100% All-Natural Composition
No Artificial Intelligence!

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Bill Clinton to get third term? Pray it doesn't happen... for his own sake.

This story is bat guano. It'll be a cold day in H-E-double toothpicks before the Republicans grant this concession (and they'd be showing themselves to be the biggest hypocrites after how they went after him in '98). But I'm wondering what would happen if the way was opened up for this, and if he did run and win. From NewsMax.com so take it with a grain of salt:
Saturday, Jan. 22, 2005 8:36 p.m. EST

Strategists Eyeing Deal for Clinton Third Term

Political strategists are reportedly pondering a deal that would allow Bill Clinton to run for president again by getting Republicans to agree to a change in the constitutional ban on third terms.

Calling it "a long shot," U.S. News & World Report says the deal would work like this: "Congressional Democrats will OK a constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president if Republicans help kill the 22nd Amendment."

"Right now it's the talk among political strategists," says the magazine's Washington Whispers section. "But look for it to spread on Capitol Hill when Sen. Orrin Hatch reintroduces his plan to let naturalized citizens run for president after 20 years."

Clinton himself has boasted that he "could be re-elected" one more time...

Funny that I'm reading about this now (if it's true that is) 'cuz this morning my wife and I got into a conversation about the current state of things, and how - loathe that we were to admit it - in a buncha ways the Clinton years were a lot better time than we've got now. I shared something with her that I've really come to believe in, now that Clinton's been out of office long enough and there's been time for contemplation: Bill Clinton did a lotta things that messed up this country, and diminished our capacity for self-defense. Not to mention the maybe irreparable damage he brought to the office of President because of what he did with that intern and a cigar.

But in hindsight, I believe that Bill Clinton gave as good a performance in the capacity of President as he was able to muster. Will even go so far to say that - and this is going to become increasingly obvious as the years go by - that Bill Clinton was a very flawed man that came in the way of what might actually be a very sincere heart. What might inherently be a good heart, even.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick (he should have served hard prison time a loooong time ago if true... and there's plenty of evidence that it did occur). And selling out a lot of our national security to communist China (which in olden days would have had him in front of a firing squad for treason). And the inordinately long list of people associated with the Clintons that have died under suspicious circumstances. And the handling of the Elian Gonzalez incident. And his administration's botching the Branch Davidian thing at Waco (David Koresh could have easily been picked up anywhere on the street away from the compound: instead it had to be a "show of force" by the government). And all the other women who've come out over the years with claims and corroboration that Clinton sexually violated them. And the Arkansas prison blood scandal. And the rampant cronyism. And his use of the IRS to harass and intimidate political enemies. And his betraying his oath of office and the sanctity of the law that he long ago pledged to serve by lying under oath. And literally dozens (hundreds?) of other things that if committed by the average American citizen, would in a sane world have either landed him in prison or driven him to madness and suicide.

And let's face it: anyone who let's their Christmas tree be decorated with condoms, drug needles and sex toys is obviously suffering from a diseased mind. That would be disturbing behavior for anyone... but when it's the President of the United States doing that in our White House... well, you get the point.

On issues, I couldn't have disagreed more with the guy. I'm very strongly pro-2nd Amendment, while Clinton wanted more handgun control. He's pro-fetucide (sorry, I just don't see how it can be called "pro-choice" at all) and I'm adamantly pro-life. He supported NAFTA and I saw back then that we would come to regret it.

I do not like, or have ever approved or appreciated, the things that Bill Clinton did as President. Back in the day, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who was more looking forward to his impeachment: I'll readily admit to literally praying that if God was so willing, that He would see Clinton taken out of office. By force, if necessary.

Did I hate Bill Clinton? Yeah... yeah, I think I did. I know I did. But I don't know if that was a hatred of the things he did, or a hatred that was just projected onto Clinton out of frustration and exasperation that he'd be so stupid as to led a life like this and then let it wash over the rest of us. But so far as pure hatred or fear goes for the man himself... it doesn't seem like that was ever there, looking back from today.

Everything wrong that Clinton did, he should be held accountable for committing them. I wouldn't want to see harm come to anyone, even if called for by the rule of law... but his entire term in office was one long begging for the rule of law to be acted upon. Making him answer for his misdeeds would have reinforced the belief that ours is a nation of laws and not men. But it wasn't. It was ignored out of political expedience... on both sides of the aisle! And I can see where the failure to prosecute Bill Clinton as any other American might have been from similar acts has only served to make not just the executive branch, but the entire government far more removed and less answerable to the American people and the law that they do still adhere to.

All that said, and even knowing that he more than likely deserves more punishment than most people... I feel sorry for Bill Clinton. Because I've also seen a lot of things in his life to make me think that there's a good person in there, somewhere, that has never known how to come out.

This is a man who was born into dire poverty and grew up in a town so criminal, it never occured to most residents that it's biggest industry was illegal gambling run by the Mafia. His natural father was killed three months before Clinton was born and his step-father was an alcohol-enraged compulsive gambler who regularly abused Clinton's mother and half-brother. By every indication, Clinton was a young man bereft of any real love or chance to escape for something better. But when it did come, he poured every iota of passion and effort into its pursuit.

Unfortunately, while it's one thing to escape your circumstances, it's quite another to escape your wounds. Sooner or later they must be confronted. And instead of forcing himself to do that, Clinton ran away from it and threw himself into his ambitions and abilities that much more.

And then, however much wrong he had done already was compounded by another tragedy. Perhaps the worst mistake that Bill Clinton ever did with his life: he met and married Hillary Rodham.

You'd have to be either very blind or willingly stupid to not see that Hillary Clinton only married her husband because she saw that he "was going places" and had to attach herself to him. Hillary wanted power and Bill was the vehicle she intended to ride to a helluva lot of it. And when he had outlasted his usefulness to her and she was where she wanted to be... well, how many times since he left office have we really seen Bill and Hillary together? We see plenty of Hillary nowadays: as New York's Senator, as a possible Presidential candidate in 2008... but as a "wife" at all? Can't say that I've seen that even once since his term ended (and it was pretty rare during it already).

That still doesn't exonerate him from his sins. But the longer Bill Clinton is out of office and the further he remains from the woman who exploited his good fortunes, the more he's going to finally start to grow up. And understand that he's got to face up to some things. His recent heart attack must have had some effect on him to cause reflection and consideration. Who knows, but maybe that brush with mortality made him realize that life is short, and not about pursuing money or power or sex at all. And that there is still time to make something of it that would be far nobler - and of far more lasting value - than anything he did while serving as President of the United States.

Consider a man like that, who was born into a broken home with nothing. Not even a moral compass apart from what little his own desperate and hardened conscience knew about. Whose had considerable God-given talents... and then became an instrument to be used by petty, godless despoilers who otherwise had no route toward that for which they lusted. Who obviously has a lot of human weakness and committed much unatoned-for wrongdoing. Consider someone like that who would want to be clean in his conscience before God and other men.

Now, contrast such a man to one who was born with every privilege and comfort. Whose sense of morality derived mostly from an aura of elitism and aloofness from others. Who had no desire to develop whatever talents God gave him and instead chose to "coast" through life on the charity of others and affluence of his name. Who has boasted that he cannot and will not be held accountable for anything, that he has not made any mistakes or apparently is capable of making a mistake at all. Who has also done much wrongdoing... and then let it be magnified by bringing on the deaths of thousands of his own people and countless more in distant lands. Who instead of letting his conscience be broken in the sight of God, is so brazen as to wield the name of God as a talisman against others, so that he might continue his own damnable desire for power unhindered?

One can confess sin and wrong (but could still do a lot more). The other believes he does not need to confess any wrongdoing (and has let his unrepentant heart cause misery toward others beyond measure).

I can't hate Clinton anymore. I can't hate Bush either, for that matter. Both are men who, just as I or your or anyone else, God is trying with all His might to bring Home to Him someday. But first, that reconciliation must be desired... and Jesus had some words about the kind of man it would be who would have it:

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

-- Luke 18, verses 9-14

Something to consider.

One last thing: I just noticed that although George W. Bush won this past election by the most votes ever cast for a winning candidate and by a wider margin of victory than in his 2000 run against Al Gore, the best he's been able to muster was 1/3rd of the percentage that Clinton got in the 1996 election, when Clinton drastically increased that margin over what he got against George Bush I and Ross Perot in 1992. Clinton also was first elected with the largest percentage of turnout from eligible voters since Nixon beat McGovern in '72 (Nixon's percentage margin of victory in that race remains the biggest since Franklin Roosevelt's in the 1936 election).

When you run the numbers, Bill Clinton statistically had a greater mandate from the American people than George W. Bush has ever been able to boast, if we're gauging this by how big a slice of participating voters approve of a candidate.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

WOW! Alzheimer's damage is "reversible" with "rapid recovery", study finds

Hot damn!! This just keeps getting better and better!

First was yesterday's news that the "master gene" triggering cancer has been discovered. So far as medical research goes, that's maybe bigger than Enrico Fermi figuring out controlled nuclear fission. With a bit more studying, we might stand a chance of wiping most and maybe even all cancer and very soon at that.

And if that wasn't miraculous news already, findings from another study are being made public and DEAR LORD THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A CHANCE AGAINST THIS!! MAYBE BEATING CANCER WAS INCREDIBLY GRACIOUS ENOUGH BUT THAT WE MIGHT CAN LICK THIS... OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, SHOW THOSE BOYS AND GIRLS IN THE WHITE LABCOATS EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PROTEIN FOLDING OR ANTIBODY EFFECTIVE RATES OR WHATEVER 'CUZ I'VE BEEN PRAYING THAT BOTH OF THESE COULD GET CURED BUT NEVER THOUGHT BOTH WOULD HAPPEN AND THIS FAST!!!

I don't care how ridiculous that comes across. Dammit, I've lost too many people over the past few years to cancer and Alzheimer's. So don't NOBODY suggest that that was over-the-top because I've damned-well earned the right to rejoice as loud as I wanna get about this. Oh yeah, what's that other news? From the AP via the San Francisco Chronicle:

Mouse experiment on clearing of brain plaques may offer hope in Alzheimer's research

JIM SALTER, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 20, 2005

(01-20) 14:31 PST ST. LOUIS (AP) --

Brain cells in mice recovered rapidly after brain plaques characteristic of Alzheimer's disease were removed, offering hope that plaque-clearing treatments could benefit patients with the disease, Washington University researchers said Thursday.

Results of the study will appear in the Feb. 5 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

No one knows for sure if the sticky plaque -- amyloid beta peptide -- is the true cause of Alzheimer's, a brain degeneration disease that eventually robs victims of memory and the ability to communicate and care for themselves. About 4.5 million Americans have the disease.

But the plaque is a prime suspect, and several companies are developing drugs to target the buildup.

Researchers at Washington University injected mice with an antibody that cleared plaque in parts of the brain. Where the plaque was cleared, swelling on nerve cell branches disappeared quickly, the researchers said. They cautioned that while encouraging, more studies are needed to determine if similar effects might occur in people.

Removing the plaque "often led to rapid recovery of normal structure over a few days," said Dave Holtzman, senior author of the study and head of the Department of Neurology at Washington University.

He said that confirmed benefits of plaque-clearing treatments and "also gets us rethinking our theories on how plaques cause nerve cell damage..."

If this is as effective in humans as it's been in mice, our grandchildren might never know firsthand the pain of watching a loved one slowly slip away from this. And we can look forward to enjoying their company all the more as hope burns bright for our having a full and active life with them.

To quote Jasper when he came out of Apu's freezer on that episode of The Simpsons: "Hmmmm, Moon Pie! What a time to be alive!" :-)

Friday, January 21, 2005

Best news in a LONG time: scientists identify cancer's "on-switch"!

Please. Let. This. Be. True.
Scientists identify a single 'master' gene that seems to turn on cancer-causing action of other errant genes

BY DELTHIA RICKS
STAFF WRITER

January 20, 2005

An international team of scientists believes it has found cancer's master switch with the discovery of a gene they dubbed "Pokemon."

Like the electronic game figures - tiny monsters with bad tempers - the cancer-triggering gene apparently instigates the misbehavior of other cancer-causing genes, leading to tumor formation.

In today's issue of the journal Nature, researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan, in collaboration with teams in Japan and Britain, announce that the gene plays a key role in starting a malignancy. As a result, scientists now believe they have stumbled upon an important new target for an anti-cancer drug...

"This is the master switch that interacts with other genes... It acts differently than other oncogenes. Others regulate cell growth, but Pokemon impacts on critical properties of cancer cells."

Among those key properties, Pokemon enhances a cancer cell's ability to resist aging and death. This immortalizing factor essentially endows cancer cells with a Peter Pan-like quality that renders them robust indefinitely, the very trait that makes tumors difficult to treat...

Read the full story at Newsday.

If this is as big a breakthrough as I'm inclined to think it might be (always thought that it would come via researching telomeres... but hey who's complaining?!?), it's plausible that we might see most - and Lord willing, all - forms of cancer eliminated within the next decade. It's definitely within the realm of possibility now.

And who'da thunk that looking for Pokemon would actually have a real payoff? :-)

Well, if Peggy Noonan found it disturbing... (and something else Nazi-ish about Bush)

Peggy Noonan is prolly one of my favorite people to ever come out of mainstream politics in the last 20 years or so. Didja know that she's the one who helped Reagan with his speech on the afternoon after the Challenger exploded? Still makes me cry whenever I read the words of that.

Well, she's also someone who ain't afraid to note when something is terribly out of kilter, no matter who it's regarding. And in "Way Too Much God", she's got some choice words about Bush's inauguration speech. It's a good read and worth contemplating and there's a lot I could cite from it, but here's the heartmeat of her beef about what was wrong with Bush's mindset yesterday:

"This world is not heaven."
A man can follow Christ. A man can be the world's most powerful leader. But a man cannot be a Christian world leader in the sincerest sense at all unless he surrenders to what that statement means.

Also found this, "Will Bush Side with the Property Thieves?" published at the Future of Freedom Foundation's website. Never heard of these guys but they oppose gun control, federalized education and socialized medicine... so they're hitting on all the right cylinders in my book. The author of this piece, one Sheldon Richman, is noting that the Bush Administration is coming down on the side of local governments that condemn and seize the property of average citizens and small businesses, then sell the land to major corporations (Wal-Mart has been involved in a number of such incidents) to develop as they please. The rationale posed by the municipalities is that big companies - like Pfizer, mentioned in the article - will produce much more tax revenue for these governments than do small-fries like Joe Sixpack and Pop's Corner Grocery. Doesn't look like they've done anything official yet, however according to Richman's piece...

The twist is that the Bush administration — self-proclaimed champion of the "ownership society" — will apparently give its blessing to the land heist. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[The] Administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain." Several property-rights advocacy organizations have publicly asked the administration to side with the landowners but — ominously — there's been no response.
If they support this seizure in such a way, the Bush Administration will be saying, in effect, that in the eyes of American law that some really are "more equal than others". But somehow I don't think that even Orwell would have conceived of a day when in the United States a large corporation - an artificial entity - would be given greater consideration and priority over a flesh-and-blood individual.

Someone in the comments recently suggested I was being foolish for comparing Bush to Hitler. Well, that Bush is even considering putting his support behind this kind of practice is as damned close to what the Nazis held to as you can get: National Socialism was a centralized authoritiarian government much like that of the Soviet Union. But unlike the Communists, National Socialism didn't just allow but encouraged private industry, especially large corporate entities... so long as they contributed to the sustenance of the government's power. Whatever was deemed necessary to keep the trains running on time for the political and industrial leaders, was carried out... and individuals be damned!

Folks, what Bush is close to giving a wink toward was standard procedure of the Third Reich. And if he has no problem with letting ordinary Americans having their homes and livelihoods destroyed for sake of a major corporation, what might such a mind do if he deemed it required that such sacrifices be made for "the homeland"?

There is either the right to possess your own property in America without feeling threatened by undue seizure, or there is NO right at all and what you think of as "yours" is ultimately government's to take at its pleasure. If the latter is the predominant mindset behind this government's motive, then there exists no basis for freedom or liberty in America at all, since the right to own personal property is the absolute foundation upon which all other rights and liberties are derived.

Thus, President George W. Bush has set himself up as the sworn enemy of freedom and liberty for the American people.

Thought y'all would like to know that.

And I'll close this post with a final remark relating to all this: was in a history class in college years ago that was discussing this very thing on a philosophical level. And it was agreed upon - by FAR more than those opposed to it - that if such a thing were to ever start happening in America, that we owed it to ourselves and our posterity to preserve the right to private ownership, and defend our own homes accordingly. And if that meant assassinating those who so lusted after that which was rightfully ours that they tried to take it by force of government... well, there would be a moral obligation to do so.

No, again I don't want to see anyone killed. But gotta admit, there's something to be said about instilling a healthy dose of fear in would-be tyrants when those they would lord over realize that they need not so eagerly take up the rifle, but merely keep it ready beside the front door.

Don't trust anyone, unless you're fully convinced they're worth trusting. The Founders did a work of genius when they intended there to be a level of tension between those that govern, and those that extend their grace to be governed.

Thursday, January 20, 2005

It was Newspeak's finest hour...

"Hey, all you 'evangelical Christians' that voted for me..."

"...UP YOURS!"

After reading this, the dark "id" creature dwelling in the recesses of my heart is licking its chops, salivating in anticipation of the next four years. So many people are going to be made out before one and all as being deluded fools who preferred a lie more than they would adhere to the truth.

Tonight they party. Tomorrow comes the hangover.

It'll be tough, but I promise to try and not gloat when the hard reality finally strikes them in the face...

"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world... So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Ahem...

Bush also said this, a little over four years ago: "But we can't be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don't think nation-building missions are worthwhile." (Presidential debate at Wake Forest University, October 11 2000).

"America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."
This from a guy who used to explode frogs with firecrackers and start vicious whisper campaigns against college classmates that he was jealous of. And so far as pretending that dissidents shouldn't be silenced: Hey Bush, stop using the "free speech zones" and having people arrest for the "crime" of wearing a Kerry t-shirt. Then we'll talk, bucko.
"The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them."
?!?!?!????

THIS, from the biggest control-freak who ever sat in the Oval Office?! Who trusts people in lands 8,000 miles away more than his own?!

I'd suggest that those who voted for this guy should now feel ashamed for their ignorance... but they tend to be the ones who don't have a sense of shame anyway, so why bother?

"From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon."
Translation: Prepare for more breast-fondling and strip-searches of 80-year old WWII veterans by the TSA goons whenever you fly. And pay no attention to the millions of illegals and Lord knows who else coming across from Mexico.
"All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character."
In other words you might as well sign up for the military as this gang's cannon-fodder now, before the inevitable draft coming down soon takes you in anyway.

Say, when do Jenna and Barbara enlist? I mean, they were up there with their Daddy: shouldn't they be setting the example by proving to the rest of us that there's some integrity behind his words? Seems like it would be a thing to uphold the honorable name of a parent, y'know.

"America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty."
Liberty in America was secured by idealistic individuals with guns aimed at tyrants. To add anything more would possibly incur a visit from the feds, but you catch my drift.
"Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."
Someone already did a better job than I in commenting on this: here's Sabertooth's take.

So did Bush write this himself or did he use a speechwriter? If someone else drafted it, Bush should fire them immediately: this entire thing is filled with little (anything at all?) but empty rhetoric and blatant falsehoods. If Bush himself wrote this...

...Well, it's said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. His grasp of the concept of human liberty is downright lethal.

If he's serious about "creating" freedom and democracy around the world, he's already damned to be one of the worst Presidents in American history. You can't bestow freedom on a people that aren't ready to achieve it on their own. Iraq should be more than adequate proof of this.

There's no way he can fulfill all of this without a massive replenishment/reinforcement of the armed forces: they're far too stretched across the board as it is, and in situations that a defensive military was never intended for at all. Considering that the neocon hawks are now hot about - and heavily hinting at - invading Iran, there's going to be no logical option but to build up more military forces via a draft if they're seriously hellbent on committing to this. And when it's factored-in that Iran has quietly been acquiring some pretty scary ordnance (like the Sunburn anti-ship missile) for well over a decade, well... it wouldn't be as nicely a "mission accomplished" as Iraq was by any stretch.

Bush is not prepared for what he's suggesting, either in conceiving so vast an endeavour or to accept the consequences of his own actions when it fails.

All of this and more leads me to feel pretty thankful tonight, that I've chosen not to align with this lot.

(And with this entry, The Knight Shift has hit the mark for 100 posts made :-)

Awright, put down that Da Vinci crap and check this out

So far no one in my circle of friends has told me that I absolutely must read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (right now we all seem to be reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear, re-reading all the current Harry Potter novels, or the first serious biography about Oskar Schindler... that's me :-). Not really expecting anyone too either. And already plenty confident that I won't waste a single dime or moment of life reading this tripe.

We're told that The Da Vinci Code is a "phenomenon". Heck, Ron Howard is doing the film adaptation (starring Tom Hanks) right now: I like both of 'em but I'm not gonna plunk down good money to see their movie either. In fact, they're making a huge mistake by having anything to do with this project. No doubt it seems like THE sure-fire hit right now, but enough people have complained that the story is "juvenile", badly manages its plot and boasts characters with all the depth of a kiddie pool. Ten years from now it'll be laughed at, but The Da Vinci Code will no doubt dazzle enough people to merit a mini-franchise... all because of its central premise: that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and had children through her and that a centuries-old secret society has concealed this knowledge from lay Christianity.

yawn...

This crap is so old that it long ago ceased being "intriguing" at all. The Prieure de Sion, the Cathars and Knights Templars, those pesky Merovingian descendants and their "sang raal", whatever is laying around Rennes-le-Chateau in southern France... I'd already known more about this stuff than probably anything Brown put in his tale. And that was years BEFORE I'd even read Holy Blood, Holy Grail... by every indication the book that Brown shamelessly ripped-off when he wrote The Da Vinci Code!

Speaking of which, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, first published in 1982, is currently ranked #50 on Amazon's list of top-selling books. It's the original source for this theory, which doesn't validate it at all 'cuz it's a curious mix of journalism, archaeology, religious conjecture and conspiracy theory: from which the resulting syncresis should not be taken at face value. Not "dissing" Holy Blood, Holy Grail per se, just that it's... odd. Definitely to be read with a discriminating mind.

But if this is the sort of thing that strikes your fancy and you want something REALLY juicy to focus your curiosity on, this lil' item is just what you're looking for. Wanna say this: my jaw literally dropped when I saw this on television this afternoon. Because as recently as 10 or 12 years or so ago, there were no photographs of Otto Rahn that were known to exist anywhere.

While randomly searching for something to watch on the tube I came across the Discovery Times channel and something called "Nazis: The Occult Conspiracy". It was a two-hour documentary on the religious underpinnings of Hitler and his followers... something that's been sorely under-researched or publicized despite its eighty-plus years of history. It was just starting and I tuned in and about halfway through it or so, they start talking about Otto Rahn: perhaps the most baffling and mysterious figure ever associated with the Third Reich yet a name so obscure that even many credentialed experts on Nazism have never heard of him.

Born in 1904, from an early age Rahn showed an intense interest in history and literature, and then of things occultic in nature. In 1929 he began excavations of Montsegur - once a fortress of the Cathars - and from his studies determined that it was most likely the Montsalvat from the Holy Grail stories. The Cathars, Rahn believed, had been the custodians of the Holy Grail itself.

Well, long story short, being the time that it was and that he was German, Rahn aroused the attention of one Heinrich Himmler. Himmler (a) had a jones for occult weirdness second only to Hitler (that thing in Raiders of the Lost Ark about Hitler being "obsessed with the occult" was WAY real, y'all) and (b) was just made head of a new group called Schutzstaffel... better known as the SS. Himmler recruited Rahn to be a civilian attached to the SS, which sponsored his further research into Grail lore. It was pretty clear that Himmler intended to locate the Grail and make it another relic (like the Lance of Longinus) that the Nazis would draw strength from. In effect, Otto Rahn was the real-life Indiana Jones looking for an object of reputed unimaginable power... albeit for the bad guys!

What happened after that is... well, no one's sure what happened exactly. Otto Rahn was found dead in 1939 in the Tyrol Mountains: no cause of death was ever given. Some say he was killed by the SS. Others hold that Rahn killed himself, in a manner that paid homage to the Cathars he long studied (and may even have adopted their faith as his own), because his conscience could no longer bear the burden of knowing that his life's work was being exploited by a evil regime readying itself to unleash war upon humanity.

Now, The Da Vinci Code and most of its associated lore is speculative, at best. The story of Otto Rahn is quite real, and as much a part of modern history as that of any other 20th century figure. And it's a most fascinating story, at that.

And until this afternoon, I'd always wondered what exactly Otto Rahn looked like, but no source ever produced an actual photograph of the man. Looks like a LOT has happened in the field of Nazi history in a few short years, 'cuz the Discovery Times documentary must have shown at least four or five pics of Rahn. I did a Google search and located even more of him. Would be neat to know where these have been all this time.

But anyways, if you read The Da Vinci Code and maybe found it lacking but wonder if there was ever anything legit to all this, you owe it to yourself to look into the story of Otto Rahn. I left a lot of stuff out of the story for you to discover if you're so inclined, and plenty of it is sure to raise your eyebrows a bit. Sure as heck did mine when I first stumbled on the tale :-)

"Then during The Duel, the potato masher shoves Anakin Spudwalker into the hot oil..."

...and the only thing keeping him from being a fish and chips dinner for Ewan McGregor was when this once-innocent potato was pulled from the fryer by his dark master and given new life behind the terrifying blackness of a breath-mask.
It's Darth Tater!
PAWTUCKET, R.I. (AP) _Jan. 19, 2005 — Hasbro Inc. is promoting its latest Mr. Potato Head figure, Darth Tater.

The toy spud will be available next month, ahead of the May release of "Star Wars: Episode III _ Revenge of the Sith," the latest installment in that film series.

Darth Tater will come with a light saber, cape and helmet, in addition to the regular Mr. Potato Head accessories such as eyes, mouth and nose.

The Pawtucket-based toy maker says children will be able to "have all kinds of mix n' match, Mr. Potato Head fun with this wacky spud dressed as the infamous `Star Wars' villain, Darth Vader."

The toy will retail for $7.99.

"Star Wars: Episode III," starring Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, will open in theaters nationwide on May 19.

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Hey, it took ten years but at long last Lucas Licensing is finally redeemed for giving us the Star Wars Bend-Ems :-P

Seriously though, it's a great time to be alive when your childhood favorite bad guy is set to be THE hottest-selling toy again. Between this Sith-lord spud and stuff like the Darth Vader Voice Changer and the upcoming Episode III LEGO sets (like the Vader Transformation... but at "Ages 6 and up" WHAT THE %*&# IS LEGO THINKING wanting kids to play with something THAT f'ed-up CREEPY?!?) looks like 2005 is going to be a big year for the original Man in Black.