Obama Spare us the Drama

Obama (R) w/ Richard Lugar -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When I wrote "Truck Stop Governor", my blog about Jim McGreevy, the main impression I carried away about him is that he was too crafty and never very forthcoming. He seemed to manipulate everything around him for political gain. His sex-capades garnered all the attention, but his basic lack of self-honesty was the problem. Now in 2007, Barack Obama, the Illinois senator running for President, is starting to come across ever so slightly as a crafty, McGreevy-esque manipulator -- not necessarily who we want in the Oval Office.

My first complaint is mild and minor -- taken by itself it doesn't mean a lot. Apparently Obama didn't pay his traffic fines in college. To clear his record, he recently caught up with those fines and paid them off. Bravo for Obama, it's good to clean the slate. And yet, I knew people personally in college who let campus fines and parking citations collect. The tickets would form a pile on the desk in the dorm room. These people struck me then as being alternately flaky or arrogant. They were either too ditzy to keep track of a fine, or so arrogant they were sure Daddy would take care of it. Either way, it's a character flaw that would be unbecoming to a President of the USA -- in my personal view.

Now comes "Cracks in the Veneer", an editorial by liberal editorialist Richard Cohen. In it, he gives due praise to Obama's effective writing style in his memoir Dreams from My Father. Then he points out that several touching stories and examples from the book appear to be highly exaggerated or untrue. In fact, the Chicago Tribune did extensive fact checks, conducting 40 interviews with friends, neighbors and coworkers of Obama -- many stories did not wash. Other people didn't remember details the same way, or remember the situations described at all.

Now we've come up with two "oopsies" -- warning flags which taken together might just tell us we have a disingenuous opportunist on our hands. I hate that the very people who seem to succeed in politics are so frequently people with these traits. I'd like to have a straight-shooting nice guy as the next president. Is Obama that person? I'm starting to think not.

© 2007 blogSpotter

YouTube, MeTube and WeTube

I found it on YouTube -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Today's blog is a media pastiche -- a little bit YouTube, a little bit TV and a little bit MTV. I'm a relative late-comer to YouTube; it's been a cultural phenomenon for two years now, and I just caught the wave. The idea of videos accessible from websites is nothing new and video blogs are nothing new. But somehow, the creators of YouTube.com were able to make the site a 'cultural happening'. Now, it has become a national repository for movie and video clips, family films and amateur comedy. If you're a film student looking for a break-thru, you can do no better than posting your work on YouTube where the national spotlight is aimed.

I've found several excellent movie and MTV clips. Can't help but worry that YouTube will suffer the same fate as Napster -- lawsuits could force YouTube (recently acquired by Google) to change their business model and start charging download fees. CBS and NBC were contemplating legal action against YouTube, until they saw that the short clips (maximum 10 minutes allowed) were giving a commercial boost to their network schedules. Now, these networks are looking to work with YouTube. Viacom isn't so happy -- any one of their music videos can easily be shown in its entirety, in less than 10 minutes. They've filed a lawsuit for 1 billion dollars and that suit is currently pending. Everyone – keep your fingers crossed. Let's hope they reach a solution that keeps this cultural treasure trove alive and well. Without YouTube, I never would've known that Cass Elliot and Julie Andrews did a medley together on a 70's TV special.

THE MADONNA

Speaking of videos, I availed myself of Madonna's Like a Prayer from 1989. This video is great, although I'm not really sure what it's about. There seems to be some interracial love, cross burnings and stigmata all rolled into one vaguely erotic story. Madonna cavorts with a black man who is alternately wearing street clothes, dressed as a priest and then back to street clothes, in jail. I can see a 'satanic' influence at work here with all the religious symbology. (Yes, I used the word symbology from Da Vinci code because I like that word). Madonna was in top form in this video, chronologically sandwiched somewhere between Who's That Girl and Dick Tracy. Prior to this viewing, I hadn't seen Like a Prayer since it was on television 18 years ago.

NOT THE MADONNA

Speaking of TV, I watched the NBC Today Show this morning. They were promoting the latest Harry Potter book, and looking at a poster mock-up of the book cover. Matt Lauer mistook it for the real book, and said, "It's kind of oversized for a book isn't it?" Meredith Viera replied, "Idiot, it's a poster!" Matt was insulted but remained gentlemanly about it. I've read in tabloids that these two haven't hit it off that well -- that Matt has been 'mean' to Meredith. Have seen no evidence of that on the show however, Matt always is pleasant and mannerly. Now that she's been verbally nasty to him on the air, all I can say is the gloves are off. All’s fair in love and war -- the verbal nasties can go each way.

If Matt had called Meredith an "idiot" women would be storming the studio for Matt's head. To women readers out in PC-land: don't talk smack about a man, if you don't want a man to talk smack about you. Meredith, since you took the first swipe, don't get your feelings hurt if/when Matt calls you a 'ditz' or a 'drama queen' on air. Anyone can occasionally stumble on their words or make a silly mistake; the more gracious thing to do is ignore it or make a wink-wink joke about it. But ...mean lips sink ships -- whether they belong to a man or a woman. And now I'll step down from the soap box. :-)

© 2007 blogSpotter

JFK Redux

November 1963 -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

The 1963 Assassination of President John F. Kennedy is an event which generates controversy to this day. To believe that one disturbed man killed the president, against all the countervailing details, seems naive. Innumerable witnesses heard multiple shots, from different originating points. The bullet itself would have to have followed a magic trajectory to go where it allegedly went. Key witnesses including Oswald himself died (sometimes violently, sometimes just mysteriously) within weeks of JFK's death. What actually happened? It's been the fodder of innumerable TV shows and movies, not the least of which is Oliver Stone's 1991 magnum Opus JFK, starring Kevin Costner.

Now, in this week's Rolling Stone, comes a near-deathbed confession from someone who was very much present at the time. E. Howard Hunt was a CIA operative and sometimes novelist. He was very involved in anticommunist CIA activities throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's. Watergate finally put an end to his career with a 33 month prison sentence for burglary and wire tapping. Hunt gave surprising details about JFK's assassination, all scribbled on a tablet, to his son Saint John Hunt before his death this year. These details would be difficult to verify now, but are a surprising mixture of prevailing ideas. Following is a pretty brief summary of E. Howard's account.

THE ASSASSINATION, ACCORDING TO E. HOWARD HUNT:

According to E. Howard, Lyndon Johnson was behind the assassination. He packed the Warren Commission with fellow Freemasons to assure the findings would be to his liking. The assassination was originally to be done in Miami, coordinated through the CIA's Cuban Operations group. The President's itinerary was switched to Dallas, and there was a change of personnel as a result. In addition to Oswald in the Texas Schoolbook Depository, there were 3 "tramps" on the grassy knoll identified by Hunt as Frank Sturgis, Lucien Sarti, and E. Howard himself. Sturgis was a CIA-Mafia go-between and Sarti was an expert gunman from France. Saint John Hunt recalls that his father told investigators he was home with his family that November weekend of 1963. Saint John recalls that his father was in fact out; he'd told the family he was going on a "business trip to Dallas". There are other people and connections -- the plot is more complex than laid out here. See Erik Hedegaard's full article in this week's Rolling Stone.

OF NOTE:

Since making JFK, Costner has been a JFK history buff. He's driven to find out the truth, and at one point offered E. Howard Hunt 5 million dollars for a full (and documentable) account. Apparently Costner conducted the negotiation clumsily, thru Hunt's 2nd wife and the deal never happened. Saint John knew the participants better, and knew that his stepmother abhorred any discussion of Watergate or JFK. Saint John waited for the stepmother to leave the house on daily errands to get the details out of his ailing father.

This is nothing but a rumor, but corroborates Hunt's story. In Lewis Black's biography, he tells of a story making the rounds a few years after the assassination. Jackie Kennedy told novelist and family friend Gore Vidal that she and LBJ were at one point alone in the funeral home where JFK's body was present in a casket. Jackie left the room momentarily and came back to see LBJ laughing over Kennedy's corpse saying something along the lines of "you poor bastard". It's known that LBJ wanted the 1960 nomination, but who knows if his ambition would ever have led to this scenario? It all makes for exciting speculation but all the participants are long passed.

What can we conclude from all the above? It's hard to say. One can barely keep a secret with one other person let alone 100 other people. How could such a far-reaching conspiracy be completely suppressed? The frustrating truth is that we'll probably never know. Kevin Costner is not alone; many of us, if we had $5,000,000 to burn would just as soon know what happened to Kennedy as to throw it away in a Vegas casino.

© 2007 blogSpotter

The Mongoose and the Snake

DeLay tells all -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I saw a TV nature special once, where a mongoose faced off with a venomous snake. The rat-like mammal was able to subdue the snake in his jaws, without sustaining any poisonous bite. These vile animals in their face-off made me think of Texas Republicans.

What is it about Texas Republicans that makes them extra cheesy and thug-like? All I have to do is think about Phil Graham or Tom Delay to give myself a bad case of the willies. It seems now that ex House majority whip DeLay is in a verbal feud with ex majority leader Dick Armey. DeLay is known for his K-Street fund-raising and his Vladimir Putin style strong-arm tactics. Armey is known for his "Contract with America" as well as calling Congressman Barney Frank "Barney Fag". These two men have served at our displeasure and now, in semiretirement, seem to be duking it out with each other.

In his recent autobiography No Retreat, No Surrender, One American's Fight, DeLay described Armey as "drunk with ambition". Armey in reaction has described DeLay as sneaky and conniving. Armey very accurately assessed DeLay’s words as "the pot calling the kettle black". Three cycles thru the dishwasher could not scrub the black off of this pot or this kettle. DeLay believes that Armey sold out their 1997 "coup" attempt to unseat Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House. The truth is that both men behaved reprehensibly; it would conserve what little dignity they have left if they didn't fight with each other. But, we the readers would be denied this fun exchange.


Armey talks trash about DeLay -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

Republicans of every bent are mulling over why they lost the 2006 midterms. In a more constructive mode (think Chuck Hagel, John Warner) they try to figure where they might need to shift priorities or align with the vox populi. These guys might actually help us ramp down the Iraq War. But where is the entertainment factor? We need some more memoirs to surface. I think the only fun that may be had is when Karl Rove gets subpoenaed to discuss his role in "AttorneyGate" -- the recent, politically instigated firing of 8 federal prosecutors by the Attorney General. That's another blog.

What's interesting is that when DeLay and Armey air the dirty laundry, they speak the truths that the world needs to hear. Armey says that DeLay used social wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage to drive his ethically challenged agenda. No truer words were ever said. Too bad it takes a slug fest for the truth to come out.

© 2007 blogSpotter

American Beauty 8 Years Later

Mid-life, a time for crisis -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I just watched American Beauty from 1999 for the second time since I saw it in the theater. It was an excellent movie even then, and it garnered several Oscars. In the interim, I've done 8 more years of middle-aged living and can relate to the characters’ mid-life crises all the more, though mine has been a solo experience and less traumatic. American Beauty tells the story of an affluent middle-aged couple experiencing marital melt-down. The husband is smitten with the friend of his teenaged daughter; the wife is a successful "bitch-on-wheels" real estate agent and she is smitten with a successful local realtor.

There are more layers of complexity in the story. Lester Burnham, Spacey's character, feels trapped by all the materialism in their lives and he grieves for his lost youth. Carolyn Burnham, played to bitchy perfection by Annette Bening, feels encumbered by what she sees as her grossly immature, geeky husband. Their teenage daughter, Jane, is a quiet, nearly "Goth" teenager witnessing all her parents' extreme dysfunction firsthand. Jane finds refuge in the company of the equally strange teenage boy next door, Ricky. Ricky sells dope, makes home videos and tries to operate under the radar of his maniacal, homophobic, ex-marine father. In the final analysis, the Goth teens probably have a better handle on reality than anyone else in the movie.

Since seeing the movie in 1999, I can relate better to the Burnhams and I've had some mid-life epiphanies of my own. In the movie, Spacey buys a toy remote control car and replaces his humdrum Camry with a 1970 Firebird. He embarks on a rigorous weight training program to beef up his middle aged body (to impress Jane's Lolita-like friend of course). He quits his rat race job and gets work as a fast food fry cook. Just when it looks like Lester and Carolyn might have a rekindling of their love, Carolyn freaks out, "Don't spill beer on our $4,000 Italian silk couch!" He points out, rightly in a way, that it’s only a thing and they have too many things. There are hilarious and simultaneously sad reflections of the American Dream gone sour. You have to travel all the way back to 1967's The Graduate for a movie with an equally strong indictment of America’s suburban superficiality.

The movie has a shocking conclusion which I won’t disclose here – let’s just hope that we all have smoother transitions to the middle years. If there are times you feel like a hamster running on a wheel, you should pick up a copy of the simultaneously funny, hypnotic and tragic American Beauty.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Television for Dummies

Deal or No Deal? -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In 1961, FCC Chairman Newton Minow gave a now-famous speech to the National Association of Broadcasters in which he described television content as a "vast wasteland". Upon reading his speech in college, I thought it was overly dramatic; surely he couldn't be indicting everything that was on -- certainly not Dick Van Dyke. Now let's roll the clock forward 46 years. I'm looking at the Nielsen TV ratings in Entertainment Weekly. I'm shocked to see American Idol occupying spots 1 thru 3. Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? takes up 4 thru 6. The news hardly gets better as you run down the list. Deal or No Deal is #9, Extreme Makeover #14 -- tied with Survivor Fiji.

I was prompted to look at the ratings because 30 Rock, a savvy, hilarious sitcom is going into 'hiatus' (TV term for pre-cancellation). I've already blogged about this Emmy-winning show created by ex-SNL writer Tina Fey. There are a number of good, scripted shows barely making a blip anymore: The Office, New Adventures of Old Christine and Scrubs to name three. Sometimes marketers are OK with a sub Top-10 show if it gets the right demographic (e.g. affluent young working women). But when a show falls out of the top-25, it needs CPR (commercial profitability resuscitation) in a bad way.

What's happened to America? My own conclusion is that affluent people now have too many choices: cable, satellite, internet, wii, Playstation and Netflix to name a few. People can purchase their diversions now; the "Big 4" networks (ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC) all now seem to cater to the lowest, truly the lowest common denominator. The unscripted, moron-level pabulum that rules the airwaves is a shame to America and its corporate sponsors. What will we have next -- a show where you make armpit fart noises or one where you watch fraternity boys compete in a chug-a-lug contest? Does network television have any obligation whatsoever to challenge as well as amuse? If it ever did, that requirement is gone.

I can only hope that 30 Rock will be picked up by a cable network, or at least continued as an offering on iTunes. I'm not a snob nor am I a puritan. I enjoy silly things and bawdy humor -- those things don't preclude wit, subtlety, nuance and intelligence. I could even tolerate things that are retrograde and stupid if they didn't shove my favorite things out of the way. None of this bodes well for the Big 4 Networks -- apparently the old maxim is true. You get what you pay for. And I need to loosen my wallet and pay for some premium cable channels if I want to rise above the level of survivors eating bugs or Howie Mandel working a deal on a game show.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Can I Get a Witness?

HEAL! -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Why do you believe what you believe? Have always thought it was interesting. I generally divide my knowledge into 3 categories:

1. I believe what I see with my own eyes -- I believe there is a flat screen in front of me, all my sensory feedback tells me so.
2. I believe what appeals to a priori reason -- I believe that 1 + 1 = 2.
3. I believe what sounds reasonable and/or demonstrable. I will not question the weight of an electron, the distance to the moon, or the speed of light. I haven't availed myself of telescopes or other lab equipment to re-establish any of those facts or see it firsthand. I'll take somebody's word for it.

Items 1-3 are pretty easily verified and corroborated by other parties, throughout the world.

This last category is more troubling however
4. I believe what my parents and religious training told me about God.

The religious truths presented by your mother are not especially obvious or demonstrable and many other people throughout the world register disagreement. Since I live in a land of Christendom, I'll take that as the example. Why do you believe that Jesus Christ is 'Lord and Savior?' What is the basis of your original belief? Most people to whom I've posed the question shrug it off:

"It's what I was raised with". "My parents instructed me". "It's the culture we live in".

Have you ever had a dream, vision or supernatural event that made it clear to you? In all but one case of my asking the answer has been "No". My uncle is deeply religious and even studied to be a minister. He does say that Jesus came and spoke to him personally; have never followed up to ask him about the details. There are near death experiences and even religious manias where people can experience almost-real interactions of this sort. Would be interested to know his particular circumstances.

So what pivotal, monumental event caused you to Believe. "If I don't believe, I'll go to Hell". So you were brow-beaten to SAY you believe for conformist reasons? Are you saying it as some kind of insurance policy? What is the reason you accept any particular thing, yea or nay, as an article of faith? Is it because a parent or authority figure told you? I think most people fall under the spell of organized religion because they've been 'witnessed to' by parents and authority figures. It's disturbing because religion has been used as the justification for discrimination, war, slavery, concentration camps and torture. Some of man's most heinous actions are done for 'God' in the name of a 'Good war'. So while someone is drilling a hole in someone else's head (As Iraqis now do to each other) what is the basic logic at work? Someone in the USA might say, "My God is the real God. Jesus is the only way to Salvation". Based on what? Your sacred text, parent's words and religious history are no more persuasive than those of Muslims or Hindus. They have the same influences at work in their societies. What logical construct can possibly break the impasse of "My God's better than your God"?

If something is category 4 knowledge above, I would never use it as a basis for action, much less violent action. There are umpteen religions (and even sub-religions) that ask me to take something as an article of faith. Which do I choose? I believe in God and orderly society just based on knowledge categories 1, 2 and 3 above. No bribes, no threats or implicit exile are necessary. I will believe what I primarily know, and I will admit to not knowing things that are currently unfathomable.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Red, White and Black

Lewis rants about his life -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Just finished listening to comedian Lewis Black's autobiography Nothing Sacred. The 58 year old comic is known for highly sarcastic, angry rants that are punctuated with profanity. His style is hilarious to me -- probably because I relate too much to all the negativity that he projects. He probably isn't that well known to most people, but if you catch him on HBO or Letterman you'll definitely remember him.

Mr. Black grew up in Maryland and came of age in the 60's. Popular in school, his outgoing personality led him to organize the junior prom and the senior class trip as well as to directing a senior class play. He started college in 1966 and acclimated very well to the hippy, druggie scene. He never became seriously addicted, but partook of many things. He had one bad LSD trip where he forgot his own name -- had to check his driver's license. Another time he and friends piled into a car to run an errand. It was only after 5 minutes into the trip that someone, not Lewis, noticed that the car had never left the curb. I myself think there is something almost sacrosanct about the 1960's and I envy anyone who got to experience their teen years then. In addition to being born at the right time, Mr. Black also had an enviable self-awareness that led him to different life passages.

He only ever worked in an office job once, and only for one year. He worked for the US Government as an administrator for Appalachian Child Services. He thought that the cubicle environment was so stifling that he quit and never went back. He says that he tried to get fired by the government but it was impossible; he clashed mightily with the Yale Drama department while there, but also maintained his playwright position in spite of political activism and impolitic speech. He sustained himself as playwright, theater manager, stand-up comic and actor over his post-collegiate career.

Here are some blips taken from Nothing Sacred:

"So many leaves, so little time. I will buy a leaf blower."
"If there is a hell, it is modeled after Jr. High."
"Just the memory of it makes me want to go to the bathroom."
"I was lucky to have an animal like that as my owner."
"Somehow, psychopaths always get service."
"We are passing on a legacy of shit."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing Sacred"

In more recent years, he's been in some movies, had a regular spot on The Daily Show, and headlined at several comedy clubs. He was notably turned down in an audition to play a character based on Lewis Black. The casting agent told him in all seriousness, "We found someone who can do Lewis better than you". The pilot was never turned into a TV show, much to Lewis' relief. Lewis is a fun, funny person who lends a sense of sarcastic despair to any situation. Whether on drugs or by car, tripping with Lewis is highly enjoyable. We have to be glad that he is one of those who turned on, tuned in and 'dropped out'.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Gone to Pot

Consequences of the reefer -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
In the great swirl of news items to hit recently, a video of two teens, about 16 and 18, giving pot to two children (2 and 6) has received global headlines. It's been the lead local story for two days, and has now made national news -- on shows like Nancy Grace and Sean Hannity. Let me preface by saying the teens should not have done what they did; it's wrong and should be dealt with appropriately. The response though is mind-boggling and seems out of proportion to the event. The little boys are now in foster care; the teens are in jail for injury to a child, being held on $150,000 bond each.

Let’s look at the injury that was done. Research indicates that marijuana can lead to other drug addictions; it can also lead to various forms of head, neck and lung cancer. Due to the fact that it's frequently used with alcohol and tobacco, the studies' results are a bit muddied -- alcohol and cigarettes can also contribute to addiction and cancer. Speaking of which, back in the 60's, my parents let me sip their martinis and maybe an occasional beer. Where were the helicopters and ABC News reporters? Why weren't the police called? I, an under age child, was using mind altering substances in the presence of my parents. I only took sips and didn't like the taste of it, but none the less it might be considered criminal in some circles.

What gets me about this junior pot case is that less has been said about events of actual child molestation and murder. Less ado was had over Susan Smith drowning her two sons. In the lower class 'urban youth' environment, those boys would probably be exposed to marijuana well before puberty -- just not on camera for all to see. Not only is it not unusual, it's practically a rite of passage. Now we have 3 children and one high school age 'adult' in need of foster parents; the kids have learned a lesson about drug hysteria but not necessarily about drug use or abuse.

If everyone would get their panties back out of a knot, these people could all be restored to their homes with appropriate messages taken. Don't give marijuana to children. Also, don't have a mass-hysteria campaign that makes passing a doobie, even to a child, a more heinous action that sexual molestation or murder. I'll be watching NBC5 tonight. If they run this story again, I will have only to conclude that there is no real news.

© 2007 blogSpotter

Jesus in a Box

Stirring the pot -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

What do you make of the idea that Jesus might have been married to Mary Magdalene -- he may have even had a son named Judah? Whether you see this as historical conjecture or blasphemy of the highest order depends on your religion. Documentary producer Simcha Jacobovici has stirred the pot by claiming that Jesus' entire nuclear family was uncovered in the Talpiot Tomb outside of Jerusalem in 1980.

Movie director James Cameron (of Titanic fame) has joined with Jacobovici to produce a documentary on the Discovery channel, laying out all of the details and purported evidence. This pairing of Cameron and Jacobovici forces the Christian Community to face an evil nemesis triad once again: Hollywood, Science and Judaism. If you have something of a Mel Gibson thought process, there is serious overlap between the three branches of the triad. There is reason however, to reach a whole different conclusion, as discussed in TIME magazine. An editorial in this week's issue of TIME ("Hollywood vs. Jesus") argues pretty effectively that Hollywood actually benefits mightily from Christian faith -- look at the cornucopia of songs, books and movies with a Christmas theme. Irving Berlin, a Jew, is the man who composed White Christmas for heaven's sake. It would be crazy for Hollywood to make any deliberate, concentrated attempt at debunking Christianity.

In the same issue of TIME, another editorial ("Rewriting the Gospels") considers the speculative statistical analysis used by Jacobovici to be a terribly lax new standard for scientific conclusions. Jacobovici uses combinatorics to estimate the likelihood that a Jesus, Mary, Judah and Joseph would all be entombed as they were at that time in the same burial place. Detractors make a legitimate point that all four names were extremely common in that era. The conclusions are anything but final; my own doubt comes from the fact that engraved ossuaries were the burial vaults of the wealthy and the upper middle class. Jesus was an impoverished rabbi and part time carpenter. He was also a convicted felon according to Roman law; it seems doubtful that he and his would've had such an elaborate burial ceremony.

Much like The Da Vinci Code, The Lost Tomb has created a tempest of sorts. I'm not sold on any particular theory and am recording the Lost Tomb special as I write this. Am perfectly willing to be persuaded by a good argument, but doubt that I'll see it. The God of my own understanding detests organized religion in all of its arrogant supremacist manifestations. Imagine that Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna and Joseph Smith were ordinary men like you or me -- this is the greatest 'outrage' and yet to me, the greatest likelihood of them all. Even so, if you are comfortable in your faith and your faith is strong, you shouldn't be bothered by the flimsy artifacts given in Lost Tomb. It seems to add to, not subtract from the great body of mythologies that surround our collective past.

© 2007 blogSpotter