Blame the Media

"A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. . . . Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse." -- Albert Camus

I love this ... things start going south and the Republicans march out their old standards: blame the media and especially The New York Times:

Hayworth critical of NY Times story

J D Hawyworth is a former Phoenix sportscaster and once voted as the dumbest congressman. And we in Arizona get to call him our own. Though, I'm lucky enough that he's not our district's congressman. I was in the bookstore the other day and was suprised to find a book by Mr Hayworth, Whatever It Takes. It's about his take on the immigration issue ... but that's neither here nor there. His subject matter wasn't suprising, but rather the fact that he wrote a book. From seeing his idiocy up close for many years, I was convinced that he was incapable of reading a book, let alone writing one. But if you want to be amused, check out the reviews by some of his brain-washed minions. You can tell they are the type that will read anything by Coulter, Hannity, etc. and just eat it up unquestioningly.



And, of course, Bill Frist has to speak up and attack something so as to play to the other Republicans. This man has absolutely no spine. I sincerely think he doesn't have any thoughts of his own. Because he always seems to be playing to the polls, he comes across as the ultimately political animal. And it has been getting him burned because he all too often does not guage correctly the sentiments of his own party.

Frist Blames CNN for Republican Problems

This brings back memories of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. Back then, Nixon and the government vehemently criticized the Times and did everything in their power to try and stop the publishing of the Papers but the Supreme Court backed the Times.

Why is it that Republicans view the exposure of unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior by the goverment as a worse crime than that behavior itself? These people are those bullies in school that would steal your lunch money and then beat up any kids that would report it to the principal. Unbelievable.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -- Stephen Colbert

Declaration of Independence

Today, we'll have a little history lesson. We all think we know what the Declaration of Independence was about. It was about the U.S. formally declaring its independence from the King and England. But it was also about showing exactly what the reasons for doing so were. I won't list the entire document here. You can obviously find it at several of the links on this page. What we're going to list are a scary number of reasons listed then that ring true now (modern parallels in italics):

The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. -- Illegal wiretapping

... He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. -- Intervention in the Schiavo case

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. -- mockery of the traditional "advise and consent" role of the senate in judicial appointments

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. -- Department of Homeland Security

... He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. -- a permanent state of war

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation -- violating the constitution and bill of rights

... For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury -- illegal detention without trial or charges

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences -- extraordinary rendition

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies -- getting around U.S. labor law in U.S. Commonwealths like Saipan

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

... He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people -- you name it ... Katrina, the environment

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation -- Iraq

... In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people...

And the beat goes on:

Justices rule on California law that lets officers conduct searches without reasonable suspicion of a crime

Supreme Court Approves Another Attack on Our Homes

U.S. Supreme Court OKs no-knock searches



King George III then ... King George II now.

For a nice post on another historical document, the Magna Carta, check out Cyberkitten's recent post, Now That’s What I Call a Sacred Document: Magna Carta

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Phoenix Art Museum

I've been in the Valley 13 years, but for whatever reason, I had never been to the Phoenix Art Museum. I knew it was a decent museum and had representative paintings from a lot of major artists and eras. I guess I was probably too influenced by those around me. None of them are really art buffs (as far as I know). I don't think the wife would have ever suggested going to the museum. But it was Father's Day, I had choice ... and I picked for us all to go to the art museum. Alex is of an impressionable age, 5, and I thought that he'd have a good time. Well, he did ... and we did.

We began in the large open gallery which primarily had modern paintings and then went to the special exhibit of German artists, Constructing New Berlin. These were a lot of mixed-media displays. The most interesting being Thomas Demand's photographs of paper sculptures. But you don't know that at first. You just think they are photographs of normal every day things. But you look closer and they are actually carefully constructed representations of those things. The obvious meaning being: what is real and what is artifice in our everyday communication?

Next we went to the permanent exhibits. Some of the first ones that we saw were fairly modern. Two of the more recognizable, Diego Rivera and Picasso:



We both found that we liked the Impressionist painters ... much to our surprise. Seeing Impressionist paintings in a book or on TV do not do them justice. In person, you see every brush stroke and are able to adjust your distance to the painting. Which is how the painters intended. They wanted the eye of the viewer to blend the colors instead of the painter doing it. Here's a Monet:



Next were European paintings of the 14th - 17th Century. These were primarily religious in nature, as was the custom for a long time. We both liked these exhibits ... albeit for different reasons. My wife appreciated the religious imagery while I appreciated what it said about society in general. I'm fascinated by the arc that is taken from the 1300's to the 1700's in painting. Early on, Christian subjects are flat and unrealistic so as to strees the divinity of them. To a largely unsophisticated and uneducated citizenry, it was important for the church to make sure that they understand they were divine. As time went on, the subjects because more human and more realistic so as to display the humanity of them. Here's a painting from 1350:



Another aspect of Christian themes that I enjoy is that it can be pretty gruesome at times. John the Baptist's head on a plate:



Michelle really liked this painting of a castle by James Webb:



For some reason, I always like Georgia O'Keeffe paintings. :-)



Overall, we were impressed and we won't wait another 13 years before we visit again.

Stephen Hawking

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." -- Stephen Hawking

At a recent talk at a university in Hong Kong, famed physicist Stephen Hawking talks about some exchanges that he had with Pope John Paul II in the past:

Hawking recalls pope's views on research

Some highlights:

"Famed physicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that Pope John Paul II tried to discourage him and other scientists attending a cosmology conference at the Vatican from trying to figure out how the universe began.

The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn't realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.

"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.

Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century for supporting Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. The church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe.

In 1992, John Paul issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

Hawking said the pope told the scientists, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

The physicist, author of the best seller "A Brief History of Time," added that John Paul believed "God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand."

John Paul insisted faith and science could coexist. In 1996, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he said that Darwin's theories were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

But Hawking questioned whether an almighty power was needed to create the universe.

"Does it require a creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe determined by a law of science?" he asked ... "

While the pope's views on evolution were encouraging and in contrast to a lot of Christians', it is unfortunate that he had to have a qualifier. Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, whatever ... ultimately the goal of your life should be the quest for truth. I've heard many Christians say that to me. But if you are saying that you can only look for truth sometimes or only in certain places, what is the point?

That is the major weakness of creationism ... selective truth-seeking. You can't allow prejudices to influence your collection of data. And once you get the data, don't cherry-pick the information that reinforces the belief you came in with.

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -- Stephen Hawking

An Inconvenient Truth

Interspersing personal recollections, taped footage of Al Gore's lecture tour and stunning photography showing the effects of global warming across the globe, this is a movie that transcends it's potentially boring subject matter. And it does it with a narrator that has in the past been accused of being wooden and unfunny. It works because Gore is passionate and knowledgeable about global warming and is able to project that so that you feel as passionate as he does. He appears as a man more comfortable in his own skin that I have ever seen him. He's not in someone else's shadow (Clinton). He doesn't have to try to please a constituency or a legislative body (his time in the Senate). And that freedom allows him to come across as an affable professor. I guess it's not surprising that he appears comfortable giving his global warming lecture. He has given it over a 1,000 times over the years.

I think that it is Gore's personal recollections that really help to humanize the subject. He tells how the near death of his son in a car accident and the death by cancer of his sister gave him more focus on what the purpose of his life should be.

From climatecrisis.net:

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

If that sounds like a recipe for serious gloom and doom -- think again. From director Davis Guggenheim comes the Sundance Film Festival hit, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, which offers a passionate and inspirational look at one man's fervent crusade to halt global warming's deadly progress in its tracks by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it. That man is former Vice President Al Gore, who, in the wake of defeat in the 2000 election, re-set the course of his life to focus on a last-ditch, all-out effort to help save the planet from irrevocable change. In this eye-opening and poignant portrait of Gore and his "traveling global warming show," Gore also proves himself to be one of the most misunderstood characters in modern American public life. Here he is seen as never before in the media - funny, engaging, open and downright on fire about getting the surprisingly stirring truth about what he calls our "planetary emergency" out to ordinary citizens before it's too late.

The movie not only demonstrates what we are doing to the planet but provides practical, tangible ways in which we can reverse the trend:

Want to do something to help stop global warming?
Here are 10 simple things you can do and how much carbon dioxide you'll save doing them.

Change a light -- Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb will save 150 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

Drive less -- Walk, bike, carpool or take mass transit more often. You'll save one pound of carbon dioxide for every mile you don't drive!

Recycle more -- You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year by recycling just half of your household waste.

Check your tires -- Keeping your tires inflated properly can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere!

Use less hot water -- It takes a lot of energy to heat water. Use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of CO2 saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year).

Avoid products with a lot of packaging -- You can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide if you cut down your garbage by 10%.

Adjust your thermostat -- Moving your thermostat just 2 degrees in winter and up 2 degrees in summer. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.

Plant a tree -- A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.

Turn off electronic devices -- Simply turning off your television, DVD player, stereo, and computer when you're not using them will save you thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide a year.

We have the means to fix our planet but we lack the political will. If something doesn't affect you personally and immediately, you will put it off. That's exactly the type of attitude that we need to defeat. This myopia runs rampant in this administration and our congress. Local governments have actually taken the lead to a certain extent. There is a large list of major U.S. cities that have vowed to respect the Kyoto Treaty when the country as a whole does not (joining only Australia among major countries). And it's shortsighted to think that the economy can't benefit from the development of new technology needed to move us forward. If our government wasn't so in bed with big oil and the auto industry, we might be able to move forward.

This movie does not have a large release. Only one screen in all of Phoenix was showing it. Hopefully, it's positive reviews and great attendance at those showings will get a larger release. I can't stress enough how important it is that you go see this and recommend to everyone else that they do ... conservative, liberal, whatever. It doesn't matter. This is not an issue that only affects some of us. It affects all of us.

Lightbulb

This just slayed me. Courtesy of Aginoth at Aginoth's Ramblings:

How many bloggers does it take...

....to change a lightbulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.
14 to comment and share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.
5 to flame the spell checkers.
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames.
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid.
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp".
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct.
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty.
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
4 to comment that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's.
3 to comment about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this post
5 to comment that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.
4 to comment "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to comment "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs".

Turning Point?

Here we go again. Another turning point ... or so they say. While nobody can deny that the getting rid of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a good thing, aren't we all getting a little bored with the tired rhetoric of the president and his lackeys? This war has more turning points than Liz Taylor has husbands. Here are just a few:

From Iraq: Bush Twists and Turns - by Eric Hananok:

"... March 19, 2004, on the anniversary of when military forces entered Iraq to enforce United Nations demands: "Today, as Iraqis join the free peoples of the world, we mark a turning point for the Middle East, and a crucial advance for human liberty."

June 16, 2004, on the transfer of the Iraq governing authority to a sovereign interim government: "A turning point will come two weeks from today."

January 29, 2005, on Iraqis heading to the polls: "Tomorrow the world will witness a turning point in the history of Iraq."

December 12, 2005, in a speech looking back at the year in Iraq: "Thanks to the courage of the Iraqi people, the year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East, and the history of freedom."

May 1, 2006, on the prospects of a new government in Iraq: "This is a -- we believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens.""

May 22, 2006 - At the swearing-in of Iraq's new cabinet, "Yet, we have now reached a turning point in the struggle between freedom and terror." -- Bush: Insurgents now fighting democracy in Iraq

And those don't even include the many "milestones" or turning points cited by others in his administration: Iraq:Turning Point or Tipping Point?

The thing is, al-Zarqawi wouldn't have risen to such a height without our creating a situation ripe for him to capitalize on: the destabilization of Iraq. We don't just create our heroes. We create our enemies. We created Bin Laden.

His capture and killing may cause another problem. The Bush administration have extensively used his presence there as a way of justifying the Al Qaeda/Iraq connection. With him gone, how can we continue to stay there?

Bush and the Republicans get the best of both worlds. They get the short-term political capital of a perceived success ... which they will promptly try to use to shove through something completed unrelated (repeal of estate tax, marriage amendment, anti-flag burning, etc.). Yet they realize that the temporary positive in the "war on terror" doesn't fundamentally change anything. There still we be fighting in a foreign land. We will be no closer to end to the war. And the great military-industrial complex rolls on. After all, you can't have the people afraid all of the time. You have to give them a bone occasionally to allow them to catch their breath. But, don't worry, they'll be back next week drumming up support for a new war.

The most disgusting aspect is the palpable joy of some (especially on FOX), not unlike when Saddam was captured. Was his capture and was al-Zarqawi's death worth the almost 2500 U.S. military deaths and the 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths? Have we accomplished anything? Is the world safer or are we just breeding new Bin Ladens and al-Zarqawi's?

See also:

Bush Stays the Course on "Turning Point" Rhetoric

"Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful" -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Music, Music, Music ...

For the last few years, I hadn't bought a lot of CD's because it just didn't seem like there was anything good coming out. The last few months have been a gold mine, however. I'll give my thoughts on the latest buys, but first a review of the Bruce Springsteen concert that we went to on Saturday:


Bruce, plus a 16 piece band which included horns, banjo, steel guitar, accordion, piano, etc., played a marathon 2.5 hours covering mostly material from the Seeger Sessions CD. It was such high energy that one was exhausted by the end. It was equal parts of a big tent revival, a New Orleans jazz funeral march and an Irish pub band, a la the Commitments. As with all of Springsteen's solo excursions to the Valley, E-Street band member Nils Lofgren, and Scottsdale resident, made a cameo appearance.

Ever being the consummate showmen, Springsteen was able to propel the concert through a definite arc. Beginning with some of the more uptempo celebratory songs from the album and then quieted down to a serious and political center. The two defining songs of that part of the concert being "Bring 'Em Home" and "Mrs McGrath". "Bring 'Em Home" is actually not on the album, but IS a Pete Seeger written song. Most of the other songs are not written by him but rather popularized by him. Two of the more poignant sections of the song:

They want to test their great theory
Bring them home, bring them home
With the blood of you and me
Bring them home, bring them home

and

No more graveyard lies
Bring them home, bring them home
Full of gleam in someone's eyes
Bring them home, bring them home.

From "Mrs. McGrath":

"Now I wasn't drunk and I wasn't blind
When I left my two fine legs behind
A cannonball on the fifth of May
Tore my two fine legs away"

"My, Teddy boy," the widow cried
"Your two fine legs were yer mother's pride
Stumps of a tree won't do at all
Why didn't ye run from the cannonball?"

" ... All foreign wars I do proclaim
Live on blood an a mothers pain
I'd rather have my son as he used to be
Than the King of America and his whole Navy"

Even if you didn't know Bruce Springsteen's politics, you could infer them from the fact that he did this project and from the choice of songs like these. It seems such an ironic counterpoint to clueless conservative idealogues like Ronald Reagan that mistook "Born in the U.S.A" for a patriotic song. In my eyes, it WAS a "patriotic" song, and so are these others, but not in the way that they were portrayed. Dissent is patriotic.

The concert worked back up to a frenetic pace by the end. Bruce and his band's enthusiasm for the material was contagious. I'd never have thought going in that a crowd could cheer an accordion or banjo solo just as much as they would an Eddie Van Halen guitar solo ... but they did. I don't think a lot of these musicians were used to the spotlight afforded them by playing to this large of crowd with Springsteen, but you could tell that they relished it. For some pictures of the show:
June 3, 2006 Bruce Springsteen performs with the Seeger Sessions Band at the Glendale Arena

For more about the album which this tour supports, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions:

Springsteen/Seeger

The album is evocative of Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, and bluegrass. It is a collection of work and protest songs made famous by folk artist and political activist, Pete Seeger. The subject matter that is covered reminded me a lot of Springsteen's earlier solo album, the Ghost of Tom Joad, which is my favorite of his.

=============================================================



Taking the Long Way ... An apt title for the album. The Dixie Chicks took a path less traveled to a place of personal and political freedom. This is a gutsy, gutsy album and yet another feather in the cap of who I believe is just about the best producer ever ... Rick Rubin. Who else could boast of producing the best albums of the following eclectic group of artists' careers:

Johnny Cash
System of a Down
Slayer
Beastie Boys
Red Hot Chili Peppers
The Cult
Run-D.M.C

This album kicks ass. The Chicks, for the first time, co-wrote every song on the album ... and it shows. They are some of the most personal and biting lyrics that they've ever sung. One of the highlights from "Not Ready to Make Nice":

... I'm not ready to make nice
I'm not ready to back down
I'm still mad as hell and
I don't have time to go round and round and round
It's too late to make it right
I probably wouldn't if I could
Cause I'm mad as hell
Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should ...

They've hit controversional topics before, most notably in "Goodbye Earl" but this album sees them confidently taking the mantle of a "political" band and not being afraid of the consequences. That should be a lesson for all of us. Life's too short to go around pretending you are something you are not, hiding your true feelings or kissing ass just to make a buck. All the money in the world won't salve the wounds caused by duplicity.

For a review much more comprehensive, see Vancouver Voyeur: REVIEW: Taking the Long Way

** BTW, just bought tix to see the Chicks at the Glendale Arena in September. Looking forward to it. **

=================================================================

Eye on the the TV
'Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be, like...
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used a poison
in his tea...kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies

Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie

... Cause I need to watch things die... from a distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie

... Part vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and voyeur ...

... and so begins the latest Tool album, 10,000 Days. Never the most prolific band, this album is the first since Lateralus 5 years ago. This song, and the album, are very much what you would expect from Tool: thinking man's progressive metal. Virtuosity without the obvious musical masturbation of bands like Dream Theater(and I like DT ... but I think sometimes they cater too much to band geeks).

"Vicarious", to me, seems like an indictment of our culture and how we love to watch violence as long as it isn't happening to us. It's a great song a fitting note to our current political climate. Probably the best ever musical representation of schadenfreude.

This is not a casual listen. Most of the songs over 7 minutes with 2 songs being 12 minutes plus. Like all Tool albums, it's hard to read the first few listens. All of their albums grow on you the more you listen to them.

For more discussions of Tool and this album, check out Jeff at Imagine Echoes:
New York Times Review of Tool 5/19/06
Tool 5/19/06
Inevitable has Occurred
Vicarious

Rockies Revival

From a great article by Dave Zirin in the Nation:

In Colorado, there stands a holy shrine called Coors Field. On this site, named for the holiest of beers, a team plays that has been chosen by Jesus Christ himself to play .500 baseball in the National League West. And if you don't believe me, just ask the manager, the general manager and the team's owner.

In a remarkable article from Wednesday's USA Today, the Colorado Rockies went public with the news that the organization has been explicitly looking for players with "character." And according to the Tribe of Coors, "character" means accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. "We're nervous, to be honest with you," Rockies general manager Dan O'Dowd said. "It's the first time we ever talked about these issues publicly. The last thing we want to do is offend anyone because of our beliefs." When people are nervous that they will offend you with their beliefs, it's usually because their beliefs are offensive.

As Rockies chairman and CEO Charlie Monfort said, "We had to go to hell and back to know where the Holy Grail is. We went through a tough time and took a lot of arrows."

Club president Keli McGregor chimed in, "Who knows where we go from here? The ability to handle success will be a big part of the story, too. [Note to McGregor: You're in fourth place.] There will be distractions. There will be things that can change people. But we truly do have something going on here. And [God's] using us in a powerful way."

Well, someone is using somebody, but it ain't God. San Francisco Giants first baseman-outfielder Mark Sweeney, who spent 2003 and 2004 with the Rockies, said, "You wonder if some people are going along with it just to keep their jobs. Look, I pray every day. I have faith. It's always been part of my life. But I don't want something forced on me. Do they really have to check to see whether I have a Playboy in my locker?"


Then there is manager Clint Hurdle and GM O'Dowd. Hurdle, who has guided the team to a Philistine 302-376 record since 2002, as well as fourth or fifth place finishes every year, was rewarded with a 2007 contract extension in the off-season. Hurdle also claims he became a Christian three years ago and says, "We're not going to hide it. We're not going to deny it. This is who we are."

O'Dowd, who also received a contract extension, believes that their 27-26 2006 record has resulted from the active intervention of the Almighty. "You look at things that have happened to us this year. You look at some of the moves we made and didn't make. You look at some of the games we're winning. Those aren't just a coincidence. God has definitely had a hand in this." Or maybe the management that prays together gets paid together.

O'Dowd and company bend over backward in the article to say they are "tolerant" of other views on the club, but that's contradicted by statements like this from CEO Monfort: "I don't want to offend anyone, but I think character-wise we're stronger than anyone in baseball. Christians, and what they've endured, are some of the strongest people in baseball. I believe God sends signs, and we're seeing those." Assumedly, Shawn Green (Jew), Ichiro Suzuki (Shinto) or any of the godless players from Cuba don't have the "character" Monfort is looking for.

Also, there are only two African-American players on the Rockies active roster. Is this because Monfort doesn't think black players have character? Does the organization endorse the statement of its stadium's namesake, William Coors, who told a group of black businessmen in 1984 that Africans "lack the intellectual capacity to succeed, and it's taking them down the tubes"? These are admittedly difficult questions. But these are the questions that need to be posed when the wafting odor of discrimination clouds the air.

Then there are the fans. I spoke with journalist Tom Krattenmaker, who has studied the connection between religion and sports. Krattenmaker said, "I have concerns about what this Christianization of the Rockies means for the community that supports the team in and around Denver--a community in which evangelical Christians are probably a minority, albeit a large and influential one. Taxpayers and ticket-buyers in a religiously diverse community have a right not to see their team--a quasi-public resource--used for the purpose of advancing a specific form of religion. Have the Colorado Rockies become a faith-based organization? This can be particularly problematic when the religion in question is one that makes exclusive claims and sometimes denigrates the validity of other belief systems."

You might think MLB Commissioner Bud Selig would have something stirring to say about this issue. But Selig, who hasn't actually registered a pulse since 1994, only said meekly, "They have to do what they feel is right."

It's not surprising that Selig would play it soft. First and foremost, Bud's First Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Criticize the Owners. Second, Selig and Major League Baseball this year are experimenting for the first time with Faith Days at the Park. As if last season's Military Appreciation Nights weren't enough, the New York Times reported yesterday that this summer "religious promotions will hit Major League Baseball. The Atlanta Braves are planning three Faith Days this season, the Arizona Diamondbacks one. The Florida Marlins have tentatively scheduled a Faith Night for September." These religious promotions are attractive to owners because they leverage a market of evangelical Christians who are accustomed to mass worship in stadiums at events staged by sports-driven proselytizers like Promise Keepers and Athletes in Action.

As part of the MLB promotion, the Times reports, "local churches will get discounted tickets to family-friendly evenings of music and sports with a Christian theme. And in return, they mobilize their vast infrastructure of e-mail and phone lists, youth programs and chaperones, and of course their bus fleets, to help fill the stands."

At one of the Faith Days in Atlanta, the team will sell special vouchers. After the game, the stands will be cleared and then only those with the specially purchased vouchers will be re-admitted. Those lucky chosen "will be treated to an hour and a half of Christian music and a testimonial from the ace pitcher John Smoltz." Smoltz is the player who in 2004 opined on gay marriage to the Associated Press, saying, "What's next? Marrying an animal?" Good times for the whole family.

The Rockies right now are a noxious reflection of a time in US history when generals speak of crusades and the President recounts his personal conversations with Yahweh. ("You're doing a heckuva job, Goddy!")

If Monfort, O'Dowd and Hurdle want to pray on their own time, more power to them. But the ballpark isn't a church. Smoltz isn't a preacher. And fans aren't a flock. Instead of using their position of commercial power to field a God Squad, the Rockies might want to think about getting some decent players. There was once this guy named Babe Ruth. Not too much for the religion, and his character was less than sterling. But I hear he could play some decent ball.

What's the role of religion in sports? Can you imagine the uproar if a team only actively sought Jewish or atheist players?

It also brings to mind the ridiculous way in which players of all sports always thank God after a win, a strikeout, a home run, etc. Do you think God really cares if the Rockies win a game? If God was watching a baseball game instead of Iraq or Darfur, that would explain a lot. "Saves" and "sacrifices" take on a new double meaning.

And if God supported a team, it probably wouldn't be the Rockies. It'd have to be the Padres or Saints, right? :-)

Be Afraid

"We are never deceived; we deceive ourselves." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

A lot of people would think that the U.S. agreeing to talks with Iran concerning their nuclear program would be encouraging. Kinda like the U.S. agreeing to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq in the lead up to that war. Pardon me for not being able to take this administration at face value. Why should we trust them when not one single word out of their mouth in the last 5 years has been honest? They are floating the talks as a way to say that they "tried" before going in and bombing the hell out of Iran. I hope I'm wrong.

If our actual goal was stemming the tide of nuclear proliferation, why are we trying to hold Iran to standards that we won't hold Israel, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia to?


And if diplomacy was an actual option, we would not have an uncultured boob like U.N. Ambassador John Bolton saying that unilateral military action was "on the table" and that “This is put up or shut up time for Iran.” Sounds an awful lot like "bring 'em on".

Heaven help us.

"I think there is a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them." -- Noam Chomsky

Movies

We finally saw The Da Vinci Code. Here's my take on it and other movies I've seen recently. I'm way overdue on giving some reviews, so here goes. Short and sweet.


The Da Vinci Code - very good suspense movie. As some of you have already mentioned, it is very faithful to the book. There is an absolutely first-rate cast including, Tom Hanks, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and Alfred Molino. But most outstanding would be Ian McKellan as Sir Teabing and Audrey Tautou as Sophie Neveu. I've never seen McKellan do a bad role and this is no exception. His performance exudes the erudition and humor of the character in the book to a tee. And add my voice to the chorus of supporters for Tautou. I loved her in Amelie and she's great in this. I actually read a review by some moron who complained that her French accent was too heavy and detracted from the movie. Hello!! She IS French. I understood her just fine. And I have a thing for women with foreign accents. Stupid comments like that from the reviewer give weight to the caricature of the "ugly American". They'd have you believe that if everything is not homogenized and Americanized, it isn't worth watching. And they would be wrong.

The settings in the movie are fantastic. Like in the book, they are practically a character by themselves.

I liked how the codes that Langdon sees in the paintings and elsewhere are illuminated like similar codes were shown in director Ron Howard's film A Beautiful Mind. This could have been something that would have been hard to illustrate visually, but they do a good job with it.

If I could find a weakness with the movie, it would be that it tries too hard NOT to offend the church. There are various instances (including one near the end of the movie) where Langdon goes into a monologue out of the blue stressing how the Priory and the Holy Grail, the marriage of Jesus, etc. are all just speculation. He comes off as much more of a skeptic than he does in the book. In real life, that would be fine. Those things are just speculative. But in the book, he did not have as many doubts as the movie would lead you to think. I think the movie could have been made much more controversial than it was. As it is, in a fictional setting, it can still make people think. If at the least, it makes people question tradition and dogma, good for it.

I really fail to see what all the controversy is about. The Da Vinci Code comes off as a well-paced whodunit that happens to be set in a religious setting. But no one would mistake it for a documentary or scholarly work. To those that are actively and vociferously protesting this movie ... especially if you haven't seen it ... get a life. Grade: B+

For some inciteful reviews and discussions of the movie, see:

Laura at Sarchasm
- Movie Review: The DaVinci Code

Cyberkitten at Seeking a Little Truth
- Da Vinci code nun 'not genuine'
- India Catholics target Da Vinci
- Catholics form Da Vinci film team
- Church acts against Da Vinci film

Jewish Atheist
- Why the Success of The Da Vinci Code is a Good Thing


American Dreamz - The tagline from the movie gives a pretty good heads-up on it's plot: "Imagine a country where the President never reads the newspaper, where the government goes to war for all the wrong reasons, and more people vote for a pop idol than their next President." The story follows a fictional program called American Dreamz (an obvious parody of American Idol) and it's intersection with American life and the President. In the first half-hour of the film, I was disappointed because it seemed like it was hitting the easy targets and painting with just a little wide of a brush. President Staton is played with the same affable southern stupidity that has marked a lot of movies (too many) over the last couple of years (Perry King in Day After Tomorrow and Sam Rockwell in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, to name a few). Mandy Moore plays the Kelly Clarkson-type starlet. Hugh Grant plays the Simon Cowell-like host of the show. I was initially disappointed because it seemed like it was taking a shortcut and was not going to be a deeper satire. While it didn't completely redeem itself, the over-the-top nature of the characterizations were apparently done for a reason. They force you to analyze the nature of stereotypes. And the arc which some of the characters take end up being suprising, especially that of the President. Towards the end, he stops listening to his handlers, starts reading, and becomes human. To our real-life president, we can only hope this happens. Grade: B-


Thank You for Smoking - a great satire. From IMDb, "Satirical comedy follows the machinations of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who spins on behalf of cigarettes while trying to remain a role model for his twelve-year-old son". A much better satire than American Dreamz in that it's targets are not as obvious. It seems to be attacking the tobacco industry and the promotion of smoking in society, but in reality it's attacking both sides of the debate. Not just the way bad things are spun but also how political correctness goes overboard sometimes.

Some of the funniest scenes are with Eckhart's character and the representives from the gun lobby and the alcohol lobby. They meet frequently at a bar and discuss how many people each of their vices kill. Appropriately, they call themselves the MOD Squad (Merchants Of Death).

It has a very nice cast, especially Aaron Eckhart as the lead and William H. Macy as the Senator. I strongly recommend this movie. It's probably the best satire I've seen in a few years. Grade: A-


Mission: Impossible III - good, clean fun. I enjoyed it in the same vicarious way one would enjoy a James Bond film. I like the implausible espionage stuff and exotic locales. Having a first-class actor play a villain (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) adds to the fun. It includes other top-notch talent like Laurence Fishburne and Billy Crudup. Being directed by J.J. Abrams and written by Robert Orci and starring Greg Grunberg, the movie definitely has an Alias feel to it ... to it's credit. Even though I've liked some John Woo-directed films (Face/Off and some of his Hong Kong films), by the time he did MI-2, the slow-motion jumping sideways and shooting at the same time scenes were getting damn tired. So this MI is a step up from MI-2.

The main quest of the movie, the search for a weapon, "Rabbit Foot", reminded me a lot of the Maltese Falcon in that it doesn't matter to the story that the object may not have value or that you don't really know what it is. It's all about the quest. Grade: B-

Random Thoughts

The controversy of The Da Vinci Code got me to thinking of the Left Behind movie of a few years back. If they are banning and boycotting The Da Vinci Code around the world for it's controversial religious content and accusing Dan Brown and Ron Howard of pawning it off as truth, why didn't people do the same with those atrocious movies made of the Left Behind series? Making a movie based on Rapture sci-fi that evangelical Christians just eat up would be reason enough for a protest. But wait ... there's more. They starred evangelist-in-the-making and former teenage hearthrob, Kirk Cameron. I think I'm going to be sick. I love this review of the first Left Behind movie by Washington Post's Desson Howe: "...a blundering cringefest, thanks to unintentionally laughable dialogue, hackneyed writing and uninspired direction. The more this movie tries, the worse it gets. Its sincerity ends up becoming a bulging bull's-eye for rotten-tomato throwers." Classic. Please explain to me how Left Behind is any better than L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth?

I guess people have protested in their own way ... by not going to see them. Unfortunately, these movies continue to be made. They've even invited a parody on the Simpson's: Thank God It's Doomsday


======================================================================
Here's my vote for who should run in '08

Stewart/Colbert '08

======================================================================
A lot was made of the multiple guilty verdict counts in the Enron trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. For good reason. But what was missed (and what is always missed by the mainstream media) is who is not mentioned ... Dubya. From Mother Jones and Digby:

[T]he reality, as established by a wealth of historical record and recent disclosures, is that Lay and Enron were instrumental in Bush’s rise to power – and Bush played an important behind-the-scenes role in advancing Enron’s aggressive deregulation agenda, which helped the energy trader ascend to its lofty perch as the seventh-biggest U.S. company.

The Bush-Lay coziness earned the Enron chief a nickname from Bush as "Kenny Boy." But more importantly for Enron, Bush pitched in as governor and president whenever the energy trader wanted easier regulations within the U.S. or to have U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for loan guarantees or risk insurance for Enron's overseas ventures.

Imagine if this relationship had involved Clinton instead of Bush. It would have been Kenneth Starr's wet dream. But it didn't and instead we hear a deafening silence. Good job media. Where are the original Woodward and Bernstein when you need them? Even Bob Woodward has forgotten them.

===================================================================
From local AZ blogger friend Vern's Blog:

Bush Snubs Gore Film on Global Warming

"If you asked me to name the three scariest threats facing the human race, I would give the same answer that most people would: nuclear war, global warming and Windows." -- Dave Barry

In a very telling indication of what exactly is wrong with George Bush and with the "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" Republicans, President Bush replied to a question on whether he would watch Al Gore's documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, and said, "Doubt it." This is how Bush responds to any kind of truth that he doesn't want to face. Ignore something is happening and it will go away. Al Gore, who was already one of my heroes, is on his game right now and as comfortable in his own skin as I've ever seen him. And he replied to Bush's lack of vision brilliantly:

WASHINGTON - Is President Bush likely to see Al Gore's documentary about global warming? "Doubt it," Bush said coolly Monday. But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the former Democratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time, any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on global warming that he's shown more than 1,000 times around the world.

"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival ...

Gore's documentary chronicles his efforts to bring greater attention to the dangers of climate change.

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment ..."

"... Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. "Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?"

"I'm a grandfather and he's a father and this should not be a political issue," Gore said. "And he should ask the National Academy of Sciences ... whether or not human beings are contributing to global warming ..."

Who sounds more presidential now? On one side you have an intelligent, compassionate person who leads with ideas. On the other side, a petulant simpleton who's afraid to admit a fault. Thank you for that, Supreme Court.

"There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings." -- Dorothy Thompson

Immigration

I'd been skirting this issue a bit. Not because I was afraid to talk about it but just because I wanted to be as educated about it as possible before putting my foot in the pool. It's not a black and white issue and proponents of both sides are finding odd bedfellows. One of my friends forwarded me his letter that he sent to the RNC concerning Bush's stance. I thought a critique of it would be a good starting point for a discussion. My friend is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who prays at the altar of Rush and Krauthammer and Hannity. He's fun to have arguments with because he is fairly well-educated(albeit, misinformed) on his stance. And he doesn't take criticism personally. First of all, here's his letter in it's original context:

Mr. Mehlman,

I'm sorry I cannot sign the petition. While I do agree that our immigration system is broken, I cannot support the President on his agenda. I feel that any immigration reform must start with security first. The President wants a comprehensive plan that deals with all aspects of immigration. This will fail, just like it did under Reagan's amnesty program. Under Reagan's program, there was supposed to be tighter security and employer penalties for hiring illegal workers. None of that happened. All we got was 3 million law breakers made into citizens.

The President wants to give amnesty to those that are here illegally without shutting down the border first. I strongly disagree with this policy. Yes, it's amnesty, no matter what type of spin the President wants to put on it. Allowing those that broke our laws, that demonstrated in our city streets DEMANDING legalization, is a slap in the face to every legal U.S. resident and the millions around the world that are trying to come here through legal channels. Without shutting down the border, we'll be looking at another 30 million or more in the next 20 years. No, I do not believe the 11 to 12 million figure. The President stated that the U.S. has detained and deported 6 million illegal crossers under his watch. Since the U.S. Border Control admits that they catch less than half of those coming in, do the math. If they did catch half, that means 6 million have gotten through at a minimum. That's 6 million in 5 years and this has been going on for 20 years. This doesn't even take into account the children born here to illegal aliens (we need to change that part of the Constitution as well and get rid of the anchor baby status).

There are laws on the books now that deal with employers that hire illegal workers. Here's an idea, enforce them. We do not need another law for this, just enforce what we have now. This would be easy to do if the President and members of Congress weren't afraid of losing big business political donations.

The President spoke of the catch and release policy. Why is it they we immediately send back all OTM (other than Mexicans)? Why release all or most of the Mexican law breakers? They will never show up in court. All of this talk of these illegal aliens "living in the shadows" is a joke. Maybe the President didn't see the millions of illegal aliens protesting over the last few months. They didn't seem to be hiding in the shadows as they demanded their rights. They have no fear of being sent home because the local police cannot detain them unless they are committing a crime.

Yes the system is broke and a big part of it is the President's unwillingness to shut down the border. Does he actually think sending 6000 National Guard troops down to the southern border in a SUPPORT role will make us forget that he has ignored this issue for over 5 years? Why is the President so afraid of Mexico's President Fox? He went out of his way to emphasize that the United States is not militarizing the border. We aren't we? We have a huge problem here. Fox's government is threatening lawsuits if the National Guard directly detains any Mexican entering our country illegally. Am I missing something here? Mexico can militarize their border but we're racists if we do the same? For all the President's talk on security and life after 9/11, it's inexcusable and appalling that he has done nothing to secure our borders. If he really wanted to, the southern border could effectively be shut down within a week. He is selling out this country to Mexico.

I've been a strong support of the President on most issues, but on this one, he is dead wrong. The people of the country demand a secure border. We demand that our laws are followed. We do not want people who broke our laws rewarded with citizenship. It does not matter if they've been here for 15 years, that only means that they've broken our laws for the last 15 years. These people got here illegally, they can certainly return to their country legally and apply for either a guest worker program or one of the other 30 something work visas we already have.

The McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill would be a devastating blow to this country. While I do agree that we need some type of guest worker program, anything that gets passed in Congress that does not effectively shut down the border to stop the millions of illegal crossing is doomed to failure. I simply do not understand the Republican's short sightedness on this issue. Thankfully we have people like Rep. Tancredo, Rep King, Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Kyl fighting for the will of the American people. I just wish one of them would run for President. The Republican's that support this amnesty will be very sorry come election time. The conservatives will not vote for them ever again under any circumstance. MCain has no chance of being President now. If it's McCain vs. Hillary, most conservatives will stay home and Hillary will win. I hope the GOP is ready for that. Bill Frist has turned his back on the conservatives as well. I'm waiting to see how Mr. Allen votes. He could be the last one standing.

It's a sad day when the demands of illegal immigrants are more important to our elected officials than our laws, our sovereignty and the will of the American citizen.

Now, I'll begin with what I agree with:

"I feel that any immigration reform must start with security first." - Without beefed-up security, any changes in policy could affect the influx of illegal immigrants. The administration needs to go beyond talking about beefing up security to actually funding it. Congress authorized hiring of 2000 new agents yet Bush has supported hiring only 210. Additionally, the responsibility needs to be a federal one. The governor of Georgia recently signed into law a measure that would have local law enforcement detaining people on federal immigration law violations. This is the wrong way to handle it and a dangerous precedent. Local law enforcement is already tasked with maintaining the peace. Having this added burden would hamper their ability to maintain useful relationships with immigrant populations and would be opening law enforcement up to charges of racial profiling and civil rights violations. Governor Napolitano of Arizona saw the folly of a similar measure and vetoed it.

"There are laws on the books now that deal with employers that hire illegal workers. Here's an idea, enforce them." - a very valid point. The biggest obstacle to these laws being enforced is that a large percentage of businesses that support Bush and Republicans don't want it enforced. They make their profits on the backs of underpaid illegal immigrants.

And what I disagree with:

"... we need to change that part of the Constitution as well and get rid of the anchor baby status." - The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.". From Wikipedia, "According to Congressional records of the original debate on the Amendment, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was specifically inserted to make it clear that a person is not a citizen simply by the location of their birth. The intent being that children born to foreign citizens would fall under the jurisdiction of their parent's respective governments, unless their parents are entirely under the jurisdiction of the United States." If I am understanding the amendment, it is written correctly. It is just not being enforced. So the amendment would not need to be changed. I believe this amendment was originally created to grant citizenships to children of slaves. But I may be wrong.

"They have no fear of being sent home because the local police cannot detain them unless they are committing a crime." -- There is a funny little thing called "due-process". Are you sure that you want to open up the can of worms that allows police to apprehend people without knowing they've committed a crime? That is where neo-cons and the Patriot Act are leading us.

"Thankfully we have people like Rep. Tancredo, Rep King, Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Kyl fighting for the will of the American people. I just wish one of them would run for President." -- He-he. That statement is just scary. Here are some of the highlight statements by these Neanderthals:

Tancredo:
"We will never be able to win in the clash of civilizations, if we don't know who we are. If Western civilization succumbs to the siren song of multiculturalism, I believe we're finished."

"Well, what if you said something like "if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

Peter King:
" The world is safer today because of George Bush, 'cause of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.'"

John Cornyn:
" It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."

John Kyl:
Too many to mention. He blindly parroted the neo-con line and pushed lies to get support for the war. Here are just a few: Wrong as Wrong Can Be

"It's a sad day when the demands of illegal immigrants are more important to our elected officials than our laws, our sovereignty and the will of the American citizen." - It's a sad day when neo-cons think they know what the will of the American people is. And could he be any more melodramatic? Sovereignty only seems to come up when they're talking about immigration. They seem to conveniently forget about it when pushing democracy on other sovereign states.

All in all, he puts his points forward decently within the framework of what he believes. He has some valid points. He has some misguided ones. Tying it all up in a nice bow and calling it immigration reform just seems to be "polishing a turd". It's still xenophobia or outright racism. They oppose amnesty because it rewards those who "break the law". Breaking the law to get a below minimum wage job is wrong ... breaking the law to steal millions from retired people (Enron) or Native Americans(Reed, Abramoff, DeLay) is OK. Illegal wiretapping is OK too in their book. There is no consistency in conservative beliefs.

My conservative friends seem to be fairly constant fodder for my posts. And for that, I apologize to them. But I'd rather talk about stuff that is personally relevant to me and that I hear about on a daily basis. I'm not trying to hide any of my opinions. I'm not afraid to defend or admit I'm wrong on any point that I've tried to make in person or in writing on my blog. If my opinions are fodder for my conservative friends' blogs (if they have them), more power to 'em.

And I don't want to make these discussions into a personal issue. It's not. I still like my friends, but I have a profound philosophical difference with them on some things.

Maybe I'd trust my friend's intentions more if not for his history. He fired off this missive in an e-mail a few years ago: "There are plenty of things wrong with our justice system. How about 25% of the prison population in AZ being ILLEGAL immigrants. They'll just let them go after their sentence is up to go out and commit more crimes or suck more tax dollars from everyone that is here legally. Hey, here's a thought...send them back to fucking Mexico. Put them all on a plane (or as many planes as it takes) and fly them to the most southern airport available in Mexico. Drop them off at the airport and say "Adios"." I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say his opinions have matured. But a part of me thinks that the neo-conservative movement just uses fancy terms like "immigration reform", "No Child Left Behind", and "school vouchers" to hide their racism.

I do find it amusing that true hard-core conservatives are having problems with Bush, Frist, McCain, etc. They usually aren't this cannibalistic. Hopefully it will translate into big changes in November.

Fox News ... White House Press

This pretty much puts to bed any doubts as to whether FOX News is the mouthpiece for the White House. From Crooks and Liars:

MR. SNOW: Well, as I pointed out -- I mentioned this yesterday, and for -- let me see if I can find my quote, because I pulled it out. Chuck Hagel, as you may recall, made a fair amount of news over the weekend when he first said that -- let's see -- "Well, I want to listen to the details and I want to listen to the President," said Senator Hagel -- he said this on "This Week" on a competing network. But I would say this: I think we have to be very careful here. That's not the role of our military, that's not the role of our National Guard." That's what Senator Hagel said on Sunday.

"Fair and Balanced" .... rigggghhhhhtttt. You betcha.

Growing up ...

The little one is growing up ... and I am growing old.

Alex's T-ball season is over:



And he graduated from pre-school last night. I didn't even know there was such a thing. One of Alex's numerous girlfriends. He so much more of a ladies-man that I've ever been. :-)

Favorite Concerts

I was looking through some old concert ticket stubs the other day. I've kept them for every concert that I've ever seen. Probably just a silly compulsion. But when I look at them, it momentarily carries me back to that little slice of time. Music seems to have that ability to attach itself to events in your life. Kind of like a soundtrack.

I thought I'd try to figure out what I considered to be the 10 favorite concerts out of the 100+ that I'd attended. Couldn't narrow it down. So we have a baker's dozen (13). Not necessarily the best sounds or the best performance. It doesn't have to be the best lineup or venue ... though in some cases it was. These were the ones that I considered to be the best "experiences". A combination of band, performance, venue, songs, who I was with, how I was feeling that day. Here goes, in chronological order:

Def Leppard/Tesla -- Hilton Coliseum in Ames, IA -- November 7, 1987
This is the first concert that I ever went to. I was a freshman at Iowa State University and attended this with my brother. I was still in the process of working out of my pop music/new wave phase that I'd endured in my teens. At this point, I was somewhere in between Duran Duran and Ministry. I certainly won't try to tout Def Leppard as being anything other than it was ... catchy pop metal. But we had a blast. Seating was "in-the-round" with the stage in the middle of the arean. We were in the first row of the first deck. Probably only about 60 feet from stage. This was on the Hysteria tour and they played all the obligatory anthems off of that and Pyromania.

Metallica/Cult -- Hilton Coliseum, Ames, IA -- June 11, 1989
By this time at college, I was fully immersed in my heavier music stage, listening to a steady dose of Metallica, Ministry, Skinny Puppy, Front Line Assembly, etc. And this was the first time that I got to see Metallica. This was on the ... And Justice for All tour. They played for a long time and had great imagery and props, including a collapsing statue of the classic image of justice. (per anon. request, here's a scan of the ticket)




Clash of the Titans -- Civic Auditoreum, Omaha, Nebraska -- June 6, 1991
One of the best lineups of a show that I'd ever been to: Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth and Alice in Chains. When you first see Alice in Chains listed there, you think they are a bit out of place. They were an up-and-coming band at the time. They could have been easily intimidated by the more established and loud fans of the other bands, but they were up to the task and played awesome. I'm glad I got to see them then as they very rarely toured because of singer Layne Staley's numerous drug rehab stints (and eventual death).
Slayers fans are a completely different breed and were by far the loudest. If there was a house band for hell, Slayer would be that band. They were incredible. Anthras was great too and was the most party-oriented band there. The day of the concert, my brother and I saw the drummer Charlie Benante at a record store in old town Omaha and we went up and got his autograph.
Megadeth was the main band that we were going to see and we were able to work our way up to the stage for their set. Great performance and I think my ears are still ringing.



Red Hot Chili Peppers/Pearl Jam/Smashing Pumpkins -- C.Y. Stephens, Ames, IA -- October 19, 1991
As they say, it's sometimes better to be lucky than good. We bought tickets for this show as soon as they went on sale because the venue was small (about 1500 seats) and the Chili Peppers were very popular at the time. We didn't know much about the opening bands at the time and almost showed up late for that reason. Luckily, we did show up on time and caught awesome sets by two little bands you may have heard of ... Pearl Jam and The Smashing Pumpkins. This was the tour for the Pepper's Mother's Milk, PJ's Ten, and Pumpkins' Gish albums. Like I said, we were morons but lucky morons.

Prong -- The Roxy, Phoenix, AZ -- October 26, 1994
Prong for many years was my pet band. I saw them probably half a dozen times in little over a year. I had first been exposed to them in college accidentally. My college roommates and I were visiting a hole-in-the-wall record shop in Iowa City (home of the University of Iowa) and I saw a Prong CD single with artwork by the classic metal artist Pushead. You usually see his work on Metallica t-shirts. Anyway, having never even heard of Prong, I bought the CD, went home and listened to it and was hooked. It was very primal, bare-bones metal. Post-industrial.

This show at the Roxy was particularly good and we got right up to the front of the stage and I was able to shake singer/guitarist Tommy Victor's hand.



Tammy Wynette -- Don's Celebrity Theatre, Laughlin, NV -- February 11, 1995
I know ... this listing seems kinda incongruous, but there's a reason. We went to this show with my folks at the Riverside Casino in Laughlin Nevada. This is one of those classic dinner theaters that you would imagine Frank Sinatra appearing at. It was nice being able to sit at a table, have a drink or two and enjoy the show. My parents bought the tickets. We had a suprisingly good time. The highlight was actually getting to meet Ms. Wynette after the show and get her autograph. She was very nice and had none of the usual celebrity trappings.

R.E.M/Luscious Jackson -- Blockbuster Desert Sky Pavilion, Phoenix, AZ -- May 5, 1995
The only time that I have seen R.E.M. Blockbuster (now Cricket Pavilion) is an outside venue that can hold 20,000 or more. It was a bit warm even in May. But it was worth it as R.E.M played for 2 hours plus and were consummate showmen.

Ministry -- Mesa Amphitheatre, Mesa, AZ -- May 11, 1996
I've never seen so much black clothing in one location. Ministry was the first heavy band that I liked in college but they never came to Ames when I was there. I finally saw them in Mesa and was not disappointed. Pure aggression.

Lollapalooza -- Compton Terrace, AZ -- July 27, 1996
Dusty, hot, windy, sweaty pit in the middle of the desert. We had thunderstorms and 108 degree weather. Not my favorite venue but it seemed oddly apropos with a band lineup of Rancid, Devo, Ramones, Soundgarden, Metallica. My only band disappointment was the abreviated set by Soundgarden. They were irritated that some fans had booed the Ramones, who had preceded them. And I agree with SG on this one. It was my first chance at seeing either SG or the Ramones and was appreciative of the opportunity. The Ramones only performed 5 more concerts in their career after this one and I was lucky enough to be there. To be able to see both the Ramones and Devo together was special.

Rage Against the Machine/Foo Fighters -- Mesa Amphitheatre, Mesa, AZ -- September 26, 1996
Another show in one of my favorite venues. This was the perfect combination of two great bands at the height of their game and with similar political leanings. One of the great things about them, though, is that they would never do political posturing during a show. They would let their music speak. I've heard much more poltical garbage and jingoism at the few country concerts that I've attended.

The highlight of the show was the surprise appearance of local resident Maynerd Keenan of Tool (he lives in Jerome, I believe) during Know Your Enemy.

Bruce Springsteen -- Gammage Auditorium, Tempe, AZ -- October 21, 1996
Great sound. This was on his one-man acoustic Ghost of Tom Joad tour. Just him and a guitar. Very evocative of a Bob Dylan show. Ghost of Tom Joad is probably my favorite album of his. The title is an obvious reference to the John Steinbeck classic, The Grapes of Wrath. And the songs are all similarly relating to the plight of the working man. The only other person to appear on stage at this show was his longtime guitarist Nils Lofgren (who lives in Scottsdale) who played for a song or two.

Faith No More -- Electric Ballroom, Phoenix, AZ -- October, 1997
Another great venue. The stage is at the bottom of a bowl in the middle. No seat in the house is more than 75 feet from stage. I had loved Faith No More since college but this was the first time that I got to see them. Opening band Limp Bizkit was understandably forgettable. This was before they hit it big. Their cover of George Michaels's Faith was high-energy and entertaining enough. But the real reason that I came was Faith No More. I believe they were one of the most underrated bands out there. They consistently suprised with every album. Never sticking to a formula and never pandering to the mainstream. Interesting side note: I saw Michael Moore in this same venue prior to the elections of '04.



Slipknot/Lamb of God/Shadows Fall -- Glendale, AZ -- April 6, 2005
Slipknot are fellow corn-fed Iowa boys. You wouldn't know it from seeing them. They are a scary 9 piece band straight from the bowels of hell. I'm fairly large (6'1", 225) but I feared for my life at this show. It was awesome. See here for a review. Shadows Fall and Lamb of God also performed.

I'd be curious to hear some of your favorite concert experiences.

Hypocrisy

"The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be." -- Socrates

As you know, I like writing about hypocrisy. And today I'm going to write about one of the biggest hypocrites I know ... ME. Mine is the worst kind because I actually have some control over it. Casting aspersions on others and ignoring my own shortcomings would be no way to live. Here goes:

I tout the advantages of communal living and criticize urban sprawl yet live in what many would consider the suburbs. It's especially tough when you have a kid. You are trying to balance everything ... cost, schools, access to employment, etc. But they are all just excuses. I truly believe in the merits of higher density city living. At some point in my life, I'd like for us to to move nearer the city center of a major city.

I like to think my wife and I are environmentalists yet we hold jobs that involve each of us driving 70+ miles a day. If I could figure out some way of getting to all my clients in a timely manner riding the bus, I'd do it. But with the large area of the valley, it is impossible logistically and time-wise. Solution ... I need to get a different job. Someone needs to pay me gobs of money to stay home and write. I can dream, can't I? We have little 4 cylinder cars. But we could do better. I'd love for us to both have hybrids. We're working towards getting me one within the next year.

I espouse the merits of patronizing local businesses but I still go to places like Target and Costco. Again, this is where a lively urban center would be an advantage. You would have many businesses of all types ... locally owned ... within walking distance. Money would be staying in your community. There would be less pollution because of less driving. When it comes to the big box stores, I do try to pick the lesser of two evils. See my earlier post on Costco. If faced with several undesirable choices, at least know what is going on with your money. This is a good site for checking on businesses: BuyBlue.org

I completely understand why it is good both personally and globally to consume organic foods, yet I don't take advantage of the numerous resources (whole food markets, farmers' markets, etc.) as often as I should. There are starting to be quite a few inexpensive supermarkets that offer organic foods:

• Whole Foods


• Trader Joe's


• Sprouts


• Henry's

No real excuse for me to not to use them other than being a lazy sod.

We try to be charitable and volunteer when we can, but I don't think we do enough. We give quite a bit, but you can always give more. We've volunteered for voter registration drives, at the food bank and at Michelle's church, but there are many more opportunities to help. Again, this is a case where you try to balance raising a child, running a business and being a good citizen. If I wasn't so chicken-shit, I'd just sell our house, liquidate all of our 401K's and IRA's and go join the Peace Corps or do some kind of huminatarian work in another country. And I think it would be a unique life experience for us all. It would certainly provide a different perspective to Alex that Michelle and I did not get exposed to growing up in small town Iowa. There are times where I really, really think that's what I should do. Most of the rest of the time I think maybe I can do more good by continuing to work as hard as I can for the next 15 years or so, retire and then volunteer extensively for the rest of our lives.

So what does it all mean? It means none of us are perfect. As long as we are trying to do good and trying to do better, there is hope for us. Never be content that what you are doing is enough.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates

I Love South Park ...

Taking a cue from Sadie, I Hate South Park But ..., I made myself into a South Park character:



Check it out at South Park Studio. Thanks for the link Sadie. It was pretty amusing.

Lies, Lies, Lies ... Yeah!

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Adolph Hitler

A former co-worker and friend of many years forwarded the following e-mail to me (and several hundred of her dearest friends) in the last week:

Dr. Dobson & CBS Response

Apparently we are to be allowed to watch TV programs that use every foul word in the English language, but not the word "God." It will only take a minute to read this and see if you think you should send it out

DR. DOBSON'S PLEA FOR ACTION

CBS discontinued "Touched by an Angel" for using the word God in every program. Madeline Murray O'Hare, an atheist, successfully managed to eliminate the use of Bible reading from public schools a few years ago. Now her organization has been granted a federal hearing on the same subject by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, DC.

Their petition, Number 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading of the gospel our Lord and Savior, on the airwaves of America.

They got 287,000 signatures to back their stand! If this attempt is successful, all Sunday worship services being broadcast on the radio or by television will be stopped. This group is also campaigning to remove all Christmas programs and Christmas carols from public schools!

You as a Christian can help! We are praying for at least 1 million signatures. This would defeat their effort and show that there are many Christians alive, well and concerned about our country. As Christians we must unite on this. Please don't take this lightly.

We ignored this lady once and lost prayer in our schools and in offices across the nation. Please stand up for your religious freedom and let your voice be heard. Together we can make a difference in our country while creating a way for the lost to know the Lord.

Please press "forward", and forward this to everyone that you think should read this. Now, please sign your name at the bottom (you can only add your name after you have pressed the "Forward"). Don't delete any other names, just go to the next number and type your name and state. Please defeat this organization and keep the right of our freedom of religion.

REMEMBER! : Our country was founded on freedom of religion and our Constitution is based on the 10 Commandments.

People that forward this kind of crap are the worst kind of morons (sorry ... you're a friend but in this case, you are either naive or a moron or both). It illustrates the following:

• -- You will believe anything especially if it is religion-related and even more if James Dobson is associated with it.

• -- You are gullible and will do anything if asked to in an e-mail.

• -- You apparently don't have the time to take 2 seconds to go to snopes.com and double-check something before spamming everyone in your address book. Variations of this e-mail have been bouncing around the internet for 10 years: Petition to Ban Religious Broadcasting

• -- You assume that everyone in your address book cares about whatever subject you are sending. It is your public service responsibility to enlighten us.

• -- You are part of a huge majority yet continue to try and pawn off yourself as a persecuted minority. If I hear one more time that you can get in trouble for saying Merry Christmas, I will personally hunt you down and I may have to resort to violence ... even though I'm a pacifist.

• -- Lies and hyperbole are apparently just as good as facts. I couldn't help thinking of Stephen Colbert's line from this last weekend: " ... and reality has a well-known liberal bias."

"People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to." -- Malcolm Muggeridge