Solipsistic

That's how many soldiers have died in Iraq at the time of this posting. See here.

John Stewart echoes my post from a few days ago.

Why is it that Oprah was tougher on Frey than the entire media is toward the executive?

Our Attorney General lied during his confirmation hearing concerning his stance on warrantless wiretapping. Story here.

Just further evidence that the Bush doctrine is to tell us whatever we need to hear in order to accomplish what they deem necessary. Their contempt for democracy is astounding.

Last night's episode was much better, at least as far as providing more excitement.

Jack Bauer sure is toture crazy, though. I don't think the option to use torture is ever quite as clear cut or necessary as "24" makes it. We can't use the "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify all manners of torture in which we are currently engaged. I'm worried "24" will dumb down the public debate.

Glad to see Derrick gone.

Strongbad gives you a primer on computers.

I also once thought that a 3 1/4 diskette was a hard disk.

You can find a full list here.

The nominations represent a pretty good selection of the year's films. I don't think much of "Good Night, and Good Luck" being nominated for Best Picture. I do think it is a story that needs to be retold given today's political climate, but it was a cold exercise. The music was great, the period details were fantastic, and David Strathairn was excellent as always--and deserving of his nomination. Yet, the movie was boring. It was devoid of energy. There was a unwieldy romantic subplot and the film's tragic moment was telegraphed from a mile away. The movie's nomination represents the academy wanting to award an "important" movie. I can think of a host of movies more deserving.

Best Actor is the night's tighest race. I have no idea who will win this one.

It's great to see Matt Dillon, Paul Giamatti, and William Hurt all nominated for Supporting Actor. They are three of the best character actors working today.

The academy continues its trend of nominating smaller, independent pictures in both screenplay categories. "The Squid and the Whale", "A History of Violence", and "The Constant Gardener" were just some of the nominees in these categories.

Of course, I can't take any awards show seriously that awarded "Titanic" Best Picture over "LA Confidential."

This is a really interesting piece about the way "Brokeback Mountain" was marketed. The film is poised to become one the year's biggest hits despite its controversial subject matter.

After seeing the movie--fantastic, by the way--I did realize that, though marketed as a love story, the film is more of a tragedy. The film is the story of two men with abuse and neglect in their past and their attempts to find happiness. Their search ends tragically and wreaks havoc on their family and friends.

The movie is all the stronger for not carrying any agenda and instead choosing to tell a tragic story well. It is this lack of an agenda that will cause this movie to win Best Picture, continue to resonate with audiences across the nation, and not feel dated in a few years.

"Brokeback" is not a message movie and a must see for any viewer.

It is often the practice of left leaning bloggers to take a "see, I told you so" attitude when news of the horrible reaches us from the current military engagements. We often fail to empathize and instead seize on the bad news as a way to prove our contention that the Bush campaign against terror is immoral and FUBAR.

This attitude is ultimately self-defeating. Attacking Bush is not an end in an of itself. Instead, we must promote justice and mercy, and do so with humility (Micah 6:8.) The current administration angers me to no end, but my message fails to resonate with most on the right, because they lump me in with the rest of the "Bush-haters." I am not a "Bush-hater." I am justice-promoter.

I think the just outrage I once felt toward our current immoral campaign against terror has morphed into a mission to win the argument. This is often the tone of a sizeable portion of the blogosphere's commentary. In order to reach people, we must change our focus.

Take the story below, for instance. My first instinct was to say, "See! This proves Bush's war against terror is wrong." Instead, my focus should be on the families effected by these unjust tactics. I was not against the war against Iraq because I was against Bush, but because of the untold death and destruction that would occur in pursuit of an ill-defined and immoral mission.

If we want to regain the high ground, we must stop playing "gotcha" and return to promoting justice. If we win the argument--Bush is thrown out of office--there will still be the need to promote justice and mercy.

The title does not refer to the ongoing US attack on Iraq, although such a description is fitting. Instead, I am referring to the recent report that US military forces seized and detained the wives of two suspected insurgents in Iraq:

U.S. forces in Iraq, in two instances described in military documents, took custody of the wives of men believed to be insurgents in an apparent attempt to pressure the suspects into giving themselves up.

Both incidents occurred in 2004. In one, members of a shadowy military task force seized a mother who had three young children, still nursing the youngest, "in order to leverage" her husband's surrender, according to an account by a civilian Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence officer.

In the other, an e-mail exchange includes a U.S. military officer asking "have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

The documents were among thousands obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union from the government under court order through the Freedom of Information Act.

"This is not an acceptable tactic," ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said on Friday, referring to seizing a wife to try to catch a husband, "nor are any of the other abusive techniques acceptable. We know that abusive techniques were employed in a systemic manner across Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay."

Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said: "It's very hard, obviously, from some of these documents to determine what, if anything, actually happened. ... When you see an individual e-mail note, it's oftentimes very confusing to figure out how that particular case fits into an overall, larger puzzle."

Boyce also said the military has thoroughly looked at "any allegation against soldiers of misconduct or abuse of detainees."

A June 10, 2004, memo written by the DIA employee, labeled as "secret," referred to "violations of the Geneva Convention" relating to detainee abuse and illegal detention of noncombatants.

It described the actions of Task Force 6-26, which has been mentioned in other documents in connection with allegations of detainee abuse, and stated that on May 9, 2004, task force personnel detained the wife of "a suspected terrorist" in Tarmiya, Iraq.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing. Her husband was the primary target of the raid, with other suspect personnel subject to detainment as well," the memo stated.

"During the pre-operational brief, it was recommended by TF (task force) personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," the memo stated. Its author said that "I objected to the detainment of the young mother to the raid team leader" and "I believed it was a dead issue."

The memo stated that "I determined that the wife could provide no actionable intelligence leading to the arrest of her husband."

"Despite my protest, (the) raid team leader detained her anyway," stated the memo, whose author officially reported the incident within the chain of command. The memo said the wife was released two days later to the custody of a tribal sheik.

In the other case, a U.S. lieutenant colonel e-mailed, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband -- have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife? ... or something more sophisticated, I suspect, from the 'not necessarily the cool guys, but the guys with the cool stuff?"'

A later e-mail stated, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceipt (sic) and misinformation."

As George Lakoff tells us in "Don't Think of an Elephant," framing the debate correctly helps you to win the debate.

With that in mind, Paul Glastris gives us some advice on framing the NSA debate:

Framing thought for the day: the primary worry about the NSA eavesdropping program shouldn't be civil liberties, but incompetence.

Most people agree, or can be convinced, that in order to root out terrorist threats we need to give the NSA enhanced permission to snoop on domestic communications. But this is a potentially very dangerous power we’re giving the government. So the question is, do we trust the Bush administration to use this power with care and competence?

The answer is, of course not. The administration has shown, time and again, that it can’t be trusted to manage the power it has. Iraq, Katrina, the budget, mine safety, prescription drugs—each and every one a monumental screw-up. What possible reason do we have to presume that the administration hasn’t screwed up the NSA eavesdropping program? We have no real idea who the NSA is spying on. Could be al-Qaeda cells. Could be your wife’s cell phone conversations. We have no idea.

There’s only one way to make sure the Bush administration hasn’t blown this very important and delicate domestic spying activity. It’s the mechanism bequeathed to us by the Founders: Congressional consent and oversight. But the president doesn’t believe he needs Congress’ consent, and the Republican-controlled Congress doesn’t believe in tough oversight.

The upcoming hearings on the NSA eavesdropping program are certainly welcome. But given the realities of one-party control in Washington, there's really only one way for the American people to make sure they have a domestic spying program that smokes out terrorists without shredding their civil liberties. They have to vote for it this November.

Apparently, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) never met Grover Norquist.

Santorum seems to be taking cues from Bush.

...to the White House. Our president continues his crusade to restore the people's faith in the executive branch.

In a week in which the nation has wrung its hands over the honesty of its biographers--Oprah's confrontation of James Frey was in heavy rotation on Thursday night cable news--the president continues to lie. And no one cares.

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows he's lying. The president is a serial liar. The president lies.

Let's quit beating James Frey and turn our outrage toward the executive.

It's like they're letting Hannity produce their news broadcasts.

First, they hired Glenn Beck and now this.

Awesome episode. Charlie's brother was a complete loser even after he kicked drugs. When we see that Charlie's brother has kicked drugs in the first season, we assume he is heroic and noble for overcoming his problems. Then we see he did so at Charlie's expense.

Why did Locke keep the heroin? I think he is keeping it to use against Charlie. Locke is not a good man.

Maybe the season's strongest outing. Tragic and a great turn from Dominic Monaghan.

NY Times poll finds that some of the public is for wiretapping:

The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."

The results suggest that Americans' view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.

In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."

Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase "terrorist surveillance program" to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses.

As we can see from the article, acceptance of the program is based on perception of the program. If Americans think Bush is after the bad people then they, for the most part, don't oppose the program. So the Bush team will obviously be pushing hard to sell this as a measure to go after terrorists.

If they were really after terrorists, though, the FISA court would have been obliging. And if FISA wasn't helpful, they should have transparently pushed tougher surveillance measures through congress.

But, as we know from yesterday, they were worried that officially making surveillance measures more agressive would be unconstitutional. So they made the program more agressive anyway, but did so in secrecy. And they got caught.

Now the PR wheels are spinning and the obfuscation is flying.

There is a new mantra for the sociopathic and fans of George A. Romero:

"Live every day as if you're dying of a contagious disease that turns the people you bite into zombies."

This appears to be the philosophy of the White House. (See an example below.) For those who would argue that the White House has the country's best interest at heart--and I am inclined to agree that they believe they are doing good--this has to be the conclusion you reach about their MO.

Given the discrepencies about Iraq intelligence versus fact, the Social Security debacle, and the ongoing surveillance imbroglio, one can see a continuous attempt to deceive in order to make the country in their image.

Not being honest with citizens, though, undermines democracy. It also makes the White House guilty of the same paternalism of which liberals are often accused. (At least liberals are more often than not up front when they try to force feed you your medicine.)

But back to the democracy issue. In order for citizens to make informed decisions about their leaders, they must understand exactly what their leaders are doing and why they are doing what they are. Otherwise, we are stumbling in the dark and are being played.

The White House is playing us, undermining democracy, is paternalistic, and is a master of deception. The White House wants to promote democracy around the world. In order to promote democracy at home, they should be evicted from the White House.

Yep. You read that right. In 2002, White House said as much:

The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard...

During Senate debate over DeWine's amendment in July 2002, James A. Baker, the Justice Department's counsel for intelligence policy, said in a statement that the Bush administration did not support the proposal "because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues."

Baker said it was "not clear cut" whether the proposal would "pass constitutional muster," and "we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions" if the amendment was later struck down by the courts. He also said Justice had been using FISA aggressively and played down the notion that the probable cause standard was too high...

The White House did not want this issue brought out into the open because it would call into question the legality of practices in which they were currently engaged. What the public doesn't know can't hurt them. This is disgraceful.

Does he care about bin Laden or not?

Can't seem to make up his mind.

Keith Olbermann helps elucidate the differences between domestic and international as defined by the White House.

It doesn't make any sense to me, either.

Jay Roach, director of "Austin Powers" and "Meet the Parents", to direct a film based on the life of Mark Felt--the infamous "Deep Throat."

Roach's track record is questionable. "Austin Powers" was a classic. "Meet the Parents" was good. The sequels were horrible. It will be interesting to see him handle a more serious subject.

For the best comedy based on the Nixon White House, you have to check out "Dick." It's a bit of an embarrassing rental, but it is a very funny comedy. Michelle Williams, Kirsten Dunst, and the rest of the cast are pitch perfect. Dan Hedeya as the President delivers one of the best comic performances of the 90s.

So-so. Not much happened. I know they were planting seeds for future story lines. This low key episode is probably the result of blowing much of the show's budget on the first four episodes. The White House's apparent involvement in the whole mess seems promising.

I hope they send Derek home soon. Let's hope he's not secretly evil. That would be a "jump the shark" moment. Big surprise on CTU not being a safe place for Tony, Jack, and Tony's doctor.

A good friend of mine had his letter to the editor published in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch. In it, he questions the US justification for the Pakistani bombing:

I was angered while reading about the recent U.S. missile attacks in Pakistan that killed civilians. The extra-judicial strikes and assassination attempts that have occurred in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq since the invasion began illustrate our nation's often inconsistent sense of justice.

I can't conceive of a believable scenario in which we as Americans would accept a strike on our soil by another nation in order to take out a person another nation deemed a threat, let alone a strike that needlessly kills innocent civilians.

The only way we can rationalize ending an innocent life to protect another life is that we believe - consciously or subconsciously - these Pakistani lives are worth less than those of Americans.

Jeremy Finney

Peter Daou at Salon offers up a very important essay that will prove to be a touchstone for the future of liberal interaction with the American media. Take a look:

What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.

There's a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I'm describing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left.

You’ve heard the narratives: Bush is likable, Bush is a regular guy, Bush is firm, Bush is a religious man, Bush relishes a fight, Democrats are muddled, Democrats have no message, national security is Bush’s strength, terror attacks and terror threats help Bush (even though he presided over the worst attack ever on American soil), Democrats are weak on security, Democrats need to learn how to talk about values, Republicans favor a “strict interpretation” of the Constitution, and on and on.

A single storyline is more effective than a thousand stories. And a single storyline delivered by a “neutral” reporter is a hundred times more dangerous than a storyline delivered by an avowed partisan. Rightwingers can attack the media for criticizing Bush, can slam the New York Times for being liberal, but when the Times and the Post and CNN and MSNBC echo the ‘Bush stands firm’ mantra, it adds one more brick to a powerful pro-Bush edifice.

These narratives are woven so deeply into the fabric of news coverage that they have become second nature and have permeated the public psyche and are regurgitated in polls. (The polls are then used to strengthen the narratives.) They are delivered as affirmative statements, interrogatives, hypotheticals; they are discussed as fact and accepted as conventional wisdom; they are twisted, turned, shaped, reshaped, and fed to the American public in millions of little soundbites, captions, articles, editorials, news stories, and opinion pieces. They are inserted into the national dialogue as contagious memes that imprint the idea of Bush=strong/Dems=weak. And they are false.

What’s so dumbfounding to progressive netroots activists, who clearly see the role of the traditional media in perpetuating these storylines - and are taking concrete action (here, here, and here) to remedy the problem - is that Democratic politicians, strategists, and surrogates have internalized these narratives and play into them, publicly wringing their hands over how to fix their" muddled" message, how to deal with Bush’s "strength" on national security, how to talk about "values." It’s become a self-fulfilling cycle, with Democrats reinforcing anti-Dem myths because they can’t imagine any other explanation for the apparent lack of resonance of their message. Out of desperation, they resort to hackneyed, focus-grouped slogans in a vain attempt to break through the filter.

It’s simple: if your core values and beliefs and positions, no matter how reasonable, how mainstream, how correct, how ethical, are filtered to the public through the lens of a media that has inoculated the public against your message, and if the media is the public’s primary source of information, then NOTHING you say is going to break through and change that dynamic. Which explains, in large measure, the Dems’ sorry electoral failures...

I don't think there is a media conspiracy to hurt the democrats, except at Fox News and assorted talk radio stations. Instead, the media has allowed the conservatives to frame the debate and continue to work within those frames. Also, they are scared of being viewed as "the liberal media" so they overcompensate by being deferential to the White House.

General Hayden, the director of NSA, doesn't believe that providing "probable cause" is a necessary burden for those wishing to search American citizens.

Let me clarify, for emphasis. The director of the NSA isn't making a pointed legal argument about the constitution's instruction on engaging in search and seizure. He says the need for "probable cause" isn't even in the constitution.

Of course, the founding fathers disagree with him:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This guy is the head of the NSA. Who's worried?

Going on a little sleep right now and my wife's taking the day off of work tomorrow to celebrate her birthday. Will try to post tomorrow.

Happy Birthday sweetie. I love you.

This is pretty funny.

Tim Russert keeps asking african-americans who come on his show how they feel about Harry Belafonte. It's kind of offensive and reveals some cluelessness on his part.

It's like asking a man with the surname Patel if he is related to another Patel that you know. (Which I did a few years ago.)

georgia10 at Daily Kos gives her reaction to McCain's statements concerning wiretapping and the Bush team's response to criticism:

Bush's spying program is so repulsive to the core of our democracy that even some of his most ardent supporters will not come to his defense. Just as every other time Bush has face criticism from his own party (Social Security, Iraq War) his administration is embarking on a full-blown, campaign style offensive this week. Alberto Gonzales, Deputy National Intelligence Director Mike Hayden, and other officials will flood the airwaves with their empty rhetoric of a "limited program" which "saves lives." The goal is not just to convince Americans and to paint liberals as anti-national-security. Bush also faces the daunting task of fending off the growing mass of conservatives demanding answers.

I am so glad to see conservatives and traditional Bush supporters speaking out. I hope they will follow through.

Landmark Theater and Dallas Mavs owner Mark Cuban posted this fascinating commentary on his blog. On the 27th of this month, Landmark Theaters will be selling DVDs of the movie "Bubble" on the same day that it is showing in theaters. This move has theater owners worried, but Cuban says it just makes sense and is inevitable.

He says it will ultimately allow theaters and studios to make more money. I think he is right. It's like selling t-shirts, DVDs, and CDs at a concert venue.

He also offers some good insight as to why people aren't going to the movies as much as they used to. I had to sit in front of an obnoxious couple at "Munich"--a somewhat dense movie--who kept talking and taking me out of the experience. The theater is not your living room, folks.

I have found that talking and audience participation at horror movies actually improves the experience, though. "Don't go in there, girl!"

This is probably a good thing. Having a midseason loss reveals your weaknesses and strengthens you come tournament time, I hope. Consider it a homeopathic treatment.

NY Times gives their breakdown of the game.

The press coverage of the entire Bush presidency has left me scratching my head. Anytime a scandal breaks--conducting illegal wiretaps, for instance--I am reminded that the Clinton sex scandal garnered more press attention, inspired more hatred among pundits, and had more people talking.

Media Matters offers their summary of the situation here.

Did the Clinton story make for better copy because it involved sex? Is there a conservative bias in the media? Did the press hate Clinton? Is fellatio really worse than breaking the law and lying to the American people, repeatedly?

Not trying to be flip here. Genuinely baffled/concerned.

That installment was quite a mess. Peter Sarsgaard seemed in pain/drunk/stoned, but I still found myself transfixed. (I did miss the first third which is usually the best part, so maybe I missed some good stuff.)

Horatio Sanz's makeup was pretty incredible. He did look like "Carol." Still a pretty lousy sketch comic. Not very disciplined. Watch Meyers to see a true pro. He pulled Sarsgaard through that "Cat Fancy"/"Shatterd Glass" skit.

The last two weeks "SNL" mentioned the Saint Louis Arch, Kansas City, and a hotel in Saint Louis/Hazelwood. What's up with all the Missouri love?

Was the crew stoned as well, or did Sarsgaard keep missing his marks, or did everything just happen to go wrong? The mistakes do make "SNL" more interesting, though.

Need a "Saarsgard SARS Guard." Best skit of the night.

I'm such a doofus. Thought it started at 9:00. Is airing again at 2:00 am Tuesday, so will get another chance.

"Bleak House," Dickens best novel, is coming to American TV tomorrow night. It's a fantastic story and I hope that the folks at Masterpiece Theater do it justice. For the geeks, it features Gillian Anderson of X-Files fame.

See more here.

Hoping to offer some reactions on Monday morning.

John Gibson of Fox News aired an incredibly wrongheaded commentary in response to the Osama tape. Why else would they call liberals and Osama bin Laden compatriots?

Oh, yes. I forgot. Because we are against the war in Iraq, hate freedom and loved the events of 9-11.

Let's hit the low points:

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer issued a quick statement that we don't deal with terrorists. No truce, Usama.

Even Howard Dean — interviewed here on FOX shortly after the release of the tape — agreed that we should never negotiate with terrorists.

Even Howard Dean. No way. I just heard him say the other day that he wished Flight 93 had been successful in its mission.

This is really ridiculous and more fitting to a Malkin or Coulter--everyone knows they're silly--than a cable network news anchor.

Okay, Johnny. Hit us with another zinger.

Far lefties like the ones who were screaming at Nancy Pelosi the other day in San Francisco should take note. They were calling on Pelosi to end the funding for the war, leaving her in the defensive but correct position that she couldn't cut off support for the troops.

But these are the very people who will seize on the offer of a truce. And this is why these sorts of people don't run the U.S. government and never will.

While I'm sure the crowd in San Francisco was filled with many crazies, Gibson goes ahead and calls anyone who thinks that the war should end today a crazy. Very typical Fox discourse.

Go, Johnny, Go:

Democrats and Republicans, I'm sure, will be united on this point. No bargaining with bin Laden, and he's still got to answer for killing 3,000 Americans in New York.

I thought that was what the war in Iraq was for? Punishing bin Laden. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense, does it? Maybe we should attack Syria, which will really punish bin Laden.

Here's where Gibson really steps out of line and starts stoking the fascist fires:

But the far lefties ought to pay attention to the other things he said. He was quoting our own far left and Europe's as they have cheered the polls showing Americans support for the war waning, that some Americans want to pull out from Iraq.

That's the basis for bin Laden's truce offer. He is talking to America's far left and saying, "You know what. We're on the same side. So why don't you work on that hardhead George W. Bush?"

Bin Laden told us Thursday that our far left has been working for him. It's their poll results he quotes.

Bin Laden told us that our secret wiretapping program is something we should keep up. He's got people here already and he's got more coming and they are planning to blow us up.

In the War on Terror, a bin Laden tape is the far left's worst nightmare because it reminds Americans the war is real.

That's My Word.

Time to start working on those reeducation camps. And, yes, all those who are against the war in Iraq are secretly on Osama's pay roll. It feels so good to get that off my chest.

It's time to get Bernard Goldberg over to Fox to do some digging and unearth the secret political biases of their news staff. If he looks hard enough, he should be able to uncover how they really feel about the left.

So apparently the White House still stands behind the idea that Bush can do whatever he wants to fight terror, even if if involves breaking the law.

In today's NY Times:

The Bush administration offered its fullest defense to date Thursday of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that authorization from Congress to deter terrorist attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the N.S.A. activities."

More here.

Finally!

Reading the following piece at the NY Times today, I wanted to shout out "Yes." (I couldn't. I was in the library.) Charles Marsh, the author of the piece, says so well what myself and many other evangelicals have been feeling over the past five years. Just read it:

In the past several years, American evangelicals, and I am one of them, have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history. But at what cost to our witness and the integrity of our message?

Recently, I took a few days to reread the war sermons delivered by influential evangelical ministers during the lead up to the Iraq war. That period, from the fall of 2002 through the spring of 2003, is not one I will remember fondly. Many of the most respected voices in American evangelical circles blessed the president's war plans, even when doing so required them to recast Christian doctrine.

Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, whose weekly sermons are seen by millions of television viewers, led the charge with particular fervor. "We should offer to serve the war effort in any way possible," said Mr. Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "God battles with people who oppose him, who fight against him and his followers." In an article carried by the convention's Baptist Press news service, a missionary wrote that "American foreign policy and military might have opened an opportunity for the Gospel in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

As if working from a slate of evangelical talking points, both Franklin Graham, the "evangelist and son of Billy Graham, and Marvin Olasky, the editor of the conservative World magazine and a former advisor to President Bush on faith-based policy, echoed these sentiments, claiming that the American invasion of Iraq would create exciting new prospects for proselytizing Muslims. Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the hugely popular "Left Behind" series, spoke of Iraq as "a focal point of end-time events," whose special role in the earth's final days will become clear after invasion, conquest and reconstruction. For his part, Jerry Falwell boasted that "God is pro-war" in the title of an essay he wrote in 2004.

The war sermons rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president's decision in April 2003. Recent polls indicate that 68 percent of white evangelicals continue to support the war. But what surprised me, looking at these sermons nearly three years later, was how little attention they paid to actual Christian moral doctrine. Some tried to square the American invasion with Christian "just war" theory, but such efforts could never quite reckon with the criterion that force must only be used as a last resort. As a result, many ministers dismissed the theory as no longer relevant.

Some preachers tried to link Saddam Hussein with wicked King Nebuchadnezzar of Biblical fame, but these arguments depended on esoteric interpretations of the Old Testament book of II Kings and could not easily be reduced to the kinds of catchy phrases that are projected onto video screens in vast evangelical churches. The single common theme among the war sermons appeared to be this: our president is a real brother in Christ, and because he has discerned that God's will is for our nation to be at war against Iraq, we shall gloriously comply.

Such sentiments are a far cry from those expressed in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974. More than 2,300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries signed that statement, the most significant milestone in the movement's history. Convened by Billy Graham and led by John Stott, the revered Anglican evangelical priest and writer, the signatories affirmed the global character of the church of Jesus Christ and the belief that "the church is the community of God's people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology."

On this page, David Brooks correctly noted that if evangelicals elected a pope, it would most likely be Mr. Stott, who is the author of more than 40 books on evangelical theology and Christian devotion. Unlike the Pope John Paul II, who said that invading Iraq would violate Catholic moral teaching and threaten "the fate of humanity," or even Pope Benedict XVI, who has said there were "not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," Mr. Stott did not speak publicly on the war. But in a recent interview, he shared with me his abiding concerns.

"Privately, in the days preceding the invasion, I had hoped that no action would be taken without United Nations authorization," he told me. "I believed then and now that the American and British governments erred in proceeding without United Nations approval." Reverend Stott referred me to "War and Rumors of War, " a chapter from his 1999 book, "New Issues Facing Christians Today," as the best account of his position. In that essay he wrote that the Christian community's primary mission must be "to hunger for righteousness, to pursue peace, to forbear revenge, to love enemies, in other words, to be marked by the cross."

What will it take for evangelicals in the United States to recognize our mistaken loyalty? We have increasingly isolated ourselves from the shared faith of the global Church, and there is no denying that our Faustian bargain for access and power has undermined the credibility of our moral and evangelistic witness in the world. The Hebrew prophets might call us to repentance, but repentance is a tough demand for a people utterly convinced of their righteousness.

The consistently excellent Center for Public Justice has a new Capital Commentary. The piece uses doctor Hwang Woo-Suk's lie that he created a clone as a jumping off point to examine sanctity of life issues:

Last week's hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court highlighted many of the controversial debates now raging over competing claims. Does the right of the mother to govern her own reproductive health outweigh the right-to-life of the developing baby? How can concerns about national security also respect civil liberties? So also, in the case of the embryonic stem-cell debate, the value of the eight-day old embryo is pitted against the potential to relieve suffering. For many, the tangible anguish of friends and family members outweighs concern for an unsympathetic clump of cells in a Petri dish. Framed this way, who wouldn't favor embryonic stem-cell research?

Ask the wrong question, and you'll get the wrong answer. In reality, bioethical issues such as embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, and nanotechnology force us to confront the insidious question of whether the ends justify the means...

For years, some scientists, politicians, and ethicists have been calling for a closer look into the ethics of human cloning. Research cloning necessarily involves the specific creation of a human embryo whose sole destiny is destruction. Although the ends are noble, the means are reprehensible.

Many also questioned the impact of human research cloning on women, since cloning requires women's eggs. Some pro-choice feminists, such as Judy Norsigian, author of Our Bodies, Ourselves, have lobbied for a moratorium on human research cloning because for them the end of treating disease through cloning cannot be justified because the means involve the potential exploitation of women.

This potential became reality when some of Hwang's own junior researchers donated their eggs in the face of intense pressure, including, according to some reports, promises of authorship on the landmark papers. That these ethical lapses have already occurred may be a signal that once a society decides that curing disease is worth any price, exploitation is sure to follow. If the value of the embryo (or women) is not enough to make us pause on our quest for cures, will we soon decide that the elderly or the infirm are also expendable? We should not be surprised that such a framework also led to scientific fraud.

The president of Seoul National University apologized to his nation: "Our society has been overwhelmed with the principle of focusing on outcome instead of procedure, and we forgot that ends cannot justify the means." The United States should ban the unethical act of human cloning lest we also forget that freedom from disease is not worth sacrificing our commitment to the protection of human dignity.

So it appears that Bryce Howard ("The Village") is going to appear in the next Sam Raimi tale of the webslinger. She will be playing...Gwen Stacy.

This is good news, I think. Many comic book fans were upset that she wasn't the love interest dangling from the bridge in the first Spiderman film. How will Raimi integrate her into the storyline, though, now that Pete and Mary Jane are an item?

How long before we get a flashback episode starring "Zeke"? My guess is February sweeps.

Good stuff last night. Expected more of a supernatural twist to Jack's flashback. I guess it was more powerful because it was just very straightforward tragedy.

"Geronimo Jones"? Is this a hint that we are in some alternate reality? Is the island a multi-reality purgatory? Probably not, but the inclusion of a singer no one had heard of will be significant.

Best line goes to Sayid: "This music is very depressing."

This morning I went to Kayak's Coffee down on Skinker in hopes of getting some of my class work knocked out. I have a new laptop and I wanted to make full use of my new wireless modem. Problems ensued. Could not connect to internet. Turns out it was some anti-virus software that conveniently threw up a firewall.

Anyway, decided to stick around the coffee shop and fool around with my new system. As the caffeine slowly worked its way into my bloodstream, I searched around the computer and opened up the pre-installed game Collapse. After a few tries, I became engrossed in this Tetris-y game. Caffeine was now surging through my body and I began to demolish the game, plowing through level after level.

I felt invincible, which is silly, but for about a half hour, I was the god of that game and was bending it to my will. I rained down destruction on those helpless multi-colored blocks.

Coffee really #@$@s me up.

To my loyal reader(s), sorry about the lack of posting. Problems with new laptop and internet connectivity. Think problem is solved.

Nice to see our press doing some oversight.

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN’s “Larry King Live” and Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

This is what I have been expecting. I knew some conservatives, given their suspicion of government, had to be worried about the growing power of the executive.

More here, via Atrios:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

Yes, I know I'm a little late with a reaction to this week's "24" marathon, but here it goes anyway.

Great to see Taylor Nichols ("Metropolitan" and "Barcelona") again. Hope he can find more substantial work. Maybe they could find a permanent spot for Chris Eigeman at CTU. Also, good to see Connie Britton ("Spin City") and Jean Smart ("Designing Women") and Sean Astin (Samwise Gamgee).

Enjoyed the episodes, but they better not have Derek get in peril any more. The weakest moments of the first two seasons were the dim blonde Kim getting in peril and jeopardizing Jack. This time we get the dim blond Derek. Jettison him now. (Also, why is Jack sending Derek and his mom to CTU? Not exactly the safest place to be. It reminded me of how Scully and Mulder kept posting two easily defeated FBI agents by the hospital door of that week's character who was the key to everything).

Got excited when I saw we were gonna have "Die Hard" in an airport (Again, come to think of it. Die Hard 2, for instance). Exciting scenes, but who didn't know the act of terrorism was a diversion to help transport chemical or nuclear weapons into the country.

Could be a shaky season.

Yes! The director of "Magnolia", "Boogie Nights", and "Punch Drunk Love" is on track to produce and direct "There Will Be Blood" the story of a Texas oil prospector.

The movie will star Daniel Day-Lewis, who single-handedly salvaged Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" with one of the best performances ever committed to film. The rest of the movie was mediocre, though. (Glad Scorsese righted himself with the transcendent "The Aviator.")

I can't overstate my love for the movies of Paul Thomas Anderson. I saw "Boogie Nights" as a young man with my high school buddies. I saw a VHS copy on a small television so the presentation was less than ideal. (My buddies had already seen it, but had become infatuated with Roller Girl so they were eager for another viewing). I kind of liked the movie, but thought it copped out at the end by having all the characters live happily ever after.

A few years later, I saw "Magnolia" at a theater in Caen, France. The movie was a revelation. I was blown away. It was weird, intense, and wholly original. (It's true that Anderson owes much to the works of Robert Altman, but Anderson's works are not derivative. They merely borrow the same language and technique. They are more homage than copy.) The performance Anderson got out of Tom Cruise was amazing and takes Cruise's typical type-A male character and holds a fun house mirror up to it. We are horrified, but can't look away. (Not since Eddie Murphy in "Bowfinger" have I seen an actor so fearlessly deconstruct his carefully crafted film persona.)

Just when you think you know where "Magnolia" is going, the characters all break in to song and then find themselves in the midst of a plague of frogs. In the hands of lesser directors this movie would have been a train wreck, but with confidence and verve, Anderson delivers a mesmerizing, masterful film.

"Punch Drunk Love" took Adam Sandler's usual bizarro, sweet guy with violent tendencies character and showed us how such a person would cope in the real world. The best work Adam Sandler will ever do and another amazing Philip Seymour Hoffman performance.

Recently rewatching "Boogie Nights" (on DVD in widescreen mode), I more fully realized what an amazing film it is. Now I don't begrudge the characters finding one another in the end and it's clear they still have many miseries with which to cope. Probably the best work Heather Graham will ever do.

Anderson also directed "Hard Eight," but it is a curiously muted (in light of Anderon's other work), somber character study that falls into the typical mid-90s indy film mold--malaise, angst, staring.

Needless to say, I am excited about Anderson's new film.

Whenever I watch this show, I get sucked in and blow so much time. Watched Neil Patrick Harris be dealt pocket kings to top Shannon Elizabeth for today's win.

If we respond to Bush's spying with a shrug as opposed to outrage, our nation will profoundly change. Our government is morphing right before our eyes from one with a system of checks and balances to one with a powerful monarch.

Josh Marshall echoes these sentiments in his comments on Al Gore's speech yesterday:

These really aren't normal political times we're living in. And I think Gore is right to say that we're in the midst of a constitutional crisis, even though too few people are taking notice of it. Our constitution becomes the proverbial falling tree.

Not only was Bush's domestic spying illegal, it also yielded little in the way of results, tied up counter terrorism resources, and targeted Americans with no al Qaeda connection. Here's more from the NY Times:

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

NY Times reports the IRS is balking at request to release audit info:

A motion filed recently in federal court asserts that the agency is defying a longstanding court order requiring it to release audit statistics. The information in question shows how thoroughly the I.R.S. audits corporations and rich taxpayers compared with others, how much time it spends on audits, and how much additional tax is recommended. The figures are crucial in gauging the agency's fairness, efficiency and effectiveness.

This guy is currently aired here in Saint Louis on 97.1. His show is grating and he is arrogant. I can't imagine that the country will embrace him.

Story here.

Scarlett Johansson helped save many a skit but flubbed several of her lines. Seemed to have a real knack for comedy, but not used as well as could have been.

Her moments as "The Chandelier Girl" and house music diva were great.

Smigel cartoon about Darwin was pretty horrible. Insulting. Insipid. Liked "The Celibots", though.

Horatio Sanz seems to be fading into the background. I think he ad libs way too freely, steps on people's lines, and hogs the spotlight so this is a positive development.

Must check out this trailer for the new Soderbergh film "Bubble."

One of the weirdest, most inspired pieces of filmmaking I have seen in a long time.

If you haven't yet read any Chuck Klosterman, the above title is a great place to start. Klosterman, a senior writer for "Spin" magazine, has an original voice and he's great at dissecting our pulp culture. I often don't agree with him, but he is very entertaining and his knowledge of pop is vast.

In "Killing Yourself to Live," Klosterman takes a cross country journey to visit the sites of many rock and roll tragedies. From the Great White fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, to Kurt Cobain's home in Lake Washington, Klosterman treks across the nation all the while contemplating his own mortality, his successes and failures with women, and the music that has shaped his life. (His editor at "Spin is right, though. It does come off like the non-fiction version of "High Fidelity).

Good reading, but not as enjoyable as "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs," Klosterman's book of essays covering everything from the social significance of "Saved by the Bell" to the under-appreciated talent of Billy Joel.

According to the NY Times, there is a documentary soon to be released entitled "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated" that takes the MPAA to task for their assigning of film ratings.

It's about time.

Horrific violence in movies is often deemed acceptable by the board and given R-ratings "Munich" and "Saving Private Ryan," for instance. Outstanding movies, but much deserving of an NC-17. The violence was horrifying. "Hostel", "Wolf Creek", and "Saw II" all very violent, sadistic films received an R-rating.

And yet, somewhat explicit scenes of sexual intercourse ("Storytelling","Eyes Wide Shut", "Henry and June") and excessive use of the F-word ("You So Crazy") will entail NC-17 ratings. (Some of the above listed movies were initially given and NC-17 and then recut by the directors to receive an R-rating).

NC-17 is financially restrictive for studios. Most newspapers, television and radio stations will not feature ads for films with this rating. Many theaters will not carry such films. Therefore, filmmakers have to play ball or their movies will not make money for the studio.

I would much rather my hypothetical child walk in on a scene from "Henry and June" then say "The Passion." Which one is more likely to scar a young viewer?

We are bombarded with violent images on network television, particularly on CBS ("CSI," "Criminal Minds"). And yet Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake's relatively tame Super Bowl stunt caused a public outcry.

Our nation's mores are out of whack and the ratings board is playing along.

Apparently, his past is catching up with him.

Amazingly, Fox News had Reed on to comment on the Abramoff scandal. One hopes they had him to grill him, but somehow I doubt it. The blurb regarding his apperance makes it sound like he is just another talking head giving his take on the scandal:

The investigation of disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has put Congress under a microscope. We'll take an inside look at the investigation with Republican strategist Ralph Reed.

Viewers were hopefully informed that he was knee deep in the mess.

Thanks to firedoglake for the info on Fox News.

Apparently the new Medicare prescription drug plan is not going well.

More here.

The nation's elderly are a powerful and effective voting bloc. Prepare for a huge backlash against the GOP if the program is not fixed.

While at a Bosnian bakery this evening, I got to watch some of the most bizarre musical television I have ever seen. The show I saw was similar to "American Bandstand" or "Soul Train." On it, Bosnian musical stars lip synced to some of their favorite dance tunes while surrounded by a small posse of dancers/admirers. The set was reminiscent of a high school prom--rec center with balloons, mirror ball, and white linoleum floor.

One singer, who was obviously the joker of the bunch, while singing along to the music, dove head first into a pillar of balloons and rolled around them for a good minute and half. He later grabbed a woman, threw her into the balloons, and then sat on her. I tried not to laugh too much so as not to appear culturally insenstive, but a Bosnian man next to me began to laugh, signaling to me that, yes, this program was indeed ridiculous. I then proceeded to laugh--though guardedly.

georgia10 has another good, angry piece about the Bush admin., specifcally Bush labeling war critics as treasonous. She explains here:

Lost in all the flurry over Alito this week is the fact that the President explicitly employed the language of treason against his war critics:

"So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries."

And here we have witnessed another facet of the Imperial Presidency. Instead of embracing the criticism of his Iraq policy (which is coming from both sides of the aisle) as the hallmark of a functioning democracy, he instead labels those who dare to question his judgment as traitors. He uses the language of treason, arguing that we are giving "comfort" to our enemies. Mind you, the phrase "comfort to the enemy" is in fact a legal term of art. The language is derived from the Constitution itself: Article III defines treason in part as "adhering to [the States'] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

...This language of treason must be rejected. It only binds our hands and gags our tongues. Today more than ever, Bush must be told he cannot declare us traitors--we speak out only to save the nation that we love.

Lest anyone think Bush is talking about a random few crazy critics, here's a quote from the same speech:

Bush, who has faced a barrage of criticism over his handling of Iraq, said Americans know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being handled "and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."

I, along with countless others, think he misled the American people. And, no, Congress has not found otherwise.

Let's all get one thing straight: criticizing the war effort and more specifically the White House is not a crime.

It is your right and duty as a citizen and a person of conscience to speak out. Bush's language makes me furious and I think we would do the White House a great service by mailing them a copy of a high school civics text book, then they could learn a little bit more about the country which they are governing.

I have to agree with Joshua Marshall. He's right that groups like Club for Growth cannot successfully continue their expansive tax cut agenda because these ideas make them unelectable--when folks find out the true cost and what will be lost as a result of the cuts.

So instead, in order to remain a vital force, their efforts will instead go toward just getting another candidate elected, as opposed to accomplishing their agenda. And that is hypocrisy.

Here's Joshua with more:

The economic policy know-nothings at the Club for Growth endorse John Shadegg for Majority Leader. Note that this is part of a curious effort to redefine what's at issue here in intra-Republican politics away from the topic of corruption and toward the idea that the problem with Tom DeLay was insufficient fealty to rightwing dogma.

Back on Planet Earth the actual root source of the problem is precisely the tension between rightwing dogma and reality. The tax cut jihad the Club for the Growth has done so much to foster is a serviceable basis for electioneering, but as a basis for governance it has some serious flaws. In particular, it implies very large cuts in federal spending. But actually implementing cuts on the necessary level would be politically untenable. The result is a governing majority that lacks the capacity to govern and instead invests its energy in spinning all sorts of mumbo-jumbo to cover its tracks and a kind of inertia where the majority's perpetuation in power becomes the primary goal. In some sense, I suppose it's possible that Shadegg or whomever will return the GOP to the True Faith of massive budget cuts and simply lead everyone over the electoral cliff in a straightforward manner, but that seems very unlikely in practice. And if you're not willing to do that and you're not willing to rethink any of conservatism's prime articles of faith, the only real alternative is to continue with self-interested machine politics.

In an attempt to kill Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right hand man, the CIA failed but did kill several Pakistani villagers. CNN has the story:

Friday morning's strike killed eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN. Three homes were targeted.

Caryn James, film critic for the NY Times, has an interesting piece on recent films that could have used some editing for length. She offers up "Munich," "King Kong," and "Brokeback Mountain" as examples.

We also learn in the piece that Terrence Malick, after seeing "The New World" in theaters, decided to release a shorter version--cut by 15 minutes--nationwide.

I don't agree with her on "Brokeback Mountain" and "Munich," but I think she is right about "King Kong." Although I thought the opening section needed a trim and she wanted less bug fighting.

According to the NY Times, many parents are convinced their "problem" children are not ADHD, but instead are indigo:

If you have not been in an alternative bookstore lately, it is possible that you have missed the news about indigo children. They represent "perhaps the most exciting, albeit odd, change in basic human nature that has ever been observed and documented," Lee Carroll and Jan Tober write in "The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived" (Hay House). The book has sold 250,000 copies since 1999 and has spawned a cottage industry of books about indigo children.

Hay House said it has sold 500,000 books on indigo children. A documentary, "Indigo Evolution," is scheduled to open on about 200 screens - at churches, yoga centers, college campuses and other places - on Jan. 27 (locations at www.spiritualcinemanetwork.com).

Indigo children were first described in the 1970's by a San Diego parapsychologist, Nancy Ann Tappe, who noticed the emergence of children with an indigo aura, a vibrational color she had never seen before. This color, she reasoned, coincided with a new consciousness.

In "The Indigo Children," Mr. Carroll and Ms. Tober define the phenomenon. Indigos, they write, share traits like high I.Q., acute intuition, self-confidence, resistance to authority and disruptive tendencies, which are often diagnosed as attention-deficit disorder, known as A.D.D., or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or A.D.H.D.

Offered as a guide for "the parents of unusually bright and active children," the book includes common criticisms of today's child rearing: that children are overmedicated; that schools are not creative environments, especially for bright students; and that children need more time and attention from their parents. But the book seeks answers to mainstream parental concerns in the paranormal.

"To me these children are the answers to the prayers we all have for peace," said Doreen Virtue, a former psychotherapist for adolescents who now writes books and lectures on indigo children. She calls the indigos a leap in human evolution. "They're vigilant about cleaning the earth of social ills and corruption, and increasing integrity," Ms. Virtue said. "Other generations tried, but then they became apathetic. This generation won't, unless we drug them into submission with Ritalin."

To skeptics the concept of indigo children belongs in the realm of wishful thinking and New Age credulity. "All of us would prefer not to have our kids labeled with a psychiatric disorder, but in this case it's a sham diagnosis," said Russell Barkley, a research professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University in Syracuse. "There's no science behind it. There are no studies."

Stephen King's novella, published last year under the "Hard Case Crime" imprint, is worth your time. The book's cover leads you to believe it will be a pulpy noir, but instead it is a leisurely paced story about two newspaperman recounting an unsolved mystery that occurred on their tiny Maine (big surprise) island. The book is also about the old newspapermen teaching a young intern how to be a reporter.

Good insight into newspapers and storytelling. Definitely not a typical King book. A quick read and an excellent yarn.

I have an educated, astute friend who hated the movie "Crash". I thought it was great. More on this tomorrow, but for now here are some thoughts from the man, Roger Ebert, on what many thought was a overly manipulative film:

These real moviegoers are not constantly vigilant against the possibility of being manipulated by a film. They want to be manipulated; that's what they pay for, and that in a fundamental way is why movies exist. Usually the movies manipulate us in brainless ways, with bright lights and pretty pictures and loud sounds and special effects. But a great movie can work like philosophy, poetry, or a sermon.

It did not occur to many of its viewers that "Crash" was a "liberal" or for that matter a "conservative" film, as indeed it is neither: It is a series of stories in which people behave as they might and do and will, and we are invited to learn from the results.

Oh, the outrage!

georgia10 has a great post over at Daily Kos about the idea that the president "is entitled to his nominee" to the Supreme Court.

To what are the American people entitled?

Honesty and integrity from the White House would be a start. The President has consistently abused our trust and in turn damaged our democracy.

Glad I don't own one.

See more here.

Maryland passed landmark legislation yesterday that will require Wal-Mart to spend more money on employee health insurance. According to the NY Times:

Wal-Mart has come under severe criticism because it insures less than half its United States work force and because its employees routinely show up, in larger numbers than employees of other retailers, on state Medicaid rolls.

This bill is not anti-business or anti-Wal Mart, even. It is instead pro-responsibility. Let me explain. Wal-Mart is not taking responsibility for employees and is hoisting traditional employer-related costs on the states and reaping the benefits.

Maryland is saying to Wal-Mart, "If you are going to run a business in our state, then you owe something to its citizens in return." Wal-Mart has for too long strip mined communities and given little in return.

A business is responsible for serving the community in which it operates. This is Civics 101 and its about time Wal-Mart got called on their negligence.

Two works that I think will shed some light on where this series is headed:

"The Tempest" by William Shakespeare and the sci-fi classic "Forbidden Planet."

(Of course, "Forbidden Planet" was loosely based on "The Tempest").

On the admin.'s tendency to fib:

Colbert: Well, the problem is that right now, we're dealing with a secret enemy. So we can't necessarily tell the truth, can we? If we tell the truth, and our enemies don't tell the truth...well, then they've got one up on us, right?

Via Kos.

I've heard this same argument on conservative radio concerning torture and collateral damage. Our enemies torture and harm innocents. If we don't do the same then they have managed to gain an advantage.

Just finished this book by Kazuo Ishiguro ("Remains the Day"). It's a haunting story about---don't read any further if you plan on checking out the book---about the exploitation of children and science abused.

As the book progresses, you see the characters slowly, knowingly walking toward their doom and barely flinching. The story is a good study in how people will accept the worst circumstances if they are told such circumstances are "normal" and "necessary."

Ishiguro has a good eye and ear for the way teens and pre-teens relate to one another and caused me to recall many of the pains of junior high and high school.

A little too long, but well worth your time.

Yesterday, my wife took off work and we hit up the local thrift stores. (I found a nice satchel for my new laptop and a sweet, intact 1975 "Stratego" game. Awesome!)

Unfortunately, the prices at many of the stores were insane. One of the local Goodwill stores was selling VCRs, one with its cover coming loose, for $30. Who even buys new VCRs anymore? They were selling a beat up Playstation 1 for the same price. I was flabbergasted. These items were donated to them, they were used, and they were selling them for prices they wouldn't even go for if you could find them new.

"Lost" was much better last night, due in large part to the fact that the show was almost all Adebisi. (Lindelof and Cuse must be "Oz" fans).

After seeing the beast for the first time, I think it's much safer to say that this thing is nano technology related, a la Michale Crichton's "Prey." It was a black cloud with electricity surging through it. This would explain the electromagnetic nature of the hatch experiments. (Protection from the nanos, perhaps?)

Also, did anyone else hear the drug dealers say "Sayid" when they were speaking in their native tongue?

Atrios has been on his soapbox about how the hearings matter regardless of how the senators behave or how the media covers them.

He is correct.

These hearings matter.

The Onion AV Club reminds us of the old adage "avoid January film releases like the plague." Movies released in January are almost always horrible. (Many movies that make it to your local movie theater in January are Oscar hopefuls, but these were usually released in a few select cities on December 25th to be eligible for Oscar contention. What we're talking about here are movies that open simultaneously in theaters across the nation after January 1st, such as Happy Madison's "Grandma's Boy").

They also give you some advice on how to create your own January blockbuster.

Who is this group Alito can't remember if he was a member of or not?

Find out here.

He was a member. (He touted the fact in a Justice Department application for promotion in 1985). The fact that he can't remember shows you that he realizes that his membership in the group is a fact that would place him outside of the ideological mainstream.

Was listening to these on NPR this morning. It all seems a bit ridiculous. The Republicans ask leading questions and advocate rather than question. (Okay, Tom Coburn did pose the softball Oprah-ish inquiry, "What's important to you?") The Democrats bluster and grumble, and, if they behave the same way as they did on the Roberts vote, it's all a show for the base.

I actually heard Orin Hatch say in an interview on NPR yesterday that he questioned Alito pretty thoroughly on the issue of recusals. I listened to his questioning. He mostly just told Alito why Alito had done nothing wrong and fed him answers. "Isn't it true that you did nothing wrong because of so and so?" What a joke.

Please. These people get a lifetime appointment. Please give this disaapointed citizen something other than political theater.

If it's all gonna be this empty an exercise why don't we just let the ladies of "The View" do the hearings?

Has this show "jumped the shark"?

Far too early to say yes, but I really did not like the flashback stuff on the last episode before the break. Kate's vigilante kick just didn't work for me. The house blowing up was too much, I thought.

Tonight we get more Adibisi so that should be pretty cool.

An okay episode.

Some great moments, particularly Paris's explanation of "ghetto ear." "The real gunshots sound fake." Very, very true.

Still bracing for the incorporation of April Nardini into the mix. Keep your fingers crossed.

This book about the people behind the surging video game industry was a very fun read. Particularly interesting is the chapter about MMORPGs (Massive Multi-player Online Role Playing Games). These games have sucked up the time of many players, particularly men, and have led to the formation of support groups for the wives of neglected players.

The books is not a polemic, though. The book includes profiles on the founders of Atari, id software ("Doom"), and gamemaker Will Wright ("The Sims").

Will Wright's new game "Spore" which lets you control a universe from the appearance of the first single celled organism to the creation of civilizations sounds amazing. Prepare for the media blitz that will accompany this one.

Says he asked for three times more troops and was met with silence.

That was what Bush told reporters on more than one occasion.

Yes, Bush was not under oath, but doesn't this make him a liar?

More at Kos.

Here's a gem from Ralph Reed's correspondence with Jack Abramoff.

I used to believe he was a man of integrity.

Latest CNN/Gallup poll

I guess as soon as we're done in Iraq. TAPPED has more in response to the latest Stanley Kurtz musings.

I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't trust this admin to launch another war.

Garance Franke-Ruta in defense of the law at "The American Prospect."

"Twin Peaks" star Sherilyn Finn will start a recurring role on tonight's "Gilmore Girls."

Love this show. Think the appearance of Luke's daughter may be a sign the show is "jumping the shark." We'll see. Often when a show introduces a younger, cuter child into the mix, it's a sure sign of creative fatigue. See Nicky and Alex Katsopolis and Olivia of the "Cosby Show."

Her entrance felt a bit too forced for me. We'll see.

On the other hand, the episode this year where Richard Gilmore has an epiphany at Rory's DRA function was one of the best of the series.

My wife and I went to see the Saint Louis Rep's production of this Pulitzer prize-winning play last night.

We have season tickets to the theater--Thanks Terrell!--and we had no idea what the play was about. Oftentimes, it's fun for me to approach a work of art completely uninformed about the work, particularly a narrative. This allows you to focus in on the skill of the creator and lets the created world unfold more naturally. It also gives you the thrill of discovery.

The play was a one man show--a possibly dangerous proposition--about an East German museum curator who lived through both Nazi and Communist rule and found a way to perservere. This was all the more surprising because the curator was a tranvestite. Based on a true story, the play was a fascinating study of how we create truth and identity.

Arnie Burton, playing over 30 parts, strikes a false note with his first entrance to the stage, but then settles into his characters and captivates the audience. I did find the first act a bit so-so, but the second act was outstanding as we are forced to reexamine everything we have seen.

Spike Jonze ("Being John Malkovich") to helm adaptation of the children's classic for Warner Brothers.

Mouse's revenge wreaks havoc on homeowner

James Risen, NY Times reporter who broke the wiretapping story and author of "State or War," was on "Meet the Press" yesterday morning.

Fascinating interview, though brief. One story that really stood out was about the Bush admin.'s pre-Iraq war intelligence gathering.

Because the CIA did not have enough men on the ground in Iraq, the White House sent Iraqi's living in the US to gather information in their native country. Some of the gatherers contacted folks in weapons and intelligence and returned with information such as the fact that the nuclear program had been dead for 10 years.

Transcript here.

Apparently it's now illegal to "annoy" someone anonymously via the internet:

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

Of course, this is unconstitutional. And please, please, please let me know if you find my work annoying.

As a recent seminary attendee, I appreciated this do-it-yourself chart for constructing impressive theological speak.

From a recent post on Jen R's page.

Slate has more on debate that has arisen around choice.

"America: The Book" was the funniest book I ever read so I applaud the choice. The Academy Awards are the dullest four hours of television I can't miss. Stewart's snarkiness can only help.

Though a DePalma fan, I had never seen this film about seperated Siamese twins.

Great, creepy stuff.

Also rewatched "The Graduate." Fantastic. Still trying to sort out some coherent meaning to all the religious imagery. Has anyone else noticed that when Mrs. Robinson runs out to Ben's car in the storm her rain-soaked hair, baggy black clothing, and white hair band make her look like she is wearing a habit?

Debra Dickerson, an African-American woman subbing at Washington Monthly, chimes in on Nick Chiles piece on street lit:

The problem is not that blacks want to read porn and prefer junk to serious writing like everyone else. It's that black porn and junk are passed off as literature. I can't help believing that both publishers (though much of this dreck comes from fringe houses or is self-published) and the chains believe that this is the best that blacks can do, that this crap is good enough for us.

Liberals and blacks don't help matters much in this regard. We participate in black degradation by refusing to make distinctions between literature and manure as long as it's produced by blacks; back in 1992 (or so) when Alice Walker, Toni Morrison and Terry MacMillan (which of these is not like the others? Anyone?) were all on the bestseller list, papers around the country ran photos of the three writers, or the three books, together and celebrated the "coming of age of black women's literature." Literature. Terry MacMillan. Please. My writer friends and I were so depressed, we got together just to pass the offending page around, stunned into wordlessness at having our intelligence so blatantly insulted. Serious writers must sit on panels moderated by best selling hacks. Award winning hacks, blessed by a condescending white majority. Black/liberal writers at major newspapers fight to run profiles of these authors and review their work. Increasing numbers of black/liberal professors teach unworthy writers like Benilda Little and Omar Tyree in their African American Literature classes. Can you imagine scraping up the tuition to pay for your kid to study James Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston and Sister Souljah? God forbid they've begun to go beyond the merely awful to the actually pornographic. Magazines like Essence and Black Issues Book Review legitimize the least objectionable of this ilk by taking them seriously, the equivalent of a poetry magazine reviewing odes to men from Nantucket.

One of the reasons I quit reviewing books (aside from the miserable pay) is my disgust with how often I was asked to review these monstrosities. Most were so awful, I refused and dissuaded the editors from insulting their readers with such offerings. Often enough to sap my will, though, editors — always white liberals — either rejected my withering critiques of the ones passably worthy of review or edited them into meaningless. I can't tell you how often some white boy from Yale, who chuckled over my maulings of a white author's work, chastised me for my "insensitivity." They were honestly shocked that anyone would rip apart a black person's work. How dare I subject blacks to the same level of analysis as whites?

But what can be done about it? No doubt, the "blacklash" against us elitists and playa haters will be swift and vicious. Nonetheless, those of us who know the difference between Jerome Dickey and Shinola have to stand our ground. No one's saying black porn and beauty parlor books shouldn't be either written or read. I'm saying they shouldn't be taken seriously. I have a lowest-common-denominator novel or two in my head that are going to buy me all the plastic surgery and boy toys I'll ever need. I'm just not going to call them literature.

From Reuters:

Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

I know Bremer knows libraries full more about the Middle East than me, but even I expected the insurgency.

From Haaertz:

The White House sharply criticized Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson on Friday for suggesting that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for "dividing God's land."

"Those comments are wholly inappropriate and offensive and really don't have a place in this or any other debate," presidential spokesman Trent Duffy said as President George W. Bush traveled to Chicago for a speech.

Robertson made his comments about Israel and Sharon on his TV program, "The 700 Club."

Sometimes when fishing, you end up catching more than you intended.

The NSA tells us no journalists were "targeted" in their surveillance. But it's obvious we're not dealing with dolphin-free tuna here.

Josh Marshall has more.

Gotta read this:

Washington's power players have always bragged about being well-wired, but for disgraced former congressman Duke Cunningham, "wired" wasn't just a figure of speech. In a week when legislators are focused on the question of who else might be brought down by ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s cooperation with prosecutors as he seeks lenient sentencing over his two federal guilty pleas this week, sources tell TIME that in a separate investigation, ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.

Just in case you missed it:

"File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths'"

You probably remember the cell phone story floated by Bush at his post-leak press conference. Turns out to have been phony according to Washington Post.

Nice attempt at undermining newspaper's role of oversight.

Refreshing to hear Bush talking about Osama again, though.

Letterman's words to O'Reilly.

Wish I had seen it.

Media Matters has more on O'Reilly's false "Silent Night" story and a partial transcript of the Letterman show.

Aren't we in trouble when Michelle Malkin is accusing Bush of cronyisn?

Via Kos.

Did we elect a king who can do anything in his power to wage an unending war?

Just asking.

If White House spied on Amanpour, then they would have ended up spying on many conversations with many of the world's movers and shakers.

AMERICAblog shows how big a problem this could prove to be.

We shall see, but the chum is in the water and the sharks are circling.

Josh Marshall has more.

As a former library employee, I can attest to the popularity of street lit and soft core among African-American readers. Nick Chiles, an African-American author, bemoaned this fact in a fascinating piece from yesterday's NY Times:

I realize that publishing is a business, but publishers also have a responsibility to balance street lit with more quality writing. After all, how are we going to explain ourselves to the next generation of writers and readers who will wonder why they have so little to read of import and value produced in the early 21st century, why their founts of inspiration are so parched?

At times, I push myself away from the computer in anger. I don't want to compete with "Legit Baller." But then I come across something like "The Known World" by Edward P. Jones and again I am inspired.

But I must say that I retain very little of the hope and excitement and enthusiasm that I had when my first book was published eight years ago. I feel defeated, disrespected and troubled about the future of my community and my little subsection of this carnivorous, unforgiving industry.

Chiles boldly calls the work in question "smut" in his title, which is a decidedly unhip viewpoint in the postmodern era.

I would echo his love of Edward P. Jones "The Known World." Possibly the best book I read this year.

Tucker Carlson asks, as Al Franken has before him, what was Ralph Reed doing accepting money from a gambling lobbyist?

Why were supposedly honest ideological conservatives like Sheldon and Reed and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist involved with Jack Abramoff in the first place? Keep in mind that Abramoff's business wasn't just gambling, which by itself should have been enough to scare off professional moralizers like Sheldon. Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist for Indian gambling. Over the years Abramoff and his now-indicted partner took more than $80 million from a half a dozen tribes in return for their efforts to keep Indian gambling revenues tax free.

I'm sure Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and I disagree on quite a few things, but I was pretty sure we were both on the same side of the casino gambling issue. (I'm largely agin it.)

Find out here.