Comments on the death of Hunter Thompson (at the request of Anonymous)

Famous writer and doctor of journalism Hunter S. Thompson decided a beautiful way to end his life would be to blow his brains out.

Shortly afterward, his family gathered around the room in which he committed this brave, triumphant act and shared stories over glasses of “his favorite elixir – Chivas Regal on ice,” according to The Rocky Mountain News.

Due to the large number of police present they were unable to indulge in his other favorite substances until later.

For those who are unfamiliar with Thompson, his quirky, satirical form of journalism won him fame and has been copied by many lesser writers since. Probably his most famous work (thanks to Woody Harrelson) is “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” in which he chronicles a drug-hazed trip to Vegas with his lawyer to cover a story (“Better get some golf shoes,” he advises his lawyer in a casino, “or we’ll never get out of here alive.”)

But alas he must have led a very sad life. As his wife, Anita, said, “He gave his body everything it wanted.” (i.e. mescaline, cocaine, heroine, a bullet in the mouth, etc.)

The 50-paragraph article tells the touching story of Hunter’s last day. To sum it up, in less than fifty paragraphs, he got in an argument with Anita and she went to the gym.

They talked for about ten minutes while she was at the gym, and he told her to come home afterward and they would work on a column. The conversation never ended.

Then he shot himself, with his son, grandson and daughter-in-law in the house (this supposedly made him at peace).

The rest of the story is filled with nonsense about how this is how he wanted to go, the environment is so loving for his spirit which is still around, he shot himself in the mouth so as not to ruin his face and create a mess for the family, this is triumph, yada yada yada.

How sad that the great minds are so often the tortured ones. I would rather be a mediocre writer and be able to say, “even so, it is well with my soul,” than be a Thompson, a Poe or a King (yes I think Stephen King is a great writer. I hate his stories but his prose are beautiful) and have all the success in the world but still the desire to shoot myself in the head.

You will never convince me that a 67-year-old man with a 30-something wife, huge success, and a pesky habit of using every illegal substance known to man was so happy he just thought a bullet in his head was the perfect goodbye.

What a twisted soul he must have had.

Wead says he's sorry

According to an article on Yahoo News, Doug Wead has apparently repented for the two years he spent taping the George W. Bush’s private conversations without his knowledge.

To do such a thing to a friend is reprehensible, even in the name of history, but Wead’s penitence seems real enough. Anyway, even if it’s not, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt why don’t we?

After all, it’s not often that someone in the public eye speaks out of humility. People are
arrogant and defensive, but rarely humble when faced with the horrible things they’ve done.

Wead was scheduled to appear on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews to express his regrets, but cancelled, saying it would only add further distraction to the president’s important and historic work.

In a letter to Matthews Wead wrote, “Contrary to the statement I made in the New York Times, I have come to realize that relationships are more important than history.”

Wead went on to say he was asking his attorney to donate any further proceeds from his new book on presidential parents to charity, and to find the best way to get the tapes back to the president to whom they belong.

Naturally the story added that the president did drugs thirty years ago and that the president’s aides “brushed off” questions about the tapes.

And if “downplaying” them, as the media likes to say it, is not the appropriate response, what should the White House have done, I’d like to ask?

Should Bush have organized a press conference to announce that, yes, he admits to having known and talked to Doug Wead, yes he would like children to not follow his example of thirty years ago (while John Kerry was committing his self-proclaimed atrocities in Vietnam, on which he would base his future bid for president) and do drugs, and that yes, he admits he has refused to discriminate against homosexuals?

Anyway, enough of that. Just so you know, faithful readers, my posts are likely to become more rare over the next few months until I get a computer at home. In the next few weeks I’m being replaced at my job at the hospital by someone who will be paid to do what I do (but not all that well) for free.

I mean the Army still pays me, but they’ll keep paying me until May regardless. But stick with me. I am not deserting you.

Secret tapes reveal Bush to be pretty much what he claims to be

If President Bush has a serious fault, I would say it’s that he’s not a great judge of character.

But maybe that’s too harsh. After all, why would he think a close friend who was, among other things, his father’s former aide and an Assembly of God minister would secretly tape their conversations?

But that’s just what Doug Wead did, while Bush was still the governor of Texas. He said he did it because he viewed Bush as an historic figure and never intended the tapes would be released in his lifetime. Nevertheless, the tapes were released, and though not all their contents have been made public, they’ve pretty much failed to reveal any shocking scandals about the president, much to the media’s dismay.

Here are some things the tape revealed.

1. Bush smoked weed *gasp* when he was younger. Well, okay. So did Clinton, Gore, and 75 percent of the people I’ve ever known. That’s no excuse, but since we all knew Bush used to be an alcoholic, it’s hardly scandal material.

Especially in light of Bush’s comments on the subject. He criticized Al Gore for admitting to smoking weed and said he would not have answered a similar question because, “I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” What a deviant whacko! He realizes that as the governor of a huge state, he might be looked up to and doesn’t want children to think its okay to smoke weed!

2. Bush refuses to discriminate against homosexuals. He said on the tapes, he would not “kick” gay people because he is a sinner. “How can I differentiate sin?” he asked. The story did not mention whether he pronounced “differentiate” correctly.

For those who want to get offended that he thinks homosexuality is a sin, well, get over it. We all know Bush is a Christian. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. The point is that he will not allow his beliefs to be grounds for discrimination against anyone.

At one point on the tape, Wead said to Bush, “He’s saying you promised you would not appoint gays to office,” to which Bush replied, “No, what I said was I wouldn’t fire gays. I’m not going to discriminate.”

3. Bush considered John Ashcroft to be a potential U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Okay. Nothing shocking there. Liberals think Bush and Ashcroft are the devil. On the other side I’ve heard speculation that Hillary Clinton might be the anti-Christ.

So, we haven’t heard what was on all the tapes, but so far I haven’t heard anything outrageous or incriminating. In fact, it would appear Bush holds the same beliefs in his private life he claims before the nation.

I wonder, if someone had taped John Kerry for nine hours without his knowledge, what would that reveal?

Now that I think of it, I’m glad no one did that to Bill Clinton. No one would want to hear those tapes.

Well, to be honest it was pretty boring, but I got a new shoe so it's not a complete waste of time

Okay, so we all know America is bitterly divided about many issues, the most volatile of which (at least on the surface) is the war in Iraq.

New Democratic party leader Howard “Howler” Dean and former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle recently debated the issue in Portland, where one Democrat cleverly stated his case by throwing a shoe at Perle, and screaming “Liar! Liar!”

Ironically (or perhaps significantly) throwing a shoe at someone is the pinnacle of all insults in Iraq, where the now famous former Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed Al Sahaf once said, “We will welcome them with bullets and shoes.” This was shortly before all the American Soldiers lost the war by committing suicide at the gates of Baghdad … oh wait, no. All those guys driving ammo loaded trucks into tank rounds were Iraqis, not Americans.

Anyway the shoe-throwing incident was, so far as I could tell reading the story, the only interesting thing that happened throughout the debate. Otherwise both sides stuck to the pattern we’ve all established of endlessly repeating ourselves. Perhaps we do this because we think if we can just say it a little louder, maybe they’ll suddenly understand. I don’t know. All I know is I haven’t heard anything new in months.

It usually looks something like this:

Democrat: “It’s a lie! A lie I tell you! Bush lied!”

Republican: “We got rid of a vicious dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people!”

Democrat: “War is not the answer!”

Republican: “The media is nothing but a bunch of left-wing lunatics!”

Democrat: “The media is nothing but a bunch of right-wing nutjobs!”

Republican: “God bless America.”

Democrat: “GOD? You intolerant Muslim-hating Jesus freak! I’m moving to Canada.”

Republican: “Don’t make promises you won’t keep. Oh, you were serious? In that case may I help you pack? Oh, you weren’t serious.”

Democrat: “War is not the answer! Why didn’t we go to war with Iran and North Korea? Bush just wants to be like his daddy. Damn cowboy!”

Republican: “It was the best intelligence we had at the time. Okay, so it was flawed, but we still need to support our troops and finish what we started.”

Democrat (bright red at this point): “Islamaphobia! Free speech! Separation of church and state! Communists! Religious war-mongering zealots! AARGHH!”

Okay, before you all freak out, I will admit this satire may be slightly biased against Democrats. This is because I am (let’s be honest, the cat’s pretty much out of the bag at this point), a Republican. I often have difficulty finding logic in many of the things Democrats say. But I know and love lots of them anyway, so let’s not take it personally. Anyway, that’s not the point.

The point is that we never say anything new. We endlessly rant and bluster and insult each other without really accomplishing anything. We will never convince anyone of anything this way. All we’re doing is preaching to our respective choirs.

We’re like a bunch of children fighting over crayons. “You’re a jerk! I’m telling mommy!”

“Well, you’re mommy’s fat! So there!” And I’m as guilty as the next guy (as evidenced by my little min-debate.)

For about four seconds between conceding the election to President Bush and embarking on his “It’s not fair” tour, John Kerry spoke about uniting the nation. As deep as the gash is, I don’t think that’s possible, and certainly not in the short-term.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t take a few steps in that direction. I’m not suggesting we overcome all our differences, pass the peace pipe, hold hands and sing Lee Greenwood songs at each other.

But there’s got to be some solution other than more red-faced gesturing and bitter diatribes reiterating the same old thing.

Do I have a solution to suggest? …Noooo, not so much.

What is the point of this article? I forget. I guess I’m just tired of all this crap. Let’s grow up. I mean, come on. If we have sunk to the level of throwing shoes at each other, perhaps it’s time we reexamined ourselves.

Hey ... wait a minute, I recognize that!

The first photo is one I took in Iraq during a visit to an Iraqi family's home near Nasiriyah.

The other day I was browsing a photography web site (www.worth1000.com), which hosts photography and Photoshop contests.

I was surprised to stumble across the second photo in one of the Photoshop contests. It was under the category "When hell freezes over" (things that will never happen until hell freezes over). The guy who doctored it called it "Private Hilton."

He was then kind enough to send me a copy of the original (since I no longer had one).

While I was surprised to see my photo there, I was pretty amused so I thought I'd share it with you. :)

Original picture 

The other guy's version 

In the news today (this way you don't have to watch CNN tonight)

As I’m sure you’ve all heard, Michael Jackson was rushed to the emergency room on the way into court yesterday. His lawyer described him as “very, very ill.” He is being treated for flu-like symptoms.

I, too, have been experiencing flu-like symptoms, but unlike Jackson, I am not due in court on child molestation charges, so an ambulance was unnecessary. Jackson’s doctors report he is suffering from “lack of being the only person the spotlight.” They cite as causes to the illness, the fact that both Scott Peterson’s trial and Janet Jackson’s left nipple got more media coverage than Michael’s dancing on a parked car episode.

Iran is almost educated enough to build its own nuclear bomb, Israel says. Iran says the suspicious explosion near its only nuclear power plant was, “a complete coincidence … wait, what are you even talking about? We were building a dam.”

Israel believes Iran is a mere six months away from having the necessary knowledge to create the bomb. Iran says the nuclear program is for electricity generation only. The two countries are expected to continue saying “yah huh” and “nuh uh” at each other until they forget what they’re arguing about, or one blows the other up. Whether Washington will intervene is yet to be determined.

The three CBS staffers who were asked to resign have hired lawyers and are attempting to sue CBS for breach of contract, or defamation of character or something. In the meantime, they continue to collect a paycheck at CBS, where top officials are doing the math right now to decide whether it would cost less to give them a settlement or just continue to pay them and extend the legal process until their contract eventually runs out.

Arthur Ventham, an Australian former weapons inspector told the U.S. Senate that UN weapons inspectors were incompetent, and spent most of their time drinking vodka and ignoring "a shadowy, nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for Saddam Hussein," according to a news article by somebody.

This poses a large problem for American liberals, who, if inspector incompetence is proved, will no longer be able to trumpet that "there were no weapons of mass destruction, you lousy communist war mogers!" It won’t be a problem for me, though. If Sean Penn didn’t find any, there weren’t any to be found, that’s what I always say.

The Kyoto Protocol, the UN treaty on global warming, took effect Wednesday. It was supported by 141 countries, but not by "the world’s biggest polluter," the United States, the article on Google News stated.

In related news, France has started a petition that, if signed by enough people, would officially designate the U.S. as "unhelpful" and "extremely annoying."

Comedian Chris Rock has fans enraged after he dared attack the sacred ceremony that is the Oscars. Rock reportedly said that *gasp* only gay men watch the Oscars. Furious, Hollywood is demanding that Rock, who is slated to host the Oscars, be replaced by someone less offensive – is Michael Moore’s schedule free? Someone should call him.

Finally, a new poll reveals that 49% of Americans screaming epithets at the other 51% and calling them morons has failed to convince the 51% that the 49% are right and we should have voted for them after all.

So in a new tactic, the 49%, aware that since they no longer like to have children the 51% will grow at a faster rate, have decided unanimously to scream even louder and add the word “imbecile.” We’ll see in 2008 how this works out for them.

There, now you don’t even have to watch the news.

Pride is such an easy trap to fall into

The verdict is in.

I am, at least in some ways, one of the masses. But maybe it's not so bad.

The insufferably snobby part of my nature shies away from anything that is popular or held in high esteem among those I see as the uneducated (or overeducated), amoral, blindly conformist flocks of the American public.

You'd think it would be a good thing to be an individual - and it is, if it means "lliving a Godly life among pagans" and being separate from the crowds for the sake of Christ - but I find my refusal to conform often applies only to some areas of my life - reality TV, Jackass, the desire to get stumbling drunk and make out with a table lamp three nights a week, for instance.

But when it comes to other, more serious vices - greed, lust, pride, Starbucks - I'm quick to conform, just like the rest - sometimes even going against my actual desires, for the opinion of others (rather than the state of my soul) is often in the forefront of my mind.

It's interesting, when I step back and look at it, to try and figure out what the criteria are for things I scorn as being "too mainstream." What makes me look down on one thing with disdain, while being ashamed of my real moral aversion to other things - so much so, I've been known to pretend a lack of values where none exists?

I will behave as though I'm "above" a certain TV show (or a mind-numbingly syrupy, but nonetheless wholesome Hillary Duff film, for instance), but I have to make up an excuse to leave the TV room each night so no one will discern that I actually despise "South Park."

So I've decided it's not so bad to be one of the masses sometimes. And when I refuse to conform, it should be for the sake of righteousness, and so I can be a better ambassador to Christ, not so others will think me an intellectual.

Besides, being a "non-conformist" really only inserts one into another stereotype: the self-proclaimed "individual" who read books they barely understand, smugly debate the decline of society, spend hours trying to look like they don't care how they look and eventually end up smoking enough weed to dull their wits without necessarily bringing that fact to their attention.

I've decided it's time to enjoy what I actually enjoy, and say what I believe - to, instead of letting the fear of man dictate my behavior, (attempt to) hate nothing but sin, fear nothing but God, and know nothing on this earth but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, as John Wesley (and Paul) put it.

I will read "The Lord of the Rings," even though everyone on the planet is reading it also because it's a great series. (I will console myself with the knowledge that I first read it when I was half the age of the average consumer and long before Frodo's face was that of Elijah Wood.)

I can go into Starbucks - soulless and corporate as it is - and order a sugar-free, nonfat vanilla latte. I cringe inwardly whenever I do this, but try to remember that I've also cheerfully choked down motor oil passed off as coffee in the Iraq desert, and enjoyed homey, family-owned coffee shops in places like Fells Point, in Baltimore, where the streets are cobbled. Does this make sense? I don't have to feel like I'm a dull-witted follower just because I really like their coffee.

Just because I eat at franchise restaurants and read in giant chain bookstores and shop at Old Navy, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate culture.

And just because I got good grades and was memorizing Tennyson at the age of ten, that doesn't make me qualified to judge the rest of the people I know (some of whom are remarkably smart by the way).

It's possible some of them have more depth than I have given them credit for - possible, but unlikely. No, I'm just kidding.

I'm not really a snob, I just believe in accurate self-reflection. My dad told me it's important.

I guess my point is that all that crap doesn't matter. It's incidental. The only thing that really matters is living for Christ, and if I'm doing that, who cares ifI drink the same coffee as the rest of the masses?

Pick on someone your own age, for cyrin' out loud!

Those of you who know me … have you ever noticed a sign on my head that says, “If you’re old enough to be my father please hit on me”?

That’s the only explanation I can think of for why men within ten years of my age ignore me (not complaining) and men 20 and 30 years my senior find me irresistible (definitely complaining).

A new E-7 came to the company yesterday. For those of you who don’t know, and E-7 (sergeant first class) is two ranks above me and it takes some time to make that rank. One could make E-8 in 12-15 years on the fast track. So this guy is considerably older than me.

He asked me why I was in civilian clothes and I explained that Top (first sergeant) allowed me to work in civvies due to the nature of my job. There were several other people in the room at the time. He accepted my explanation and left.

A few minutes later, when everyone else had left the room, he returned. Sidling up to me, he asked in a manner I can only assume was meant to be smooth, “So. What’s your name?”

“Sergeant Robinson,” I answered, assuming my best preoccupied air. “First name?” he asked, not to be put off. “Kate.”

“Well, Kate, I’m Ken. Nice to meet you.” We shook hands and I focused back on the computer screen. “So,” he continued, lowering his voice and peering nonchalantly over the desk as if he’d misplaced something in the front of my blouse, “I can see why Top wants you to wear civilian clothes. It looks a lot better than your Army greens.”

WHAT? Where did that even come from? Has that type of line ever worked on anyone?

This isn’t the first time either. Since I was fifteen and working at my hometown newspaper I’ve had old men trying to pick me up.

The other night an old sergeant who had just explained to me that he’d been in the military since 13 years before I was born (and is somehow still the same rank as I) squeezed around behind me to get to his desk (there was plenty of room to just walk) and slid his hands around my waist as he did so.

I could think of literally (this is the correct use of the word) a dozen or more similar examples.

Before you freak out, Fnord, I don’t put up with that kind of behavior and neither does the Army. If it doesn’t stop after I warn them, the Army will nail them to the wall – as they did to that guy who sent me letters in Iraq, offering me money in exchange for … well, you get the idea. Anyway, I didn’t even know anything about it, but my commander got him demoted all the same.

But what is it about me makes old men think they can get away with that kind of thing? Is it just that as men get older, they lose all ability to read body language?

You see, men between the ages of 20 and 30 find me singularly unattractive. Which is fine. It means I no longer send any signals to them that say it’s okay to treat me with disrespect. As far as I can tell, they see me as smart, friendly and no-nonsense, and they don’t try anything.

This is a remarkable difference from the way the men at my last duty station viewed me, so I know the difference is in my behavior and I’m thrilled.

But what do I have to do to send the same signal to these old, sometimes married, always kind of disgusting men that their behavior is unacceptable?

I can’t file sexual harassment charges every five minutes. In fact I go to great lengths to avoid formal action.

I know most of you guys who read this are young, but you’re guys nonetheless. So help me out here.

I need to find a solution for this so I can help other young girls avoid perverted old men leering at them.

Reality TV is torture enough already

The Guardian, a British publication that is widely known in the world of me for being crap, reports that British Channel 4 will air a “Guantánamo Bay-style reality show that will examine the effects of mild torture on seven male volunteers.”

“The Guantánamo Guidebook will recreate some of the practices used at the US naval base where hundreds of so-called ‘enemy combatants’ have been held without trial or access to lawyers for nearly three years,” the article reads.

As far as I can tell the show will feature seven guys who endured “mild torture” such as sleep deprivation, the use of extreme temperatures and “mild” physical contact. They were also subject to periods of forced nudity and religious and sexual humiliation, according to the article.

The volunteers are expected to tell interrogators everything they know … which isn’t anything, but that’s apparently incidental. Maybe they’ll reveal their mother’s addresses or something.

“Presented by Jon Snow, Channel 4 says the programme is designed to examine the widespread use of torture and whether it can ever be justified in what the US and UK governments have called the wider war ‘against terror,’” the article said. (This publication is clearly unbiased).

It went on to explain that the U.S. says torture is necessary in the war on terror. This investigation, which will include three other torture-related shows, will determine if that’s true.

To make it more real, I think a producer should be killed by a roadside bomb every time a contestant refuses to talk. Why not? If the torturers have no lives at stake, it becomes exactly what they’re making it out to be – unnecessary, heartless cruelty.

I’m not saying what happened in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo was right. Certainly some of the tactics used were excessive. Certainly some of the Soldiers got a little too much pleasure out of it, as evidenced by the smiling pictures they snapped of each other.

But many of the prisoners are enemy combatants, many of them do have information that will be vital to saving U.S. (and UK and Iraqi) lives, and most of them are not going to volunteer the information if you deprive them of lunch.

These Iraqis know what real torture is. Saddam Hussein introduced them to that – the rape rooms, the children’s prisons, the mass graves, Uday’s pesky habit of feeding people to his lions – these things were torture.

I met a prisoner of war who said the Republican Guard tied his feet up and beat them with cables for days when he refused to fight. Other Iraqi soldiers fought because their families were being held captive in Baghdad.

Oh but wait. These things, for the most part, only happened to the commoners and non-Baathists. The higher-ups in Saddam’s regime, they got privilege. They had money and food. They had pride. Pride is the highest virtue to them.

So if pride is the one thing that means the most to these people, and we need them to give us vital intelligence, injuring their pride is entirely appropriate. Yes there should be constraints. But before we go around decrying the U.S. as tyrants, perhaps we should pull our heads out of our posteriors.

Every organization – military, religious or otherwise – has its bad apples. But most Soldiers are actually heroes, not animals. We need to stop looking for reasons to crucify our own countrymen and start focusing on finding solutions to problems.

If I had to choose between the pride of the prisoners and the lives of my fellow Soldiers would I support “mild torture?” You’re damn right I would.

This is what happens when there is no political/religious outrage for me to harp on

Warning: subject is prone to change abruptly, so stay on your toes.

I behaved exactly like a man yesterday.

I dressed in a baggy sweatshirt and jeans, and ate more barbecue food than was necessarily healthy.

Then I watched the Superbowl. I ate pizza. I drank beer.

Just to make sure I was in fact, still a woman, I baked a cake (which was against my diet, but I needed chocolate).

I let the men do the dishes. It was a great day.

Suddenly I understand where they’re coming from. I wouldn’t want some woman nagging me to get stuff done either.

I also watched “Michael Moore Hates America,” a documentary by some other guy named Michael, whose last name is not memorable.

It was made between “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11,” so it revealed a few of the untruths in both, but its focus was mainly on Moore’s anti-American attitude, and habit of complaining without offering solutions.

The movie was done in the style of Moore’s documentary “Roger and Me” and the other Michael spent the whole movie trying to track Moore down for an interview. He never got it.

I was impressed by its honesty. For instance, at one point Mike lied to an interview subject about the purpose of the interview because he was afraid the guy wouldn’t want to talk to him if he knew the truth.

But the documentary also showed Mike arguing with his producer over the deceit, (the producer threatened to step out of the project if Mike used the interview footage), and eventually they sent the interviewee a letter explaining that they had misrepresented themselves and they would not use the footage without his permission. The subject agreed to let them use it.

The kind of self-deprecating, jocular honesty the filmmakers employed was disarming. But I have to admit I was predisposed to believe it anyway.

Today I received a mail order of Chilean snail extract. It’s supposed to be good for the skin.

It came in a small box, which once opened revealed an even smaller box, which held a tiny little $30 jar of cream. The policy apparently prohibits use of more than one snail per jar. This stuff better be good.

I’m thinking about getting a tattoo. I haven’t entirely designed it yet, but I think it will have the word “forgiven” somewhere in it. That’s an important thing to remember. What an amazing thing to be forgiven and be called a friend of God.

Anyway, today’s Bible verse is John 16:33b.
“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

I love that. What a powerful statement.

A case of poetic justice and an amiable agreement to disagree

Stuart asked me last night if I wanted to watch “Fahrenheit 9/11” with him.

Actually, I did. I think it’s important to know what the enemy’s saying if you’re going to make fun of him … er … I mean dispute his points, using rationale and logic later.

I was nervous about watching it with Stuart, since I knew I had scores of arrogant Bush-hating barbs headed my way. But I thought, “hey, why not?”

When I walked into the room, I was surprised to see not Moore’s “documentary,” but “FahrenHYPE 9/11,” the documentary made to expose some of the twisted truths and blatant lies in "Fahrenheit 9/11," sitting on the TV. Apparently Stuart bought it without paying attention to the title. Talk about poetic justice. Ha!

Laughing, I took a consensus of the room, and eventually Joe (the room’s only other occupant - another Bush supporter) and I agreed not to tell Stuart. We just popped it into the DVD player and sat down.

I was curious to see how long it would take Stuart to catch on. Even after the film’s title appeared on the screen, highlighting the “HYPE” part in white, he didn’t say anything.

Ten minutes. Nothing. This seemed like forever to me. Fifteen minutes. Bingo. He figured it out.

We all laughed for a minute and Stuart moved to eject the movie when I stopped him. We made a deal. If he would watch “FahrenHYPE” with an open mind, we would go out immediately afterward and buy “Fahrenheit” and watch that too. Surprisingly he agreed. What followed revealed him to have more depth than I would have given him credit for.

He watched the movie with interest and seemed to enjoy it, and understand its logic. I did enjoy pointing out, when Stuart said, “It would be better if some Democrats were in this,” that at least three of the main commentators – Ron Silver, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) and Ed Koch – were active Democrats.

He and I then went to the video store and picked up the other one. On the way back we had the first political discussion in which I’ve been willing to participate (usually I just smile while he regurgitates CNN at me), and it was productive. He conceded almost all of my logical points about John Kerry, agreeing that he probably could not have run the country, and even conceded that George W. Bush is to be respected for standing his ground in the face of national criticism. This is the first inch he’s ever given.

Immediately after starting Moore’s film, Stuart admitted that it was made less professionally than the rebuttal had been. Halfway through, when Moore was portraying Soldiers as murderous trigger-happy morons whose idea of fun was to mow down children and then sing a song about it, Stuart was ready to jump through the TV screen and choke him (assuming he could get his hands around that considerable neck).

By the end, however, he believed at least half of what he had seen. And I have to admit the documentary was compelling. It compelled me, for instance to reach the conclusion that Michael Moore is a fat stupid white man. But seriously, if I hadn’t seen the rebuttal, it would be difficult not to believe a lot of what he said.

Still it only takes a tiny bit of perspective to see Moore for the obnoxious jerk he is.

Stuart was quick to point out that “FahrenHYPE” only addressed some of the issues “Fahrenheit” had brought up, and it should have addressed all of them. Well, as I saw it, the rebuttal film addressed what untruths the makers had solid evidence of. Moore could never have passed off a film to the public that was a lie through and through. We’re mildly smarter than that. The way to make a lie convincing is to salt it liberally with truth here and there – pad the lies with a few actual facts and people will buy the whole package.

All in all though, the attitude remained fairly amiable (which is new to us), although as the evening progressed and Stuart’s Jack Daniel’s bottle emptied, his arguments came louder and faster and his non sequiturs became more frequent. But I think we made significant progress. I was encouraged.

In unrelated news, I also heard Stuart on the phone telling someone that, “you may think she’s treating you bad, but it might be a result of how you’re treating her and you don’t realize it,” or something like that. In a separate conversation he lectured another friend on her superficiality (he actually used that word – and correctly). Apparently she and her friends judged people based on their clothing brands.

So maybe I’ve judged him a little too harshly. I still think he’s not that bright. I still think he thinks far too highly of himself – especially his physical attributes. I still think he’s too easily swayed by what the TV tells him, and doesn’t think objectively or analytically. But he may be a little deeper, a little more open-minded than I thought. Maybe there’s hope for him after all.

Katespeaks, just not as often as she'd like to

My dear faithful readers (all eight of you), I'm sorry about the lack of articles this week.

I'm working really hard to get new furniture in our dayroom at the barracks, but due to lack of funding and a first sergeant (that means "guy in charge of me") whose memory can only reach about five minutes into the past, it's been frustrating and time consuming.

Also, I'm working on filing a claim with Veteran's Affairs, to get a disability rating.

So don't give up on me. I can't update the blog every day, but I'll do my best to stay on top of things.

In the mean time, here's a few things to think on.

Fidel Castro - that damn communist - said President Bush is "deranged."

Looking at Bush during his inauguration Jan. 20, Castro said he saw "the face of a deranged person."

Castro also says that Cuba doesn't need the U.S. or Europe. He called his country "heaven, in the spiritual sense of the word," which I can only take to mean that when we die, we will be going to Cuba (if we're good), and that Cubans would rather die in Heaven than survive in hell. Odd, since Heaven, in the spiritual sense of the word, is not somewhere one can die, as far as I know.

Anyway, he said when we attack, (which we've repeatedly denied having any intention of doing), we would do well to use 50 nuclear bombs. That seems excessive to me. 40 would do the trick.