Got big plans for 2006? Here's hoping, for your sake, that they don't include food stamps, federally funded day care, or Medicaid. Our President's 2006 Federal Budget Plan is "unjust," at least according to some folks that likely helped to put the smirky frat boy into office for a second term. So much for Jesus' teachings on charity. If even mainline Protestants are backing away from Bush, you've got to know that times are hard in this whitest of White Houses.
Thanks for nothing, religi-os; we knew he sucked from the get-go. Now we're stuck with him for another 2 years. Very few even dare to breathe the word impeachment, as apparently spying on Americans (without informing the court or Congress), and leading the country into an unjust war (via scripted lies) are not obviously impeachable offenses; not like getting a blow job and then lying about it, which clearly caused the country much deeper and more far-reaching damage.
Perhaps even more surprising is the monumental lack of Internet hysteria over the coming date of June 6, 2006. This is the Day of The Beast, peasants! Can we please see some enthusiasm here?! And I thought you people were hungry for apocalypse. An albeit cursory 30-minute web search produced minimal links regarding the upcoming auspicious date for evil, though I did find this. (Religious fanatics seem to have a penchant for ugly, garish and poorly scripted html. Show me a professional-looking apocalyptic hysteria website, and I'll eat Werner Herzog's shoe.)
This is not to say that we don't have plenty to fear, the birth of the Antichrist child notwithstanding. For one thing, some knuckleheads decided (presumably with the current high marketability of horror films) to remake The Omen. Eeek! Of course, it will be so much "better" than the original, if only for the inclusion of mega-CGI scary effects. I can see the marketing tie-ins now: lick 'em stick 'em "666" tattoos at Burger King (they go under the hair, kids); and giveaway disposable cameras that take pictures of people, revealing the violent ways in which they are destined to die.
In other ominous entertainment news, a $120 ticket purchased for the June 6 performance of Broadway's The Odd Couple may or MAY NOT include stars Matthew Broderick (a known killer) and Nathan Lane (a known unconvincing Oscar Madison.) Please, NO MORE! But wait, there's also the Newport International Film Festival, which for unexplained reasons commences on June 6, a day when we all should clearly be hiding and praying at home; one need only look at the photo of Billy Zane in the Flash sequence at the NIFF homepage to know that we have much to fear.
In mysterious business news, the Primus Corporation has apparently been able, in some alternate dimension, to launch their new corporate identity on June 6, 2006, and has even dared to post these photos from the event, in an obviously cheeky attempt to taunt all of us regular folks incapable of time travel.
Also, the 30th anniversary of Seido Karate will be celebrated at Columbia University for 5 days in June, starting when? You guessed it—the 6th. This in and of itself would not be remarkable, save for the fact that the event is being called "SAITEN." Sure, they SAY it's the Japanese word for "celebration," but how do we really know? Look at the date, people, the DATE!
In scary tech news, Apple computer announced at its Worldwide Developer Conference on June 6, 2005 (hmmm, hmmm?), that it will begin using Intel microprocessors in Macintosh computers by "this time next year," and will transition all Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. The product launch is set for Taiwan on June 6, 2006—you can't make this shit up.
While Steve Jobs clearly has a hand in the end times, his old partner Bill Gates may also be involved, at least according to one kook with too much time on his hands (there's that crummy html again!) The obsession with the Internet being a harbinger of the end times is practically old news, and many see a correlation between "www" and "666"; before you laugh, look at this. (If the Internet is so evil, Amazon.com has certainly done a great job of lulling me into complacency with their excellent customer service.) Last but not least, there's the 666soon site, rife with bad html, ugly animated gifs, backgrounds that obscure text, and techno-barcode-apocalyptic hysteria.
My greatest hopes for 2006 are that it will be a better year for us all; that sincere Christians nationwide will continue to divest themselves of their association with our corrupt and wicked administration; and that the so-called Fundamentalists, having strutted their stuff and failed, will crawl back under the red-state rock they emerged from, and return to being the vocal, but relatively powerless minority they used to be.
The new beastly number is supposedely 616. Apparently there were some errors reading the bit of scripture it came from. The good news is now we can have a number of the beast day every year! Yay!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169
Posted by: Cynthia | December 29, 2005 at 10:54 AM
The anti-christ website is AWESOME! First the masked Eagle Scout death's head on bat wings follows your mouse around, then it takes on a life of its own and begins to sing! Then I saw the notice in the corner: "This site used to be about real estate." What a jubilation.
Posted by: Jaylefus | December 29, 2005 at 11:39 AM
So I'm guessing that Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast" will be played often by WFMU DJs in 2006, huh?
Posted by: Jeff Jotz | December 29, 2005 at 12:12 PM
News flash: "Mainline Protestants" and the Christian Right are two different groups. I thought most folks knew that, but apparently not. In fact, the UC of C is the most liberal Protestant denomination in America. I'd be extremely surprised if ANY members of that church voted for GWB.
But thanks for the very entertaining piece.
Lee
Posted by: Lee Hartsfeld | December 30, 2005 at 12:03 PM
Lee: I'm aware of the distinction between Mainline Protestants and the Christian Right, though I was not aware of the UC of C's liberal reputation. I still believe that Bush got many Christian votes from non-hysterical non-Evangelicals, people that as a rule vote Republican regardless of the candidate. Did I state or even infer that those 2 groups were one and the same? Don't think so. Also included in that article were the United Methodists, another "Mainline" group, of which Bush is a member; I have to assume many United Methodists voted Republican in 2004, no?
Posted by: WmMBerger | December 30, 2005 at 01:21 PM
"Did I state or even infer that those 2 groups (mainline Protestants and the Christian Right) were one and the same?" Yes. You wrote: "If even mainline Protestants are backing away from Bush, you've got to know that times are hard in this whitest of White Houses." That very blanket statement very clearly describes mainline Protestants as conservative; why else would m.p.'s, as a group, support the President's ultra-conservative policies? And you were referring to m.p.'s as a whole; no qualifying words or phrases were used to indicate otherwise. Furthermore, you referred to the five denominations mentioned in the link as "some folks that likely helped to put the smirky frat boy into office for a second term." Not some folks within, not some members of--rather, "some folks that."
Let's put it another way. Just as there were United Methodists who voted for Bush (I'm sure GWB did, at least--unless he pulled the wrong handle or something), there were just as surely WFMU listeners who did, too. If I write at my blog, "If even WFMU listeners are backing away from Bush, you've got to know that times are hard in this whitest of White Houses," would you take that as blanket slander against your listeners? Of course you would. You wouldn't assume that I had meant only those members of your audience who voted for Shrub.
Lee
Posted by: Lee Hartsfeld | December 30, 2005 at 03:55 PM
I meant to type, "Why else would m.p.'s, as a group, normally be expected to support the President's ultra-conservative policies," since they aren't, in this case, supporting them. I'm a Presbyterian (U.S.A.) who voted against Bush not once, but twice.
Lee
Posted by: Lee Hartsfeld | December 30, 2005 at 04:00 PM
Lee, I've certainly no wish to slander anyone who voted against the current administration; sorry if you were offended. Liberal Protestants do not have the voice or the power in this country that they had 30-50 years ago, and that's unfortunate.
The only Christians we ever seem to hear from (via mainstream media) are those riding the current wave of simplistic platitudes of God and Country; people who oppose Gay marriage and want to put the "Christ" back in Christmas.
I applaud all anti-Bush Christian Americans, just as I applaud all anti-Bush Republicans (there are a lot of them, more and more as time goes on.) Point taken; I'll be more careful to qualify future remarks.
"Religion and politics," as they say!
Posted by: WmMBerger | December 30, 2005 at 04:38 PM
William, thanks, and no personal offense taken. Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but BOTB does seem often to lump God-and-Country Christians (good description!) in with what I call the live-and-let-live variety. Maybe it's because of the mainstream media's relentless emphasis on the former. You're absolutely right--when Christians are mentioned on TV, we see either Pat Robertson followers or The Pope. I can understand why the general image of Christians isn't very positive. It's a very frustrating thing! I tell people I'm a Christian and I have to wonder if that will be interpreted as anti-evolution, anti-Gay, anti-science, and pro-rich. I submit there are many more of us than there are of them, but sensible Christians have been rendered almost invisible.
Lee
Posted by: Lee Hartsfeld | December 30, 2005 at 04:59 PM