The Dan Brown Code

It wasn't my idea, but this past weekend I watched The Da Vinci Code. I admire Ron Howard and Tom Hanks deeply, but I have to wonder what inspired the two men to take on such a controversial project. Surely anyone reading this has a basic grasp on the story, whether it be the book or the film. Yet, I figure it doesn't hurt to do a little review.

The Da Vinci Code is loosely based on the Priory of Sion, a secret European society that included such members as Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Botticelli, and Leonardo da Vinci. Interestingly enough, Les Dossiers Secrets, the papers that revealed the organization, are no longer in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In fact, the supposed members mentioned were found to be completely fraudulent in 1996. The deception was perpetuated by Pierre Plantard, a lifelong anti-Semite by the way, who admitted that he fabricated his claims in a court of law. He did not live to see the Da Vinci Code. Obviously enough, Dan Brown chose not to include that information in order to deceive his audience. I care not to go on about the claims that are beyond the basics. I would highly recommend History verses The Da Vinci Code, which a chapter-by-chapter analysis by an atheist.

On back to the movie, it's well-made in terms of suspense and story line. After all, you expect nothing less from the director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks. I would recommend it for those who have a passion for mysteries and suspence. I would not recommend it for those who would take offense to certain aspects of the story line.

However, the film is rightfully disturbing to anyone who is a follower of Christianity. It's about as anti-Catholic as the Ku Klux Klan. The film attacks Opus Dei, a conservative sect of the Catholic Church rather frequently. The crusade against the Christian church does not stop at allegations of sexism and manipulation. Menacing accusations insinuate that the Catholic Church not only knows about the bloodline of Christ, but has murdered many decendents of Christ to keep it from spreading. These are all false accusations, and they can only result in a deeper anti-Catholic bigotry. The hatred of the Catholic Church is beyond unfathomable, and no evidence has been shown to support these attacks.

Before he threw stones at the Vatican, Dan Brown was an English professor. Later, he became a techno-thriller novelist. Digital Fortress and Deception Point initially performed poorly at the bookstores. With Angels & Demons, he began writing thrillers with a twist - by going after the Vatican. Dan Brown's inspiration for his conspiracy against Christianity include such books as this:

• Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
• The Messianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
• The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh
• The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine by Margaret Starbird
• The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail by Margaret Starbird
• The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince
• Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
• When God Was a Woman by Merlin Stone
• The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future by Riane Eisler

Why Does Rush Feel Liberated?

"I feel liberated, ladies and gentlemen, because I feel like I don't have to carry the water for people that I think don't deserve to have their water carried."

This was Limbaugh’s reaction to the 2006 mid-term election results.

Now, let’s look at those who supposedly liberated Rush with their defeats – Rick Santorum, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine, George Allen, and others who have been loyal to conservative ideas. Sure, nobody cares to defend Allen’s “macaca” comment. For as close it was, it’s evident that it cost him not only the election, but much more. His defeat symbolically gave the Democrats control of the Senate. Not to mention, he has lost support as a possible 2008 candidate.

Rush has insisted that his comments were grossly taken out of context. On his official site, he shines attention to the fact that conservative talk show hosts get tired of sticking up for an empty suit who cannot lay out his agenda. Take the presidential debates, for example. In an e-mail from a fan, as Limbaugh cited, “I was scared every time Bush had a debate; the Democrats were scared every time Kerry had a debate.”

It's fair to say that Rush Limbaugh's popularity helped Republicans take back Congress in 1994. But it's also fair to suggest that his comments on Michael J. Fox's ad campaign for embryonic stem cell research were harsh and silly. For as energized as the conservative base was over Kerry's slip of the tongue, Limbaugh made up for it by jumping the gun on Fox's "acting performance," giving undecided voters the impression that conservatives are insensative and arrogant towards those who have chronic medical conditions.

Democrats Take Over the House

Nancy Pelosi is now the Speaker of the House. Secretary Rumsfeld has resigned. And the Democrats are celebrating.

Pelosi has promised to put ethics and bipartisanship ahead of everything. She has also stated that immediate withdrawal and impeachment are “off the table.” The Democrats have been meeting with President Bush to set the new course for Iraq. And that’s really all you need to know.

Why did the Republican Party lose?

Instead of advocating moral values, they were convicted of scandals. Rather than practicing fiscal restraint, they built a bridge to nowhere. Instead of fighting crime, they supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Most notably, instead of staying the course in Iraq, President Bush had suggested that we need a new plan. That’s why conservatives stayed home.

Libertarian voters have been frustrated with the expansion of government on socio-economic policy, whether it was the Gravina Island Bridge, prescription drugs for seniors, or the expansion of homeland security that apparently harms our civil liberties. While the Bush Administration has been relatively soft on same-sex marriage and abortion on demand, they have been consistent, nonetheless.

Independent voters were convinced that neither party had a plan for the most important issue of the election. Democrats effectively denied plans to “cut and run”, while Republicans had suddenly abandoned the current policy in Iraq. Because Republicans did not outline their agenda for Iraq swiftly before Election Day, it was apparent that Republicans showed an admission to the public that they confessed to what the Democrats had been hinting for years. Instead of running on a bad plan, Republicans decided to run with no plan.

Where else did the right go wrong?

Bush has tried tirelessly to fit the mold of Ronald Reagan. In search of his “Evil Empire” moment, he offered the “Axis of Evil” – Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - all of which had been in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Not long after came the invasion of Iraq to stop Saddam’s development of biological weapons.

In retrospect, it was foolish to provoke too many enemies at one time. The timeline of events sent the wrong message. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – stop pursuing nukes. Then came the invasion of Iraq. Iran and North Korea, while in pursuit of nuclear weapons for years, felt the urgency to speed up their nuclear programs to act as a deterrent to the United States. As a result, Israel is in greater danger.

I maintain that going after Saddam was the right thing to do. Iraqi liberation had long been an American policy, rather than a Bush policy. Take, for example, the Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1998, which calls for the United States to “establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.”

In greater detail, “It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.”

Around this time period, Clinton’s foreign policy was especially hawkish. The question remains – what stopped Clinton from invading Iraq? It may have been, ironically enough, that he didn’t want to take any more heat for the increasing of gas prices. It may have also been his recognition of world government, or more specifically, the United Nations as the final authority. It may have even a potential bait-piece for the Republicans to suggest that Clinton was looking for ways to distract attention away from the Monica Lewinsky Scandal.

The argument that emphasizes the fact that the United States sided with Hussein during the war with Iran is self-defeated for many reasons. We were never allies with Iran, that’s number one. And second, we accept in our history that we fought alongside of Joseph Stalin and the Red Army, which also became an enemy and a threat to the United States.

But Republicans have failed to address all of that. In fact, very few Americans realize that the Iraqi Liberation Act exists. As a result, the War in Iraq became a losing issue.

So what are the Democrats planning to do about Iraq? Now that they are back in power, they have no reason to be angry. Many conservatives are skeptical of their promise to work with a president who has opened himself to new ideas. He has appointed Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and is ready to take Iraq into a new direction. Only time will tell how long the Bush-Pelosi coalition will last.

Missing the Big Picture

John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment may have given new ammunition to the Republicans, but the alternative media has committed a crime in the eyes of a true conservative: they have spent little to no time covering the Senate race between West Virginia's Republican John Raese and ex-Klansman, present-day Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd.

While "Effin' Lurch" - that's Kerry, for those of you who don't follow much political satire - gave the Republican Party a reason to distinguish themselves from the Democrats, they made a disasterous mistake in the midst of it all. What went wrong, you might ask? From the very top, they asked Kerry for an apology. Kerry's initial response was reactionary, as he lashed out at the Republican Party and the pioneer of the alternative media, Rush Limbaugh. Kerry wouldn't offer an apology to men and women in uniform for another two days. When he did, it wasn't in front of a microphone.

On his website, he stated, "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended."

It's fair to say that it would be naive to expect Kerry to apologize to the Republicans as well. But they got what they wanted - the prized apology they've all been asking for. If a man is forced to apologize for a statement he stood by, how do you know he is sincere about it? To put it in another way, the Republicans risked bailing Kerry out before voting day.

Howard Dean, the indispensible DNC Chairman, stuck up for his troubled friend, the apparent victim of old-fashioned McCarthyism from Republicans. Rumor has it that Kerry meant to say "And if you don't, you get us stuck in Iraq." That would have been an appropriate joke for a Democrat who excelled in his education, but it wasn't the best wisecrack for a D-student like John Kerry. In response to his inept performance in college, Kerry said, "I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction."

It didn't matter that both the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion took the comments personally, and also demanded that Kerry apologize. The organizations represent millions of voters who served their country, and take offense to any remote hint of troop bashing. While the Republicans did the right thing by sticking up for those who have served their country, they allowed Kerry to cover his own butt. And he didn't. He went off on an anti-Bush rant the first chance he had to apologize. Finally, after enough pressure was instilled on him from his fellow Democrats, he offered an apology to the troops and their family members.

While Kerry stuck his head further in the dirt by delaying his apology, the Republicans could lose credibility by holding his statement against him, since after all, they demanded he apologize. Why didn't the GOP strategists immediately air ads with the clip of Kerry's Freudian slip? Kerry didn't ask to be forgiven, and it won't help the GOP as much as it could have if they went ahead and exposed John Kerry unapologetically.

In any event, the troops let it be known loud, clear, and hilariously, that they hear the same brand of hopelessness on the War in Iraq that we do from politicians who declare themselves "anti-war," even in the latter of the invasion of Iraq. While Kerry was trying to figure out how to explain his slip of tongue to swing voters, the 1st Brigade 34th Infantry Division at Tallil Airbase in Iraq made a sign, spelled "Halp us Jon Carry -- We R stuck hear N Irak." Not surprisingly, Ann Coulter joined the chorus. "Whatever Karl Rove is paying John Kerry to say stupid things, it's worth every penny," she wrote in her latest column.

While all of this is making the election coverage more and more exciting, the alternative media hasn't bothered to cover Robert Byrd's re-election campaign. Is it a hopeless situation? Apparently so. As of now, he has served longer than any other member in Congress. This includes serving in the House of Representatives, starting in 1953. He has the record for the longest serving Senator - 47 years. He has never lost an election. He is the oldest member in Congress, at age 88.

Byrd has been referred to constantly whenever the latest racism chargest come out. Other than that, he is often ignored by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Byrd was a young man in his twenties when he joined the Ku Klux Klan. He was "promoted from within" as a Kleagle - in other words, a recruiter. He has described it as a mistake of his youth, and generally, we can forgive a man for his sins.

Unfortunately, throughout the course of events, Byrd hasn't had the best luck in letting go of his old self. In 1946 - three years after he left the Klan - he wrote to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, declaring, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan realm of W. Va?" This letter was discovered and publicized in 1971.

In 1947, he wrote segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo, informing him that he would "never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

After his first taste of power in the Senate, he devoted much of his time fighting civil rights legislation. Infamously, he filibustered over fourteen hours in an attempt to defeat the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but supported the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Yet, Byrd is the only Senator who voted against the only two black Supreme Court nominees in U.S. history, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.

In 2001, Byrd appeared on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss race relations. At that point, the NAACP all too generously gave Byrd a whopping 100% rating, considering him to carry a pro-civil rights voting record. It might as well have been the highlight of his checkered career.

He was off to a good start: "Are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime.... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that," Byrd thoughtfully commented.

But then, he blew it. "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Predictably, Jesse Jackson was not impressed with Byrd using a slur that had historically been used on blacks to imply criminal, lazy, and stupid behavior. Finally arriving at the conclusion that social norms did not call for the n-word to be thrown around, Byrd sent a statement to Fox News. "I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society."

According to a September 11, 2006 poll, West Virginia is likely to repeat their mistakes. Given that the poll only accounts for 500 voters, there may be a chance that Byrd will not win by a landslide afterall. In any event, Robert Byrd is winning with 63% of the vote, with John Raese only winning 30%. Chances are, Robert Byrd will die in office. And we're all to blame for allowing that to happen.

Kerry's October Surprise

Senator John Kerry is not up for re-election in 2006.

Yet, he is a high-profile Democrat, possibly the most recognized face of the Democratic Party to your average man on the street, and he has been out trying to rally the progressive base into electing Democrats in the most important mid-term election the United States has had since 1974, which ultimately determined the fate of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.

In September of 1988, Michael Dukakis made public relations history when he got in the an M1 Abrams tank, in a safety helmet too big for his head. The embarrassing footage was used successfully by the Bush campaign to portray Dukakis as uncomfortable in a military setting, and therefore, unfit to command.

On January 19, 2004, Howard Dean delivered what would be remembered as the “I Have A Scream” speech, or the “Dean Scream,” which symbolized him as a reactionary who lacked self-control necessary to run the country for the remainder of the presidential bid.

On October 30, 2006, John Kerry did a “stand-up comedy routine” on the topic of education at Pasadena City College in Southern California that fired up a distressed Republican Party with much needed ammo to depict Democrats as defeatists with no desire to win the war.

Here is the “joke” that could very well serve as the turning point in the final week before the election.

Heavy debates are circling around whether or not this was insulting to the American troops who are serving in the military. “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Would it have been condemned as “racist” if someone said, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in the ghetto?” Of course it would. And you can expect decent people to be outraged over it, even if the comment was not directed towards any specified minority.

While reasonable people could agree that Kerry didn’t deliberately intend to insult the troops, he has given the Republican Party a goldmine of material in a quote that deserves criticism for emphasizing shame on those in the military, not the administration, as Kerry has suggested.

Kerry’s defense mechanism has been ineffective. Instead of offering an apology to soldiers and their families, or anyone who was offended at his comments, and come to his senses enough to admit that he could have worded his slam on the Iraqi War a little differently, he has slung mud back at the administration to cover his own butt.

Was the “bad joke” a laughing matter? It has been played on every major news network, yet there is little, if any, laughter after Kerry’s arrogant remark. It’s certainly not a laughing matter to military families, whether or not their sons and daughters joined because they couldn’t afford college, wanted good pay with military benefits, or out of patriotism, to insinuate that many young people are in Iraq because they were dunce kids.

Paul A. Morin, The National Commander of The American Legion didn't care much for Kerry's comment either. The American Legion, 2.7 million members strong, is the largest veteran's organization in the country.

"As a constituent of Senator Kerry's I am disappointed. As leader of The American Legion, I am outraged. A generation ago, Senator Kerry slandered his comrades in Vietnam by saying that they were rapists and murderers. It wasn't true then and his warped view of today's heroes isn't true now."

It appears that the Democrats are baffled on how to respond to John Kerry. Bob Casey, who is running against Rick Santorum for Senate - and leading in the polls, has backed Kerry. According to Casey, Kerry "botched a joke."

Harold Ford of Tennessee wasn't so sympathetic.

“Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said,” Ford said. “He needs to apologize to our troops.”

Needless to say, the unraveling of the Mark Foley scandal may not hurt the Republicans as much as the Democrats hoped. Most would admit that the scandal was politically calculated, but both parties were at a fault. Republicans who knew about Foley’s contacts with teenage boys did what they could to cover it up. Democrats with the same information withheld it until the election gained momentum.

Not surprisingly, President Bush used the occasion to fire up the conservative base at a rally in rural Georgia. "The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave,” Bush proclaimed, with an eruption of applause. “And the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology,"

It’s no surprise that the Republicans up for re-election have distanced themselves from President Bush. While Bush has drifted from the conservative base on spending and border security, his appeal to Middle America is of growing concern. He has emphasized on partisan issues without the ability to advance much support on the Iraqi War.

However, homeland security has been a winning issue for him in the past, and is likely to serve as a key issue this mid-term election, not to mention an unemployment rate at only 4.6%. It also didn’t hurt that he signed the Secure Fence Act, which will build more than 700 miles of fencing at critical points along our southwest border, and requires the Department of Homeland Security to install cameras, ground sensors, and unmanned aerial vehicles in an effort to prevent illegal immigration.

Childhood Heroes Collide

In Ohio, my home state, a critical senate electoral crusade has taken shape between Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown. On the sidelines, two of my childhood heroes – Bernie Kosar and Michael J. Fox – were endorsing the candidates.

Former Cleveland Browns quarterback Bernie Kosar, a future Hall of Famer, has endorsed Mike DeWine. Kosar is one of the most beloved athletes in the history of Cleveland. DeWine’s efforts to keep the Browns in Cleveland was the highlight of his radio ad, which applauded DeWine’s bipartisanship. While DeWine is a strong social conservative on key issues, he has crossed party lines on gun control, guest worker programs, and border security.

According to News Meat, Kosar has a record of making contributions to help elect Republicans. The source indicates that he’s given $82,200 towards Republican campaigns. Needless to say, Kosar “swings both ways.” Kosar joined an odd pack of Democrat Ron Klein’s contributors, which included Rosie O'Donnell, Barbra Streisand, and Andrew Tobias.

Sherrod Brown has campaigned on "safe" issues, like health care, and has portrayed the DeWine campaign as desparate, smeary, and distortive. It was nice to see this ad for a change, regarding DeWine's campaign, which has also relied on negative advertising for the most part.



Not surprisingly, actor Michael J. Fox has advocated for embryonic stem-cell research, which has been suggested to treat Parkinson’s disease. He has been a vocal supporter for Sherrod Brown. Headlines were made after Fox made an ad in support for Claire McCaskill in Missouri. Rush Limbaugh was quick to suggest that Fox’s evident symptoms were a result of avoiding his medication.

Fox's condition is devastating for a lifetime Back to the Future fan to watch.




Rush could have focused on this potentially misleading comment instead – “Unfortunately, Sen. Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research… Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.” Even a “progressive” columnist agrees that the remark was misleading. The columnist admits, “…it is true that James Talent has never actively attempted to criminalize stem cell research.”

In an interview with Katie Couric, Fox said, "The irony is that I was too medicated. I was dyskinesic." Fox has also crossed party lines, endorsing Republicans like Arlen Specter and Mike Castle, who have supported embryonic stem-cell research. If I was suffering from Parkinson's to the point where I couldn't talk without my medication, I too, would do anything to get a cure.

In response to Fox's ad, a handful of celebrities - Jim Caviezel, Jeff Suppan, Patricia Heaton, Kurt Warner, and Mike Sweeney made an ad opposing Missouri's Amendment 2.



Mike DeWine has long advocated on a pro-life platform, while Sherrod Brown, while less vocal on life and death issues, had attempted to block a ban on partial-birth abortion. DeWine is also opposed to federal funding in support for embryonic stem-cell research. "I am against taking federal dollars to destroy human life," he contends.

The question raised over the stem-cell issue is whether it demeans the pro-life cause more than it promotes it. In principle, most conservatives believe that life begins at conception, making the stem-cell debate valid amongst fellow conservatives. However, if there is potential after all to cure Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries, it could very well be the pro-life thing to do.

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict," Martin Luther King, Jr. has suggested. At the risk of abandoning the reasoning behind this quote I endorse on many issues, I consider myself "cautiously neutral" on embryonic stem-cell research. While a well-informed population should always take sides, we often do so long before the facts come out.

Senator Chuck Schumer is also campaigning for Sherrod Brown, although they have divergent views on our national security. Schumer has supported the Patriot Act, while Brown has opposed it. Anyways, Schumer had this to say about the opponents of embryonic stem-cell research:

“The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they want their faith to dictate what the government does. That, in a word, is un-American. That is exactly what the Founding Fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.”

Schumer isn’t the most persuasive campaigner, but he may have a point. Filter out his trash-talk, like “theocrats” and “un-American” as he frequently describes anyone who even smells conservative. Those terms serve as a distraction to the real issue at hand. We can admire the fact that faith-based politicians have a sense of accountability, and still contend that faith-based policies deserve the same skepticism that any other policy should face.

I agree that we must use our conscience in the field of scientific advancement, which has crossed the line in the cases of Josef Mengele’s experiments with exterminated Jews in Nazi Germany, the horrific procedure of partial-birth abortion, and San Francisco’s tax-funded sex-change operations. It is fool-hearted to assume that modern science is somehow infallible, and that no ethical boundaries should exist. We have an obligation, if not to God, than to each other, to draw a line.

A line is crossed when human beings are treated like laboratory rats, while some would still consider it immoral to conduct scientific experiments on animals. In Vogue magazine, Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA proclaimed, “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.” They aren’t nicknamed “People for the Unethical Treatment of Humans” for nothing.

Yet, I find the opponents of embryonic stem-cell research to be a losing issue for many reasons. They have tried time and again to turn the subject into an abortion debate. While the subject of frozen embryos is rightfully a disturbing topic, you have to wonder exactly when a fertilized human being can feel pain, especially if they are frozen.

Lack of evidence in support for theoretical cures is another grave concern. Would it make sense to pursue embryonic stem-cell research without hard evidence, proving embryonic stem-cells to deliver on its promises? Many countries in Asia and Europe have contributed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and have delivered no promises from it so far.

Sometimes, the best solution isn’t the most sensitive solution. I say that because this will sound radical at first glance. I find it hard to support the idea of in vitro fertilization to begin with, due to the fact that child abuse, neglect, and abandonment tend to escape the minds of infertile couples. In other words, couples incapable of having children on their own should be encouraged to adopt an unwanted child who has already been born.

In a perfect world, there would be no infertility, or child abandonment. But to make ends meet, people will have to compromise their own self-interests and contribute something to society, given the fact that they want to raise children. While it may force you to compromise, it’s a far more compassionate effort to make every child a wanted child.

Top Down Government

This guide is a circular map to emphasize on the size of government, and mainstream left-right dichotomy done right. Most maps are flawed in one way or another. The World's Smallest Political Quiz emphasizes on socio-economic viewpoints, but doesn't touch much on foreign policy. It's not bad if you have never taken a political quiz before, and will give you a rough idea of where you stand.

Politopia is deeply flawed because "left-wing" is determined by "more personal freedoms", which would make gun control, eminent domain, affirmative action, and hate-crime legislation conservative principles, when in fact, they are the opposite.

Anyways, I spent way too much time on this guide. At least it's seasonally appropriate.




1. The Individualist

Michael Badnarik

The government’s sole purpose is to protect private citizens. You oppose the government’s involvement when it comes to social and fiscal policies. While you believe in the capitalist system, civil liberties are the solution to overcoming social inequality. You oppose world government, and believe that the United States should withdrawal from the UN. Free speech is threatened both by hate crime legislation and the FCC. As a strong advocate for individual freedoms, you oppose the state’s involvement on alternative lifestyles, gun control and affirmative action, while you support abortion and private property rights. You want to legalize prostitution, gambling, and recreational drug use. The influence of religion should not belong in government.

You would enjoy reading:

Why Government Doesn't Work
By Harry Browne



2. The Civil Libertarian

Howard Dean

You stand out because you speak your mind. Basic civil rights are still being fought against the government’s legislation on individual rights. You favor unlimited free speech, the right to bear arms, and the absolute right to individual privacy. You are the NRA’s favorite left-winger. Religion is permissible, but religious groups should not influence government. To appease your base, you may participate in a little bit of "class warfare," although you are moderately pro-business. You believe that the expansions in homeland security have resulted in abuses of power that threaten our civil liberties. We are in Iraq right now because Democrats did what they thought was popular, by authorizing it. The ACLU is necessary in order to protect the constitutional rights of private citizens.

You would enjoy reading:

Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism
by Michelle Goldberg



3. The Capitalist

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Cutting taxes and reducing government spending is the top priority. An individualist at heart, you believe civil liberties should be celebrated. However, you are willing to appease your base by permitting capital punishment and moderately legislating against socially liberal policies, like partial-birth abortion. You believe that illegal immigration hurts the economy, and that high taxes cause unemployment. To solve our addiction to foreign oil, you favor the expansion of oil refineries and drilling within the United States. You believe in free-market environmentalism. Since there is no easy solution to poverty, you believe in the free distribution of wealth.

You would enjoy reading:

Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity
By John Stossel



4. The Anarchist

Michael Albert

As an opponent of authority, you want to overthrow as much government as possible. Concerned about abuses of power, your primary cause is suppressing the government’s institutions of death, be it war or capital punishment. Gun violence can be a hot button issue, but you believe that gun control is generally ineffective. You oppose world government, but you are also skeptical of organized religion.

The Anarcho-capitalist

While capitalism has its evils, you believe that the good outweighs the bad. Unlike the majority on the left, you believe the economy works best in a low-tax environment.

The Anarcho-socialist

Because capitalism is exploitive, you are a market abolitionist, and believe that workers, not entrepreneurs, should manage the economy.

You would enjoy reading:

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance
By Noam Chomsky



5. The Compassionate Conservative

Mitt Romney

Although you hold socially conservative values near and dear to your heart, you seek to find common ground and compromise. You believe that abortion usually has two victims - mother and child. While you won’t flaunt your religious denomination, you will make efforts to maintain your appeal to the conservative base. There's no compromise on rights for terrorists. Therefore, you support most interrogation methods that are being used on enemy combatants. Illegal immigration is a national security issue. You believe that liberal economics have hurt the poor more than they have helped them.

You would enjoy reading:

100 People Who Are Screwing Up America
By Bernard Goldberg



6. The Egalitarian

Ted Kennedy

Your policies drive the progressive base more often then they drive you. Whether it’s judicial nominees, tax cuts, or the invasion of Iraq, you’re the first to speak out. Although you benefit from both, you would rather be caught hugging a tree than a barrel of oil. Without you, senatorial term limits would be a less partisan issue. You are a warrior for the working class, favoring higher wages and safer working conditions. You are committed to bridge the gap between the rich and poor. All people should be treated equally, even those who are accused of heinous crimes. Open immigration is a civil rights issue. You believe that government intervention is necessary to overcome social inequality.

You would enjoy reading:

The Truth: With Jokes
By Al Franken



7. The Majoritarian

Bill Clinton

Most of your positions are based on your core political philosophy, while others are based on public opinion. You won’t compromise on corporate welfare or women’s rights, but you support the death penalty and school choice. It is fundamentally important that we cooperate with the rest of the world. Fair trade will help totalitarian nations become more democratic. While the polls help you position yourself to represent the majority, you might appoint a strong abortion rights advocate from the ACLU on the Supreme Court. While gay rights are a favored cause, you may endorse a Defense of Marriage Act. You are more hawkish than your average progressive, but you believe that the UN is obligated to prevent wars, and should not be overruled.

You would enjoy reading:

The Two Americas: Our Current Political Deadlock And How To Break It
By Stanley B. Greenberg



8. The Fiscal Conservative

Rudy Giuliani

Free enterprise and strong national defense define your loyalty to the conservative movement. You won’t shy away from endorsing strong conservatives as long as they have experience with fiscal policy. To a fair degree, you bridge the gap with thoughtful rhetoric towards those on either side of the aisle, and shy away from mudslinging. Your positions on social issues potentially abandon your conservative base. Favoring gun control, abortion rights, welfare assistance for illegal immigrants, and a Kerry-esque stance on the definition of marriage, you appear as an ardent social liberal. You may not get the endorsement from the NRA or the Christian Coalition. But to those who value national unity over social policy, you win their hearts.

You would enjoy reading:

Wisdom of Our Fathers: Lessons and Letters from Daughters and Sons
By Tim Russert



9. The Traditionalist

Rick Santorum

As a social conservative, you hold nothing back in your political dialogue. While you favor tax cuts, you want to block legislation that promotes the recognition of the sexually unorthodox. Opponents raise their eyebrows when you define state-sponsored Jihad as you see it – Islamic fascism. Because you speak your mind, your favor for debt relief to third world countries goes widely unnoticed by your political rivals. You are driven by your conservative base to increase border security.

You would enjoy reading:

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
By Ann Coulter



10. The Environmentalist

Al Gore

Global warming is the hot-button issue. As a defender of Mother Earth, you are the last person who would buy paper plates at Wal-Mart. You believe that because mankind is careless in nature, it should be governed on all aspects of government, from individual matters to fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts for the wealthy are unjust to the working class. A New Dealer at heart, you have great faith in the power of government. Whether it’s obscenity, gun ownership, or sexually unorthodox behavior, you have an obligation to intervene. You appeal to social conservatives and religious minorities because you support capital punishment and the definition of marriage. You have also opposed partial-birth abortion. While such policies haven’t been predominately adopted by the environmental movement, you are a friend to the ecosystem first and foremost.

You would enjoy reading:

The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity
By James Lovelock



11. The Theoconservative

Jerry Falwell

Everywhere you look, religious freedom is being attacked. Hate crime legislation, chaotic homosexual activists, and the removal of God from the political arena have called you to take a stand for what you believe in. You are threatened by Islamic terrorism, as you cite Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 to justify your support for the war in Iraq. Fiscal policy is hardly an issue. You endorse the Defense of Marriage Act and lobby against Roe v. Wade religiously. You believe the ACLU is a threat to the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

You would enjoy reading:

Above All Earthly Pow'rs: Christ In A Postmodern World
by David F. Wells



12. The Marxist

Susan Sontag

Throughout history, the dominant white race has destroyed Mother Nature and evoked poverty through imperialist injustices. Because Americans had originally taken land through senseless violence, you believe that 9/11 was not an act of cowardice. Religion should be removed from public life. Because marriage is considered a religious institution, you want it abolished. There has never been a true communist nation, because present-day China, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union have turned to state capitalism, nationalism, militant domination rather than distributing goods and services for the common good.

You would enjoy reading:

Phony Communism Is Dead... Long Live Real Communism!
by Bob Avakian



13. The Isolationist

Pat Buchanan

Although you side with the right most of the time, you find yourself in your own world. The neoconservative movement has failed to represent conservatism in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Richard Nixon.

The Crunchy Conservative

While you believe the sexual revolution is destroying the moral fabric of society, you believe that modern conservatism is corrupted by a “capitalism first, conservatism second” mentality. Free markets are productive for society, but they are an imperfect art form, and therefore you favor beauty over efficiency. In other words, government intervention is necessary at times. You might call out GOP-brand conservatives for stereotypes on liberals who promote frugal living and conservation. True conservatism should benefit all forms of life, whether it’s human life, plant life, or animal life.

The Lookout

The two-party system deserves criticism for playing politics more often than they solve our problems. Capital punishment would not be necessary if we took away privileges for prisoners. While you support gun ownership, you also support gun control. You believe the mainstream media has a secular left-wing agenda. Affirmative action should be based on income level, rather than race. Tax cuts are generally good for the economy, and do not discriminate against the working class. There is evidence of support for global warming, although fossil fuels may not be the cause. You appeal to social conservatives and some New Dealer democrats.

The Paleoconservative

While you believe in a low-tax environment, you feel that the patriotic economy is dying because of outsourcing jobs overseas, and “insourcing” – such as guest worker programs. The Republican Party as we know it has given in to world government and open borders. The troops should be patrolling the borders as a measure of national security, rather than fighting in Iraq. At this point in time, we need to reinstate Teddy Roosevelt's "Americanization" policy in order to assimilate immigrants to American culture. At the risk of being perceived as a racist, you often cite how demographics have shaped domestic policy, for better or worse. You believe the “race card” is used as a form of left-wing racism. Native American tribes treated each other much the same way as the European settlers treated them. Occasionally, you favor environmental regulations.

You would enjoy reading:

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
by Michael Savage



14. The Fascist

Seth Tyrssen

The government should dictate all matters of public and private life with an iron fist. Adolf Hitler was not a real fascist. Authoritarianism, nationalism, and environmental protection are the foundations of modern fascist political theory. Religion is a business, and therefore should be stripped of its tax-free status. The best foreign policy is to stay at home. The War in Iraq was fought in the name of corporate interests. It is essential to protect our borders, as well as our natural resources. Immediate deportation for illegal immigrants is necessary to halt the problem. Support for Israel is a religious institution, and is therefore inapt. World government is acting as a monopoly, and the US needs to get out of the UN. First class universal health care is achievable in the long term by cutting foreign aid. To build a robust military, you oppose cuts on military spending.

You would enjoy reading:

One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism
by William Greider

Trust the Art, Not the Artist

On December 8, with the release of Apocalypto, ticket sales will judge how damaging Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst this past summer was for his reputation as an actor, a filmmaker, and yes, a self-professed Christian.

As someone who values safety, it doesn't sound far-fetched to believe that his drunk driving could have been far more catastrophic to society than any anti-Semitic rant. Is it possible that we are missing the big picture?

Hollywood doesn't have a great reputation to begin with. But Shannen Doherty, Keanu Reeves, and (most notably) Andy Dick have all been convicted of a DUI. I could go on all day naming celebrities who have been convicted of DUI if I really wanted to. Rather than face the seriousness of the crime itself, we allowed media satire to get the best of us.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 16,694 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in 2004. That same year, 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Legalizing marijuana won't improve these statistics, nor will ignoring them help.

Now that I have addressed the real problem, it grants me permission to critique Mel's personal and professional life.

Abraham H. Foxman, the National Director for the Anti-Defamation League had "serious concerns" about Mel Gibson's film depicting the crucifixion that would become The Passion of the Christ. He went public with his worries that anti-Semitism would breed as a result of a high-profile director portraying first-century Orthodox Jews as barbarians. He even wrote Mel a personal letter, begging him either to modify the film, or to halt the project altogether.

"Passion plays have an infamous history of leading to hatred, violence and even death of Jews," he writes. "Given your talent and celebrity, how you depict the death of Jesus will have widespread influence on people's ideas, attitudes and behavior towards Jews today."

Mel did very little to fine-tune the bloodbath. His most notable act of self-censorship was taking the subtitles - but not the Aramaic dialogue - out of the "Blood Curse," in reference to Matthew 27:24-25.

To quote the NIV of The Bible, Matthew 27:24-25,

"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man's blood,' he [Pontius Pilate] said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!'"

Some believe the "Blood Curse" should be taken literally as an explanation as to why Jews in particular have suffered from the longest hatred known to man - anti-Semitism.

With that said, does citing Matthew 27:24-25 make Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? No. But it does not exonerate him from the charges, either.

Most reasonable people would agree that the media frenzy over The Passion of the Christ helped Mel more than it hurt him. While much of the Jewish community showed resentment, Rabbi Daniel Lapin and Michael Medved - both Orthoddox Jews - backed the film.

Pope John Paul II offered few words, but needn't elaborate - "It is as it was."

In 2004, The Passion became the eighth highest-grossing film in history, grossing $611,899,420 worldwide. Not bad for a movie that endured endless attacks from the press. Mel owes much of his success to the Christian community, many of whom had not been to a theater in years.

Mel had the world in the palm of his hands. Until recently, millions would not only defend the film, but Mel from apparent character assassinations. That all changed when he spouted out on his anti-Semitic outburst. Would the DUI alone hurt his career? Sure. But the charges of anti-Semitism had been given credibility at last. Mel wasn't your ordinary "sinner."

But should Mel's outrageous behavior tie in with his work? Not exactly.

The Passion of the Christ should continue to have a special place in the heart of its audience. The film changed lives, hearts, and minds, but not as Mr. Foxman predicted. What critics like David Denby and Lou Lumenick fail to acknowledge is that there were Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the cast. Egyptians were not lynched as a result of The Ten Commandments, and neither were Jews as a result of The Passion.

Through the art of film, Christians received a deeper understanding of their spiritual beliefs - more specifically, how brutal was the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. In a secular perspective, the film is a hellish bloodbath, when religions are supposed to teach us to love one another. In a Christian perspective, the entire film is about a man who loved us enough to endure every beating to save mankind from its sin.

The very title of this piece is based on a quote from Bruce Springsteen - "Trust the art, not the artist." While it may be naive to defend Mel's tirade, the film should not be reduced to a nuisance as a result. Rather, Mel might want to turn back to what inspired the film in the first place.

The Emergency Room

Recently, The New York Times went out of its way to bash Pat Buchanan for his book, State of Emergency, which was written about the struggle to face illegal immigration. Before I bash the Sulzberger Sewerpipe, I do want to clarify that I haven't read the book myself, although I've been reading Buchanan's blog.

I can't endorse everything Buchanan advocates for. It puzzles me that he fears whites will obtain minority status in the United States, but he has the ability to think outside of the mainstream. One thing I don't get - why do we want to change the world, but yet we have so much animosity towards those who take on the "extremist" label? It takes an extremist to change the world, for better or worse.

Anyways, here's what the Sulzberger Sewerpipe had to say about this right-wing extremist:

"The doomsayer's torch has lately been grabbed by cultural sentinels like Pat Buchanan, whose new book warns the United States is being reconquered by disease-carrying Latinos. Unless Americans of white European descent can Ziploc the borders and start churning out babies, he says, their age of civilizing domination is done for."

Thankfully, Bill O'Reilly interviewed Buchanan about these menacing accusations. Was it a "fair and balanced" interview? No less than the New York Times article. If O'Reilly did not lean to the right, he would have asked Pat Buchanan why minority status matters.

In any event, Buchanan spoke out in favor of everyone who advocates border security.

"These terms — racist or xenophobe or nativist — that are used on folks that want to secure the border, these are the cusswords of the establishment that has lost the country."

Pat is dead-on. It's gotten to the point where we are distracted from any true form of racism, because we are conditioned to dismiss any cry of "racism," whether it's real or not.

For example, Steny Hoyer used the word "slavishly" to describe Michael Steele's loyalty to conservatism. This is equally as scandalous as George Allen's "mukaka" comment, and equally as inflammatory. Both have apologized, and just like that, we move on.

Memorably, John McCain made headlines within the alternative media for attacking "nativist" elements within the Republican Party, citing Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage as the root cause for the demand for border security.

If the "Turncoat Mole" is right, then give the alternative media credit. Talk radio's impact on the handling of illegal immigration should be applauded, rather than scorned.