March 25, 2004 by s.z.

Starsky and Christ.  They're Cops Police interogators can forget the rubber hoses and the bright lights in the face, because nothing elicits confessions like The Passion of the Christ.  'Passion of Christ' moves man to confess to murder RICHMOND - Detectives say the death of a 19-year-old woman originally ruled a suicide has turned into a murder case after a repentant man who'd watched The Passion of the Christ confessed to killing her because she was carrying his child. Fort Bend County Sheriff's Detective Mike Kubricht said today that investigators thought Ashley Nicole Wilson had hanged herself in January. Earlier this month, however, 21-year-old Dan R. Leach of Rosenberg turned himself in after watching Mel Gibson's controversial movie about the last hours of Christ's life and Leach decided to seek redemption, Kubricht said. And of course, last week there was 'Passion' Causes Bank Robbery Confession James Anderson confessed this week to a 2001 bank robbery before Palm Beach County Sheriff's office detectives. Anderson said he was motivated to come clean after seeing the hit movie. Sheriff's Commander Diane Carhart said that in December 2001, Anderson, then 51, rushed into a Palm Beach Gardens bank, grabbed an employee and forced tellers to hand over more than $25,000. On Tuesday he walked into the sheriff's office and told Detective Gary Martin: "I have to confess to a bank robbery I committed . . . I just saw the most wonderful movie - it moved me." Palm Beach Gardens Sgt. Richard Geist, who interrogated Anderson, had another explanation. "This guy thinks he has prostate cancer, and he's looking for medical attention that he doesn't have to pay for," Geist said. Well, despite what the cyncial police sergeant said, I still think it was the movie that made Anderson confess.  I am a tough opponent of crime (along with George Bush I've been known to shout, "Villains, I say to you now: knock off all that evil!").  So, it's my recommendation that law enforcement start forcing suspects to watch the movie until they incriminate themselves.  Sure, the bleeding heart liberal courts will rule that it's cruel and unusual, and that it violates some damned ammendment or something, but can we, as a society, afford to worry about quibbles when we are at war AND have criminals roaming our streets? But it's true that The Passion can be dangerous, and so it should be used judiciously.  'The Passion of the Christ' claims another victim A Brazilian pastor recently breathed his last while watching Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of The Christ". [snip] Meanwhile, the pastor's friends said his death was a coincidence and had nothing to do with the violent scenes showing Jesus being savagely beaten by Roman legionnaires. Incidentally, this is the second death related to the film reported worldwide. Earlier, Peggy Law Scott, 57, fainted during the crucifixion scenes in a movie theater in Wichita, Kansas last month. She was taken to a hospital and later died from a heart attack. So, clearly the film is a powerful tool which shouldn't be used on the elderly or those with weak hearts.  But the September 11 Commission might try employing it on a young, healthy, and possibly mendacious Condi Rice. 11:47:40 PM

Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time Presidents You heard about Bush's insensitive remarks at the Radio and TV Correspondent's Dinner last night?  Well, it turns out the whole thing was Clinton's fault.  For, you know, having had oral sex in the White House. Here are a couple of NRO Corner posts on the topic: KILLJOYS UNITED [KJL] I actually agree with RP. You mention lowering the office. During the Clinton years, we already had the distinct impression Clinton took the presidency at times with all the seriousness of a spoiled, drunk college kid, and those dinners only encouraged him. Bush has restored dignity to the White House (come on, try to deny that) and, yes, is leading a global war against terrorism. He has a natural, endearing humor, that comes out near as often as he talks--when appropriate. And so why have to perform, there are a ton of other things he'd be better off doing. And, besides, those of us who slave away and yet don’t get invited to these dinners get a little perturbed watching it on C-SPAN. Is it really necessary? Posted at 06:45 PM I saw the performance on Fox News, and wasn't a bit jealous about not being there.  In fact, having to pretend to have found the slide show entertaining would have given me a headache.  The only slightly amusing comment was the one about everybody being worried about Dick Cheney since he started claiming to get instructions from a wee, invisble man -- but that was funny because it's true. And yeah, I deny that Bush has restored dignity to the White House.  Because if we're talking about spoiled, drunken, college kid Presidents, it's not Clinton who comes to mind. [Obligatory Simpsons homage: Radio host Birch Barlow: " . . .our President, the illiterate, tax-cheating, wife-swapping, pot-smoking, Spend-ican, Diamond George Bush. Bush: Hey, I no longer smoke pot!] But I agree that instead of performing, he should spend his time doing the things he's good at -- such as dressing up, clearing brush, chopping wood, reading to children, and playing video games.  And maybe he could debate Kerry -- that would allow his natural, endearing humor to come out, and the "Bushisms" industry to show an increase in jobs. But let's hear from Michael Graham: THE PRESIDENT'S ZANY COMEDY ANTICS [Michael Graham] I just got a call from CNBC asking me to come on tonight and defend President Bush's comedy routine at the Radio and TV Correspondent's Dinner last night. CNN just took a shot at the president on this as well, and Nancy Pelosi is piling on, too. It's clearly going to be the media-generated Scandal Of The Moment. Well, I was at the dinner and CNN's Barbara Starr is right: The President got big laughs with his "Where are the weapons" routine. The reason people laughed isn't because he was making light of war, but rather he was making fun of himself. The photos make him look silly, and his willingness to mock himself over his handling of the WMD issue makes him look self-deprecating and strong. Can anyone imagine President Clinton doing a "Where's the intern" joke at one of these press dinners? Bush knows it's an issue and he took the comedic punch. As a former comic, I say "hear, hear!" Posted at 04:48 PM Ha, ha, that wacky Bush -- he's mocking himself and his fake casus belli!  Or is he just mocking those who care about the lack of WMDs and worry about why we went to war with a nation which posed no threat to us? I'm not a former comic, but I didn't think Bush's remarks made him look self-deprecating and strong.  I thought they made him look like a jerk.  But I admire Graham's faith in the power of levity, and his belief that if only Clinton had cracked a joke at a press dinner about his indiscretion with an intern, he would have looked both likeable and strong, and the whole Lewinsky thing could have been chalked up to an "oopsie."  You know, just like Bush's lack of WMDs. 8:23:29 PM

Bad Drugs and the Innocent Radio Demagogues They Prey Upon Slate has an interesting article about how the media is spreading the myth of an epidemic of innocent grandmas and Sunday School teachers who inadvertently become addicted to OxyContin when their criminal doctors prescribe this horribly addictive drug for their pain.  The piece also explains how these myths help to keep real pain sufferers from getting the relief they need.  Here are a couple of paragraphs: In fact, the entire OxyContin "epidemic" is based on a false narrative that asserts that the majority of OxyContin addicts begin as drug-naive pain patients. The cop the Sentinel profiled was actually a typical Oxy addict—a prior drug user—but his real story wasn't what they wanted. If Bloodsworth had been looking for that, she would have noted that government data shows that 90 percent of OxyContin abusers have also taken cocaine, psychedelics, and other prescription painkillers.  Readers would have been informed that investigators specializing in prescription drug abuse say the typical OxyContin addict has a lengthy history of multiple-drug abuse. The paper also would have highlighted that addiction is the exception, not the rule, among people exposed to opiates. Studies consistently show that pain patients taking opiates are no more likely to become addicts than people in the general population (i.e., exposure alone does not cause addiction). That is to say, only between 1 percent and 20 percent of people in the general population experience a period of addiction to some substance, depending primarily on characteristics such as age, stress, family history of addiction, and mental illnesses. (Depression, manic depression, and schizophrenia all dramatically affect one's risk of addiction.) If you rule out prior abusers, the rate settles at the low end, in single digits. (Rush Limbaugh may be one such example, though we still don't know anything about his possible prior drug use.) Well, while Rush may or may not have a history of abusing other drugs, I think the possibility of mental illness also has to be considered.  You know, if Roy Black wants to keep maintaining that his client is a victim of forces beyond his control. 7:06:54 PM

Some Good News from the BBC Monty Python's film The Life of Brian is to return to US cinemas next month following the success of The Passion of the Christ. The Biblical satire will be re-released in Los Angeles, New York and other US cities to mark its 25th anniversary. Adverts will challenge Mel Gibson's blockbuster with the lines "Mel or Monty?", "The Passion or the Python?" Distributor Rainbow said it hoped the film would "serve as an antidote to all the hysteria about Mel's movie". It was condemned as blasphemous before its original release, although Monty Python said it was intended as a spoof on Bible films and intolerance rather than Christianity. Like I said, this is good news.  But in this age of remake-fever, isn't a new version of the film inevitable?  So, my question is, who is going to play Biggus Dickus this time? 6:45:22 AM

Plagiarism and Delusions of Grandeur, Respectively Poor Ann Coulter.  With no war amputees to malign or Muslims to insult, this week she's reduced to plagiarizing Richard Aldrich.  Which is just as sad as Doug Giles plagiarizing Dennis Miller, but not as entertaining. And speaking of Dennis, he's getting work performing at birthday parties, so things are looking up for him: George H. Bush, turning 80 on June 12, is having his party at Houston's Minute Maid Park - seating capacity 40,950 - where the baseball Astros play. Performers will include the Oak Ridge Boys, Amy Grant, Dennis Miller and more. Larry King and Chris Evert will be there. Truly a great assemblage of second-raters. Next day, Papa Bush will make a parachute jump, a thing he does now and then.  Wouldn't it be cool if George H. made the jump dressed like Elvis?  And do Secret Service agents have to jump with him -- if so, it would be cool if they dressed up too.  But all in all, this could be a nice little family birthday party, even if Bush padre is hijacked in midair.  I wonder if Neil and his new bride, whom Neil met and had an adulterous relationship with while she was working in Mother Barbara's office, are invited? Anyway, back to Ann.  Here's part of her latest column-- it's about Richard Clarke being a big loser/nobody (takes one to know one, Ann) whom we should all ignore because it's obvious that Clinton was behind 9/11, in that he probably personally plotted the attack with bin Laden and Saddam.  Oh, and the fact that Clarke got to be on "60 Minutes" is proof positive that the media is part of the commie/traitor liberal cause, because crackpot Gary Adlrich never got to plug his book the way he wanted. As long as we're investigating everything, how about investigating why some loser no one has ever heard of is getting so much press coverage for yet another "tell-all" book attacking the Bush administration? When an FBI agent with close, regular contact with President Clinton wrote his book, he was virtually blacklisted from the mainstream media. Upon the release of Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access" in 1996, White House adviser George Stephanopoulos immediately called TV producers demanding that they give Aldrich no airtime. In terms of TV exposure, Aldrich's book might well have been titled "No Access Whatsoever." [snip] In contrast to Aldrich's book, which was vindicated with a whoop just a few years later when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, many of Clarke's allegations were disproved within days of the book's release.  "The many of Clarke's allegations" that were disproved, are, per Ann, that Condi Rice couldn't have appeared to have never heard of al Qaeda, because she had used the phrase before on TV.  So, obviously Clarke is lying about her face.   As for Aldrich's book being vindicated by the Lewinsky scandal -- in a word and a whoop, hell no!  Aldrich claimed that Clinton frequently visited the Marriott hotel, to have sex in a room rented by a woman who "may be a celebrity."  After Aldrich's source for the story publicly stated that it was just a rumor he'd heard, Aldrich backed off, saying that he'd never been sure about it, but that Regnery insisted he include it to sex up the book.   Thus, if Aldrich reported a malicious rumor about Clinton having an affair in a Washington hotel with a woman who might be a celebrity, and it later turns out that he was getting blow jobs from an intern in the Oval Office study, then I'd hardly call that vindication.  But yes, it's true that Aldrich was never on "60 Minutes" -- nor was the author of this conservative item, which surely proves something.  (Seriously, you should check out the link -- I think a major cover-up in going on.) But anyway, let's look at Gary Aldrich's latest column: In a CBS 60 Minutes exclusive interview, Richard Clarke, a 30-year professional and White House insider on terrorism policy, lambasted the Bush Administration for inadequately preventing and properly handling the 9/11 crisis. A few short years ago, another White House insider, also a 30-year professional and expert on national security matters, quit his job and wrote a book about the failures he witnessed while on the job. That’s where the similarities between Richard Clarke and me end. Gary, don't lie to the nice people.  You were never an "expert on national security matters" -- you were a mid-level FBI agent who was wrapping up an undistinguished career in white collar crime, and was given a "retirement in place" liaison assignment at the White House.  Your job was to help WH personnel get security clearances, not to advise the President on wars and stuff.  You show your pathology (bitter envy of and hatred for your betters) when you equte yourself with Clarke, who was a cabinent member. In 1996, Unlimited Access – An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, hit every major bookstore, causing a firestorm of protest from the Clinton Administration.  This was expected.  My book was highly critical of Clinton’s track record on national security, and very unsympathetic to Clinton’s staff, who I found to be a crude, classless bunch of hippy leftovers from the Sixties. Yes, that was the gist of your book, wasn't it, Gary?  That the Clinton staffers were lousy hippies who never properly respected you, an FBI agent from the Jack Webb school.     And yes, you can stop whining -- we will concede that you didn't get invited to all the big talk shows like Clarke has.  Yes, even though Clarke was a major player in the the very, very important events he talks about in his book, and you were just "the hired help" who wrote wild stories about Hillary having a secret Christmas tree decorated with condoms and drug paraphenalia, it must be media bias that accounts for the fact that Clarke is getting all the news show play, why you got very little. But you did get to be on ABC's "This Week With David Brinkley," didn't you, Gary?  Here's a little reminder about that media appearance: He had been told on the air that David Brock, who was also working on a book about the Clinton White House, had acknowledged that he was the source of the Marriott story, but had claimed that he had told Aldrich that it was just a wild rumor. Aldrich was shocked, first, because Brock had told him he believed the story was true, and second, because they had agreed never to tell anyone that they had exchanged information  So, you can't say you were ignored completely by the news show circuit.  And later you got a whole chapter in David Brock's book Blinded by the Right.  Sure, it wasn't a NICE chapter, but it was coverage.  Oh, and  Linda Tripp said that your getting a book deal for your whining, tattle-taling, and rumor-monger was what inspired her to seek out literary agent Lucianne Goldberg -- and the later results of that collaberation were roundly reported by ALL of the media.  So, you've had your 15 minutes of infamy, and also got your revenge on the hippies and their President.  But that's not enough, is it? I was trying to reach – the millions of Americans who receive most of their opinion-forming information from television news – was closed to me.  I was never able to re-establish my credibility with these millions, because the networks prevented me any airtime to do so. And since everyone has a Constitutional right to appear on the network news, but you were cheated out of yours, you were rooked out of the credability which was due to you.  What a damned shame.  And curse that Richard Clarke, for stealing your glory!  And curse that Ann Coulter, for stealing your column!  Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be a weasel. 5:47:49 AM