The article cracks me up :

Westminster College’s president said Monday he was so “surprised and disappointed” by Vice President Dick Cheney’s attacks on John Kerry during a speech that he is inviting the Democrat to visit for a reply.

Fletcher Lamkin told The Associated Press that Cheney’s staff approached him last week about using Westminster as the backdrop “for a major foreign policy address. Nothing was said about a stump speech.”

In a campus-wide e-mail after the speech, Lamkin said: “I must admit that I was surprised and disappointed that Mr. Cheney chose to step off the high ground and resort to Kerry-bashing for a large portion of his speech.”
. . .
Standing in the campus gymnasium where Winston Churchill warned in 1946 of an “Iron Curtain” descending across postwar Europe, Cheney sharply criticized Kerry’s senate votes on defense and intelligence legislation.
. . .
“I’m pretty independent,” Lamkin said. “I can’t tell you I am for one or the other, I’m not. As a college president, I try to remain someone who has all viewpoints represented on the campus fairly and equally.”

Lamkin said he was not expecting a speech minus any mention of presidential politics during an election year, but that the second half “was all about politics and a political stump speech and in that respect it was disappointing.”

In the e-mail, Lamkin said that “in the interest of balance and fairness and integrity, we will strongly encourage Senator Kerry to take advantage of this venue to make his views known as well.”

Okay conservatives, here’s your cue to start bitching about the liberal bias on college campuses.

Man, if you thought those WMD’s were hard to find, wait ’til you see this :

An expedition is being planned for this summer to the upper reaches of Turkey’s Mount Ararat where organizers hope to prove an object nestled amid the snow and ice is Noah’s Ark.

A joint U.S.-Turkish team of 10 explorers plans to make the arduous trek up Turkey’s tallest mountain, at 17,820 feet, from July 15 to August 15, subject to the approval of the Turkish government, said Daniel P. McGivern, president of Shamrock_The Trinity Corporation of Honolulu, Hawaii.

The goal: to enter what they believe to be a mammoth structure some 45 feet high, 75 feet wide and up to 450 feet long that was exposed in part by last summer’s heat wave in Europe.

“We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We’re going to photograph it and, God willing, you’re all going to see it,” McGivern said.

Explorers have long searched for an ark on the high slopes of Mount Ararat, where the biblical account of the Great Flood places it.

For their next expedition, they’re going to search near the Mississippi River for the remnants of the fence from Tom Sawyer.

Somebody really needs to tell the religious people of the world (and I don’t just mean literalistic Christians here) that you don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It’s okay for the story of Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt to be fiction and still be inspired by Jesus’s plea to turn the other cheek. Just because there wasn’t actually a Tower of Babel doesn’t mean that “thou shalt not kill” is also crap. You don’t have to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, fed thousands with a fish a loaf of bread, or walked on water to love your neighbors.

They’re metaphors, people. While I’ll defend your right to believe any crazy shit you want, the big problem here is that religious literalism has gotten completely out hand. We’re at the point now that the most strict religious folks can’t even comprehend the idea that those of us who don’t share their superstitions and prejudices could actually share their values.

Here’s a couple things I wrote for Ostrich Ink that didn’t make it into their last issue. Rather then let these mini-reviews become orphans, I’m printing them here :

Satanic Panic in the Attic by of Montreal

The problem with this album is that it’s too good. Satanic Panic in the Attic is easily the most accessible and poppy album from an Elephant 6 band known a lot more for their complicated arrangements and experimentation than for their ability to crank out “singles”. With this album, of Montreal has added an 80′s flavor to their sound, and by that I don’t mean that it’s one of those genre retreads we see every once in a while like the Rentals or the Epoxies. Satanic Panic adds tinges of Talking Heads, Marshall Crenshaw, Thomas Dolby, and the B-52′s, while still remaining faithful to the style from of Montreal’s previous albums. They’ve both branched out and scaled back in a way that can only be compared to the Flaming Lips’ Soft Bulletin and you know what that means, don’t you? Car commercials faster than you can say “polyphonic”. Shows so packed that you can’t see the stage through the sea of trucker caps. In short, this album has the potential to be one of those hipster wet dream albums that you get sick of before you ever hear it. By the time you read this review, it may already be too late for you to go buy this album. If you don’t hurry, you may get beaten to the record store by that guy at Amoeba with the faded t-shirt for a softball team he’s never heard of.

Where Is My Mind?

March 19, 2004 is a day that may just go down in Hollywood history. Why? Because on that day, two great movies came out : Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the remake of Dawn of the Dead. With their shared theme of mental destruction (perhaps the only thing they have in common), they could make a perfect double feature. Just squint a little and pretend they’re sequels. After watching the emotionally conflicted ending of Sunshine in which (SPOILER ALERT) Clementine and Joel decide to throw caution to the wind and give romance another try, hop over to the next theater and see the story pick up a year later. Clementine (now played by Sarah Polley) has settled down a bit. Coming home to her loving husband Joel, she only has time for one gratuitous shower scene before all hell breaks loose. That’s right, the neighbor kid (played by Elija Wood) has just bitten her rubber-faced husband and finished the mindfuck that Lacuna Inc. had started. Thus begins Eternal Sunshine of the Living Dead.

Okay, we’ve got a serious problem here and we should probably discuss it now while we still have a chance : John Kerry is a bore. He’s not bland or emotionless, but his public persona is really stiff. This is mostly due to his outright hostility to such things, as evidenced by this exchange from VH1′s Presidential Pop Culture Quiz (this is from the comments of an earlier post) :

To Kerry’s credit, he was annoyed by the whole thing. The exchange was something like this :

HOST : Thanks for giving us a few minutes. I’ve got this short pop quiz that all the other candidates have taken…

KERRY : Oh, I hate it when you guys do these things.

HOST : This isn’t like asking you the price of a dozen eggs or anything.

KERRY : I know, it’s just that these things seem so…oh whatever.

And then when Kerry was asked the questions, he aced it. He was able to quickly answer every question correctly (which none of the other candidates could do).

But the problem is, when November rolls around, undecided voters might be more inclined to throw their support behind the guy who they relate to more. When given the choice between the guy who takes his job “too” seriously or the guy who doesn’t know how to read, Americans are gonna pick the dummy every time.

The importance of this problem, as well as its standard solution, is discussed at length in this article from The Atlantic (link via E-Rock) :

But over the past decade the popularity of late-night comedy programs and daytime talk shows has added to the list of necessary credentials the ability to appear warm and funny on television. Although candidates have favored such appearances at least since Richard Nixon’s 1968 cameo on Laugh-In, most observers trace this development to candidate Bill Clinton’s 1992 saxophone performance on The Arsenio Hall Show, which came to symbolize his differences in personality and style from the first President Bush. Comedy shows have since become a political rite of passage. A recent Pew Research Center study concluded that they are “increasingly becoming regular sources of news for younger Americans, and are beginning to rival mainstream news outlets.”

To politicians generally, but especially to those viewed as distant or aloof, this is a fraught development, because success in virtually every facet of their job depends on decorum, discretion, and a rigorous lack of spontaneity?traits that leave them ill equipped to be funny. “What’s interesting and disheartening,” says Ben Karlin, an executive producer of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, “is that politicians are the most stage-managed and image-conscious guests we see, even more so than actors and celebrities. They’re trained to exhibit a certain range of behaviors: serious, compassionate, practical. Comedy isn’t one of them.”
. . .
Kerry’s penchant for oratory and statesmanlike posturing would seem to make him Dukakis’s heir apparent. Though he has had material provided to him by a former writer for the comedian Bill Maher, and now draws on a phalanx of sitcom writers, little evidence of their handiwork has manifested itself. The trouble for Kerry is that the road to the White House runs through the gauntlet of late-night shows, which presents an opportunity?”If you’re going to beat back the charge that you’re aloof, here’s the perfect venue to do it,” Baer says?but also a risk. During the primaries Kerry’s lack of humor didn’t hurt him; his vaunted “electability” was enough to draw the support of Democrats eager to depose President Bush. But now he faces the considerable task of wooing the center?voters who by definition are not slavering to remove Bush?and this means displaying the warm and funny side that he has assiduously hidden throughout his public career.

While this article is great, the one big flaw is that it concentrates only on humor. Seriously, is there anything less funny than seeing a politician trying to be a comedian? Think back to Steve Forbes on SNL stuttering out “hilarious” lines while dressed like a blue-collar worker and you get my point. The only thing worse than not showing your sense of humor is trying to show it and failing.

The reason Clinton’s Arsenio Hall Show appearance was so brilliant is because it genuinely showed us another side of the man who was running for president. To think that the guy running for president was passionate about music was completely foreign to most Americans back in 1992. What was even better than Clinton’s sax playing was his 2000 appearance on Roger Ebert & the Movies :

But when Bill Clinton made a guest appearance to talk about films on “Roger Ebert & the Movies” Sunday night, he was surprisingly relaxed — hardly at all like a public figure trying to act like a regular guy. Maybe that was because the president seems to have actually put some thought into why he likes the movies he does. And even if you disagreed with his taste, you would have to admit that he did a better job articulating his opinions than your average dinner party guest.
. . .
When Ebert mentioned “Three Kings,” Clinton, with puppylike enthusiasm, cut him off. “I loved ‘Three Kings,’ did you like ‘Three Kings’?” he asked as if he hoped that Ebert would agree, but was ready to go to the mat if he didn’t. Oddly enough, although many liberal critics have accused “Three Kings” of whitewashing the Gulf War — in a recent “Sight and Sound” piece, Village Voice critic J. Hoberman cluelessly treats the movie as just another glorification of a clearly unnecessary war — Clinton seems to grasp just what the movie is about.

In fact, Clinton was more articulate about “Three Kings” than many critics were. He saw the movie as an indication that we need to face up to society’s “oldest, most primitive problem, our tribalism, our tendency to go beyond a natural pride in our group, whether it’s a racial or ethnic or religious group or whatever,” which results in “fear and distrust and dehumanization and violence against ‘the other.’”

(You can hear MP3′s of the show here or download parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7)

This episode of Ebert’s show is a perfect example of why people call Bill Clinton a “perfect politician”. While being relaxed and accessible, Clinton articulately discussed some of his favorite movies, while at the same time bringing the discussion back to politics. John Kerry can and should do this. It’s obvious from the VH1 special that John Kerry isn’t pop-culturally illiterate. He knows what’s going on, he just needs to relax and “hang out” with the American people. Here’s a few ideas :

Host a special on MTV in which you talk about your favorite records. Have it be documentary-style, wherein he flips through his record collection and as he talks about songs/bands he loves, videos are cut in. Maybe include a reunion with the former members of his 60′s band The Electras.

Write an article for Rolling Stone about how star-struck he was when he met John Lennon. Talk about his thoughts about the hippie movement before, during, and after his experiences in Vietnam.

Make some semi-regular appearances on late-night talk shows and don’t talk about politics. Lighten up and talk about the same stupid shit we are like Janet Jackson’s boob, American Idol, etc.

Making John Kerry more likeable wouldn’t be hard to do. All he has to do is chill out and let people get to know him a little. Not only would this make Kerry seem more approachable, but it would go a long way toward having the American people give him the benefit of the doubt when evaluating Bush’s meritless and/or hypocritical attacks (“flip-flops”, war record, “funding our soldiers”, etc.)

Atrios has spent the last few days compiling a list of pro-choice Catholic Republicans that aren’t getting the same pressure that’s currently being put on John Kerry. While we’re on the subject of “bad Catholics”, it’s probably worth mentioning that the Catholic Church is against death penalty and the Iraq war as well. Unless the Republicans were able to pull some strings and get their sins downgraded from mortal to venal, maybe somebody should ask the Bishops about, among others, Sen. Rick Santorum (“that’s Latin for ‘asshole’”).

Well, jury duty is over. After a week that was 80% soul-crushing boredom, 20% fascinating legal minutiae, I got to hear those words that every prospective juror hopes to hear :

“Your honor, the people ask that the court thank and dismiss juror number six.”

Whew, I dodged that bullet. Not that I wasn’t willing to serve, but after a few days the novelty wore off. If I had been chosen, I would have been fair and impartial, but I was really ready to go.

So why was I dismissed? I assume it’s because during the jury selection process I openly questioned the following instructions from the judge :

Translated Testimony - In our particular case, one of the witnesses was going to require a translator. According to the judge, even if we were fluent in the language that the witness was speaking, the only version of the testimony that could be considered during deliberations were the words of the court-appointed translator. Though the reason for this instruction makes sense (when evaluating the evidence, all the jurors should be on the same page), it seemed odd that the judge would instruct us to overlook any potential translation mistakes.

Transcript Testimony - Since one of the witnesses was going to be unavailable during the main trial, a transcript of that witnesses testimony from an earlier hearing would be submitted instead. The judge told us that the transcript should be considered in the same regard as any of the live testimony. While I understand that this is necessary, transcripts make it nearly impossible to follow the judge’s earlier order to evaluate testimony in part on the witness’ “attitude” and “demeanor”. In addition to that, it seemed that relying on testimony taken before the trial may leave some pertinent questions unasked.

When the judge was done explaining a particular aspect of the law, we were asked if we fully understood what we were told. Both times, I raised my hand and asked questions. While some may interpret my questions as the kind of obnoxious verbal parsing that only a lawyer could appreciate, it felt to me that I was being asked to ignore my instincts in an attempt to level the playing field.

At the end of the questioning, I was asked if I would have any problem remaining fair and impartial. The way I see it, my job as a juror was to play the game according to the rules they give me. If the rules are screwed up, then that’s not my fault. So I answered “no”, but I guess they didn’t believe me.

On a side note, I have no respect for people who try to weasel their way out of jury duty. Granted, most of the people who asked to be dismissed really did have a financial hardship, there were a couple people who clearly stretched the truth to get out of serving. It’s probably for the best though. Jerks like that would make terrible jurors.

Check out this excerpt from of one of the most hilariously named sites I’ve ever seen, “John Kerry Is A Douche Bag But I’m Voting For Him Anyway – Dot Com”, in which the writers deconstruct the Kerry “flip-flops” section of George W. Bush’s re-election site :

Observe the liberal usage of paraphrasing. In bending words to fit situations, the ?…? is mans best friend. Perhaps it’s that… excluding… certain pieces… [makes] excerpts more… convincing. Granted, it could be the case that these are earnest summaries of what was said, but it seems that many times the ellipsis is heading off in a different direction (Affirmative Action, Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn, Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees, Federal Health Benefits, Burma Sanctions, 1991 Iraq War Coalition). Also, there are abundant examples of paraphrasing not involving our three-dotted friend that are clearly quotes taken far out of context, or that have a misleading title that does not at all match the quote listed below (Iraq War, Gay Marriage Amendment, Attacking President During Time of War, Death Penalty for Terrorists, Cuba Sanctions, Health Coverage, Ballistic Missile Defense).

Additionally, there are a number of ?flip-flops? that do not appear to be ?flip-flops? at all. At best, they are minor shifts in opinion, and some of them are not even shifts, but two different opinions about two separate issues (Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve, War on Terror, Military Experience as Credential For Public Office, Medical Marijuana, Cuba Sanctions, Gay Marriage Amendment, Both Sides on the First Gulf War).

Of all these accusations, there are a few I would hope that John Kerry and any sensible person would ?flip-flop? over, given events that have transpired since the original quote and the more recent one. For starters, I am happy that Kerry and many others are actively trying to do away with the Patriot Act, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously. Shortly following 9/11, the general sentiment around America was a desire to hunt down terrorists at all costs, even at the expense of a violation of personal privacy. Times have changed between then and now, and while the Patriot Act may have served its purpose in fighting terrorism, it’s now being abused for non-terrorism causes, and that needs to stop. Also among notable ?I would’da changed my mind too? scenarios:

Death Penalty for Terrorists (One quote was taken before 9/11, the other was taken after)

No Child Left Behind (Kerry voted for this act, and now thanks to gross mishandling by the Bush administration, it is largely a failure… even Republicans disapprove of how Bush has handled No Child Left Behind)

NAFTA (Originally voting for this in 1993, after witnessing its less-than-stellar outcome, Kerry has expressed regret ten years later)

Leaving Abortion Up to the States (Originally for this approach in 1972, Kerry changed his stance in 1985. I think 13 years is a fair time to re-evaluate one?s position.)

Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees (With the original quote from 1986, I think it?s fair to slightly change one?s position over the course of almost two decades.)

This is not even to mention the numerous ?flip-flops? that show Kerry supporting or not supporting something based on how he voted on a particular resolution. I have not the time nor the energy to look up and read through years-old legislation to find the true purpose of each resolution, but we can just assume that the Bush website has properly paraphrased these for us, right?

Among the instances of “doucheitude” cited is Kerry’s ridiculous motorcycle entrance on The Tonight Show. When I wrote about it at the time, I figured Kerry had jumped the shark. Considering his campaign’s fate since then, I think we can safely assume nobody’s going the be comparing me to Nostradamus or Miss Cleo any time soon.

I’m not a football fan by any stretch of the imagination and my support of the Afghanistan war was tenuous at best, but let me go on record as saying this is incredibly tragic :

Pat Tillman, who walked away from his professional football career to join the Army Rangers, was killed in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said a formal announcement was expected later in the day. Spokesmen at the Pentagon and U.S. Army declined comment.

There were no immediate details how Tillman died. He was 27.
. . .
Tillman played four seasons with the National Football League’s Arizona Cardinals before enlisting in the Army in May 2002. The safety turned down a three-year, $3.6 million deal from Arizona.

He made the decision after returning from his honeymoon with his wife, Marie.
. . .
In 2001, Tillman turned down a $9 million, five-year offer sheet from the Super Bowl champion St. Louis Rams out of loyalty to the Cardinals, and by joining the Army, he passed on millions more from the team.

It’s hard to imagine these days someone who’s so patriotic that he’s willing to sacrifice fame, fortune and, ultimately, his life in order to defend his country. Regardless of whether or not you agreed with why he was there, he’s obviously sacrificed more for his country than most of us are willing to.

And I don’t mean to trivialize this by changing the subject to politics, but I’ll be very interested to see if this affects Bush’s support among the “red state” voters who probably know a lot more about Tillman than I do…

…and I wonder if photographs like this (which the Bush Administration has been trying to keep away from the public) will be more powerful once people have a face to associate with the daily sacrifices of our soldiers.

This is one of the most vile pieces of legislation I’ve ever heard of. Anyone who helps pass this should rot in hell. (via Atrios) :

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don’t agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

How could anybody support something like this??? I’m at a loss for words here.

Jesus, I thought they couldn’t get any dumber than the “Sunflower Incident”, but conservatives have launched attacks on John Kerry that will actually make him look better! According to them, Kerry wasn’t wounded enough when he recieved his first Purple Heart. Despite the fact that Kerry released his military records (which are full of praise for his service), let’s pretend that the conservative allegations are true. Well, that means that Kerry only earned two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. How is this supposed to hurt him again?? Maybe they should follow this up with allegations that Kerry did drugs in the seventies. That should hold up well against Bush’s past…

The only thing about Kerry’s records I could see that would please the hardcore-conservative types is that Kerry was credited with 20 “kills” while in service. While that may be 20 too many for peaceniks like us, it’s still far short of Bush’s record.

Having only paid half-attention to the news and blogs this week, it seems that two of the biggest stories are Bob Woodward’s book full of reasons Bush should be tarred and feathered and the polls that show Bush beating Kerry in the polls. As far as the press delivering a beating on Bush, it feels like the party may be over for now. At this point, it’ll take a lot more than the daily accusations of treason and corruption to push Bush’s numbers down. While we can hope that Bush gets caught with a crack pipe and a dead hooker in his trunk, I think at this point it’s more about bringing Kerry up than taking Bush down.

As far as I’m concerned, the only reason Bush is beating Kerry in most (but not all) of the polls is the fact that the only thing people know about Kerry is what they’ve learned from Bush’s negative ads. While this doesn’t mean Kerry’s finished by any means (don’t forget, we still have the free publicity of a VP announcement and a convention to look forward to), it does mean that the public is looking for a lot more than “Anybody But Bush”.

Blogging is gonna be spotty this week because I’ve been picked for jury duty. Call me a dork, but I’m kinda excited about it. My hope is that I get put on a celebrity murder trial, but that ain’t gonna happen :

Few Americans know that there is a unique jury selection procedure for capital cases, known as “death qualification.” Any citizen with qualms about inflicting death can be disqualified from jury duty. While most Americans favor the death penalty, many do not. More importantly, many people in the middle of the road do not believe the death penalty should be used as frequently as it is today. Even most conscientious death penalty supporters believe the ultimate penalty should only be approached with fear, trepidation, and solemnity. And yet such qualms can be sufficient to disqualify them from jury duty in a capital case.

Because of this, jury selection in capital cases often takes weeks, if not months, as “conscientious objectors” are winnowed out by prosecutors. Women and minorities are removed from the panels at a much higher rate than are white males. (That may explain why capital juries are approximately 43 percent more likely to sentence a killer to die if his victim is white.) Numerous academic studies show that those who survive the death qualification process are not only biased towards death (instead of life imprisonment), but conviction. People who have no qualms about the death penalty just tend to favor the prosecution – whether the crime is shoplifting, drunk driving, or murder.

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the interest of the State in carrying out the death penalty trumps the right of the accused to a jury representative of the community. If those with qualms about the death penalty were allowed to serve on the jury, the logic went, the death penalty would seldom, if ever, be invoked.

The jury — historically referred to as the “conscience of the community” — has now been tamed, at least in capital cases. Only those who support capital punishment are permitted to serve. You have doubts that the death penalty is just? You think the death penalty may be over-used? The states do not want your opinion to be heard in the jury room. After all, one conscientious opinion could make the difference between life and death. And in capital litigation, some prosecutors view life imprisonment as a professional “setback.”
. . .
It is impossible to preserve the core values of the criminal justice system while trying to concentrate jury selection procedures on the prevention of jury nullification of the death penalty, at the expense of a selected jury. If there is one issue on which supporters and opponents of the death penalty ought to be able to agree, it is that no person should be executed after a trial before a jury that was stacked against them.

As much as I’d love to believe that I’d give a moving and articulate denunciation of the death penalty along the lines of this post if asked, I’m sure a combination of stage fright and social retardation would render my stunning oration as something along the lines of “Uhhh…n-n-n-no sir…”

Either way, it should be an interesting and rare (for me, anyways) look inside the criminal justice system. If anything more exciting than spending half a week reading my Richard Feynman book happens, I’ll write about it.

Y’know, I’ve been pretty critical of Judge Roy Moore in the past. Yeah, he’s a religious zealot who wiped his ass with the constitution in order to force his religious views into a secular arena, but here’s one thing his supporters and I agree on : Bush is an awful president :

Readers have asked, why are you supporting Roy Moore for President? Isn’t George W. Bush a conservative? Isn’t he a Christian? Why can’t you support George W. Bush’s re-election campaign?

It is true that when he first came into office, George W. Bush offered hope for many traditional Christians that he would enact policies that would support the effort to make America a God-centered nation once more.

To put it simply: Bush let us down. He broke his promises.

It’s hard for us to turn our back on the man who had given us so much hope, but the fact is that George W. Bush has already turned his back on us.

The following are just a few of the ways that George W. Bush has betrayed America’s traditional conservatives.

George W. Bush betrayed Roy Moore. When Justice Roy Moore and his supporters declared that the Ten Commandments have a place in the America’s courts of law, George W. Bush cut and run. Bush pretended that he didn’t even know us, like Peter denying Jesus.

George W. Bush betrayed Lieutenant General William Boykin. When Boykin told the truth about America’s war against terror, saying that it is really a war against Satan, Bush denied knowing anything about it. We know very well that Bush and Boykin have talked about this very thing in the White House together, but again Bush pretended that he didn’t even know about it.

After September 11, 2001, George W. Bush has engaged in a silly ecumenical project to try to pretend that all religions are really the same and equally valid. General Boykin is courageous enough to say that “America is a Christian nation”. Bush tries to pretend that he does not think so. We need a President who will be honest about these things, and not try to cover up the real differences between Christianity and Islam.

George W. Bush campaigned as a responsible fiscal conservative, but he has created the largest budget deficits in history. As Pastor William Baldwin points out, under Bush’s leadership, the Republican Congress has outspent their senate predecessors. Bush’s policies raise our local taxes, and George W. Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill.

Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party has become the party of big government. The government has grown bigger and bigger, with more agencies and bureaucracies and enforcement programs.

George W. Bush seems to have a problem being honest. Bush has been caught in many lies. He’s lied about September 11. He’s lied about Iraq. He’s lied about his budget. The sad fact is that George W. Bush has lost all the moral authority that a President of the United States must have. Bush is a poor example for our children, who we try to teach to be honest.
. . .

Bush has taken part in Shinto ceremonies, bowing down to idols at a Shinto temple in Japan. Blasphemy and idolatry is not Christian behavior. Judge Roy Moore would never do such a thing.

George W. Bush has actually increased the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which funds blasphemy!

Hey guys, don’t forget that he’s always wearing his religion on his sleeve while ignoring Jesus’s teachings. Man, if Roy Moore ran for President against Bush, this election would be in the bag for the Dems.

Hmmm….I just saw the trailer for Steven Spielberg’s upcoming movie Terminal, and I’m torn. I can’t decide if I wanna see it or not.

On the “wanna see it” side, it’s another collaborration between Speilberg and Tom Hanks who have a pretty good track record together. Spielberg’s last movie was one of the best of his career. Plus, this is based on the amazing true-story of an Iranian refugee who lived spent more than ten years living at the Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris, France because no other countries would accept him.

On the “looks like crap” side, I see that Catherine Zeta Jones is in it. Why would they wanna get all You’ve Got Mail on such a cool story? This seems like it will play on Spielberg’s biggest weakness : That he treats his audience like mindless retards. He’s one of the most skilled filmmakers out there when he isn’t intellectually and emotionally dumbing-down his subject matter (which admittedly is just about everything he’s ever done).

So, it looks like this one might be a rental after a-

Wait a second….is that who I think it is???

It’s Kumar!!! What the hell is he doing in this trailer? I can understand Stanley Tucci’s appearance (who’s become an expert at slumming in it big movies), but Mr. LittleJeans?? Hmmmm……

Bob Woodward will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday to discuss yet another book about Bush’s obsession with Iraq. Based on just this press release from CBS, this is gonna be big :

In the interview, Woodward talked about how the administration was able to finance secret preparations for the Iraq war.

“President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?’ What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret,” says Woodward.

“…The end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn’t know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this.”

So Bush illegally diverted money in order to plan an secret war? Hmmm….doesn’t this all sound familiar??

[ Update : Damn. I see that Atrios not only beat me to this one, but speculates that the money's coming from humanitarian assistance funds. These Bushies are some crooked sumbitches, huh? ]