First, it was Prince William who paid for ice cream at a theater with a five pound note, and had to be told it wasn’t enough. One has to assume the theater had signs posted explaining how much the food cost.

Now, it’s the Earl of Wessex, on a visit to Nashville, being told it’s illegal to walk where he’s walking. Once again, I am sure since Nashville has many tourists, there are lots of signs.

Of course, it’s possible both are quite able to read, but:
1) it is beneath them to read signs like the common people
2) they are literate in some other language besides English

Richard Roeper, of the Chicago Sun-Times, shares his views on the Mel Gibson/Passion controversy.

I’ve seen the version of “The Passion of the Christ” that will play in theaters starting on Ash Wednesday – and I’ll soon share my views on the film. In the meantime, I’ve been pondering some other religious-themed movies I’ve seen in my four years on “Ebert & Roeper.”

Catholicism has been represented far more frequently than any other faith. I’ve probably seen more films about the Catholic Church – and movies with nuns or priests as supporting characters – than all other religions put together. From the last four years alone, I could easily put together a Catholic Film Festival – but I don’t think too many Catholics would be pleased with the entries.

Roeper’s main point is there are very few movies made with Jewish villains. There are a lot of movies made with Catholic villains. “No other religious group gets bashed with such frequency. Can you imagine a similar number of films with Jewish leaders playing villains and moral weaklings?”

I can only think of two off-hand. Bugsy – about real-life Jewish gangsters Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky, and X-Men. (Yes, I know that Magneto isn’t completely evil. But Magneto is a comic book villain, is Jewish – a Holocaust survivor – and has no moral qualms about using violence to achieve his ends.) I don’t believe there was any outcry about either movie. I know I wasn’t upset about either of them.

So what makes The Passion different?

Well, one could be cynical, and say it’s because Gibson isn’t Jewish. (Chris Claremont, the creator of Magneto’s origin story, and Barry Levinson, the director of Bugsy, both are.) But I feel there is more to it than that. I wasn’t offended by either movie’s content. I see nothing wrong with Jewish villains in general. But I can’t think of a single movie where Catholics in general, or even one individual Catholic, is/are held responsible for the death of a god. (Actually, the only movie I can think of, where one religion’s God is killed, and it is blamed on another religion, and both religions are real, is The Passion.)

That’s a crime on a whole different level of any crime depicted in any movie Roeper mentions. The Passion is not a new story. Plays were produced in the middle ages with it as the theme. And these Passion plays helped spread the anti-semitism at the root of much persecution.

We live in a different era. Humanity has progressed. We’re more sophisticated. Audiences are not likely to react the same way now as they did 1000 years ago. But still, since The Pope “dropped the murder charges” against the Jewish people 40 years ago in Vatican 2, we had reason to believe, reason to hope the “Passion Play” wouldn’t be re-introduced.

A recent Poll shows if the election were held today, 55% of likely voters would vote for Kerry over Bush, and 54% would vote for Edwards over Bush. (Statistically identical results)

When they measured registered voters (instead of likely voters) there was a dead-heat between Bush and both Democratic candidates. One way to interpret this, might be when people were asked “are you planing on voting,” a greater number of people leaning towards Bush said no, or were unsure, than those leaning towards the Democratic candidates. Suggesting that even among those leaning towards Bush, there is enough dissatisfaction to keep them away from the polls.

In this country that seems to be split more and more 50-50, the Democrats don’t really need to increase the numbers that support them…they just need to strengthen the resolve of those who do suppport them, and increase the dissatisfaction with Bush in those who support Republicans. It’s not a matter of changing opinions…but getting more of your folx to the voting booth.

Jackson-Timberlake as seen by our neighbors across the pond.

Jackson-Timberlake as seen by our neighbors across the pond.

Wear what you wish to wear, and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.

Or, as Hall would have put it.

I may disagree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.

IMHO, This is not an omelette

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Voltaire, right? Wrong.

Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)

Hall herself claimed later that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire’s words in his Essay on Tolerance: “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

Hall’s words are definitely more catchy than Voltaire’s, though it’s not as if she were putting thoughts into his mind, just words into his mouth.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Voltaire, right? Wrong.

Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)

Hall herself claimed later that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire’s words in his Essay on Tolerance: “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

Hall’s words are definitely more catchy than Voltaire’s, though it’s not as if she were putting thoughts into his mind, just words into his mouth.

I bet neither of them saw this coming…nor did the rest of the world.

But Mikhail Gorbachev and Bill Clinton won a Grammy:

Best Spoken Word Album for Children — Peter and the Wolf. They shared the Grammy with actress, Sophia Loren.

I may just have to go out and buy that album. (Hopefully I won’t have to buy an album, since I no longer own a phonograph. Hopefully they have it on CD)

I thought of Victor Hugo as I read this news story:

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) – Thou shalt not steal, say the Ten Commandments, but it might eventually no longer apply if you are starving in Venezuela.

The poor, oil-rich nation is considering decriminalizing the theft of food and medicine in cases where a thief is motivated by extreme hunger or need.

Supreme Court Judge Alejandro Angulo Fontiveros told Reuters on Wednesday that the so-called “famine theft” clause should be part of a broad penal code reform measure for humanitarian reasons.

“This is a guide for judges to avoid injustice,” said Fontiveros, who is in charge of drafting the reforms. “They lock up for years a poor person who lives in atrocious misery and what they need is medicine.”

Under Fontiveros’ proposal to the Supreme Court, those who take food, medicine or inexpensive goods without using violence to ease hunger caused by prolonged, extreme poverty would not be punished.

There’s probably some form of punishment for stealing a loaf of bread somewhere between “19 years of hard labor” and “no punishment at all” that is appropriate.