Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

----------------------------------------------------------------
Who knew I was this talented? Or this handsome? Or this insightful (in a pathalogical brain dead sort of way)? And it's not like I ever claimed I could draw.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Finally! Someone came up with a useful necktie.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Good news!! My kids will live a long and healthy life.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking the 9/11 commission has veered a bit of course. While it's instructive to do a post-mortem on this tragedy and look for ways to prevent future such events, looking for blame is unproductive, divisive, and maybe just stupid. I doubt there's any way that Clinton, Bush, or any other president could have prevented 9/11 from happening. It's easy to look at the situation in retrospect and find the signs. But prior to 9/11 there was no basis for expecting such an attack, nor would there have been any public support for any sort of overt preemptive action to avert it. Could this specific disaster have been prevented? Maybe. But sooner or later a determined group like al-Qaeda was going to be able to catch us off guard and deal us a severe blow. And they probably will again.

On a related note, I'm intrigued by the character assassination currently waged on Richard Clarke. It's not surprising given his allegations in his recent book, and arguably he may really have his biases and an axe to grind. To my mind, the most damning allegation was the preoccupation with bombing Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It lends yet more credence to the assertion that the entire motivation for the war with Iraq was illegitimate. And no one is refuting his assertions on the merits. The few rebuttals that have been made seem to make the situation look worse. For example, Cheney's claim that Clarke, who was then the counterterrorism czar, was "outside the loop" in the planning of a post 9/11 response. Does that make sense? Why would you leave your counterterrorism expert outside the loop when responding to an obvious act of terror? Even if Cheney's right, it makes the administration look dysfunctional.

It seems more likely that Clarke is now in the company of General Shinseki (who warned about the nightmares of postwar Iraq), Ambassador Wilson (who blew the whistle on lies in the 2003 State of the Union address), and Richard Foster (who revealed the that the true cost of the new Medicare plan was silenced). All of these people have had their careers and/or personal lives assailed after coming out with revelations unfavorable to the Bush administration. And so far none of them have had their allegations successfully refuted. Quite the opposite, in most cases additional corroborating evidence and witnesses have come to light. Therefore, recent history certainly suggests that Clarke's revelations are likely not just sour grapes.

---------------------------------------------------------------
The movie-going public has apparently shown a decided preference for movies about coming back to life after death.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I guess this is how you have fun once you're over 40.

------------------------------------------------------------
Guest bloggerette Kim agrees with Brian that I am a hypocritical oaf. I must admit that it's a rare day that I take flack for not being controversial enough. Still, a good writer knows his audience. I think I now have a better read on mine. (And to think, this all started because I just wanted a clever reason to put up the link to Nun Gunner.)

Her unedited post is below in Purple Text.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Brian on this one. I know how you are about
"picking your battles" and this particular one doesn't seem to hit your hot
button. I also know how you just keep quiet during the "under God" words when
you have to recite the pledge yourself and I even admire the fact that you can
even do that considering your disbeliefs.

However, even I find it hard to be hypocritical in this instance. I believe in
God, you know that. However, I don't believe that Religion of any kind has any
place in politics. We've talked about that several times. It disturbs me
greatly when the politicians use any religious views or issues to further their
agendas. This being an election year will push me over the edge having to listen
to them use religious issues in their quest to further their Presidential bids.
Gay Marriage, "under God" statements, abortion... clearly none of these things,
and many others, do not belong in the political arena. The only reason they make
it there is because there are too many Christians out there that only care about
Christianity and not real world political issues, like foreign policy, economy,
etc. They need something to cling to in order to pick their candidate, and they
pick only the one that they believe has similar religion. Unfortunately, I
believe this way of picking our political candidates, is far too prevalent.

As I said, I'm a believer, you know that. You aren't and I know that. The best
thing is that we do respect the fact that everyone can have their own view and
still co-exist. More people should feel this way. I don't believe in abortion,
but I also don't want the government telling me whether or not I could obtain
one. That's a choice only I should make and I should only have to answer to one
"being" for that... that "being" isn't my government. I like Brian's point "I
don't think the government should tell me who, what, where, when, how or IF to
believe in God. " I think the same goes for all issues surrounding God or
personal values. They don't belong in the political arena.

Another point Brian made very well... "but because it vindicates those who think
they are better than someone else based on their beliefs. It propagates an "I'm
better than you are because of what you believe," attitude". I completely agree
that those attitudes are prevalent in the Christian society. There are even
Christians that totally believe that their church is the ONLY one doing it right
and therefore, if you don't go there, you're doing it wrong. Forget that you are
still a believer and worship the same God. If you don't do it their way, you're
wrong. That's the most hypocritical view of all... the very people that have
that view and believe they are better than everyone or anyone else that differs
from them, are the very people that need to refer to their bibles more often.
That attitude is clearly not what Jesus ever taught in the bible I read.

So, if I had to weigh in, I'd have probably been hypocritical too and said it's
ok with me that it says "under God" in the pledge, because I do believe. But...
if I truly want the religious aspect out of all politics, I'd have to say it
should go. We should be learning to treat everyone equally. We are supposed to
embrace the difference in everyone, so the laws should not prohibit that by
sounding like one group of people is any better than another. That's not for us
to decide.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Guest blogger Brian justifiably takes me to task for my wishy-washy stance on the Under God issue below. He's right, and I'm guilty as charged. Brian's words are unedited below in Green Text. Italics are my words from previous posts which he included to drive home the hypocrisy of my position.

The message I'm getting from this blog is that it's probably not constitutional to have "under God" in the pledge, but its not really hurting anybody. I don't think the former is strong enough and I disagree with the latter.

Isn't this an open and shut case? I haven't yet heard an argument for constitutionality that comes close to the prima facia case for unconstitutionality. Can you honestly say that you think this is constitutional? If so, make your case. If not, then doesn't the prospect of having the Supreme Court bend to the will of the majority scare you? Wouldn't that be a dangerous precedent? If this is constitutional, then what's next? Is one George Bush as president worse than having 5 George Bushes on the Supreme Court? The president at least has term limits.

Let me state this for the record. I don't think the government should tell me who, what, where, when, how or IF to believe in God. I want the line to be drawn in the sand now. All the Christians that are clamoring for constitutionality would agree with me if they were in the minority.

I think ruling in favor of Constitutionality is dangerous. But is the phrase itself dangerous? I say yes. Not because its going to dramatically sway my kids beliefs one way or the other, but because it vindicates those who think they are better than someone else based on their beliefs. It propagates an "I'm better than you are because of what you believe," attitude. In your words:

... She then stated/asked, "Well Tim, you must be a spiritual person, aren't you?" While I didn't wish to make a big deal of the statement, it would have been disingenuous for me to just nod and let it go. So I said that while I had a very strong personal philosophy and morality, that no, I was not spiritual as she defined it. I was an atheist.

She reacted with, "Oh Tim...", and an expression on her face which would have been more suitable had I just revealed that I had terminal cancer and 3 weeks to live. She clearly had no idea how to handle this information, and the conversation abruptly turned to lighthearted things. We went on as if the last five minutes had never occurred.

To be clear, I wasn't offended by the reaction, and I'm not picking on her. I've seen this reaction over and over - and still it amazes me. This is a world where a person saying they are Jewish, Muslim, gay, lesbian, etc. is taken in passing. Yet it seems atheists must still be invisible and outside people's conscious experience. (Everybody probably knows a few, they just don't know they do.) Jews used to note that well-intentioned people simply assumed that they were Jewish only because no one had yet brought Jesus into their lives. I doubt many people would view Judaism that way today. Yet atheism is viewed that way. It is viewed as a deficiency (or worse, an opportunity) by well intentioned Christians.

Why would the court say that its OK to have "under god" in the pledge unless believing in God was preferable to not believing in God? If the court approves the phrase, aren't they rubber stamping this attitude as OK by them? If you don't think this attitude is widespread, answer me this. How many atheists hold public office right now?

As a society, we need to work toward respecting others beliefs. This decision isn't going to get us there, but it's a step in the right, or wrong, direction.

---------------------------------------------------------
And I know my mom has had trouble sleeping lately, so I thought maybe she could try counting sheep.

------------------------------------------------------------------
You've probably heard by now that the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on the constitutionality of having "one nation, under God" in the pledge. My position here may not be what you'd expect if you've been reading this blog awhile.

While I agree that references to God in government are not quite in the spirit of separation of church and state, this particular reference is not really a danger. The fact that the President asserts that God has chosen our side in a war is far more disquieting than the morning pledge. With respect to pantheists, Buddhists, secular humanists, Druids, other atheists, and most anyone else who doesn't follow a mono-theistic faith, I like to think we are stronger than that. I scoff at Christians who think Harry Potter will corrupt their children and shatter their faith. How hypocritical would it be to now claim that the words "under God" recited robotically every morning through bleary eyes will someone transform my kid into a Christian? Any kid who's beliefs are that tenuous is surrounded by adults who aren't doing a very good job of passing their wisdom and beliefs along.

Now to be fair, let's admit that it's sheer cultural ignorance for fundamentalists to claim that the pledge's god reference is okay because it doesn't refer to any particular god. It still presumes the worship of exactly one god, and that leaves many of us outside that sacred circle. But culturally, the U.S. is Christian. I think it's silly to deny that. God shows up in the Declaration of Independence and on every dollar you spend. As an iconic reminder of our culture, it's harmless. Honestly, I wonder why the fundamentalists who are so adamant to keep the expression in the pledge are not up in arms over the use of their god's name in vain. Asserting that it could refer to any old god seems a clear second commandment violation.

There are bigger problems on the planet. If you have unresolved hostility issues with organized religion, I suggest you spend some time here.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Well at least they aren't disgracing the institution of marriage by letting gays and lesbians be wed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian sent us this little bit of insanity looming in the NY legislature. You gotta figure that any anti drunk driving bill that even MADD won't get behind is just a little out there, eh?

On the flip, I can envision a business for selling "canned breath". It could be sold behind the bar, right next to the pickled eggs. Marketing slogan: "Guaranteed to start your car, or your next beer's on us!!"

--------------------------------------------------------------
At the risk of being unkind, isn't the scarier fact that someone impregnated this woman in the first place??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The winter has apparently been too long. The brains of education officials in Ohio have frozen solid. It amazes me that educated people could adopt policies advocating the teaching of creationism as science. But then Kansas tried this same thing not so very long ago. That ill-conceived plan was overturned, and hopefully this one will be as well.

My thesis is bifurcated. And yes, "Bifurcated Thesis" would make a good name for a rock band. Branch one has to do with the apparent contradiction in a country which is constitutionally opposed to mixing matters of state and religion, but has few qualms about mixing religion and science. At least government and religion are both institutions vying for behavioral control of a group of people. Science and religion don't even play in the same intellectual space. It's the educational equivalent of mixing vinegar and motor oil. Not only don't they blend, but it's a pointless combination. But I covered this in the Kansas article above, so I won't reiterate here.

The second branch of the thesis has to do with the logical extrapolation of the idea of "intelligent design". The Discovery Institute would have teachers explain that evolution cannot completely account for all the complexity in the universe, and that the universe could be the result of intelligent deign. That is, it was created by some intelligence with incomprehensible power. (Although I doubt that when asked what "intelligent design" is, most teachers would be so vague about identifying the Christian god.) This idea has been around forever. At it's root, this is basically the assertion that anything beyond our understanding must be the work of a god. Our ancestors believed eclipses, diseases, and countless other natural events were the work of the supernatural. Over time, the miracles and plagues attributed to gods have given way to mundane understandings brought about by science. If we had always accepted that rain was the whim of the gods, we would have never conceived the Weather Channel. Absolute belief in "intelligent design" requires that we not question, and not learn. Do we really want to teach this to our kids in school? And if we do, why stop with evolution? I know people who would contend that trigonometry is complex enough to look like magic. Why not deem higher math the work of the gods? No one on the planet can predict or control all the variables for things like the economy or the weather. The work of the gods?

I completely support the use of religion for teaching philosophical, moral, behavioral, cultural, and lifestyle choices. It adds immeasurable value to many people's lives. But the use of religious mythology as abject truth for the teaching of history or science is disingenuous at best and pedagogically detrimental at worst.

The fact that these policy pasture pies keep showing up on the educational prairie is perhaps the evidentiary acme that problems with our current educational systems do not start with students, parents, and teachers, but with the "enlightened" in-duh-viduals establishing curricula and policies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if the local paper intended the irony or not, but these two headlines shared a page:

      Bush says Kerry's plans would hurt economy

and

      Medicine imports get second look from GOP

The first article is about Bush lambasting Kerry for saying he would review free trade agreements. Bush asserts that free-trade policies create jobs by expanding exports. Okay. But then in the second article, Bush is concerned that opening our borders to lower prices pharmaceuticals coming in to the U.S., in large part because the pharmaceutical industry is opposed - duh. So why isn't that free trade?

Apparently free trade is a good thing where American industry thinks it's to their advantage, and a bad thing where industry thinks it's not? Granted, trade is not nearly so simplistic, but it does sound a great deal like Bush is again pandering to his corporate supporters.

------------------------------------------------------------------
As evidence that cool products are fleeting things, yesterday's coolest product is left in the dust by this. If only MacGyver had one of these...

----------------------------------------------------------------
Whether this is a bona fide concern for students or a perceived one, it still creates a downstream problem for U.S. companies. The practice of seeking elite technical talent while outsourcing the everyday jobs discourages many people from ever acquiring the skills in the first place.

Let's face it, if we eliminated the football programs at a 30% of the NCAA colleges, a lot of talented players who would have otherwise been in the NFL would be playing other sports; or maybe not have gone to college at all and be manufacturing Big Macs for a living.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I heard back from Ted/Phil. Turns out he's just Phil which is kind of a shame. What with hyphenated names being soooo 5 minutes ago, I was thinking slashed names might be a new trend. Alas...

Anyway, Phil had a couple of additional comments, and I wanted to share them. They are unedited below (except for removing the all-caps text) in Sorta Brown Text. Italics are my words (posted previously) that he is responding to.

I admit to being a bit relentless, but I'm curious what you find ignorant. I'm always open to learning something new if you'd care to share.
As I see it, ignorance of the their own agenda and the motivations behind it. The intense hatred that clearly comes through surpasses the usual bickering of partisan politics.

I'm confused by the first sentence. I wouldn't argue that some in the anti-Bush camp are blindly following someone else and have no actual awareness of their motivations for their beliefs. But I'd also argue that Bush has at least as many, if not way more, followers in his camp who can't explain their motivation. And I really don't see the Bush-bashing as surpassing usual partisan politics. If anything, Bush got many months of relative quiet during the war where naysayers kept relatively quiet. Let's not forget the perpetual witch hunt the Republicans led against the Clintons. If you listened to AM radio at all in the 90's, then you'd know that Bush isn't getting treated any rougher than his predecessor. And likely the next president will get his share as well. Hopefully starting next year. {:-)

It's just the Bush administration that scares the hell out of me.
Exactly what it is you're afraid of?

I've devoted a pretty fair amount of that time to this topic in the blog already. I'd suggest you go back through the archives if you'd like to read about it.

I empathize with the disgust of those personally touched by "one of the worst tragedies in recent memory". There is a certain moral repugnance to using that event for personal gain.
How about one's opponents doing their best to cast one's every move in a light that benefits him?

I think this is pretty standard politics. All politicians play the spin game and try to make everything they do look wonderful, while making everything the opposition does look stupid or damaging. My only point was that I empathize with the families of the 9/11 victims as they are being dragged into the game unwillingly. Kerry and Bush can beat on each other all they want. We've all come to expect they will.

The point of the entry had more to do with the dichotomous nature of the message he now has to sell to be reelected.
Dichotomous how?

To quote from that entry, "Curiously, this means he (Bush) needs to incite fear that more terror is coming, and at the same time convince us he has done an exceptional job of keeping us safe from it." That's a dichotomy.

We kicked a few elephant's butts, but we are likely not much safer from mosquitoes.
Do you really believe president Bush feels he has finished the job? To get rid of mosquitoes you start by making it harder for them to breed openly. Then you go after their hiding places, and at the end of the day you never get rid of them completely. So what? You do what you can do forever.

First, obviously Bush doesn't think he's finished. He can't. His reelection is contingent on convincing us we need him to "finish the job". To continue the mosquito analogy, I agree that there's value in draining the swamp in the backyard. To that end, I think the Afghan war was warranted and effective. But I don't think you "do what you can forever". You can't get all the bugs. The cost doesn't justify the risk. At some point you put on a little Deep Woods Off and venture into the back yard for a barbecue.

I do think that out overseas military exploits have kept the terrorists out of America as there are so many more targets abroad now. But that's an expensive and fruitless strategy, and arguably not an intentional one by the government.
I'm not so sure we have kept the terrorists out of America, but if we have that is hardly fruitless.

Again, it comes back to a cost benefit tradeoff. And by "cost" I mean not only money, but lives, time, and attention. We've spent billions of dollars and hundreds of lives in Iraq. What else could we have done with that money and those people?

I would really welcome debate here if you have a line of reasoning and/or facts that suggest we are really safer now.
How about a line of reasoning and a line of feeling?

I'm reasoning that there's beer in the fridge, and I'm feeling like I'd enjoy one.

I've also never shown anything but support for those doing the fighting.
Good.
I would go myself if so called.
Outstanding! Would you volunteer?

I would have volunteered for Afghanistan, but not for Iraq. I don't believe we should be in Iraq.

This is not a question of patriotism or bravery...
Yeah, in some, cases it really, really is.

Sometimes, but not in my case, and that was all I was referring to.

...but by your logic (I think) you would claim any fight a just and noble one.
Not at all, but if Iraq wasn't just, then what is? Opponents of wars have always found reasons why the war wasn't just.

Sorry, but I find nothing just in the Iraq war. There were no WMDs. There were more U.S. hostile terrorists in Saudi Arabia than were ever in Iraq. The only just reason for attacking Iraq was the rationale that we freed those people from an oppressive regime. Did we? Sure. But now we're desperately trying to impose our morals and values on them. It's pretty culturally arrogant of us to "free people" and then insist that once they're more like us that we'll let them rule themselves. Besides, we lack the resources to save the world from itself right now. We have too many problems at home to worry about.

To oppose a fight would be a sign of cowardice.
Not always.
I disagree.
Me, too.
In many cases it requires more strength to not fight.
True enough.
Brute force rarely solves problems. We simply cannot eliminate terrorism through sheer and overwhelming force.
True, it will require a unyielding willingness to do whatever it takes and support the one making the decisions by thoughtful respectful debate, and not political assassination.

Hopefully I'm managing the "thoughtful respectful debate", but "unyielding willingness to do whatever it takes" only works for me when I believe personally in the goal. I don't blindly follow anyone. And this is hardly political assassination. Politicians do not have skin that thin - especially ones who have risen as far as president.

There's an appealing vengeance angle to it, but it doesn't fix anything.
Sure, if that's what this is about, but I don't think it is.

I won't apologize for entering into intellectual dialog.
Good.
I think this country needs more of that, not less.
True, as long as it isn't just intellectual dialogue, i.e. Discussion that sees logic and reason as the only tools of perception.
As a people we are too often swayed by emotions. We opt for what feels good and has immediate gratification. I contend it will be our undoing.
To other than western minds, being swayed by emotion is no less legitimate than being swayed by empiricism. Either alone can lead to our undoing.

Granted. I'm not advocating ignoring emotion. But at least in this country I still contend there is too much policy created for its emotional appeal. We could use some more intellectuals. Perhaps we could outsource all our deep thinking?

Well, stated positions Tim.
Thanks...

---------------------------------------------------------------
This is maybe the coolest new product I've seen in awhile. I don't know why I'd need one, but I want one.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Some additional thoughts on the Bush legacy: As I've said before, the Bush presidency is pretty much defined by 9/11 and the resultant "War on Terror". He'd be in sad shape running for reelection on the remainder of his accomplishments, a point which seems undisputed even by Karl Rove based on the campaign rhetoric offered to date. So the question I posed to Ted/Phil last night is really the crux of the biscuit. Are we safer now than before the War on Terror? If not, then Bush has spent lots of lives and dollars for naught. If so, then we can go on to debate whether that safety was achieved as a result of G.W.'s leadership and whether we want it to continue.

So are we safer? Bush often points out that there has not been an act of terror on domestic soil since 9/11. True, but is that consequence or serendipity? President Clinton didn't have a domestic terror attack by foreign operatives on his watch. Neither did Bush's dad. Bush had one of the worst attacks ever occur during his tenure. I don't believe the security policies of Clinton made me safer than the ones Bush had in place once he took office. I don't believe we can blame Bush or his administration for 9/11. And I don't think we can credit them for not having had an attack since. If Bush and the boys busted up a major plot, it would have been front page news. Have they nipped a few in the bud? Sure, but so did Carter, Nixon, and the whole gang. It's part of their job.

The part we seem to be missing here is that it is virtually impossible to prevent all possible acts of terror. If someone is willing to martyr themselves, their chance of success gets a lot higher. Think of this for yourself. If you decided you had nothing to live for and were willing or even eager to die in an effort to exact revenge on others, do you think you could succeed in an act of terror? Could you smuggle a weapon into work? Could you get into the WalMart with a bomb? Could you hijack a city bus and drive it off a bridge? Probably. And if many of us had this similar desire, some of us would surely succeed. Preventing all of us from acting would require a police state which restricted personal freedoms to a point where we would be living in a society which would be safe and yet miserably oppressive. Which, under Bush's foreign policy, would ironically justify some other country launching a preemptive attack to free us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I got some feedback on the blog from Ted, who might be named Phil. (Perhaps he'll write back and clear that up.) At any rate, I thought I would share the dialog. I'm always interested in reader's comments. This does sound mostly like a spleen venting, but I'm hoping there is some underlying point of view he'd like to share. Ted/Phil's original e-mail comments appear unedited below in Sorta Brown Text

At 04:27 PM 3/8/2004 -0600, he wrote:

What disgusts me is the incessant and painfully ignorant bashing of President Bush.

I admit to being a bit relentless, but I'm curious what you find ignorant. I'm always open to learning something new if you'd care to share.

It's not evident from the blog, but before Bush I always leaned politically toward the Republicans. While I don't take much to the Right's tendency to want to regulate my personal life, I like the small government, conservative spending philosophies which have defined the Republican agenda since WWII. But Bush has somehow managed to adopt traditionally Democratic fiscal policies while espousing Republican social values. So I'm not an unrepentant Republican basher. It's just the Bush administration that scares the hell out of me.

For those of you so unrepentantly inclined, the man can't even lead our country through one of the worst tragedies in recent memory without the acknowledgment of that fact being reduced to draping one's self in the event.

Perhaps I didn't express myself well here. I'm not personally disgusted. I empathize with the disgust of those personally touched by "one of the worst tragedies in recent memory". There is a certain moral repugnance to using that event for personal gain. But this is politics as usual. Bush didn't do anything any other politician wouldn't have done in similar circumstances. The point of the entry had more to do with the dichotomous nature of the message he now has to sell to be reelected.

Meanwhile, the whining about being called to confront the terrorism with more than just a season of lament and cliched, tired intellectual dialogue is ridiculed by smug, know-it-alls too afraid to accept the fact that it's real, preferring, instead I imagine, to have their reality contained in 60 minute segments of Survivor, and the Real World.

I would encourage you to dig a little deeper into the blog. I've never contended that the threat of terrorism wasn't real, and certainly not out of fear. My "tired intellectual" thesis is that we went hunting mosquitoes with an elephant gun. We kicked a few elephant's butts, but we are likely not much safer from mosquitoes. I do think that our overseas military exploits have kept the terrorists out of America as there are so many more targets abroad now. But that's an expensive and fruitless strategy, and arguably not an intentional one by the government. I've never argued we should just turn the other cheek.

I would really welcome debate here if you have a line of reasoning and/or facts that suggest we are really safer now.

Thankfully, there are those who aren't afraid. It is as it has always been. The ones not afraid to fight do so against the backdrop of the criticism of those who are thereby insuring the naysayers' right to a voice.

I've also never shown anything but support for those doing the fighting. I would go myself if so called. This is not a question of patriotism or bravery, but by your logic (I think) you would claim any fight a just and noble one. To oppose a fight would be a sign of cowardice. I disagree. In many cases it requires more strength to not fight. Brute force rarely solves problems. We simply cannot eliminate terrorism through sheer and overwhelming force. There's an appealing vengeance angle to it, but it doesn't fix anything.

I won't apologize for entering into intellectual dialog. I think this country needs more of that, not less. As a people we are too often swayed by emotions. We opt for what feels good and has immediate gratification. I contend it will be our undoing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, we certainly wouldn't want gays and lesbians getting in on any of this.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Blues on the left,
Reds on the right,
Start playing this,
And you'll be here all night.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Bush campaign is launched. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he's draping himself in 9/11 as his main theme. You can be rightfully disgusted, but not surprised. It creates an interesting problem of balance for him though.

In reality, his presidency is entirely defined by 9/11 and wars which he launched following it. He has nothing else. Were he running solely on his domestic record and the economy, he'd be roadkill. He can't make the mistake his dad did. His dad ended the war and then had to defend his future value based on the rest of his legacy. Bush needs the war, a war, even the perception of an ongoing war to secure his reelection.

So where's the problem? His wars are over, excepting the increasingly ugly aftermaths. What remains is the nebulous "War on Terrorism." For Bush to win in November, he needs to convince America that the war exists, is necessary, and that changing leaders mid-war would be a disaster. Curiously, this means he needs to incite fear that more terror is coming, and at the same time convince us he has done an exceptional job of keeping us safe from it. He needs to position himself as personally being the thing that keep that wolf back from our door.

Running in his favor is the sad truth that emotion sells well in this country, and fear is among the most powerful emotions. It will be interesting to see if people's intellects can conquer their fears.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING - the following entry contains Passion of Christ movie spoilers.

Apparently this quote was from a Mel Gibson interview. He's asked what the ugly baby was all about and replies, "It's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

It's the best explanation I've heard so far...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I'm prepared to write about this now. It has been 3 days since I saw Mel Gibson's Passion film. It probably takes three days to sort your emotions out. Leaving the theater was oddly reminiscent of leaving Mystic River. You were overwhelmed with feelings, but you were experiencing so many conflicting ones you couldn't really sort them out. Warning, if you haven't seen the movie and don't want any spoilers, then bail now.

On the other hand, if you've read the gospels or even managed to stay awake through an Easter service, then you already know the basic story. In fact, I was surprised how much the movie assumed you already knew the story. Many characters were never even introduced. For example, neither Pilate nor Mary Magdalene are ever referred to by name; it takes awhile to figure out who John is; and other than Peter and Judas, the remaining Apostles are almost generic. It also takes a wee bit to figure out Satan, and I'm still struggling with some of the Satanic imagery. Who was the huge baby in Satan's arms and what did he represent? And why was Satan the most (if not the only) obviously Caucasian character in the film. I learned watching the credits, Satan was actually played by a woman. I'm not touching that one.

Now while I can understand why some are claiming the film is anti-Semitic, I didn't feel that. Caiaphas comes off pretty calloused, but he probably was depicted realistically. He was a man of local power being threatened from beneath by the rebellion he feared Jesus would incite and also threatened from above by Rome. Honestly, his 2nd (and as far as I know - unnamed) banana comes off as way more hateful than he does. I also find it unlikely that a Jewish leader would have demanded crucifixion for a fellow Jew, regardless of his crime. By and large, the Jews hated and feared the Romans. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment designed to subjugate the survivors more than punish the victim. It was widely hated by the non-Romans it was inflicted upon. Also, the Jewish mob is reminiscent of most any mob, and probably not more culpable than anyone else swept away by mob mentality.

And as long as we mentioned the Romans, Pilate got a softball down the middle. He came off as some sort of morally conflicted middle manager who sought solace and counsel in his lovely wife. Ironically, his troops were portrayed as bloodthirsty ghouls. To start, Pilate was widely regarded as one who would torture you as soon as look at you. Not an uncommon characteristic for one who rose to a position of Roman power. However, anyone as weak as Pilate was drawn would have been eaten alive by men as violent and uncontrolled as his Roman soldiers were portrayed. But in fairness, Gibson was not attempting to create an historically accurate film, so I'm probably nitpicking.

How was the movie, you might ask? Violent. Horrifically, gratuitously, almost unimaginably violent. Were this any other story, people would be calling for this film to be rated X and pushed out of the mainstream market. It's that violent. I saw it with my friend Kim who bore the double burden of being Christian and a mother. That lent two whole new elements, and she felt the more powerful was having to view the torture from the perspective of Mary watching her son be abused. Now, I do believe this sort of torture wasn't all that uncommon at that time. Even in the movie, the Romans were well equipped to carry this assault out. Clearly they had done this before. However, and perhaps as a way of showing the divine power of the character, Gibson shows Jesus enduring almost continual pain and agony for so long that any mortal man would have long since succumbed to the injuries.

Did I like the movie? I don't know. I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not sure I can say I liked it. I don't want to see it again. As an atheist, I probably have a different perspective than most of the viewers. Some Christians are saying this movie is reaffirming their faith. Curiously, I think it has reaffirmed my lack of it as well - although I'm not quite sure why. I'll need to think on that.

On a final note, anyone allowing a pre-teen child to see this movie should be charged with abuse. It's that simple.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit that with everything else going on in the world, it's a little hard to get too worked up about Haiti. But one thing bothers me. Bush said publicly (quite awhile ago) he would defend any elected leader. Aristide qualifies, right? Alternatively, he has also positioned himself (and the U.S) as the defender of oppressed people. After all, that's why we went to Iraq (in hindsight). So whether Aristide was a duly elected legitimate leader of his people or whether he was an oppressive despot, by our own policy we should have acted.

Now, I'm not disappointed we didn't. I just think the contradiction needs a light shining on it. The same situation seems to be heating up down in Venezuela. It will be interesting to see how that goes. More so, as Venezuela has some of the largest oil reserves in this hemisphere.