Saturday, January 18, 2014

Reflections Upon a Road Trip to Florida


Reflections Upon a Road Trip from Minnesota to Florida and Back Again.


  • There is always another truck up ahead.
  • Beware of pickup trucks with massive dangling metal testicles.
  • Obesity begins at Cracker Barrel restaurants.
  • Jesus is coming back to Georgia.  Soon.
  • Jesus is Lord in Tennessee (and "you" know it).
  • The Federal Government should "adopt a highway"--in fact, the entire Interstate system--and FIX it!
  • Georgia and Tennessee have a rather alarmingly large number of place names ending in "hootchie."
  • The highest point in the entire state of Illinois is probably the freeway interchange where I-39 crosses I-80.
  • The "Nashville Skyline" is not worth the wait on the crumbling freeway.
  • "Road Construction" means orange drums and abandoned backhoes.
  • The worst road in the world is I-57 in Illinois.

  • Motels have been renamed "Inns"--and $30 has been added to the price of a former "motel" room to pay for this upgrade in nomenclature.  
  • There are "adult superstores" in Wisconsin and Georgia, but nothing "adult" in between.
  • Florida's entire GDP is dependent upon revenue earned in other states and spent in Florida.
  • Some Charlestonians still refer to the Civil War as "the recent unpleasantness."
  • Beware of two trucks in the fast lane trying to pass a third truck:  traffic will back up for miles.
  • Avoid Paducah.
  • It is possible, in Georgia, to get an entire meal made of pecans.
  • A bunch of casinos in Wisconsin are operated by the rather infelicitously-named "Ho-Chunk Tribe."  
  • Different states have different rules about advertising along interstates.  Georgia is especially billboard-egregious: guns, Jesus, adult toys, pecans, spinal adjustments, self-storage, mattresses, trucks and chicken fingers appear to be the major products available in the Peachtree State.
  • White tourists are welcome in Charleston.  If you're black, you can visit, but you have to sell Gullah products to white tourists.
  • Florida has no farms and no creatures, other than people and their pets, whose native habitat is not a swamp.
  • The border between the "South" and the "North" is somewhere around Champaign-Urbana, Illinois.
  • It is SO good to be back in the North.



Tuesday, December 10, 2013

LOL PWNED


At the end of the day
Man up and
Double down
Take no prisoners
In tighty whities or
Cat's pajamas
Touch base
With user friendly
Freeway close
Self-storage
Deal breakers and man caves
The bully pulpit
Resonates
With ballpark figures
On affordable care
Family values
Play phone tag
In hazmat suits
Whinging
Re.  personhood
Bedhead hair
And en suite
Entitlements
Macular degeneration
Kerfuffles
Immaculate Conception
Pop goes the weasel
LOL
PWNED





The Icky Christian Agenda



The "homosexual" agenda gets a lot of attention on Fox News which has apparently concluded, along with Pat Robertson, One Million Moms, the American Family Association and other such self-appointed "guardians" of American morality that gays have a not-so-secret "game plan" for undermining and destroying the fabric of our national (and, of course, "Christian") society.  Pat Robertson even suggested that Christians need a "vomit button" to hit when the gays just seem too  "perverted" or "icky."

Actually, though, isn't it the other way around?  Isn't it the Christians who are the perverts? Isn't it the fundamentalist Christians who are endeavoring to subvert the Republic?

It would certainly seem so to me.  Because, truly, any moderately intelligent student of history knows that it's utter rubbish to assert, as these delusional gasbags do, that "America was founded as a Christian nation" and that the framers of our Constitution intended to create yet another theist state with an established and mandatorily-embraced mythology as its default ideology.

Jefferson said, "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies."

Madison wrote, "What has been the fruits of Christianity? ...Superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Well, I agree with both statements. And I therefore announce (this isn't much of a surprise, I suppose) that I stand, with Jefferson and Madison, in opposition to the following noxious tenets of the Christian (not homosexual) Agenda that, in my opinion, poses a continuing menace to the survival of our secular Republic--the noble institution that Franklin said the Founders had given us "if we can keep it.":

1.  Christian teachers who recruit, attempting to turn innocent children into intolerant, other-hating, Christians like themselves;
2.  Advocating prayer in schools, a clear attempt at brainwashing kids into believing that docile wishing for something is an effective alternative to taking action to achieve that thing;
3.  Tax exemptions for churches; why should such anti-democratic and fundamentally seditious, institutions receive fiduciary privileges?
4.  Public displays of spirituality; more propaganda and attempts to influence impressionable minds (religion is a private matter);
5.  So-called "family values"; sentimental and distorted view of human realities; a perversion, really, not to mention a misrepresentation of the historical Jesus--who abandoned his family, never married, never had kids and never held a job;
6.  Missionary sexual mores; boring, conformist, unoriginal approach to something that should be not just procreative but recreative--and joyfully creative whether or not babies result;
7.  Putting Christ in Christmas; brainwashing, using emotion and sentiment to promote a nefarious agenda and foster belief in at least one clearcut lie--that Jesus' birth coincided with pre-existing Winter Solstice celebrations--as well as in a probable second lie--that said Jesus was "god" incarnate;
8.  Christian lifestyle, churchgoing, praying, Jesus movies, icky stuff like that; cringeworthy foolishness in such bad taste and of such dubious social usefulness that it should not be given public approbation;  indecent, patently offensive behavior.
9.  Church bells on Sunday morning; why make the whole world wake up, just because you feel guilty and want to celebrate your guilt; a public nuisance;
10.  Prayer before city council meetings; no superstitious, hypocritical religious nonsense in any public forum; clearly unconstitutional!
11.  In-your-face religious garb:  priests and nuns and Jesus t-shirts with offensive pictures or slogans; now I realize that "believers" have a first-amendment right to express themselves.  But is it really necessary to deliberately provoke your law-abiding atheist neighbors with this dominionist garbage?  Please wear this obscene stuff only when participating in your cult rituals.
12.  "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; how dare you try to force good Americans to pledge allegiance to some silly, mean-spirited "sky daddy"!
13.  "In God We Trust" on our money; why not trust people; GOD ain't gonna pay the interest.
14.  Insane attempts to legislate fertilized eggs (embryos) into "personhood"; your personal fantasies do not constitute demonstrable fact.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.  This subversive "agenda" goes on and on--and its advocates are everywhere--on Fox News, in Congress, in the malls, and behind the wheels of those trucks with little "fishy" bumper stickers! But this is NOT what our Enlightenment Founders intended. No way! Yes, I suppose that silly, credulous people have the right to worship tinpot gods if they want, but they they have NO RIGHT to expect good Enlightenment Americans to grant special privileges to them or their bilge.  To use one of their favorite expressions (when they are denouncing homosexuals), they have NO RIGHT to ram this nonsense down our throats.  They are not entitled to any special public status by virtue of their private beliefs and practices.  So Christians: go to church if you want; pray to Jesus if you want; say "Merry Christmas" if you want (and if you don't mind offending others); fast on Good Friday if you want; mumble "God Bless You" when someone sneezes if you want.  But leave the rest of us alone and don't try to make America LOOK LIKE YOU.  Because, frankly, most of you (I make exception for a few milquetoast Episcopalians and Congregationalists) are pretty ugly, Christians. You're awfully, awfully, well...the first word that comes to my mind is "icky."  Yes, that's right:  you are icky people. Just as Jefferson and Madison knew.  Ewwww  (*pushes Robertson's vomit button*).

P.S.:  OK, I acknowledge that in writing this post, I chose to be deliberately "over-the-top" in co-opting the anti-gay language so frequently employed by asshole televangelists and extreme fundamentalist politicians.  I am fully aware that many sensible and sensitive Christians do not share the views that I have denounced.  Still, I think it is a good exercise for Christians of all stripes to begin to think differently--to stop assuming that THEY are the "norm" and that OTHERS are the "outliers" or "threats."  Maybe, just maybe, it's the CHRISTIAN lifestyle (not the homosexual lifestyle, not the humanist lifestyle, not the Muslim or the Jewish or the Spaghetti-Monster lifestyle) that is keeping our society from realizing its full potential as a more compassionate and more perfect Union.

And even if this is not so, even if Christians are just an innocuous group of folks with over-active imaginations and nasty (but "harmless") vocabulary, isn't it about time that they actually FEEL what it's like to be treated by their fellow citizens as dangerous and debauched scum?  I offer no apologies for this "turnabout" lesson.




Sunday, October 20, 2013

God's Doughnut Holes

Today I experienced "Contemporary Worship" in a mainline Protestant church:  coffee, orange juice and doughnut holes as you enter the sanctuary (you may take doughnut holes in napkins and drinks in styrofoam to your seat if you'd like, but there are no decent cup holders in the pews--only those little shot-glass sized receptacles for sullied communion glasses); hippie-ish female pastor in jeans with a kind of Amish-quilt shawl/stole and a headset microphone; several jeans-clad female song leaders with tambourines and other noisemakers; sappy lyrics to songs projected on huge over-chancel screen; music piped into and projected out of great rock-concert amplifiers positioned on either side of the Holy Table.

The actual "service" was a kind of rambling mishmash involving the announcement of upcoming fundraisers, the sharing of "joys and concerns," the signing of "fellowship sheets," the telling of a saccharine "children's sermon" (ostensibly to two children) but clearly intended to induce childlike happy feelings in adults, the preaching of an "adult message" also clearly intended to induce childlike happy feelings in adults, the delivery of a sprawling, improvised pastoral prayer and, to punctuate it all, the almost unendurable congregational mewling of the lyrics to a half-dozen vapid "praise songs" (in which "home," "throne," and "come" supposedly rhyme and whose canned synthesizer music is accompanied by "live" tambourines and jingle bells wielded by the song leaders).

It was almost too self-consciously folksy and mindless
to bear, but since my sister and I were visiting our beloved 87-year old aunt--a devout churchgoer--it would have been singularly churlish to refuse her invitation (expectation, really) to accompany her to this "contemporary worship" experience at Zion United Church of Christ, Waukon, Iowa.  Besides, the coffee was pretty good, actually--as were the doughnut holes.

Today's sermon (for adults) was based on the Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge (Luke 18, 1-8). It's a parable I didn't remember--about a persistent widow who unrelentingly demands justice from a judge who respects neither God nor public opinion.  Ultimately, she simply wears the judge out and he grants her justice--not because he sees the rightness of her case or because he gives a damn about her personally, but because he's just plain sick of her wheedling.

The moral of the story supposedly concerns the power of prayer and the necessity of "not giving up."  God, apparently, will eventually get so weary of our demands for justice that he will, at last, accede to them.  Well, I suppose that's at least partially good news:  so there is a way for really determined people to make God be fair.  Prayer says Luke/Jesus, if it is "faithful and unceasing," will, eventually, get us some kind of humane treatment.

But the assumptions underlying this parable are decidedly unpleasant:  God is here likened to the unjust judge--an all-powerful entity who has no particular attachment to what we humans consider "justice."  He is, moreover, an all-powerful entity who is capricious, arbitrary and subject to the strategies of lobbying and pressure-politics.  Justice, it would seem, therefore, is an entirely human, not a divine, concept--and the only way justice can be obtained, if at all, is by "manipulating" God--by never letting him off the hook, or--so to speak--by eating all his doughnut holes.

Unsurprisingly, the pastor delivering today's sermon chose not to dwell on God's injustice--or on the absurdity and the cruelty of the universe.  Rather, she focused on the widow--and on the widow's psychology.  The woman's refusal to accept injustice, her commitment to making persistent demands even in the face of seemingly endless indifference--these traits, the pastor insisted, were what gave meaning to the widow's life and allowed her, in a sense, to define herself vis a vis God and even, again in a sense, to prevail against the arbitrariness and insensitivity of the universe:  she became greater (to paraphrase Pascal) than that which destroyed her.  It seems to me, then, that in this parable, prayer rather resembles "revolt" in Camus's philosophy or "engagement" in Sartre's--a way of leading a fully authentic and worthwhile life in the face of an absurd world.

So--I now continue where the pastor did not venture--I guess we should go ahead and pray (or rather, keep on demanding justice; never, never giving up; bombarding the SOB in charge with our complaints). Though God (or the unthinking universe) will undoubtedly remain as inhuman and uncomprehending as ever (N.B.: Jesus does not say that the judge's "nature" changes), yet nevertheless, YOU, like the widow, will be changed; YOU will begin to feel that your life has acquired shape and sense; and thus YOU will find that your demand for justice has, indeed, somehow been met--even in God's eternally unjust courtroom.

And YOU did it:  YOU ate up all God's doughnut holes and you went home feeling vindicated!



Friday, October 11, 2013

Holy Shit!

Hagiography, of course, is not about hags.  Mostly, as it turns out, it's about virgins, torture, and titillation.

For example, in about 1368, St. Catherine of Siena (later a Doctor of the Church) had a vision in which Jesus proposed spiritual marriage to her and offered her his dried-up foreskin as a wedding ring.  She put it on, but it was apparently visible only to her, since the "real" prepuce was displayed, until 1983 (when it quite mysteriously disappeared) in the Church of the Holy Prepuce in Calcata, Italy.  Not to worry, though.  At least 18 other equally authentic Holy Foreskins have been venerated in diverse churches throughout Europe. It has also been proposed (by the "scholar" Leo Allatius) that at some point the One True Holy Foreskin ascended into heaven and became the weirdest of the rings of Saturn.

For somewhat more gruesome titillation, we have St. Lawrence, who was grilled alive on a specially-designed gridiron.  No one knows whether barbecue sauce was applied, but the saint supposedly chastised his grillers for their careless technique. "I am well done; turn me over."  Lawrence's prototypical Weber Grill is piously preserved and venerated in Rome's church of San Lorenzo in Lucina.  More famously, though, the St. Lawrence Gridiron is a barbecue restaurant in Boise, Idaho--they have a food truck.  With black-humored (charred?) logic, St. Lawrence has become the patron saint of cooks.

Back to virgins. St. Cecilia was an Roman noblewoman who "sang a song to the Lord" in her heart while she was being married to Valerian, with whom she later refused to have sex since, in her conversion to Christianity, she had consecrated her maidenhood to Jesus (he must have quite a collection). Thereafter, somehow, (because she preferred singing to sex?) she became the patron saint of musicians--especially, er, organists, I imagine.

St. Margaret (of Antioch) and St. Catherine (of Alexandria) were both virgins who like Cecilia consecrated themselves to a mystical union with Christ and were therefore martyred by villainous and pagan anti-feminists. Though Catherine was condemned to die on a spiked wheel, she managed by philosophical right- thinking to make the nasty instrument disappear into thin air.  Alas, her mental energies could no longer prevail when her captors ingeniously severed her head from her body, thereby endearing her to frustrated philosophers everywhere, for whom she has become the patron saint.  As for Margaret, well, she was swallowed by Satan disguised as a dragon, but since the cross she carried irritated his belly, he found it necessary to expel her via some orifice "down there" (like childbirth).  So naturally she, too, was beheaded and became, in memory of her delivery from Satan, the patron of childbirth.

Even the Catholic Church itself admits that there is little evidence that either St. Margaret or St. Catherine ever existed, so it is a bit of a surprise, I suppose, that these were the two saints (along with St. Michael, an archangel and thus, by definition, non-existent) who were supposedly appointed by God to speak with authority to Joan of Arc regarding her perhaps ill-advised mission to save France from England (just think:  if she had let the English win, French would have become England's language and America would be speaking French today. Zut alors.).

Joan of Arc, by the way, did indeed exist--and like most holy females--acquired sainthood by virtue of being a virgin--with a twist, though--since rather unusually, she was a virgin who put on men's clothing and then assumed the macho profession of soldier.

St. Sebastian, on the other hand, was a macho soldier who acquired sainthood by taking OFF men's clothing and posing for queasily BDSM-type portraits as a sexy male virgin.  The favorite subject of medieval and renaissance artists with homoerotic penchants, Sebastian is nearly always portrayed as an achingly beautiful naked youth bound to a tree and mortally penetrated by countless phallic arrows. Don't ask and don't tell, but seductive Sebastian has become the patron saint of both athletes and macho military men. In the 20th Century, he could have made it big as one of the Village People.

Then, hee hee, there was St. Hilarius (I'm not making this up) who was a pope sometime or other and didn't do much of anything.  As far as I can determine, he is not the patron saint of anything either. Very papal, but not as titillating as the name leads one to expect.

So let's check out another virgin of dubious authenticity--St. Barbara--who, much like her namesake city in California, seems rather more fairy-tale fantastical than real.  Legend has it, nonetheless, that Barbara was (what else?) a pious virgin, dedicated to remaining hermetically sealed and to spending a good deal of her life locked up in a tower.  In the end, though, she went the way of most pious virgins, getting her head chopped off--and by her own father, no less.  Though God inexplicably failed to save Barbara, He did manage to punish the wicked parent by striking him dead with a bolt of lightening.  Hence, by association, Barbara (not the father) has become the patron saint of artillerymen, firearms and fireworks.  NRA please take note of Barbara's feast day, which is still observed by Orthodox and Anglican Christians: December 4.  If you can't light a candle, light a couple firecrackers.

And now, the Big One. (You knew this was coming, didn't you?) By far the most popular saint, of course, is yet another virgin--the Virgin Mary--better known, perhaps, as Our Lady (of Something or Other). The "something or other" is sometimes a place where she supposedly appeared to someone (e.g., Lourdes) and sometimes a character trait (e.g., "Sorrows," "Perpetual Help") she supposedly possesses.

Our Lady of Lourdes, for instance, appeared to simple-minded Bernadette (a.k.a. Jennifer Jones) in a grotto in the Pyrenees announcing that she--the Lady--was also the "Immaculate Conception."  Obviously too dim to process this mind-boggler, Bernadette promptly set about scratching a hole in the ground from which, mirabile visu, a spring sprang forth, whose waters can now be purchased by modern-day pilgrims in Virgin-shaped plastic bottles with heads that screw off when one wants to take a sip.

Our Lady of Fatima, for her part, appeared to a passel of little Portuguese kids and scared the shit out of them by making the sun whirl and dance and bounce around.  She also told them three big secrets which they, in turn, related to priests and popes etc. (via a game of ecclesiastical Chinese Whispers) and which predicted things which may or may not have come true, especially the third, which might still be "sealed" and is probably about the end of the world. Look for further information in the next book by Dan Brown.

(I note, in passing, that the Reverend Pat Robertson also receives regular secrets from divine sources--though as a Protestant, he probably gets his info directly from Yahweh, not from any intermediary Virgin).

My favorite Lady is Our Lady of Guadalupe--I even have a pretty icon of her on my living room wall (it goes nicely with my décor). Not that I find this apparition more credible than any of the others, mind you, but I have a strong sentimental attachment to this brown-skinned Lady who, way back in 1531, supposedly spoke to the perhaps fictitious Juan Diego in Nahuatl (not an easy language for a Lady) and delivered to him (on his cloak!) a brightly-colored image of herself that differs considerably from the traditional portraits of vacuous, blue-garbed Ladies of Spain and Portugal and France.  I think of it, in fact, as a vivid but unpretentious 16th Century "selfie."

BTW, almost all biblical scholars (except those who completely despair of ever knowing anything whatsoever about Jesus of Nazareth)--all these scholars acknowledge that Mary, far from being a perpetual virgin of the Catherine, Margaret and Barbara sort, was in fact the mother of several children other than Jesus--most notably "James the Brother of the Lord" who is mentioned prominently in Acts and the Pauline epistles (Galatians) and was the leader of the initial Church in Jerusalem.

Holy Shit, eh?

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Constitutional Pot-Sitting

The most basic human needs do not change.  Since the beginning, we have found it necessary to defecate--and we have frequently, therefore, assigned the name "necessaries" to the various devices we have invented to "facilitate"--with a modicum of efficiency and modesty--the accomplishment of this task (hence another euphemism--"facilities").

However, as this picture of an 18th century night stool illustrates, the devices we employ change and evolve over time (in response to social and scientific advances), even though the fundamental need remains constant. Hence, I doubt that anyone, in 21st century America, would consider this chaise percée--despite its mahogany elegance--to be a particularly efficient or desirable substitute for a nice Kohler flush toilet.  But by the same token, few would choose to forego entirely the aid of a "necessary" in accomplishing this most fundamental act of human liberation.

What always strikes me as odd, though, is how many modern folks--who in their choice of plumbing cherish their sanitary, lavender-scented bathrooms--remain inexplicably and adamantly attached to political ideas and systems that are the smelly equivalent of 18th century night stools. For shitting, they want a sleek 21st century crapper. For governing, they cling to a messy 18th century constitution.

Oh, I am not being unpatriotic or seditious here.  Our Dear Old Constitution (DOC), like the night stool pictured, was undoubtedly state-of-the-art--in 1789.  Back then, as today, people had to "do their business," and the night stool/constitution conceived by Madison et. al. was at the time perhaps the most efficient and elegant invention yet devised to help do the job. For its yeoman service over many years, it has earned our respect and veneration.

But the world has changed since 1789.  Yes, people still have to defecate, of course.  However, circumstances surrounding this act no longer resemble the 18th century context for which the night stool was designed.  These days, overflowing chamber pots cannot simply be dumped in streets. And anyway there are no servants to dump them.  Septic night soil cannot be collected and used to fertilize vegetable gardens.  And besides there are no vegetable gardens to fertilize.  In short, a night stool--in the 21st century--would simply not receive a very high rating from Consumer Reports (even though its woodwork might be stunning).  

Were there a Consumer Reports for governmental charters, I fear that a similar bad review would be accorded to the Constitution that we so reflexively and unquestioningly revere.  Because isn’t it evident that, despite its elegant concern for symmetry and "balance," this beloved but outmoded contraption is just no longer doing a very good job of handling our daily "business"?  Nice woodwork, but--as Washington paralysis demonstrates every day—distressingly smelly and inefficient within our modern context.  

And alas, though the Founders themselves realized that their political “convenience” might someday need to be amended and updated, our constitutional remodeling has so far amounted to little more than slapdash tinkering—so ramshackle that we’re actually beginning to lack the political plumbing to keep ourselves free of our own accumulating waste. 

I wonder, therefore: isn’t it about time to convene another Constitutional Convention and charge it with engineering a system designed for 21st century realities?  Or, lacking that, at least with legislating some substantial streamlining via, well, a "sh*tload" of amendments to our now decidedly incommodious DOC ? Clearly, we very desperately need some updated constitutional facilities. 

I do wish (though, in truth, I entertain little real hope) that our leaders would just get off the pot and do it!


Sunday, September 15, 2013

American Exceptionalism: Bullshit Of, By and For the Assholes



In his little essay entitled "On Bullshit," philosopher Harry Frankfurt makes this basic distinction between liars and bullshitters: liars know the truth but deliberately attempt to deceive in order to advance some particular interest (ranging from selfish to idealistic); bullshitters, on the other hand don't know and/or don't care about the truth, but are merely making stuff up in order to achieve some immediately satisfying result (which may be entirely frivolous but which may also be incredibly dangerous).  In other words, liars at least have an authentic relationship with the truth--since they actively defy it.  Bullshitters on the other hand are complete phonies:  what they say may (in fact) be either true or false (who cares?)--but any connection with the fact/truth is purely and irrelevantly coincidental. It's the story--and the impression it makes--that counts.

In another book I'm currently reading--Assholes: A Theory--philosopher Aaron James reflects upon a somewhat related phenomenon:  assholery.  An asshole, according to James, is essentially someone possessed of an entrenched sense of entitlement whereby he systematically accords himself special advantages, denying the moral equality of other human beings.

As James points out, this attitude of superior self-worth sometimes accompanies genuine talent and genius (Picasso, Hemingway)--and sometimes accompanies nothing but fatuous mediocrity (Donald Trump, Dick Cheney).  In any event, though, a certain kind of "bullshit" reasoning is required to sustain the assholery:  i.e., the actual truth--that human beings, regardless of inequalities in talent and intelligence, nonetheless have equal legitimacy and worth as human beings--is set aside in favor of a made-up bullshit notion (perhaps not even verbalized) that some "animals" are more equal than others. Assholes are the guys who automatically cut to the head of the line because, well, in their bullshit world, there is a special constitutional amendment--made up by them--just for them permitting them to take precedence. Bullshit of the asshole, by the asshole, for the asshole.

What saddens me, depresses me, angers me above all, is that this bullshit/asshole mentality so thoroughly permeates American politics, American politicians, American foreign policy and, alas, American citizenry in general--especially those uber patriots who babble endlessly about American "exceptionalism."

Listen!  Why does America have to be the guy who invariably cuts in line?  the guy who weaves through three lanes of traffic?  the loudmouth whose opinion cannot be questioned?

So, like Martin Luther (though he, too, was kind of an asshole, wasn't he?), I have to take a stand on this--just as I feel impelled to shout out when someone cuts me off in traffic:  American exceptionalism is an absolute bullshit notion--and those who espouse it are consummate assholes!  Here I stand. I can do no other. Assholes!