The Mack Attack

Thought-provoking clap-trap for the skeptic-minded

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Academy Award Nominations for the 78th Annual Academy Awards.

BEST PICTURE
"Brokeback Mountain""Capote""Crash""Good Night, and Good Luck""Munich"

DIRECTOR
Ang Lee, "Brokeback Mountain"Bennett Miller, "Capote"Paul Haggis, "Crash"George Clooney, "Good Night, and Good Luck"Steven Spielberg, "Munich"

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Capote"Terrence Howard, "Hustle & Flow"Heath Ledger, "Brokeback Mountain"Joaquin Phoenix, "Walk the Line"David Strathairn, "Good Night, and Good Luck"

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Judi Dench, "Mrs. Henderson Presents"Felicity Huffman, "Transamerica"Keira Knightley, "Pride & Prejudice"Charlize Theron, "North Country"Reese Witherspoon, "Walk the Line"

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
George Clooney, "Syriana"Matt Dillon, "Crash"Paul Giamatti, "Cinderella Man"Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain"William Hurt, "A History of Violence"

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Amy Adams, "Junebug"Catherine Keener, "Capote"Frances McDormand, "North Country"Rachel Weisz, "The Constant Gardener"Michelle Williams, "Brokeback Mountain"

January 31, 2006

Answering an evangelical call to arms, Christians will gather in communities across the nation tonight to watch President Bush's State of the Union address. They will invite local media to listen in as they measure Bush's policies against the moral values laid out in the Bible.But don't expect a lot of applause for the president.These "watch parties" are being organized by a small but growing movement of evangelical Christians who no longer want to be defined by gay marriage and abortion. Plumbing the Bible for God's priorities, they are talking instead about global warming and affordable housing, about fewer tax cuts for the rich and more food stamps for the poor."The typical image of evangelicals is that they're concerned with the sanctity of life, the traditional family and that's it — they buy the whole Republican agenda when they vote," said Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, a think tank based in Wynnewood, Pa.Without giving up their opposition to abortion and gay marriage, "they're asking, what [else] does God care about?" Sider said.Citing Jesus' concern for the most vulnerable, evangelicals last month led a protest against a proposed federal budget that would cut deeply into food stamps, subsidized health insurance and student aid.The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Assn. of Evangelicals, has spoken out for clean-air and clean-water policies, arguing that God ordered man to be a good steward of creation. He hears pastors everywhere picking up the theme."It's happening more and more: A Republican hunter from a Southern Baptist church in Oklahoma knows he has a responsibility to the environment," Haggard said. "The community that drives pickup trucks is also learning to drive scooters."It was an evangelical minister, the Rev. Jim Ball, who launched the "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign that made a brief splash promoting hybrid cars in 2003. More recently, Ball and others have been working on a policy statement on global warming.The most liberal voice in the evangelical movement belongs to the Rev. Jim Wallis, author of the book "God's Politics." Wallis heads the advocacy group Sojourners, which is sponsoring the State of the Union parties in 160 communities nationwide. He is not in favor of abortion but opposes criminalizing it; he cannot accept gay marriage but would welcome civil unions.Mostly, though, he doesn't like answering questions on those issues. "It's such a tired conversation," he said.When critics ask him how any issue could be more important than the 1 million lives aborted each year, Wallis challenges them to take a broader view of "pro-life" values. He asks them how many children go to sleep hungry each year, how many sicken because their parents can't afford a doctor, and whether God would approve.He's starting to hear some answers he finds encouraging.At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Wallis spent hours in conversation with the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the mega-bestseller "The Purpose-Driven Life." Warren recently launched a global anti-poverty campaign with the Rev. Billy Graham.The National Assn. of Evangelicals, based in Colorado Springs, Colo., is urging its 30 million members to pursue a "biblically balanced agenda" — by fighting poverty as well as pornography, protecting the environment as well as embryos, promoting good government as well as the Gospel."I would call it the maturing of American evangelism," said sociologist Alan Wolfe, who directs the study of religion and public life at Boston College.Evangelicals emerged as a potent political force in the late 1970s and early '80s with the Rev. Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" crusade on issues such as abortion, gay rights and school prayer.Those campaigns made "evangelical" synonymous with "conservative" in the public eye. In fact, the term has nothing to do with politics. Evangelicals are Christians who have accepted Jesus as their savior (an experience often called being "born again") and who take the Bible as the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed.Bush is an evangelical, as are Democratic former Presidents Carter and Clinton.A decade ago, white evangelicals were fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Today, the group leans heavily Republican. White evangelicals make up 23% of the electorate; in the last election, 78% backed Bush, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.The White House holds weekly conference calls with top conservative evangelicals. Many of these leaders focus on preserving the traditional family; when they dip into issues of poverty and justice, they tend to look abroad. (Recent campaigns have included efforts to bring peace to Sudan, slow the spread of AIDS in Africa and improve human rights in North Korea.)At home, conservative evangelicals tend to argue that the Christian obligation to help the poor is best fulfilled through private charity — such as the Salvation Army — rather than through government action.But that may be starting to change. Scores of religious leaders of all political views convened at the Capitol last month to pray for changes in the budget bill. Led by Wallis, they denounced the cuts in services as immoral and unchristian — and blocked an office building until they were arrested.Pressing the same issue in a quieter manner, all 65 bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America signed a letter urging Congress to reject the proposed cuts. The church, a socially liberal denomination, has 5 million members.Several members of Congress picked up the bishops' terms, referring to the budget as a "moral document." But it's unclear whether issues such as the budget resonate as questions of faith for most Americans.The progressive evangelicals "are starting out 25 years behind," said Corwin Smidt, director of the Paul Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. "They haven't built a mass base of support."Sojourners has 200,000 people on its e-mail list. The American Family Assn., a conservative group heavily focused on abortion and homosexuality, has 3 million. Sojourners hopes to generate several hundred calls to Congress about the budget bill, which is up for a final vote this week. The American Family Assn. got nearly 680,000 members to protest NBC's drama "The Book of Daniel," about a priest struggling with addiction.Social conservatives take those numbers — and victories such as the show's recent cancellation — as proof that they're focusing on the issues most urgent to Christians."Most people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about billions and trillions of dollars," said American Family Assn. President Tim Wildmon. "Abortion? Gay marriage? Everyone understands that."Stephanie Acker, a 20-year-old college student, understands why leaders reach for issues that seem more black and white. But the relentless focus on abortion and homosexuality has made her reluctant to label herself an evangelical — or even a Christian."It has such connotations," she said. "Instead, I say I'm a follower of Jesus."Acker said her reading of the Bible taught her that Jesus cared above all about fighting poverty and injustice. When she has a State of the Union party tonight at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass., Acker will be listening for initiatives to narrow the gap between the poor and the rich.She's hoping to hear that a president who shares her faith also shares her priorities.



ADVANCE COPY: 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

For Immediate Release

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Senators, Representatives.God bless America! [pause for applause]2005 has been a good year, a year in which – despite the ever-present threat of terrorism -- America has grown and thrivened. [applause] We have also weathered many trials: War. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Cindy Sheehan. But we have survived. True, we may have lost some facilities in New Orleans, but we now have vast new tracts of irrigated land. True, many of our better-paying jobs have been outsourced overseas – but over time this trend will lead to decreased illegal immigration into the United States as potential immigrants head for India instead. So, despite the ever-present threat of terrorism, we are now in a position of great strength. Note that I do not claim full credit for this situation. [smile; chuckle here] I think a lot of it has to do with the willingness of Congress to go along with whatever I ask them for, without too much fuss, as long as I sign every spending bill they pass. God bless America! [applause]Of course, there are those who question our policies. This is their right as Americans. Such unpatriotic terrorist-lovers ask, “Why did we invade the most solidly anti-Islamicist nation in the Middle East, only to turn it into the world’s biggest terrorist training ground, soon to annexed by Iran?” They ask, “How could doing this, which only increases support for Islamicists worldwide and prevents us from pursuing actual terrorists and WMD proliferation elsewhere, be considered somehow good for our security? Are you on crack or something?”To these people, I have just one word: Nine. One. One. [applause]Yes, it is all too easy for them to point out that it makes more sense to pursue actual terrorists than to invade nations at random. But the 2001 attacks against the United States proved that, in this post-modern global world, terrorists have no nation and can attack from anywhere. Therefore, it does not matter exactly which nation we invade, or whether we have any intelligence [do NOT chuckle here!] that could justify it. We strike out blindly in the hope that it so confuses the terrorists – or convulses them in gleeful laughter – that they make some kind of mistake. God bless America! [applause]Some have also questioned our policy of ignoring the FISA laws that Congress set up to ensure the protection of our Constitutional freedoms. Such people ask, “Why would spying without a warrant keep us safer than spying with a warrant?” To these people, I answer: We are at war. With terrorists. And terrorists are bad. Very bad. [applause] So I will exercise every power I can to stop any terrorism that might some day be blamed on me. Because that would be tragic. When these same annoying people question whether so much can be justifed by an undelcared “war” unlimited in its definition, scope and duration, they misunderestimate me. I say that we are at war – and that I am entitled to extraordinary powers -- as long as there exists anywhere on earth even one person who harbors an evil thought about the US. In closing, I want to leave you with this thought. Don’t forget that you provide aid and comfort to our terrrorist enemies every time you question whether the War on Terror has anything to do with the following subjects:--invading Iraq. --the unlimited power of the President to make up his own laws. --reforming Social Security. --nominating conservative judges to the Supreme Court. --spending like there was no tomorrow. Because all of my policies, fellow Americans, are essential to the War on Terror. And if you do not support them, then terrorists will come to your homes and kill you and your families. God bless America! [applause]

Thank you, and good night! [shake hands]

Today's Mack Attack is aimed at--big surprise--the Bush administration's very untimely lack of strategic diplomacy.
Anybody catch Sixty Minutes two Sunday's ago? The lead story was about an oil company called Suncor Energy that is mining oil sands--crude oil trapped in sand--in Alberta, Canada. According to the Sixty Minutes segment, Suncor has the potential capacity to mine more Canadian oil than currently exists in all of Saudi Arabia.
Sounds great for the US (One third of NAFTA) doesn't it?
Well, think again. The Bush administration picks just this point in time to pick a fight with Canada.
David Wilkins, the US ambassador to Canada, has challenged Canada's sovereignty to the Northwest passage and other arctic waters which contain over 16,000 Canadian islands. Canada's new conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, not surprisingly, got very pissed. This is where it currently stands.
Never one to miss an opportunity, China is now courting Canada for all that oil. Now I ask you, is this really a coincidence? When is the last time we ever had a beef with our brothers up north? Is the fact that the White House is full of Texas oilmen in tight with the Saudis completely a non-issue here? How about the cozy multi-generational relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family? At the very least it seems monumentally stupid and incredibly untimely.



TORONTO, Jan. 31 -- Stephen Harper, elected January 23 as Canada's prime minister, warned the United States on Thursday to back off from its challenge of Canadian sovereignty in Arctic waters that are fast thawing from global warming.
In the first news conference since his election, Harper upbraided the U.S. ambassador for asserting that the icy polar regions, including the legendary Northwest Passage, are international waters.Canada claims that its archipelago of some 16,000 islands makes that region Canadian territory.
"The United States defends its sovereignty. The Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper said. "It's the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."
The two countries -- as well as Russia -- have had conflicting claims in the Arctic for at least three decades. Harper's Conservative Party has proposed expanding Canada's military presence, building new icebreakers and creating an early warning system to detect other ships, all to enforce its claim of sovereignty.
The Liberal government Harper will replace has made similar claims and proposals. But it was unexpected that Harper would launch a sharp verbal attack against the United States on this subject so quickly, and he extended a press conference announcing his Feb. 6 inauguration to bring it up.
"The changing ice conditions are driving this issue to the top of the political agenda," said Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia.
"We've essentially been able to avoid problems over this in the past because the ice has been too thick and too hard to make it a commercially viable route," Byers said. "But, of course, the ice is melting."
He said that "within the next decade or two, there will be a major international shipping route around the northern side of North America." That will shorten the route for Europe-Asia shippers by 4,000 miles, Byers said, adding that it also presents security concerns as a "backdoor to North America that is wide open."
David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, was quoted Wednesday at a discussion in Ontario as saying, "We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters."

Monday, January 30, 2006

JUST A NOTE:
TO ENLARGE CARTOONS, CLICK ON THEM,
AND THEN CLICK AGAIN ON "OPEN LINK"
THEY WILL ENLARGE AND BE MUCH EASIER TO READ

-g.




DUBAI (Jan. 30) -- Al-Qaida's deputy leader, Ayman al- Zawahri, said he had survived a U.S. air strike targeting him in Pakistan earlier this month, in a videotape aired by Al-Jazeera television on Monday.
The video mentioned a call for a truce issued by al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in an audio tape Al-Jazeera said was recorded in January.
"U.S. airplanes ... launched a raid on a village near Peshawar after Eid al-Adha in which 18 Muslim men, women and children were killed in what they call the war against terror," he said. "They said this was intended to kill myself and four brothers but now the whole world has discovered your lies..."
"I will meet my fate (death) as set by God the Almighty but if my time did not come you [President] Bush or all the powers on earth ... cannot bring it one second closer."
Zawahri appeared in the video dressed in white and speaking directly to the camera in front of a black background. The video carried English subtitles.
U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment.
Zawahri and Saudi-born bin Laden are believed to be hiding in a mountainous area on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Earlier this month, Pakistani intelligence sources said four top al-Qaida militants were believed to be killed in a U.S. airstrike which U.S. officials say was aimed at Zawahri .
The video was Zawahri 's second appearance this month. On Jan. 6, Al-Jazeera aired a video of the al-Qaida deputy leader in which he said the United States was being defeated by Muslim fighters in Iraq.
In this latest video, he again blasted the United States for saying it was gaining the upper hand against militants.
Addressing the American people, Zawahri said bin Laden had offered Bush an "honorable exit" from Iraq but "your leaders' answer was that they do not negotiate with terrorists and that they are winning the war against terrorism."
Bin Laden, in an audio tape aired by Al-Jazeera on Jan. 19, warned that al-Qaida was preparing new attacks inside the United States but said the group was open to a conditional truce with Americans. The White House dismissed his offer.
"Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in failing adventures and push you into a conflict that you are not fit for," he said. "American mother, if you are contacted by the Department of Defense and told that you will receive your son in a coffin, blame it on George Bush."

Jan. 30 - President George W. Bush says the United States would not support a Palestinian government that included Hamas unless the militant group recognized Israel's right to exist.
Bush also urged the Islamist group, which won last week's Palestinian election, to deliver its campaign promises.
"Our message to Hamas is get rid of your arms, disavow terrorism, work to bring what you promised to the people of the Palestinian territories," he told reporters after a meeting with his Cabinet.
"These folks ran on the campaign 'we're going to get rid of corruption' and that 'we're going to provide services to the people' and that's positive," Bush said.
But he stood firm on his refusal to deal with Hamas, which has launched suicide attacks against Israel and whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.
"The Hamas party has made it clear that they do not support the right of Israel to exist and I have made it clear so long as that's their policy that we will not support a Palestinian government made up of Hamas," he said.
Members of the Middle East peace-broking Quartet -- the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and Russia -- were to meet in London later on Monday to discuss whether isolating Hamas politically and financially is the best policy.
Hamas had not been expected to win. Its victory could kill hopes of reviving peace talks with Israel soon and stop Bush from achieving his goal of brokering a settlement that creates two states within the next few years.
On the issue of Iran, Bush said the West was "united in our goal to keep the Iranians from having a weapon, and we're working on the tactics necessary to continue putting a united front out."
Iran insisted on Sunday the only solution to its nuclear dispute with the West was negotiation rather than referral of its atomic dossier to the United Nations Security Council.
Iran, which the United States and other major Western powers suspect is trying to make a nuclear bomb, urged more diplomacy before talks on the issue among the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany in London on Monday.
On the same day, Iran will meet diplomats from Britain, France and Germany -- three European Union powers that have negotiated with Tehran over its nuclear programme -- in Brussels, a Tehran foreign ministry spokesman said.
Bush said on Monday "we're going to continue to work with our friends and allies to present a united front to the Iranians. And the message is: Give up your nuclear weapons ambitions."
Iran, which says its nuclear programme is to make electricity not a bomb, has responded positively to a Russian compromise proposal, also backed by the United States, for uranium to be enriched in Russia instead of Iran.



Today's Mack Attack is aimed at the recent Palestinian elections and how the current US administration is reacting. Allegations ensue that the US (that bastion of democracy force-feeding its altruistic values to scruple-starved republics across the planet) tried to rig the elections by backing the other side monetarily, and failed horribly.

Now that Hamas, an established terrorist organization, has won the election legitimately and democratically, Bush has decided that he will only recognize democratically-elected countries that don't have as their wish, the destruction of Israel. This is definitely a case of two wrongs creating not only more wrong, but a catastrophe. Bush is succeeding in doing what Saddam Hussein tried in vain during the Gulf War: Pairing the US and Isreal militarily against the whole of the Middle East. No Arab country will ever side with Israel, so if we do, it is one step closer to a holy war.

With Isreal's elections less than eight weeks away, Netanyahu, the hardline Zionist, is gaining great strides since the Hamas victory. If he should win, it will not only set Middle East peace talks back 30 years, but almost certainly will mean war between Isreal and Palestine. Real biblical stuff. My questions are these: What will be Iran's role should this happen and where will this put the US? Let's hear what you have to say.

Saturday, January 28, 2006



Greetings. Today's Saturday Editon Mack Attack is aimed at Hollywood.

With honcho flick Brokeback Mountain expected to win Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year and Desperate Housewife Felicity Huffman all but a lock for best (actress?) for her role as a pre-op transvestite in TransAmerica, I ask you, what is the future of the Hollywood machine? As a queer-y to their recent low-profit quandry, I would have them ponder this question:

Is Hollywood really putting out films that appeal to the general public any more or has it become intoxicated by a self-imagined importance in the political arena?

Has George Clooney, with his thinly-veiled political rants on celluloid led the entire industry astray? Are the Academy Awards simply now a forum for inappropriate politicizing a la Michael Moore?

That said, the best film I saw in 2005 was Cinderella Man starring Russell Crowe, which despite a gay-sounding name, was anything but. What was the best film that you saw in 2005?

Friday, January 27, 2006


Sorry, had to skip a couple of days but I'm back and today's Mack Attack is aimed at American software companies who are aiding China in its practice of the subjugation of free speech. With more than 100 million users, the Internet is booming in China.
American Web giants Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have all grabbed a piece of the lucrative Chinese market - but only after agreeing to help the government censor speech on the Web. In providing portals or search engines, all three companies are abiding by the totalitarian government's censorship of certain ideas and keywords, like "Tiananmen massacre," "Taiwanese independence," "corruption" and "democracy." Most foreign news sites are blocked. This year, Yahoo even supplied information that helped the government track and convict a political dissident who sent an e-mail message with forbidden thoughts from a Yahoo account; he was sentenced to 10 years in jail. "Business is business," said Jack Ma, Yahoo's chief in China. "It's not politics."
Microsoft also aided the Chinese government in locating and shuttting down a popular Chinese blogger who dared to criticize the government's fascist policies.But the one who gets the brunt of today's Mack Attack is Google. With our own increasingly-fascist regime knocking on their door with a subpoena for pornogrphy requests linked to their site (Yes Mediaman, I'm on it) Google, fighting the subpoena in federal court, wants to come across as the bastion of free speech advocacy. At the same time, they turn around and agree to censor their own search results for Chinese citizens at the behest of the Chinese government's free-speech restrictions. Google has agreed to omit content in China that the government finds objectionable. It will base its self-censorship on "guidance" from the Chinese government. What hypocrites.
Keep in mind, this is the same government that was reported in Wednesday's Washington Post to be cracking down on free speech in journalism as a whole. Freezing Point, a popular 4-page weekly feature of the state-run China Youth Daily was shut down by Chinese President Hu Jintao for offering alternative perceptions to the state-spewed national view of history. Is the almighty buck worth all this? What are the repercussions? Let's hear what you have to say.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006


Kudos to MediaMan 3000 and Adrion Baird for being the first to comment on my new Blog. Thank you both.

To MediaMan:
Yes, obviously Bush will want to continue his administration's current policies by implanting a like-minded clone, but who do you think it will be? Frist and Delay both look too tainted to try, so who does that leave?

To Adrion:
Specter made his pronouncement in reference to the Democrats' incessant complaining about the NSA's domestic spying initiative. As in, "Well, then do something about it, implement impeachment hearings. Just quit all your whining." It didn't get a lot of coverage outside the DC area although the McLaughlin Group did discuss it. Acording to John McLaughlin, Specter did it so as to say, "Well, if I can't be at the head of the NSA investigations, then I'm out here, free to comment as I wish."

Today's Mack Attack is aimed at The Bruin Alumni Association, a neo-conservative Republican group, who according to the Los Angeles Times, was offering students of UCLA payments of up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies, i.e left-leaning sermonizers.
The year-old Bruin Alumni Assn. says its "Exposing UCLA's Radical Professors" initiative takes aim at faculty "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" list of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes. College professors are being spied upon to make sure what they are saying fits into a regimented, agreed-upon criteria. If not, they are being "listed."
Although today's (1-24-06) LA Times says that BAA claims the payments will stop because they have now become a "distraction to the real problem" because of media attention, 24-year-old Andrew Jones--the group's founder and President-- says his group will continue, using volunteers.
Now I ask you, is this not the clearest example of "Big-Brotherism" meets "HUAC-ism" that you have heard in a while? That is to say, outside of our own government's activities since 2001?
The way I see it, the two are inextricably linked. When respected entities such as the government of the United States can get away with one human rights violation after another to satisfy its own agenda, surely others will take notice and feel free to try and do the same for their own twisted agendas.
Is it just me, or is the very fabric of our liberties and freedoms unraveling before our eyes?
Is this a slippery slope that is gaining momentum?
Let's hear what you have to say.

web page hit counter
Travelocity Discount Travel