and performed)
Winlar! Not Safe For Work (Sept 24th 2010)
Break-up Songs for Valentine’s Day (Feb. 2010)
Winlar’08: Making Things Worse (Sept. 2008)
Love, Politics, and Love (March 2008)
Nothing Controversial: Just Religion, Politics and How to Raise Your Children (June 2007)
Winlar Live! (Nov. 2006)
Sketch Comedy Extravaganzas (Writer, Producer and Performer)
Kazoo! Mostly Erect (May 2006)
The Gospel According to Kazoo! (Sept. 2005)
Kazoo! in Concert! (July 2005)
Kazoo! For Love and Money (March 2004)
The Kazoo! Bible (Sept 2003)
Kazoo! 7 (Sept 2001)
Kazoo! 6 (March 2001)
Kazoo! 5 (March 2000)
Kazoo! 4 (March 1999)
Kazoo! 3-D (Summer 1998)
Kazoo! 2: The New Kazoo! Review (March 1998)
Kazoo! (March 1997)
Radio and Television Experience
NPR’s “Rewind with Bill Radke” Freelance Writer 1999-2002
KIRO TV’s “John Report with Bob” Writer, Performer 2000-2001
KING 5 TV’s “Almost Live” Staff Writer/Performer 1999
KBCS 91.3FM Radio Show Host 1999-2000
Contact info:
Brian “Winlar” Wennerlind
13020 6th Pl SW
Burien WA 98146
206.241-1007
206.972.3396 cell
See also: youtube.com/kazootv
funnyordie.com/winlar
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
A Ove Song
D Dsus2 A
I went to pen a song for you but I accidentay
D Dsus2 A
Knocked my cup of coffee over and spied iquid on the keys
G D G A
My aptop was totay fried but eventuy it mosty got better
G D A
And now it functions reasonabby fine with the exception of one important etter
D Dsus2
As for how my songwriting went
G
Obviousy not to we
D Dsus2 A
I tried to write you a ove song but my typewriter doesn’t have a
D Dsus2
2
It’s a most pequeiar probem I gotta talk with my computer wiz
I can’t even type the etter that I can’t type to te you what the etter even is
You can see it's causin' me endess troube and strife
I can't say how you’re my uscious itte ady who’s the ever ovin’ ight of my ife
There are otsa otsa otsa ines that I’m not sure that I ever get to te
I wanna write you a ove song but my typewriter doesn’t have a…
Sing
Tra a a a a a a a ah.
Tha a a a a a a a ah
C’mon. Sing a ong. A of you!
Now just the gentemen! Now just the adies!
Now a together!
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Facebook Whore
D G
You asked me for your friendship
D A
And since I think I’ve earned it
D G
I went as far as logging in
D A
And clicking to confirm it
Gmin Dmin
But then I saw your list of so-called friends on your profile
Gmin Dmin
The list you have of cyberpals
A
Went on for miles and miles
D G
I suspected you a phony
D A
But now I am quite sure
G D
I thought you were my special friend
A D
(Pause) But you’re just another facebook whore!
G D A
Facebook whore
G D
I thought that you were special but turns out
A
You’re just another facebook whore
You’ve got ten thousand facebook friends
But it’s all just a show
I’m certain more than half of them
You barely even know
I can’t believe you take online
Relationships so gratis
Do you ever do anything else but update your fucking status?
I have to say I find your online etiquette quite poor
No I won’t sign your online petition
‘cause you’re just another facebook whore
(Chorus)
(Bridge)
Gmin Dmin
I don’t want you to poke me
Don’t write on my wall
Don’t send me little gifts
You do know those aren’t gifts at all
Don’t tag me in your pictures
Don’t ask to be a fan
Don’t ask me to take an online quiz
A
To see what Twilight character I am
D G
View quiz, I don’t think so, no
D A
Just watch me click ignore
G D A
You’re a livingsocial disease and you’re just another facebook whore
So now I am unfriending you
I’m gonna hide your face
No more do I want to see you
slutting up my space
I’ve had it with your links and likes
and all your facebook litter
From now I’ll only follow you
on youtube, I.M., linkedin and twitter
And no I do not want to join you
To play mafia wars
So take your invitation back because You’re just another facebook whoreWednesday, February 03, 2010
Winlar: break-up Songs for Valentine's Day
Hey folks! Sorry for the late notice on this, but there's a big show this weekend! The ultimate fun date! Here's the skinny:
Winlar: Break-up Songs for Valentines Day Just in time for Valentine’s Day, Winlar, Former writer for Almost Live, NPR’s Rewind, The John Report w/ Bob and leader of the award winning sketch comedy group Kazoo! breaks down relationships from pick-up to parenthood and gives his irreverent take on love, marriage, children and other dating hazards with hilarious songs, jocular diatribes and stupid human tricks in a must see show for singles and married folks alike.(sorry, must be 21 or older to attend.)
It's at the Jewel Box theater at the Rendezvous in Belltown
Hope to see you all there!
-winlar
Winlar: Break-up Songs for Valentines Day Just in time for Valentine’s Day, Winlar, Former writer for Almost Live, NPR’s Rewind, The John Report w/ Bob and leader of the award winning sketch comedy group Kazoo! breaks down relationships from pick-up to parenthood and gives his irreverent take on love, marriage, children and other dating hazards with hilarious songs, jocular diatribes and stupid human tricks in a must see show for singles and married folks alike.(sorry, must be 21 or older to attend.)
It's at the Jewel Box theater at the Rendezvous in Belltown
Hope to see you all there!
-winlar
Friday, October 30, 2009
Conversation about God and gay rights
Hey Kids,
I responded to a comment line on facebook, which led to a lengthy discussion that actually got quite interesting! It's about the gay marriage initiative about to be voted on in Washington, which isn't really about gay marriage, but it is, so well, ya' know.
Anyway, too much work went into this on both sides, and I think that with both sides being somewhat reasoned and remarkably civil, (Yeah, I know!) I'd post it here for all to see.
As usual, the other voice (Name withheld so I don't get sued) is in black and my responses can be read in my usual purple prose.
The original post which set off the discussion (and of course became quickly moot) can be viewed here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=199800974417&comments=
Internet Guy:
You correctly state that marriage is a religious institution however, it cannot be an institution AND a civil right. Civil rights are inalienable and given by God (and marriage is not one of them). Unfortunately, This IS a political issue because the debate is over changing the definition of marriage because we gave the government the power to ... Read Moremanage marriage through licences. The government should not be involved in defining marriage. There is little stopping gays from having relationships or "marrying" (they deceive themselves that God recognizes it). I understand the need for government recognized contracts between persons who are not married, and I have no problem with allowing them, but don't call it a marriage.
Winlar:
According to Dictionary.com: CIVIL: 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens. 2. of the commonwealth or state...
(It goes on to give 10 definitions and in none of which is God mentioned. So to say that civil rights are given by God is by definition wrong.) What rights we as citizens have are to be determined by us on this mortal coil ... Read Moreand that's the way it always has been. So is the way we define words like "marriage" or "God." If God wishes to chime in on this issue, he will have to register to vote and provide proof of citizenship like everyone else. Until then, let's keep this civil issue planted on terra firma thank you.
Internet Guy:
Brian, Thank you for correcting my mistake. You are correct that civil rights are not from God, the appropriate word would be 'natural' which was my intent, but I erred. It doesn't change my point that marriage is not a right. Additionally, God HAS chimed in on this issue, and given a very straightforward definition of marriage. Marriage is ... Read Morelarger than the state. If it is redefined by the state, it is no longer marriage, it is a corruption. We already fail to apply marriage appropriately, lets not make it worse by pretending to validate corruption with a vote and a false name.
It is curious that you also believe God can be defined by man which implies you don't believe in anything absolute. What do you believe in?
PS - I should have done this earlier, but I actually read the text of referendum 71, it actually states that same-sex relationships are NOT marriages. It gives them the same rights (should be privileges not rights) as married couples. I incorrectly implied from Jennie's "marriage equality" plea that the referendum was on same-sex marriage. I have no objection to the referendum.
Winlar:
If we define rights as "natural" then free speech isn't a right, nor gun ownership, nor voting, as ALL of these rights exist in our society as legislative declarations voted into or out of our constitution. As a free society we are capable and obliged to determine what is and what isn't considered a right for ourselves. A right is not magical gift... Read More, it is a decision made by the populace. Nothing mystical about them, except that they are blessings of history passed down from our founders to us. I hope to create and pass down the right to marry anyone they love to my children and grandchildren as blessings in that same tradition.
As to whether or not God has chimed in on this issue I have to ask, "Whose God?" I am of the belief that God is VERY powerful, and being very powerful he would write any opinions he wishes me to share firmly into my DNA. Since he has not done that on this issue, I maintain that he remains mute. (The bible being a collection of books clearly written by the hands of men attempting to define God--yes I have read it-- I give it no more credence on this issue than on its prohibition of "rounding the corners of ones beard," or "wearing clothes of two different cloths." To use such antiquated guidelines over our democratically reasoned constitution would be "absolute-ly" foolish.)
Internet Guy:
Brian, the point is that marriage is NOT a right it is a privilege. A right is an entitlement for all, a privilege grants a special consideration to a certain group.
I'm glad you believe that God is powerful, that confession gives you hope in contrast to your original claim that we (man) define God is if he does not exist. God is not mute, he has written this on your soul because our DNA is cursed. If you believe that God is powerful enough to create life than you understand that life (and liberty...) is a natural (self evident/inalienable) right given by God. Our government was setup to protect those rights not grant them.
As for your view of the Bible, the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are for the Hebrew nation to remain separate from the idolatry of their neighbors and do not pertain to us Gentiles. We have a better law, the law of Love (Galatians 5:14). I believe a sincere investigation of what the Bible really says and why will clarify what God has already revealed to you.
Winlar:
Um, if you're going to throw away Leviticus, you're throwing away the ten commandments. Does "thou shalt not kill" not pertain to Gentiles?
As far as Love thy neighbor as thyself goes, I married the person I love. I will allow my neighbor to marry the person they love, even if my neighbor chooses to marry a same sex partner. Love is not a "special interest right," love is a HUMAN right. Why? Because I do not wish to live in a world where that is not so.
Marriage is a right most of us have that should not only pertain to a "certain group." This same argument was used to keep women from voting. I don't own fire arms, yet that right is protected. I am not a criminal, yet criminal's rights are protected. Being able to enjoy the same legal status as the majority of people and yes, even calling it the same thing (marriage) is not a "special consideration." It is equality under the law.
Government grants rights. The reason the Bill of Rights was so unique and wonderful is because of the long history preceding it where it hadn't occurred to anyone that people could even have these "inalienable" or "natural" rights. (Curious that the Bible never mentions that "excessive bail should not be required.") When our government granted slaves the right to vote it was wrong to do so? Is it divined by nature that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution, including all rights granted therein is simply law, and people make the law. We get to determine what is and what isn't a fundamental right with our votes and voices alone and that is the very most beautiful thing about the United States of America.
And as for sincerely investigating the Bible, I can think of no more sincere investigation of what the Bible says than reading the whole thing, as I have, as well as reading several books on the bible's origins, history and literary critiques. I'm a big bible nerd actually.
Almost named my child "Abednego" in fact. But if you really want to be spiritual you must look past God's supposed "word" and more to God's CREATION. A moderate study of science has taught me more about God than any Sunday sermon ever will. Einstein's definition of God as "the sum total of matter and energy in the universe," helps one function better in society than defining God as the Bible's human writer's did, as some petty tyrant who can't stand to hear his own name in an improper context.
Mark Twain once said, "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education." I would add, "Never let your churching get in the way of your spirituality." Yes, I believe in a powerful God. (The sum total of matter and energy in the universe is at last check, pretty powerful!)
A powerful God does not create "cursed DNA." A powerful God does not rely on an ancient book clearly written by fallible men to "define" him. A powerful God can at the very least "define" himself don't you think? A powerful God does not put a spiritual leader with a political agenda between you and him. Certainly not some spiritual leader who makes up things out of whole cloth like "cursed DNA."
Beware those who claim to tell you how God "thinks" or that they know what is "preordained" or "written." Beware those who would separate our society into "Those who can marry and the other ones." Beware those who claim that you are "cursed" and that "they know the way to fix you." They wish power over you, and if you believe what they say, they have it.
I responded to a comment line on facebook, which led to a lengthy discussion that actually got quite interesting! It's about the gay marriage initiative about to be voted on in Washington, which isn't really about gay marriage, but it is, so well, ya' know.
Anyway, too much work went into this on both sides, and I think that with both sides being somewhat reasoned and remarkably civil, (Yeah, I know!) I'd post it here for all to see.
As usual, the other voice (Name withheld so I don't get sued) is in black and my responses can be read in my usual purple prose.
The original post which set off the discussion (and of course became quickly moot) can be viewed here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=199800974417&comments=
Internet Guy:
You correctly state that marriage is a religious institution however, it cannot be an institution AND a civil right. Civil rights are inalienable and given by God (and marriage is not one of them). Unfortunately, This IS a political issue because the debate is over changing the definition of marriage because we gave the government the power to ... Read Moremanage marriage through licences. The government should not be involved in defining marriage. There is little stopping gays from having relationships or "marrying" (they deceive themselves that God recognizes it). I understand the need for government recognized contracts between persons who are not married, and I have no problem with allowing them, but don't call it a marriage.
Winlar:
According to Dictionary.com: CIVIL: 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens. 2. of the commonwealth or state...
(It goes on to give 10 definitions and in none of which is God mentioned. So to say that civil rights are given by God is by definition wrong.) What rights we as citizens have are to be determined by us on this mortal coil ... Read Moreand that's the way it always has been. So is the way we define words like "marriage" or "God." If God wishes to chime in on this issue, he will have to register to vote and provide proof of citizenship like everyone else. Until then, let's keep this civil issue planted on terra firma thank you.
Internet Guy:
Brian, Thank you for correcting my mistake. You are correct that civil rights are not from God, the appropriate word would be 'natural' which was my intent, but I erred. It doesn't change my point that marriage is not a right. Additionally, God HAS chimed in on this issue, and given a very straightforward definition of marriage. Marriage is ... Read Morelarger than the state. If it is redefined by the state, it is no longer marriage, it is a corruption. We already fail to apply marriage appropriately, lets not make it worse by pretending to validate corruption with a vote and a false name.
It is curious that you also believe God can be defined by man which implies you don't believe in anything absolute. What do you believe in?
PS - I should have done this earlier, but I actually read the text of referendum 71, it actually states that same-sex relationships are NOT marriages. It gives them the same rights (should be privileges not rights) as married couples. I incorrectly implied from Jennie's "marriage equality" plea that the referendum was on same-sex marriage. I have no objection to the referendum.
Winlar:
If we define rights as "natural" then free speech isn't a right, nor gun ownership, nor voting, as ALL of these rights exist in our society as legislative declarations voted into or out of our constitution. As a free society we are capable and obliged to determine what is and what isn't considered a right for ourselves. A right is not magical gift... Read More, it is a decision made by the populace. Nothing mystical about them, except that they are blessings of history passed down from our founders to us. I hope to create and pass down the right to marry anyone they love to my children and grandchildren as blessings in that same tradition.
As to whether or not God has chimed in on this issue I have to ask, "Whose God?" I am of the belief that God is VERY powerful, and being very powerful he would write any opinions he wishes me to share firmly into my DNA. Since he has not done that on this issue, I maintain that he remains mute. (The bible being a collection of books clearly written by the hands of men attempting to define God--yes I have read it-- I give it no more credence on this issue than on its prohibition of "rounding the corners of ones beard," or "wearing clothes of two different cloths." To use such antiquated guidelines over our democratically reasoned constitution would be "absolute-ly" foolish.)
Internet Guy:
Brian, the point is that marriage is NOT a right it is a privilege. A right is an entitlement for all, a privilege grants a special consideration to a certain group.
I'm glad you believe that God is powerful, that confession gives you hope in contrast to your original claim that we (man) define God is if he does not exist. God is not mute, he has written this on your soul because our DNA is cursed. If you believe that God is powerful enough to create life than you understand that life (and liberty...) is a natural (self evident/inalienable) right given by God. Our government was setup to protect those rights not grant them.
As for your view of the Bible, the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are for the Hebrew nation to remain separate from the idolatry of their neighbors and do not pertain to us Gentiles. We have a better law, the law of Love (Galatians 5:14). I believe a sincere investigation of what the Bible really says and why will clarify what God has already revealed to you.
Winlar:
Um, if you're going to throw away Leviticus, you're throwing away the ten commandments. Does "thou shalt not kill" not pertain to Gentiles?
As far as Love thy neighbor as thyself goes, I married the person I love. I will allow my neighbor to marry the person they love, even if my neighbor chooses to marry a same sex partner. Love is not a "special interest right," love is a HUMAN right. Why? Because I do not wish to live in a world where that is not so.
Marriage is a right most of us have that should not only pertain to a "certain group." This same argument was used to keep women from voting. I don't own fire arms, yet that right is protected. I am not a criminal, yet criminal's rights are protected. Being able to enjoy the same legal status as the majority of people and yes, even calling it the same thing (marriage) is not a "special consideration." It is equality under the law.
Government grants rights. The reason the Bill of Rights was so unique and wonderful is because of the long history preceding it where it hadn't occurred to anyone that people could even have these "inalienable" or "natural" rights. (Curious that the Bible never mentions that "excessive bail should not be required.") When our government granted slaves the right to vote it was wrong to do so? Is it divined by nature that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution, including all rights granted therein is simply law, and people make the law. We get to determine what is and what isn't a fundamental right with our votes and voices alone and that is the very most beautiful thing about the United States of America.
And as for sincerely investigating the Bible, I can think of no more sincere investigation of what the Bible says than reading the whole thing, as I have, as well as reading several books on the bible's origins, history and literary critiques. I'm a big bible nerd actually.
Almost named my child "Abednego" in fact. But if you really want to be spiritual you must look past God's supposed "word" and more to God's CREATION. A moderate study of science has taught me more about God than any Sunday sermon ever will. Einstein's definition of God as "the sum total of matter and energy in the universe," helps one function better in society than defining God as the Bible's human writer's did, as some petty tyrant who can't stand to hear his own name in an improper context.
Mark Twain once said, "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education." I would add, "Never let your churching get in the way of your spirituality." Yes, I believe in a powerful God. (The sum total of matter and energy in the universe is at last check, pretty powerful!)
A powerful God does not create "cursed DNA." A powerful God does not rely on an ancient book clearly written by fallible men to "define" him. A powerful God can at the very least "define" himself don't you think? A powerful God does not put a spiritual leader with a political agenda between you and him. Certainly not some spiritual leader who makes up things out of whole cloth like "cursed DNA."
Beware those who claim to tell you how God "thinks" or that they know what is "preordained" or "written." Beware those who would separate our society into "Those who can marry and the other ones." Beware those who claim that you are "cursed" and that "they know the way to fix you." They wish power over you, and if you believe what they say, they have it.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Health care in history
Well, President Obama has called upon bloggers to help the health care cause
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/obama-calls-on-bloggers-t_n_241570.html
So since it’s a presidential imperative, time to get back to the blog after what? Half a year? Here we go!
Some high comedy from history: It’s very fun to laugh at those in the past, mainly because they’re dead and can’t punch you for laughing at them.
Roman Emperor Marcus Licinius Crassus is credited with inventing the fire brigade. He was also one of the wealthiest men ever in the history of the world. How did he achieve such wealth and status? From Wikipedia:
Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the doomed property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done. Crassus' clients employed the Roman method of firefighting -- destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.
Yes, Crassus would pay pennies on the dollar for burning buildings, knowing that he held the only resource they had to put the fire out. (Clients means slaves btw.) And pennies being better than nothing, other Romans were forced to make the deal. Ridiculous huh?
It’s very funny to laugh at Crassus now that he’s gone and can’t march legions to your door, as well as at the hapless Romans who couldn’t see that fire is a PUBLIC problem, and that a private solution to a public problem can only lead to something crass. (Get it? Crass? Crassus? I told you this was funny!) Sometimes you need state-run entities like FDNY just to keep profit speculation out of things like fire prevention.
Anyway, have a good laugh at Crassus, as for thousands of years after we’re long dead, future generations will be laughing at us. And here’s the punch line they’ll use:
In the 20th and early 21st centuries, Hospitals actually ADVERTISED! On television! They literally would advertise to people to come and be sick at THEIR hospital instead of a competitor’s. “Hey, don’t die of cancer over there! No! You’re doing it wrong! Give us all your money and die of cancer over here!” It’s like the line “your money or your life,” but for real, and somehow government sanctioned.
Invented the fire brigade, ran an HMO... Hmm... eerily similar. Future generations will not be lacking for fodder when looking back to cackle at our backward ways.
Well I for one don’t want those jerks of the future joking at me, so President Obama, please, get us some single payer, or anything that’ll be better than this mess we’re in now.
Yours,
-Winlar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/obama-calls-on-bloggers-t_n_241570.html
So since it’s a presidential imperative, time to get back to the blog after what? Half a year? Here we go!
Some high comedy from history: It’s very fun to laugh at those in the past, mainly because they’re dead and can’t punch you for laughing at them.
Roman Emperor Marcus Licinius Crassus is credited with inventing the fire brigade. He was also one of the wealthiest men ever in the history of the world. How did he achieve such wealth and status? From Wikipedia:
Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the doomed property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done. Crassus' clients employed the Roman method of firefighting -- destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.
Yes, Crassus would pay pennies on the dollar for burning buildings, knowing that he held the only resource they had to put the fire out. (Clients means slaves btw.) And pennies being better than nothing, other Romans were forced to make the deal. Ridiculous huh?
It’s very funny to laugh at Crassus now that he’s gone and can’t march legions to your door, as well as at the hapless Romans who couldn’t see that fire is a PUBLIC problem, and that a private solution to a public problem can only lead to something crass. (Get it? Crass? Crassus? I told you this was funny!) Sometimes you need state-run entities like FDNY just to keep profit speculation out of things like fire prevention.
Anyway, have a good laugh at Crassus, as for thousands of years after we’re long dead, future generations will be laughing at us. And here’s the punch line they’ll use:
In the 20th and early 21st centuries, Hospitals actually ADVERTISED! On television! They literally would advertise to people to come and be sick at THEIR hospital instead of a competitor’s. “Hey, don’t die of cancer over there! No! You’re doing it wrong! Give us all your money and die of cancer over here!” It’s like the line “your money or your life,” but for real, and somehow government sanctioned.
Invented the fire brigade, ran an HMO... Hmm... eerily similar. Future generations will not be lacking for fodder when looking back to cackle at our backward ways.
Well I for one don’t want those jerks of the future joking at me, so President Obama, please, get us some single payer, or anything that’ll be better than this mess we’re in now.
Yours,
-Winlar
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Thenwhat analysis
All right.
Sorry I’ve not blogged in forever. In my defense, I offer 3 excuses.
- I have adorable children whose faces I can’t see whilst gazing into a computer screen
- There were holidays and I was drunk a great portion of the time.
- There’s only one person who ever reads this anyway. Which reminds me, honey could you stop at the store on your way home and pick up a loaf of bread?
(Actually that’s just a joke. My wife doesn’t read my blog. Nobody reads this. So you can see why it’s hard to motivate.)
Anyway I’ve been getting ready for the big inaugural bash (Jan 20th, 7pm, Jewel Box) and like many others combining New Years’ resolutions and Christmas wishes with dreams for the new administration, I’ve been trying to nail down my one biggest hope for the next four years. And here’s what I’ve come up with.
My hope for the Obama administration is that they learn from the previous administration and do what I like to call the “Thenwhat analysis.” on the issues they must address. It’s very simple to do, but for some reason has been utterly rejected by the current administration.
Here’s how you do thenwhat analysis. Before you do something, you ask yourself, “If we do this… Then what?” Sounds simple right? I bet you do a little of that every day. Yet time after time in American politics, we neglect to do the thenwhat analysis.
Imagine if we’d done it say in Iraq? “Let’s invade Iraq.”
“O.K… (short pause) then what?”
“Well, everyone will live happily ever after?”
(Note, if thenwhat analysis comes back “everyone will live happily ever after” you have not done proper thenwhat analysis.)
“Oh wait, on second thought, if we invade Iraq, a lot of people will be killed, millions will be displaced, people won’t be very happy with us and we will be three trillion dollars poorer.”
“Hmm, let’s maybe not do that then.”
Or had we done a little thenwhat analysis with Bush’s tax cuts.
“Hey, let’s cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while waging two global wars!”
“OK… then what?”
“Um… Oh, wait, we’ll wind up with the largest budget deficits in American History!”
“Hey let’s not do that maybe then…”
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we had just done some rudimentary thenwhat analysis?
So that’s my hope for the Obama administration. For every policy, may they just do the requisite thenwhat analysis.
“Let’s give GM a ton of money.” Then what?
“Let’s go to war with Iran/ North Korea.” Then what?
Let us always use thenwhat analysis for all things from here on in.
And that’s my wish for the Obama administration. That and health care. Let’s get us some health care.
--w
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)