Just got back from seeing Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". Wow, what an intense and brutal films. First, let me say I am a non-church-attending Catholic. The movie is probably the most brutally violent film I have ever seen. I was struck with the thought the even if the movie takes 90% creative license with the amount of violence, even the remaining 10% is horrifying to comprehend regardless if you believe Jesus was the son of God or just a Galilean carpenter. I didn't come out feeling that it maliciosusly portrayed the Jews as a whole. The individual temple leaders, especially Caiaphus, came across as politically motivated. In fact the movie portrays some temple council members as being opposed to the "conviction" of Jesus, who were subsequently thrown out from the temple. Anyone looking for an "prejudice" will only find one if they expect to find one. Even Pilate came across as a politically motivated character, who bowed to pressure from the mob.

The movie makes a definite impact, regardless of your beliefs. It's hard to watch the whipping and crucifixion without wincing. In my entire life, I have never seen an audience linger in the lobby quietly. It was surreal. It was as if everyone was waiting to see everyone's reactions. Lots of tears and sobriety.

I think this film succeeded in much the same way "Schindler's List" and "Titanic" did, in terms of the humanity of the story. When you read the bible (or other book) or watch Discovery Channel about these historical events, you often lose the human impact on the individual level. When you visually see all those people drown on the Titanic, live and die in a concentration camp in "Schindler's", or watch the nails impale be driven through the hands of Jesus, you are tapping into the humanity of these events. Often when you just read about them, you lose that connection.

I would like to go see it again in a few days to watch it from a technical perspective. Filmmaking is an extension of story-telling and Gibson should be commended for this project.

Back Again. This will be brief as I was in a 3 car accident today and have a stiff lower back. Don't worry my sarcastic bone wasn't injured.

Howard Dean. Gotta love this guy. He just can't accept he lost. He's no longer actively pursuing the nomination? That's kind of like not actively pursuing your job or paycheck. That's called quitting. Something else keeps bugging me. The media calls him "former front runner" Howard Dean. Yes, he was the front runner right up until anyone started voting.

Now generally I consider myself pretty conservative politically ( actually I am a libertarian) but every so often things don't settle well with me. Gay marriage. Personally I don't see how allowing gay couples to legally marry unravels the moral fabric of our country. In a society where 50% of our marriages end in divorce, we deem anyone's decision to proclaim their lives to each other immoral. Oppossers of gay-marriage site legal definitions of marriage stating man-woman arrangements. What about historical evidence of the man OWNING his wife, which was changed in the late 19th century? Look I fail to see how this causes real legal problems. I am open to hearing people's opinions against gay marriage. I just want to know why you think it is wrong. Give me specifics where it will unravel our moral fiber, anymore than it has already unraveled. Look if you're straight, than why should you care. You will hopefully marry the man/woman of your choice because (I hope) that you have decided you can't live without them and cherish them.

Ok off my soapbox. Back to your regularly scheduled psychosis.