Mr. Bush missed a prime(time) opportunity to provide such leadership. Instead of hoisting his own baton and leading the march, he chose to shuffle along the GOPolitically-correct, play-not-to-lose path paved by the purveyors of public pabulum - the polls.

Two days after the debate, "several thousand" people gathered on the steps of the South Carolina Statehouse to advocate flying the Confederate flag. South Carolina state senator Arthur Ravenel was quoted as orating to the cheering crowd: "Can you believe that there are those who think that the General Assembly of South Carolina is going to ... knuckle under, roll over and do the bidding of 'that organization known as the National Association for Retarded People?'" Presumably, he was referring to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

One wonders if the crowd, and the rhetoric, would've been the same if the leading presidential contender had spoken out with the conviction of a conscience, instead of a politically-expedient whimper.

In baseball, the term "bush league" refers derisively both to minor league teams stocked predominantly with mediocre wannabes, and to the efforts of a big league player that don't measure up to big league standards. Perhaps the future political lexicon will list a definition for "Bush league":

"refers to a political candidate of average, common or mediocre leadership means, whose candidacy remains viable due to family fortune, legacy and means-unlimited political speculators (or MUPS)."

Turns out that McCain's campaign manager is former U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, Warren B. Rudman. You might recall the famous/infamous Gramm-Rudman budget bill from the '80s. Rudman retired from the Senate in 1992 after two terms. He wrote a book in 1996 titled Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate, in which he talks about his participation in four defining Senate debates: the Gramm-Rudman budget bill; the Keating Five ethics committee hearings; Iran-Contra; and the nomination of his close friend and associate David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his final chapter, prophetically called "Looking Ahead", Rudman offers a variety of comments and suggestions regarding the country and the Republican party. On pages 269-270, Rudman says (without editing, except for highlighting one sentence):

"The excess of zeal shown by the House Republicans enabled Clinton to present them as radicals, and they were further weakened by their alliance with the so-called Christian right – which, it has been noted, is neither Christian nor right. I have in mind here Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition and related groups that try to advance social and cultural conservatism in the garb of Christianity. I don't even like the Christian Coalition's name. The millions of Christians in this country reflect just about every conceivable political point of view. For one highly conservative group to proclaim itself "the Christian Coalition" strikes me as decidedly un-Christian arrogance.

"The New Testament speaks eloquently of love and compassion and forgiveness, but one looks in vain for those qualities in the political agenda of the Christian right, which allies itself with the rich and comfortable in our society, not with the needy and afflicted.

"In my experience, religious zeal and politics don't mix. Look at Belfast, Beirut and Bosnia if you want proof. Does the comparison sound extreme? Not when doctors are being gunned down outside abortion clinics and innocent government workers are bombed in Oklahoma City. You can't indulge in hateful rhetoric about baby-killers and government plots against freedom and then walk away when some people take you seriously.

"Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right. There are some fine, sincere people in its ranks, but there are also enough anti-abortion zealots, would-be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough to embrace such a group. In a sense the 1994 elections were misleading, because the country is more centrist today than ever – particularly the younger generation.

"If you have the good fortune to travel widely in our country, you soon realize what an incredibly diverse people we are. We reflect countless races, religions and lifestyles, and we often differ on questions of morality and behavior. The only way so diverse a nation can survive is by all of practicing a high degree of tolerance.

"But tolerance is not the way of the Christian right. Its leaders want to impose their one-size-fits-all morality on everyone. It won't work. When any group tries to impose its values on everyone else, the result will inevitably be resentment, hatred and violence."

Thus sprach what Robertson called the "vicious bigot".

Before we get to the propaganda lesson, three more tidbits help establish the context regarding this Robertson/Rudman tango:

1. Rudman 'is' Jewish; Robertson 'is', of course, evangelical Christian.

2. After graduating from Syracuse in 1952, Rudman led an infantry platoon in Korea and experienced hand-to-hand combat during the final six months of the war. In his book he describes killing an enemy soldier. (p. 52)

According to Robertson's biography posted on the 700 Club website:

"In 1948 he [Robertson] enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. After graduating magna cum laude from Washington and Lee, Robertson served as the assistant adjutant of the First Marine Division in combat in Korea He was promoted to first lieutenant in 1952 upon his return to the United States."

"In January 1951 [McCloskey] left San Diego on the U.S.S. Brekinridge along with Robertson and some 2,000 other Marines. The ship stopped at Yokosuka and Kobe, Japan; Robertson did not continue on to Korea. 'My single distinct memory,' McCloskey wrote, 'is of Pat, with a big grin on his face, standing on the dock -- saying something like, 'So long, you guys--good luck,' and telling us that his father [Democratic Senator A. Willis Robertson] had got him out of combat duty.

"Several months later... Robertson [was] reassigned to Korea. McCloskey wrote that Robertson had served as 'division liquor officer,' flying alcoholic beverages in from Japan for his contingent.

"The words 'combat duty' have been dropped from [Robertson's] official bio sheet."

3. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Rudman's close friend, cast a deciding vote in the Court's 5-4 decision to uphold Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Robertson's Christian Coalition vigorously – some might say virulently – opposes abortion.

So with all that as backdrop, Pat Robertson's phone message serves as an almost-classic primer for propaganda:

• Imply a current situation by professing the need for action. Urging someone to "restore religious freedom" implies that religious freedom does not currently exist.
• Grossly hyperbolize the impact of the listeners' actions ... "whether our dream becomes reality"; "you may hold the future of America in your hands".
• Refrain from specifically naming the 'target' ... "a man who".
• Exaggerate the impact of the target's positions using obviously emotional, all-encompassing language ... "who wants to take first amendment freedom from citizens' groups while he gives unrestricted power to labor unions". (This due to McCain's calling for campaign finance reforms.)
• Attack an unnamed, yet readily recognizable, associate of the target by:

  Partially quoting the associate

  Quoting the associate out of context, un-sourced and un-dated

  Misquoting the associate by specifically omitting qualifying language

  Calling the associate an emotionally-charged epithet, preceded with an intent-ascribing adjective ... "vicious bigot"

• Name the implied target (John McCain), not as "the target", but as someone who "failed to repudiate" the words of the associate, obfuscating the proper name with the pronouns so that the undiscriminating reader/listener may mistakenly associate "John McCain" as the "vicious bigot".
• Invoke all personal sincerity and divine blessing.

I encourage you to invest a few hours reading Rudman's book for, IMO, a fascinating insight into the upper echelon of legislature power in the United States. And I encourage you to spend some time on the Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition's website: www.cc.org .

I almost responded to a letter to the Dallas Morning News last week in which the citizen writer criticized the movie American Beauty as a movie "only a critic could love". Well, call me "Chanticleer the Critic" because I could say that I 'loved' it, as much as I can 'love' any artistic expression. It's easy to not like this movie if you, like the citizen writer, focus on the superficial "what-you-see-is-what-it's-about" story line ... it's "about" a father's infatuation with his teenaged daughter's friend ... it's "about" a homophobic military father ... it's "about" a mother who worries more about selling someone else's house than what's going on inside her own ... it's "about" a rebellious teenage girl who wants a boob job ... it's "about" a teenage drug dealer ... it's "about" a murder ... it's "about" ....

The citizen writer failed to mention, perhaps because he failed to see, one of the themes of the Academy Award-nominated film – the American obsession with appearances; appearance of 'success', appearance of 'happiness', appearance of 'normalcy', the appearance of 'beauty'. I sat uncomfortably through parts of it due to the relentless honesty portrayed, and I laughed out loud and cheered in parts. I walked out of the theater looking at my world a little bit differently, and a little more hopefully.

I saw the latest movie based on a John Irving novel, "The Cider House Rules". I never finished the book, but I'm a big fan of Irving's previous novels such as The World According to Garp and Hotel New Hampshire. The movie received some favorable pre-release publicity, and since Irving himself wrote the screenplay, I decided to see it.

I heartily recommend it, if your heart and brain are up to the challenge. I found some of it gut-wrenching, some of it tear-jerking, a lot of it thought-provoking, and all of it well worth the time and cost of a ticket.

I won't go into the unusual story or how the title fits, but I do hope that the term 'cider house rules' will grow into the daily lexicon of usage such as Joseph Heller's 'Catch-22' did. Here's my impression of a definition for cider house rules:

Rules written by someone to whom the rules do not apply; rules written without consideration for those to whom the rules do apply; rules ignored by all; and yet, rules which remain 'rules'.

In this Tuesday's Dallas Morning News (DMN), a letter regarding the new Ben Affleck/Matt Damon movie "Dogma" caught my eye. Co-signed by the President and Secretary of the Dallas Chapter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the letter labeled the movie "obscene" and "blasphemous". Other descriptive phrases included: "ridicules Christianity in general and depicts Catholicism .. as cynical and hypocritical; uses expletives in nearly every sentence; is the evil antithesis of Pope John Paul II's message of peace and charity;" and finally, "This sickening attack on Christianity, especially Catholicism, is the cinematic equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue."

[ASIDE: Is it a sign that co-signed letters usually go off on tangents?]

Wow! That sounds pretty bad .... "the cinematic equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue"!

So after reading this, I had no choice. I put the paper down, finished lunch, and headed off to the theater to see it for myself.

My impressions of the movie will eventually follow. Note that all of my comments can be prefaced, or appended, with "to me", or "in my opinion", or "I believe". In other words, whatever adjectives or descriptive phrases I use in reference to how I evaluated the movie are words and phrases that I choose to describe what I experienced, or how I found the movie ... I do not ascribe or project or attribute these words and phrases as qualities inherent in the movie.

This disclaimer - this distinction - is not inconsequential, to me. I believe it makes a huge difference for the President of the Dallas Chapter of the CLFRCR to say, for example:

this movie is blasphemous
this movie is obscene
this movie is the evil antithesis of the Pope's message
this movie is the cinematic equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue

instead of saying, for example:

I found this movie to be blasphemous
this movie is obscene, according to my threshold of obscenity
this movie, to me, is the evil antithesis of the Pope's message
In my estimation, this movie can be likened to painting a swastika on a synagogue

Do you see a difference in tone between the two sets of comments, which probably represent two different mindsets?

The first mindset states firmly that the movie IS "blasphemous, evil ...". There is no room for discussion, no place for disagreeing, no acknowledging any possibility for any other judgment. This mindset suggests the attitude, "It IS! You know it, I know it, everybody should know it, everyone should agree on it. It's the TRUTH! It's the absolute TRUTH!"

The second mindset still expresses a severely critical judgment, but it at least acknowledges that the evaluation (or judgment) is the result of an individual evaluator (or judger). This more appropriate (in my opinion) mindset allows, if not begs, another individual to reply with, "Well to me, it was extremely hard-biting, dead on satire. What did you find 'obscene'?"

dog·ma n., pl. -mas or -ma·ta ... 2. A principle, belief, idea, or opinion, esp. one authoritatively considered to be absolute truth.

Perhaps - just perhaps, "Dogma", the movie, attempts to say something about this type of mindset exhibited by the letter co-signers. The irony, of course, is that the mindset precludes getting the message about the mindset. IMO.

Alfred Korzybski, author of Science and Sanity, observed that when we act as "dogmatists" or when we put too much emphasis on rigid, static categories ("categorists") we copy the behavior of animals, at the expense of our more human capabilities. Clever pun. Accurate diagnosis. IMO.

So back to the movie and my impressions:

• The movie begins with a disclaimer I found humorously and irreverently sincere, which attempts to pre-empt the type of, uh, dogmatic reaction exhibited by the co-signers. (Maybe they came in late from the concession stand. Too bad they weren't Baptists, and I could use the old "immersion vs. sprinkling" schtick regarding the popcorn and butter.)
• Any movie with the (what's the ecumenical version of "chutzpah"?) to cast George Carlin as a Cardinal gets off on the right foot with me.
• To me, the movie reflected wit, imagination, intelligence, creativity, research, insight, humor, sensitivity, and thoughtfulness. It also contained depictions of graphic violence which I could've done without, and lots and lots of what some might consider as gratuitous profanity.
• I found it more than a little ironic that people such as the co-signers would label a film as "blasphemous" whose premise accepts the basic Christian/Catholic beliefs regarding God, Jesus Christ and salvation, angels, demons, etc.
I can understand some people might not like the human representation of God depicted by a woman ... but I find it extremely, and dangerously, arrogant for anyone to hold such a dogmatic belief regarding something which, in my estimation, is unknowable. Come on, people - "You Oughta Know"! (Inside joke to anyone who's seen the movie.)
• Generally, I found that "Dogma" (the movie) succeeded as a very intelligent, thought-provoking, educational, and entertaining comedic and religious tour de force. To the degree that it prompts viewers to question and examine their own (dogmatic) beliefs - oh, but there's that idealistic dreamer cropping up again.

The house is still rockin' over the rollicking reactions to Atlanta Braves' pitcher John Rocker's recent 'racist' comments in Sports Illustrated. In case you missed it, here are some of the more repeated quotes straight from my copy of the magazine:

So many dumb asses don't know how to drive in this town [Atlanta]. They turn from the wrong lane. They go 20 miles per hour. It makes me want -- Look! Look at this idiot! I guarantee you she's a Japanese woman. How bad are Asian women at driving?" (The woman driving was white.)

When asked about the possibility of playing for a New York team: Imagine having to take the 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you're in Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing.

The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get into this country?

Asked about another sports 'bad boy', Latrell Sprewell - the notorious basketball player who choked his coach last year - That guy should've been arrested, and instead he's playing basketball. Why do you think that is? Do you think if Keith Van Horn - if he was white - they'd let him back? No way.

During the interview, "in passing, he calls an overweight teammate 'a fat monkey'".

On New York Mets fans, with whom he has a running verbal, visual, and sometimes battery-throwing, beer-sloshing, battle: Nowhere else in the country do people spit at you, throw bottles at you, throw batteries at you and say, 'Hey, I did your mother last night - she's a whore.' I talked about what degenerates they were, and they proved me right. Just by saying something, I could make them mad enough to go home and slap their moms.

I'm not a racist or prejudiced person. But certain people bother me.

For these and other comments, Rocker commanded attention approaching the absurd, including an audience with home run king and Braves' front office executive Hank Aaron, former Secretary to the UN Andrew Young, and the head of Atlanta's NAACP. Bud Selig, the commissioner of baseball, has ordered Rocker to undergo psychiatric examination before determining his universally-expected punishment.

Now, I certainly don't want to be perceived as an apologist for Rocker, either for his words or his actions. However, I believe it's appropriate for discriminating individuals to spend some time considering not what Rocker said, but how have people reacted to what he said?

Some reactions I've considered:

• Compare the publicity generated by public persona Rocker's comments, vs. those expressed by South Carolina state senator Arthur Ravenel in the Confederate flag article mentioned above:

  "Can you believe that there are those who think that the General Assembly of South Carolina is going to ... knuckle under, roll over and do the bidding of 'that organization known as the National Association for Retarded People?'"

  Are the public reactions proportional to the two quoted comments?
• Is someone who verbalizes his/her thoughts and opinions more worthy of condemnation than someone who holds similar sentiments but remains silent?
• What does it mean to "be a racist"? Is it a function of what is said? Of what is felt, or thought, or believed? Or is it based on actions? What defines the boundaries for this label?
• What differences does it make if Rocker, or anyone else, declares himself to be, or not to be, a 'racist'? What would you expect in either case?
• Some people have felt that it's a virtue to be a 'stand-up guy', to state what's on your mind, to "tell it like it is". Remember how former Green Bay Packer defensive lineman-turned-preacher, Reggie White, righteously lambasted gays last year? Both Rocker and White expressed some comments which, accepted at face value, reflected strongly-felt emotions. Did anybody publicly suggest Reggie White should receive psychiatric examination?

Perhaps some attention, and spotlight, needs to shine on those people who can be so easily manipulated by someone's mere words.

I also find it worthwhile to ponder a statement made by computer-industry observer, journalist and PBS commentator Bob Cringely. In his January 13th column, Cringely relates how he was contacted by a producer from ABC's "Nightline" to provide his reaction to the AOL/Time Warner deal:

Whenever such a call comes in from "Nightline" or CNN or any of the other news shows where I appear from time to time, there is a kind of audition that takes place on the telephone. They want to know in advance what I will say on the air. Part of this audition is the producer (producers in this case) needing some quick education about what is going on, and part is their wanting to make sure that I am going to not only be interesting, but that I will say what they want to hear.

The Feb 13th Dallas Morning News reported that in New Iberia, Louisiana, the owner and the manager of a skating rink were arrested after the Iberia Parish Sheriff answered a call to break up a fight during a Saturday night teen dance. Sheriff Sid Hebert arrested the owner and manager because they were playing rap music that contained "racial slurs, strong vulgar language and lyrics with an anti-law message," according to the Sheriff's office.

The Sheriff blamed the music for the fight. "The music itself cranked the crowd up in a sense," said the Sheriff. "I'm not saying it was fully involved, but certainly kicked it off."

In an (apparently) unrelated incident, the local Irving newspaper displayed a photo of an overturned 18-wheeler under the caption "Pop go the pastries". The driver of the rig carrying boxes of Pop Tarts says that the 30,000 pound load of Pop Tarts shifted while negotiating a sharp freeway exit ramp.

The November 21st DMN reported: "the latest Texas Poll indicated that 82 percent of Texans believe students should be allowed to lead prayers over public address systems before football games and other sporting events."

Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, is quoted: "When the Supreme Court struck down the right to pray in school, we saw an obvious result. Now they want to take prayer away in another arena. How far are they going to take this? Where is it going to stop? Is the school bus next and the kitchen table after that?"

The poll also revealed that 64 percent (or almost two-thirds, for you fractionally-challenged readers) said creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution. Mr. Mel Gabler, "conservative textbook critic", says, "We just want evolution to be taught honestly. While there is evidence for evolution, there is also strong evidence against it. Let's show kids both sides and let them make up their own minds."

Interesting notion .... let kids make up their own minds about what they 'should' be taught. I wonder if Mr. Gabler and other conversatives would extend this 'enlightened' view to, say, the novels they read in English? ("No, Billy, I'm sorry you can't read Lady Chatterly's Lover for your book report! ... Rufus has already checked it out and we only have one copy. How about Slaughterhouse Five instead? And when you're done, would you like to use the library's Internet connection with no restrictions and make up your own mind about what you want to look at?")

Meanwhile across the river in Oklahoma, Gov. Frank Keating joined that state's textbook fray by advocating the following disclaimer now mandated to be printed in all biology textbooks:

No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

Gov. Keating, ever the politician, declared, "This is a matter of sensitivity to a lot of people. There are ardent views on all sides. I think the better system is to encourage a variety of viewpoints."

The article (DMN, November 28th) reports the same disclaimer has been ordered in Alabama. Several months ago, the state education board in Kansas voted to eliminate questions about evolution from all state-mandated standardized tests.

The article states that Pope John Paul II has "reaffirmed the Catholic church's position that evolution is indeed supported by considerable scientific evidence, but does not disprove that God started the process."

How would you like to be the researcher that gets stuck with that one?

"Your mission, Morris, should you decide to accept it, is to incontrovertibly prove that God did NOT start the process."

???

"No, you may not ask for a definition of what constitutes 'the beginning of the process'."

An older couple went to a doctor because they were having memory problems. The doctor reassured them that their problems were not serious and encouraged them to write notes to themselves to help them remember things.

That night the couple were watching TV when the woman got up to get a snack.
"Do you want anything?" she asked her husband.
"I'd love some ice cream," he said. "Do you need to make a note of that?"
"Of course not," she said. "I can remember ice cream."
"Oh,could you put some nuts on it?"
"Sure." she said.
"Do you need to make a note of that?"
"No. I can remember it. Ice cream and nuts."
"Add some chocolate syrup, while you're at it. Why don't you write that down."
"No, I can remember! Ice cream, nuts and chocolate syrup."

The woman went into the kitchen and soon returned with a bowl of oatmeal on a tray.

"Hey," said the man, "Where's my toast!"

- from Cindy W. in Tulsa

Of course, the 'problem' isn't so much with the elderly as much as it is with the accumulated buildup of "mindless" mindsets we (as a society and culture) learn and propogate from generation to generation.

She also had some very interesting (and critical) comments regarding the malady du jour of ADD - Attention Deficit Disorder, and particularly the gross over-prescribing of Ritalin. She felt it was quite inappropriate to label someone with a "disorder" simply because a person in authority (parent, teacher, etc.) becomes dissatisfied with someone's level of apparent attention in one context. According to Langer, many of those diagnosed with ADD experience many, many contexts in which their attention is (appears to be) quite normal.