The massive central door in the side of Noah’s Ark was thrown open Saturday — you could say it was the first time in 4,000 years — drawing a crowd of curious pilgrims and townsfolk to behold the wonder. Of course, it’s only a replica of the biblical Ark, built by Dutch creationist Johan Huibers as a testament to his faith in the literal truth of the Bible.Reckoning by the old biblical measurements, Johan’s fully functional ark is 150 cubits long, 30 cubits high and 20 cubits wide. That’s two-thirds the length of a football field and as high as a three-story house.
“It’s past comprehension,” said Mary Louise Starosciak, who happened to be bicycling by with her husband while on vacation when they saw the ark looming over the local landscape.”I knew the story of Noah, but I had no idea the boat would have been so big.”
In fact, Noah’s Ark as described in the Bible was five times larger than Johan’s Ark.
I lived in Austin, Texas for a couple of years but I never heard the Daniel Johnston story. I did see the wall that was down on Guadalupe, of course – it was impossible to miss. They tore down the record store the mural was on to put up a Baja Fresh fast food Mexican place but they kept the wall – I love Austin.
So it’s ironic that I found this film yesterday on Starz On Demand. I’d just been thinking a lot about the relationship between ‘artistic’ and ‘crazy’ lately in light of Seung Cho and the Viriginia Tech killings. It’s not a new topic for me – I touched on it in a conversation in my feature film Breathing Room, with a comparision between the crazy eyes of Van Gogh and Kurt Cobain the video for Heart Shaped Box.
And Kurt Cobain was a fan of Daniel Johnston. Let the circle be unbroken.
So I didn’t know anything about Daniel Johnston but this documentary is the best way I can think of to learn about his harrowing amazing true story. Daniel Johnston is a singer / songwriter / artist with mental problems. That’s the short version, now go watch the film. Writer / director Jeff Feuerzeig does an amazing job with present day footage, archival footage, interviews and Errol Morris style recreations. Seriously, go watch the film and make sure you get the wide screen version.
This redefinition jumped out at me this morning, too – I just wish Stephanopoulous would have actually followed up…
But [Iraq was] not an imminent threat,” presses Stephanopoulous.
“George, the question of imminence isn’t whether or not someone will strike tomorrow, it’s whether you believe you’re in a stronger position today to deal with the threat or whether you’re going to be in a stronger position tomorrow,” replies Rice. “It was the president’s assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse from our point of view.”
Rice’s redefinition of the term “imminent threat,” comes just over a month after former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton appeared on CNN claiming that the President never made the argument that Saddam Hussein posed an “imminent threat.” As RAW STORY reported last month, a number of Bush administration officials used the term in the run up to the Iraq war.
Tenet, as mentioned earlier, would have better served his country (and his reputation) by speaking up more promptly about the Bush Administrationâ€™s failure ever to have a â€œserious debateâ€ about whether it was worth invading Iraq.
But his failing was telling the truth too late â€” not sticking to, well, a lie like the one Bartlett uttered yesterday (according to the AP) as part of the White Houseâ€™s attempt to rebut Tenet:
â€œThis president weighed all the various proposals, weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision.â€
I say plainly: that is a lie. To be precise about it, no account of the Administrationâ€™s deliberations, by anyone other than Bartlett just now, offers even the slightest evidence that this claim is true. Innumberable accounts offer ample evidence that it is false. I have asked this direct question to many interviewees who were in a position to know: was there ever such a meeting or discussion? The answer was always, No. The followup challenge to Bartlett should be: show us a memo, show us a policy paper, show us a scheduled meeting, show us notes taken at the time to substantiate the idea that the Administration ever seriously considered what the nation would gain or lose by invading Iraq, and what the alternatives might be. What the Administration actually considered, according to