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.
MoveOn.org is generally percieved as the fringe left of the political spectrum.
Important word: “perceived.” I’m not aware of any issues on which they’re substantively fringe. They were against the Iraq War, but that was pretty dodgy all the way around. The sheer number of people against it (it was at least 30%, right?) means they’re not fringe as a matter of statistics.
Bracketing the Iraq War, I can’t think of anything on which they’re fringe. Their rhetoric was intense, of course, but so is Weekly Standard’s, and I wouldn’t consider them fringe. Just partisan.
They were against the Iraq War, but that was pretty dodgy all the way around.
Let me clarify that: by dodgy, I just meant debatable. It just wasn’t an obviuos slamdunk the way other wars may have been. Sorry for the confusion.
Beyond that, it’s worth noting the hypocracy of the Republicans here. They spend a lot of time going after “judicial activists” and are simultaneously trying to remove one of the central checks we have to be sure that only sound jurors get put on the bench.
Here’s to a slow, stupid, inefficient government. It’s always gonna be fairly stupid and inefficient, but as John and Jerry say, and I completely agree on this point, may it stay ever slow.
I agree completely with John, expect for the outcome. I hope the Republicans pull the nuclear option trigger, I’m game for a big fight, which I think they will lose.
As far as agenda, (and along the line of what Jerry wrote) I have always hoped to see the left and right agree to work together reduce unplanned pregnancies, and there for reduce abortions. Its something everyone can agree should be reduced, its just a question of how to go about it. This may at least be an opportunity to try and start some dialogue.
I find it absurd that even though everyone would like to see the number of unplanned pregnancies reduced, people would rather fight over how to do it than try to work together on it.
If I didn’t know better I’d think abortions must be a lot of fun the way I hear BOTH sides talk about it.
I don’t suspect moderation is much of the aim for Move On, but still I like the notion that real people (not just those in line with hard left thinking or those who want to make a joke of the opinion gathering process) get involved in offering Move On their opinions, on the off chance that Move On really wants to know what ordinary Americans are thinking.
If, on the other hand, they only want feedback from ultra-left leaning clones of George Soros, they’ll ignore contrary feedback — but still, no harm in trying, right?
I forget the exact number but democrats are claiming to have approved over 90% of BushÂ’s judicial nominees. Its only about 10 or so judges in question right now, and just today Bill Frist turned down a democrat compromise offer to give some of the judges in question an up or down vote in exchange for the republicans not pursuing the nuclear option.
Honestly Im glad Frist turned down the compromise, you know me I like to gamble big, I desperately want to see another break put on the republican efforts to expand power and I think the republicans have a lot more to lose than the democrats.
Also in terms of the republicans trying to expand their power dont forget the previous Attorney General John Ashcrofts interpretation of the Patriot Act (passed by Congress after 911) and other policies which seriously eroded many civil liberties and rights to privacy. I was willing to put up with it at the time because I thought terrorism was the greater threat, but now I see it as part of a pattern of expanding power.
In short I put a lot of a lot of trust into many republicans after 911: Bush, Ashcroft, and even to a lesser extent John McCain, and now I feel like that trust has been abused.
I’d recommend advocating for better healthcare for pregnant women and children and promotion of adoption. Perhaps also better protection of the disabled.
If you just say “fight abortion” or “fight for disabled people so they can eat and drink”, the good liberals at MoveOn.org will probably just claim that the right-wingers are trying to hijack their referendum and throw your suggestions down the memory hole. There is a lot that we can collaborate on, the trick is to focus on that and not the baggage that blinds us from that fact.
I’m not a fan of alarmist rhetoric, so if you wish to persuade me, you’ll have to be a bit more elaborate and a bit less hyper.
I’m not entirely convinced that the Democrats are really holding up the words as badly as they’re made out to be. IIRC, they’ve approved hundreds of Bush’s appointments and are only stalling on about 10.
It is criitcal that we remember that, if the Republicans are allowed to retain power for much longer, the very institutions of democracy within this country will be shattered. They are systematically attacking any checks on their power. We are not far from an Enabling Act.
From that point you must appreciate that, regardless of the specifics of their platform, moveon must continue to fight against the Republican menace.
Jerry, I am aware that the Republicans are not trying to “stuff” the judicary. But I am saying the situation is similar because they are using shady means to attempt to change the makeup of the judiciary. Although I disagree with its use on this issue, the fillibuster is one of the best ways to stop abuses of power by those we govern. It occurs to me the fillibuster was designed for exactly this set of circumstances, when one party controls all the seats of power. I would love to see them put more pro-life justices in the court system, but attempting to do so in this way will only cause a huge backlash. This is very similar to what happened to FDR.
John, before the Apocalypse would happen with a Republican “nuclear option”, a likely backlash against that arrogance would bring the Dems back into power, who could also use that run all over GOP, and put in their own brand of judges. (And then the world would end. You’re just an election cycle or two early with your prophecy. ;))
And while I don’t like the nuclear option or Frist’s use of religion, remember that the Democrats’ rather undemocratic holding up the works is bring the Republicans to this.
Kevin: the GOP is not trying to “stuff” the judiciary with extra judges, just fill the currently vacant seats.
John: I’m not sure what a sound jurist is anymore, and resent the Democrats’ obstructionism. Just put it to a full vote in the Senate, and let things fall where they may, for crying out loud. I agree that our democracy, such as it is, is no simple majority, but holding up a legislative body’s job like this is getting unreasonable. If they managed to compromise and the Republicans agree to drop a couple nominees, that’d be fine. (If nothing else, it’d set a precedent for Republicans putting the brakes on perhaps one or two of the worst judicial activists that a Dem President may nominate.)
MoveOn.org is generally percieved as the fringe left of the political spectrum. I don’t know that the organization can be brought to the center or that it even should be. I think it would be akin to trying to moderate Stalin’s communist party of last century. Their political views are shaped by their basic misinterpretations of reality. Not their perceptions of what reality is, but the absolute realities that are the bedrock. You will have to start much deeper than W to effect any real transformation.. You will have to change their basic ideas about God, man, and themselves.
All that being said, I think I’ll pop on over there and “perpetrate a ghastly floater” (Wodehouse), i.e. a conservative vote or two.
Okay, Kev, now I’m clear on where you’re coming from, and I’m with you on it 100%.
Perhaps someone (or several someones) should promote the Democrats for Life 95-10 initiative at MoveOn.
slow and deliberate
designed to remain steady through shifting cultural climates
rings a bell
reminds me of something
whatever could it be?
oh yeah….the Church! 😉
The Republicans are clearly not familar with there history if they trully believe they get away with this so-called “nuclear option”. In 1938, the Supreme Court struck down several of FDR’s New Deal provisions. In response, he petitioned Congress to change the number of justices in order to basically to nullify the anti-New Deal justices. When Congress refused, FDR personally spoke against Congressman running for reelection who didn’t support his justice legislation. This turned into a disaster, of the 11 Congressman he spoke against, 10 won reelection and the Republicans regained alot of ground they had lost in the 32, 34, and 36 elections. The firestorm almost cost Roosevelt reelection in 1940. You don’t mess with the Court system in this country. If the Republicans trully want there justices in place, a much better plan of attack is to paint the Democrats as unresonable and attempt to win 5 more Senete seats in 2006. The way they are doing it now is turning into a disaster. Keep going in this direction and they going to lose the Senete altogether. If it happened to FDR, it certainly happen to Bush, he isn’t nearly as popular as Roosevelt.
The Republicans stopped 45 of the 62 of Bill Clinton’s nominations to courts. In 1999 alone.
Also, we can compare this to issues during the Clinton years. One judge, Richard Paez, would have passed if given an up or down vote. It took him four years to get out of committee, because republicans were stopping his nomination. What happened when it got out of committee? He passed.
This is not getting unreasonable. This is Senate business the way that Senate business has gone on as long as we’ve had a republic. During the Clinton years the Republicans denied him his candidates, they were just able to kill them in committee rather than filibustering.
This is not a matter of an unprecedent obstruction, this is the normal process.
Our system was intentionally designed to cause gridlock. The idea that the founders had was that if you made it hard to do anything quickly, it would lessen the risk of bad choices being made. Our system has been gridlocked since the day it was created, adn our nation has been the better for it.
To answer Funky’s question:
They’re trying to take control over the judiciary. They want to get rid of the judicial filibuster so that they can do so. The “Nuclear option” entails violating Senate rules in order to do this. The rules agreed upon at the time the limit for cloture was set to 60 votes was that changing it farther would still require a two thirds majority. They are going to change it with a simple majority anyway. They are also planning to try to impeach judges who make rulings they disagree with. All that’s left is to remove the legislative veto and there are no checks left on Republican power.
Whatever you may think of the Republicans, anyone who holds unchecked power will tend to become authoritarian.
Furthermore, moveon is not a particularly radical group. They don’t call for a radical redistribution of wealth. They don’t make any other radical demands.
To say that the filibusters have been anti-democratic is to grossly misconstrue the concept of democracy.
Democracy is not built around 50%+1 having there way no matter what the rest think. Minority rights and indeed minority vetos, such as the filibuster, are a central part to any healthy democracy.
Update on the judiciary: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILIBUSTER_FIGHT?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=home.htm
Eric, I think the hold-up has been with way more than that, but will have to keep an eye out on that for more numbers. I’d like to think that it is small, but am unsure.
Well, I registered at MoveOn and patiently waded thru about the first 300 comments (out of ~5000!!!)… Good news, nothing about abortion. Bad news, nothing about abortion. I suppose for most of their constituency, this issue is pretty much a given. But it’s really unfortunate that I didn’t read anything that really even sounded moderate-sounding…
Cheers!
Yeah, upon reflection, John, I’ve grown less exasperated with the Dems. Business as usual, and I generally prefer the gridlock that you mentioned! The (Chinese?) curse applies well to government: “May you always get what you wish for!”