Epicdemic

So I saw Oliver Stone's "Alexander" over the weekend.

Let me just say I am a huge fan of epic, saga-like historical and quasi-historical stories. Gandhi. The Ten Commandments. Spartacus. Ben-Hur. The Lord of the Rings, preferably in the extended editions. It doesn't have to be films, either. I've sat through three complete cycles of Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, and once saw Parsifal twice in the same week. If that's not kooky enough, I saw The Two Towers seven times in the theater.

I also can enjoy seriously bad movies, for example, anything with Jean-Claude van Damme (at least before he started directing his own movies), or anything where an iguana shot in close-up appears to be threatening a city made from railroad model kits.

Rarely in my life have I ever been as bored as I was during Alexander. It has all of the elements I love: exotic locations, elaborate sets and costumes, cast of thousands. It has the added benefit of being true (sort of). Then of course there's that whole gay thing.

What this movie lacked, above all else, was a script. Yes, I heard people talking, but I don't remember anything they said. It wasn't overblown, stilted "look at me being historical" dialogue (think Charlton Heston). It certainly wasn't razor-sharp wit. It wasn't even dry academic fact regurgitation. It was just the barest force necessary to move this lumbering elephant of a movie along to its whimpering end. How Angelina Jolie managed to wrest her pathologically committed performance out of the infertile dust of this screenplay is a mystery on the scale of Genesis.

Oh, how I have longed for a gay hero on the silverscreen. A macho, muscular, attractive, virile, sword-wielding genius of a military strategist with a boyfriend. As the old proverb goes, "Be careful what you wish for." Colin Farrell and Jared Leto -- both exceptionally attractive people -- have absolutely zero chemistry together. The scene where a weepy Hephaistion brings Alexander a ring on his wedding night, which he slips onto the ring finger, no less, could have been either deeply touching or scandalously bold (ideally both). Instead it became ludicrous when Mrs. The Great, aka Roxane, catches them and stutters out, "You....luff...heem?" It's not clear whether she's tormented more by the realization that she's a big-boobed political pawn of a breeding trophy-wife (aka, beard; see McGreevey, Mrs.) or whether she's just having difficulty conversing in this obscure Gaelic dialect of Macedonian.

Alex and Heph have a couple of nice buddy hugs, but the only kiss is shared between Alex and his Babylonian eunuch, Mona Lisa, who seems to have been instructed by Stone not to act at all, so that he didn't overshadow Leto. No, the gayest performance in the movie comes from Angelina Jolie, for whom they should create a special Oscar category: Best Performance by a Drag Queen in a Supporting Role.

My friends warned me that I'd be disappointed, but I assumed it was because they underestimated my fetish for long, terrible movies. Alas, from the technicolor alternate-reality sequence of the doomed battle in India (if there's one thing we learned from South Pacific, it's that magenta filters are a bad idea) to Ptolemy's last-minute "scratch that" whitewash of Alexander's demise this movie is a disaster. On an epic scale.

Thanksgiving Turkey

Oliver Stone's "Alexander" opens nationwide today, and if the press coverage is any indication, this sweeping epic is truly inspirational: it has given rise to the funniest movie reviews I have ever read. Here for your holiday enjoyment is an excerpt of some choice commentary. (I hope Angelina Jolie has bullet-proof self-esteem or a great sense of humor...or both.)

The film in general:

• Now that ''Alexander" is finally here, the best there is to say is that it's better than ''Troy."
  Boston Globe
• Certainly it's brought out the worst in terms of the puerile writing, confused plotting, shockingly off-note performances and storytelling that lacks either of the two necessary ingredients for films of this type, pop or gravitas.
  The New York Times
• "Alexander" may not be a historical document, but at least some moviegoers are sure to have a gay old time.
  Chicago Sun-Times

Colin Farrell's hair:

• The new Oliver Stone movie, ''Alexander," is full of brilliant highlights, and they're all in Colin Farrell's hair.
  Boston Globe
• Presiding above all is Colin Farrell's tousled bleach job, his gypsy-moth eyebrows and dark brooding roots suggesting less the eponymous myth figure in his battlefield prime than a Vanity Fair hairdresser ablaze with purpose during a high-pressure Kirsten Dunst cover shoot.
  The Village Voice
• As the movie goes on, his bleach-blond bowl cut grows out to something resembling a mullet, and by the end he's sporting the flowing locks of Fabio.
  Associated Press
• The more people Alexander kills, the longer and fluffier Farrell's wigs get.
  San Francisco Chronicle

Was Alexander bisexual???

• Having seen the film, I can categorically state that Stone does not in any way suggest Alexander was bisexual. He suggests Alexander was absolutely, fabulously gay.
  Chicago Sun-Times
• Predominant among a few laugh getters is Hephaistion's silent, bedroom-eyes beseechment for nookie augmented by a slight toss of Anistonian hair, only to be told by his top, "Not on the eve of a battle." Once Babylon is taken from the Persians (yes, Stone goes for a replay of Intolerance's vertical pan, although naturally nothing we see is real), the two diehards lounge around in silk robes with chaliced cocktails like a married couple at the Pines.
  The Village Voice
• The proclamations of love and the most intense and passionate hugs are between Colin Farrell's Alexander and his best friend Hephaistion, played by the long-haired, dewey-eyed Jared Leto, who's photographed as if he's appearing in Elton John's wildest dreams. As narrator Anthony Hopkins says, "It was said that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion's thighs." He's talking about their boyhood wrestling matches, but then again, he isn't.
  Chicago Sun-Times
• Sporting a dreadful blond pageboy and a micro-mini toga while exchanging come-hither looks with his mascara-loving childhood pal, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), Colin Farrell looks more like Alexander the Fabulous than Alexander the Great.
  New York Post

Angelina Jolie:

• The fiery Jolie is terrific.
  Winnipeg Sun
• Angelina Jolie, as A's sorceress-mother Olympias, white pythons entwined around her legs, seems destined for a Maria Montez Lifetime Achievement in Vamp Award.
  The Village Voice
• With snakes literally slithering around her shoulders, body makeup not quite concealing an arm tattoo and what sounds like a bad Transylvanian accent, Jolie is hardly striving for historical accuracy. Actually I don't know what she's striving for, but it's hugely entertaining.
  Chicago Sun-Times
• As the young marauder kills and enslaves peoples from Egypt to India, Mr. Stone repeatedly returns us to Olympias, snakes coiling around her body and chastising her absent son in a bewildering accent, part Yiddishe Mama, part Natasha of "Rocky and Bullwinkle" fame: "You don't write, you don't call, why don't you settle down with a nice Macedonian girl?" or words to that effect. Rarely since Joan Crawford rampaged through the B-movie sunset of her career has a female performer achieved such camp distinction.
  The New York Times
• And where Kilmer is a drunken riot, Jolie is plenty dangerous. Her Greco-Gabor accent alone could kill.
  Boston Globe
• An accent that seems to have been borrowed from George Hamilton in "Love at First Bite."
  Associated Press
• She does attempt a foreign accent, but unfortunately picked the one we recognize from old movies as Transylvanian. She could be the mother of Count Dracula, but not of a fine Irish lad from Macedonia.
  New York Daily News
• All the while, Jolie is hissing with her snakes and telling "Alexaaaaaaannnnndrrrrrrreeeeh" that he is destined for legendary things. It's one of the great so-awful-it's-wonderful performances in recent film history.
  Chicago Sun-Times
• I don't care how nuts she is, Jolie is the real deal: a gorgeous, epic-scaled actress who can transform herself from the inside out. She could eat Colin Farrell for breakfast and pick her teeth with Jared Leto. Forget Alexander: The film is a pedestal to Angelina the great.
  Slate

Rosario Dawson:

• To Mr. Stone's credit he doesn't shy away from the character's omnisexual appetites even if he doesn't allow Mr. Leto to cut loose like Rosario Dawson, who plays Alexander's wildcat wife, Roxane. Then again, in light of Alexander and Roxane's comical boudoir brawling and growling there's something to be said for directorial restraint.
  The New York Times
• And if you can't work up some honest, loving passion for a nude and revved-up Rosario Dawson, you're either gay or dead.
  Chicago Sun-Times

Jared Leto:

• Presumably, the idea is, if Alexander must have a boyfriend, at least give him one as pretty as Diane Lane.
  San Francisco Chronicle
• When Alexander, having conquered the Persians, decides to take the peasant girl Roxane (Rosario Dawson) as his wife, a puddle-eyed Leto appears with his mascara running like Dorothy Malone's to present his own engagement ring.
  The Village Voice
• Didn't it occur to anyone, perhaps during rushes, that Jared Leto might be a more photogenic and reliable choice in the title role? Seeing them together time and again kind of rubs in the misconception. Mr. Leto is better-looking, possesses a more expressive voice and confronts the camera with striking blue eyes. He doesn't steal scenes the way Angelina Jolie steals scenes, but he might provide the luxury of a heroic profile matched to a sensitive acting instrument.
  Washington Times
• Alexander's great love was said to be Hephaistion, who is played in the film by Jared Leto, but unless you know Jared Leto by face, even late in the movie you'll have no idea which one he was. I thought he was this other guy, equally handsome, equally vapid, equally unmemorable, whom Alexander prongs with a spear in a drunken rage late in the movie. But that was some other guy.
  Washington Post

And finally,

• "Alexander" is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). The film features a lot of graphic warfare with impaled flesh, severed limbs and disturbing images of animal cruelty. Ms. Dawson also takes her top off, which may disturb some viewers in a rather different fashion.
  The New York Times

A Thought for Thanksgiving

This Thanksgiving finds America once again with well over a hundred-thousand young men and women stationed abroad in Iraq. When we bow our heads this coming Thursday in our warm, comfortable homes, surrounded by our friends and family, do let's take a moment to remember those who are putting their lives on the line for our country. I've made no pretense of supporting this folly in the middle east, but my heart aches with admiration for these brave youngsters who face terrors I could not possibly withstand.

I would like to recommend this NY Times article, In Falluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War. Be forewarned, it is graphic and very upsetting in its description of combat.

May God above keep them safe and bring them quickly home to their families. For those who are not destined to return, may He grant them swift passing into His loving, eternal embrace.

William Safire is Nuts

In his piece today, the apparently clairvoyant columnist took a break from channeling the deceased Richard Nixon and instead looked into his crystal ball and foresaw "a G.O.P. ticket the next year with Rudy Giuliani or John McCain on top and Schwarzenegger as running-mate." (The piece was arguing for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to allow naturalized U.S. citizens to become president. Call me biased or, as Safire puts it, a "nativist," but somehow I just like the idea of that job only being open to someone born and raised in the U.S. You can't really argue discrimination...it's only ONE job in the entire country that's only open to billionaire white guys anyway, it's not like we're disenfranchising people.)

Anyway, forget that.

Rudy Giuliani? As the GOP choice to replace Dubya? Here's one good reason why that will never happen:

Yes, that's right folks. That is Mr. Rudy Giuliani appearing in public in drag. Am I supposed to seriously accept that all these "moral values" voters are going to stump for a man who has appeared -- more than once -- in public in a dress? A man who is on record as saying, "I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights."

He's also Catholic. Could we expect the same Catholic bishops who urged withholding communion from John Kerry on the same grounds to likewise publicly and loudly come out against Giuliani?

He was divorced in 2002. His ex-wife's lawyer went before the press and said, "If there's going to be a divorce, let's have the truth about why — Rudy's open and notorious adultery."

Now, before people accuse me of smearing Giuliani's character and trying to sabotage his presidential bid, let me just say this: I would totally vote for a cross-dressing, pro-choice, divorced Catholic who supports gay rights.

I officially endorse Rudolph Giuliani for Republican candidate for president in 2008. Maybe he could use this photo in his campaign ads:

Freudian Typo?

Reading a story in the NY Times this morning about the current situation in Fallujah, I noticed an ad for the new film Kinsey (which is excellent, by the way) which boasts a quote from New York Observer critic Rex Reed. It says, "Kinsey is a kockout!" [sic] Too funny.

Bathroom Activism

Okay, I think my mission in life (at least for today) is to start a grass-roots effort to improve the quality of courtesy reading materials in corporate bathrooms. During my most recent trip there I had to content myself with a recent article entitled, "Inside the NBA" which contained such dire questions as, "How has the City of Los Angeles responded to Kobe and the post-Shaq era?"

Yeah, that's been keeping me awake for weeks, now.

So I returned to one of yesterday's links and printed out the article "Inside the Mind of the Gay Sheep." No, really. On my next trip I'm gonna slip it under one of the stall doors.

In a barely related tangent, the research for this article came from Oregon Health Sciences University. Yay, Portland!

Those Damn Breeders!

Bringing new meaning to "animal husbandry," check out this HILARIOUS article, which begins:

"Bulgarian farmer Galen Dobrev is claiming substantial damages from the breeder who sold him a prize-winning pedigree pig after the porker turned out to be a little more pink than the average Babe, Ananova reports. An outraged Dobrev told the court where he is sueing the breeder: "It's a disgrace, all he was interested in was other male pigs."

The page also contains links to the following articles:

Aussie boffins probe lesbian cows
Inside the mind of the gay sheep
Sheep pine for absent friends: official
Sheep like happy, smiley people: official

Parent Fears Cross-Dressing Addictive

SPURGER, Texas -- an annual homecoming tradition in this small town north of Houston where "boys dress like girls and vice versa" has been canceled after a parent complained about the "homosexual overtones."

"It's like experimenting with drugs," [Delana] Davies said. "You just keep playing with it and it becomes customary. ... If it's OK to dress like a girl today, then why is it not OK in the future?"

It has been replaced with "Camo Day" -- yup, the kids will dress in camouflage, I guess pretending to be soldiers, hunters or white trash at Wal-Mart on laundry day. Details here.

US Casualties in Iraq: November

Five days ago I posted a projection that US casualties in Iraq could go as high as 110, which would be the second highest monthly total after April of this year, during which 135 Americans were killed.

Latest reporting indicates that 96 Americans have been killed since November 1. Globalsecurity.org is now estimating that the November figure could reach 150.

In other news, I'm going to provide you with the first few paragraphs from a CNN story today. I'm blanking out the name of the country in question for effect. Does any of this seem vaguely familiar? (Emphasis mine in text below.)

Powell: Intelligence suggests XXXX trying to adapt missiles for nukes

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- The United States has intelligence indicating XXXX is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

Powell partially confirmed claims by an XXXXian opposition group that XXXXXX is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic arms by next year.

"I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying," Powell told reporters Wednesday as he traveled to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile. "And it should be of concern to all parties."

Pressed by reporters on the intelligence reports, Powell said the intelligence indicates that XXXX "had been actively working on delivery systems" capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.

Powell said there is no evidence to suggest that XXXX has developed the technology to make a nuclear weapon, but suggested that the regime is working to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.

"I'm talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I'm aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said.

Happy Anniversary, Massachusetts

One year ago today, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. In honor of that momentous event, I'd like to post a favorite piece of satire. Don't know who the author is, but snaps! whoever you are.

REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.

Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle.

Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics. A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy. If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether. But, in the meantime, why should they be allowed to marry?

Why I Really Hate Corporate Jobs

The bathrooms.

I miss the private bathrooms at the non-profit place.

The sounds and smells of having to share a bathroom...dear lord. Don't these men understand the concept of "courtesy flush"?

And while I appreciate the kind gesture of leaving reading materials behind for the next user, would it be at all possible to get something other than the sports or business pages? What I wouldn't give for National Geographic.

The privacy is really the issue, though. It doesn't matter that you've got a little stall. The fashion conscious among us know who wears which shoes. Acoustically, this place would be great for an a capella concert by a vibrato-less pre-teen soprano...everything is amplified and comes with automatic reverb. Let's face it, sometimes in the morning, after your coffee, your body makes unusual noises. They could at least pipe some muzak in there to cover it up.

It's not just me that feels this way. Frequently I encounter a game of "toilet chicken"; that is, two guys stuck next to each other in the stalls, both clenched in the hope that the other will just get on with it and get out and leave them alone for a moment.

Then there's the Hummer. Someone here sits on the pot and just hums. It's not any particular tune. It's just, "hmmm-mmmm, mmmm-mmmmm-mmm, hmm-hmm-hmm, mmmm."

And that's all I want to say about that.

The Onion Strikes Again

Here's a fabulous NAFTA joke courtesy of the boys at The Onion:


Ashcroft Loses Job To Mexican

I'll Stick to Cats

Bad news for "sky is falling" defenders of the traditional family: a new study shows teens growing up with same-sex parents end up no differently than teens with heterosexual parents. In a study to be published in the upcoming November edition of Child Development, researchers found that based on "measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, the teens with same-sex parents were as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents."

Are hats fattening?

AS PROMISED: Here I am eating my hat. (Sorry it's out of focus...I think my camera was drunk.) It turns out TK's incredibly ridiculous story about buried high-tech MiG fighters in Iraq turns out to be true.

worst...poster...ever

This is the poster for the upcoming Episode III of Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith. Fark hosted a photoshop contest on it recently. I thought they were kidding, that like some rube had made up this spoof of a poster, but no...I saw this at the theater last night.

It's not inspiring confidence. Check out the photoshop, though...some clever folks out there!

William Safire Resigns

New York Times columnist William Safire will step down in January 2005, the paper reported today.

Thank God. Now maybe they can find a conservative columnist with a grasp of reality. He should have been fired after his repeated columns about Mohammed Atta in Prague and Musab al-Zarqawi's links to Osama bin Laden, even though both stories have been thorougly disproven. Perhaps he is resigning in frustration because, despite God knows how many columns he's written on the subject, no one seems to care about his Saddam Hussein/U.N. Oil for Food scandal. Oooooh, Saddam Hussein was a corrupt ruler who tried to game the system for his own benefit and possibly bribed international officials.

Duh.

Oh, speaking of resignations, Colin Powell quit today. So did Secretary of Education Rod Page -- now THERE was a scandal Safire should have written about; Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham; and Agriculture Ann Veneman. Total Bush Administration resignations since the election: 6.

Good News from Iraq

Trickish Knave complained that the U.S. press isn't covering any of the good news from Iraq.

From the front page of today's New York Times:

Military commanders point to several accomplishments in Falluja. A bastion of resistance has been eliminated, with lower than expected American military and Iraqi civilian casualties. Senior military officials say up to 1,600 insurgents have been killed and hundreds more captured, altogether more than half the number they estimated were in the city when the campaign began.

Feather Ruffling and Saber-Rattling

Uh oh, fellow blogger Trickish Knave was not impressed with my recent post Getting Back to Reality Now.

TK: "I think people are misinterpreting the "Mission Accomplish" [sic] speech that Bush gave on the carrier. It was the crew, of their own free will, that hung the sign. An old student of mine, who helped hang it up, told me this.

Andy: Yes, of course. I forgot that all battleships come with their own Kinko's so they can print up giant propaganda banners whenever they like. Unfortunately, that doesn't square with the results of the media's fact-finding mission after Bush's speech. Damn that liberal press corps!

TK: "If people can get off the media's bashing of this statement and listen to what the President actually said then the context of the statement is clear:

"Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops." - George W. Bush, May 1, 2003

Andy: Well, it seems you've come up with a post-speech quote that the President gave to the press to clarify what the hell he was talking about out there and his reasons for being there. Fine, let's all take your suggestion and read what the President actually said that day. It's all right there in black and white on the official White House webpage. Don't forget to notice the banner at the top of the smiling, joyful Iraqis. At least I guess they're Iraqis celebrating our invasion...no way to prove it's not a crowd of Jordanians watching a soccer game. So what did the President say?

• "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." That's from his opening sentence. TK, you've got to be kidding me if you expect us to believe that Bush meant only that the Lincoln's mission was accomplished. His first statement was an absolutely unequivocal declaration of final victory, there's no other way to read that.
• "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." Unfortunately, as shown by the results of the election, 48% of America fails to see the connection between Iraq and September 11. That might have something to do with the government's own commission reporting that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
• "And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed." Over the course of time, Bush would increase this number to 75%, but as I pointed out in my analysis of the final Bush-Kerry debate his context for this assertion is a list of approximately "two dozen" al Qaeda members that the government knew about in September 2001. There's absolutely no reason to think that the vacancies in al Qaeda's management haven't been filled. Oh, and thanks once again for linking Iraq and al Qaeda despite an utter lack of supporting evidence and substantial evidence to the contrary.
• "We've removed an ally of al Qaeda." Or...not.
• "No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.) " One might also add, "and because they didn't have any weapons."
• "With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." Except the President did not actually declare war; first of all, he can't, the Constitution doesn't give him that power. Only the Congress can declare war. They voted to override the Constitution and surrender their own authority to the President, an act of which the constitutionality will be forever debated, I'm sure. Even with this authority, the President chose to go to war without actually declaring war. Hence, in his point of view, the prisoners are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Isn't that convenient? (Unfortunately, the G.C. stipulates that its protections must also be extended to any prisoners whose status is in doubt.)
• "Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted." Or even if they don't, hey, what's the difference?
• "The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless." I thought it was only fair to include this acknowledgment on the President's part. Still, Bush clearly defined Iraq as a fait accompli. A year and a half later, we know that is not the case.

TK: It is presumptuous and naive to think that all hostilities would come to an end as soon as Bush made his speech that day. One more thing Bush said that the liberals will take literally so that it could be used against him later on. I guess when Clinton was in office and the literal definition of the word "is" and "sexual relations" came into question it was time to hit Websters.

Andy: Sorry TK, but if anyone's taking President Bush literally, it would be the people who voted for him, not "the liberals." Give me a break. Go back and look at the papers from the months before our invasion began. Columnists, military commanders, diplomats, foreign leaders and the general public are all on record questioning Bush's repeated assertions that this would be a swift victory, that we would be welcomed as liberators, etc. Everyone wanted to know, "What is your plan in case you're wrong?" Many, many people predicted exactly the chaos -- specifically, a drawn-out urban guerrilla war -- that we're seeing now. WE knew this was going to take a long time and wasn't going to be easy. The Bush Administration was saying "cakewalk." How DARE you accuse us of having unrealistic expectations.

By the way, Clinton is no longer president. He didn't run for president this year. Why is it that every time someone criticizes Bush, the conservatives all yell, "But Clinton..."??? Do you really want to compare this current fiasco with Monica-gate? The President had a blowjob (or two) from someone who wasn't his wife. Well, that is tacky, to be sure. And he lied about it. But those lies didn't drag us into a war that has cost more than 1,100 American lives and an unguessable number of Iraqi lives.

The conservatives, who always wail about how the government wastes taxpayers' money, spent $64 million investigating Clinton and came up with bupkus, and yet Bush only managed to find $15 million to fund the 9/11 Commission to figure out how three thousand people died.

TK: Come on people, it was the Lincoln's mission that was accomplished. Those people had been out in the Gulf for a long time and were ready to go home. I would expect hostilities and casualties to increase this week when executing a major offensive against the assholes who have buried themselves in Falujah. This is something that should have been done a year ago.

Andy: If Fallujah "should have been done a year ago," WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? Casualties have been increasing for a far longer period of time than just this week. The handoff of "sovereignty" was in June. During that month, there were 44 US casualties. In July we suffered 61. In August, 71. In September, 83. October was better at 67, but that number is still higher than it was in June and July. Currently we have had 48 casualties for the month of November; that's a rate of 3.69 casualties a day. If that keeps up, we're looking at a November total of 110. (These figures from Globalsecurity.org.)

TK: Contrary to popular opinion and political correctness we should have wiped them out completely and not given the insurgents time to make a stronghold. Incidentally this is something that Bush wanted to do a month ago but was forced to concede to popular opinion instead of listening to his military advisors.

Andy: No, what we should have done is not gone to Iraq in the first place because a lot of reasonably intelligent people were afraid this would happen. You're in the military; how could you not have learned one of the great lessons of Vietnam? Namely, you just can't effectively fight a guerrilla campaign. You'll never be able to wipe them out. Stronghold? It's their home, TK. And what's your source that Bush "conceded to popular opinion"? Also, you just finished saying we should have done Fallujah a "year" ago. It doesn't exactly exculpate Bush to claim he's been wanting to do this for a month. And, are you accusing the President of disregarding expert military advice for fear of losing popular support? Why would he do that? Oh, I forgot, there was a presidential election last week that he won by 3% of the vote.

TK: The success stories just aren't covered in the news. Just the rising death toll, which is surprisingly small, compared to other conflicts we have engaged in, and all the other "failures" attributed to Bush's invasion.

Andy: Are we, as a nation, "surprised" that only 1,100 Americans have died? Are you going to include in your "rising death toll" the estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed, which range up to 100,000? Is that "surprisingly small"? You're in the military, you tell me. And I've asked you this before. Please tell us all about the success stories we're not hearing.

The press isn't just covering the death toll. Kidnappings. Beheadings. Pipeline destruction. Abu Ghraib. Al QaQaa. Suicide bombings. Fallujah. Mosul. Samarra. Pardon my French, but there'd better be some pretty fucking good news to overshadow these catastrophes before we start throwing around the word "success."

TK: Unfortunately, Bush can't give 100% focus to the war effort because it isn't in the forefront of everyone's agenda.

Andy: No one is saying the president doesn't have more than one iron in the fire. We're just saying it's a disaster, is all.

TK: As far as monogamous lesbians are concerned, it wasn't Bush who decided to "protect" the U.S. from that lifestyle- it was the millions of voters who voted for the bills on their ballots.

George W. Bush: "And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." (February 24, 2004)

TK: Bin Laden may be off dialysis at the moment but he sure as hell would have been on it sooner had Clinton got off his ass and did something when the WTC was bombed the first time. I guess Clinton was too distracted by his intern's DSL's and the fact he was patting himself on the back for lobbing a few tomahawks when the USS Cole was almost sunk in Yemen. We had some soldiers die on his watch too but I keep forgetting that going to war when a Democrat is president is somehow ok.

Andy: Nice try, but Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were not responsible for the 1993 attack, which was perpetrated by Ramzi Yousef and Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. They are both now in jail, along with 19 others who were tried and convicted.

Please find for me any reference to a Republican who urged Clinton to take stronger action against Osama bin Laden. Oh yes, I know that story that Oliver North himself tried to warn us, but that myth was officially debunked by the U.S. Senate. By the way, let us not forget that on August 6, 2001, just five weeks before the attacks, Bush received a security briefing entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." And what was his response? He stayed on vacation. No press conference. No increase in airport security. Didn't even notify the intelligence agencies or law enforcement, let alone "lob a few tomahawks."

In fact, as Richard Clarke's testimony proved, the outgoing Clinton administration warned the Bushies repeatedly about bin Laden and al Qaeda. The result? On September 10, 2001, John Ashcroft cut the Justice Department's counterterrorism budget.

And if you think "going to war when a Democrat is president is...ok," then clearly you have forgotten the ruckus the GOP raised about our involvement in the Balkans. At least Clinton never claimed Milosevic was "a grave and gathering threat" to U.S. security or credited him with possessing weapons he didn't have.

I win.

The Gay Bashin' of the Christ

So I finally watched "The Passion of the Christ" last night. I know, I know...what's a devout Christian like myself waiting 7 months for? Well...a variety of things put me off. One, it seemed like everyone was seeing it, and as I already explained with Da Vinci Code I am automatically turned off by anything wildly popular. (To my own detriment, sometimes...I really enjoyed DVC.)

Plus, there was so much pre-release press that I felt like I'd already seen the movie just having read so much about it. And finally, having read all of that and hearing about Gibson's adherence to pre-Vatican II Catholicism and his alleged anti-Semitic upbringing, I just didn't feel like throwing $10.25 (welcome to movie theaters in Manhattan) at a millionaire who was promoting a view of Christ I wasn't sure I was going to share.

My first reaction is: what a waste of talent. The film was beautiful. Gibson has an eye for filling the screen with phenomenal, perfectly balanced and intriguing images. The art direction was superb. It was lovely to look at, and, I thought, very well cast. I was particularly impressed with Maia Morgenstern as Mary.

But I missed Jesus. I suppose if Gibson's intent was really to make a film about the crucifixion, and specifically that, I can't fault him for failing to give more time to the lessons Jesus taught. It would be like complaining that it's a fine wheelbarrow, but it doesn't play CDs -- you can't criticize something for failing to do what it wasn't designed to do.

Having said that, the character of Jesus in this movie is completely overwhelmed by the sadistic violence. I don't doubt that His final hours were every bit as miserable as the film depicts, if perhaps not even moreso. I can't help thinking, though, that the Gospels themselves don't spend a lot of time, proportionately speaking, about Christ's suffering and death. Gibson seems to want to win us over by inciting our outrage that such cruelties could be done to an innocent man.

But Christ was not just innocent. He was virtuous beyond reproach, kind, generous, a healer, and a pacifist. If you took all the segments of this film that showed Christ being any of these things and spliced them all together, they would occupy less time than the flogging scene. The thought that occurs to you over and over during this movie is, "How could they do this to someone?" I don't believe that He came to us to inspire outrage and indignance. He came to offer hope and comfort...and this was one of the most uncomfortable movies I have ever watched. While Gibson gives you Christ's Greatest Hits from the Gospels in one-verse-at-a-time flashbacks, showing a slightly bored-looking Jim Caviezel saying something compassionate for 5 seconds, he spends great stretches of the film glorying in creative camera angles capturing blood flying in every direction. For every peaceful thing He says in the film, He receives about ten lashes.

I did not really see this an anti-Semitic film; I mean, that's just the way the story goes, I'm sorry. For it to really be racist, I think there would have to be a more obvious playing-up of unpleasant stereotypes. However, I did find it distinctly homophobic.

The bloodlust and sadistic camaraderie of the Roman guards had a definite leather-clad S&M feel to it, and Gibson calls our attention to the same-sex debauchery early on when one guard grabs another by the head and moves as if to kiss him...they don't actually lock lips, but the one does wag his tongue lasciviously at the other.

King Herod's court looked like a retirement home for transvestites. Um, is this the same Herod who, according to the Bible, promised his stepdaughter anything in his power up to one half his kingdom if she would just dance naked for him? Sigh. You know how gay men love naked dancing girls. These guys weren't just gay, they were complete poofs, with obvious-looking wigs and fake beards and make-up.

The coup-de-grace, of course, was the effeminate Satan. Please. It was a bold stroke to cast a woman as the Devil...one that has fascinating possibilities, and I think is a very valid choice, actually. Effeminate, though, is not to say "feminine." There's a difference. This Satan was distinctly androgynous; I wonder how many viewers thought the actor was actually a man? We certainly tend to think of the Devil as a masculine entity, if his representations in art are any indication. Yes, this was no female Lucifer, but rather a pale-faced limp-wristed pansy-assed lisping Fagistopheles.

I would hope people would recognize that this is just a movie, just one man's idea about the events of the final hours of Christ's life. They shouldn't take The Gospel according to Mel all that seriously. If they'd really like to understand Christ's passion, there's no substitute for the original source.

Getting Back to Reality Now

Okay, Scott Peterson is guilty. Duh.

Thank God that's over. Can we stop obsessing about it?

Can I point out that as of this morning, 18 U.S. soldiers had been killed in our current assault on Fallujah? And just remind everyone that yesterday was Veteran's Day? The New York Times is currently reporting that three U.S. helicopters have been shot down in Iraq in just this week. Oh, and by the way, while our military attention, at least, is focused on Fallujah, CNN reports that "fighting intensifies in four Iraqi cities."

Let's see...it's 20 months since the fall of Baghdad, about 18 months since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and almost a year since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, we're engaged in a street-by-street conquest, under heavy guerilla resistance, of a major Iraqi city while simultaneously losing control in three other places.

Osama bin Laden is off his dialysis machine making campaign commercials from Pakistan, the situation in Iraq is getting worse, not better, but at least we've got George W. Bush -- who's responsible for all these catastrophes -- to protect us from monogamous lesbians in Massachusetts.