Dean's Real Opponent
In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War protest, following the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, and months of protests, riots, & political unrest, GOP presidential candidate Richard Nixon began several morally dubious strategies to ensure his election to the Oval Office, such as using Henry Kissinger to undermine President Johnson's peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese. But one of the cornerstones of his campaign was the so-called "Southern Strategy". Poor rural whites had traditionally been Democrats until the advent of the Civil Rights Movement. Nixon appealled to their prejudices and fears about the Blacks asking for their rights through the use of code words like "law and order" and "the great silent majority" and the old Confederacy has been in the pocket of the elephants ever since.

Which is ironic, when you consider that Nixon & his predecessors have largely treated these people like their subjects instead of their constituents. They do nothing to improve the economic fortunes of the South, and then point to affirmative action & Willie Horton as the root of all their woes.

It's also worked for so long because so many Democrats look down their noses at poor whites, overtly treating them as inhumanly as their Republican representatives do behind closed doors.

So, in yet another move where he attempts to actually follow the ideals of the Democratic Party instead of just it's rhetoric, Howard Dean has decided to address this issue head-on.

Bush & Co. are offering poor Southern whites prayer in the school, a ten commandments monument, and the comfort of knowing that no homosexuals are running around getting married behind our backs.

Dean is offering them health insurance, better schools, and better jobs.

In other words, the same thing he's offering everybody else in the country. The radical nature of what he's doing is that he's a Democrat who's actually acknowledging these people as a part of the country.

Let's see if they'd rather have a monument instead of a paycheck.

Rope-A-Dope
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq during the mid to late '90's. Here, he talks about how, although the never found weapons of mass destruction, they kept stumbling across plans to hide conventional weapons & small arms, how to make improvised explosive devices, and all the other elements of an insurgency campaign. But, since their mandate was just to look for WMDs, they really couldn't do anything about it.

Too bad, because, despite what the talking heads would have you believe, the attacks on coalition troops in Iraq is looking less and less like Al Qaeda & foreign fighters, and more and more like Phase II of Saddam Hussein's Plan to Defeat The Americans - fall back, draw them into the country & cities where their tactical & technological advantages are negated, and just bee-sting them to death.

Why, Oh why can't people learn from Vietnam?

Bush Fears Dean
After all, why would the GOP start running ads in Iowa to question the patriotism of political war critics?

And if he doesn't, according to these Republican strategists, he should. In this memo, they come to the conclusion that Howard Dean could even spot the President Florida's 27 electoral votes, PLUS most of the Old Confederate South, and STILL become the new President of the United States in 2005.

In their words, "Let us not be fooled by misguided conventional wisdom. Dean is a threat and Republicans better not ignore him."

Music to my ears.

Dirty Pop
There are many lessons to be learned from this entire Michael Jackson fiasco.

The first is, if people THINK you're a child molester, maybe you shouldn't hold sleepovers with the children of complete strangers. It just might not look too good.

I really, really, really want to believe Michael. I really want to believe that he's innocent and that this is all a witch hunt. But the fact that the sleepovers continued for a decade, even after he'd been publicly accused of being a pedophile, with a gravy train of dozens of random children......

I recently watched The Wiz for the first time in nearly 20 years, and Michael as the Scarecrow was a simply mesmerizing musical/dance performance. Every time I think about the Motown 25 special, I get goosebumps. I mean, people lost their minds watching Michael perform that night ("Oh, my God! He's walking...... BACKWARDS?!?!?!?!?!?!")

Michael was magic.

A black Harry Potter in penny loafers.

I am part of a generation of Black children who grew up in the age of "Billy Jean" and Thriller and Off The Wall, where Michael seemed to be a living embodiment of all of the promise and hope that our community had placed in us for the future.

And maybe that's the point. Maybe Michael's madness (and, believe you me, I'm still not convinced he's a child molester, but Michael Jackson is clearly insane, perhaps dangerously so) is a visible, visceral symbol of the sickness that still pervades young Black America. He had the world at his fingertips, yet his mental scars run so deep that, instead of using a razor on his arms like most cutters, he's opted for a plastic surgeon's scalpel to help externalize his suffering. He claws jealously for the closeness of babies, as if he can become young through association.

I pray he didn't do it.

But I still hope for some court-mandated therapy.

God knows he needs it.

Return of the Press Gang
Why is the Army suddenly looking to recruit a bunch of volunteers to work on local draft boards?

And, in other news, how long have those 130,000 troops been getting shot at while wearing full combat gear under desert heat?

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

Junta
retired General Tommy Franks, in an interview with, of all places, Cigar Afficianado, suggests that the U.S. Constitution could not survive the use by a terrorist of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in mainland America, and that the resulting public outcry for security would force, in his words, "a military style of government" to replace it.

Scariest quote from General Franks:

"It's not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace."

Unfiltered Quote of the Day

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. "

- Benjamin Franklin, in a speech he gave at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, on where he thought American democracy was ultimately headed if we adopted the Constitution of the United States of America that had just been approved. That very document, along with it's 27 revisions or, as we say, Amendments, is still in use to this day.

Gore Vidal, in this interview with L.A. Weekly to promote his new book, Inventing A Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, looks around at the current Bush administration and, speaking for Franklin, says "I told you so!"

Diary of a Bad Man
Some of you may recognize the name "C.G. Brown" from the occasional post he's made as a part of Team Macroscope, although I'm sure there are a number of you who would never recognize him on the street as he sports his best "shaken, not stirred, mofo!" look above.

But, in addition to being a fairly shrewd businessman, a visionary poet, and a waaaaay better commuter scientist than I ever even aspired to be, he, apparently, still has alot to get off his chest. And most of the time, he does it to a pretty good beat, too. Therefore, BEHOLD Corregan Brown's Broken Beatnik Blog. Tres` stylish, no?

Passion Play
The New York Post seems to have illicitly gotten their hands on a copy of the latest cut of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" and given it to a broad cross section of folks for review. In looking at this, and other responses from people to the as-yet unreleased film, it seems to me that your level of offense from the film is inversely proportional to how close you are to Gibson's own beliefs on the religious spectrum. It seems that many devote Christians don't seem to see anything in it that would offend or castigate Jews, while a number of Jews who have seen it are VERY worried about the less forward-thinking members of the Christian community taking this film as new marching orders to beat up some Semites.

Since I haven't seen the film, I can't speak on it. Although, as a firm believer in karma, I think the fact that Gibson's Jesus, actor Jim Caviezel, was the SECOND person to be struck by lightning during the course of filming is telling, to say the least. At the end of the day, I'm curious. I want to see it, so I'll probably check it out.

Having said that, the one thing that struck me about all the statements on the film in the Post (and, in other places) is that everyone seems focused on the brutality & violence of the Crucifixion. I find myself reminded of an Easter sermon where the pastor took great pains to illustrate the gory details of Christ's death, as if to say "he endured all that for you, so don't make his death in vain."

Somehow, this all seems to miss the point, to me. The point wasn't that he suffered a horrible, blood drenched, prolonged death. The point was that he died. Period. And was then resurrected. I once had a theory that the whole exercise of the Christ, of the divine becoming incarnate in the flesh, was that God had to comprehend and experience sin in order to abolish it. If sin is a state of being separate from God, God would have to shear off a piece of his or herself in order to comprehend that. Which raises a number of interesting issues for me. First of all, it suggests that, omnipotence does not mean the absence of process. Yes, God may be capable of doing anything, but everything has a procedure to be followed to accomplish it. If God's goal is to save humanity from sin, that very process may have a very specific set of inputs, procedures, outcomes, and, most importantly, timetables.

Also, if God/Jesus could have died in any manner of his or her choosing to experience death (the opposite of omnipresence, perhaps), why choose a public, brutal death? Could it be because it was an image and a story that will never leave our minds?

Anyway, whatever flaws there may be in Mad Max's movie, I think it will at least get a number of Christians to scrutinize their own faith. Like I said, I'm curious.

Horse Whisperers
I love the Classics.

And when I say "Classics", I don't mean Bach & Beethoven. I mean the history & literature of ancient Greece & Rome. And one of the many reasons why is because I love how pervasive a good story can become in a culture, especially if it's old enough.

Consider this: an "odyssey"; your Achilles tendon; a "Cassandra syndrome"; "the face that launched a thousand ships"; "Ajax"; and of course, the obvious one, a "Trojan horse".

All of these memes where first seeded in the gardens of our collective imaginations by one single story - The Iliad, Homer's epic poem where Helen, the insanely hot queen to the Spartan sovereign, Menelaus, runs off with Paris, the prince of the fortified city-state of Troy in Asia Minor (now, I believe today's Turkey). In turn, and in what must be the biggest case of ignoring that whole "don't hate the playa, hate the game" mentality in the history of mankind, Menelaus gets ALL the other Greek city states to join him in a mass invasion of Troy (see the previously mentioned thousand ships) as payback.

Anyway, Warner Bros., in their quest to re-establish themselves as a company that does more than make bad action movies with DMX and Steven Seagal, are giving this story the full-on, post-Gladiator, Hollywood treatment next summer. And I must say, I'm REALLY digging the casting:

* Brad Pitt as obnoxious Greek super-soldier Achilles (and we ALL know how his story ends)
* Orlando Bloom as Trojan pretty-boy Paris
* Brendan Gleeson (who's been in everything from 28 Days Later to Gangs of New York, lately) as player-hatin' Menelaus
* Sean Bean as sneaky Trojan horse architect Odysseus
* Eric Bana as the Trojan champion Hector (poor bastard)
* and Brian Cox as power-hungry Greek "boss of bosses", so to speak, Agamemnon

Between this, Spider-Man 2 and the return or director Roland Emmerich to his "Independence Day"-style stomping grounds in The Day After Tomorrow, next summer's movie slate is sounding extra saucy.

Why We Separate Church and State
So, first things first.

I am a Christian. I was raised as a protestant in the United Methodist Church. I pray daily and I try to read my Bible daily. I believe in God, heavenly grace, and that there's divinity to be found in all life.

So, to me, when Jesus is asked what is the most important commandment, and he replies "to love the lord God with all your heart and to love your fellow man as if he were yourself", I take that as strict marching orders.

Which, in my mind, means, I must respect the right of every individual to come to their own understanding of existence because I defy anyone to tell me that my own personal relationship with God is wrong.

I also take to heart the moment where Jesus tells his disciplines not to wear their religion like a badge of honor. If I may paraphrase, he says something to the effect of "don't stand up and pray loudly in public like the hypocrites do". You don't need a bull horn to preach the Gospels. If you live your life according to the Word, that, in and of itself, will speak volumes. Your very existence as a Christian is all the evangelism necessary.

Which is why it always makes my blood boil when other Christians start demanding that the government do more to promote their faith. Have they forgotten that this country was founded by people who wanted freedom from oppressive religions with state powers like the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches during the Colonial Age? Don't they know we just went to war with a theocracy that gave state power to fundamentalist extremists called the Taliban?

Yes, the founding fathers were very much men of faith. And their faith formed the basis of their sense of equity and justice, which is why the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If faith is a believe in things unseen, than religion is an inherently irrational thing. There is no reasoning with someone's faith. No bargaining. No equity. By putting the government outside the reach of the instruments of faith, they gave everyone the opportunity to come to God on their own terms, not someone else's. It keeps the power to coerce out of the hands of those who may not necessarily be bound by the constraints of the law if they believe their faith calls them to break it.

Why am I saying all this?

Consider, for a moment, the article in the link above: An extremist minister wants to put up a monument in a public square to Matthew Sheppard, a homosexual who was killed in a hate crime, that basically says Sheppard is burning in Hell because he violated God's will.

Do you really want to invite the possibility of putting governmental powers behind this kind of rhetoric by, say, for instance, having teachers leading elementary students in prayer, and this guy is the one sitting on the school board, setting policy?

Just an example that's been on my mind lately.

As far as Matthew Sheppard goes, I'll get into my thoughts on God, the church, and homosexuality at a later date. My short answer on that subject is this: If you think homosexuals are going to Hell because of the verse this guy Phelps quotes in his condemnation of Sheppard, I really hope, for your sake, you don't shave. Ever. Because it's also outlawed in the same section of Leviticus.

Sweet dreams, Shaggy.

Billionaire Soros takes on Bush

Measure for Measure
Does the term "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" ring a bell? Well, if such a thing really did exist, Richard Mellon Scaife, publishing magnate & conservative philanthropist, would unquestionably be the spider at the center of the web. And there in lies the rub about the neo-conservative movement: all those little right wing foot soldiers who campaign & vote against their self-interest are fueled by the funding of the uber-rich like Scaife, who are, unquestionably acting in their own narrow self-interest.

Which is why I love George Soros.

Now, don't get me wrong: Soros, the insanely rich financier behind hedge funds like the Quantum Fund, is very much a ruthless capitalist. An argument can be made that he single-handedly crashed the British currency market in 1993 and made a Billion dollars (yes, "B". "BILLION") in a single day as a result.

But as a man who loves the promise of capitalism & the American dream (let alone his ownwallet) , Soros is pained, I mean, physically ill, about what George Bush is doing to this country.

Soros just gave $5 million to Moveon.org. He's given millions more to other progressive & liberal organizations. All for one, single purpose - to get Bush out of office.

When asked if he would trade his entire fortune (estimated to be about $7 billion) to remove Bush, he replied "If someone guaranteed it".

Forces are gathering, friends. Next November is starting to sound more and more like the Mother of All Battles.

The Bully Pulpit
So, this rather dry article from a P'town scholar on why people tend not to vote in their own interests barely scratches the surface. I agree that, clearly, there are a number of people who simply don't understand how certain politicians and political movements will, in the long run, effect their lives.

But I think the author, like so many in the media, seem to miss the glaringly obvious point.

Despite what people will tell you, most of them actually do assume that politicians are telling them the truth. Contrary to all the verbage that's been spilled on the subject, most voters will simply take an elected official at their word because they believe they don't have the luxury of fact-checking.

So, these folks only vote against their self-interest because they believe their actually voting FOR their self-interest.

They have been lied to.

And this is a concept that really needs to get some more airplay.

There are people, in positions of power in our country, right now, who will get on national TV, and simply lie to the American people.

Yes, there is such a thing as spin, but there is also such a thing as a lie, and I, for one, cannot wait for the moment in next year's debate, when Howard Dean calls President Bush a liar, to his face, on national television.

Rebel Yell
So, fellow blogger John Scalzi has really kicked up a storm on his side of the universe from his series of articles regarding the legacy of the Confederate States of America and the meaning of their battle flag. His basic points?

A. The Confederacy was a fundamentally evil political entity, because the only difference between it's constitution and the Constitution of the United States was that it explicitly asserted the rights of one human being to treat another human being like property.

B. There's no pride to legitimately be found in the symbols of the CSA because it was evil and, at the end of the day, they lost.

C. The South and The Confederacy are not the same thing. There are far more things to be proud of for Americans living in those states than the political insanity that precipitated the Civil War, so Southerners should look into their heritage to find less divisive symbols.

Personally, I agree with just about everything that he said. On the flip side, I also agree with Howard Dean's assertion that the people who find pride in the Stars & Bars cannot simply be dismissed from the body politic. Certainly, there are people who would very much like to put people such as yours truly back in chains so I can bale some of their cotton, but there are also a lot of folks who cling to the identity the Confederate flag gives them while trying to distance themselves from the amorality of the nation it represents.

Which brings me to a larger point, which I will call, for lack of a better term, cultural psychosis. I believe that a community that experiences a traumatic event will have the same reaction as an individual who experiences a traumatic event. Namely, some version of post traumatic stress disorder. You can't tell a rape victim to simply get over it and get on with her life. In the same way, when taken within the context of Hiroshima, no one should be surprised that city-wide destruction is one of the most common recurring themes in Anime. Or, the various & sundry psychological shackles still on the minds of many African-Americans, a full 150 years after the end of slavery.

When you consider that the South is the only segment of the American population that's lost a war on it's own soil, and that it's now an economically struggling portion of the very same nation that burned its cities to the ground..... well, I think you can see where I'm going with this. I'm sure, to some of them, it's like getting a divorce, only to have your ex-husband smack you around and drag you back to the chapel to get remarried at gunpoint.

The point is, there is a trauma there. And, quite honestly, the psychological & historical battles of the Civil War have been fought by the South, albeit in secret, ever since. I think it's long past time to actually have a conversation to get all this junk out into the open and deal with it as a country.

What He Really Thinks
I know there are times when Chris Matthews, the long time politico, syndicated columnist, and host of Hardball, can seem like a Conservative shill. But, let's not forget that Matthews roots are with such Democratic stalwarts as Tip O'Neill & Co.

So, imagine my pleasant surprise to hear about his recent speech at Brown University. The salient points being:
A. The White House's rationale for war in Iraq was totally dishonest.
B. Dick Cheney is the real man behind the curtain.
C. Before Cheney & Co. came up with "The Bush Doctrine", the President had never had a deep thought in his life. Needless to say, he's a little protective about his first one.
D. His personal favorite among the Democratic nominees is, yes, that's right, Howard Dean.