Belief Versus Bigotry

After my most recent tirade against the proponents of the anti-gay marriange Constitutional amendment, a friend felt compelled to make the point that many people have strong personal objections to the idea of gay “marriage,” and that such beliefs do not necessarily imply homophobia or outright hatred of homosexuals. True enough — I’m not above vilifying my opponents when deserved, but it is all too easy to paint those with a difference of opinion as evil incarnate (likening them to Bill Gates or George W. Bush, for example).

I will not step back one iota from my utter condemnation of those proposing this amendment. But I will try to clarify a few of my own positions.

First and foremost, I don’t join with those activists (far fewer than the extremists of the right would have one believe) who argue that mainstream religion must recognize gay marriages. The nature and objectives of religion are far different from those of secular society. While one can certainly hope that such unions would be recognized, and work within a particular religious group to achieve that objective, we have no right to demand such acceptance. Any religious sect is a collection of people who share a common set of beliefs — one cannot step in and insist that they adopt an altogether different set. The “schism” within the Episcopal church — though it doesn’t concern gay marriage — is a prime example of this in action; a group within the church has decided that it does not hold the prevailing belief of the main body, instead believing that ordination of an open homosexual is perfectly acceptable. I can argue until I’m blue in the face that the larger Anglican church is “wrong” for trying to deny such a decision, but that is their decision to make; at its core, if the collective does not believe it to be acceptable, nothing I — nor anyone else — can say is likely to change that position by fiat. Frankly, should the larger church be split as a result of this difference, I think the result would be far preferable to the alternative: Sticking together with such a rancorous divide between groups, simply for the sake of “sticking together.” (Yes, I can see the parallels with the institution of marriage itself, but that’s an argument perhaps best left for another day.)

But as much as the waffling politicians — and that includes all of the prevailing Democratic contenders at the moment — would attempt to muddy the issue, this has nothing to do with religion, except in terminology. There is no religious test exercised to determine eligibility for state-recognized “marriage.” Not all religions overtly condemn gay marriage. If, as a state, we are to make allowances for marriage, either we do so without regard to religion, or we are in direct violation of the Establishment Clause: We are establishing a state church — one that does condemn gay marriage. If one chooses to contest that explicitly stated point, it is far harder to argue that we are not establishing an overt bias toward those religions that do condemn gay marriage.

At its core, this is a civil rights issue. All anyone (or anyone of consequence) is saying is that as a state, we should not deny basic civil rights to a reasonably significant portion of our population. Period. If one chooses to convey those rights in what are termed “civil unions,” then so be it — but the opponents of that halfway step have a valid point: If some “unions” are called “marriage,” then the state is still putting itself in the position of endorsing a religious position. At the very least, this is rank hypocrisy.* If we are to establish civil unions, we must recognize all similar unions as such. Religions can confer “marriage,” and the state “civil unions,” and each can establish its own requirements for entering into either. But the state cannot continue to maintain dominion over religious observance, toward either the left or the right.

Opposition to gay “marriage,” therefore, becomes a position which — though I may disagree with it myself — can reasonably be held by an individual or group. Denial of civil liberties to American citizens, however — within the context of the state’s authority — is bigotry. It may not stem from hatred, but the moment it crosses the line from personal belief to legal constraint, it becomes bigotry regardless.

* I find it particularly galling that, despite language that explicitly outlaws civil unions, Representative Marilyn Musgrave can lie with a straight face and claim that her proposed amendment — the most likely version under consideration — does not in fact outlaw them. As if we Americans are so stupid that we can’t actually read. I think there’s a special level of hell reserved just for hypocritical idiots like her.

No Turning Back Now

Thanks to the glory of package tracking, I can see that my videos arrived at Project Greenlight. I’ve also uploaded at least a preliminary draft of my Holding Pattern screenplay; I’m still planning to do some final edits before Saturday’s deadline, but this way I can at least be sure I’ve got something entered.

I remember the first PGL, when — thanks to network overload — folks had a bear of a time getting their stuff sent in at the last minute. I really don’t want to be that guy.

Well, It’s Off

Just sent out the Project Greenlight tapes. The Director’s Contest is now out of my hands. I still have to finish my feature screenplay, but since that’s an electronic upload, I’ve got some time. Well, a couple of days, anyway.

I’ve started putting together a “Loose Ends” DVD — which will have a pretty sizable chunk of supplemental material. I won’t be offering it for sale — licensing agreements prohibit it — but at some point, I may put a QuickTime version of the movie on-line at my “parent” site, Coughlan.us.

If you’re interested in updates, drop me a line.

Never Let It Be Said That I’m One to Avoid Controversy

Two topics today. Neither of which is likely to win me a whole lot of friends, so be warned.

First, Mel Gibson’s pet project, The Passion of the Christ, or rather the attendant debate over its historical accuracy, anti-Semitism, and so on. First and foremost, if you haven’t seen the film, shut the hell up. You have nothing to contribute to the argument. Nothing. And no, I haven’t seen it, which is why I’m going to follow my own advice. Will I see it? Probably, though I doubt I’ll go to the theater; I’ll most likely catch it on HBO somewhere down the line. Then, and only then, will I have the right to make comments on its content. However, since I don’t attach any religious significance to the events portrayed, I’ll more likely concern myself with its actual merit as a film. I’ll view its historical accuracy (or lack thereof) in that context. Any period film takes liberties with history; the question is how well those liberties serve the story. (Note to my Christian readership: I don’t mean to imply by my wording that the picture — purported to be the most Biblically accurate rendition yet made — is necessarily historically inaccurate. I do not believe it to be so, but I wasn’t there; one’s interpretation of history depends largely on whom you choose to regard as credible.)

Okay, that’s one down. Now it’s time to really burn some bridges.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again, for the record: Support for an anti-gay marriage amendment is patently un-American. Sorry, I can’t allow any room for compromise on this one. Opposition to gay marriage is one thing. Amending the Constitution is a whole different animal. Duh-bya has now officially decided to throw his hat in with the most virulent bigots on the planet; not because their bigotry — in and of itself — is any worse than the more traditional forms of racial, religious, or gender-based discrimination, but because they want to formally enshrine that bigotry in the very fabric of the nation.

Yes, I know that — according to at least one recent poll — I’m denigrating nearly half of the U.S. population. I don’t give a shit. I also know that ranting against them isn’t going to change their minds. I still don’t give a shit; I’ll leave that battle to someone a little less incensed.

The Dixie Chicks generated a slew of controversy (at least among the room-temperature IQ set) for saying they were ashamed to be from Texas. Well, I’m not ready to say I’m ashamed to be an American — though I have been following news of the Vancouver film industry with curiosity.

But I am ready to say something to little George, along with Glenn Stanton, Matt Daniels, Maggie Gallagher, “Chuck” Colson, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Tony Perkins, Sandy Rios, Paul Weyrich, Donald Wildmon, Representative Marilyn Musgrave, and Senators Wayne Allard, Jeff Sessions, and Sam Brownback.

I’m ashamed that you’re Americans.

You don’t think our Constitution embodies your hatred for others enough? You want to change it to reflect your narrow-minded, bilious world view, so that everyone will be forced to abide by your Neanderthal outlook? Worried about the eternal souls of all good God-fearing Americans (though my personal conception of hell would be any “heaven” shared with you)?

Hey, I’ve got a better idea.

Get the fuck out of my country.

Well, It’s Official: I’m Entered

Just finished the final audio mix last night — for both the “Director’s Cut” and the “Project Greenlight” versions — for “Loose Ends.” And this morning I filled out the official entry forms.

So all that’s left to do is send it out. And by my original reckoning, I’m a day early. Of course, the prudent course of action would be to use that extra day to make any last-minute fixes, changes, etc., but a part of me just wants to get the thing out the door. We’ll see.

Eventually, I’ll probably post a version of it on-line, but for now, I’m going to hold off until I see how things go in the contest. The first hurdle — the announcement of the “Top 250” scenes — is scheduled for March 25th. Assuming I make that cut (and for the record, I’m not assuming anything just yet), I’ll have until April 12th to submit a “Fimmaker Video,” a sort of bio piece that’ll have to grab their attention. Given some of the videos I’ve seen in years past, that’ll be a tall order.

But one step at a time, eh?

I want to thank everyone who helped out with this piece — and there are a lot of you. Let me make special thanks to my co-producers Adam Young and Ginny Filer; I really couldn’t have done it without you. To my stars — principals Nello DeBlasio and Wallace Garner, and featured players Richard Wilt, Courtney Davis, and Collin Klamper — let me say the scene would not have been nearly as polished as it was without your invaluable creative insights. And Tom Bridge, thank you for the use of your camera — some of the most dramatic shots in the finished piece would not have existed without your assistance (which just goes to show you that some of the best material results from “happy accidents”).

I’ll keep everyone posted on the results, and we’ll all just have to see what happens. In the meantime, I’ve got to get back to work on the screenplay competition part...

I Love Caffeine... Though It’s Not Quite So Fond of Me

First edit’s done.

And comes in at... four-and-a-half minutes (not including credits). Exactly the length the script indicated.

Snip, snip, snip...

More updates later. Once I get something workable and actually get some sleep.

Turning Japanese

Hot damn! Thanks to Sid for pointing this one out to me. Discover your anime self! Go, everyone, to this site to create your own “anime avatar.” (Yes, the site’s in Spanish, but if you can’t figure it out... well, then I’m surprised you were able to turn on your computer.)

If you’re able to stick it up on-line, let me know where. Or just e-mail it to me — I’ll stick ’em in the comments here, get an idea of who’s reading.

’Cause alternatively, I could just use my own judgment to peg all of you...

One Night Down, One to Go

Well, I’d call last night’s shoot a success. Granted, we didn’t come close to hitting our planned 11:00 wrap time — well, unless you consider 1:00 a.m. (not including breakdown time) “close.” On the plus side, though, we got some fantastic material, in most cases better than I could have hoped; and this despite the increasing fatigue of folks going through the scenes for what seemed like the millionth time. Both cast and crew were unbelievably helpful and dedicated, particularly given my own frequent uncertainty. We also managed to get all of the shots at that particular location finished, which makes today’s stuff a little less stressful, as we won’t have to go through the whole setup/breakdown there again.

So one more quick shoot this afternoon, and a couple of scenes this evening, and we’ll be finished with principal photography.

And with luck, I’ll get more than the four hours of sleep I managed last night. Before editing begins bright and early on Saturday.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

I know I’m swamped with this whole Greenlight contest, but I am trying to at least skim the headlines, the opinion columns, and such. And this past weekend, I saw something that made my blood boil. George Will, in his weekly column entitled “The 1st 28 Questions for Kerry,” said the following: “You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?”

Anyone who knows the first thing about statistics could see that this was a flagrantly misleading statement. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans don’t know anything about statistics. The flaw in Will’s assertion was immediately obvious to me: With the radical reconcentration of weath in that top one percent since 1979, the numbers are meaningless. I pointed it out to Pam right away, and she nodded agreeably (she tolerates my occasional rant that way). I swore I’d track down the actual numbers, but having neither the time nor a starting point for my investigation, I had to let it slide.

Fortunately, someone else was paying attention. Specifically, two someones. In yesterday’s Post, there were two letters raising exactly the same point that I wanted to make, only they’d actually gone out and gotten the numbers.

Michael Kornspun, of North Salem, New York, points out that in 1980, the “top 1 percent” Will mentions had an 8.5-percent share of national income, whereas in 2001, that amount was more than double that, a whopping 17.5-percent share. Of course the top one percent is paying more (84 percent more, to be precise) — they’ve got more of the money.

Leroy Hall, of Ridgefield, Connecticut, adds that the individual tax rate paid by that one percent actually decreased — from 22 percent to 20 percent — while that of the remainder of the population increased from 13 to 15 percent (I have to assume Hall is referring to averages for the group, as the letter doesn’t go into greater detail about the numbers).

Of course, both of these letters received a small portion of newspaper space, as compared with the space allotted to Will’s column; the likelihood that anyone swayed by Will’s argument will ever read them is exceedingly small. All the more reason to trumpet them at every available opportunity; rarely are we presented with an example of deception that is so easily seen for what it is.

If anyone can find a more widely-read debunking of Will’s flagrant misuse of statistics, let me know as soon as possible. We’ve got to use every weapon at our disposal to counter these damn lies.

I’m sorry, “statistics.”

Answering My Own Question

Yes, I am crazy.

Less than 24 hours to go and I don’t even have a complete cast yet...

Say goodbye to rehearsals...

Waiting for the Other Shoe

Am I crazy to think that things are actually going well on this Greenlight scene? I mean, I know we still haven’t completely locked casting decisions, but given the success of this weekend’s location scouts, I’m feeling irrationally optimistic.

Not that I’m planning to get any sleep for the rest of the month, you understand...

Writing Wrinkle

Hmm... was just looking through the Official Rules for Project Greenlight — so as to ensure that everything I was planning for the director’s scene was in keeping with the contest parameters — when I noticed something perturbing.

In describing the contest originally, they specified that they were looking for “genre” projects like horror or thriller. In other words (at least to my interpretation), pictures that were imaginative but easily slotted into a category. Unfortunately, it appears that my assessment was insufficient: They’re looking exclusively for horror or thriller projects. Or at least almost exclusively.

Yeah, in the movie business, horror pictures are often referred to as “genre” films. Dimension Films, for example, is often referred to as the “genre” wing of Miramax. Still, Dimension doesn’t handle just horror films — witness Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

The rules — or at least the overview — do indicate that they’ll accept other types of pictures, but you have to assume there’s a pretty big hurdle to overcome to get accepted that way; you’d have to have one damn good screenplay. And while I do think mine’s good — and definitely worthy of production — I don’t know that it’s enough to get the producers to say, “You know what? We were going to make a thriller, but after reading this, I don’t want to anymore.” And, of course, there’s no way I can write a brand-new thriller in two weeks (and the notion of adapting Holding Pattern into a thriller is laughable).

I’ll probably submit it anyway. What the hell. And I can at least take comfort that my director’s scene fits the criteria.

Last Call for Stardom

I didn’t want to spam everyone in my address book — a lot of folks just plain aren’t interested — but assembly of cast and crew for my Project Greenlight director’s scene is well under way. In fact, despite its being a holiday weekend, we really need to get most of this stuff finalized by the beginning of next week. Right now, it looks like we’ll be shooting either Thursday or Friday evening (or both, depending on how well we keep on schedule), with editing (and maybe some pickups or even second-unit photography) over the weekend.

So if you want to participate, let me know now! For those of you with my direct contact info (which I won’t post here, obviously), the best way to get me is via my cell phone — I’m largely “off-line” today and across the weekend (I think there’s some holiday or something tomorrow; I really should do something about it). Still, I’ll check e-mail periodically, so if you want in — believe me, we can use all the help we can get — drop me a line via the link under the bio at the upper left there and I’ll pass along what details I’ve got.

Okay, so participation might be a little tougher for those of you not actually in the greater D.C. area, but I’m open to suggestions.

(And in the meantime, remember that you can still cast your vote for a few more hours in this round of Blog Madness. Hint, hint.)

Straight From the “It’s About Time” Department

The “holy trilogy” is finally coming out on DVD. I’m curious to see what other little “fixes” Lucas has in mind.

Oh, and the fourth elimination round for Blog Madness has begun. Thanks to the vagaries of random chance, I’m still alive despite a mere tie in the last round (congrats to brokentype on a round well played). I’m up against some stiff competition this time, though, so please, head over and vote!

Little George Decides to Go Ahead and Piss on the Constitution

I’m sorry, but there’s no wiggle room here. Support for an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment — which Duh-bya’s puppetmasters are now saying he plans to announce shortly — is irredeemably vile.

Of course, it’s bigotry at its worst — that is, bigotry masquerading as religious belief. But that argument won’t make any headway with the extreme right; they’re downright proud of their self-righteous intolerance.

But far worse than that — as reprehensible as it is — is the fact that a Constitutional amendment would enshrine a matter of ordinary statute law into the document that is meant to define the structure of the nation. Just as the eighteenth amendment — Prohibition — had no business being stuffed into the very fabric of the nation’s composition, neither does this ill-considered attempt. Both pervert the explicit purpose of the Constitution: Providing a fundamental framework for government that cannot be altered by the simple will of the people or legislature. Instead, they attempt to impose the will of those currently in power — in a matter of everyday law-making — upon future generations. They entrench a denial of liberty into the underlying composition of the nation.

Passage of this amendment would be an (almost) unprecedented show of disrespect for both the Constitution and the heritage of the United States of America. If anything could truly be defined as “un-American” — a label I am loath to bandy about — this atrocity would come as close as I can imagine.

To oppose gay marriage is one thing; I may disagree with your opinion (and I won’t shy away from saying so), but you’re perfectly welcome to hold it. Bastardize my Constitution, and I’ll fight you to my dying breath.

Which America-Hating Minority Are You?

I haven’t done any of these ’net quizzes in a while, but this one — drawn to my attention courtesy of Owen over at Broccoli and Bechamel — seemed worth trying.

I am an Intellectual
smarter - than - most

Nothing is harder for the conservatives to convincingly crush than you, the educated man or woman of dissent. You have the facts, you have the common sense, and people who disagree with you can usually do so only on flawed grounds or with childish slander. As an intelligent human being, your opposition to G.W. Bush is practically a given. The farces his administration perpetuates grind wheels in your head as history painfully repeats itself right before your eyes. You may in fact BE an American citizen, a condition which would only serve to enhance your understanding of the poor state the potentially great nation is in.

“Don’t make me exposé your ass!”

(Take More Robert & Tim Quizzes | Watch Robert & Tim Cartoons)

Okay, not all that much of a surprise I suppose... Take the quiz yourself and let me know your results.

Reading, Writing, and Rating

Yes, I’m still here, but too busy to do much more than pop in. I’m still in contention in the current round of Blog Madness, if you’d like to give me a vote. But for the most part, I’m scrambling to finish the shooting script for my Project Greenlight director’s scene, as well as polishing up my screenplay. Not to mention a bunch of other home and work issues I’m dealing with right now.

I promise, I’ll be back, but right now I’m in way over my head.

And... Action!

This just in: Project Greenlight is back! Not the series (yet, though it’ll be airing on Bravo this time around), but the contest behind it all. I’ve entered twice before, and I’ll be doing it again this time.

This year, however, I’ll be entering both the screenwriting and directing contests (as of last season, the contest was split in two). I’ve already put together a working script for my three-minute directing scene (entitled “Loose Ends”), as well as a potential shooting location (casting will be a little tougher). The feature screenplay (Holding Pattern) is coming into shape, though the mandate this year is to go with more of a “genre” film — so I’ve still got more work to do to be able to (realistically) think of it as a “romantic comedy.”

Hey, if anyone wants to offer a critique (as opposed to just reading for fun), let me know. And if anyone wants to help out with the scene — a far more collaborative effort than writing, to be sure — I’m more than happy to have you.

But at the very least, I recommend that everyone head over to the PGL site and take a look. You don’t have to be an aspiring filmmaker — you can sign up as a reviewer, which means you’ll have a chance (but not an obligation) to read and critique submitted screenplays. Chosen at random, naturally, so I won’t be able to game the system by having my friends all give me glowing reviews.

Though if I figure out a way to do that, believe me, I’ll let you know.

America the Dysfunctional

I feel a little conflicted. on one hand, I don’t want to give this issue any more “media” attention than it’s already gotten. But on the other, well, I can’t shut up about it. Just as the rest of the world holds us in contempt for our unjustified invasion of Iraq, I can’t help but believe they’re laughing their asses off at our overreaction to a little nudity. Hell, right-wing commentator Cal Thomas made a barely-veiled connection between Janet’s display and the recent shooting of a high-school teenager in a radio commentary spot this morning (RealAudio format). The commentary itself bemoans the glorification of violence in our culture — fair enough — but goes on to lump sexuality in the same category; Thomas doesn’t mention Sunday’s “incident” specifically, but he does slam MTV, and this comes on the heels of Thomas’ syndicated column decrying the Superbowl broadcast.

People, get a life! Was this an example of high culture? Hell, no. Was it trash television? Sure, guilty as charged. Was it entertaining? Well, not particularly, but that’s a matter of taste. It it worth getting up in puritanical arms about? Please. I think it says more about the sorry state of this nation not that something like this was broadcast, but that it’s causing so many to burst blood vessels ranting about it.

I also find it fitting — with my related entry up for judging at Blog Madness — that investigators have recently determined that John Geoghan was not only beaten and harassed by both prisoners and guards during his incarceration, but was set up to be killed, in effect if not specifically. Not to defend Geoghan by any means, but how can we claim any high ground against regimes such as Saddam Hussein’s when we continue to torture our own prisoners? When investigations like this (and the exposure of abuse of 9/11 detainees) uncover official complicity, we can no longer claim that it’s the actions of a few individuals; it’s become endemic.

Okay, enough whining. After yesterday’s primary results, it’s starting to look more and more like Kerry’s going to take this thing. I’ll still be voting for Dean in the upcoming Virginia primary, but sometimes I do have to take off my “booster” hat and think objectively. I’d be willing to bet it’ll end up a Kerry/Edwards ticket come convention time. And I can live with that. Lieberman’s withdrawal certainly makes me feel a little better (a Lieberman candidacy I could not have put up with), and Sharpton’s poor showing in South Carolina knocks out the only other candidate I couldn’t have supported. I still think Dean’s been maligned by the ravenous media, but inasmuch as his candidacy has fired up the anti-Duh-bya voters, we’re all the better for it.

Everybody Get Out There and Vote!

No, I’m not asking you to vote in today’s primaries (though that would be a good idea). Blog Madness is still going on, and my entry is back in competition (after a bye in the last round). I know it’s just an elimination round, but still — all the more reason I need your help. So go, check out all the entries in the tournament, and vote for those you think deserve to move on. My entry, “Passing Judgment on Our Society,” is in the ER-2 round of the “Bills” bracket. Yes, I do want your vote, but do actually read the entries, and use your own judgment; it’s meant to be an honest competition, not a popularity contest.

Okay, so I watched the Janet Jackson disrobing, and I’m left with one thought: This is what everyone’s up in arms about? Are you serious? Man, people really need to get a life.

As to whether the CBS suits knew about the stunt beforehand? Well, I don’t for a second believe they’re really as upset as they’re making themselves out to be — there’s no such thing as bad publicity, even for a monolithic corporate entity like Viacom — but to tell you the truth, I doubt they did know about it. I mean, if the corporate heads are getting involved in minor details of the Superbowl halftime show, they’ve got some serious micromanagement issues over there. As the network for old biddies, they’ve got to pretend they’re outraged, but that’s the extent of it.

In other news, I’m getting sick of hearing the argument that other nations thought Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction,” or that the Clinton administration thought so, too. Or that even Clinton favored “regime change.” This has got to be the most hollow argument I’ve ever heard. Okay, so other intelligence agencies — and administrations — had the same info you had, little George. None of them started a damn war on the basis of it! You can try to shift blame until you’re blue in the face, but that one fact separates you from all the others you’re desperately trying to accuse. (And no, Britain didn’t start a war — Duh-bya started it, and Tony Blair piled on the bandwagon.)

Ah, maybe part of the reason I’m cranky was hearing the news yesterday that original “Uptown Girl” Christie Brinkley turned 50. 50. Holy crap, I’m getting old.

And I still hate that damned groundhog.

Where to Start, Where to Start...

Well, we made it back home... eventually. No really big delays this time around, but it sure as hell felt like it.

And still no tripod.

I missed dinner Friday night, but was at least able to see the girls before bedtime. It would have been nice to have really caught up on sleep, but Saturday morning was going to be the start of a very busy day. See, ever since we moved into the new house, we’ve been hosts to the annual Superbowl Party for Pam’s circle of college friends (and their ever-expanding families). Which is fine — we’ve got both a good central location and enough space — but it means we’ve got to get the house into shape for guests.

So pretty much the entire weekend was spent cleaning. Well, that and trying to get a handle on the legalities of a nightmare situation my mother-in-law’s going through with the chronic harassment by her criminally inept shrew of a principal, who’s now resorted to falsifying documentation and eliciting slanderous (and in one case libelous) accusations from misinformed parents. Or so I’ve heard — you understand that’s just my personal assessment of the situation...

Can you tell I’m just a bit angry?

The party itself went very well, though. Being the co-host, I didn’t actually get to watch too much of the game (no, I didn’t see the whole Janet Jackson striptease, but anyone who believes it was “unintentional” redefines “gullible”), let alone all the ads. But even without having seen them all, I’ll go ahead and say my favorite was the one featuring my old compatriot Patton Oswalt as the overheated bagpiper. I recorded the whole event (along with Survivor: All-Stars), so I’ll review all the other commercial offerings later.

I will say that it was nice to wake up this morning to read about little George’s “never admit error” backpedaling. No matter what, gotta keep the lie alive! And make damn sure that nobody can find out the truth until after the election. Never mind that this is exactly the information people need to make an informed decision.

I saw Richard Perle on The Daily Show last week, and while I disagree with his objectives wholeheartedly, at least he’s got the balls to come right out and tell you what his motives are, and the real reason we went to war. Unlike the little weasel in the Oval Office.

I can only dream of the day when Bush is languishing in a prison cell. But in the meantime, I’ll happily do anything I can to hasten his arrival.