The recent Passion-related merchandising and subsequent deafening
silence from the evangelical community has inspired me of the business
opportunities to be gained in this largely untapped market. Below is
my vision of the new FaithFellowship.com, P.C., LLC.. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Nabisco foods)

[As our visitors enter the sanctuary decorated with the usual crosses
and stained glass depictions of our Lord and Savior saving mankind,
they are directed to their seats by ushers. Those same ushers take
drink and muffin orders as the organ plays.]

[Lights dim, Pastor steps to the podium.] "Welcome to our church,
FaithFellowship.com, where your religious dollar goes farther!" [The
pastor grins and waits for the laughter to fade.] "In all seriousness,
we hope that our visitors were able to negotiate the parking system
outside and urge you to sign up for a monthly permit if you join our
church. Great savings over the single visits. Remember that salvation
and standing up to the devil is a costly venture and we must compete.
And before we start the hymns, please make your final drink orders from
your usher. We are having a Passion of the Christ muffin sale today, 2
for 5 dollars. And now our music minister. Praise Jesus.

[Music minister takes the stand.] "Please turn in your hymnal to page
242. If you do not have one, your usher can bring one to you for a $4
rental or you can purchase your own (engraved in fake leather) at the
bookstore after the service or online at FaithFellowship.com. Now,
let us sing: "what a friend we have in Jesus..."

[After the FaithFellowship.com choir has sung their song (paid for today
by the $2 cover charge), the Pastor reappears to call for the
offertory. He explains how to use the touch screens and card swipes in
front of every worshipper. Those without credit cards are ushered out to
avoid embarrassment.]

[Organ music.]

[Pastor returns for his sermon.] "Today's sermon is brought to you by
the good folks at Keeler SUV and Gas Guzzler. If you need to buy a new
car, the Lord has directed me to say that these folks are his anointed
dealership in this area. They will not cheat you out of the heaviest
car they can sell you, and you can show your devotion to our Lord and
Savior by following his will. On a side note, there are people who
will tell you there is something wrong with SUVs. They are called
Communists and the Lord is not amused. SUVs are exactly what our Lord
and Savior would have driven except for the fact that the Jews hadn't
figured out the internal combustion engine when he walked the earth.
And don't listen to the "tree-huggers." God made these cars too and if
you buy a, so-called, "efficient" vehicle, you will be cheating our
good Brother Exxon--Hi brother, so glad you are enjoying your front row box
seats--out of his hard earned profit. If his business suffers, the Lord
will not be happy.

Now to our sermon on the Moneychangers. These were evil Jews, much
like you would see in our contemporary Hollywood. And in this story,
Jesus just threw them out of the temple. Wouldn't that be grand?
Wouldn't we love to see the fornicators and abortionists and
pornographers just thrown out of this good country? Remember, Hitler
loved porn, abortions and porn. Let us pray. "Dear Holy God. Help us
to be better children of thine and show us thy pleasure by making our
stocks go up, Lord, yeah, even double. For as I walk through the
uncertainty of downsizing, I will fear no evil as God himself will
ensure that my 401K will increase at a healthy 10% rate. Amen."

Now is the time to call our new converts and consumers to the front to
declare your allegiance to our Lord and Savior. Once you have declared
before God and man, you will have one more step. For while it is good
to declare your love of Jesus and God before this holy, incorporated
partnership and congregation, it is most important that you show the
rest of the ungodly world where your allegiance lies. So following
your conversion, please follow Bridget (head usher) to the Church Gift
Shoppe where you can purchase your proof to the world. We have
t-shirts (pre-shrunk, of course) posters, bracelets, official pendants
of the Passion of the Christ movie, and of course, John The Baptist
ties for the Christian executive. For our youth fighting the sin of premarital sex,
we have "Abstinence Only" thongs and "Just say No" briefs.
The Gift Shoppe accepts all major credit cards, and today only,
if you turn your life over to Christ AND purchase a minimum
of $50 worth of Christian-proving merchandise, we
will sign you up for a low interest FaithFellowship.com credit card.
This new card will allow you to profess your heartfelt faith wherever
you shop, and in fact, you will be witnessing to the world every time
you buy something. So, buy, buy, buy. Show the Lord and the Devil
whose side you are on!

Let us pray.

[End of service.]

IHT: Frank Rich: Mel Gibson's 'Passion': publicity juggernaut: "In January, the star had gone on 'The O'Reilly Factor' to counter Jewish criticism of his cinematic account of Jesus's final hours - a provocative opening volley given that no critic of any faith had yet said anything about his movie (and wouldn't for another three months). Clearly he was looking for a brawl, and he hasn't let up since. "

Here is another person who thinks Mel played us. He worked up the entire anti-semitism claim himself. Not that it isn't there, but can you imagine how this all would have worked out had he reached out to liberal Christians and Jews?

But no. He needed that conflict. He had to have some buzz and the best way was to tell conservative Christians that the jews didn't want them to see this film. Kind of the same kind of thing that racists have done in the South for over a hundred years--suggesting some nonesense about southern Blacks to inflame southern Whites. It is shameful and not worthy of the many Christians who have bought this.

I am not sure about democracy anymore

An odd title, I guess. Let me explain. My wife and I spent a couple hours today participating in the political process. Actually she did this for a few more hours yesterday, but together we walked the streets of our neighborhood and handed out leaflets for a city council candidate. We have no problem supporting this candidate, and I want to believe in this system, but the day's work left me a little cold.

I guess I am becoming less and less enamored by the democratic system. Consider my local community. Local politics appears to be dominated by people with money. Land developers and rental property owners seem to get their way most often. In fact, besides the hard core participants on the left--most of the people who participate have a financial stake. They participate because it is in their financial best interest to. That strikes me as problematic. Not to say that that isn't part of it, but it appears to be all of it. and that depresses me. So, here I walk, putting leaflets in the door, wondering if there is anything to be gained.

That feeling was enhanced by a couple of events lately. Yesterday, while talking to a neighbor, we disagreed over a local councilman. She and I have more in common politically than in difference, and there are numerous reasons that she might have problems with this man, yet I found the exchange frustrating and disturbing. Here we had completely divergent views on our political system and I found myself wondering if there was anyway that the political system can work without dividing us.

The other event was the entire hubbub over the Passion film. I have written much about it here and elsewhere and was probably approaching the obsession point. Certainly, there is much range of reasonable disagreement over this film. Those who defend it as a limited view of an important event, and who don't see it as anti-semetic are reasonable people. They find great meaning in the reminder of the Lord's sacrifice. I am ok with that. I am also struck by the few who have noted how compassionate the film made them toward others--toward those killed in the Holocaust, or the African slaves who suffered greatly to build America. If that is the result, then the film will have accomplished something besides make a rich star even richer.

But it is that other story that bothers me. The evangelicals who respond to their critics with "they are just afraid of the truth," or "Jesus said we would be persecuted." That level of arrogance--just dismissing their critics is so devoid of the grace of their faith. If they cannot muster compassion for those who find the film frightening or disturbing, then they are pretty poor christians in my book.

So how did a discussion of politics and democracy become one about the passion and evangelicals? I am not sure, but I know that as I was going through all this, the connection was clear in my mind. Politics, religion, capitalism--they have all merged in a way that makes me very unsettled. Religious people are completely unbothered by the selling of Passion related crap--making money off this doesn't bother them. And why should it, I guess? If they are not bothered by a McDonalds in a church, or a Starbucks in a church, why blink at this? Jesus kicked the moneychangers out of the temple, but our current religious institution would only do that if those selling were selling porn or drugs. The nature of religious language is just that way. We are all taught about the Phillistines, and warned of the modern day versions, but no one actually sees themselves in that role. The moneychangers, therefore, are elsewhere--not in our church or faith.

That is what bothers me the most. If you use the language of religion, you can gloss over just about anything. What might be crass consumerism is now selling a religious artifact. What would just be shopping, becomes an expression of a deeper faith--albeit at $12.95. Faith, it appears, is just as much for sale as anything else. And that faith, therefore is easily bought and manipulated by political agents. And don't tell me that doesn't happen. While writing this, I flipped through some channels and watched a Texas evangelist endorse the movie, endorse GWB--all from the pulpit, and all with an open Bible in one hand.

It all bothers me, and I am also aware that none of it is new. Americans have had a messy democracy for their entire history. And, as my recent readings tell me, our lack of a theological foundation is also not new. It still bothers me.

The Passion of Mel?

I realize that I am approaching the obsession level on this film. For whatever reason, as I have noted elsewhere on this blog, this film has touched some serious issues for me. Issues I have with the Christian church I grew up in and how now I find it annoyingly smug and self-righteous. The film's defenders seem to vacilate between saying it is a religious experience and then pointing out that it is a movie in the face of criticism. Ok. And I recognize two things: that I bring a lot of conflict of my own to this film, and 2, that I recognize that despite my objections to this film, it will often be a deeply moving and powerful experience. None of the objections I have negate that.

So where am I now? I think that both sides got played here. I don't know if this is all conscious on Mel Gibson's part, but we all got played. Mel understood that the film would not be welcomed in Hollywood for a wide variety of reasons--some of which might actually be frustration with christianity--and knew that he had to find another way to recoup his investment. His desire to make the film probably came from a earnest belief. I have no problem with that. But deep down, this is still a hollywood process and a hollywood film complete with merchandizing and crass crap to buy. He had to find a way to generate interest and make an ultra-violent film about Christ marketable.

In many ways, this is an odd vehicle for evangelicals to rally behind. Remember, Mel is a traditional Catholic, and historically and even recently, the evangelical protestant community has not looked favorably on the Catholic faith. I know many who consider Catholicism a cult and consider them not even christians. Likewise, Mel holds the same view of the evangelical community. And, on top of that, this is an intensely catholic film(not that there is anything wrong with that). I remember as a child asking my mother for a cross to hang around my neck, and she went into great detail about how the cross was not our focus. That Catholic view (though she did not dismiss catholicism in this discussion) focused on the death of christ, while our church and belief focused on the resurrection and message. A better symbol, she said, would have been a necklace that reflected that, maybe a rolled stone or empty tomb. She rejected the obsession with Mary, the fixation on the bloody Christ on the cross, and the emphasis on his death over those other key theological issues.

Protestant evangelicals rejected (and I would argue still do) the fixation on the suffering of Christ. Implicit in that theology is a very Catholic idea--that works are important. Works involve proving your worth to God and earning your salvation. I think the obsession with suffering in this film connects the works doctrine to Christ's sacrifice. In this, Christ has to suffer for our sins, and if he doesn't suffer enough the sacrifice is rejected and our sins are not forgiven. Mel's God, even though he sends his son to die, is still a vengeful and angry god who must be appeased. Someone must be sacrificed. And, evidently suffer more than anyone else could suffer.

But I was taught was that this story was about Jesus being enough human to feel pain, not that he felt more pain or suffering than anyone ever could. The unique nature of this story was not his suffering, but that he was also God and that he rose again. Remember, crucifixion was a common execution method, so Christ experienced what so many other Jews and enemies of the Romans had. That is the story, not this obsession with suffering. To make the suffering the focus makes the point of Christianity the death of Christ, rather than the life.

So, how do conservative evangelicals who distrust Catholicism come to promote this film that, in my mind, represents a pretty serious theological departure. In fact, I would contend the connection between these two bedfellows is not theological at all. On the story of the crucifixion, conservatives share more in common with their more liberal protestant counterparts. The connection, therefore is cultural and political--not theological at all. Mel was able to play on (some) evangelicals fear of a hostile culture--Hollywood (and the Media) we are told, hates Christianity and doesn't want you to see this film. The Jews also don't want you to see this film, and liberal pundits are opposed to it. Now, is it any surprise that evangelicals raised a fuss about this film? It is right in line with the urban legends of attacking Touched by an Angel, or those about Madeline Murray O'Hare, or the recent ones suggesting that the FCC was allowing the f-word, but not any mention of God. And this one had the benefit of being partially true. Hollywood was resistant to supporting this film, and I think that played very well into Mel's plans.

Mel left anti-semitic portrayals in the film partially because I think deep down he is anti-semitic. He is far too coy about his father's insanity and rabid racism to not share some of it. Or, he just allowed his father's insanity to raise the issue--either way, I think is crass and awful. Here is how he played the liberals. He left enough in that allowed the anti-semitism argument to flourish. Could have taken them out and still had the bloodied Christ tortured for 2 hours. Could have had Pilate equally evil and not concerned about Christ's welfare, or could have made the jewish leader conflicted. He did not. Do those elements make it anti-semitic? Probably not, but given the history of the Passion plays and things like, well, the Holocaust, some respect of that fear would have been in order. But it served its purpose. It cemented the opposition and allowed him to go to the evangelical community (remember, he screened the film primarily for only conservatives--which further alienated liberal and jewish theologians) and point out who didn't want them to see the film. Along the way, he talked about dark forces opposed to this film, and about critics who were unwitting dupes of Satan himself. Message? If you oppose this film, you are in league with Satan. Critisize this film, and you demonstrate your loathing for the Christian message.

Likewise, it allowed conservatives to see this film as a political act. If you support this film, you are sending a message to Hollywood that you want more like this and less of Janet. You also send a message to those "dark forces" arrayed against Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments, and against rogue judges and mayors who are sanctioning gay marriage. The connection was political and it allowed a groundswell of support for a film that would have otherwise been a small art-house film.

So, what set me over the edge, you ask? Why did I jump to this conclusion regarding Mel's agenda (note that I am not sure what is conscious and what isn't)? The Pewter Nail Pendant that sent me into a rage yesterday. If, I asked yesterday, you can market the crucifixion, what can't you? Is there anything that is sacred and off limits from crass consumer efforts? I understand that catholics have worn crosses for years, and someone manufactured those, but this feels much different to me. This is an entire discussion about cultural differences and was supposed to be more than "just another movie" with Burger King cups and action figures in Happy Meals. This was supposed to be a church experience--after all, the film was released on Ash Wednesday, a day that some reminded us was supposed to be about going to church, not going to the theater.

But it ultimately is just another movie. And a con job. And a marketing machine that has divided people against each other. And a company that, almost with a wink, is licensing Pewter Nail Pendants (Official Movie Merchandise) just like the LOTR action figures and Star Wars toys.

Passion related merchandise contest

Why not? What is really the problem here? After all, if the end result is more consumers, er, I mean, converts, then the means are justified right? So, I am announcing the first Streak's Blog contest. Email me or post in the comments field your ideas for Passion of the Christ related merchandise (cross marketing, as it were).

I will start off: "Genuine Communion Wine: Guaranteed to be the Blood of Christ (As seen in copious amounts in the Passion of the Christ) or your money back!"

I await your entries.

MSNBC - "Passion" pendant proves popular: "A particularly popular item is a pendant fashioned from a single nail made of pewter and attached to a leather strap, say officials of Bob Siemon Designs, which is licensed by Gibson's Icon Productions to produce jewelry tied to the film. The pendants represent the nails used in the film to fasten Christ to the cross.

"This thing has turned into this kind of overnight phenomenon that we can't believe," Siemon said. He said his staff is working 10- to 14-hour shifts six days a week to keep Christian bookstores supplied with the pendants, crucifixes and other items."

This has kind of taken my breath away. Sort of like the a$$holes who were selling card decks with the faces of liberal leaders (in the spirit of the decks used to hunt down Saddam and his guys). And he is working extra hours to keep the Christian mega stores packed with more of this shite.

Well, it may not be a happy meal, but it is certainly Hollywood as usual. I think they call it synergy, or some such term, but it sickens me. If Christians were serious about this being a spiritual movie, they would rise up and oppose this crap. Any bets?

Update Here is a story about brisk sales of Passion related material. I feel nauseous. Not terribly surprised, but definately not good. I guess there is a part of me that wants to believe that the Christian community is better than this, somehow above some of the stupid mass-consumption that seems to dominate the rest of American life. Instead we have McDonalds at churches and bookstores and coffeeshops inside "church campuses" doing brisk sales. All of it, undoubtedly to further the kingdom of God, right? Maybe we can hand out "pewter nail pendants" to the homeless or ship them to third world markets? Why not have an ad campaign with Jesus on the cross telling people what to buy?

And why not? Really? Our President's reaction to 9-11 was to tell people to shop more. Why wouldn't a depiction of what everyone refers to as the "Greatest Story ever Told" inspire similar impulses. And here is the kicker: those buying "pewter nail pendants" see that purchase as something different than when they buy the Scooby Doo figure at Hastings. They see it as a religious or spiritual act. Bully.

Pass!

Yahoo! News - Aristide Tells U.S. Contacts He Was Abducted: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jean-Bertrand Aristide, ousted as Haitian president on Sunday, told U.S. lawmakers and other contacts by telephone on Monday that he was abducted by U.S. soldiers and left his homeland against his will."


What do we make of this?

More on Mel's Opus

I heard from a relative last night who viewed the film. She said that it was accurate to the scriptures, except for the part where Jesus carried the entire cross, instead of the cross beam. I realize that for many of my acquaintances, historical accuracy speaks only to details--the cross beam, or even if they spoke latin or greek--but not to the broader implications.

I think there are reasonable debates about the accuracy of this film--even if we are assuming it is based on the Bible. It isn't unreasonable to wonder about contradictions between the gospels, the addition of the 19th century mystic, and the extensive focus on the beatings. Raising those questions does not make one anti-Christian.

I have been thinking a lot about this film. I can certainly concede that people can see this film and experience it positively. I hope they can. I hope that people can see this amount of pain and suffering and connect it to broader human suffering. I hope they can live their lives with a better sense of compassion.

One of my fears is that Christians do not have much compassion for people unlike themselves and this film will not help that. If they can't find compassion for Jews concerned about anti-semitism, or for non-believers who find the Christian message confusing and arrogant, then what good is their faith? So, if this film helps people be more compassionate, then by all means, go see it. If not, then what good is it?

One of the more frustrating parts of this film has been Mel's sentiment (as well as many of his defenders) that people who have a problem with his film don't really have a problem with Mel, but with God and the Gospels. I have run into this my entire adult life. Disagreement with someone's faith being equated with me disagreeing with God. Pretty arrogant when you think about it--thinking that your interpretation is the same as God's.

It is this smugness that really bothers me. The smugness of Christians who dismiss any concerns about the film, and find the film simply a reinforcement of their own rightness. The smugness of people who see only their own experience and dismiss that of others.

And while I am thinking about it, (and this might be repetitious) I find the way Mel has pushed this offensive. Not only has he done the false "why is everyone angry with this film even though I only showed it to conservatives," but he has, in order to push this film, furthered the us v. them of American Christianity. I hear it at every family gathering--that Hollywood and the media hates Christianity. I am tired of it. It does nothing but encourage a divisive America. And, I must say, it also undermines any sense of compassion that Christians are supposed to have.

The Passion and me
This film is really making me mad. I find myself annoyed at those close to me who want to see the film, and that is not a reaction that I want to have. I don't understand all of my reaction, myself. I have said from the beginning that I had no problem with Mel making this film or with people going to see it. And intellectually, that is still true. I am opposed to censorship and would fight any efforts to keep this film out of the theaters.

But the film bugs me. And it isn't the anti-Semitism. The part that has bugged me about that has been the right's dismissal of anti-Semitism as if those concerned about it are completely irrational. Never mind this story from Colorado. This may not be the norm, but it actually proves many of the critics right--that some will use this film for bad ends.

But let's set the anti-Semitism aside for now. I will assume that most evangelicals and Mel himself, are well-intentioned believers who don't actually hold the Jewish people responsible for the death of Christ.

So, why is this film making me mad? I think there are numerous reasons. One is the expectation that Christians should want to see it. After all, if you believe that Jesus suffered and died for your sins, shouldn't you want to go watch it happen? And speaking of suffering, this film appears to be all about that, as if the suffering was the critical issue of our faith. I don't understand that. If Jesus was both God and Man, then how was his suffering any greater than any of the other hundreds of Jews (or others) who were crucified by the Romans? Is the suffering integral to the faith? As I posed in an earlier posting, would his sacrifice for our sins mean less if we were to flash back in time and find that he didn't physically suffer as much as Mel thinks? Or, would it fall apart if he had been killed a different way? There is something dark here about Mel's view of the world and of his faith. He is haunted by something that I don't understand.

There seems to be a super-macho aspect to this, as if we have to prove that we are strong enough to watch this. As I noted in an earlier post, this from people who have often dismissed violence as negative almost regardless of context. I sincerely believe that they would have had a complete opposite reaction to a film about Matthew Shepard.

And what about Mel? Let's assume that his beliefs are genuine and heart-felt. But he has been less than up-front about this film. For all of his protesting about those weighed in against his film (conveniently those are portrayed as part of the dark (read Satanic) forces that oppose God), he has pushed and promoted this film in a way that would make all those Hollywood types that he and his recent fans denigrate very proud. While pretending to not promote it, he screened it for thousands of evangelical conservatives and watched in mock-horror as people objected. Every objection, every claim of "pornographic" violence or anti-Semitic content was controversial, and every controversy spurred free press. Hell, if he were serious about reaching out to people, he would have reached out to them when he started the screening.

And then there is the issue of historical accuracy. I have some credentials to back me up on the history angle (though my specialty is not Judea or Ancient Rome) and I find the entire discussion frustrating. Most defenders say that the film is accurate because it is based on the gospels which (in spite of having been written 40+ years after the events) are supposed to be historically accurate. This despite the contradictions between the various stories and problems with the non-Biblical scholarship (mostly dealing with the relationship between Pilate and the Jewish leaders). And, and this is big, the fact that Mel admits being heavily influenced by a 19th century mystic's dreams, hardly the gospel truth.

But ultimately, I am frustrated by the right's acceptance of the film while having no sense of the context. No acknowledgment that this film has been sold to them, and that they are, in part, supporting it because of Roy Moore, and the SF Mayor, and ten commandments and prayer in school, and .. Jon Stewart had a great line the other night about the bravery it took to make a pro-Jesus film in America. Wow. Really brave.

=The Hill.com=: "The source, a veteran official of past GOP conventions, said the 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and guests would watch off-site events on giant TV screens. “Now, we’ll go to the deck of the USS Intrepid as the U.S. Marine Corps Band plays the National Anthem,” he said, pretending that he was playing the part of the convention chairman.

“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”

Holy Jebus! Don't you think that someone might find this objectionable?

CNN.com - Marriage amendment: Will it help or hurt Bush? - Feb. 26, 2004: "Railing against Gavin Newsom, whom she called 'a rogue mayor in San Francisco,' for ordering the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Musgrave called Bush's action 'an encouragement to people who believe in the traditional definition of marriage.'"

Let me be clear here. I think the SF Mayor screwed up. By ignoring the rule of law, he is closer to Roy Moore than he would like to be.

But this amendment is just stupid politics. Does anyone really think that this is not a cynical play on the President's part? Would this happen if Bush's poll numbers weren't dropping? I heard Chuck Colson say on his radio show that this was a brave move. I don't find appealing to the religious right that courageous since it might be the only voting bloc that still thinks he is a good leader.

And I think it is bad public policy. It won't stop homosexuality, but it will take away any incentive for loving gay couples to pursue monogamy or stability. Who gains here?

Salon.com News | Clear Channel head "ashamed" of programs: "Broadcast executives cited these and other examples Thursday as evidence they are taking heed of the government's call to clean up the airwaves.


'We at Fox have heard your concerns loud and clear,' said Gail Berman, the network's president of entertainment. 'We sincerely regret that a few incidents of inappropriate programming have overshadowed the good shows we proudly air on Fox each week.'

Does that mean Fox will stop airing stupid reality shows that mock marriage by turning it into a prize?

Several broadcasters endorsed the higher fines. John Hogan, president Clear Channel Radio, said the move would 'serve as a 'shot across the bow' of the industry, putting us all on notice that Congress and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) are serious about cleaning up the airwaves.'

The most dramatic response came from the nation's largest radio chain, 1,200-station Clear Channel Communications. This week it fired the disc jockey known as 'Bubba the Love Sponge,' took the Stern show off the six stations it owns and outlined new standards that include immediately suspending any on-air talent accused of airing indecent material by the FCC.

Hogan said he was 'ashamed' of the 'Bubba' show. The program, which aired in Florida, recently brought a proposed $755,000 FCC fine for sexually explicit content and other alleged indecency violations."

Look, the bigger obscenity is the shrinking number of companies that control the media and the shocking lack of complete coverage of anything non-Janet Breast related.

A New Anglican's Journey

My friend at Anglican Journey has a great post on the contrast between Ash Wednesday and the opening of Mel's latest film.

It has been said that politics makes for strange bedfellows, and here we see another version of this truism. People who routinely criticize violence in film (regardless of context) are now defending what may be the most violent film ever (some reviewers are calling the violence "pornographic") and conservative evangelical Protestants who often deride Catholics are flocking to see a very Catholic presentation of the Gospel.

Watched Fox Friends this morning

I know, I know. I shouldn't . Nothing good to come from such an act. This morning, the team of vapid interviewers had as a guest, the great Sean Hannity. He, evidently, has a new book out--something called "Deliver us from Evil." Wow. So glad that this great mind is churning them out. I am positive that this will be an uplifting book.

During his interview this morning, he essentially charged Democrats with politicizing national security, while Bush and his administration were statesmen leaders with great moral clarity.

Hmm. So by politicizing national security, he means Kerry, Kennedy and Dean. He doesn't mean Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in a pre-campaign photo-op with "Mission Accomplished" splashed behind him. And he doesn't mean the Republican decision to move their convention to NYC and delay it so they can combine it with the 9-11 anniversary. And it certainly doesn't refer to ads run against Tom Daschle comparing him to Saddam Hussein for disagreeing with the President. And it doesn't refer to the GOP savaging Max Cleland over his Homeland Security vote, calling a Vet who lost three limbs soft on security.

Sure, Sean. Democrats are the ones who are soft on evil and eager to politicize terrorism and war. Right.

More on Mel

I think that Mel's interview was interesting. In many ways, he wanted it both ways: it is his vision, but the Holy Spirit helped direct; he has compassion for those who fear anti-semitism, but rejects the claims completely.

The other curious thing is his obsession with the brutality of the crucifixion. I am not saying it wasn't brutal, of course, but Mel is obsessing on that for a variety of reasons--many having to do with his own demons. He said at one point that he is one of those people who could get addicted to anything. Maybe his addiction has turned to religion. He wouldn't be the first one.

The other part of that is (and this is not my original thought) he makes suffering the key issue here. Is it? A Salon reviewer said something about other people suffering more than Christ. That might be, but even more so, the suffering of the crucifixion is not really the point. Would his sacrifice mean less if he had been lynched by a mob in the South? Or assasinated by a sharpshooter? Or a firing squad?

If so, I would suggest that Christians need to reevalute their faith.

Watching the Mel interview

First, Diane Sawyer sucks. But that isn't really the point. She has actually done worse interviews--it is called her day job!

So, how is it going? Mel makes a great point about how riches and fame are problematic. Says that he has had as much as anyone, and found it to be unfilling. I have no problem with that. He also takes (some) responsibility for this being his vision.

But Mel claims that the Bible is historically accurate--and dismisses the other historical accounts. And he does recognize that anti-semitism is a problem, but he treats it as if it was aberrant, not a bigger part of human history.

I will say that he does something I like. He said that his reaction to the claims of anti-semitism is one of compassion. I would say that if most evangelicals were to respond to that this way, the problem would be less. Jews are not irrational to fear this film. Remember that many passion plays portrayed jews as devils and demons. Hard not to take that negatively.

The film does treat Jews more responsible than the romans. Even at one point, Mel dismisses some of the criticism of the film. If people read this as blaming the Jews, he surmises, then they would have to make that jump from any film where "one group of people" does something bad to another group of people. This, I think, is the heart of the problem. Blaming certain Jewish leaders for their culpability? not a problem. Blaming Jews as "a group of people?" Problem.

Interesting. Mel has just said that he chose to portray Jesus as more verile and strong--arguing that previous treatments have made him more effete. Interesting. Also, his Jesus looks like the paintings. Interesting.

I think his insistence on this film being accurate is the part that bugs me. Here is an aryan Jesus who is killed by evil jews while the Romans kind of fade to the background and Jesus's social radicalism is omitted. That bugs me. And no, I have not seen the film. And probably won't.

Perhaps more later.

Online NewsHour: Art and Responsibility -- September 30, 2003: "When one's version of the truth assaults categories of people-- Jews, blacks, or Germans-- one is on very dangerous, not to say murderous, ground. And one cannot claim simply that art is neutral in intention and at the same time claim, as Gibson does, that his film was meant to 'inspire.' If you insist on having it both ways, you ought to concede that's what you're doing. The 'Wall Street Journal's' editorial pages have rhapsodized on how committed Gibson is to his religious vision. That vision derives from a conservative group of Catholics who deny the Vatican, and thus Vatican II, which repudiated the accusation that Jews were responsible for Jesus' death."

My response to this film has been suspicion of motives. I don't trust the film makers, nor those promoting the film. But they have every right to showt the film and I also denounce those who call for the film's censorship.

But I also agree that Christians should respect the history here: the complicated story of the crucifixion that varies among the gospels and in places opposes the historical scholarship; the history of anti-semitism and Passion plays with Jews dressed as devils killing a nice handsome Christian. That is all here, regardless of what Gibson says about the film.

Christians who dismiss those concerns show themselves to be historically myopic and that they lack compassion about those who have been on the negative side of the Christian movement.

New feature

Not that everyone will appreciate this, but Streak's blog is now available for syndication. The "Site Feed" link will now allow you to view the blog in many news aggregators (at least those that read the new Atom feed).

Memphis Flyer :: Issue 781 :: BUSH A NO-SHOW AT ALABAMA BASE, SAYS MEMPHIAN : "MEMPHIS – Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain."

Interesting story. These two say they remember this story well, because they were looking forward to meeting this hotshot with political connections. The number of pilots there was under 30, so it seems unlikely that Bush slips under the radar (sorry).

I imagine that Karl Rove and the White House people are just hating this. The story won't die. They try to kill it and say it is old news, gutter politics, etc., but it just won't die. Every news cycle, here is some mention of Bush and the National Guard.

Yahoo! News - Guard Records On President Are Released: "In a contentious White House briefing yesterday, McClellan repeatedly said that the documents show the president 'fulfilled his duties,' as reporters asked for specifics not indicated in the documents."


This is interesting. The White House press corps attacks McClellan. After three years of pandering, they finally woke up. Weird. Why about this? Why not the WMD controversy, or the Valerie plame controversy? Does this indicate a level of frustration by the press for being shut out and controlled by this administration?

Salon.com News | CNN says it overplayed Dean's Iowa scream: "Feb. 8, 2004  |  NEW YORK (AP) -- It probably means little now to Howard Dean, but CNN's top executive believes his network overplayed the infamous clip of Dean's 'scream' after the Iowa caucuses."

Yahoo! News - President Revises Rationale For War: "The new rationale offered by the president and vice president, significantly more modest than earlier statements about the deposed Iraqi president's capabilities, comes after government experts have said it is unlikely banned weapons will be found in Iraq and after Bush's naming Friday of a commission to examine faulty prewar intelligence."

In another time, this kind of behavior would be called "waffling" and the President would be belittled for such behavior. Obviously, a different time.

President Jesus, Part 1

I am really trying to laugh. I was in such a bad mood yesterday that I almost punched someone, and I am pretty sure she could have beaten the hell out of me. :) I still think you Republicans are being fooled by someone who I don't think shares your values. But when I point out things like, oh, lies, or Bush's unbelievably racist tactics in South Carolina in 2000, all I hear back is "that is politics. Everyone does that." Evidently, even someone who says Jesus is his favorite philosopher. Hard to imagine Jesus doing that, but who knows?

So, here is President Jesus (as Bush seems to see him). Warning: Sacrilegious essay follows.

Scene 1. (President Jesus scans the Washington Times in the Oval Office) "I am sure glad I don't read the paper that often," President Jesus says to himself, "this thing is huge. Oh, look, nuclear plants are not as protected as I said they are. Hmmm. Is it nukular or nuclear? (Shoulders shake with laughter) I can never get that right! Oh, that is funny."
(Secretary calls from outer office) Disciple Rice is here to see you, Mr. President Jesus.
(President Jesus) Smiles and thinks how good it is to have a woman disciple. Disciple Cheney and Mom are right, I am truly the best president ever. "Send her in."
(Disciple Rice) "Mr. President, what are we going to do about Palestine and Israel?"
(President Jesus) "Well, of course, Israel is my people, and I don't like that Yasser Arafat. Man is he ugly. Let's just let Ariel take em out."
(Rice) "Just wondering. You were quoted as saying something about loving your enemy or turning the other cheek."
(President Jesus) "Darn media. Can't ever get anything right. Just like that time they quoted me as saying "blessed are the poor." Never said it. You won't find it anywhere. I did say things about how rich people are better and should be helped out since they are so deserving. What I said was bomb your enemies into submission. Let my Dad sort it out. If you aren't with us, you are against us. "
(Rice) "Ok. Thank you Mr. President. (Leaves)

(Door opens again, this time with Disciple Ashcroft) "Mr. President. You know that thing the Romans did to you? With the cross and everything? Well, we want to do more of that here at home. Not with a cross--takes too long and is messy. But we can zap 'em or kill em with drugs pretty quickly."
(President Jesus) "Sure. Let's do more of that. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have shot that 7-11 clerk or been mentally ill. 'Please don't kill me,' (makes mocking face). Give me a break. Just do it. Oh, and cut any of those programs aimed at prevention. If they can't learn morality in Sunday School, then they had better watch for the needle! "

(Secretary walks into office with a message pad) "Mr. President, Former Disciple O'Neill called and wondered why your tax cuts were primarily for the rich."
(President Jesus) "Disciple Ashcroft, you thinking of him with this program? No? Oh, that's right. We use the needle mostly on the poor and minority. Anyway. I told the Former Disciple when he was a Disciple that we are giving more money to the rich because they are already rich. If you are rich, it is a sign that my Dad really likes you a lot. So, we will reward those that Dad likes. Not GHWB, you know, but the Big Guy."
(Secretary nods, leaves room quickly.)

(Ashcroft leaves the office and the President Jesus retires to the nearby residence to watch television. A John Wayne movie is on. The President watches with interest as on the screen John Wayne walks across the room to talk to Jimmy Stewart. The President gets up and practices that same walk. "Duke, you were the greatest," he says to the television.
(Staffer comes in) "Mr. President Jesus, it is time for your press conference."
(President Jesus groans) "Not again. Ok."
(The President Jesus walks to the Press briefing room, using the walk he has just been working on. Listens outside as his Press Secretary introduces him, then swaggers in.) "I will now take your questions"
(Fox News reporter) "Mr. President Jesus, how much do you love God?"
(President Jesus with feeling and emphasis) "Mucho. Good question."
(Actual reporter) "Mr. President Jesus, what will your administration do to address the concerns of global warming?"
(President Jesus with smirk) "That is bad science. (Turns laughing to rest of room) Poindexter here probably doubts that we can shoot down missiles from space or turn the moon into a Hooters. Man, just wait until we have armed satellites in space! Then we will show the evil ones! And even if global warming were true, I am going to end the world soon anyway, so don't sweat it! No pun intended" (Misses warning looks from Disciple Judas Rove who is making the cut signs from the side) "Make no mistake about it, this world is for you to make money. I should know, I created it! Wasn't that hard, either. So you just have fun cutting trees and digging up stuff. And driving. Don't forget driving. The next limo for me is a Hummer!"
(Disciple Judas Rove called Disciple Cheney who makes a call to his friends in the Energy business. The power is cut to the press room. End of press conference.)

Feeling less need to rant. Maybe the rage is subsiding a bit. So, in the spirit of "desert island lists" here is my top ten things I would do as ruler of the Universe. That may sound arrogant, but I think some of them would be outside the reach of a mere king or president. Unless I just said they all had wmd.......

As Ruler of the Universe, I would.....

10. Band the DH and Astroturf. Astroturf for all sports and the DH, well, only for Baseball. Depending on my mood, baseball may be banned just for starting to be annoying. Tennis, Bowling, Olympics and the NBA are all gone. NBA can come back if they start enforcing traveling. Tennis and the Olympics are just gone. Football season will now be 3 months longer.

9. Ban George Steinbrenner from owning anything larger than a hot-dog stand. Same goes for any sports owner who likes wearing fur, or goes on freakish diets, or lives in Arizona.

8. Eliminate the death penalty except for a very small select number of crimes. Those are a) moving a team or threatening to move a team to get a bigger stadium, b) being named Pat Robertson, c) fake apologizing for flashing your breast or the breast of your dance partner at a SB half-time show, or d) speaking nostalgically for the old Confederacy. As RotU, I maintain the option for revising this small list--mostly to add offenders. Can't see any reason to remove any yet.

7. Establish sport salaries that are well above the average, but then are tied to performance. You win games as QB, you get more money. You lose games, or hit .210, you have to pay a public school salary. You win games and hit .325, you have to pay 3 public school salaries. While I am at it, comparing a NFL player's life to slavery puts that person in the list for Rule 8.

6. Every televangelist or annoying preacher type will have to serve as male prostitutes in Haiti. The women will just be moved to Washington as interns. Or should I switch those? Pat Robertson may be glad he falls under Rule 8.

5. Depending on my mood (RotU are notoriously capricious) the American South may or may not be allowed to remain in the Union. And by "remain in the Union," I mean remain attached to North America and above water.

4. All reality shows will be canceled immediately (unless they can be used to torture those from #6) and replaced with The Simpsons, King of the Hill and Seinfeld.

3. Speaking of Television, 24 hour news shows would only be allowed to broadcast news. That means something has to change, not just rehash the same, oh, say, Michael Jackson news while ignoring the substantive concerns of, oh, say, why our intelligence was hijacked by rogue neo-cons! Oh, and Fox News is now a toxic waste dump. And they have to stop broadcasting.

2. The State of Texas will be banned from sending anyone to the White House for the next 100 years.

1. Dick Cheney will be forced to marry Antonin Scalia in a public ceremony. Unless being married to Lynn Cheney isn't enough of a punishment.

sunspot.net - maryland news: "One thing was clear: There are many ways to fool with Diebold's machines, some of which could lead to an Election Day disaster. At the same time, some scenarios were far-fetched and too difficult to pull off undetected, team members acknowledged."

This is scary. I have been rather stunned that the Republicans don't seem to mind about potential problems with voting machines. Why not? I am not being conspiratorial here, just curious. If the machines can be hacked, that threatens their candidates as well.

President Bush Speaks with Nation's Mayors at Winter Meeting: "I said in the speech the other night that two-thirds of known leaders have been captured or killed. That's a significant number when you think about where we were prior to September the 11th. We're, slowly but surely, demolishing them. If you -- if al Qaeda was a corporation in America, you'd have the board of directors somewhat intact, but the operators, the middle management, retired, no longer useful, no longer a part of the problem."

Interesting analogy. If al Qaeda was a corporation, President Bush would be watering down laws that hurt his rich friends. President Bush would talk tough and look the other way while his administration did nothing.

Yahoo! News - CBO Says '04 Deficit Will Rise to $477 Billion: "The federal deficit will reach $477 billion this year, up sharply from last year's $375 billion level, and the government is on track to accumulate nearly $2.4 trillion in additional debt over the next decade, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) said yesterday."

According to Paul O'Neill, Dick Cheney says that deficits don't matter. Lovely.

STAR-TELEGRAM.COM - Opponents ready to rally if liquor petition succeeds: "'This city has 15,000 people, and we don't have one grocery store because they can't sell beer or wine,' said Ron White, a member of the Citizens for Progress committee that is running a petition campaign. 'We're shooting for the May 15 election. We've got 800 signatures, and we need 880.'


Down the road in this mostly working-class town, Faith Baptist Fellowship pastor David Dye said, 'You can find 800 drunks anywhere. I'm not saying everyone who signed the petition is a drunk. I'm sure some of them think they're doing good for the city.'


And if the petition drive succeeds? 'We'll get an ongoing opposition,' Dye said. 'We'll do ads and fliers. We'll not just use the Bible; we'll attack economically, logically. [The committee] wants to profit off people's bad habits.'"

Love this kind of theology. Not just use the Bible, but attack them logically. Wonderful. How about Proverbs 31:6? Jesus better not turn water into wine in this town.

Ten Commandments monument installed at City Hall: "Winston-Salem, North Carolina-AP -- A North Carolina politician who said he was inspired by Roy Moore has followed the ousted Alabama chief justice's example.
City Councilman Vernon Robinson -- a Republican candidate for Congress -- has placed a one-ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments in front of Winston-Salem's City Hall"

Ok. Hope it solves all our problems.

Salon.com Technology | Environmentalists condemn disposable DVDs: "Jan. 20, 2004  |  AUSTIN (AP) -- Promoters of a new disposable-DVD technology tout the product's convenience, but environmentalists condemn the self-destructing movie disks as a step backward in developing reusable products.


Buena Vista Home Entertainment, a branch of The Walt Disney Co., introduced the 'EZ-D' in September and now offers 35 movies in the format.


Consumers have 48 hours after opening the box to watch movies on the $7 disks before an oxidation process changes their color, rendering them unusable.


The disks were tested in four markets around the country, including Austin, where they are available at stores such as 7-Eleven, Walgreens and HEB supermarkets."

No wonder that I hate Disney. This is a recipe for disaster. Why have we just forgotten any attempts at recycling or environmental concern? Drive SUV's regardless of pollution, or fuel usage. Now, just watch and dispose. Landfills? Who cares.

Yahoo! News - President Polishes State of Union Speech


Perhaps the scariest words known to mankind. Do you think he actually polishes? In the photo, he shows glasses and looks like an intellecutal. What does he need the glasses for? He doesn't drive anymore. He told us he didn't read the papers. You telling me he reads the classics?

As for the speech, we might hear about "spacial entrepreneurs" (NASA people), or such quotes as these: (all from slate.com)

"So thank you for reminding me about the importance of being a good mom and a great volunteer as well."—St. Louis, Jan. 5, 2004

"I want to remind you all that in order to fight and win the war, it requires an expenditure of money that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped."

"See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but there wouldn't have been the commiserate—not 'commiserate'—the kick to our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief."

"[T]he best way to find these terrorists who hide in holes is to get people coming forth to describe the location of the hole, is to give clues and data."

"Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say."—Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003

And, perhaps, the best argument for reading, watching cable, knitting, brewing beer, recaulking windows, resodding lawns, painting the house, going to the dentist, regrouting the tub.....

Boston.com / News / Nation / Backing Limbaugh, ACLU goes to court: "WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties Union do not agree about much, but they are in accord that the conservative radio commentator's medical records should be off-limits to prosecutors."

As Fark said, ironic doesn't even come close to describing this. Wonder if blubbo will now stop denigrating the ACLU? Any bets?

Yahoo! News - Iowa Voter Blasts Dean for Knocking Bush


More Republican crap that dissent is unamerican. Why aren't republicans pointing to every dissentor as proof of our cultural superiority? They seem to find that on every corner, but it is our ability to dissent that truly separates us from bad regimes around the world.

ABCNEWS.com: "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry criticized the Labor Department on Tuesday for publishing tips for businesses to avoid paying overtime. Kerry said the tips characterize the Bush administration's attitude toward workers.'We don't have a broken budget in the United States of America,' the Massachusetts senator said. 'We've got a broken set of values at the head of our government, and we need to stand up and undo it.'"

Why aren't more people talking about this? How does the Bush admin continue to have this facade of moral superiority, and continue to fool people who should know better?

Dodge Commercial

As if my anger wasn't riled enough at a Bush administration that seems intent on spending our government into bankruptcy while enriching their friends, I have become almost apoplectic about the new Dodge Durango advertisement. Have you seen it? There are two, with this moronic husband, nice looking wife and toddler boy. In one, the wife is chastized for pointing out that the suv has a comfortable ride, while the moronic husband likes to tell his poor kid, "you only need to know one thing. Hemi. Can you say Hemi?"

Little poor kid destined to bad relationships with women: "Hemi."

Moronic male with hands dangling very close to ankles: "That's my boy!"

Puhleeze!

CNN.com - Cabinet members defend Bush from O'Neill - Jan. 11, 2004

I watched part of the interview, btw, and found the content to be consistent with what we have heard elsewhere. The new thing? Bush actually questioning the legitimacy of increasing tax cuts that benefit the rich. Wow, that is big. The bad guys in the white house? Continue to be Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Cheney continues to be the right wing Darth Vader, and little of what I see dissuades me from this.

BBC NEWS | UK | Lust declared virtue, not vice

Here is the deal; I agree with this. I think that lust has been unfairly demonized. I certainly understand that there have been negative aspects to it--teenage pregnancy, stds, suvs, etc.--but lust is not inherently negative.

Why is Greed still even listed? Greed has been so eliminated from the modern consciousness that only the late Howard Hughes qualifes.

Yahoo! News - Report: Bush Planned Iraqi Invasion Pre-Sept. 11: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President Bush (news - web sites) entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq (news - web sites) and was in search of a way to go about it.

O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president.

He likened Bush at Cabinet meetings to 'a blind man in a room full of deaf people,' according to excerpts from a CBS interview to promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, 'The Price of Loyalty.'"

Interesting. The director of the faith based initiative (Dilulio) also made some harsh claims about how the Bush administration made decisions. Dilulio immediately retracted his comments (though not convincingly), but now we see similar remarks from the former Treasury Sec. To get this from a former cabinet official is significant, albeit from a disgruntled former employee. The main point, however, is that it confirms other information--that Bush had decided long before the Iraq war to attack Iraq and was looking for a reason. That strikes me as a terrible precedent, and will ultimately undermine American foreign policy in the future.

Beliefs cont.

Beliefs cont.


Thinking more about why I left the church. My wife read a book by Richard Foster on the various traditions in Christianity--one of which is social justice. That tradition resonated pretty strongly with me, and I found it clear that my Baptist church had not been as connected to that tradition as I thought they should. My experience was with a church that saw proselytizing as their equivalent of making people's lives better. I was around churches that would feed the poor, but only after making them listen to a sermon or something. I personally found that questionable, to say the least.

I have some reservations about converting people's souls, but I am more concerned about a religious faith that seems disconnected from the very essence of human experience. I mean, here on earth. If you send missionaries, but don't attempt to change the way these people eat, what have you done? Someone said something about feeding the poor, the widows and orphans, that how we treated them was how we treated God. That seems pretty clear to me. So, on that note, I can remember my churches mentioning poverty, and some did better than that, but can never remember a Baptist church getting angry, or activated, or animated over poverty. Nudity on television, or perhaps the Last Temptation of Christ film, and most recently Judge Roy Moore's idol of stone, but not poverty. I have heard James Dobson rally the troops over gay marriage, but never over the plight of the poor.

I think it is the perspective that bothers me the most. It is as if Disney's policy toward same-sex partners is more important than the poverty that tears families apart across the country. It was the same lack of perspective that somehow equates Clinton's dalliance with Monica with Reagan's Iran Contra or Dubya's monumental lies to get us into war. I expect the church to be more aware than the rabble who truly think that Michael Jackson's case is a nationally important one. I expect some discernment. And humility. But more on that later.

USATODAY.com - Robertson: God says it's Bush in a 'blowout' in November: "NORFOLK, Va. (AP) Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Friday he believes God has told him President Bush will be re-elected in a 'blowout' in November.

'I think George Bush is going to win in a walk,' Robertson said on his 700 Club program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. 'I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way.'

Robertson told viewers he spent several days in prayer at the end of 2003.

'The Lord has just blessed him,' Robertson said of Bush. 'I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him.' "

wow, what cool theology. You can be a total screwup and actually do bad things, but if you are "a man of prayer" God will pick you up and make you more successful than the people doing good things. I have said this before, but Pat Robertson is more than a loon (or a goober as one of my friends says). He is a dangerous man who has millions of morons watching him for guidance on everthing from diet to stock tips.

AP Kills Limbaugh Painkillers Story (washingtonpost.com)

WTF?

Herald.com - Your Miami Everything Guide: "WASHINGTON - The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year.

The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms.

Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible.

The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law.

''We're not saying anybody should do any of this,'' said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank."

This is unbelievable. Maybe this is how Bush told his daughters about drinking. "Don't do it, but here are some ways to drink and not get caught."

No, that analogy sucks. Here is a closer one. "Racism is wrong, and redlining is wrong, but here are some ways to exclude blacks from your subdivision and keep them out of your work place. We aren't telling you to do this, mind you, but here it is." Or, "we sure value the environment, but here are some ways to dump waste and not get fined." One way? Elect Bush.

Yahoo! News - Exiled Star Rose Admits Gambling on Baseball Games: "In his upcoming autobiography, 'My Prison without Bars,' which will also hit book stores on Thursday, Rose admitted his love of gambling got out of hand but showed little remorse.

'I'm sure that I'm supposed to act all sorry or sad or guilty now that I've accepted that I've done something wrong,' wrote Rose in a book excerpt to appear in Sports Illustrated on Wednesday. 'But you see, I'm just not built that way.

'So let's leave it like this: I'm sorry it happened, and I'm sorry for all the people, fans and family that it hurt. Let's move one.' "

I assume he actually said, "move on" but this exemplifies Rose and why I think he should never be let back into baseball. The man has no soul and never did. His lack of self-reflection reminds me a great deal of Bobby Knight. Both are creeps.

Why, cont.

So, how did my religious beliefs morph?

I began to question the basic assumptions of how the underdog--the powerless accessed the system. Along this road I pursued a few degrees in American history and many of the cultural myths of upward mobility and equal playing field disappeared. How had America addressed issues of race, environment, class and gender? Not well. Not well, indeed.

Those questions became the impetus to leave the Baptist church. For like conservative America, the Baptist church, in my estimation, had been dead wrong on the central issues of class (including poverty and labor), race, gender and the environment.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't that the left has been dead right on these issues, but they haven't dismissed them as unimportant. That is something.

So, why am I not a conservative?

Alternative title: Why I am a Liberal.

I assume that not everyone reading this knows that I was raised a Southern Baptist Republican in a family that preferred Reagan to Roosevelt. So, what happened to me? Here is the short version:

I am a short male, but I bought into the male superiority. As I matured, I realized my limitations in that paradigm. Some of the women I admired could out-do me physically (though not many) and all of them were easily my mental and intellectual equal if not superior. As that contradiction became clear to me, I began to question those assumptions that would prefer a male over a female.

In the church, that sexism was reflected in male superiority, especially in the Baptist church. Women were not to be ministers, deacons, or even to lead men in Sunday School classes. What a crock. I remember asking someone I respected why women were unfit for ministry, and he responded with a shrug. He didn't know either. The slippery slope was engaged. I was not questioning the assumptions I had been raised with.

Once that sexism was rejected, much of the rest of the assumptions I had been raised with were open to question. Literal Bible. Equal playing field for all. The superiority of certain Christian beliefs.

This does relate to politics, just bear with me. As I began to question those religious assumptions, the political ones followed.

Flummery: "Sean Hannity Replaced by Tape Saying 'Liberals Suck' Over and Over, No One Notices"

New satire blog. Thought this was funny.

Religion Journal: Helping Farmers, a Cup of Coffee at a Time: "CANTON, Mass. A poster on a wall at Equal Exchange, a food cooperative here, asks a question that literally hangs over the heads of its employees: What would Jesus drink?"

Discussing a growing movement to encourage Christians to be concerned about coffee labor. What a concept! Encourage Christians to think beyond our shores.

Oklahoma | The Bush Tax

Interesting. I have been arguing for sometime that cutting federal taxes has unintended consequences such that many in the working class and middle class actually lose ground even if they got the tax cut check in the mail. Property taxes go up, tuition rises, fees go up--most of those regressive in nature.

I keep wondering if many Repubs will discover that this president doesn't share their values. If you are a fiscal conservative, this isn't your president. If you think that morality is more than just quoting scripture, this isn't your president. If you think that protecting life includes children overseas and those in poverty here at home, this isn't your president. Certainly if you think that government, while limited, can be used to better people's lives, this isn't your president.

Salon.com News | God is not a right-wing zealot: "The media finds itself attracted to two things, controversy and brief, neat answers. I recall speaking at a meeting several years ago in Seattle about the political influence of the religious right. Six hundred people were inside and three people (from the religious right) were outside, and the media, in this instance television, gave equal time to both sides. "

This is an interesting interview with one of the leaders from the Clergy Leadership Network, and I really liked this example about the media. I think it describes our media situation pretty well without deciding an ideological bias.

I also like how he describes his beliefs. They are closer to my own.

"I'm not part of the evangelical right. I believe that God's spirit is inclusive, not exclusive. I believe that the public marketplace -- the place where ideas are exchanged and decisions are made -- is not to be monopolized by one religious point of view.

I believe that we are an open country with religious and even non-religious diversity, and that's a good thing, a democratic thing and very American.

And then I believe part of the appeal of the evangelical religion is for offering certainty, not faith. Certainty about what's doctrinally correct. I think one of the dangers of religion is to believe we've got God all buttoned down. And I believe just the opposite. I believe in the freedom and mystery of God that doesn't allow us to be certain but allows us to be loving."

I would add that I believe that Jesus is not a capitalist, and that Christianity is not synonymous with either market capitalism (in fact contradictory at points) or American patriotism.

Happy New Year

So, here we are in 2004. New Years always depress the hell out of me and this one has been no different. Went to a great party the night before and had fun talking to interesting people. But now the celebrations are behind us (especially for a former Baptist.) and the new year stretches ahead. Scarily so, in fact. With Orange warnings and cryptic statements about terrorism. Oh well.

I think I am particularly sensitive to apocalyptic events and statements. Not sure why. I know that belief in the end of the world gives some people comfort to know that God is in control. For me, it does the opposite. I don't believe he is in control, and I suspect that people who do believe that way are too quick to turn their futures (and mine) over to people like GWB in some misguided belief that he is a Godly man who is following the will of God. Perhaps some of those can tell me what GWB has done that reminds them of his favorite philosopher.

Anyway. I will be in a better mood later, I hope. After all, it isn't my first New Year, nor my first one that was scary. I hope you are all well.

back

Back and glad to be back. Hope everyone had a great holiday time.

Christmas post

We are in Colorado at an undisclosed location. :) The mountains are beautiful and we actually skied in a different undisclosed location. I personally beat Cold in Laramie 2 out of 3 games with his PS2, much to his chagrin.

May post more later as time permits. Hope all of you are having a great Christmas!

More Daily Show

This is actually from the other night as well, but Jon Stewart had a great line about Saddam's look after 9 months. "After 9 months, the best you could come up with to elude capture was: beard? That's right. Beard."

Well, I thought it was funny. Last night he made fun of how the 24 hour news channels dealt with the story. After it was done, how do you continue to stretch out the news cycle. On MSNBC, they had a mockup of the "hole" and the cute anchor demonstrated by climbing in and laying down in the bottom. It was surreal.

Yahoo! News - Bush: Saddam Deserves 'Ultimate Penalty'
: "'Let's just see what penalty he gets, but I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people,' Bush said. 'I mean, he is a torturer, a murderer, they had rape rooms. This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice.' "

Ah, the death penalty again. If anyone deserves it, he does. but what will it gain us? What will it prove? That we can do what he did--kill people?

Why is it that the rest of the industrialized world rejects the death penalty, while we join the despots and tyrants of the world in supporting it?

Toby Keith on America

I have tried to find the transcript on the Dan Rather interview, but the only partials I find focus on Toby's dislike of Peter Jennings. I saw part where Toby talked about his faith and how he was a Christian in a world where Jesus was becoming "tragically unhip."

I won't speak to Keith's faith. Who knows what people actually believe. But his songs and actions do not speak to a Christianity founded in anything close to Christian compassion. Sticking "a boot up your ass" isn't in the Bible (unless it is somewhere toward the back), nor is comparing people to a viscious dictator just because they disagree with you. Hell, his breakout song "How do you like me now" is an in your face song that embraces pride and, what can be called, the opposite of turn the other cheek. How does he exemplify Christianity?

Then again, how does Bush?

Daily Show on Saddam's Capture

Best line. "After months and months of searching, we have finally captured the guy who had nothing to do with 9-11."

I love the fact that the Republicans are gloating about this as if this finally is proof of the war's rightness. No one ever doubted the existence of Saddam! His capture (or death) was assumed at the beginning of this war, remember?

All this means is that it took the hard working troops longer than expected. Nothing changes. Even finding WMDs would not change the facts of the war: Bush lied to us to get us into the war. Saddam was a dangerous regional tyrant. Osama is a dangerous worldwide terrorist. Who did we focus on? Right after Sept. 11, that is (remember the great Bush quote? Something like "Fuck Saddam. We are taking him out.") Nothing has changed.

CNN.com - Bush: 'Good riddance' to Saddam - Dec. 15, 2003: "Bush responded: 'Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein.

'I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole, and you crawled in it,' the president said. 'And our brave troops, combined with good intelligence, found you, and you'll be brought to justice, something you did not afford the people you brutalized in your own country.' "

I have two thoughts on this. My first instinct was to cringe at the John Wayne speak, but then I decided to give Bush a possible benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he and his friends just want to underscore Saddam's cowardice and dishonorable capture.

On the other hand, it sounds as if the President would really have admired Hussein if he had died fighting and possibly hurt some of our troops. I, for one, am glad that no more people died to catch this person.

Like I said, it may be perfectly explainable. But this president's third-grade morality and John Wayne view of the world seems to dominate his talk. "Bring it on." This is not a movie. This is real life where people actually die.

Opinions You Should Have - December 2003 Archives: "Model For Toppled Statue Found

Found While Posing For Sculpture Of Man In Deep Hole

The model who was the basis for the famous Baghdad 'Toppled Statue' was located today in what authorities call a 'hole.'

'It's really great,' said Paul Bremer. 'I'm pretty sure we'll have democracy inside of a week now.'"

MSNBC - U.S. forces capture Saddam near hometown

Undoubtedly a good thing. Unfortunately, will be used to justify war in Iraq, while legitimate questions still remain about the justification for this war.

SelectSmart.com Selectors: "

Your results:

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate.   (100%)  

2. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat   (85%)  Click here for info

3. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat   (79%)  Click here for info

4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat   (77%)  Click here for info

5. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat   (73%)  Click here for info

6. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat   (72%)  Click here for info

7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat   (72%)  Click here for info

8. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat   (55%)  Click here for info

9. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat   (53%)  Click here for info

10. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat   (38%)  Click here for info

11. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat   (33%)  Click here for info

12. Bush, President George W. - Republican   (21%)  Click here for info

13. Libertarian Candidate   (19%)  Click here for info

14. Phillips, Howard - Constitution   (2%)  Click here for info"

interesting online form to see how your stances on issues compares with presidential candidates. Mine is close to what I figured, though I was actually surprised to see Edwards above Dean, but then again, Dean is more pro NRA than I am.

Not that this is an issue, but let me clarify my opinon on the NRA. I think that their gun education and hunter safety programs are great. I also am not sure that removing guns from society is either beneficial or possible. In other words, I don't completely reject the NRA, but do find their political stance extreme and often untenable.

Salon.com News | U.N. may have to abandon Afghan effort: "Dec. 12, 2003  |  KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The United Nations _ already forced out of Iraq by suicide bombers _ may have to abandon its two-year effort to stabilize Afghanistan because of rising violence blamed on the Taliban, its top official here warned Friday in an interview with The Associated Press. "

does this mean we won?

Thanks to J for this.
washingtonpost.com: A Baghdad Thanksgiving's Lingering Aftertaste: "When last we checked in on Stripes, it was reporting on a survey it did of troops in Iraq, finding that half of those questioned described their units' moral as low and their training as insufficient and said they did not plan to reenlist.
With the Pentagon just recovering from that, Stars and Stripes is blowing the whistle on President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, saying the cheering soldiers who met him were pre-screened and others showing up for a turkey dinner were turned away. "

I can hear the Bushies screaming about this now--who cares, this doesn't mean anything, blah, blah, blah. But these are the same people who denigrated (often rightly) the Clintons for their lapses in integrity, often citing the entire administration. But under Bush, evidently, because he speaks "Christianese" he gets a pass.

I won't ever accept the moral self-righteousness of many Repubs. I won't say that dems are more moral, that would be just as stupid, but I will not tolerate GOPites tsking as they talk about "morals, and family values," and shit like that. All of my leftist friends have exhibited far more integrity, moral fortitude, compassion, and heart than this administration has on its best day. That should not be read as an indictment of Republicans. I know many, and know them to be very moral and thoughtful people. But this administration does not share their values. They just talk the talk. The walk is only for their energy corporate friends.

Streak's Take on Capital Punishment--Continued

Streak earlier argued that CP's justfication from the Bible is weak and that the race and class biases make it untenable.

But those aside (and I say that just to continue the conversation--the race and class bias are huge[the death penalty is huge in states that used to allow and encourage lynching], huge problems and I don't understand how moral people acknowledge that and continue to support CP) let's address the issue of effectiveness.

Most supporters say that Capital Punishment reduces crime (as one blogger said about the John Muhammad sentence--it will stop him from repeating this crime), yet there is no evidence to support that. Obviously, killing a killer will stop him from killing again, but there is no evidence that it stops people from committing murder. Part of the problem is that many of the people who kill already don't really care about their life and would have done it regardless of the possible penalty. The others who act out of some insanity or emotional rage are also highly unlikely to stop and think of their date with the needle if they kill someone. Not only that, but the states who have the death penalty often have higher crime rates than those without. We know how to reduce crime (not eliminate). Reduce poverty, increase education, put more cops on the streets and work to stop young offenders from future offenses. Executing people doesn't get it done.

I think people support the death penalty because it makes them feel safer regardless of if it does. While I understand that irrationality, it makes for bad public policy. People have a right to their fears, but if that leads them to support a biased and flawed system that takes people's lives, that is wrong.

Halliburton? That's unpossible! Update

I was thinking about this issue this morning. One of the admin's defenders once defended the issue of giving bids to friends. why not, he said? Who are you going to do business with? Your friends, or the people you don't trust?

As Halliburton is showing us, that is pure crap. If you are in politics to enrich your friends, you are in for the wrong reason. And, if you work for the Bible Thumping President, shouldn't you ask where he gets this out of the bible? It might be near the back. Perhaps a scripture on screwing your enemies? Or only helping your friends?

And how does this work as a small government conservative (you know who you are)? Isn't this one of the reasons you distrust government? During the Clinton administration, didn't you resent the FOB's who got special access? Isn't this administration twice as bad?

NathanNewman.org - News and Views: "Bush Attacks States Rights, Again

NY's Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is fighting another Bush assault on state powers to regulate corporations:

The Comptroller of the Currency ruled in August in an individual case that national banks did not have to comply with state predatory lending laws. It then proposed to make formal its decision to grant all national banks exemptions from state lending laws.

State officials and consumer groups have opposed the move to override state laws aimed at protecting consumers, including those to curb 'predatory' lending practices.

These lending abuses include exorbitant fees and interest rates and payments for undisclosed insurance products.

But the comptroller has the power to override state banking laws. 'Federal pre-emption is not unprecedented,' a spokesman, Bob Garsson, said.
Yes, and Bush would like nothing more than to preempt most state regulation of abusive corporate practices.

Please, can we just bury any rhetoric now that the GOP believes in respecting state sovereignty."

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: "Out-going Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien told a press conference today that in a private phone call President Bush told him not to believe reports that Canada would be cut out of the contract bids.

'He was telling me basically not to worry,' said Chretien, 'so I said 'thank you.''

LATE UPDATE: And there's more ... Responding to Chretien's comments this afternoon, President Bush explained that he was only referring to the subcontracts -- i.e., the ones for which eligibility is open even to the rankest of appeasers!"

If this happened 5 years ago, it would be called waffling.

Yahoo! News - Halliburton May Have Overcharged Millions
: "WASHINGTON - Pentagon (news - web sites) auditors found that Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s former company may have overcharged the Army by as much as $61 million for gasoline in Iraq (news - web sites), senior defense officials said Thursday."

Halliburton? That's unpossible!

Yahoo! News - Federal Warning On Tuna Planned: "The federal government plans to warn pregnant women, nursing mothers and even those thinking of getting pregnant to limit their consumption of tuna as part of a broad advisory concerning the dangers of eating fish and shellfish with elevated levels of harmful mercury. "

Lovely. I have also heard that many fish are showing elevated signs of some of our anti-depressants in their systems. Yet, Republicans continue to tell me that the environment is just fine and enviros are just nuts. Are we just messing in our own nest? Global warming, mercury in tuna, pesticides killing off zones in the Gulf. I am reminded of Steve Earle's song Conspiracy Theory where he has a soft voice representing the media and conservatives on stuff like this:

Hush, now don't you believe it
Cover your head and close your eyes
Now, take it or leave it
Go back to bed
Now don't you cry

the Right Christians: "The fact that water can be made to run uphill through an investment in infrastructure, i.e. the use of pipes and pumps, makes indoor plumbing possible. It was probably the progressives of a hundred years ago who made this available to us today.

Posted by: Tom Ward at December 11, 2003 10:53 AM "

This comment on Mohler's diatribe is just dead on.

Crosswalk.com - weblogs: "Several figures once identified with the Southern Baptist Convention also appear on the list. James M. Dunn, former executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee of Public Affairs is joined by Robert L. Maddux, a former Carter administration official who currently serves with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention. Also listed as a member of the national committee is Jimmy R. Allen, former pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Antonio, Texas and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Allen was the last SBC president elected before the 'conservative resurgence' of the last twenty-five years changed the shape of the Southern Baptist Convention. The fact that these men would rather stand with William Sloan Coffin than the current SBC leadership says a great deal about why the conservative redirection of the denomination was so urgently needed.

The Clergy Leadership Network is not limited to Christian clergy. The group hopes to recruit pastors, rabbis, and imams, as well as others committed to these liberal causes. 'We invite clergy from throughout the country to join us. We offer an avenue of action focused on the 2004 elections that can impact positively the direction of the nation and the leadership we choose.' Given legal restrictions, the group will not formally endorse candidates, but you can bet your draft card that 'the leadership we choose' will not be the Bush-Cheney ticket.

Journalist-historian Theodore H. White once described a liberal as 'a person who believes that water can be made to run uphill.' That describes this new group perfectly. Their goal of resurrecting and reinvigorating liberal Protestantism and an ecumenical phalanx of religious progressives will be an uphill battle all the way. They are still living in the sixties, looking for the next sit-in and reciting the old liberal creeds. The Clergy Leadership Network will be interesting to watch--but nothing to fear."

I know James Dunn and he is a quality individual. The fact that Mohler denigrates people like him shows how little humility or Christian charity he posesses. I am also struck by how he hates that this group is overtly political, but has said nothing about conservative groups that are overtly political. Can it be that these loud claimants of morality and Biblical authority are actually moral relativists who believe that the end justifies the means?

I am glad I am no longer affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Would rather be an Oakland Raider fan.

Yahoo! News - McCain-Feingold Ruling Angers Activists on Both Left and Right: "It's not every day the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) are outraged by the same Supreme Court decision."

Thoughts on this?

Salon.com News | Tapes: Nixon called Reagan 'strange': "'On a personal basis, Rockefeller is a pretty nice guy,' Nixon said. 'Reagan on a personal basis, is terrible. He just isn't pleasant to be around.'

'No, he isn't,' Haldeman said.

'Maybe he's different with others,' Nixon said.

'No,' Haldeman said.

'No, he's just an uncomfortable man to be around,' Nixon said, 'strange.' "

Daily Show and Zell Miller

I watched Zell Miller push his book in his interview with Jon Stewart. What a maroon. Sorry. I am sure he has made sense in the past, but tonight, he proves he has lost his mind. According to Miller, Democrats are completely run by special interests. Possibly. Jon asked about the Republicans. Miller said, sure there are interests in the Republican party, but they don't hold much power. Excuse me? Does the name Haliburton mean anything to him? Miller went on to say that in the past and maybe in the future, special interests held more sway in the Republican party, but not now. My wife noted that this seemed curious. Those special interests, she said, must not know there is an election next year. They only participate in the Republican party during the off years. Yeah, right!

And the straw that broke the camels back for our principled Southerner? Why the Homeland Security vote, where unions held up the vote on our national security to get things their way. Not just to get some union benefits or some protection, but to get whatever they wanted at the expense of our national security. Not one word from Sen. Miller about how Bush (whom he endorsed already for 2004) delayed the HS vote because he didn't want a new department. Delayed it, of course, until he saw that he could use it against the Democrats who wanted it soon after 9-11. And then, also absent from the good Senator's diatribe, was anything about how Republicans questioned the patriotism of any Democrat who objected. Or compared Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein. Give me a break!

Salon.com Arts & Entertainment | Diane Sawyer to interview Bush

This won't be substantive. I have no faith that Sawyer will actually ask good or probing questions. Wouldn't you like to see this president asked about his black/white view of the world? His "calling" to be president? His administration lying about wmds? His admin's continual undermining of our military?

Won't happen with Diane. She is only a minor improvement over Connie.

Daily Kos || Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: "Some current EPA enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation from their bosses, say they're getting the signal to slow down enforcement cases.

'It's very discouraging,' said one official. 'We're concerned about people's health. We have a job that we're supposed to be doing and we're not doing it. And we should be.'

'It's a sign that this administration is flat-out falling down on the job,' said Dan Esty, a deputy assistant EPA administrator during the first Bush administration and now director of the Yale University Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

The statistics - examined by Lowrance and other former top EPA officials in both Republican and Democratic administrations - are the standard way the EPA measured enforcement progress.

'They measure presence. They measure whether the enforcement cop is on the beat,' Lowrance said, adding: 'And increasingly the cop is absent.'
Are we surprised? Hardly. The Bush Administration is to the environment what the Texas fire ant is to school playgrounds."

From DailyKos.

Salon.com News | Now playing in 2,600 home theaters: Bush's lies about Iraq

I haven't seen this, but am very interested in the attention it is getting. Regardless of political background, more and more people are angry about the way the administration got us into this war. That, in my opinion, is the most important part. Iraq may be better off without Saddam in power, and those Iraqi people may eventually enjoy more freedome than they ever would have under the former dictator, but the process followed by Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush ultimately undermines every future American effort. How will we justify our next war? Will the international community ever trust us when we say we need to do something?

2cents - Q & A with Al Franken

Al is a funny guy. Say what you will about him, but he does have a sense of humor about himself, which is far more than I can say for Hannity, O'Reilly, or Coulter.

Nancy Reagan against dime plan: "'When our country chooses to honor a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another,'' she said. ''It is my hope that the proposed legislation will be withdrawn.''"

Will anyone listen? Or is the former president just another person to use for the GOP? Or let me be specific, the cynical, right-wing amoral wing of the GOP. You know, the Cheney wing.

Yahoo! News - Conservatives Want Reagan on Dimes
: "WASHINGTON - Conservative Republicans angry over an unflattering television movie about Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) want to put his image on the dime in place of Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democrats are just as determined to keep FDR's profile in coin purses. "


I am fine with this as long as the image includes Bonzo.

KRT Wire | 12/05/2003 | Denial of Purple Heart medals raises questions about casualty count: "GULFPORT, Miss. - (KRT) - An influential Mississippi congressman has raised the possibility that the Pentagon has undercounted combat casualties in Iraq after he learned that five members of the Mississippi National Guard who were injured Sept. 12 by a booby trap in Iraq were denied Purple Heart medals."

This seems very wrong. Is it just an oversight on the Pentagon's part or is it a concerted effort to keep casualty numbers down?