Who are you and what have you done with Bill Frist?

Wow. I was completely floored when I read about the speech Bill Frist gave on the Senate floor today, a fact that isn't all that surprising. What is surprising is that for once it was the good kind of floored.

Frist threw his support behind a bill to expand federal funding for stem cell research. This raises some obvious questions, like "Where am I?", and "What kind of weird science fiction bullsh*t is this?!".

In all seriousness, I am extremely impressed for two reasons. First of all, I have always maintained that the restrictions placed by the president on stem cell research in 2001 were one of the more tragic decisions of his presidency. While Frist's comments obviously were not as forceful as I think the issue warrants, any step towards undoing the damage the president has done is a good one.

Even more remarkable are the political implications of the stand. Frist, considered an '08 presidential hopeful, probably dealt himself a huge political setback with this decision. Whether or not a candidate can win the presidency without the support of conservative Christians is debatable, but certainly weathering a Republican primary would be damn near impossible. To think that a politician may have carefully thought through an issue and made a decision based on reasonable principles, even to the detriment of his political ambitions, is pretty reassuring. And especially to do so now, less than a year after Americans resoundingly voted "No" in 2004's referendum on rational decision making.

Maybe I'm just so downtrodden by watching the Dems get kicked around these past few years I'm overreacting to mere table scraps from the right. But I don't think so. Hearing Bill Frist say "It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science" was like being in the twilight zone, but in a good way. His words certainly stand in stark contrast to fellow '08 hopeful Mitt Romney's sudden and politically convenient religious awakening.

Bass Ackwards

The recent flap over Grand Theft Auto has me baffled. Apparently, the game includes a scene with explicit sexual content that can be unlocked by downloading an internet hack (a "mod"). Pressure from Hillary Clinton caused the ratings board to change the game's rating from "Mature" to "Adults Only" which will bring sales of this current version to a screeching halt. A number of things blow my mind about this affair:

1) Aren't there more important things that the United States Senate should be dealing with? If Hillary Clinton ends up being the next Democratic presidential candidate, I certainly hope this is not the typical magnitude of her legislative record.

2) This game doesn't even need a rating. Parents purchase this game for their kids, and certainly must be around when their kids are playing it. It's named after a felony, after all, and a cursory reading of the box should lead one to the conclusion that it's not about law enforcement. It involves running around car-jacking people, shooting them with automatic weapons and buying and selling drugs. But the game is rated. "Innappropriate for children under 17" is printed right there on the box. Why can't parents admit that they are simply unwilling to pay any attention to what their kids are watching or playing and set their own rules about it?

3) Why did it take the revelation of sexual content in the game to cause a national issue? The content known all along renders this one of the most violent and morally corrupt games of all time. This is the game, after all, where you can steal a car, drive to the top of a parking structure and shoot at police officers with a sniper rifle to watch their heads explode. When you hold that type of constant game play up against a single "scene" of two computer generated characters having sex, I don't think there's any comparrison. The American public seems to regard the sex as more objectionable. God forbid little Timmy saw a boob! Seems to me that any kid with enough computer savy to locate, download and install this "mod" is undoubtedly already wading around in the depraved world of internet porn. How out of touch are these parents?

Too little credit...

I guess I give the Internet too little credit. JN informs me that Newsweek's most recent Rove ripping article reports that Rove was in fact fired from Bush Sr's re-election campaign for leaking information to Bob Novak, a story I regarded with skepticism the other day. In the words of Dave Chapelle, "If it's in Newsweek, it must be true."

Majority Rule

Don't let a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America stop you. The anti-affirmative action forces have rallied the troops in Michigan and are attempting to get an initiative on the ballot ammending the state constitution to prohibit the use of racial preferences in state intitutions and universities. The balloting commission may defer the question of whether to allow the vote up to the courts again, amidst allegations that Black voters may have been duped into signing a petition they thought was in support of affirmative action. I wonder why, when the group is called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative?

Obviously, whatever happens in the court is of secondary importance. The group has over a half a million signatures when they need three hundred thousand, and I think it would be relatively safe to assume that the measure would pass if put to a statewide referendum. This raises the question of whether these "grassroots" ballot initiatives / referendum's / state constitutional ammendments have a legitimate place in our democracy. There's a reason we have elected officials, and there's a reason we have courts of law. One of the many principles our country was founded on is that you don't just grab the torches and pitchforks and head down to the county courthouse to make some laws.

Public referendums have the danger, among other things, of being susceptible to disproportionately loud voices. I would surmise that half the people in the state of Michigan wouldn't change the state constitution if it was up to them. But once you put it on a ballot it's as easy as punching a hole. "Oh by the way, do you think people should be discriminated against on the basis of race?" In this situation, as well as with the question of Gay marriage, most of the battle is being won or lost based on the language that phrases the question, and how and when people are presented with the question. Perhaps these issues are complex enough that we should defer to the institutions we have in place that are less subject to the public whim, and not go running off to try to change the constitution whenever something doesn't seem to go our way.

Have his cake and Edith, too?

Okay, I'll be honest... I was planning that headline all day, when I thought the nominee would be Edith Clement. How did we get thrown for such an incredible loop? For the past weeks, we've heard a constant barrage of talk of Bush cementing his legacy by nominating the first Hispanic justice. Will it be Alberto Gonzales? Emilio Garza? Then today, the media practically announces that it's Edith Clement (unless it's Edith Jones). After all, the first lady said she hoped the nominee would be woman. What happens? BANG! White man. Where's Nelson when you need him?

So I don't know who this John Roberts character is, just yet. One thing I do know is that announcement ceremony sucked. With all of the misdirection the American people have been subjected to for the past weeks, you would think they would be able to keep the nominee's name secret. I was expecting Bush to come out there, keep everyone in suspense for like 15 minutes, and then say, "And so... the nominee is... John Roberts!" And then he would bust out of some door with a little entrance music and maybe some pyrotechnics. Talk about a let down.

A more red-state friendly 24?

Looks like we're getting another couple of seasons of 24.

I thought I'd take this opportunity to call attention to an interesting trend I noticed in the writing for the show this past season. Was it me, or did the show's overarching messages take a decidedly right-wing turn? It was almost as if Rupert Murdoch himself was tired of having a show on one of his networks (the show airs on Fox) deal with terrorism without staying "on message".

I'm not just talking about the obvious stuff, like the fact that, after three public-service-announcement-free seasons, Fox was compelled to air a PSA about the portrayal of Muslims in the show after just 4 episodes of Season 4. The season was peppered with more subtle examples. Here are my favorites:

• In their plot to blow up a city, the bad guys compromise a person close to the Secretary of Defense. Who does that person turn out to be? The Secretary's hippie war-protesting son. But how, you ask, did the terrorists get close enough to the son to get the information they needed? You guessed it: gay sex.


• Late in the season, the good people of LA's Counter-Terrorism Unit are on the cusp of foiling the terrorist plot. All they need to do is deal out some good ol' fashioned tough-love interrogation to a sleazy bad guy. What stands in their way? The fictional organization "Amnesty Global" (read: transparent allegory for the ACLU). That's right: The terrorists are trying to blow up a city, and those damned human rights lawyers are helping them do it.
  

Finally, my absolute favorite example. The icing on the cake, if you will...

• Kiefer Sutherland, the star of the show, changes his pronunciation of the word "nuclear" to nook-you-lar for Season 4. I'm dead serious. Now I understand that many people, our Commander in Chief among them, have trouble saying this word. The remarkable thing is that Kiefer somehow managed to pronounce the word correctly in Season 2 (a fact easily confirmed with the help of a DVD). That means at some point, somebody made the conscious decision that Kiefer's character, great American hero that he is, needed to start mispronouncing the word "nuclear" just like the president.

I'm really curious as to how this last one happened. Did the writers spell out the word phonetically in the script this season? Did Kiefer decide to do it on his own in some bizarre display of patriotism?

I'm thinking he probably pronounced it correctly the first day, and in response the director yelled, "Cut! Umm... look Kiefer. It's nookyoular. I know that fancy elitist "new-klee-ar" crap might have flown back in acting school, but we're trying to fight a war on terror here. Now take it from the top."

Now you see it, now you don't

Supposedly, Bush may make his Supreme court nomination today. CNN quotes an anonymous administration official as saying "Bush's timetable appears to have been accelerated..." Really? Why would they want to do that? Don't they know that the nomination is sure to launch the media into a whirlwind of fiery op-ed pieces and spirited shouting matches between various blowhards that might not let up for months? Why would they want to set that off, right in the middle of an investigation that is, in fact, ongoing? They should really take into account the fact that my attention span only allows me to hold one political battle in my brain at a time before making these types of "accelerations."

Anyone who has commited a crime?

If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death

An interesting rumor that is apparently whipping around the internet has Karl Rove being fired from Bush Sr's 1992 reelection campaign for leaking information to, of all people, Bob Novak. All of the sites seem to cite the same two sources (magazine articles) which are difficult to track down. It's my guess the "mainstream media" hasn't been reporting this because it's "probably not true." Amusing, nonetheless.

Why won't the Globe print my letters?

Is it possible that they're afraid of what I've got to say? Now that I've got my soapbox set up alongside the information super-highway, I guess there's nothing to hold a brother down anymore. Here's a letter I wrote last Thursday about Ricky Santorum.

I was disappointed to read the Globe's editorial regarding Rick Santorum's comments blaming Boston's "liberal society" for the clergy abuse scandal (Santorum’s Slur, 7/14/2005). By putting together a cogent argument refuting Santorum's claims based on tangible evidence, the Globe's editors elevate a remark as asinine as it is offensive to the level of legitimate debate. The tone of the editorial gives the casual reader the impression that there are actually two sides to this "question". Are the results of various studies really needed to call these types of statements what they are?

The Globe's editorial space would be better used in a discussion of this remark in the context of Santorum's general political extremism. Why is someone so far disconnected from reality continuing to serve as the third ranking Republican in the Senate? Who elected and then re-elected this man, and do they feel he is still representing their views with these types of insane positions? Does Santorum think before he speaks? All of these are legitimate questions. "Do liberal social views lead to sexual abuse" is not.

Unfortunately, it's still sitting in some summer intern's mailbox, while they've printed about 5 other letters on Santorum's comment (none that are critical of the Globe, of course). I would think that when you get a chance to use the word "asinine" in print, you jump at it... but what do I know.

Can someone explain the Iran Hostage Crisis?

I will almost certianly betray my tender young age and complete lack of qualification for comment on worldly matters with this question, but nonetheless, what's the deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis?

After the Iranian revolution, the new government takes 66 citizens from the Embassy hostage. President Carter's response is to freeze Iranian assets in the United States, botch two "rescue" attempts, and then lose the election. It seems like a better response might have gone something like this, to borrow from the Family Guy:

Carter: "I demand that you release all the hostages immediately."
Khomeini: "Oh yeah, you and what army?"
Carter: "The United States Army"
Khomeini: "Oh... that's a pretty good army..."

We were able to mobilize an invasion and occupation of Iraq based on a painstakingly constructed facade of "links to terrorism" and the question of whether Saddam posed a threat to us. Weren't the events of 1979 a legitimate act of state sponsered terrorism, as well as an act of war? Seems like an easy sell to me. I can think of 3 possible reasons why we didn't go to war

1) Going to war would have likely resulted in the deaths of the hostages
2) Democrats just don't have the sack for this sort of thing
3) The Cold War

Number 3 seems the most viable to me. You couldn't just bring the military stampeding into any old country back then for fear of upsetting the delicate balance with the Soviets. Especially a country so close to the USSR. Nowadays, when our biggest concern is whether the Russian President jacked Bob Kraft's "finger bling", we don't have to procede quite as cautiously when deciding where and when to roll in the tanks.

If you're in an Iran Hostage Crisis mood, check this out for something that will really blow your mind...