I’m all kinds of ecstatic about this thing. It’s the original negative (the positive is easier on the eyes) from 19-fucking-06, it’s of a major calamity, there’s all kinds of action in the photo, people all over the place, buildings burning on all sides, people milling about the rescued contents of the buildings, and one lady taking a nonchalant stroll, with a parasol, cuz god forbid she get a sunburn.  The only thing that could make this better would be if it were of a famous building, with a fireman rescuing a baby from a firestorm, or if I could get someone to secretly shoop in a time-traveller with a cell phone.

If I had to pull a number straight out of my ass, I’d say there were thousands of photos taken of the ruins and the fires.  I’m not sure how many of the original negatives still exist.  It’s at least moderately rare.  I couldn’t find this photo in any of the online collections I looked at, but I was hardly exhaustive.  It’s not unlikely that this has been sitting in a box somewhere for most of the last 100 years.   It’s conceivable that it has some value, but I’m really not sure at this point.  It’s undeniably unique.

Can I just say that I fucking love the Rose Bowl Flea Market. It’s so awesome that it has an entire conjoined twin flea-market attached to it, just for antiques, and as big as any other.  I’ve never failed to find at least several things worth coveting on any given visit. This time, a guy had a stack of glass negatives, so I casually asked him if there was anything neat in there, or if it was just a bunch of family photos.  He casually informed me that at least one of them was from the 1906 earthquake. Guh. Negatives from a major natural disaster 100+ years ago, you say?   Sure enough, there are a few family photos, some other stuff I don’t remember, one of a couple of airplanes that I wish I’d bought in retrospect, and one that clearly depicted quite a substantial amount of mayhem in progress.   Best $30 I ever spent.

So, as I’m a huge fan of both free press, and ridiculous controversy, how can I not collect a memento of the shitstorm?     This one is #430/1000.  I’m not at all an autograph whore, but it was just so ridiculously controversial that I had to have it, not so much because it’s controversial, but because there’s really no good reason it *should* be controversial at all.  It’s just some silly cartoon that somehow blew up(har!) and managed to piss off people all around the world, and become significant as a consequence.  It’s not really even all that great a cartoon.  It’s certainly not worthy of the controversy.  The only reason it’s significant at all, is because people demanded an apology for it.  The more noise was made, the more popular it became.  You’ve gotta love the Streisand effect.

The infamous cartoon by Kurt Westergaard

Big deal, so it’s a cartoon of a guy with a bomb for a hat.  Heh!   Bomb hats are kinda funny as a general concept.  I’m sure it’s not so funny when it’s your hat, but still, if you think back on how you got into that situation, it’s probably at least a little funny.

So, how does someone go from “That’s an offensive mischaracterization of my religion, and the religious figure I hold so dear” to “In response, I must make myself a caricature of everything represented in the very cartoon that I am taking offense to in the first place.  Jihad at Kurt’s place!”  Doesn’t that just validate the cartoon?

Some who are offended by it say it’s a sin to make a pictorial representation of Muhammed.  So?  If it’s a “sin” for you, don’t do that.  People who don’t share those same superstitions aren’t obligated to follow them.  They’ve probably got plenty of silly superstitions of their own to keep them occupied.   You stick with the non-idolatry, I’ll be over here not eating hot dog buns on Fridays.  It’ll be all good.  Extra hot dog buns for you, extra idolatry for me, win/win.

Some say it’s disrespectful to Muhammed.  So?  If it’s a sin to mock your holy figure, don’t mock him.  The moment you decide it’s appropriate to tell someone else what they can, or can’t make satire of, then fuck you, and your delicate sensibilities.  You don’t have the right to dictate what other people do, or say, even if it hurts your feelings.  Your religious figures are not immune from criticism, whether that criticism comes in the form of rational argument, or biting satire.  If your religious figures can’t tolerate criticism, then how weak must they truly be?

Some say it’s disrespectful to Muslims because it portrays a Muslim holy figure in a manner that’s suggestive of a violent stereotype.  I say, no.  It’s a freaking cartoon.  It doesn’t suggest violence, it satirizes a violent stereotype in the same way that the Roadrunner, and Coyote do, or Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.  The bomb is straight outta an ACME catalog for fucks sake.  It’s probably not a coincidence that it was drawn as a very cartoonish sorta bomb, instead of something more realistic, such as a suicide vest.  Why?  Because it’s more absurd that way.  Cartoons, absurdity, and satire go hand in hand.  So, if it’s satire, who is being made fun of?  It’s making fun of people who would wear bombs and blow themselves, and others people up in the name of their holy figure, thinking God is gonna reward them with a gaggle of virgins for their “sacrifice.”  It’s kinda like making fun of the Snakehandlers because they think God told them to drink Strychine, and get bitten by rattlesnakes.  It’s funny because it’s so fucking monumentally stupid.   If you’re not the kind of person who does, or believes in the kind of shit that’s being satirized, then it’s not making fun of you, or your beliefs.   It’s making fun of the stupid motherfuckers who blow shit up, cuz them bitchez is straight up retarded.  You don’t have to like it, but retards *are*, objectively speaking, pretty funny sometimes.

For me, I see people getting butthurt about this cartoon, filled with righteous indignation and rage that someone would dare mock their holy figure like this.  I wonder, where’s that same righteous indignation when a woman is having acid thrown into her face because she had the audacity to learn how to read, or to reject a suitor?  Where’s the outrage when Saudi police watch a building full of schoolgirls burn, even going so far as to shove them back inside, because they didn’t think to grab their headscarves before fleeing the burning building?   Where is the indignation at someone hijacking their faith for the purposes of evil?  Where are the worldwide protests?  Where is the moral outrage at having your religion hijacked by a bunch of assholes?  It’s those assholes that caused cartoons like this to be created.  If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at those guys, they’re the ones who damaged the reputation of your religion.   I’m sure most Muslims do feel some measure of indignation about those things, but I wonder, why is that indignation so muted in comparison with indignation at the mockery of your religious figures?  Which is the greater crime?  Why are there worldwide protests in outspoken opposition to mockery, but muted in opposition to the brutality that inspires such mockery?

The real enemy is not a cartoon, or its artist.  Getting angry at a cartoon, is like getting angry at the television when you see something you don’t like.  It might have been the thing that triggered your offense, but it’s not what caused it.

Anyway, it’d be pretty cool to collect a Fatwa from some lunatic cleric, but I dunno about that whole being assassinated part.  That’s pretty bogus.

A Catholic Tabernacle

Jesus happens to be a pretty important dude, so you can’t just cover him in saran wrap and throw him in the fridge with the common clergy’s lunch.  It’s disrespectful.  According to the Vatican, you’ve gotta store him in a locked container, so the riffraff don’t defile Jesus.  To be fair, that’s probably wise.  You know as well as I do the kind of shit that goes on in the company refrigerator.  Just imagine what those abandoned lunches turned into before refrigeration was invented.  That’s where yer tabernacle comes into play.  A priest would prepare the wafers, and imbue them with Jesusness prior to the mass, then place them inside the Tabernacle, where they would remain unsullied(unlike the altar boys who were charged with carrying it), until they were ready to be used.  The tabernacle itself would then be carried to wherever necessary.  I’m reasonably sure nothing other than communion wafers and wine, both consecrated and non-consecrated ever go in here.  It’s pretty much a Jesus Only room, except sometimes not exactly when the wafers and wine haven’t yet been turned into Jesus.

During the mass, the tabernacle would sit on an altar of its own, separate from the altar the priest is using to conduct the Mass.  Prior to Vatican II, the Tabernacle was actually the focal point of the Mass.  Humility dictated that everyone pay attention to Jesus, rather than the priest.  It would have been prideful to have the congregation watch him.  Post Vatican II, it was decided that the Altar, where all the action is happening should be the focal point instead, so the tabernacle got shunted off to the a different altar on the side.  That makes sense to me.   You’d want the focus to be on where the action is, right?  It’d be pretty silly to have this big production while the audience is all staring at Jesus’ warm-up room, waiting for him to come out.  At least that’s my limited understanding after a few minutes of googling.  I vaguely remember seeing something that looked about the same shape as this one in my baptized, but otherwise non-catholic youth, probably when forced to go to church while fanatical grandma was in town.

So, what do you figure these things cost?    Well, brand new, one such as this would sell for in the neighborhood of $8500.  Now, I’m sure they don’t exactly sell a lot of these by volume, so I can see them being a little on the pricey side, but there’s no fucking way in hell this thing is worth anywhere near $8500.   It’s nice and all, but it’s not THAT nice.  The reason they cost so much probably has more to do with the relative wealth of the customer than it does with the inherent value of the object.

Imagine you were going to open up a Catholic Franchise, and you needed to fill your new religious establishment with the all the trappings of Catholicism.  Sure, you can skimp on the chairs for the break-room, but you can’t really cheap out on the box you’re gonna keep Jesus in.  Churches are going to buy the fanciest, purtiest box they can, because lets face it, nothing is too good for Jesus.  You don’t want some cheap-ass Chinese-made, likely poisonous, tabneracle from Walmart, do you?   A company that sells religious supplies is gonna figure it out pretty quick, churches only buy one or two of these, and they can afford to pay quite a bit for them.  Sometimes just charging more for something creates the perception of increased value.

I paid $225.  I figured it’s probably not the kind of item that other churches would purchase “used”, so I didn’t think it would be worth much more than that, but Ebay apparently disagrees. The going price for one approximately equivalent seems to be right around $1000-1500.   It should give you an idea how much money there is to be made in the religion racket.  Salvation is a pretty lucrative business.  Unfortunately, I have no idea what church it came out of originally, which is a bit of a shame since it would make for a neater story and probably increase its value.

I guess I’m gonna use it for its intended purpose — storing booze and cookies.  That Jesus sure can hold his liquor.  I could do that too if I was made of bread.

.