1:06 PM// Perfectly Inerrant: A Rebuttal to an Evangelical Christian's Analysis of the Qur'an

This morning, an old friend of mine forwarded me an email from a weekly Christian audio program she subscribes to called "The Weekly Walk". On the air this week, we have a chapter from their series on "Iraq, Islam, and the Middle East" with Dr. James MacDonald. To summarize his position: Christianity is morally superior to Islam. The good doctor supplies several examples from the Koran as evidence that all Muslims follow a doctrine of hate & violence while all Christians believe in peace and love derived from a "perfect source of absolute, authoritative, inerrant truth" (the Bible).

This is an interesting set to compare, considering one is a collection of beliefs and ideals (Christianity), and the other is a book upon which beliefs and ideals are based (Koran). I have not written much on the subject of religion, so I feel I am long overdue.

Firstly, comparing Christianity to Islam or the Bible to the Koran might make for an interesting discussion. But comparing "what I personally believe" to "an old text many Muslims may base their faith on" is not a fair comparison at all. For example, the Koran speaks of Allah-sanctioned war. So the immediate conclusion from Professor Objective is that all Muslims are violent-seeking warmongers, while all Christians believe in peace and love.

Before I proceed, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I harbor no negative feelings towards Christian beliefs in any way. I believe the Bible has a good message of peace and love. While listening to MacDonald lay out his evidence against Islam, it occurred to me that I could locate similar "evidence" in the Bible against Christianity. Imagine for a moment someone who knew of Christianity, but knew very little about it, the way many Christians know very little about Islam. If they were to take selected passages from the Bible, what conclusions regarding Christians would they draw?

What follows is intended as satire, to show that if one only looks at a few selected Biblical passages, one could paint almost any picture one wanted about Christianity. In short, I'm doing to the Bible what Dr. MacDonald did to the Koran. Here's what I've come up with:

The Wrath of God

Many acts are punishable by death in the Bible. Here are crimes for which God Himself administers the death sentence:

• Prayer - God performs an abortion at Hosea's request, "drying up her womb" - Hosea 9:11-16


• God orders Abraham to slay his own son - Genesis 22:9-10


• Masterbation (spilling seed upon the ground to avoid impregnating his brother's wife) - Genesis 38:8-10


• Passover. God's Tenth Plague was to strike down the firstborn sons of all of Egypt. - Exodus 12:29


• Obesity (a "great plague" in Numbers 11:32-33, "God slew the fattest of them" in Psalms 78:31)


• Making fun of others. In 2 Kings 2:23-24 God sends a squadron of bears to maul 42 children for making fun of ugly people.


• Promiscuity. In Ezekiel 23:25-27 God says promiscuous woman will not actually be put to death, but instead their ears and noses will be cut off and burned, their children taken away, be made to walk naked so that everyone will know of their "whoredom", and they will be banished from Egypt. In Leviticus 21:9, they are simply burned to death.


• Failure to give to the poor. In Acts 5:1-10 Jesus strikes a couple dead for holding back some of the profits of a sale intended to provide charity to the poor.


• Blasphemy. Leviticus 10:16: God told Moses that a child held in custody for blasphemy should be stoned to death by the townspeople.

Here are other acts punishable by death:

• Wearing garments sown of two different threads - Deuteronomy 22:11


• Unruly children aught be put to death (Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, Exodus 21:15,17)


• Working on the Sabbath - Exodus 35:2


• Adultery - Leviticus 20:10

God, it seems, is particularly violent against many acts that we consider trivial today.

Promotion of Violence:

The following are passages in the Bible that glorify, encourage, sanction, or otherwise promote violent acts

• "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" - Psalms 137:9 (song of a vengeance obtained by smashing children's heads into stone.)


• "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him" - Moses 31:17


• If a man causes a woman to miscarry, he is subject to whatever punishment the woman's husband doles out to him, and he is subject to a fine. - Exodus 21:22


• Numbers 5:11-21 describes a painful ritual performed on wives suspected of adultery to induce an abortion and rid her of another man's possible child. Suspicion of adultery includes "the spirit of jealously" coming to the husband. If she is found guilty, she must bear the full blame, while her husband specifically takes none. The woman is given a medicine to "enter her and cause bitter pain" inducing a painful abortion that makes "your womb discharge and your uterus drop". However, if she is innocent, then the medicine goes right through her without causing pain.

Restrictions on Sex:

The Bible has quite a bit to say on the subject of sex. Here are a few selected passages:

• The well-known Leviticus 18:22 verse condemning homosexuality "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" is often quoted by Christians as proof that God condones the restriction of homosexual rights. However, immediately afterword the Bible condemns adultery with equal vehemence in Leviticus 20:10: "And the man that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death", yet I am not aware of any groups which exist to promote the restriction of rights of adulteresses.


• Leviticus 18:23 condemns bestiality


• Matthew 5:31-32 suggests that marrying a divorced woman is adultery, punishable by death according to Leviticus 20:10.


• Leviticus 20:18 forbids sex during menstruation. In fact, menstruation is called "her sickness". The punishment for violation is "both of them shall be cut off from among their people."


• Crossdressing is evil. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5

Treatment of Children:

• A woman relates a story in which she agreed to trade sons with another woman so they might boil and eat each other's children. After the first woman gave up her son to be eaten by the second, the second woman then hid her own son. - Kings 6:28


• A king cuts a living child in half to settle a dispute concerning parentage. - Kings 3:24-25


• God sends bears to maul 42 children for making fun of ugly people. - 2 Kings 2:23-24


• Unruly children aught be put to death - Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Mark 7:10, & Exodus 21:15,17

Slavery, especially of women

• Leviticus 19:20 says a woman who has sex with a man while engaged to another should be whipped, but not put to death because she is a slave to her fiance.


• Moses tells his soldiers they should "keep alive for yourselves" virgin girls of the city they are about to attack - Numbers 31:18


• If a man rapes a virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and marry her. In general, the Bible regards rape as a violation of property. Hence, the rape of a virgin is more like laying claim to an unclaimed woman. The passage is
  

  "If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days" - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  
  That is, if a man happens across a virgin not promised to any other man, and he claims her, has sex with her, and someone finds out, then the man must pay off her father and take the woman as his wife.


• Exodus 21:7 sanctions selling your daughter into slavery


• It is wrong for a man to marry his mother, not because of the incestual relation, but because it would be a violation of his father's rights. - Deuteronomy 22:30

Now I'm sure that I've enraged thousands of good Christians, but that is not my intent. Of course, I do not believe that the above selected Biblical teachings are an accurate representation of Christian values. But if you think this exercise ridiculous or are enraged, then you must surely see my point: a 2,000 year old text upon which a faith is based is not a fair assessment of the moral superiority of that religion. That is, the Koran has some passages that perhaps lend negative feelings towards Islam. But if you're going to base your feelings towards Muslims entirely on those passages, then what would a Muslim "Professor" have to say about Christianity based only on the Bible?

This radio address suggested multiple times that Christians believe the Bible is a "perfect source of absolute, authoritative, inerrant truth", while "Muslims study a book that is in constant flux". By this latter statement he meant that Muslims believe the wickedness of an act depends on its context. First of all, let's assume he was comparing his personal beliefs to what Islam means to him and that he did not presume to speak for all Christians or Muslims.

He suggests that in Islam, Allah judges individual acts to be good or evil depending on their context, unlike Christianity in which all evil acts are always evil. While I admittedly know little about the Koran, I know that for the Biblical God, virtue does depend on context. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is a well-known Commandment dictated to Moses on Mt. Sinai, straight from the Lord's mouth. Yet, there are numerous instances in the Bible where God orders someone be put to death, as in the case of the child who took the Lord's name in vain. If God is good and infallible, then disobeying a direct order from Him would be evil. So either God is commanding an entire congregation to commit evil, or He does consider the context of the situation. That is, an act may be deemed good in one context, and evil in another. This is precisely the point MacDonald makes regarding the Koran to illustrate that Christianity is morally superior, yet clearly this is not a valid argument.

"Perfect source of absolute, authoritative, inerrant truth"

This is hard to believe coming from someone with a doctoral degree. Show me a Bible that is completely free from errors and I will remove this entire article. I've heard estimates of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible total over 150,000. I will present a small subset here. Let's start with contradictions.

Contradictions

• The Sabbath
  
  "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
  
  "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
  
• Permanency of Earth
  
  "… the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes1:4
  
  "… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2 Peter 3:10
  
• Seeing God
  
  "… I have seen God face to face …" -- Genesis 32:30
  
  "No man hath seen God at any time…" -- John 1:18
  
• God's Omnipotence
  
  "…with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26
  
  "…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19
  
• Circumcision
  
  "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep,between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10
  
  "…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2
  

The following table concerns the morning following Jesus' crucifixion:

Question	Yes	No
2. Was it still dark out?	John 20:1	Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2
3. Did Mary Magdalene tell any men about the tomb?	Mt 28:8; Lu 24:9-10; John 20:2	Mk 16:8
4. Did she go back to the tomb with any of them?	John 20:2-11	Mt 28:1-10,16; Mk 16:8-14; Lu 24:9-12
5. Was there just one angel at Jesus's tomb?	Mt 28:2-5; Mk 16:5-6	(There were two.) Lu 24:4-5; John 20:11-13
6. Were the angels inside the tomb?	Mk 16:5; John 20:11-12	(The one angel was outside.) Mt 28:2
7. Were there guards at the tomb?	Mt 27:62-66, 28:2-4,11-15	Mk 15:44-16:10; Lu 23:50-24:12; John 19:38-20:12
8. Did the angel(s) look like lightning?	Mt 28:2-4	(Humanlike) Mk 16:5; Lu 24:4
9. Did the angel(s) get to the tomb first?	Mk 16:5	Lu 24:2-4; John 20:1-12
10. Did Peter go alone?	Lu 24:12	John 20:2-6
11. Did Jesus appear first to Cephas (Peter)?	1Co 15:3-5	Mt 28:9; Mk 16:9; Lu 24:9-15; John 20:14
12. Did he appear at all to Mary Magdalene?	Mt 28:9; Mk 16:9 John 20:11-14	Lu 24:1-51; 1Co 15:3-8
13. Did he appear to her at the tomb after the disciples were told?	John 20:1-14	(Not at the tomb, and before they were told) Mt 28:1-9; Mk 16:1-10
14. Was she alone when Jesus appeared to her?	Mk 16:9-10; John 20:10-14	(The other Mary was with her.) Mt 28:1-9
15. Did she recognize him immediately?	Mt 28:9; Mk 16:9-10	John 20:14
16. Did Peter go to the tomb before the others were told about it?	(But he was not alone.) John 20:1-3,18	(It was after, and he went alone.) Lu 24:9-12
17. Did Jesus specially appear to two disciples?	Mk 16:12; Lu 24:13-31	Mt 28:16-18; John 20:19-29
18. Did they recognize him immediately?	Mk 16:12-13	Lu 24:13-16
19. Did he later appear as they spoke to the others?	Lu 24:36	(It was after.) Mk 16:14
20. Did he scold the others for not believing them?	Mk 16:14	Lu 24:35-51
21. Did Jesus appear just once to the disciples?	Mk 16:14-19; Lu 24:36-51	(It was thrice.) John 20:19-26, 21:1-2,14
22. Was the 1st appearance to them in Galilee?	Mt 28:9-10,16-18	Lu 24:33-36,49-51; John 20:18-26; Ac 1:4
23. Did they all recognize him immediately?	Mk 16:14-20; John 20:19-20	Mt 28:16-17; Lu 24:36-41
24. Did he ascend to heaven immediately afterwards?	Mt 28:9-10,16-20; Mk 16:14-19; Lu 24:36-51	John 20:19-26, 21:1; Ac 1:1-9; 1Co 15:3-8
25. Did he appear to them twice, eight days apart?	John 20:19-26	Mt 28:9-20; Mk 16:14-19; Lu 24:36-51
26. Did he appear to the Twelve, to over 500, & then specially to James?	1Co 15:5-7	Mt 27, 28; Mk 16; Lu 24; John 20, 21
27. Did Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany?	Lu 24:50-51	(From Mt. Olivet) Ac 1:9-12; (Jerusalem) Mk 16:14-19
28. Was Jesus the only one to ascend to heaven?	John 3:13	(Enoch and Elijah too) Heb 11:5; 2Ki 2:11
29. Did Paul's companions hear Jesus's voice?	Ac 9:7	Ac 22:9, 26:14

Source: Drange, Theodore, The Argument from the Bible, (1996), collected from the World Wide Web February 9, 2005. Reproduced without permission.

Clearly the Bible is not free of contradictions. How can two completely different things happen? While these might seem like minor "nit-picky" contradictions, it is very important if you are going to claim that the Bible is a source of "absolute, inerrant truth".

Inerrant?

Contradictions aside, one may cite many factual errors as well:

• 1 Kings 7:23 says pi is not greater than 3, yet we know pi is approximately 3.14159…, much greater than 3. I don't think this passage is God telling us pi is exactly three, as the passage states only that a "round sea" of diameter 10 can be enclosed in a line of circumference 30 (not exactly equal to). Still, God is apparently telling us that pi is less than or equal to three, which is wrong.


• The Bible estimates the Earth at about 6,000 years old, yet there is enormous scientific evidence suggesting the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.


• There is irrefutable evidence to show the earth does not rest upon pillars, as suggested in Genesis 9:6.


• Genesis 1:16 places the Earth in the Universe before the stars, while we know entire galaxies of stars existed for billions of years before the earth.


• Genesis 2:7 suggests God created mankind in his image from dust and gave him life by breathing into his nostrils. However, there is enormous evidence suggesting that Man evolved from other primates over the course of millions of years and did not suddenly come into existence by the breath of God.

I am unable to fathom how anyone can claim the Bible is a source of "inerrant truth", when clearly even a cursory investigation reveals it to be rife with error. I think the message is good, but let's not kid ourselves about the rampant incongruities abounding throughout this holy document.

Religiously Inspired Military Conquest

Another of MacDonald's claims is that much of what is now Islamic holy land was originally obtained through military conquest. He goes on to condemn any religion which would actively promote violence in the name of religion. Sure, Christians have never done that before. This one is so obvious, I don't think I need to elaborate on the leagues of blood lost in the name of Christ. To quote Monty Python:

"Jesus said 'love thy neighbor', and for the next two thousand years, people are killing each other because they can't agree on how he said it." -- Terry Jones

Conclusions

Remember, I am not trying to convince you to disregard the Bible, or to "disprove" the Bible. In fact, I think that the Bible provides an excellent message of peace and love. However, this is essentially what MacDonald has done to the Koran. If you're going to dismiss an entire religion based on its major text, it is easy to be hypocritical. I have tried to create one possible image of Christianity based solely on a selective analysis of the Bible to demonstrate the ease and danger of inciting negative feelings towards an entire people.

Also, I don't mind promotions of the Bible and its message; just don't provide some obscure passage in the Bible as "proof" that something is evil (i.e. homosexuality). If you're using the Bible as your axioms for life, then you can't be quite so selective. Why not legalize slavery and beat your wife whenever you feel the "spirit of jealousy"? Or stone small children to death for blasphemy as ordered by God Himself? If you really believe homosexuals are going to burn in Hell for their sins based only on the Bible, are you ready to accept the same fate for a second marriage? Why accept one passage in the Bible and disregard the other? After all, the Bible is a perfect source of absolute truth.

But that is an argument for another time. My only purpose here is to satirize our evangelical friend's work on the Koran by providing exactly the same service on the Bible. Perhaps this will make the ridiculousness of his arguments against Islam apparent.

8:51 PM// Oil Wars

"No blood for oil!" Gee never heard that one. War is ugly; we should always always always try to avoid it. To kill for a non-renewable resource that pollutes the environment anyway and increases the pocketbooks of already rich Texans doesn't sound very idealistic either. Sound familiar? As a First World citizen, what are some things I'd be willing to go to war far? Oil is at the top of the list.

unless you're a starving naked hippie living in a clay hut stop screaming about the fuel that powers your lifestyle.

Next time you feel like randomly shouting "no blood for oil" out of a speeding car, think about your way of life. First of all, what do you think makes that car you're screaming from move? Ok, that one's obvious. Unfortunately, that's about as far as most idealists get. Private vehicular use constitutes the smallest portion of the oil-pie. Most of the oil in the US ends up as diesel for the train and trucking industry -- moving goods around. It is what our entire infrastructure is built upon. Considering our current system, let's take a moment to see what life would be like sans oil:

• Agriculture. Machines that plant, maintain, and harvest crops are gone. Wiped out. That's a fair number of oxen we suddenly need. Forget eating veggies, grains, fruits, anything generally good for you for a while.


• Meat. Yeah, that's out too. All farm equipment really.


• Groceries. Most people drive to the grocery store, but the point is moot anyway, since there are no trucks to deliver the groceries for which there are no machines to grow.


• Construction. No oil means no areas to deforest implies no lumber and no trucks to deliver the lumber to the construction site.


• Clothing. May be made by little children in the Third World, but no way to get it here. No way to truck it to department stores and no way for customers to get there.


• Electricity. With over 70% of our electricity coming from fossil fuels, most of which is delivered by train, your local power plant has no fuel for which to boil water, creating steam to turn a turbine, creating electricity. But all that doesn't matter because we can't mine coal or gas either.


• The postal service can't deliver mail. That's means you can't pay bills or taxes. You can't receive services you can't pay for, so the government is broke and you've no water or electricity (of which there is none anyway).


• The Internet is gone.


• Pretty much every material object you own is gone.

So there you have it; unless you're a starving naked hippie living in a clay hut stop screaming about the fuel that powers your lifestyle. Bush is an idiot; we shouldn't have invaded Iraq; we desperately need alternative fuel sources; but right now, in this moment with our infrastructure and system the way it is, we really need oil too. $500 Billion and 10 years would better have been spent developing a resource that won't become extinct in the next 50 years anyway, but if our oil supply is seriously threatened, I can't imagine a better excuse for war.

9:05 PM// You don't know Terri Schiavo, and neither do I.

Thousands of people die every day. Every day hundreds of people are fatal victims of gun violence in the USA alone. Thousands of children succumb to starvation every day, and they weren't in a "persistent vegetative state". Why aren't these protesters crying for them? I'm not saying they don't care about world hunger, but many people are not just protesting what has become an unfortunate political issue. They are truly moved by the Schiavo woman. Crying. Praying. For a woman they had never heard of before she was brain dead. Do they know what kind of person she is? Her morals? Was she kind or mean? Gentle or harsh? Generous or greedy? They have no idea.

…we're making a huge fuss over one woman who is already dead anyway, ignoring the hundreds who succumbed to starvation or AIDS while reading this article.

It is certainly a sticky issue. I'm glad the decision is not up to me, because I still don't know what I would do. But will I shed any tears over this woman I've never met, who has had no impact on my life or anyone I know, and who has been completely brain-dead since I was eight years old? I'm sorry, but I just can't. Just like I won't shed tears for the hundreds of people that will die today in a car accident, or those suffering from malicious tumors, tragic as those ailments are. And neither will you.

So why have masses of "the religious right" taken up candle-light vigils outside the hospital? Why do they value the plight of this brain-dead woman they've never known over the plight of that little Uganda kid we see in the TV ad next to Sally Struthers? Because Schiavo is closer to home? If it could happen to her, it could happen to you? It's easy to dissociate yourself from starving kids in Africa, a culture you'll probably never experience first hand. But Terri Schiavo "lives" right there in Florida.

The difference is that we can decide if Schiavo lives or dies, but victims of gun violence are already dead and you're not the one that pulled the trigger. Stroke, heart disease, motor vehicles, cancer, floods, hurricanes are all unfortunate things that happen. But why don't these same people camp outside of the Whitehouse begging the administration to send further aid to Africa, or other third world locations? That is a choice, and while we generally agree more needs to be done, we're making a huge fuss over one woman who is already dead anyway, ignoring the hundreds who succumbed to starvation or AIDS while reading this article. Because they didn't have enough food. Or medicine. Or people who care enough to shed a tear. Terri Schiavo has the monopoly on that.

9:26 PM// Spanish? Nice Mullet.

You know what Spain is? The US in the 80's. Mullets and American 80's music abound. Seriously. And the worst part? You probably think I'm talking about the men. Well, they have mullets too; but I'm talking mostly about the women. Yep, the mullet is in vogue in Spain. Women actually pay to have their once beautiful hair cut short in the front and oddly layered in the back. {Shiver}. Outside of a museum in Madrid, I actually saw a woman with an exceptionally short haircut all over (think nearly shaved) and a foot-long rat tail in the back. An actual rat-tail. I thought they were hideous when I was in second grade, and I think so now, too. MacGuyver would fit in nicely there.

Hopefully, this fad will only go on for a few years, and then everyone will come to their senses and say, "what the Hell were we thinking?!" After all, that's pretty much what happened to Americans in the early 90's. Men are even better. The new fad for men is to nearly shave the sides of the head, leaving a near mohawk on top, continuing down the back, for a nice six inch mullet. Then be sure to add plenty of product so you look like a drowned rat. What's really interesting? Go to an Asian restaurant in Spain. Even the chinese waiters have mullets. Freaky.

It's not all mullets

Mullets aside, I could get used to the lifestyle. 30-35 hour work weeks. Two hour lunch breaks. Wine with everything. Late dinners. Paella with "fruits of the sea". Ironically their sense of style is very European -- clothing, shoes, hair product, "popped" collars -- but then they all have mullets. Go figure.

I had the good fortune to stay with a Spanish family for about a week. Lunch is the big meal of the day (like American & French supper). It starts about 2 or 3 o'clock and lasts one to two hours. Wine comes standard. Our Spanish family sometimes drinks the wine from a wine skin held several feet from the mouth, so that the wine has time to properly breath before reaching the palette. They made sangria and paella (which is basically risotto). Dinner is about 10 o'clock, but it's really more like a snack. It's not a serious event. Tapas and beer maybe.

Marriage

Our Spanish father had much to say on the topic of marriage, including the ridiculousness of coupling before the age of 29. Also, women are witches who know everything, so don't try hiding it. Be sure to use "preservatives" during sex (which is "muy bien") even if she says she's on birth control, otherwise her tummy will expand rapidly and a ring will find its way to your finger. Needless to say, the hand-gesturing, pelvic thrusting version of this story from a man missing the top three buttons on his shirt is much more engaging and effective.

Spaniards usually live with their parents until they get married (around 30). This is partially due to a simply cultural difference and the cost of living alone. Most people do not have jobs while in school like nearly all Americans do, so they could not afford to live outside mom and dad's place. While it seems like it may be difficult to court anyone while under the parents' roof, Spanish dates are allowed to enter each other's bedrooms undisturbed by parents (usually).

The Perks of Police Work

Our Spanish father is a cop. As such, he knows a great deal about Spanish law. For instance, we learned that while it is illegal to grow, sell, or buy marijuana, it is perfectly legal to possess and consume in one's own home. This as we were shown an impressive pipe and hasheesh collection.

Also, these Spaniards had quite an impressive CD collection, although most of them seemed to be burned. This wasn't particularly surprising since the father had an equally impressive DVD collection, obtained by pirating rented DVDs. He also used a peer-to-peer file sharing program to download the latest computer games and filmed-in-the-theather movies.

When we left, the father gave Katie and I a huge stack of burned CDs, complete with a copy of the jewel case cover artwork and track listing. We thought he was either extremely generous, or trying to unload his less desirable CDs to some appreciative young travelers. Then Katie had an insight: these CDs look an awful lot like the kind street vendors sell illegally. The kind that might be confiscated by Spanish policemen. And subsequently given away as gifts? Well, I'm working my way through them during this writing. Some are an interesting dose of culture, and others are not so good. But it's an experience.

Oh, and Picasso was a disturbed, crazy genius, and Spain is cheaper than France.

9:25 PM// French? Sorry, we're out of that.

In my infinte wisdom, I've decided that the epitome of Frenchiness is to offer the following response to any first request: "No." May I have a baquette? No. I'd like one Leffe, please. We're all out of that kind of beer.

Last week I went to Paris for a few days for some cheese and wine. One in three waiters told me I couldn't have my first desire. If it wasn't pre-made, or if it took a bit more effort to prepare than any other menu item, it was unavailable. If it is a pre-made sandwich, don't ask for it sans tomatoes. But is this annoying? Insensitive? Rude? Hardly. On the contrary, I think it's rude for a customer to expect such treatment from a waiter or clerk. They are there to process a business exchange, not be your servant.

Waiters

What is the American obsession with French waiter rudeness? I've heard a few stories of truly rude French waiters, but I think it mostly stems from a cultural difference in which the French are being extraordinarily patient and attentive. With the American culture attitude of rush, rush, rush, we forget that there are some areas of the World that haven't forgotten how to savor a moment. French waiters take your order, bring your food, and then LEAVE YOU ALONE. Thank God. I hate being bothered every 36 seconds to see if I need more bread, tap water, or anything else. What a waste. If I need something, I'll ask for it, thank you. Constant nagging implies I'm being pushed to continue my meal. And why bring me the check before I'm ready to leave? How appalling; we call the French rude? Is there a more obviously rude message than "here's your bill, now please pay and get out so we can serve another party"?

To truly experience what a waiter should be, order a multicourse meal in France. In America, one may get an appetizer, but the main course is served when it's ready. How about you serve it when I'm ready? A good waiter waits until everyone's predinner aperitif is just above the bottom of the glass before serving the first course. Dinner out isn't supposed to simply replenish the body with fuel; it's an integral social event of society. Take your time; enjoy the company; savor the food and drink. When everyone slows down or pushes aside the first course, then take up the plates, decrumb the table, and lay new place settings (none of this "would you like to keep your fork, sir").

Most perceptions of French rudeness come from a misunderstanding of this no-rush attitude. Not checking up on a table every five seconds may be seen as rude by the Olive Garden frequenter, but French waiters are incredibly attentive. They are like sentinels, pacing through the restaurant or standing in a corner scanning the room. If you want something, it takes about 2.3 seconds to get the waiter's attention, who immediately comes rushing to your aide. But they never suggest you should alter the speed of your meal or should prepare to leave by offering the bill.

It's not just waiters, either. Store clerks watch closely but never presume to interfere unless signaled. Unlike the States, where you are assaulted with a barrage of "need anything? Can I offer assistance? Please?" moments after entering the store (think Best Buy). I've actually avoided aisles in Best Buy just so another employee won't ask me how he can best assist me. You can best assist me by staying out of my way while I browse. If I need to locate something specific, I'll ask; have no fear.

Food

Wow. I mean wow. No wonder they leave you in peace. I want to savor every moment of the freshest cheeses and best wines in the World. Coffee? No contest. They told me it would be good. Everything I'd heard was true. {Tear}.

Style

Well, it does seem that France has more than its share of gay men (or perhaps more are simply willing to admit it). But those that aren't gay are what an American would call "metrosexual". (One who embraces the stereotypical gay lifestyle including caring about fashion, personal hygiene, and hair product -- everything except sleeping with other men.) Wait just a moment. Fashion and personal hygiene are metrosexual? Looked down upon and made fun of by popular America? No wonder men can't figure out why they come home alone night after night. Disheveled hair, jeans and teeshirt, outdated shoes, bad breath, 3-day stubble. Who wouldn't go home with this prize? But Heaven forbid men try to dress nicely and comb their hair; they might make themselves gay!

I decided to take a break from museums for a day and humor my girlfriend by going shoe shopping in Paris one day. I wondered down to the men's section, and found, for the first time, that I could be excited about shopping for shoes. Incredible. Me. I only buy shoes once every two years. I had what she called "old man shoes". Comfortable, but lacking in any sense of style. Well, now I have stylish (and comfortable) shoes, and there are others I'd like to look for. Imagine that -- I actually want to go into shoe stores to look for a particular kind of shoe I saw other men wearing.

Anyway, you should go to France. It's awesome. Oh and there are some pretty moving pieces of art, too.

9:20 PM// Yes, I really am over 21

At the time of this writing, I am 23. But for some reason, I look about 7½. I'm not sure what my deal was during puberty, but that cheek baby fat you're supposed to loose: never happened. Also I have curly blonde hair. So as one might imagine, I almost never slip past the register at the liquor store without ID in hand.

But most people are just doing their job; it's their own head on the chopping block if they sell to a minor. This I understand. What I don't understand are the people who are so shocked they need to draw attention to it, call other coworkers over to marvel at the spectacle that is me, or otherwise strike up a friendly conversation about how shockingly prepubescent I appear to them.

These people can be neatly grouped into 3 main categories:

Other 20 Somethings

These people never say anything. If it's a guy, there's about a 50% chance he'll even card me. If it's a girl, make that 70%. Still, nobody my own age gives me crap. It only goes downhill from here.

Men over age 40

The most I get from these types are a good once-over with a cocked eye, followed by a suspicious, "you got ID suun?". Tolerable

Old White Women

Not a peep from any other category. In fact, the other categories only exist to emphasize this point. Old white women always comment on my youthful appearance. Old white women comments fit nicely into two subcategories:

Friendly, yet Annoying

These types usually have something like this to say:

"Why, honey I never would've thought you'd be old enough for this! Hey, Susan, would you have guessed he's old enough?"

What I find most gratifying is that although their first impressions of my are shattered by my legal documentation of age, it is this first impression which guides they way they speak to me. It's the tone they would use to a small child -- the way they were going to speak to me when they thought I was 7 pushing 8. Despite knowing that I'm old enough to drive, they forget to readjust their perception.

These types are annoying, but often they can pass as cute, quirky old ladies

Belligerent Without Cause

These are my absolute favorite. There's nothing like being yelled at by a crabby old woman for the heinous crime of walking into the store. Examples include:

1. 
   I walk into a liquor store with my friend and we quietly begin browsing. We are the only customers. After 15-30 seconds the old woman guarding the register yells across the store to me:
   

   "Are you 21, suun?!"

   
   

   Mind you, this is not an idle question. It is piercing and accusing. It's downright rude, and I haven't done a thing except look young. I look up and simply say "yes", returning to my browsing. For some reason, this flusters the old woman because she was expecting to "catch" a young rabble-rouser in the act or some such nonsense. She stumbles over her words for a few seconds, growls something inaudible, and assures me that she'll not forget to check my ID when I checkout.

   
   

   Thanks; I love you too. What a wonderful shopping experience.

   
   
2. 
   I attempt to purchase beer from my local grocer. I select a six-pack from the appropriate aisle and begin the trek to the nearest register. Sure enough, there's an elderly woman on duty and lucky for me she currently has no other customers. I'm about 20 feet away and she sees me walking towards her, toting my beer. She calls out from 20 feet
   

   "Hey, you got your ID?!"

   
   

   This tone is not accusing; it's inquisitive and thoroughly impatient. Am I supposed to shout back? Chuck my ID at her? Go long, Grandma? I wait until I'm within a few feet of the register so I can respond like a normal person.

   
   

9:18 PM// The Bush Campaign

I suppose my feelings towards the Bush Administration are no secret. But there are some things about the campaign that I just have to get off my chest, so here we go.

As in every election, supporters on both sides attack the candidate on the other side. But here is what I don't understand: Bush supporters attack Kerry's war record, Edwards' experience, and the general anti-American attitude of "liberals". Every time I hear an add or flip through the newest Kerry-bashing book at Barnes and Noble, I see these same arguments, and I always think the same thing: Look who's talking.

Kerry's war record

Kerry fought in the Vietnam War. He won three purple hearts. But Bush supporters are trying to show that Kerry may have won one or more of his purple hearts in a questionable manner. Maybe he even faked an injury. While I of course do not buy into these baseless accusations, I'm left to wonder....so what? It is clear that he put himself in the line of fire, risked his life for his country. What was it Bush did for his country during that time? He used his father's connections to get him into the Air National Guard (presumably so he could serve without really serving) and then didn't even show up. I know all this came out over a year ago, and maybe people think it's old news now, but why don't the democrats come back with this? Bush deserted a pseudo-army without ever seeing a single day of combat, and they have the audacity to accuse Kerry of not getting hurt badly enough to deserve one of his purple hearts? Basically, it comes down to this: even if all the smear campaigns against Kerry are true, his service record is still heads and shoulders above Bush's.

Edwards' Experience

It's true. Edwards' experience is lacking. But then so was Bush's. I remember when Bush was still in his first or second year as President. I heard an NPR snippet about the possibility of Edwards running in 2004, and a panelist noted he had less experience than any previous President, well "with the exception of President Bush, of course." Bush had less experience in public service than any recent president when he was sworn in, and they're attacking the running mate on this issue?

Anti-American Attitudes

Nothing gets me more worked up than those who think anti-Bush is synonymous with anti-American. If you don't like Bush, you must not like America. For those who need a refresher course on American History 101, let's remember the principles on which this country was founded. Open and public debate, free speech, free expression, separation of powers. One man making all the decisions with no one allowed to contradict him has a name: dictator. Even Bush admits this would be a much easier way to govern, and he seems to be doing everything to make governing easier. At a recent meeting with Cheney and Bush, supporters weren't even allowed to enter the building unless they signed pledges of allegiance to the Bush Administration. So you aren't allowed to speak to the President unless you agree with him 100%. What happened to open debate? Aren't we supposed to get together and decide what's best for the country? Or should only the people who think the same way get together and decide what's best for them? This is scary stuff folks. No administration has been this secretive since Nixon.

The Founding Fathers started this country because they were tired of being persecuted for their beliefs. They wanted a place where no idea would be shot down until it was discussed, where everyone had a say (or at least felt like they did). The Fathers were not fools; they wanted to keep some level of control away from the masses, without the masses feeling that way, hence the electoral college. But we are supposed to voice our opinions, debate ideas, discuss the best options for the future. Those who mindlessly follow the leader and "trust the President in every decision he makes without question" to quote Ms. Spears (or is it Mrs. now, I can't keep up) are fools. They are being had. This country is meant to be unfinished. We are meant to discuss new ideas and keep alive old ones. There's nothing more American than voicing opposition, since this country was founded for exactly that reason.

One final note on Anti-Americanism. When "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began, those who supported going to war with Iraq were known as "pro-Bush" and those who opposed it were "anti-American". How the Hell did that happen? No one wanted to be called "pro war", so instead they called them selves "pro Bush". It's scary enough that pro war and pro Bush are synonymous, but why does opposing sending several thousand young Americans into combat make you anti-American? So let me get this straight: starting a war which alienates us from international allies, strengthens the hatred for Americans all over the world, and costs the lives of hundreds of American soldiers is pro Bush. Opposing this action is "unpatriotic and anti-American". While I may be anti-Bush, I certainly think bringing home our valiant soldiers, raising the level of public debate, and generally getting along with the several billion others who also live on this planet would be a start toward true pro-Americanism.

And with that, dare I suggest that the Bush Administration is the epitome of true anti-Americanism.

In the spirit of raising the level of public debate, I welcome your comments.

9:21 PM// Cable TV

Cable Television. Oh how I wish for the early days of television when there were four broadcast channels only. I currently perceive two main problems with cable television today:

(1) Cable Television is expensive. There are 65-70 channels in a typical basic cable package. I believe there are anywhere between 100-200 channels available in the fancy new digital cable packages. I have to wonder why anyone would pay $40-$50/month for 70 channels. Who needs 70 bloody channels? Local/national/international news, a few favorite situation comedies, informational shows like Discovery and The Learning Channel, but what else? I own an antennae for my TV for one sole purpose: to watch new episodes of The Simpsons 24 hours before I finish downloading them.

(2) There is nothing on. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $50/month for 100 channels with nothing worth watching. 60% of Americans are overweight and getting worse. I attribute this mostly to our 100 channel+ fast food society. People plop themselves in front of the TV for hours and hours at a time, accumulating fat all the while. And why are we watching TV? Is there something interesting on? Did we plan on watching for hours? No -- sadly we watch TV for the sake of watching it. My reason for switching the TV on is to watch something. The so-called channel surfer is no friend of mine. So if you're going to "veg out" in front of the tele, at least turn to something worthwhile. Too many TVs are switched on for the sake of the glow and not for the show.

Point in case to my last paragraph: last time I switched on the tele during the so-called "primetime" hours, the antennae was tuned to "Fox". It was a game show involving two contestants who tried to outdo each other with physical feats. The highly dramatized feat d'jour was this: who can hang onto handle bars suspended above a swimming pool with cold water raining down for the longest period of time? That's right folks, a man and women each bet he/she could hang in the air longer than the other. We watched them dook it out for about 5 minutes with dramatic music playing and fancy camera angles swooping and diving around them. And network television has reached a new low. There's unimaginative, uncreative, and then there's just plain brainless.

One more point before I close this rant: 25% of all television consists of commercial breaks. If you're going to watch TV -- and there are a very few quality programs out there -- record it, buy it, or download it. Out of every 4 hours of broadcast television, 1 hour is pure commercialization. Ugh.

Added 2004 August 31:

A satellite dish company called me in an attempt to persuade me to give them money in exchange for a satellite dish TV service. I love it when television and long distance telemarketers call me because if you argue with them instead of hanging up they think there's a chance you'll be convinced to buy their service. His main argument went something like this:

Him: Do you subscribe to cable TV currently?

Me : No.

Him: Well if you did, our service could be as much as $10/month cheaper

Me : But I don't. So your main argument is that your service is $40/month more expensive than what I have now?

Him: Don't you want to be able to watch TV?

Me : I do watch TV. And it doesn't cost $40/month. I have an antennae.

Him: Well with an antennae you only get a few channels. With our service you get over 70 channels on the most basic package, and over 150 with the best package.

Me : Do I get BBC World Service?

Him: We have a package that gives you BBC America.

Me : Well that's all I want.

Him: You get 10 HBO's and 15 ESPN's.

Me : I'm sorry, I only watch good TV.

I found out later that the package that gives you BBC America is the most expensive package with over 150 channels. Something like $70/month if I remember correctly.