About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
There’s a major fallacy in that statement that A LOT of people are guilty of. I cannot at any point recall having any intention of voting for Gore. Prior to the debates, it was because I was already fed up with the two-party system and because Gore hadn’t inspired me in any way to vote for him. I’d intended to avoid watching the debates entirely since my mind was made up already. I happened to catch debate #3 when a bunch of friends had it on. I was disgusted by what I saw. Bush was a blithering idiot, but I expected that. Gore was so slimy I thought he was going to slide off the stage. If there was any chance of me voting for Gore prior to the debates, it was squashed that night.
Economic competition is good for the consumer. Political competition is good for the voter. Oligopolies are harmful to both systems. There are laws in place to stop them in the market. There aren’t any for government.
Anyhow, as h2 said, “I’d just like to find a candidate with whom I agree more than I disagree…I’m not looking for a clean sweep of ideals, but a majority of common ideals would be nice.”
I can’t belive you have let yourself be led into believing the image of Kerry as portrayed by the DNC. Some of it is true, but anyone can be made to look good. Except for perhaps Hillary Clinton. 😉
Why? I think approval of homosexual behavior is harmful to society. Nobody, including you, has given me any reason to believe otherwise.
I think offering same-sex benefits is no more or less foolish than offering benefits to any cohabitating but unmarried couple. It doesn’t make sense to offer benefits without a contract of some kind binding the couple. I’ve said from the very beginning of this controversy, I think it’s a state problem, not a Pitt problem. If gays want benefits, they should try to get civil unions in PA.
“Funky, you cannot be serious about the Constitution Party?”
If Peroutka had any real chance of winning, I’d think more carefully about voting for him. As it stands, I’m trying to register discontent with Dems and Reps without shirking my civic duty or wasting a privilege.
Out of curiousity, would the Libertarian candidate, Bednarik, or the Green candidate, Cobb, bother you less?
Out of curiousity, would the Libertarian candidate, Bednarik, or the Green candidate, Cobb, bother you less?
Well, I see the Libertarians in about the same light as I see the Constitutions: Hopeless (and hopelessly confused) ideologues. I actually voted Libertarian in ’88 BTW. I was, at the time, a hopelessly confused ideologue though–a recent survivor of a right wing brainwashing attempt.
The Greens are slightly less laughable and, on issues of social justice at least, more nearly right. But of course their extreme “conservative” views on abortion (I refuse to see killing babies as “liberal”) would almost surely prevent my vote.
I guess I just can’t shake this single-issue voting pattern, as much as I’d like to.
Cheers!
Also, you can vote for Nader even if he’s not on the ballot, just write it in.
Eric, we need the Pensylvania vote. Please – just do one for the Gipper. Go pramatic my friend, please please please 🙂
Hmmmm…. hard to offer much more than what has already been said. But in response to h2’s plea for someone with a “majority of common ideals,” I second the plea. But who might that be? If Karol Wojtyla runs, I’ll vote for him, but lacking that…
Funky, you cannot be serious about the Constitution Party? Okay they’re right (no pun intended) on about… oh say…. 1 (one) issue… and that’s about it. And they’re right the same way GWB is…
Hold your nose and pray that a couple supreme court justices die (or get sued for sexual harassment by their gay lovers) in the next 4 yrs, and then maybe, just maybe GWB can do what we put him there for.
I don’t think I would have a problem with major party candidates if there were only a smattering of differences between his and a candidate’s platform.
The reason it’s so hard for me to stomach voting for either of the big two is that there are practically legions of stated and demonstrated political positions on each side that rub me the wrong way.
I’d just like to find a candidate with whom I agree more than I disagree. The sense I get from both major parties is that they are somehow simultaneously dogmatic and lukewarm, all the while not supporting enough of the positions I hold.
I’m not looking for a clean sweep of ideals, but a majority of common ideals would be nice…
(Maybe Funky fits in with this view somewhere too)
I just skimmed the Pitt News article on this breaking story. As I suspected, straight couples will be offered the same benefits. Also, couples must sign an affidavit to prove their monogamy. Pitt knew all along, as I did and many others did, that the benefits wouldn’t stop with gays because straight unmarried couples would demand them. Apparently Pitt decided they could afford to foot the bill for everyone.
If there was some third (or fourth or fifth) party do you really think you’d agree with them? They would probably be pro choice or have some other reason serious reason for you not to vote for them.
The reason bush is in office is because people like you and me voted third party in 2000 when we thought it didn’t matter. Now we know it matters.
For the record, julie was approached in oakland by someone with a clipboard asking if she would sign a petition to the United Nations. She said yes, but when she looked at the clipboard it was a petition to get Nader on the ballot. The next day watching the news I learned it was the deadline for Nader to get enough signatures. You were going to vote for a guy who runs his campaign that way. If Nader was the actually a serious threat to Bush’s reelection he would easily look like a far less attractive candidate than Kerry by the time Karl and company were done with him.
I can’t believe you have let yourself be led into believing the image of Kerry as portrayed by his opponents. Some of it is true, but anyone can be made to look bad.
And lay off on the anti-gay stuff. On a positive note (it’s been a very depressing week due to the RNC) today pitt announced it will pay for healthcare for same sex partners! It’s about time.
Just to clarify something for Funky, the vast majority of companies give benefits to nonmarried couples in a committed relationship. I’m also fairly certain that pitt was already providing this for couples of opposite sexes.
It is good right and just that it should be so. If marriage is going to mean something, then we should not browbeat people into getting married who don’t want to by threatening them with death by lack of insurance.
P.S.
If we don’t stop the cycle now we will have four more year of bush, eight more years of clinton (hilary), followed by eight more years of bush (jed).
Raised by liberal Democrats as I was, I still have a bit of a bias against Reagan, so appealing to his memory is unlikely to be persuasive. 😉
Seriously, though, I can’t in good conscience hold my nose in the voting booth again. Kerry’s hypocrisy, wishy-washy voting record, and support for liberal social causes (abortion, homosexuality, etc), as well as the general trend toward unchecked progressiveness in the democratic party will keep me from voting for Kerry. Bush’s jihad mindset, poor war planning, unwillingness to admit wrongdoing, mistakes, or failure, horrendous environmental policies, and pandering to the interests of corporations and the richest 1% will keep me from voting for Bush.
The duopoly does not represent me. Both parties have platform planks that I agree with. Both have planks that I abhor. I do not see an overwhelming majority of the former in either party. I, and most Americans, are stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place – or so we’ve been told. Most voters behave as though the major parties are all we have. “Go ahead, throw your vote away. It’s a two party system!” Well, it’s not. At least it shouldn’t be. It’s time someone stood up and told the masses to reject the autocracy of the Republicrats and demand real diversity and real representation.
As for pragmatics, I believe I am being pragmatic. The way I see it, the country’s no better off with Tweedledumb or Tweedledumber. The pragmatic choice for someone like me is to vote third party, instead of sitting at home on election day, which I’m so very tempted to do.