Screenplays and the new Bush movie

If you've never sat down and read a screenplay, I highly recommend it. You'll instantly realize why so many people attempt to write one. Not only does it appear exceedingly easy to compose -- at its simplest form, a screenplay consists of dialogue and set descriptions -- but it's also very enduring. The idea of putting dialogue and action down on paper while imagining how it would play out on screen is fascinating. I would suggest reading any easy piece first, one that is very dialogue-driven, such as Pulp Fiction. It's a quick read, and a good example of how a really clever and original plot can unfold into an incredible movie.

Anybody reading a script for the first time will also be surprised by how boring it may seem. It's not anything like reading a book, where readers expect extreme levels of scene setting, dialogue and character development to keep the plot flowing and the story interesting. In a screenplay, the dialogue is often short -- you don't want to bore the audience with actors talking and talking and talking -- and a lot of the character characteristics in terms of mannerisms, styles of speech, etc. are left up to actors. I'm no expert, and I've never worked on a movie, but from what I've read actors generally don't like to be told how to act by screenwriters.

I bring this up because last night I read the first few pages of Oliver Stone's movie "W." The pages were apparently leaked on the Web and posted by Hollywood Reporter. A bunch of movie-related sites have the entire script and are weighing in, trying like to me to figure out whether it sucks or not. It's hard for me to tell directory from a script whether a movie will be a dud; I just don't have the experience needed for such judgments. But from my limited perspective, the dialogue seems trite and obvious, and the scenes appear unrealistic (a scene of Bush and his inner circle sitting in a room trying to think of the right term for "Axis of Evil" is one example. More likely, a speechwriter just thought of it while working on the State of the Union).

Anyway, you be the judge. The leaked part of the script is here. Take a look; it's only a few pages long. Tell me what you think. I'm interested in more perspectives.

Other impressions are here.

So I guess this means Jesus wasn't a cross-dresser

Did you know that having fun is an abomination of God? I sure didn't!

In a mind-blowing depiction of typical fundamentalist Christian paranoia, a religious-based radio station in Wisconsin went raving insane over a local elementary school's "Wacky Week," of which one day was dedicated to dressing as the opposite sex:

REEDSBURG, Wis. (AP) - An elementary-school event in which kids were encouraged to dress as members of the opposite gender drew the ire of a Christian radio group, whose angry broadcast prompted outraged calls to the district office.

Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week. On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.

A local resident informed the Voice of Christian Youth America on Friday. The Milwaukee-based radio network responded by interrupting its morning programming for a special broadcast that aired on nine radio stations throughout Wisconsin. The broadcast criticized the dress-up day and accused the district of promoting alternative lifestyles.

Citing what can only be a recently discovered section of the Bible that bans playing dress-up, the radio station's program director managed to connect harmless cross-dressing with an insult to God and family values and any other buzz issues currently popular among modern religious agitators. Of course, the program director didn't have the guts to just come out and say he's a backwoods homophobe, so he blamed the Bible. Typical.

"We believe it's the wrong message to send to elementary students," said Jim Schneider, the network's program director. "Our station is one that promotes traditional family values. It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error."

I think it's in great error that you're such a raving lunatic. The core of Biblical values? So you're telling me that of all the alleged ideals of the Christian tradition -- morality, forgiveness, charity, etc. -- that preventing people from dressing like the opposite sex is the most important? Fucking. Wow.

Note to Jim Schneider: You're not doing yourself any favors in the conversion department.

I make the mistake of talking about gun rights

I'm so incredibly conflicted on gun rights that I rarely weigh in. The amount of data floating around is intimidating, and each side of the argument can cite mountains of evidence to support their respective opinions. The debate as I see it is at a virtual stalemate, often ruled by hysteria from both sides. It gives me a headache. But I'm making an exception, briefly, to opine on the passing of Charlton Heston.

I have no doubt Charlton Heston was a good family man. I have no doubt he was a great actor, or an accomplished advocate for civil rights. I have no doubt that Heston genuinely believed in freedom and acceptance and the American spirit of democracy. I have no doubt of these things, yet I can't help but remember he was also the figurehead of an organization that rabidly supports the dissemination of deadly firearms and opposes efforts to address the problem of gun violence in this country. That's not the liberal talking; that's cold reality.

I'm not saying guns should be banned, as I'm of the opinion that the government should rarely be in the business of babysitting the populace. But how "well-regulated" is this supposed militia when thousands die each year from gun violence? I don't buy the notion that we are somehow safer when more people own guns, or that Johnny Psychopath stockpiling AR-15 assault rifles in some backwoods Idaho compound will be our savior when the shadow government decides it's time for fascism. I have no doubt he'd come out guns ablaze with an American flag wrapped around his furrowed brow -- and his cause would be just -- but he'd probably run into problems against the incredible fist of the government. The citizens of this country have a problem when it comes to revolting against totalitarianism, and it's called the U.S. Army. So no, I don't think our democracy depends on my right to own a handgun.

And lest we forget that the National Rifle Association held its annual rally in Denver just 10 days after two teenagers used several firearms to wreak havoc 10 miles away at Columbine High School -- 13 dead, 23 wounded in just under an hour. As the parents of the slaughtered children were still reeling from the massacre, the frothing freedom-fighters at the NRA -- Heston included -- thought it prudent to hold a rally to celebrate the greatness of guns.

Of course, some argue that the organization had no choice but to hold the rally, as it was planned long in advance. That may be, but Heston wasn't required to give a self-righteous speech at this "mandatory" gun rally that consisted of him mocking the mayor for requesting that the group stay away while the community healed its own wounds. I guess it didn't dawn on Heston that it might be in bad taste to hold a pro-gun rally near a city that had just experienced one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. His glaring error in judgment and lack of respect gives me pause as I consider fawning media accounts of his life. Yes, he did a lot of good, but like many good people he was not infallible.

The bottom line is that gun violence is a problem in this country. Obviously banning weapons isn't the answer, but we are so wrapped up over the hysteria of the debate that nobody seems willing to find a middle ground. Meanwhile, the death toll just keeps rising.

I wonder

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton report nearly $109.2 million in income for seven years in newly released tax data.

The Democratic presidential candidate and her husband paid $33.8 million in taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.

Clinton has been under pressure to release her tax returns, especially from rival Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week. Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain have made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.

I wonder what would happen if, just once, a poor or middle-class person were elected president.

In politics we trust

An article in Politico today raises an interesting question for John McCain: Can he take the presidency without the Rove-inspired focus on religion that catapulted the faithful to the polls for George W. Bush? According to the article, McCain rarely talks about his religious beliefs on the campaign trail, instead focusing on his military service and love affair with America. Sometimes the public is lucky enough to see him inadvertently show his true colors (bomb Iran) or accidentally leak his stance on an issue.

As such, the article says, McCain is from the old school where religion is a personal matter and nobody else's business, thank you. Personally, I think that attitude makes sense because religious factors should be utterly meaningless when it comes to public policy. What's good for the Buddhists is not necessarily good for the Christians. The president is theoretically supposed to represent all Americans, so vocally stumping a Christian God while running for the office is distasteful, unethical and obsequious.

Unfortunately, this is politics we're talking about, so inevitably religion will become part of the conversation eventually. McCain was throttled by Mike Huckabee in early primaries in terms of evangelical support, and the jury's still out on whether the ultra-faithful will back McCain in the general. If the opinion of insane leaders is any indication of McCain's support among the rabidly religious, I'd say he's not in great shape. Recently, James Dobson of the fascist-minded Focus on the Family accused him of "fracturing" the Republican Party. If you're wondering why that's significant, Focus on the Family has a membership of roughly 220 million angry zealots.

What does this all mean? Well, considering that the religious vote is still essentially up for grabs, expect faith to become a major issue after Obama wins the nomination (see what I did there?) McCain will get over his cold feet about religion in a big hurry when he realizes he's running against a giant money-maker who has no qualms about talking Jesus in a public setting. Also, he's a Democrat, which means he won't be invading any foreign nations, and that already gives McCain an automatic underdog status.

In a way, I think the flap with Obama's pastor actually helps him against McCain. Sure, the pastor is a firebrand who alienates many white voters, but at least now the entire nation knows Obama goes to church. Think about it: Obama's campaign is suddenly defined by religion since Pastorgate. McCain's campaign is still defined by his gruesome experience in Vietnam. That potentially sets up the ultimate battle this fall: Religion vs. Patriotism. Which do you think will win?

Democracy: Going through the motions

Congress has a quirky pastime that involves dragging ultra-rich business executives into small Capitol rooms, grilling them publicly for making such obscene amounts of money on the backs of Americans, and then calling it a job well done. As Steven Mufson from The Washington Post points out: "It's becoming a rite of spring."

This hollow, meaningless process serves a dual purpose. It conveys the illusion to the American people that Congress actually cares that a few top CEOs make billions of dollars while the average citizen struggles to fill his gas tank, and it allays the anger temporarily as the public is fooled into believing something is being done, when in reality it's just more smoke, mirrors and rhetoric. In the end, Congress has neither the guts nor the clout to regulate CEO salaries; after all, re-elections don't pay for themselves.

Periodically, the target of these hilarious bouts of outrage are the leaders of our nation's bloated oil industry. The arguments are fairly predictable: Congress accuses the oil industry of economic tomfoolery as company profits rise astronomically with the price of gasoline; the oil industry responds thusly: "It's business. Also, it's your fault for regulating offshore drilling and restricting our right to decimate the environment." Both sides squabble meaninglessly, and the cycle starts all over again.

On Tuesday, lawmakers had a grand old time reaming top officials from the country's five largest oil companies, with moments of complete jaw-dropping hilarity. According to the Associated Press, Democratic lawmakers hounded the executives for their lack of investment in alternative energy, namely wind and biofuels. Are you fucking kidding me? These lawmakers actually expect executives making billions of dollars to willingly invest in technology that would cut their profits? Right. The world's supply of oil will dry up far before greed ever does. Asking the oil companies to create renewable energy is a classic fox-in-the-henhouse scenario. Clearly, the time for asking nice is over -- it's time to legislate. Force oil companies that are reaping the benefits from our land to prepare for the inevitable day when the oil will be gone. Cut demand and prices will follow.

Back at the hearing, while the Democrats lived in their fantasy world where rich people willingly destroy themselves, the Republicans snatched the opportunity to continue the nation's ridiculous dependence on oil by suggesting we simply give the companies more land. No word yet on how that solves the whole nonrenewable problem, but the sad truth remains: If Americans really want a quick fix to high gas prices, increasing the supply is the way to do it. As oil-rich nations around the world grow increasingly unstable, it's important for our oil-dependent nation to have viable, stable access to crude. That is, until we sever our reliance on this devil substance altogether. But why would an oil executive want that to happen?

The most infuriating part of the whole hearing was the oil executives' ability to emerge looking like the victims. Even though it's Americans who are paying the record gas prices and the oil companies making the record profits, the executives had the audacity to complain about their tax liability and limited access to energy supply. These companies made $123 billion in profit last year. How exactly does that equate to suffering? How does billions in profit demonstrate too much restriction on the industry?

Congressional hearings. Oil executives. Billions in profit. It's all a big free market joke. Except nobody is really laughing anymore.

Prayers from a jail cell

I was overjoyed to find out yesterday that two parents serial child abusers over at the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City were charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment for watching as their young daughter slowly died of treatable illnesses. I've been at home, scouring through the Bible, trying to find the part about God's approval of murder by proxy. Didn't really find any of that, but I did see plenty in here about healing the sick:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
-- Matthew iv, 23—24.

You'd think this would be an open-and-shut case, except for one hitch: The parents were praying as their toddler suffered bacterial pneumonia, a blood infection and a benign cyst in her neck that was never removed. Because these parents bowed their heads in prayer instead of, say, doing meth in their garage as the child succumbed, every religious-rights sap in the nation will be screaming injustice at the charges.

It's mind-boggling how backward this country's legal system can be when it comes to religious rights. For instance, several people have been shot down by the courts when they tried to argue that drugs were an essential part of their religious beliefs, and thus they have the Constitutional right to use them (marijuana for Rastafarians, for instance). Yet for years these religious zealots in Oregon have had free reign to refuse even basic medical attention for their dependent children -- resulting in excruciating deaths in the name of religion. For a society that is so divided on abortion, it's strange that we have allowed a church to devalue life so much.

As for the religion-Constitution connection, Dmitri Tymoczko has some interesting tidbits in the Atlantic:

The reasoning behind decisions that uphold the right to use drugs in a religious context is obvious: drugs play an important, even essential, role in the practice of many religious groups; the Constitution protects the free exercise of religious belief; therefore the Constitution protects the use of drugs. The reasoning behind decisions that reject the same right is that religious action, unlike religious belief, is not absolutely protected by the Constitution. The distinction was definitively articulated by Justice Owen Roberts in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). "The [First] Amendment," he wrote, "embraces two concepts--freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." Thus the law, though it does not seek to prevent people from having certain religious beliefs, may prevent them from acting on those beliefs. Courts have held, for instance, that prohibitions on polygamy apply to Mormons, and that even Christian snake-handling sects are subject to regulations controlling the treatment of dangerous animals. Since taking drugs is an action, it is thus subject to government regulation.

Basically, as the article states, anybody can subscribe to a religion. But that person can't have eight wives (Mormon) or violate animal-rights laws and sacrifice a goat to the devil (Satanism). And he damn sure shouldn't be able to willingly kill a child. And besides, this is a toddler we're talking about. She was far too young to independently fulfill basic needs, let alone worship a God.