The Taser's Edge

Moving on…
April 12, 2013, 12:50 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Starting on Livejournal in 2006, and then on WordPress since some other time, I’ve been blogging as The Taser’s Edge, which means this blog has a lot of history on it. If you want to continue to follow my thoughts or life, please do, but I’m now blogging over at


If you were wondering, yes, it’s good
March 12, 2010, 1:00 am
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , ,

The Brothers Bloom by the writer/director of Brick, brilliant in both the British and American senses of the word.  Brick was classic smart high school film + classic sexy film noir (a la Clueless + The Big Sleep).  The new film is Wes Anderson + con man movie + really convoluted plot (in a good way, a la The Big Sleep,).  Adrien Brody will capture your heart with just his voice.  Then he will capture the rest of you with the rest of him.

Foreskin’s Lament by Shalom Auslander

Foreskin’s Lament…with a title like that, how exactly do you review a book?  You try.  I got to know Shalom Auslander through his frequent, frequently hilarious contributions to This American Life.  (Try this one.)  He currently has one published book of short stories, Beware of God, and one memoir, Foreskin’s Lament.

So we’re back to that title.  Auslander grew up in an Orthodox (veering near ultra-Orthodox) community near New York, with an abusive father and a deep-seated belief that a vengeful God was out to get him.  I’m not quite sure why he only briefly connects those two facts of his upbringing, but he certainly seems to still carry the latter.

Auslander knows that he is being neurotic, but he can’t shake it.   Nor can he shake his belief that God is real.  And Auslander (and God) is angry.  Perhaps an excerpt is the best way to communicate the tone throughout the book.

“I felt like the horse on the Polo logo, unsure whether the man on my back with the menacing mallet was God, or family, or community, or all three, but knowing that if I could just throw the son of a bitch, I could run away forever.  My attitude toward the world I had come from and the God that I had come from were the same: I was tired, finally, of trying to find favor in someone or Something else’s eyes, particularly when that someone or Something seemed to be assholes and/or an Asshole.  Our philosophy teacher told us of a man who claimed that God was dead; if only, Friedrich.  He was alive, and He was a Prick.  Maybe I couldn’t run from him–maybe the trip out of the Promised Land was even more treacherous than the one into it–but perhaps, I wondered, I could spoil His sport with simple acquiescence, blithely accepting whatever fate He chose for me–no worrying, no praying, no beseeching, no obsessing.  No more bribes, no more payoffs, no more house of worship backroom deals.  Radio silence.  Not atheism; resignation.  So Whatism.  Whateverism.  Blow Meism.  Maybe the forefathers’ mistake was answering Him?  Maybe they should have just ignored him?” (164)

Angry, profane, somewhat over-the-top, but undeniably well written.  And again to the title.  There is a great metaphor that Auslander returns to several times throughout the book.  He, and those like him, who have been brutally cut off from their communities by their communities, are the foreskins, bloodied, bruised, tossed away.  The major hope is that there is a whole hill of foreskins out there (what does my ability to reference arcane and grotesque Scripture say about how I’ve been religiously formed?); they aren’t alone.  Not a ton of hope to me, but a survivor’s kind of hope.  Auslander is the foreskin lamenting.

For me, as you might guess, it was a depressing read.  It depressed me to read how damaged this author has been by his community, by his family, by his religion, because the things that are most important and most beloved in my life are my community, my family, and my religion.

Auslander and I seem to look at the world in totally opposite ways.  That is, I understand the miraculous to be God opening my eyes; it is an ongoing interpretive work of seeing the grace of God (love specifically and personally aimed at me) in all things.  Auslander instead sees the malice of God (specifically and personally aimed at him) in all things.  And both of us (perhaps he more than I) are aware that sometimes these thoughts veer into pure superstition.

As I read the book, I strongly resisted my tendency to believe that I understand where he stands.  I don’t.  And as I write this, I think that maybe the better take-away from this book would be for me, for the first time, to look at the devastation that religion can cause, to look at it straight in the face.  I admit I haven’t done that before.  The modern set of atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.) haven’t really interested me; if I want robust atheism, I’ll read Nietszche.  The major claim that I hear again and again from the new guys, that religion has done more harm than good in the world, is one that I dismiss out of hand.  Auslander gives me pause in how easy that dismissal comes to me.  He makes me realize the ways in which I already know religion does damage and has does damage–to women, to ethnic minorities, to LGBT people, to me (yes, in some ways, to me too).  I think he would be glad to make me question the goodness of religion, of Christianity.  I think that might be part of his point.  Not to say I should abandon my faith, but that I need to be honest about the damage it does.

Going beyond his point, my question (as always) is what this means for the practices of the Christian churches.  How do we talk about the Gospel as life-giving good news (which it most certainly is), but also choose to grow in our honesty and willingness to open our eyes to the fact that religion, Christian religion, yes, even the cross itself, continue to brutalize people?  Crap.  That’s a hard question.  Thankfully, God’s out to save me, not to kill me.

Ah, the ole secular principle of universal justice

What exactly is Spain’s “principle of universal justice” based upon?  (Aside from political circus-ry, of course.):

Spain Opens Inquiry on Guantánamo (NY Times)

Tired of all those slow, possibly thoughtful Holocaust flicks this past year?

“You haven’t see war until you’ve seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.”  I had heard rumors, but I hadn’t seen the trailer until today.  Inglourious Basterds will apparently enable you to see war for the first time.  Only Tarantino would think it’s a great idea to make what should have been a terrible Charles Bronson movie into what will most likely be (considering his incredibly consistent track record, at least not counting From Dusk Till Dawn, which Robert Rodriguez, a much less consistent artist, directed) a stylish and darkly humored ultraviolent wonder.  Most of Tarantino’s old fans will love it, and a few teenage boys will fall in love for the first time, choosing Tarantino as the one interesting filmmaker that they will ever watch.

Jewish-American soldiers terrorize the German countryside by killing and scalping Nazis.  Brad Pitt as their commander?  Okay.  But BJ Novak from The Office as one of the soldiers and Mike Myers as some other character?  Apparently working hard to break some typecasting here.

Make sure to give this video the HD treatment:

A(n) Historic Presidency
February 5, 2009, 8:40 am
Filed under: Life, Politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

“Birds and Bees Fail” from

Pee Wee Visits Letterman
January 23, 2009, 6:00 am
Filed under: Film, Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

I remember watching Pee Wee when I was a kid, but I hadn’t seen him a long time.  When I randomly came across this clip, I had to admit to myself that Paul Reubens is really, really talented.  Hopefully you either agree or don’t hate it too much.