Quick Note: The point of the Riot

 (if you don't like extended rants, skip this post)

From time to time I feel I have to put this disclaimer out there. This time I'm going to put it in bigger letters to make the point.

I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

I hope that was clear enough.

While I take on a number of different topics, and I choose them based solely on what interests me or has gotten me thinking at the time, I by no means feel I am an expert in any of these fields. I fully and openly admit that I am very young and have a lot left to learn. I also fully and openly admit that when I say things, I probably get much of it wrong. I do the best I can, spending hours researching each item that is put on the blog and even longer for the information I put on the podcast. 

I have said from the beginning that this Riot is first and foremost a place for me to ask the questions nobody seems to have provided very good answers to. Or, at least, find evidence to support the answers given by the pagan community at large. Sometimes when researching I come across information that seems to directly go against the given "common knowledge" of the New Age and Pagan communities (i.e. the Law of Attraction, the veracity of ancient texts based on their age, etc.). 

I put this information out there, because these are the answers that I find when I ask the question and then search through books, articles, and speak to members of the community. If I'm wrong about something, please enlighten me! I'm doing this to challenge convention, to ask why we accept what we accept. If there's a good reason behind it, then I'm all for it! The problem with much of the pagan narrative is that we've accepted wholeheartedly a handful of beliefs without questioning where they came from. We get pissed and angry when someone simply asks 'Why?' and then expects a damn good answer. If I'm being told that bloodstone will help cure my high blood pressure, I'd like to know how a rock is going to do that when blood pressure medication hasn't seemed to help. (Just as an example.) 

Is the entire handful of beliefs useful, or is some of it fluff and filler? That's what I'd like to find out. 

But, I do not, have never, and will not pull any punches. If in doing research - both in and out of pagan texts - I find a big ol' hole in the logic of, say, how Wicca really isn't mostly based on ancient tenets or why pagans get so up in arms about the portrayal of deities in the media, then I'm going to point it out. Repeatedly. Until someone comes up with a reason why it is the way it is. 

I invite dissent. Hell, it's the only way I'm going to learn. If nobody says anything to the contrary, and makes a good argument while doing so, I won't know that I'm wrong. I won't stop researching, but I probably won't think to look at the counter argument. 

Be that as it may, I extend an open invitation to anyone, anytime, about any topic they choose, to come on my show and discuss it with me. I would love to debate you on an issue. Any issue! Discussing religion and magic and philosophy and sociology and all of this is better than chocolate cake fed to you by nearly naked poolboys on a Caribbean island somewhere. It's challenging, yes, but it shouldn't make one angry. 

One last thing: If you happen to be the guy who feels that I need to 'sharpen [my] pitchfork' before I go 'jabbing the national community,' then grab the nearest microphone. I'd love to debate you on whatever it is you feel I've not delved deeply enough into. 

Ok...really...one last thing: I would just like to note how, since I did the original 'Inciting A Debated Riot' with the author of the Great Tininess blog - a Chicago pagan - that the only negative, rude, or otherwise adverse comments I seem to get about me, my personal character, my age, or my obvious lack of knowledge seem to also come solely from the Chicago pagan community. I'd just like to remind those of you in that community of exactly why I created Project Pagan Enough. It's for folks in communities like that who band together to make those of us that are young, inexperienced, questioning, or are otherwise merely not in your circle feel as though we have little right to call ourselves Pagan. Or, at least, that we should be seen and not heard. The debate is over. He said what he wanted, as did I. Let's all build a bridge and get right on over it. I have nothing I feel I need to prove to the Chicago pagan community. I am just fine with my position in it. 

If you have stuck around until the end of this rant, here's a sexy picture of Tom Welling as a prize.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Episode 48: Inciting A Glaring Riot

Episode 39 of Inciting A Riot: the Podcast finds us Inciting A Glaring Riot! We’ll be looking at envy, jealousy, and the power of the Evil Eye.

News: The revolution in the Middle East, budget reform in America, some news about DOMA, and a former Senate candidate is selling cosmetics.

Word of the Day: flounce

Gripe Department: A Gripe Department brought up by you, the Rioters, concerning the Pagan Homesteader Podcast by Rianna Stone.

Sociology: Unions…again

Music: Boys with Girlfriends by Meiko

Spirituality: The Evil Evil Eye

Please continue to vote for the show on Podcast Alley, vote, subscribe to, and rate the show on iTunes, join the TwitterRiot by following me @IncitingARiot, enter the Swag Contest through a donation or purchase of swag through the CafePress.com swag shop, take a gander at my articles on Examiner.com, and send your questions, comments, gripes, or complaints to IncitingARiotPodcast@gmail.com

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Home Page: http://www.IncitingARiot.com

Podcast Alley: http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=86829

iTunes: http://www.itunes.com/podcast?id=337689333

Twitter: http://twitter.com/IncitingARiot

Swag Shop: http://cafepress.com/IncitingARiot

Project Pagan Enough: http://www.incitingariot.com/p/project-pagan-enough.html

A Discussion of Nationality and Stigma: part 2 (Scarlet)

Below is the second part of Scarlet's discussion on Nationality and Stereotypes. Coincidentally enough, since the first part was about the term 'nationality,' this next article deals with stereotyping the American population. Specifically with the stereotype of the "fat, lazy American." Please leave a comment below with your thoughts about either of these topics.

My official responses will be later in the week. I'd like to thank Scarlet for being a guest blogger this week! Make sure to subscribe to Lakefront Pagan Voice on podbean or through iTunes!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Shew, that was a long way to get here, but the initial reason Firelyte challenged me to defend myself was that I commented on being annoyed when people throw around the term “fat American,” usually in a context of complaint and often paired with “lazy” and generally attempting to refer to a majority of Americans as though “fat” and “lazy” were not just common, but actually defining characteristics of our culture.

My defense for my irritation is pretty simple. I don’t like stereotypes and generalizations that much. Sure, it makes it easier to talk about certain things if you generalize a little bit, but a lot of times, it also expresses a certain egotism… in this case, the speaker is usually American him or herself and is setting themselves above other Americans which they deem to be “fat and lazy,” and as special or elite because they are the minority who rejects this implied cultural norm of fatness and laziness. I don’t see the point and it’s also my own people you are talking about.

Is it weird of me to be annoyed when a negative stereotype is thrown my way? Especially considering the pain I’ve seen caused by assumptions and stereotyping?

“Americans are fat,” “Bisexuals are promiscuous,” “Women are bad drivers,” “Pagans have no morals,” I could go on and on… So, as an athletic, monogamous, upstanding, bisexual, pagan woman with a good driving record, is it not understandable and fair for me to be irked when someone repeats one of the aforementioned stereotypes or implications? Even if you turn those phrases around so it’s not exactly an all-encompassing generalization… “Fat Americans,” “Promiscuous bisexuals,” “bad women drivers,” and “shameless pagans” still refer to a stereotype and a situation that the speaker is usually insinuating as generally applied, unless he or she is being specific about WHICH fat American or promiscuous bisexual etc.

Why does nationality mean something in relation to the fatness? Why does sexual orientation have anything to do with the promiscuity? How does “woman” modify the meaning of “bad driver”? How does religious identity enrich the description of the moral lack? Why is “American” or “Bisexual” more useful a term, in such descriptions, then the word “person”? Only in that it provides a clichéd backdrop of a particular understood stereotype which stems from a generalization and is used to create a vivid picture… a negative one… of a person or group and the identifiers that go along with them. It’s going with the obvious joke, the cheap shot, the uncreative meme and reinforcing that stereotype.
I’m not saying I hate the terms or that they should never be used, but I can still find them hurtful or irksome when they’re used unthinkingly. Of course, there are worse things in the world then annoying Scarlet who occasionally is easily annoyed. Does that make me neurotic?

-Scarlet

A Discussion of Nationality and Stigma: part 1 (Scarlet)

Scarlet Page, hostess of A Lakefront Pagan Voice, and I get into some funny and interesting conversations on Twitter. (Have you followed me, yet?) The latest one sparked a bit of debate and contention, involving the terms "nationality" and the stereotype of the "fat, lazy American." Granted, the first bit was birthed from my own misconception about the definition of nationality, admittedly. In my defense, in legal-speak the words "nationality" and "nation of origin" are typically interchangeable. So much so that I'd forgotten that one can be American by nationality and still be, say, German or Vietnamese by nation of origin - the country or countries of your ancestors.

Be that as it may, Scarlet went on to present me with some fabulous arguments about nationality, stereotyping of populations of countries, and what it means to be a "native." I hope you'll enjoy our back and forth via blog this week. Think of it as Inciting A(nother) Debated Riot, but in text form. Feel free to leave your feedback in the comments below.

Today is part one of a 4-part series. This is Scarlet's discussion of 'nationality.' Enjoy!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

PS. Scarlet did want me to mention she gave me no editing privileges whatsoever. Any words are solely hers, as is the spelling and punctuation. I've not touched the article to sum anything up or to correct any syntax. These are her words and her words alone, which are wonderful as is.

Why is my nationality “American”?

I was surprised to find, upon mentioning that my nationality is “American," that not everyone take this for granted of me. That’s cool… people make a lot of assumptions about me that I’m not aware of until it comes up in conversation, for instance, it’s often assumed by people who don’t know me, that I’m straight, since this is, apparently, the ‘default setting’ in most people’s minds, but not in mine. Firelyte asked me to elaborate on why I think of “American” as my nationality, as he proposed a different view, so here is mine.

My assumption was that everyone understood that if someone was born, raised and still lived within a particular nation, that that person’s nationality should be fairly obvious unless self-identified as something other than the nation in question. Again, that’s my naïveté assuming that my understanding is the common one… apparently not. So, I will try to explain and make sense of it.

Let’s start by defining “nationality”… without looking at any dictionaries or encyclopedias, I understood the term to mean something like, ‘a person’s nation of origin.’ So then, what is a nation? I think a nation is a people, a culture, often based on a particular plot of land and overseen by a particular political structure. If someone’s nationality is Scottish, like my husbands, which means he was raised to identify himself with the nation of Scotland, that he grew up in a land called Scotland and was raised by people who practiced Scottish culture. It’s a question of culture and of place… I tried to read the Wikipedia article on this word, but it also seemed confused about whether nationality has more to do with legal citizenship or ethnicity.

My legal citizenship is as a US citizen… commonly referred to as “America.” My ethnicity, too, is American, since I lack any other logical or meaningful ethnic background other then the culture I was raised within. That means that whether you define nationality as a place of residence or an ethnic background, I’m American either way. Firelyte argued that one would have to ethnically be “Native American” or a member of an indigenous tribe to be considered “American” by nationality. I can sympathize with that view, but it does make me question… What, then, am I? And why?
Since we already know that my citizenry is unquestionably American, we’ll have to explore the ethnicity half of the equation to see where the confusion comes from. Ethnicity is based on heritage… it’s about the culture of your ancestors. Here’s where things get tricky. Which ancestors do you look at? Typically, if there is a blending of cultures and a mix of ethnic back-grounds in a person’s heritage, it tends to be up to the person to decide which ethnicity they identify with most strongly and the one they present themselves as, usually the one within which they were raised. It’s their culture with a little heritage thrown in for good measure.

I often run into people who strongly identify with specific ethnic backgrounds, such as Irish or Italian, even though they may only have one great-uncle or great-grandfather who lived there. While by citizenship, they are American, they were raised by people who upheld cultural ideals and practices and taught pride in a particular culture or place from whence a grandfather or two had immigrated to the US. These people will identify their nationality as “Irish American” or simply as “Italian” without even admitting a connection to America. My question is, who decided that those particular grandfathers were the ones upon whom their ethnic identity was based?

I’ve often wondered if there is a specific system of counting back a certain number of generations to find ones ethnicity and what happens when ethnic blending causes forks in the path… how do they decide which ancestors are more important? How do they decide which generation to focus on? In many cases, it seems to be whichever generation landed in the US first, which seems a confusing method of determining ethnicity, to me. What about the great great grandfather who first landed in Germany from Russia just one or two generations before the US immigrant? Does his ethnicity not count in calculating someone’s heritage? Is ethnicity really just a matter of the last place your ancestors were before your family came to the place it is now? Is that single most recent stepping stone on the way here really of so much more importance than any other step that it determines your nationality and identity?

No, I think it really is about the culture you were raised in… if a family with ancestors throughout the ages from Africa, Tibet, Ireland, Russia and Germany whose major patriarch immigrated to the US directly from Italy, it’s probable that the family thinks of itself as Italian and raises its children with a particular Italian bent. So then what about people like me who have immigrant ancestors from Cornwall, England and Poland and who knows what or where beyond them and a few other things thrown in? Who was raised in America without a particular bent towards identifying as either Cornish, Polish, German or any other culture that may appear somewhere back in the family tree (either recently or thousands of years ago) and whose family takes part in one variation of American culture and that’s all she’s ever known?

Well, then I can only really say that my heritage is unspecific enough to determine my ethnicity in any specific way and that “American” is how I identify since that’s the culture I and my recent ancestors were raised within. Besides… have you ever heard of someone identifying as “English-American”? It’s just not a thing you can really be… it’s just not a subculture we have in the states and it’s not something I really identify with other then in passing. I mean, I do like meat-pies and orange marmalade… just not together… ugh… but who doesn’t? And I also like tamales and crepes (again, not together), but that has little to do with my heritage.

Can’t I count my ethnic background to the grandfather who first crossed the border into Wisconsin instead of assigning it to some random ancestor from a random generation who first stepped foot on US soil from some other random place? I find it far too confusing to try to do the math there and identifying with some other culture that I’ve never participated in makes little sense to me, so I go with what I know… that’s the here and now.

Here’s another question I’ve had… It goes back to Firelyte’s comment about “Native” Americans. I certainly mean no offense to indigenous people and I’m sure there’s a really good answer to this somewhere, but I’ve never found it. At what point does a species (let us say, of plants) stop being an “invasive” species and become “native”? How many generations have to pass? How much time? In what way does the ecosystem have to change before “native” can be applied to a species… or a culture? I’m not arguing anything about that or claiming to be, in any way, “Native American” myself, just always been curious about that distinction and classification… Maybe Firelyte can do some research for us and enlighten me? ;) Maybe that might help us clear up how ethnicity is determined and by proxy, how nationality is decided.

In the meantime, I identify as American by nationality for lack of any reasonable (to me) alternative.

Quick Thought: The Astral Plane

I've been ruminating on the topic of the astral plane for a possible upcoming episode. Researching the theories about it, the "uses" of the astral plane, and the generally accepted idea that when an idea is created on Earth by people then it becomes real on the astral plane.

This latter argument is where so many pagans, New Agers, mediums, and those that use meditation without a specific dogma behind it get the idea that they can commune with various modern "deities" or entities. This is where you get the extreme argument saying that, on some level, Harry Potter is real and you can commune with him on the Astral Plane, because so many people give him energy.

So, I want you to know that I get it. I get the idea of the astral plane. I get that it's sort of a back alley for our spirits to use when they travel outside of our body, should you believe that is something that can happen.

My question is: What's the point? What's the point of this version of the astral plane? Various kinds of meditation that are used in conjunction with Buddhist teachings or Hindu principles allow one to commune with the very universe, to find out your past lives, to understand how you are not separate from the whole but the whole itself. While it seems that when people say they are meditating on the astral plane, it has more to do with an overactive imagination. They're using guided meditations and just following along with the story being told.

So what's the point of what we call the 'astral plane' in the modern era? If it is for meditation purposes, then are we just giving our imaginations a fancy name?

Now, I am really talking about the modern idea of the astral plane... The historical idea of the astral plane is that it is a dense realm that is sort of a highway between here and heaven, or here and another plane of existence like hell, Avalon, etc. I get the point of the astral plane in this context...it's a road. A method of transportation.

But the astral plane, at least in modern terms, seems to have become the zenith of spiritual travel. We use it as a method to deify anything we see fit. Everything is real and tangible and able to be communed with from fictional characters loved by millions to an abstract concept you came up with yourself. So...why? What's the point of that definition of the astral plane? What do we get out of going there in our imagined travels?

Let me know what YOU think with a comment below!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Happy Post-Valentine's Day!

Well, did you survive? I know that I ate pizza - Gino's East in Chicago - and felt bad, because I ate far too much. 4 pieces... When you haven't been eating that much meat, and definitely not that much cheese and sauce and stuff, for a while...well...my stomach could have won an Olympic gold medal last night.

Either way, Velma and I celebrated V-Day by putting out a show on Inciting A BrewHaHa (episode 9), and it looks like - if all goes according to plan - I'll be getting my anti-Valentine's episode out tomorrow for the Riot. Yeah!

To tide you over, I thought I would re-publish the paper I wrote last year on love spells. Enjoy! I look forward to another delicious debate.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Love, Lust, and the Natural Order of Things

Love spells. Is there any kind of spell more representative of a witch’s magic? The steaming cauldron filled with flowers, herbs, and more unmentionable materials. The words and actions summoning up great power. The pictures or poppets or images of the desired beloved. The ensnared lover who suddenly has fallen utterly and hopelessly in love with one whom he or she previously had found repulsive.

Love magic is as old as magic itself, and in modern day witchcraft, it is some of the most feared spellcraft, because many claim that it directly interferes with someone’s free will. I’m not really sure where the idea got started that magic can turn people in to love zombies, but I have a hard time believing the notion. As I’ve said before, if you’re clear about your purpose and desire, then your magic should do exactly what you want it to.

However, you can be completely clear about your intention to enslave a lover’s heart and mind, but will that result in a person who develops actual love feelings for you? If you gather all the right herbs, say all the right words, have a clear image in your head of the one you desire, and otherwise do everything by the book, can you actually turn someone who had no interest in you into your lover?

This is what Dorothy Tennov talks about in her book Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love. Limerence is the state of being infatuated or obsessed with someone, usually not of one’s own free will. Limerence is the state of being we see the young man in during the events of the 90s film The Craft. The witch wants the popular guy to fall in love with her, but instead he becomes dangerously obsessed.

In a sense, women controlling men is one of the historic intentions of love magic, argues Maria Ortega in her book Cultural Encounters. Ortega writes from the perspective of the Spanish Inquisition, and the era of the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries. In that era, women had no true place in society, and were treated like commodities. Ortega cites the temperament of men in Spain as being ‘hot’ or ‘rough.’ Women felt they had to gain some sort of control over them in order not only to survive, but also to find some sort of happiness in their situation.

In these times women claimed they used love magic in order to maintain their freedom, tame an otherwise abusive or bad husband, and in some cases to kill. Women tried many different methods and dreamed up all sorts of mystical solutions for how to subvert a man’s will to their own. A Stanford University study done by Robert Shirley and Kimball Romney continue this idea of handling environmental situations by magical means.

Shirley and Romney claim that magic in general comes about as a symbolic means of handling important environmental influences that are not subject to empirical control. That is, people historically have come up with magical solutions to situations when no other means of fixing the situation seem plausible. However, the two researchers go on to discuss love magic specifically, and define it as ‘magical activity designed to win a desired sex object.’

This is where my view of love magic and the more academic view differ. As we saw in the example from Spanish magical practice, love magic is not necessarily intended to take someone to bed. It deals mainly with the emotional aspects of love, rather than the physical. However, this is a perfect opportunity to look at the two different types of love magic: love and lust.

Yes, lust magic. Lust magic does not deal with the emotional aspects of desire and affection so much as it deals with getting laid. Yeah, let’s go ahead and say it. People want to have sex, and when they want a magical boost, they perform lust magic. Lust magic can be anything from a glamour that makes you seem more attractive to a full-blown ritual that involves summoning spirits and compelling someone to come sprinting to your bed.

These two different types of magic have two very different motivations and two very different end results. Though, one might involve elements of the other. Let’s look at these two different kinds of magic and, hopefully, dispel some of the taboo surrounding each.

In order to even begin to have a discussion about either kinds of magic, however, we have to talk about the notion of free will, and whether we can affect it.

Free will is defined as the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate or the ability to act at one’s own discretion. Basically, free will is being able to do what I want, when I want, how I want to do it. In the specific case of love magic, free will is being able to decide whether I love someone and further decide if I want to express that love to him or her. I might love someone, but I might be afraid to tell him or her how I truly feel. In this case it is my right to keep my feelings from being expressed.

This can be a very smart thing to do. If you’re gay, and your feelings happen to be strongest for the captain of the football team, it might not be the safest thing to express those emotions to him. If you’re married, but you pine for your secretary, those emotions should probably stay buried.

Through research, hearing first-hand accounts, and my own personal experience, magic cannot alter a person’s free will if the propensity for that action was not already there. This is the same reason why the use of the legendary flying ointment could not truly occur, because the propensity for defying gravity does not exist. It is a fundamental law of nature and of physics, and magic does not go against the natural order of things.

Nope, sorry, but magic is not supernatural or extra-natural or para-natural. It is not above, below, around, or beside nature. It is nature. It is one of the most natural things in the world to do. As such, magic does not alter the forces of nature, but works with the possibilities already existing in the world to achieve a desired result. We can summon rain, because rain exists and it can rain in all parts of the world. We can increase our prosperity, because money exists and we can always earn more. We cannot turn an apple into an orange or lead into gold by magic, because the propensity for this action to occur in nature does not exist. Get it?

So, to bring this discussion back to love and lust magic. If person A loves person B but cannot drum up the courage to express it, person B can perform a love spell to allow person A’s true feelings to come through. However, if person A loves person C and has no romantic feelings towards person B, then no amount of magic performed by person B could instill an otherwise nonexistent emotion into person A.

Magic is an action, and there are only 3 kinds of actions humans can take: compelling actions, impelling actions, and repelling actions. If someone screams ‘FIRE!’ you can either be compelled to assist in putting out the fire, impelled to remain where you are (perhaps calling for help), or repelled to run away from the fire. Some magic falls in to only one or two categories, but love magic falls into all three.

Love magic can compel someone to return loving feelings. Love magic can impel, or bind, a lover to you. Or, love magic can repel an unwanted lover – this last kind of love magic also seems to be the purpose of the aforementioned magic performed by Spanish witches in order to control their home lives. But neither of these kinds of magic could come to fruition if the propensity, the possibility, of that action does not exist. You cannot bind someone to you that does not already have amorous feelings in kind. (Though, on a side note, you might want to make sure that you truly want to be with someone forever before you bind them to you, as I have personally seen a binding turn into a truly sickening codependent relationship.)

Given this, love magic really should not have the taboo surrounding it that it does, which seems to be trumped up by fables and Hollywood. You are not affecting free will by performing a love spell, because you cannot affect something that is not there.

The best example I can give about how to perform a good love spell is this: make a list – a really detailed list – of the qualities you would like to find in someone. Run it by your friends and allow them editing privileges, because sometimes they know you better than you know yourself. Don’t be unrealistic with your desires, but don’t sell yourself short either. Put this out into the universe as a petition. Keep these qualities in mind when you’re performing a love spell. This is what I did, and my partner of 4 years can attest to its effectiveness.

Lust spells are a beast unto themselves. They aren’t meant to last very long. They’re not meant to ensnare a specific person, necessarily – though they can be used for that purpose. They’re all about meeting your carnal desires for a short period of time. These, too, do not go against free will. The propensity for a one night stand exists in every bar, every club, every public place where the mood is right and people are looking. Lust spells just give you that extra oomph in attractiveness. Lust spells are part glamour, part compelling magic (the first two kinds of magic) that make you look more appealing to a potential hook-up and lower the inhibitions of both you and potential partners. Or, if you’re targeting a certain someone, they lower the inhibitions of the two of you so that your true desires can take place.

Love magic is shunned because people like to believe they have the power of absolute control over another person’s very being. How audacious to think that we are gods, altering the natural world as we see fit. No amount of magic, no matter how well crafted, is going to turn a frog into a prince, allow witches to fly on brooms, or turn two people who truly hate each other into lovers. However, if – like all magic – you have a clear intention, a clear understanding of the rules of nature, and the possibility exists that your desire could come true, then by all means break out the pink and red candles and get to work on finding yourself a love. Happy Valentine’s Day, pagans!

Chris Lee: The Next Republican Sex Scandal

Chris Lee is not a name most Americans knew yesterday. Sadly, though, everyone is about to hear and see a lot more of him than we wanted to. Starting now:

Mr. Lee is a Republican Congressman from the 26th District of New York. Gawker actually broke the story of how this married, pro-DADT, anti-abortion Congressman went prowling for women on Craigslist. Actually, I encourage you to click on that link, read the story (it's very quick; I promise) and get yourself caught up.

Now, I don't really want to resort to political gossip. But, I am reporting it on the Riot to highlight an ongoing problem. Politicians are complete idiots. Especially the ones that cheat on their spouses. Do they not realize that this is becoming cliche'? The family values Republican who gets caught up in a cheating scandal.

Congressman Lee by comparison hasn't really done too much in the way of 'Awful Terrible No Good Very Bad Cheaterman.' Other than, of course, being an awful terrible no good very bad cheaterman. Do people not know that the internet works both ways? 

And yes...one can quickly and easily make the cookie cutter responses: How dare someone like that invalidate the love lives of other Americans when his is a sham. Blah blah blah. This is so old I don't even think this story will last the next 24-hour news cycle. 

Why won't this story last? Well, the news broke today, and the Congressman resigned today. Yep, he knew what was good for him. I suppose Republicans are finally learning. When your sex scandal is exposed on a gossip site and then circles the globe faster than tweets about Lady Gaga's next single, your best bet is to just get while the getting is still good. 

What's with folks these days?! Do they not realize they WILL be found out? Republican politicans, especially, that are so public about their pro-denying marriage and abortion rights stance, all these 'pro-family' folks, continue to invalidate the modern meaning of marriage and just piss the rest of us off. 

Like I said, it's a cliche' and it's a bad one. 

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Taking on Tofu (My Real Food Challenge)

I've taken on Tofu. That is to say, I tried it a week ago - because of a very complicated, yet also quite organic (pun both intended and not) series of events involving Oprah, Michael Polland, Gillian Chase, and Jasmine Hooligan - and did not dislike it. As a matter of fact, I quite liked it. Now, I did not try tofu by itself. I'm sure it tastes like a bland, foamy mass of blandness.

But, thanks to Whole Foods' deli section - which is EVIL and full of uber deliciosity - I was able to try several selections of tofu about a week ago. Tofu Curry Salad quite agreed with me. It was spicy and tasted exactly like chicken. I took home one serving spoon full of it, which was approximately 5 bites. Maybe 4. It was tofu; I can't be expected to remember.

Either way, it turns out I quite liked this Tofu Curry Salad from Whole Foods. Also, I liked the fact that not only did I like this strange thing called tofu, but I didn't eat a dead animal to sustain myself. Double Green-Hippy Bonus points!

Now, to digress, Fire Lyte is not turning into a granola eating, patchouli bathing, hemp clothed hippy. No, I still like meat. I realize that I am an omnivore. However, I also realize that I do not need to be eating meat in the vast quantities that I was eating it. Sadly enough, I have become aware that I was just consuming...not really eating to sustain myself. If I was just a little hungry, I would pile far too many slices of pastrami or ham or both on a couple of slices of bread and just swallow.

Meat is good. Or, at least, I quite like it. As a biological omnivore, my diet should include meat, vegetables, fruits, grains, etc. However, I have sort of realized - and not for the first time, but in a much more serious way - that my diet was consisting of fat, meat, fat, potatoes, meat, meat, and pie. My last name is not Rex. I am not a carnivore, and if I truly want to internalize the ideas of balance, a great place to start is my diet.

That's what I decided a week ago when I walked around the aisles of Whole Foods. I also decided to prioritize food over some other things. Not everyone has a Whole Foods in their area, but it is a bit more expensive than your average grocery store. But, trying really hard to buy the cheapest, crappiest edible food-like substances when I am - thankfully - able to afford better for myself seems to be a bit ridiculous.

So, my balanced diet is thus:

• Breakfast won't change too much. Eggs. Cereal. Milk. Toast. Jelly. Fruits, etc. Really no meat there, and I'm not a vegan so the eggs and milk being included don't bother me. Though, I make no promises about the occasional inclusion of bacon. (Mmmm....bacon)
• Lunch and Dinner are the big deals. There 7 lunches and 7 dinners a week. That's 14 balanced meals that I need to eat. While I'm not great in the Planning My Meals department, I am going to become conscious of what it is that I'm choosing to eat. So, for now, my decision is to mostly eat white and lean meat, meaning either fish or chicken. Who am I kidding? I mean chicken. Organic, fluffy, hippy, green chicken, yes. But, still, chicken. So probably 5-6 of my meals will be white meat based. 2-3 meals at the most will still include red meat. 3-4 meals will be replaced with my good friend Tofu. 

Now, the goal of this new, balanced diet is to eventually cut out meat or meat substitutes for 1-3 meals a week. No, the goal is not to eventually become a vegetarian, but if I could get to 5 meat meals, 5 tofu meals, and 4 totally meat free meals. Then, I would feel good. 

Because, here's the number that stopped me, shocked me, and made me seek out tofu:

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time, about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5 percent of the world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

Do you know how many Americans there are?

307,006,550

Those numbers don't seem to add up. If my trusty Calculator App on my iPhone is correct, then this means every single American eats 32.6 animals every year. According to that same New York Times article, every single American eats 200 pounds of meat, poultry, and fish every year. 

This isn't going to turn into a Please Become A Vegetarian rant. I am by no means going that route. But, all part of living a balanced, conscious life is being aware of what I'm eating. I kind of made a resolution without even realizing I was doing it. 

And I feel all the better for it. If you'd like to take this journey of a balanced diet with me, leave a comment or follow me on Twitter. I'm sure I'll be talking and griping about keeping to healthy eating constantly. In fact, I can guarantee that I'll quickly become disenchanted, which is where I'll need encouragement. And hey! Maybe I can encourage you right back! If you follow me on Twitter, just let me know with a mention that you're taking on this challenge, too. Maybe, just maybe, we can decrease that 10 billion number this year.

That would be a Riot to be proud of.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

New Book Club Selection: American Gods

I seem to have the problem of thinking I've posted something on the blog and then realizing far too late that I never did.


Sorry.

Click me!

Be that as it may, I'd like to announce the next Inciting A Riot Book Club selection! We will be reading American Gods by Neil Gaiman. I have already finished the book, and I cannot wait to reread it before the official book club discussion! The questions of deity, fate, lineage, power, and human nature that this novel brings up are both poignant and a perfect tie-in with the Doughtheistic Riot.

If you like fantasy novels, adventure novels, stories about road trips, my crazy ideas on deity, or Wednesday, then get thee a copy of American Gods by Neil Gaiman.

Now, here's the good part: YOU - yes, YOU - can be a part of the podcast group discussion of this book club selection! But, you have to hurry up and read the book! So far the panel includes myself, Velma Nightshade, and Cory from New World Witchery. I'm looking for at least one, possibly two, more Rioters to join our panel. What I need from you is to: 1) read the book and 2) send me a list of your thoughts, questions, ideas, and feedback about the book.

Out of those that send me their feedback I will look through the questions and feedback and see what fits in with the discussion panel best. If you're selected, I will email you to get a date and time worked out so that you can skype in with the group! This is not only a way to get on the show and discuss a great book, but to talk to some of your other favorite podkin!

So, get American Gods by Neil Gaiman and get it read by the end of February!

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Episode 47: Inciting A Well-Placed Riot

Episode 47 of Inciting A Riot: the Podcast takes a look at the placement of altars, as well as discusses a new Seeker’s Riot that will be undertaken for 2011.

News: Fox News polls, riots in Egypt, Gabrielle Giffords, Batman in Turkey

WOTD: Antidisestablishmentarianism

Gripe Department: Top 13 things I’d like to leave in 2010

Spirituality: Placement and touching of altars.

Music: Will I ever make it home - Ingram Hill

Poetry: Year’s End & of lasagna and cake

Please continue to vote for the show on Podcast Alley, vote, subscribe to, and rate the show on iTunes, join the TwitterRiot by following me @IncitingARiot, enter the Swag Contest through a donation or purchase of swag through the CafePress.com swag shop, donate to the show through the PayPal link on IncitingARiot.com, and send your questions, comments, gripes, or complaints to IncitingARiotPodcast@gmail.com

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

Home Page: http://www.IncitingARiot.com
Podcast Alley: http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=86829
iTunes: http://www.itunes.com/podcast?id=337689333
Twitter: http://twitter.com/IncitingARiot
Swag Shop: http://cafepress.com/IncitingARiot
Project Pagan Enough: http://www.incitingariot.com/p/project-pagan-enough.html

Imbolc: The Unnecessary Holiday

Currently, the Riot household is behind almost 2 feet of snow in one of the worst blizzards since 1967. That being said, Happy Beginning of Spring! That is to say, Happy and Blessed Imbolc to you all!

Imbolc has come up recently in a few blogs and podcasts - including Inciting A BrewHaha - as a holiday without any reason to exist. (Well, that seems to be Velma's opinion.) Sure, there's the historical celebration of when ewes start lactating and baby animals are born, but...really...how useful is that? Who cares? These days we look outside our doors and see mountains of snow and feel the frigid winds of winter and the very last thing on our minds is celebrating the coming of spring.

For heaven's sake! The midwest is in one of the worst snowstorms in modern memory! Spring could not be further away in our minds.

Why is that? We're not celebrating the exact moment that spring arrives; that's not for a couple more months. However, we seem to be celebrating the promise of spring. Just as we celebrate the new life being born at this time as a herald for the promise of more livestock, bigger and better crops, and so on. This is a time to get energized, to get excited.

Personally, I try and make Imbolc a special day. Our home is filled with lit candles and the smells of delicious stews and breads. No, it's not as big or flashy a time as Yule or Samhain or Beltane, but why not? Imbolc is a time of renewal and promise, and it's an important spoke on the Wheel.

I say that, just for today, you should try and get active. Get your brain and body active and focus on the return of the lush, verdant landscape of spring and summer. It really is just a couple of turns on the wheel away.

Or, at least, that's my opinion. What is your view of Imbolc? Do you celebrate it or just let it pass by? Either way, may you be blessed, and may this day find you safe and well.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte