No Country for Old Men

Joel and Ethan Coen stand as two of my favorite filmmakers. Indisputable geniuses as directors, producers, editors and writers, their films hold special rank amongst the best of our generation. The Big Lebowski is in my opinion the smartest comedy ever written. O Brother, Where Art Thou? broke new ground in both the possibilities of adaptation (relocating Homer’s The Odyssey to the depression-era south) and color editing (they developed a new technique to attain the golden hue). Fargo and Blood Simple are near perfect crime thrillers.

With that preface I now say this: No Country for Old Men is the best they’ve ever done. Hell, it’s the best anyone could ever hope to do.

Adapted from Cormac McCarthy’s 2005 novel of the same name, No Country for Old Men takes us on the trail of Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), an opportunistic hunter who happens upon $2 million left over from a drug deal gone bad, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), the psychotic hit man hired to get it back, and Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), the lawman chasing them both.

All three actors are pitch-perfect. Brolin plays the part of the every-man cowboy with a sincerity that gives the part the human touch it needs. He’s no super hero, but never slips into the self pity that afflicts so many films with a main character in dire circumstances (I call it Elijah Wood as Frodo syndrome).

Bardem is the scariest villain I’ve seen since Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. His scene with an old clerk in a convenience store will chill you to the bone, and Chigurh’s logic behind making the poor old sap call a coin flip for his life almost seems rational in its psychosis.

Tommy Lee Jones is a weary, wizened hard-ass; his gravely voice and worry lines give the sheriff an indescribable depth, his brief lines hinting at the iceberg hidden in the ocean. Jones’ wit and assurance as an actor make it possible for him to dispense old man anecdotal wisdom without sounding senile, or preachy.

Truly, all three deserve academy awards (but it’s tough to say who’s lead and who’s supporting).

I don’t want to go too much into the plot (I hate spoilers and I’d prefer to have each of you enjoy the film fresh), but let me tell you why I think No Country for Old Men is so damn good.

Like most Coen films, this one is unexpectedly funny (black comedy at its finest), but that’s not what sets No Country for Old Men apart (and I certainly wouldn’t call the film a comedy).

For most of their filmmaking careers, the knock on the Coens and their films has been that they have no soul. As masters of witty irreverence, adept storytelling and filmmaking technique, the brothers have few peers. They are able to maintain their unique, quirky style and create memorably offbeat characters while working within the Hollywood system (an admirable feat).

But I’ve heard them accused of being glib, their films described as having no cohesive purpose (which I always found odd because filmmakers are storytellers, not theologians or philosophers). They exist, they spin an entertaining yarn, but in the end they make no comment on society or culture.

No critic will be able to say this about Old Country for Old Men, and I would slap him if he tried. If you’re looking for a film dealing with the nature of humanity, No Country for Old Men offers an embarrassment of riches. It raises issues of ethics – Moss’s hands aren’t clean as he stole $2 million. Should he have kept the cash (would you)? Ultimately, does this make him culpable for the consequences?

It discusses the deterioration of morality. Thank God it’s never actually said, but the good sheriff realizes, after witnessing the tidal wave of violence, that this truly is no country for old men. He muses: “It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am,’ the end is pretty much in sight.”

My favorite theme is that of inevitability vs. chance, fate vs. choice. Never in a film (at least that I have seen) have these ideas been so thoughtfully presented (the Coens themselves seem to land firmly on one side). Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not going to tell you what I mean. It would be giving away too much. Seek and you will find. I urge you all to go see the film, experience it for yourselves, and spend some time ruminating.

I’ll leave you with a fair warning: the ending is not what you might expect. But spend some time thinking about the questions the end of the film raises, and I promise you’ll find it a rewarding experience.

Thanks for reading.

Zizzle-Zot, etc.: What’s Next?

Well folks, my time at Boston Scientific has come to its inevitable conclusion. We all knew I couldn’t make it in the competitive (or is it anal?) medical device industry for long, and I’m just as surprised as anyone that my career lasted as long as it did. Soon I will be moving on to an illustrious (and probably equally short-lived) position in the field of photoelectric sensors.

I can hardly contain my excitement.

Fortunately, I have no regrets about my time at BoSci. I spent the hours of my day…well, liberally, doing minimal work for maximum credit (thus realizing the American dream). The time I allotted to reading online newspapers allowed me gain a formidable grasp on world affairs. My time perusing The Onion and listening to This American Life gave me hours of amusement. Time devoted to managing my fantasy football team meant clinching a spot in the playoffs.

And my time working on Zizzle-Zot, etc., connecting daily with all of you fine people, has been a joy.

Now the question we’re all asking ourselves (or rather, you all are asking me) is: Zot, what comes next? I must invite you, dear readers, to embrace the unknown; for that is the path upon which we now embark. “Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves like locked doors” (Rainer Maria Rilke).

At Boston Scientific I found myself in the perfect storm of corporate ineptitude and indifference. I had a number of bosses who never communicated. None of my team members sat in the same area. Everyone assumed my responsibilities were quite complex and time consuming, when in reality they could have trained a monkey to do the same thing. I realize it sounds like an ideal situation, and you all are wondering why I’m leaving. I repeat: they could have trained a monkey to do my job.

I unfortunately have no idea what kind of free time my new job will afford me, though I’m doubtful that I will be able to continue maintaining Zizzle-Zot, etc. during office hours. In addition, I’ve had an itch lately to write the Great American Novel (or at least a novel snarky enough to live up to the Zizzle-Zot name).

So what does all this mean for Zizzle-Zot, etc.?

To start, I think I’ll have to reduce posting frequency to once a week (at least for the time being). Try not to think of it as a reduction in quantity, but as an amplification of quality (to apply some corporate jargon to the matter). Look for new posts every Wednesday, and don’t be surprised if others pop up sporadically. I’ll keep everyone updated on any changes.

The plan is to get a rough draft of the novel down in the next month (ambition is the key to success). I’ll then work through a revision and post a semi-finalized version, in its entirety, in a series on Zizzle-Zot, etc. That’s right, ladies and gents, you all will get the first look at a novel that may (or may not) change the world as we know it.

I know this is probably coming as a shock to the many (several) loyal readers. I promise you all that Zizzle-Zot is not going anywhere, and will not soon give up his reign of terror over the blogosphere. Think of this down-time as a metamorphosis. Zizzle-Zot goes into self-imposed exile to come back stronger (and more beautiful) than ever. Like the Phoenix, Zizzle-Zot, etc. will rise from the ashes.

Thanks for reading.

Zizzle-Zot Takes a Break

There won't be new posts on Thursday or Friday. Sorry folks. Take the opportunity to comment on the most recent debates, or peruse old posts.

The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 2: Where it Falls Short

Yesterday we took a look at the reason that Affirmative Action is necessary. Now let’s talk about why it doesn’t work.

The Civil Rights Movement ended legalized racism in the ‘60s, but racism as a paradigm persisted. Criminalizing prejudice did little to change anyone’s world view. Minority groups to this day are oppressed by cultural pressures. Following the Civil Rights Movement minorities were allowed to sit in the front of the bus or at the lunch counter, but this didn’t drastically change anyone’s life. These people had been outcast and marginalized since birth. Institutionalized poverty forced them to live in slums and work for nothing, and meant many of them lacked the education or skills necessary to lift themselves out of negative circumstances.

In 1962 Lyndon B. Johnson and James Farmer (founder of the Congress of Racial Equality) proposed a plan called Compensatory Preferential Treatment (renamed Affirmative Action in 1965) to promote equality. In a speech at Howard University, Johnson said “You do not take a person who, for many years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” So they came up with a program to offer a historically oppressed group of people a fighting chance by encouraging employers to hire minorities and providing them with the opportunities and means to seek an education. Johnson and Farmer hoped to provide minorities with the tools to succeed.

But they failed to realize that success is largely environmental. The people to whom they were now extending a helping hand had already become ensnared by a culture of prejudice and suspicion. A child raised in a household that places little value on education will never learn to value education. The opportunities were not being utilized, and the cycle continued.

Through the ’70s and ‘80s a drug and crime epidemic swept through urban areas. Gangs formed and established power, initially as a means of community protection. Eventually they switched to the business of drug distribution as the only available method of supporting themselves.

The urban communities being affected were largely populated by minorities, who for the aforementioned reasons were unable to escape the slums. Young men, lacking the means to support children, the education to rise out of poverty, and living dangerous lifestyles, started abandoning their families. As a result, children were being born to unwed mothers in a culture where gang life and drug dealing were necessary to survival. The arrival of gangster rap further served to glorify this life of crime, engraining in the minds of youngsters the idea of respect and success earned through violence.

Imagine such a childhood. You’ve never met your father. Your older brothers are gang-bangers, drug dealers. If you succeed in school your friends accuse you of “selling out” or acting too “white” (I worked with kids for years. My parents and sister are teachers. This is the reality). What is the motivation to seek an education?

This is where Affirmative Action fails. The government thinks the solution is to throw more money at the problem (what else is new?) when what is really needed is a cultural paradigm shift. Programs need to be put into place to educate parents about the values of education. Influential African Americans (think Jay-Z, Kanye West) need to speak out about the negativity of violence and gang life, and teach youngsters to aspire to greater things. Imagine the positive impact if Jay-Z were to go back to school and get his college degree.

Even more so, imagine the positive impact of a President Barack Obama.

Racism isn’t tangible. It exists in the minds of people. As long as this is true, equality will never be found. Part of the problem with Affirmative Action is that, while making an effort to lift historically oppressed people out of poverty, the system as it exists inevitably draws a line between black and white, creating resentment on both sides and actually promoting inequality.

If we are truly to be one people, one culture, one country (though I still advocate maintaining our diversity), we need to see ourselves as such. On issues of social welfare, there can’t be a line between black and white.

Late Night, your thoughts are appreciated, and largely I agree with you (particularly about the Christian responsibility to care for the poor). You stated, the “poor” and the “minority” in this country seem to go hand in hand. But this is an unfortunate truth, not an inherent fact. The poor and the minority go hand in hand because of circumstances. By making Affirmative Action an issue of “minority” and “non-minority,” the idea of “us” and “them” is further entrenched in people’s minds. It gives the racists ground to stand on when they can say “these people need our hand-outs,” and it creates resentment amongst minorities when they can say “these people assume we need their hand-outs.”

What do I propose? I believe that Affirmative Action should be based on poverty lines, not racial lines. It’s poverty that people can’t escape, not their ethnicity (and the assumption that race is the oppressor, not poverty, is a muted expression of racism). The question on applications and tests should not be “what is your ethnicity?” but rather “what is your parents’ income level?” “what is your parents’ education level?” “where did you grow up?”

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

Note: Prominent figures like Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby have already done a tremendous amount to shift the thinking of the culture (Cosby, along with Alvin F. Poussaint, recently came out with a book called Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. It’s on my reading list, but so are a lot of books. I have a feeling it would help a great deal in gaining an understanding of the issues).

A Foregone Conclusion: The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 1

I tried to run, avoid, hide, deny. I tried to pretend that I had no opinion, lacked the prerequisite familiarity with the topic (which in many ways I do), didn’t have the time to get into a lengthy debate. But it was inevitable. The discussion started by a seemingly innocuous statement: “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority,” has fermented beyond Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s ability to contain.

Now let me tell you why I think Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary in theory (Part 1), and a colossal failure in reality (Part 2).

Before we start, I’m hoping we can make a pact together. I think we’ll all acknowledge that racism is still very much alive in this country. It’s embedded in societal structure and the paradigms of older generations. Police are more likely to pull over minority drivers, aspiring business people need to work much harder to win the respect of employers if they aren’t white males, and young minorities still deal with suspicious glares wherever they go. Institutional racism is real.

That said, I realize this topic can be touchy. I plan on having the utmost respect for the issue, and I know you all will do the same. Let the debate begin.

Society is dying. Young people are being killed or imprisoned at alarming rates. The family structure is a distant memory. Homelessness is at an all-time high. And minorities are overwhelmingly the victims. 69% of African American babies are born out of wedlock. 45% of African American households lack a father figure. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African American men between the ages of 15 and 34. There are more African American men in jail than there are in college. Depending on the study, anywhere between 10-15% of the male African American population between the ages of 20 and 34 is incarcerated (this high rate is a confluence of two factors: a crime-glorifying culture and historically harsher prosecution for African American offenders).

This is the sad reality. African American children are overwhelmingly born into poverty, abandoned by their fathers, and ushered at a young age into a world of violence, crime, and survivalism. Because of broken homes they are forced to take on responsibilities a child should never need to. They face fear on a daily basis. Fear of violence and abandonment, yes. But also more basic fears of “when will I next eat?”

We’ll all acknowledge that a child born into such difficult circumstances has less opportunity to succeed. Through no fault of their own they have been relegated to a life of hardship, knocked down before they could stand, deemed a failure without ever having a chance.

Programs like Affirmative Action have the potential to turn this around. By enabling young men and women to seek an education, Affirmative Action allows people oppressed since birth to finally determine their own destiny. By escaping oppression and succeeding in life, these young men and women will go on to serve as inspiration for future generations, creating a cycle of aspiration and hope to replace the cycle of poverty and violence.

Affirmative Action can save America. But will it?

Thanks for reading.

Note: I realize this was brief. It would be impossible to cover the entire issue in one post, but I’m hoping this will serve as a springboard for further discussion. Also, I commented again on yesterday’s post. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts.

The Problem with Hillary: Though it’s Not Really about Her Anymore

I quit my job on Thursday. It was a phenomenal experience. Liberating, invigorating, man-damning. Originally I had a post planned relating to my departure (reasons for quitting, the meetings with the higher-ups, etc.) But quite frankly, the discussion that has naturally evolved out of the last few days of blog topics (blogics, if you will) is of much greater interest to me. I hope you all feel the same. I’ll eventually post on quitting my first real job, but for now let’s continue with some issues of greater importance.

I’m saving any affirmative action related thoughts, since this is the issue which seems most likely to spark controversy. I’ll address other comments, questions, concerns as I see fit.

But first, I’ll reveal the answer to my Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? I suppose I’m not surprised that no one came up with the answer (it is just a crack-pot, paranoid theory of mine).

I think it’s safe to say that threat number one to American security is jihadism. The religious fanatics declaring jihad are Islamic fundamentalists that have a long and well documented history of disrespecting, oppressing, and abusing women (Google Islam+womens’ rights, genital mutilation, burqa, etc). These terrorists- in-training already hate the infidels of the west and what they see as a debaucherous culture. How will they respond if a woman, who they wouldn’t allow to drive a car let alone run a country, takes command of the most powerful nation in the world; the nation that also happens to be their sworn enemy? Will they take seriously her efforts at diplomacy? Her threats of sanctions? Will they think her capable of protecting her citizens?

Or will it be open season on American soil?

I realize there is no solid evidence that a woman in office would result in increased terrorist attacks. Germany is run by a woman (Chancellor Angela Merkel), and they seem to be hanging in there. I just don’t know that I’d like to put my theory to the test.

For getting the right answer I’ve awarded myself a fabulous prize. Congratulations, Zot.

On to some thoughts from Thursday and Friday’s discussion: (most will be addressed to Mr. A, since many of your thoughts focused on the minority issue).

I was just playing devil’s advocate with the objectification of women stuff. Of course Hillary unfairly has to put up with a lot of rubbish that her male counterparts don’t because she is the first woman seriously seeking the presidency. But I, too, am tired of being seen as just a piece of ass. So is Barack: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

You raise an interesting point about the problem with over-analyzing every word a politician says. Because the media pressure and public scrutiny are so intense, they’re forced to prepare every thought ahead of time, stripping them of any possible spontaneity (and we all know what happens when spontaneity gets the better of a candidate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). We are left with hollowed out, one-dimensional caricatures of politicians and are deprived any hint of the very real, multi-faceted, talented and interesting people that they potentially are.

So what is it that we want? As a society, we demand blood. We thrive on the weakness of others. We want to be there when a candidate makes a fatal mistake. And when they do, we ask for their heads. We want our politicians to go for the jugulars of their opponents. And the media delivers. Truly, we are no better than the Roman masses.

This practice will be put to an end when I finally ascend to my rightful position of ruthless dictator and take full control of the media.

On the next topic, concerning how to vote (issues or character), I’m thinking that we’re further separated by terms than we are by practice. Each candidate has certain pet issues, things they are passionate about, and certainly we can agree that these personal projects are largely informed by their ideology. Edwards has social welfare, Clinton has universal healthcare, Barack has audacity (or is it hope?), Romney has polygamy, Giuliani has adultery, McCain has old man crotchery.

Joking aside, the issues a candidate is passionate about are the best barometer of that candidate’s ideological stances. This is the primary reason that I lean left. For me, social welfare is much more important, ideologically, than unreasonable efforts to prevent homosexual marriage.

In response to the blowup about Barack Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the National Anthem: it’s much ado about nothing. It was initially the result of a misleading caption (another example of either careless or deliberately manipulative journalism) that claimed Barack refused to put his hand on his heart during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The picture was later found to have been taken during the singing of the National Anthem, not the reciting of the Pledge. Barack went on to explain (clearly exasperated by repeated questioning) that he was raised to simply sing the National Anthem and to put his hand on his heart for the pledge. Interestingly, though, he was breaking a law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sec_36_00000301----000-.html
Even so, this is exactly the kind muckraking journalism that we all agree creates divisive, ineffective politics. In the end, I agree with Mr. A. Come on, people.

Now think about this: I have made a personal decision to no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It would be hypocritical. Think about what the Pledge of Allegiance forces you to say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I don’t. I never will. I hope that if and when I decide to pledge my allegiance to anything it is a far greater good/power than the flag or what it stands for. I’ll speak for all of us when I say we each have strong and carefully considered belief systems. We all have things we stand for, would fight for, and ultimately would die for. Are we really going to tie this to a flag? To a country (which is defined merely by the geographical region in which we were born)? I admire America and what it has done. I respect America and what it stands for. But will I ever pledge my allegiance to America? Absolutely not.

Does that make me unpatriotic? I’ll let you decide.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. As expected, this post got long before I even touched on affirmative action. Maybe it’s all a ploy to keep putting the issue off…Or maybe it’s coming tomorrow.

The Problem with Hillary: A Response

There was some good conversation following yesterday’s post, and I’d like to chime in with some thoughts of my own.

Mr. Antagonist, I agree that we shouldn’t resort to derogatory comments about Hillary’s womanhood. After all, no one would dream of calling Giuliani a greasy Italian or Romney a polygamist or Obama (we all see where the slippery slope goes).

As far as Hillary’s hot or not status, I’m sure no one had any ill-intent. However, to play devil’s advocate, it’s an undisputed fact that a good part of the female population votes based at least partly on looks. Isn’t it a bit of a double standard to say the male population can’t objectively assess and comment upon a female front-runner’s appearance?

I believe all potential presidential candidates should be held to the same high standard and put through equally rigorous tests. These people are in line to become (arguably) the most powerful individual in the free world. Every word they say should be combed over, scrutinized. Every inconsistency, every display of weak character, every gaff should be questioned. It’s the reality they have placed themselves in, and if they’re going to be train wreck in the White House it’s much better to find out before they get there.

Unfortunately the system is broken (clearly Bush slipped through the cracks). The media focuses solely on the one or two front runners, giving the impression that the rest of the candidates shit roses. Then we end up with a situation like 2004, where Howard Dean has been crushed by the media and the Democrats end up with a shlub like John Kerry as their candidate. I would argue that Bush didn’t win that election. Kerry lost it.

Mr. A and Late Night, you guys are funny. Vote the issues…you must be living in some sort of fantasy land where politicians tell the truth and always follow through. You can vote party lines (thus the party’s issues). You can vote individuals (thus character). But a vote for a politician’s issues is a vote for empty promises. Call me a cynic, but in my short time following politics I’ve already come to realize that a presidential hopeful’s campaign issues are about as solid as a hay-house in a sandstorm (imagine that said with a southern twang. It’s more entertaining that way). It’s like the 8th grader runner for class president on the no more homework platform (on a much grander scale). Once they’re in office they’ll quickly realize that their issues were a pipe dream and there are too many roadblocks in place (bureaucracy, budget, special interests) to get a damn thing accomplished.

So how does Zizzle-Zot vote? I vote ideological beliefs. Where the candidate stands on philosophical issues such as ethics and morality informs the positions they’ll take on practical issues such as the use of force, fiscal policy, and a pet issue of mine, education.

In this way I am more inclined to side with P Corcs. We shouldn’t necessarily vote personality, but character is of the utmost importance.

The problem, of course, is that this creates a vast grey area. How do we know that a candidate’s persona in front of the camera truly reflects upon her/his character when no one is watching? What if we agree completely with a candidate’s ideological stance on one issue, but adamantly disagree on another?

As voters, it’s our responsibility to form a personal “map” (lame analogy I know – but fitting) to navigate this hazy zone lacking in absolutes. We must use our discernment and judgment (tools best kept out of the hands of those who refuse to educate themselves, which unfortunately includes most. Does that make me sound like an elitist? So be it.) to familiarize ourselves with a candidate and to determine which ideological issues are the highest priority.

Late Night, you brought up an interesting point when you stated that “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority.”

I recently had a long talk with one of my roommates concerning a similar issue. She had been working at an inner-city school as a substitute student aide for over two weeks. The teachers she was working with loved her, the students adored her, and it seemed like the intervention of fate when a full-time position opened up. She was extraordinarily qualified, hard working and passionate.

But she didn’t get the job. She didn’t even get an interview. Why not? The principal told her that the school was only going to hire minority candidates. At first, I was furious for her. She didn’t even get a fair shot.

My roommate, however, wasn’t even irritated. She felt that a minority could relate to these students in ways that she never could, could inspire these students to rise above their circumstances, and understood that no matter how passionate she was, these students would be better served by an influence who knew where they were coming from.

You’re right on the money, Late Night. Think of the positive impact on society as a whole should a minority or female figure rise to the presidency; an individual capable of inspiring historically oppressed people and serving a community outside of Yale graduates breast fed with a silver spoon (who else loves mixed metaphors?)

Mr. A, I agree that Sarkozy is the man. And by the way, no one has gotten the bonus question right…yet. I’ll reveal the answer on Monday.

Thanks for reading.

On a side note, the rest of today is going to get wild and I’ll be out for most of the day tomorrow, so there probably won’t be a new post. I apologize for the recent inconsistency; I’m working to get things back on track. New post on Monday (it should be interesting).

The Problem with Hillary

A story broke yesterday that revealed a little insight into the questionable tactics being used by the Clinton campaign. 19-year-old Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff claimed she had been planted at a question and answer session held by the democratic front-runner. Gallo-Chasanoff also claimed she wasn’t the only one.

On November 6, Clinton gave a speech on energy in Newton, Iowa, which Gallo-Chasanoff attended. While waiting for the speech to start, the college sophomore was approached by a Clinton staffer and asked if she would like to ask the senator a question. Gallo-Chasanoff had a question in mind, concerning how Clinton’s energy plans compare to the other candidates’, but the staffer didn’t think an impromptu question was a good idea. He then showed Gallo-Chasanoff a piece of paper with 8 questions on it. The first said “college student” next to it. This was the question Gallo-Chasanoff asked: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

Gallo-Chasanoff said that after the event she overheard another questioner talking about the question he was assigned. Since the revelation a third individual, Geoffrey Mitchell, has come forward and claimed that at a previous event the Clinton campaign planted him with a question about the Iraq War, but that he didn’t feel comfortable asking it.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee issued this response: "This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We've taken steps to ensure that it never happens again."

Are accusations of planting questions monumental? No. I’m sure it’s happened before and will happen again. It’s very possible (and likely) that other candidates in this race are doing the same thing.

But the fact that Clinton got caught will reaffirm voter perception that she’s slimy. She already faces the same problem that Bill had to overcome: people don’t trust the Clintons. They’re too slick, too polished, too mischievous (though seem to be terrible at covering their tracks). Every dishonest act that Hillary gets caught up in will further embed this idea in the voters’ minds.

Most politicians are liars that let the public believe they are genuine, honest people. They give us warm fuzzies as we watch them hold babies in campaign ads and promise to restore the American Dream. Hillary Clinton is a liar that is either too prolific a liar or too bad a liar to let us believe that she’s not a liar. And I heard a rumor that she eats babies.

Mr. A, you raised an interesting question in yesterday’s comments section: What are we so afraid of?

Is it that Hillary’s a woman? A Clinton? A liberal (heaven forbid)? Speaking for the Zot, I don’t fear Hillary Clinton. I just don’t like her. As a voter, that’s my prerogative.

Thanks for reading.

Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? (I’m sure there are a number of possible answers, but I’m looking for one in particular.)

Pat Hearts Rudy…?

As many of you may have heard, late last week conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson announced his official endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, giving the former NY mayor a huge boost in the Religious Right stratosphere. Late Night suggested that this could make an interesting blog topic. I’m inclined to agree.

The Religious Right, as we have seen in past years, is a powerful voting bloc capable of swinging entire elections. Not to stereotype (but to generalize), the group tends to vote two issues: abortion and homosexual marriage. Typically, they will support the candidate that is unabashedly pro-life and anti-gay.

So why is Pat Robertson, one of the group’s iconic figures, throwing his considerable weight behind a pro-choice, civil-union supporting, mob-tied cross-dresser? Giuliani is twice divorced, has been accused of “open and notorious adultery,” and is reviled by his own children. On top of all this, he’s a Catholic. Gross.

I’ve come up with two different theories.

The first is that Pat Robertson has decided it’s time to hedge his bets. Consider the front-runners for the Republican nomination. McCain has successfully made himself obsolete through old-man stubbornness and the Straight Talk Express. It’s a cute little act, but can’t possible sustain through the electoral process. That leaves Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Robertson, I’m sure, sees the possible election of Romney as an assault on Christianity. A Christian, any Christian, even a baby-killing Christian, would surely be better than a Mormon. I expect that Robertson fears Mitt’s primary objective in the White House will be to convert the nation.

My second theory is that Robertson is a phony bologna and uses his religious affiliation as either a business or a means to further his own agenda. It doesn’t take much digging to unearth some of the televangelist’s darker secrets. In 2001 he approved of abortion as a form of population control in China. At the time he needed the Chinese government’s support of a business, Zhaodaola, which he founded and financed. The business was looking to set up internet facilities in China. Also in 2001, it was discovered that Robertson was a partner in a gold mining venture in Liberia. The business provided infamously brutal dictator Charles Taylor (who is now on trial for war crimes) with a cut of the profits.

It seems Pat Robertson’s moral authority crumbles under the weight of the almighty dollar.

What does the man himself have to say about his seemingly hypocritical support of Giuliani? While announcing his Giuliani endorsement, Robertson made the following statement: “to me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits.”

I’m not sure when governmental spending became a part of the Religious Right’s agenda, but I’ll put that issue aside.

If you’ll all join me on a trip down memory lane, I’d like to remind everyone of Robertson’s response following 9/11. At the time, he asserted that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was God’s punishment for abortion, homosexuality, and the “rampant secularism” that had overtaken America. He believed we had it coming. Now he claims we need protection from the wrath we brought upon ourselves? And he supports a man who seems to be rampant secularism incarnate (and is essentially running on the 9/11 platform: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9).

A little contradictory?

I’m not saying…I’m just saying…

Theory #3: Robertson is hoping that electing Giuliani to office will hasten the arrival of Armageddon.

Thanks for reading.

No New Post

I must apologize, Zizzle-Zotians. I won't be able to sprinkle my usual dosage of banal opinions upon you today. Something came up this morning and I was out of the office, and now I have meetings for most of the afternoon (these people can't get enough of me). Please come back tomorrow. I have a wonderful little ditty cooked up concerning our favorite televangelist, Pat Robertson.

Until tomorrow...

November Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month

I bet you all didn’t know that November is Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. Nor did you know that November is the month of a charity event called Movember in which participants register with a clean shaven face and over the next 30 days grow and groom the best moustache they can, competing for the title “Man of Movember.” November is also the month of elections, El Dia de los Muertos, and Guy Fawkes Night.

Oh, and then there’s Thanksgiving (my favorite holiday – gastronomically speaking of course).

Personally, I’m not a huge advocate of November (though this isn’t really the fault of the month itself). Death abounds as all the leaves have fallen and the grass grows crispy with frost. The transition from pleasantly cool to downright nipply is abrupt, giving my body little time to acclimate to the newly harsh conditions. It’s too early in the season for winter sports, too late to be outside without having snot stream from the nose.

Really, it’s the purgatory of the seasons.

Though this shouldn’t be held against our November Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month (the pronouncement of which may be November’s one saving grace).

Our newest Reader of the Month has proven himself to be a dedicated reader, responding consistently and adding new perspectives along with (insert superlative descriptor here) conversation points. In addition, he has expanded his efforts into the creation of an entirely new blog (check it out at http://thomashelgen.blogspot.com/). I suppose that let’s the proverbial cat out of the bag, defeating my attempt to build suspense by playing coy.

A round of applause for Mr. Antagonist, our newest Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month!

Mr. Antagonist, I know we have all come to appreciate your perspective, your willingness to play devil’s advocate, and your unique contributions (I particularly liked your suggestion to send the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church to Iran, since they don’t have any homosexuals there. And a good effort with “Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker” on the Oscar Wilde post).

So kudos, Mr. Antagonist, I’m sure we all agree you’ve earned this prestigious honor and that you will serve the position well.

Thanks to all of you who make Zizzle-Zot, etc. a regular part of your lives. My appreciation of your support is limitless.

I’ve been hearing rumors that we have some new readers that have yet to comment. I urge you all to make your presence on Zizzle-Zot, etc. felt. We’re not looking for anything profound, just drop a quick hello. It’s good to hear some new voices. I realize the blog seems dude-heavy, but ladies don’t let this intimidate you (Suzy Corcs we always love when you chime in). Behind the tough guy exteriors, we all have tender souls.

Well…Maybe not Late Night…

Thanks for reading.

Understanding the WGA Strike

As many of you may have heard, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) announced on Sunday evening that they would go on strike and on Monday at 9 AM set up picket lines outside of the major studios.

The WGA, led by Patric M. Verrone, consists of 12,000 writers nationally (8,000 on the west coast, 4,000 on the east). The union is demanding a bigger cut of revenue made from DVD sales and shows sold over the internet. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMTPT) has refused to meet this request. As a result, an overwhelming 90.3% of the Guild agreed to strike.

To me, the issue boils down to respect. Hollywood big-wigs don’t respect the writers, and this pisses the writers off. Producers and executives are money-men and yes-men. They aren’t artists. They aren’t creators. And they haven’t the first clue when it comes to the aesthetic of film or the significance of story. They think that if you throw in a big name actor (insert Colin Ferrell), sign on a major director (how about Oliver Stone?) and give him a huge special effects budget ($150 million should do it) then you’ve made a good movie (ugh…Alexander).

The truth is, if you don’t start with good writing then the final product will be shitty. No amount of rewrites or smoke and mirrors will save the movie. I’ll take a good example from my time as an intern at Radar Pictures. We got a script in called “The Heartbreak Kid” (it was actually a remake). It had one or two funny gags, but overall it was clichéd gross-out humor. Our money-man (the heir to the Marshall-Fields fortune) decided this was going to be his blockbuster. The guy had no clue about film or story, but he had the money so no one was in a position to disagree. He hired a few different writers to do rewrites, the script went through a couple of revisions, and finally he got the kings of gross out humor: the Farrelly brothers. They did the final rewrite (which pretty much consisted of making the gross jokes even grosser), Ben Stiller agreed to star, and just like that Mr. Fields was sure he had a smash. But the film came out and it bombed. It was panned by critics. It doesn’t even have a shot at making its budget back.

What happened? Everyone forgot that it was a bad script to begin with.

Hollywood producers consistently fail to recognize the fact that without writers they have nothing. It’s interesting how the process works. Once writers finish their work they’re cut out. They have no say in the final product. They have no input on revisions of the script. Of all the above the line talent (Hollywood term for the artistic talents - actors, directors, producers, and writers) they get the smallest cut of the profits. It’s disgusting.

And this is why they’re on strike. They rightfully believe that if a show they have written is so successful that it makes a killing in DVD sales (a la Friends, Seinfeld, Sex and the City, etc), they should see a significant cut of the revenue. It’s their creation. It’s their success. Show them the money.

Ultimately, the writers will win. As I’ve said, without writers Hollywood has nothing. There are no shows, no movies. Production comes to a screeching halt. It’s just a matter of how long it will take for the AMTPT to realize it. The last time the WGA went on strike was 1988. It lasted 22 weeks and cost the industry an estimated $500 million. Ouch.

The sad part of the story is that the WGA is not your typical union. In most unions, the members are all on a comparable pay scale. In the WGA, you have powerhouses who get $2.5 million every time they lift up a pen picketing next to the new guy in the writer’s room of a crappy sitcom who can barely afford to make rent. It makes for two very different strikes. For one, it’s a nice vacation and a chance to fight for the little guy. For the other, it means the very real possibility of starvation and homelessness.

So what does this mean to the rest of us (your average television and movie enthusiast)? Most producers, foreseeing the strike (possibly because they’re bastards and caused the strike in the first place) have stockpiled shows and scripts and should be good until January. If the strike goes longer than that you’ll start seeing fewer dramas and sitcoms and much more reality. Talk shows, news programs and game shows will increasingly migrate to primetime. The immediate change you’ll see is that late night topical shows (Letterman, The Daily Show, etc.) will go to reruns. These shows are written daily and there are no new episodes in reserve. Concerning film, projects already in production will speed up as producers will want to finish movies before the strike moves into full swing. If it’s a lengthy holdout, expect a slower summer on the entertainment front.

Thanks for reading.

PS. There won’t be a post tomorrow as I’ll be out of the office for most of the day. Don’t worry though, Zizzle-Zotians, I’m not going on strike (Zizzle-Zot, etc. isn’t registered with the WGA). And I didn’t get laid off (at least not yet)

PPS. I’d like to be involved in a little group book reading as well. Maybe we could do a book that I haven’t read yet either. I can look into some possibilities. I appreciate your concern about taking over the blog, Late Night, but I wouldn’t worry too much about it. It’s good to hear from everybody. We could dedicate one (or two?) days a week on Zizzle-Zot, etc. to the book discussion, which could also help keep everyone at roughly the same spot in the book. An email chain would work as well. Thoughts?

The Layoffs (Insert Ominous Music)

It’s been all over the news: Boston Scientific to lay off 13% of workforce. We saw it coming. Anyone who’s been paying attention knows the company has been struggling. Today they will announce the first round of firings (or “head-count reductions” in corporatese). The tension is palpable, the anticipation unbearable. The unknown has left employees variably unmotivated, frantic, melancholy and downright short-tempered.

I was in a meeting yesterday and noticed on the white board that someone had drawn a flow chart of emotions one might feel after being laid off. It started with denial, then moved to drugs/drinking, anger, suicide, avoidance, and finally on to new opportunities.

I found myself ruminating on the original intent of the drawing. Was it a jesting employee (uncertain of his/her own future) attempting to lighten the mood? Was it drawn for a meeting of HR personnel; a serious tool to help deal with potentially desperate victims of corporate cruelty? In the upper left corner of the drawing someone had written SAVE. The artist must have put time and thought into this creation, and didn’t want it nonchalantly wiped into oblivion.

I wonder where I would land on the chart. Probably a combination of drugs/drinking and avoidance. How come indifference isn’t one of the choices? It’s no secret that I don’t like my job. That I fear being driven slowly insane by mundane repetition and carpeted walls. That I look at people who have spent 30 years in a cubicle and feel both pity and contempt.

Truthfully, I feel guilty for my response to the ordeal. While I’ve adopted a flippant, dismissive attitude, those around me scurry, panicking that they won’t be able to pay their mortgage or feed their kids. I’m young. I can bounce from job to job, learn new tricks. And we all know that technical writing for a medical device company is a major deviation from my life goals.

But these people have obligations, responsibilities. They have made their time here more than a job, more even than a career. This place, for many, is life. Boston Scientific is at the center of plans, hopes, aspirations. It’s their social circle, their family, their church. And now Boston Scientific will callously toss them aside as they are forced to face the cold reality: Boston Scientific is a business. It doesn’t even know their names. Nor does it care to. The whole thing honestly makes me sad.

As I walked to my cube this morning the air was noticeably still. The calm before the storm. None of cheerful chirping from the ladies in marketing. No aisle meetings of middle-aged engineers talking about last night’s football game.

No one is safe. Managers are as uncertain about their jobs as those that report to them. No one knows how they will be informed that their time at Boston Scientific has come to an end. Will it be a phone call? A menacing summons to a clandestine conference room? A pink slip sent through inner-office mail? Maybe it would be best to ignore the phone, to set up the out-of-office assistant on Outlook, to spend as much time as possible away from the cube (they can’t fire what they can’t find).

Or maybe I’ll make a preemptive strike. I’ll storm into my manager’s office, clear the pictures and potted plants from her desk with one merciless swipe of my forearm, and proudly pronounce: “You can’t fire me. I quit!”

But really, I imagine that getting fired would be just the kick in the backside that I need.

I’ll keep you posted on how it all goes down.

Thanks for reading.

People of Note: Oscar Wilde

“Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about.”

Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde, the Irish playwright, poet and novelist, was born in 1854 in Dublin to surgeon Sir William Wilde and poet (and Irish nationalist) Jane Francesca Elgee. Known for his quick wit, his humorous observations of modern culture, and his barbed tongue, he lived in infamy as both a tastemaker (for the hip) and a taste-breaker (for the fuddy-duddies).

Wilde studied first at Trinity College in Dublin (1871-74) and then at Oxford (1874-78), where he joined the Aesthetic Movement (a group with the shared goal of making art of life.)

Upon returning to Dublin in 1878, Young Oscar fell in love with Florence Balcombe. She, in turn, became engaged to Bram Stoker (of Dracula fame). Heartbroken, Wilde fled Ireland and vowed never to return (he went back only twice for brief visits during his lifetime). He spent the majority of his life in London and Paris, and for a short time the United States.

In London, Wilde met Constance Lloyd, daughter of a wealthy Queen’s Consul, and married her in 1884. They lived in luxury and had two sons.

I apologize for boring everyone with domestic trivialities. They seem inconsequential, considering Wilde produced some of the most profound, witty, and enduring works of his generation. Literary achievements such as The Importance of Being Earnest (1895 - play), The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891 – novel) and The Ballad of Reading Gaol (Jail) (1898 – poem) are admired and often quoted to this day. Check out this passage, taken from The Ballad of Reading Gaol:

Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife,
because The dead so soon grow cold.

Some love too little, some too long,
Some sell, and others buy;
Some do the deed with many tears,
And some without a sigh:
For each man kills the thing he loves,
Yet each man does not die.

It’s genius, yet here I am talking about Oscar Wilde married so and so on such and such a date. Why? Because domestic gossip is central to the Oscar Wilde story.

Oscar Wilde’s sexuality, you see, was constantly being called into question. Sometimes he was labeled bisexual, sometimes homosexual. Wilde himself described his sexuality as something akin to the male love inspired by the Greek man/boy relationship (known as pederasticism - yikes).

Theories about when Wilde was introduced to homosexuality vary. Many believe he started exploring his own sexuality while at Oxford. By the late 1870’s he had befriended a group of pederastic poets and homosexual law-reformers. In 1882 Wilde met American poet Walt Whitman on a trip to the US, and wrote to a friend that there was “no doubt” about Whitman’s sexual orientation, claiming that “I still have the kiss of Whitman on my lips.”

Trouble starting brewing for Wilde when he was introduced to 22-year-old Oxford student Lord Alfred Douglas in 1891. They developed an immediate friendship, intellectually and emotionally intimate, but not initially sexual. Their friendship turned romantic only briefly, ending soon after it began when Wilde realized that Douglas consented only to please him, and Douglas recognized the reality that he was too old to suit Wilde’s interests.

In spite of this snafu, Wilde and Douglas remained openly living together, and Wilde began looking into homosexual law reform with his upper-class social group (it was a criminal offense in England at the time).

Lord Alfred’s father, John Sholto Douglas, the 9th Marquess of Queensbury, did not look favorably upon his son’s relationship with Wilde, believing that Alfred had been corrupted by, as he labeled upper-class homosexuals, “a snob queer.”

The Marquess plotted a smear campaign against Wilde in an attempt to end the relationship. Known for traveling with a group of brutish bodyguards, he threatened Wilde on several occasions. He planned to throw a bouquet of turnips at Wilde during the opening of The Importance of Being Earnest, but Wilde was tipped off and the Marquess was barred entrance. Finally, while Wilde was vacationing in Monte Carlo, the Marquess left a calling card with an inscription accusing Wilde of sodomy at Wilde’s club (all interviews and first-hand accounts indicate that Wilde never engaged in sodomy).

This was the final straw for Wilde, and he sought criminal libel charges. The trial quickly escalated into a media sideshow as the Marquess’s defense team paraded Wilde’s dirty laundry for all to see in an effort to discredit his case. They revealed Wilde’s association with blackmailers, rent boys, cross dressers and homosexuals. They made public Wilde’s private letters to Lord Alfred, calling the wording inappropriate. The Picture of Dorian Gray came under fierce moral criticism.

Wilde’s prosecution eventually dropped the case after the defense team threatened to bring rent boys to the stand to testify against the writer.

But the problems for Wilde had just begun. After he left the court a warrant was issued for his arrest and he was taken into custody for gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 (“homosexual acts not amounting to buggery”). At Wilde’s prompting, Lord Alfred fled to Paris before the trial began.

In 1895 Wilde was convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years hard labor.

Prison wasn’t kind to Wilde, and upon his release he retreated into self-imposed exile, penniless and sickly. He died November 30, 1900 of cerebral meningitis, though not before being received into the Roman Catholic Church.

On an artistic level, Wilde has few peers to match his quick wit, his unique understanding of human nature or his strong voice. He fearlessly and unapologetically flouted cultural norms and in consequence will forever live on in infamy. Agree with his lifestyle or not, Oscar Wilde is certainly a person of note.

Thanks for reading.

PS. Thanks to everyone for the feedback on the Thanksgiving post. I’ll let you know what comes of it. I’m not sure how much of the Zot I’ll be able to work in. It is for a broad, probably older audience, and I don’t imagine they’re quite ready for the revolution. In time, Zizzle-Zotians. In time.

The First Thanksgiving: A Trial Run

Happy Friday, Zizzle-Zotians! So here’s the deal: I’ve been given an opportunity to write a Thanksgiving article for a nationally distributed newsletter, and I’d love it if you all would help. I hate to ask you to be test subjects…Actually I don’t hate to ask. You’re all smart dudes (and ladies?) and I appreciate your ideas and feedback. This is just a first draft. Some initial ideas and ramblings, consider it a sketch of what I’m getting at. If you don’t mind, tell me your thoughts. Where are the weak points? Where are the strong points? Could I organize the history differently to help the flow? Am I missing things? Does the end come too close to politicizing? Lay it on me, Zizzle-Zotians:

Thanksgiving means different things to different people. For some, it’s a rare opportunity to gather with family and friends, comforted by the presence of those we love. For others, it’s a time to take stock, to look at life and be thankful for the gifts we’ve been given. For the rest, it’s an excuse to fill up on turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie before dozing off to football games and holiday parades.

Every child that grew up attending an American school has heard the story of the first Thanksgiving. The pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution, arrived at Plymouth Rock in December of 1620. They were ill-prepared for the harsh winter and of the 110 original settlers, only 50 survived.

In March of 1621 the fates of the pilgrims shifted when they met Squanto, a Native American who had learned English from earlier explorers. Squanto taught the settlers how to plant Indian corn and how to tap the maple trees for sap. He showed them which plants were poisonous and which had medicinal uses. He taught them how to fish for eel.

In the fall of 1621 the autumn harvest arrived, and thanks to Squanto’s help the Plymouth Colonists found themselves with a bounty of food. William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, declared a day of celebration and thanksgiving, inviting Squanto and the local Native American tribe, known as the Wampanoag, to join in three days of feasting and fellowship. The settlers hunted for wild fowl. The natives contributed venison. It was a celebration of abundance, gratefulness, and unity.

Take a moment to think about that first Thanksgiving. Consider the event not in terms of our modern cultural context. Look beyond pie and football, and imagine what the first Thanksgiving meant to the Plymouth Colonists; what it meant to Squanto and the Wampanoag people.

The pilgrims had survived the winter against all odds. They arrived with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They had no shelter, no food, and little to hope for. Yet they survived thanks to the overwhelming generosity of Squanto and the Wampanoag tribe. The Native Americans had been living on the land for generations and had no reason to tolerate the pilgrims. Yet they welcomed these settlers and taught them how to live.

Imagine the first Thanksgiving. The pilgrims overjoyed because they finally had food, and an abundance at that. The Wampanoag people joining them in celebration, arriving with gifts of venison in a show of solidarity.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Thanksgiving is how uniquely American it is in spirit. It commemorates the resiliency of the early settlers, their survival against all odds. It’s a reminder to be grateful for life and the land that sustains it. Foremost, Thanksgiving is a celebration of unity. It honors an occasion of togetherness, of two very different groups of people uniting in thankfulness, forever solidifying America’s status as a nation of immigrants and those that welcome them with open arms.

This is our American heritage.

Thanks for reading

The First Amendment: Not For Everyone

I feel like I’ve spent a lot of time this week ranting. Truthfully, it’s kind of exhausting, and I fear that if I’m not careful I could spend my entire life being indignant (I’m thankful you all are here to take up arms with me). At least yesterday’s Halloween respite was a pleasant breather.

Now on to more Zizzle-Zot wrath…

I was watching Good Morning America while eating my Frosted Flakes today and a story came on that instantly had me steaming from the ears. The segment was my first introduction to the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church, hailing from Topeka Kansas. Why did this small collection of Evangelicals catch my attention?

I’m glad you asked.

Led by Rev. Fred Phelps Sr, the 75 church members (most of whom are related to Phelps) have been touring the country and protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers.

Phelps and his congregation believe that disasters including Hurricane Katrina, the attacks of 9/11, and the quagmire in Iraq are God’s punishment for a country that tolerates homosexuality (the group first gained national notoriety when it demonstrated at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998).

Holding signs that read “Thank God for IEDs,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and “God Hates Fags,” the group spreads their message of hate amidst the tears of grieving parents. They disrespect men and women who have given their lives to serve a cause they believe in. The protests aren’t concerned with the war. They aren’t pacifists who disagree with war on moral grounds. They are celebrating the deaths of innocent young soldiers out of a pathological hatred for homosexuality.

I don’t feel the need to explain or justify my outrage. I’m ashamed that these people assume the label Christian, and on behalf of all Christians, I’m sorry.

Nearly 30 states have passed laws making it illegal to protest within 300 feet of a funeral, laws which Phelps believes are restricting free speech and are therefore unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union agrees. Caroline Frederickson, director of the ACLU’s national legislative office, stated that “We’re paying close attention because of the First Amendment implications and [we] may be prepared to criticize legislation that restricts people’s lawful right to express ideas, as distasteful as they may be.”

Normally, I’m an avid supporter of free speech. It’s an amazing thing to live in a country that offers citizens the opportunity to express their beliefs, and rigorously defends their right to do so.
But these people are desecrating the funerals of brave young soldiers to spread a message of hate. They are using the name of God to further a personal agenda that is pointedly un-Christ like.

I’m strongly considering the possibility that some people don’t deserve the First Amendment.

Thanks for reading.