Salutations,

If you are reading this, you have reached a friends-only journal. This means I have to have some clue as to who you are, and like you enough to add you. It may sound harsh, but the tawdry, sordid details of my life are for the eyes of those who need read them only.

So...comment to be considered for adding, or go play in traffic.

Much love,
-Cameron

I understand the motivation for "A Day Without Gays". I understand why people want to protest the passage of discriminatory, heterosexist bullshit. I get it. I support that desire.

There is a -slight- problem though. The battle for gay marriage has been a fight largely driven by a small portion of queer communities; the rich, white, and partnered are arguing the hardest for marriage rights. Now, it can be said that marriage rights are in the interest of all queers, but that would be a grave oversight and a misrepresentation. Not all queers are concerned with marriage nor want it, and not all queers have a privileged enough position to consider this the epic battle for equality and respectability that this has become.

I think it speaks well that one of the largest national protests being organised is "A Day Without Gays", for which queer people are being encouraged to leave their jobs for the day to take part in activism or simply show what the world is like when queer people do not show up to work.

This is a load of classist crap. Take into account that most queers in the United States are working hourly-wage jobs, and a huge number of those are poorly-paid, with bad benefits and in so-call "right to work" states as is.

The classist crap comes in that many queers (many, many queers) cannot afford the lost wages to take a day off from work and still others cannot risk calling into their jobs for such reasons when they can legally be fired for their queer identity in most states.

I have also seen online, heard in person, and via other communication witnessed queers who are unable or unwilling to participate in this protest being called traitors, being given a fuckton of flak, and being asked to risk their jobs under extreme amounts of social pressure.

This is fucked up, kids. Not only does it highlight the class-based nature of the discussion around queer marriage rights, but it points out how blind people are in the contentions connected to this discourse and subsequently their responses to said contentions.

Rich fuckhats, please eat shit and pay attention. We don't all have the nicities of your life. If you (meaning anyone reading this) can participate in this protest, great. If someone else or yourself can't, do not payout on them for it, alright?
If you do, I will find you and eat you.

I am fairly certain I will always remember where I was on Guy Fawkes Day, 2008. It was the fifth of November, in Tokyo and I was at work sorting through frantic text messages with American electoral updates from mates with access to a computer. The studio in 上大岡　(Kamiooka) has no computer and I wad bregrudingly teching children as the world was glued to news outlets, watching a great day in history for the United States of America.

4 November, 2008: John McCain got roundly spanked by Barack Obama in the presidential election and the United States elected its first person of colour to the White House.

I got the news of the final concession in 5 phone calls and 24 emails on my mobile. I turned cartwheels, cried, shouted and had a small seizure of joy over Barack's election. I am tap-dancing to see what promises to be an interesting political change, after suffering through eight years of constitutional erosion, military penile-compensation, new levels of international hubris, lost jobs, lost wages, and the first consistantly measurable poverty increase in the history of such statistics in the U.S. . President George W. Bush has been a fuck-up on a scale immeasureable and I cannot wait to see him go. I suspect that historians may treat him more kindly than current public discourse is being, but he really deserves every bit of the flak he catches for being an enormous douche. Seriously, I wish him struck by lightning, knawed on by angry, rabid chipmunks and buried in an unmarked grave next to Hitler and Ann Coulter. That goes for him, his family, his political allies, John McCain and a number of other murdering, conniving fuckwits for whom I cheer bringing back the molten-lead enema. Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition, especially when they have really, really earned it. Perhaps Gloria Steinem could take Dick and Gerorge hunting. Shot in the face? That is getting off light around her, really. As you can tell, the sentimental and reflective portion of this post is soundly over.

I could winge all day about Bush and Cheney. We are aware that they go with Reagan, Helms, and any number of conservative assholes in American politics. However, at this point, I turn my attention to criticising other goings on that I find equally (if not slightly more) disturbing. To start, Obamamania.

Barack Obama has achieved something great with the grassroots support of millions. He is every-bit worthy of the notes he is getting and the inspirational revitalisation his career and campaign have brought to American national politics. I have seen lazy, leftist hipsters actually get off their asses and cast a ballot because of him alone. Hey Lizzie, I may hate you but could you get off your ass and knight this guy simply for that? --However--, Barack Obama is not the answer to all American political woes. He will not bring choirs of angels to the White House, he will not end racism, he will not destroy the wealth gap, he will not sweep away corruption, he will not shit bricks of gold. Unfortunately, many mainstreaming Democrats everywhere seem to think that he is something akin to divinely-fit to do all this. Where in American politics have we heard about divine mandates recently? Electing Barack Obama to the presidency is amazing, but there is so much work that must continue. There has never been and may never be a time in political history where resistance was not, is not and will not be necessary, people. Astounding as it may be, you have to stay off your ass once you have gotten it off the couch. We must be as critical of Obama and the politicians elected with him as anyone else. Stay on the streets, keep the discussions going, bitch at people, cause a scene. Use glitter, ponies and small arms (those include bullhorns and guitars), if at-all possible. Being fabulous disturbs boring people.

On another note, and I have said it before, when discussing politics with people you are not required to be nice. Engaging with people in a discussion from differing points of view can be highly productive and rewarding; the greatest poltical impacts are often made by shifting someone's thinking or siply giving them new information to chew on. This is all well and good, but there are times when the poisoned pen and the sharpened tongue become useful and more powerful than anything else. If you encounter someone arguing from any of the following bases, feel free to rip their guts out and string them as signage along the sidewalk: religious politics, emotional reactions, basic irrationality or the ever-present incurable moron. Opinions stated in public are as open for discussion as any cursory bullshit. Opinions are like assholes; most people have then and some are shittier than others.

Please, be a cantankerous, emotionally cold, incurably rational, snarky bitch when it comes to points of political and social discourse. The stronger your position and the better you can argue your point, the less sense opposition seems to make. If you can make this apparent in public, it keeps those around you aware that what someone said should be taken into analysis and highly scrutinised. If they obviously have not read it or missed major points, call them out and inform them. I am so incredibly tired of people misusing terminology, misquoting text, taking passages out-of-context when convenient and calling on information that they do not understand. This does not take long to identify. Epistemology is not most people's specialty, but saying that a tax policy is "Marxism" is utterly ignorant of Marx's body of work and illogical at-best.

Yes, illogical is often a synonym semantically for "incorrect", "wrong", "irrational" and in far too many cases "blindly idiotic". I am a stickler among many other things. I do not apologise for being well-informed on certain things, I will not pander to the masses and I do not think that ignorance is an excuse for social irresponsiblity; I hope and exect that others do the same. On a side note, I realise that not everyone has access to the information I do or the education I had and am getting; this is no excuse for not taking new information under consideration in a clear-headed manner. I you are so wrapped up in an issue emotionally that it eclipses your rationality, smoke a bowl, have a Xanax, get laid and get back to me. In the mean time, shut the fuck up. People sharing their anecdotes is a powerful political tool, but only insofar as that motivates people to participate in some kind of political action or brings an issue to light. When it comes down to it, pulling on he heartstrings is not a good reason to make a decision. Relatedly, I am infinitely tired of hearing "I feel" when they meant "I think". Living in Portland for so long, that was often accompanied by new-aging, hyper-sensitive and oh-so-caring (read patronising and mollycoddling) crap. If someone is still on discursive training wheels, be aware of that and adjust accordingly but do not think for one milisecond that you should not challenge them or push their buttons a bit.

Note that all of this reqiures a great deal of attention to context and care with the subject. You should not fly off your broomstick if someone disagrees with you, but you should never hesitate to set boundaries, make clear that logic is the standard and expect thm to have some information to back-up what they say. That failing, then verbally crucify them. Most forms of discourse have their place, including public humiliation. Remember that. Don't tell people how to think, but do not fail to point out where their thinking may be lacking. If their ignorance is loud and forceful to begin with, try loud and forceful enough to knock them down a peg, or engage with the larger public around them if they are beyond communication.

Be strong, be rational, be attentive.

I bring that bit to a close because I can keep that section going for eons. I mov now to address something highly personal to me: queer politics...

I am sorely disappointed with the passage of marriage bans for "same-sex" (whatever the hell that really means) couples. I am however not disappointed because people cannot get married, I am disappointed that there are more legal precedents being set for letting someone's choice in partner(s) be basis for legal and through law more broadly social discrimination. I do not ride on the back of your bus, you faith-based polticking asstards. Rosa Parks simply did not move when told to, I will bite you if you attempt to tell me or anyone else. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints became directly involved in the California Prop 8 campaign both financially and in official, direct organisational discourse. They should legally lose their tax-exempt status. Moreover, why are churches involved in making broad social policy at all? Is it not enough that they tell their own how to live? Far be it from me to keep someone from imposing religiously-based restrictions and codes on themselves, but they need to keep it off of me. Social morality should be based on what is good for all people in a society without the axiom of "My/Our God said so". Call me an idealist, I like long, nigh-impossible projects. This passage brings me to my next point: Fuck marriage.

I do not want to be married personally, and I certainly do not want marriage as part of my political landscape. Marriage is rooted in faith, private property, capital exchange and opression. All the incredibly recent crap about love and the ideals of romantic relationships and healthy families is not only usually a load, but also irrelevant to the fact that marriage is a faith-based institution that for me and many others is limiting and problematic and more pontedly has no place in governments which should be as secular as possible. The legal benefits of marriage can all be accomplished through other legal means without the political monolith it is. Leave relationships up to contract law. let partners design their relationships, associated legal rammifications and benefits.

With that, "Marriage" as the one-partner, lifetime, sexually exclusive, religiously based, and property-concerned instution we now know it to be is not good for queer politics. It represents a disturbing amount of assimilation into a straight power-base that I see as oppressive and yes, gasp, bad. Queers (in the broadest of senses) exist as a social entity because we pose a literally peculiar challenge to dominant paradigms. Relationships, genders and sexual norms have all been profoundly affected by the resistant social discourse and very existance of people outside the norms of the power-group. Not only have they been affected, but the standard can only exist as a standard as long it has a comparitive state to something considered "queer" to it. I like open-relationships, polymory, childless couples, swingers and solitary people. I like those for the same I like freaks, leatherdaddies, bull dykes, mods, faggots, faeries, screaming queens, adrogynes, drag divas, sluts, perverts, kinky fucks, other "bad queers" and sloppydetachedmeaningless sex. We make the so-called straight-acting suburanite white faggots looks bad and love it. Everyone should appreciate these, if not because they participate in or identify with any of those things themselves, because they are representations of a kind of liberty that should be available to all without opression from the masses. If you believe them to be immoral, check your value-system against the idea that your values in this regard are valid only as far as they apply to you. No great catastrophe comes of people being free to exist as they like without someone telling them how they ought to exist. I want to deny noone their chosen relationship structure but I ask that it not be the imposed standard of how all of us should live. Queer everyting. Fuck with the stable. Ask inappropriate questions. Cause a scene. Have butt-sex (or at least try it...it comes highly recommended).

This comes to a much alrger discussion about social liberties. My value systems are based on the idea that individual liberties extend as far as they do not affect anyone else's individual liberty. Essentially, do whatever you like unless it becomes an issue that stops other people from existing as they please. A complicated epistemological and political mess of an idea, huh? With that great liberty comes profound responsiblity to analyse behavior and be as accountable to your community and society as possible. This means (for example) that yes, living in the suburbs in a large house with two cars as a childless couple is bad. You do not require that much space or raw material to exist quite comfortably and by consuming that much more you are taking finite resources away from where they could be better used. In the scope of things, because so many Americans like their suburban homes with lawns and big vehicles, children are homeless, many people cannot eat, jobs are limited, and the price of groceries and housing is outrageous. This is all related. Isn't that fascinating? I do not have the time or space to here give the full explanation (which could take years) but I happy to recommend some great reding and resources. Please use less, buy less, do more.

I am going to end this long rant. These political issues have been burning in my mind of alte and I felt that I should write something extensive on them finally.

I am not going to bother with much revision or editing for the fact that this is a rant and I am tired of staring at this screen, but there you have it.

Stir the shit kids, stir the shit.

Okay, I have to say that ht eonly people I have ever encountered or heard of who would go with ninjas on this question are people who know nothing about them. I live in Japan and have done my homework. Ninja were committed to serving a lord, had no real gains in the things they stole personally, had to hide their activities, and were generally just sneaky bastard low-lifes who found a niche in something.

Pirates on the other hand...there is a life. Booty, wenches, grog, and massively cool outfits. Let's face it: wasting away on the high seas pickled in rum and never being required to bathe or shave again would be pretty fucking awesome.

Pirates are vastly superior.
and they get to say "ArrrrrrR!".

This album is public.

I am 21 today, betches, decks, folks weirdos, friends adn othewise persons (or organic masses resembling persons)!!!!

This is terribly anti-climactic, living in Japan; I could drink when I moved here. But, that said, I am of legal majority in the USA now! w00t!

Ima go get shipisssnockeredfivesheetwastedfaced.

Catch you on the side of cirrhosis.

-Cameron

"People will believe anything they read."

Wrong.

People will believe any bit of information they are told to believe, and disavow that which they are told to disavow. This provided that they doing the telling are those in power to do so.

A bit more complicated, no?

William Buckley, conservative commentator, columnist, entrepreneur and all-around swollen example of the sad, intellectual decay so prevalent in the latter half of the 20th century, is dead.

I am tickled pink.

Many have hailed him as a pioneer in the "war of ideas", I found him to be a repugnantly illogical, purposefully misrepresentative (in "journalism" and speech), rich asshole with way too much power over the small minds of ignorant people around the United States; may he rot well and expediently, the faster we may forget him.

I am entirely supportive of the so-called "war of ideas", but logic should always be the standard.

Resorting to flinging fallacies, like monkeys fling crap, when you are cornered for your lack of a valid point is never welcome in discourse.

Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter (she is dead inside), Buckley and their sordid ilk of dead morons should be commited to history as a failure of education, and a failure of the U.S.A.'s society to adequately live up to its rumored democratic ideals.

War of ideas, indeed.

I arrived in one piece. I am in Portland, and at large. Be afraid. I am still sorting out the phone but will post as soon as I get that done.


-Cameron

-edit- Ok, so I am a loser and didn't post my number. See above for reasons. Sue me, they won't get me across the Pacific.

I have been doing some thinking, and I am going to be posting some of my more academic thoughts in this journal. I struggle as a writer of fiction, but as a writer and critic of social matters I have talent. If it bores you terribly, skip over. if it interests you, yay. If it vexes you, confuses you, or you can offer some constructive criticism, have at me.

These will not be written in common vernaculars. In fact, for most of that which I want to express, there are not 'layman's terms'. So it may not be easy-reading all of the time.

I begin with a small comment on the subject of essentialism and it's epistemological influences on the transgressive and perverse. Transgressors of many kinds have often found a sense of security and legitimization from identifying their transgressive identities as central to their concept of self. This essential being forms a more-concrete basis upon which to interpret and represent social behavior and ideas. I have intellectual problems with an essentialist construction of self. Because of the relationship between the dominant and the subordinate, the perverse and the normal, essentialist identity serves to legitimize the very means by which established power-stuctures that negatively and positively sanction certain identities and behaviors. Through appropriating and inverting precepts used to establish one group and thereby oppose ones' self at the 'core of ones' being' is to suggest that identity and behavior presuppose social context and are somehow greanted protection under the same assumptions by which theya re oppressed. To say that anything is at the core of one's being is to adopt a method of thinking that centers the self on the current and slows social evolution. Dynamicism is important to me. I will be writing a stronger essay in much more detail about this later, but at the moment I am taken up with deconstructing the reconstructed legitimicy of deviance and perversion. To transgress is to change; why bother with the very things we destroy? Perverts should only give birth to new perverts, not their own permanent perversion.

Suck my dick, go to hell, and may your head be forever stuck in Margaret Thatcher's crusty, black-hole of a cunt.


Regards,

Someone who expects actual journalism in the mass media.

So it is High Time I post some pictures from this city. (Click to enlarge.)

( Oh dear gods, the Engrish is AMAZING! )

( Skyline from Odaiba )


( Shinjuku at night )

so, my head teacher observed what have been my two most difficult lessons to date today. she has only ever observed me once before. Mind you, this means two observations out of the roughly 115 classes I've taught thus far. She then proceeds to later tell me (while I know they were rough) that I will have a meeting with my manager and her on friday. Between 7 hours of solid teaching, I get to meet with them. She also said this with a concerned look on her face that gave away her evaluation of certain things. Now I get to wait for two days to hear about counseling stuff (about which apparently mothers were bitching, butwould not tell me), and my lessons (which she observed out of normal context. Meanwhile I get to bite my nails, be a nervous wreck and wonder just how bad I did. She won't really tell me. DAMN IT ALL! I think I will be fine, but did you ever have those moments where the pit of your stomach was in knots anyhow?

On top of this, my lappy has died. I apologize in advance for lax commenting and emails.

Damn it all.

I will figure it all out. If I am not fine, be prepared to hear me rant.

...house spiders in japan range from 4-8 inches across, are harmless to humans, but also like to sneak up on you.

I found this out the hardway last night. I have never been afraid of spiders, but admittedly, you probably heard my shriek in Portland.

Oh. My. Gods. I named it "Wolley the Mammoth Beast" In memorial, after it met its end under my hand-weilded boot.

Bitch was fast too, and ran at me. Had it comin' I tells ya.

That is all.

Gonzales resigned. KANPAI!!!!!!

*drinks*

Ok kids,

I have ben trying to acquire a decent set of computer speakers for my party. I want to be able to plug my ipod into them for easy music....see where I am going with this?

I need someone who would be kind enough to volunteer their speakers and bring them right about 7pm to the party. I would be most grateful, promise you no harm to them, and may even suck your dick, clit, or otherwise tender lovely parts for the favor.

Help!

Thanks,

-one frustrated, desperate Cameron

Pedro Almodovar is a genius!

Well,
I am officially dying of allergies. OTC methods have failed me, the gods are laughing, and I am sitting waiting on Kaiser to call me back. I swear to the gods, this is that it is like dealing with them:

Me: "I’m dying; I’ve been stabbed in the chest"

Them: "hang up and call this number" or "wait for us to call you back in the next 2-12 hours"

When did the cable guy take over healthcare? One person suggests the Reagan administration, and he may be on to something. Oh well, they are going to give me good drugs to kick my allergies' collective histaminic asses. Oh yeah.

In other news, I have noted a significant change in this neighborhood. There are people of colour for once. This delights me, as I like seeing diversity of many kids in all places. Especially in a neighborhood where it scares the complacent white people and gives them someone else to fear other than "the Mexicans." People are stupid, and in this particular case, I would like the particular stupidities of suburbanite white folk. News flash: not all Latino/a people are Mexican. Most are in fact not. IN this neighborhood we have substantial numbers of Honduran, and El Salvadoran people. Moreover, why do white suburbanite offspring feel it ok to use the n-bomb when addressing African American people out here? Yeah, I know. *Shudder* The diversity is not without my own sense of apprehension though. This shift in population out here means that the gentrification in north and northeast Portland is dislocating more people than I thought. I realize that the huge numbers of people moving to Portland may account for it, but honestly...gentrification blows. Do the world a favor, eat a rich, white, Californian in NE. Eat them and their children.


mmmm...babies.

Alright kids, it is no secret that I have been following the responses Malebranche has made to my inquries. Now he sinks to a new low. He used an old post, off my old LJ, that was a meditative vent to criticize me, and then goes on to talk about how mental health, and my academic capabilities are not only linked but the limitations of one another.

For one, yes I have bipolar disorder. I am a nutcase at times. However, I have learned to empower myself through focused venting, menditation, a little DBT, and use of good self-care.

My academic persuits are not limited by the fact that my moods go out of whack. I do not have a support group, I do not currently see a therapist, and I am a scholar who carefully examines his own work. If you want to read his fucked up asessments, I would refer you to the main page of his website ( http://www.jackmalebranche.com/hub/ ), but this treatment of mental health is over the line. Luckily, this is where I can allow a disengagement with him, as he has accomplished his own public humiliation.

Oh, and as a side note. Reverend Malebranche seems to hide behind his title as clergy. For many of us of the cloth, we needn't hide behind our faiths like scared Catholics.

In regards to Jack Malebranche's work I would like to make a few more notes as my letter to the editors of JustOut and the Portland Mercury did not adequately allow me space to articulate my argument.

To start, not all of what Malebranche says is completely off-base. I agree that the idea of a monolithic queer identity is in itself problematic, and the idea that all of the tenets of queer identity should be prescribed and enforced as central to one's community is totally fallacious. That said, being assailed for not fitting in, and then treating all queers (at least non Malebranche-approved queers), as well as all feminists as the same group is hypocritical. There is no way to reconcile rejection with rejection and equivocation with equivocation. Moreover, by making such statements Malebranche does exhibit a great deal of internalized homophobia by slighting people who do masculinity differently from him or not at all.

For a second point, his rejection of minority identity is fine. He is a middle-class white male. He carries a lot of privilege, but doe not seem to realize the degree to which he is limited in option by a gender system that not only penalizes the effeminate men in our world, or other who do not fit easily into the gender binary, but by those same tools penalizes people who fuck other people with similar genital bits. The mechanisms that support the oppression of effeminate people, also support the oppression of men who fuck men (androphile-identified or not). This kind of mindset he also prescribes as part of his manifesto without acknowledging that he is able to suffer fewer consequences of the gender binary because he is white, male, and middle class. To say the least.

Third point, his Greek history is totally out of whack. Seriously, he selects certain passage and certain customs and takes them for representative of male identity overall. The cult of manhood that he creates around these things is as underserved and appropriationist as the treatment of Celtic lore that LaVey and Crowley demonstrated before him. (I would venture to say like goat like kids...but that would be a little too easy and unfair) Also, Americans should seriously consider the privilege and culture they come from before going about robbing the tenets of others. Not only is Malebranche’s interpretation underserved, but it lacks cultural context and is therefore a bit like a white guy unwittingly bearing dreadlocks. If you would like more information on Greek practices of man-boy relationships (not man-man relationships), I suggest you pick up a copy of K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality. It is an amazing text with a good historical explanation, easy terms, big pictures, and a list of citations that makes my dick dribble.

Fourth point, equivocating all feminism to "Gender Feminism" (which is loaded and theoretically problematic as it is), is a fucking logical fallacy. Seriously, if you want to talk about feminists, and blame them for so much you must be talking about ALL feminists. Otherwise you need to narrow your scope and speak specifically. Malebranche has this tendency to take all opposing groups as a lump... thus the noted quote in my email, and then backpedal by saying what he intended later. This STILL invalidates his argument. Seriously kid, a basic logic course would serve you well.


At the end of the day Malebranche robs ideas that aren't his, corrupts them, and uses baseless equivocations and fallacies to justify his positions. Anyone who opposes him becomes a "feminist", or a "gay", and then he backpedals to explain that he meant a specific kind of feminist or gay. Right.

In all honesty, I do not appreciate people who tell me how to be a good queer and how to be a bad one. When the message you spread is outright restrictive, oppressive and unfounded however. I call your bullshit. Just because people are asking to be accommodated as human, is no basis for justifying the straight mainstream's "freak" mentality about queers. Freaks are a good thing. Malebranche fails to understand this. There may be more notes to come, but these are thoughts for now.

Professor Collier:

"You don't tell a 2-year-old that it hurts mommy's feelings when you hit her with a brick."



I. Am. Amused.

Oh, and that post last night. Yeah...bipolarness sucks. Ignore my moods for a while, they are just out of whack.

Allo all,
The following letter to the editor will appear in the 6/1/07 issue of Just Out. I had a long email exchange with Malebranche with a series of questions (and an unstated WTF), and after such decided to skewer his work publicly, as he responded like a bafoon. Really, jesus tap-dancing christ. If you want more of the drama I can post excerpts or the entire email chain. It is genuinely amusing.


-------
Fellow Portlanders, Queers, and Just Out Staff,
Recently, Jack Malebranche's book, Androphilia: Rejecting the Gay Identity,
Reclaiming Masculinity, was written-up in Just Out. As a gender scholar I would
like to offer some ideas on Malebranche's work. This self-proclaimed manifesto is based
on the constructs of gender and specifically, masculinity. However, Malebranche seems
to posess one masculinty: his own. Without accounting for the boundaries of culture,
race, or class he prescribes a new kind of internalized homophobia to a community
already struggling with its own diversity.
This interpretation of masculinity is to some degree anchored in the text by a
reference to historical representations of male-male relationships. Had Malebranche
bothered to actually do his own historical work, he might have realized how inaccurate
and carefully-selected his literary portrait is. Malebranche himself also does a poor
job of defending his work. Regarding "queer theory, women's studies, gender studies,
cultural studies, etc." he stated it in email respose (which is available in full and
in context), the following: "You are more often than not propagandists posing as
intellectuals who are given a veneer of authority by the fact that your indoctrination
programs are accredited." The last time I checked, a personal attack was not a valid
logical argument.
Jack Malebranche is local, and spouting off without much basis. His arguments are
weak, and drawn to favor himself above all others. Read his book, to be sure. It is
almost as amusing as Fred Phelps' rabid insanity, and about as credible.

Sincerely,
Cameron Lee Vogt