Fear of Lack of Height

Does my Kawasaki give me Vulcanophobia? I think so, but not because I may get into an accident, or because it may break down, but because when I look at the Vulcan, I'm afraid of how much my ideas of motorcycling are changing.

In December, I went to the Motorcycle show and sat on the BMW K1600GT six cylinder sport touring bike. Because this bike is a perfect blend of my two most recent long distance motorcycles, I should have caught a severe case of bike fever. But I didn't feel much of anything. Right now, I should be busy figuring out how I can liquidate my retirement savings plan. But no. Instead I'm wondering about how to attach a pillow to my Vulcan.

I always liked the Vulcan's fairly traditional lines, but not too long ago I would have scorned it for its low-seat and foot-forward riding position. Now I can hardly imagine going back to a sport touring bike. Even for an earth shattering knock-em-dead bike that blows everyone and everything away. I'm afraid that in my old age I have decided to settle for a bike that is not all that it could be.

I may indeed be ready to settle, judging from where my trips took me last year. Instead of one trip to the Baja Peninsula of Mexico, I made about 30 trips to Port Dover Ontario. How scary is that? The answer is yes, it is very scary, to me anyway. I used to do trips to Port Dover just to test out the equipment, to make sure the bike would hold together before heading out on a real trip. Now I go round the block to make sure I'm ready for a trip to Port Dover. Sometimes I am really tired even after a trip to Port Dover. It's only like 200 km there and back. And I sit around Tim Horton's or the Apple Fritter place for at least an hour at Port Dover, consuming donuts and other unhealthy things.

When I had a Honda CBX, or my BMW K1100LT, my main goal was to get out on the road. For sure to get out of Ontario, and hopefully as far as I could go until I hit some major obstacle like an ocean. Although I used to stop sometimes to eat, I rushed my food so I could get back on the bike.

With the Vulcan 900, in the three years I have owned this bike, I never made it to the Pacific. I never even made it further west than my Mother's house on the 401. At Port Dover, I pretend Lake Erie is the Pacific ocean.

To me one of the most significant changes between my previous bikes and this Vulcan is the 5" lower seat height.

BMW K1100LT seat height 31.9 in. 810 mm.
Vulcan seat height 26.8 681 mm.

This is the lowest seat of any motorcycle I have owned. Five inches is an awfully long way to drop the seat.

Usually the main reason to have a low seat height is to be able to actually touch the ground with your feet when stopped. Now I can almost touch the ground with my knees. One disadvantage was not being able to see as easily over other cars. However with the number of SUV's on the road now, even the higher seat does not help too much.

Another disadvantage of a low seat is that your feet must be raised more for riding. I find that uncomfortable. Cruisers solve this problem by placing your feet further forward to avoid cramping the knees. They also lower the footrest for a little extra space. But low footrests inhibit high speed cornering at steep leaning angles. Funny how one seemingly little thing like a lower seat seem to have endless repercussions.

But there is some good to sitting low and slow. By sitting 5 inches lower, you can more easily duck behind a protective windshield. Or, with the windshield being lower, you can have less wind resistance. The lower seat height makes it easier to compromise between windshield protection and power robbing wind resistance.

Also, the lower sitting position with the feet out front works well with an aftermarket rider backrest for longer distances if back ache is a problem.

I am starting to get used to the lower seat height. It makes me look fat however, because with my legs higher, I push up the bottom of my coat into a bulge that looks like a beer gut. Oh, wait no that is actually a beer gut.


Picture of a woman riding a Vulcan 900 classic, probably on the Pacific Ocean. Definitely not me.

"Turn the Other Cheek" Also Means Nations

I have had a second conversation with Jesus, this time he explained what he meant by "Turn the other cheek".

J: Hey, it's me again.

Me: I thought we agreed to not talk until after the Stanley Cup, and then only if the Canucks won, proving that you were actually God.

J: I know. But they just had a 19 game winning streak, and are on top of the standings, so I thought you might be willing to take a short message for me.

Me: That is a pretty impressive start for the Canucks. So why not? Fire away.

J: I wanted to leave a message for the world to re-explain what "Turn the other cheek" means. A lot of people get that wrong.

Me: You know what would be easier, God? Why not just return, like you said you would. You can explain it to humans yourself instead of going through this blog.

J: That's a fair question. Long story short. There are about a thousand other planets with intelligence similar to yours that seem to only understand when other intelligent beings are sacrificed. It takes on the average about 30 Earth years to sacrifice myself for each planet. I have to do one at a time. I expect to be back to Earth in about 30,000 years. I'm giving you this message now because it only takes a few minutes, and who knows, it may catch on.

Me: Wow! I would love to know more about the other forms of intelligent life out there.

J: I'm sure you would, and I'm sure they would like to know about you too. Now lets get back to the subject. I read your highly sarcastic blog about why turning the other cheek does not work. I want to explain my point of view again, and give you time for a little Q&A, then I have to be off to another planet to sacrifice myself.

The whole point of "Turning the other cheek" is that people must live in peace. My story is of course a bit exaggerated, in order to make the point in a dramatic way. In other words, it is not literally true. I obviously did not mean that to be a lesson in what to do only if you were hit on the cheek. By extension it covers head butting, punching in the mouth, eye-gouging, kicking shins etc. Furthermore, it applies to group acts of violence, such as gang rumbles, civil war, attempted genocide, world wars, etc. Being struck on the cheek was a simple allegory for all violence where retaliation may be considered as an option.

Turn the other cheek is easier to understand as "do not return violence with violence". All that does is to perpetrate more violence in an increasing cycle.

I have heard all the objections to "Turn the other cheek". A lot of people do not get it. In fact, out of a thousand planets with intelligence roughly the same as yours, only about half "get it". Unfortunately that does not include Earth. On Earth, even among Christians, I hear objections like "This does not apply to nations, only to individuals." That argument actually hypocritical, when it comes from people who do not practice "Turn the other cheek" in their personal lives either. If you can really understand on a personal level, you will understand on a group level and on a national level too.

Don't strike first. Don't strike at all unless there is no other way. And if you are going to strike you must not do it based on hate, lies, and false information. You must never gain materially from violence. If you must strike and injure another human, you may not profit in any way from that action. This principle applies to individual people as well as nations.

You must never strike another person who cannot fight back. Never torture prisoners, for example. Do not use violence to "teach someone a lesson". Any questions yet?

Me: So what would you think about Israel vs. Palestine.

J: That is a great question. It brings out all the issues. First issue is that some Palestinians are hitting back with rocket fire against Israel. My advice to Palestinians would be to forget it, a perfect example of violence accomplishing nothing but to create more violence. Second advice, this time for Israel. They have a perfect opportunity to turn the other cheek. The Palestinian rocket fire has not really done much harm, so in this case turning the other cheek basically means let it go if you can, and especially do not punish all Palestinians for the actions of a few. And finally, under no circumstances must Israelis use their military superiority to steal land and water from the Palestinians. Unfortunately neither side ever formally accepted my teachings, did they? But still, a lot of so-called Christians support the Israelis morally, (by twisting my own words!) and with money and by giving them weapons. Without misguided Christian support this violence would not have continued so long. And of course the big issue, "God told us this land is ours". Well, no I didn't. I want all countries to follow international law, but I'm going to leave that complicated issue for another time.

Me: I don't have any other questions about that, but I have plenty about the other planets with intelligent life.

J: OK Just one more question. Then I really have to get going, a mob is already getting impatient to crucify me on planet number 759.

Me: Only one? OK Does all intelligent life look about the same, or are we all really different?

J: Humans are about average actually. Two hands and two feet are pretty normal. So are two eyes, a head. So the crosses look about the same on most planets, but there are some very strange variants among Octopus people. Well, thanks for your time, see you after the Canucks win thus proving for sure I am the Lord God creator of Earth and all the Universe.

Me: See you next time. Amen?

Picture: Martin Luther King from this blog post "Turning Cheeks and Tables"
http://www.bagpipeonline.com/2007/11/29/2867/

Case Study on How a Left Wing Brain Works

I have been told that among the common psychological characteristics evident in conservatives are:

• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management
  

The Case Study

This email can serve as an example of the difference between the mental operations of a left wing type brain, and a right wing type brain. This email was posted on a conservative website:

This woman is 51.

Gillian McKeith is a TV “health guru” advocating a holistic approach to nutrition and health, promoting exercise, a pescetarian diet high in organic fruits and vegetables. She recommends detox diets colonic irrigation and supplements, also making statements that yeast is harmful, that the colour of food is nutritionally significant, and about the utility of lingual and faecal examination.

This woman is 50.

Nigella Lawson is a TV cook, who eats nothing but meat, butter and desserts. So forget “join a gym and eat more celery”...remember "everything in moderation."

How does a right wing brain process this email?  1. Very quickly get past the critical thinking part. 2. Arrive at conclusion:  this proves that eating meat and doing everything the big corporations say to do will make you healthy and beautiful. 3. Hit "Forward to all contacts" key, giving cognitive closure.

How does a left wing brain process this email? 1. Think who is sending these ridiculous emails now? 2. Think how easily some people are duped by anything they read. 3. Ask some questions such as, was Nigella's picture taken when she was 50? After all the caption says "This woman is 50.", not "This woman is 50 now, but in this (possibly photoshopped) picture she was 41. Second question: Why is Nigella holding a bowl of cherries if she only eats "meat, butter and desserts"? A bowl of cherries is fruit, isn't it? Maybe you consider a bowl of raw fruit a dessert, but I don't. To me dessert is cake, pie, or ice cream. Raw, unprocessed fruit is health food. If you think raw fruit is a dessert, you probably have a healthier diet than me.

4. Left wing brain looks up this miracle woman on Google, because a left wing brain is inclined to be skeptical that a fit, youthful, 50 year old woman would not exercise.

5. Left wing brain spends a little time looking at some other web pages such as this one. Puffy Eyed Nigella

6. While looking at the above website, the left wing brain notes that Nigella looks a bit worse for wear, and 7. Nigella admits to going to a gym, which sort of contradicts the email, but not really if you read it right. It never said Nigella does not go to the gym, it merely told you to forget about going to a gym.

8. Left wing brain hits "delete" key.


So to summarize the difference in brains. Right wing brain handles the job quickly, efficiently, takes action and moves on to other important stuff. Left wing brain dilly dallies, faffs about, and in the end does nothing. Second conclusion, 99% of forwarded emails are probably going to come from right wing brain type people.

By the way, what does the other woman, Gillian McKeith, look like in a flattering photo?
http://www.malextra.com/celebrity_interviews/Gillian+McKeith+Talks+Diets+Workouts+And+Poo-62137.html

Are Liberals Being Targeted?

Are Assassins More Likely To Target Liberals?
It's complicated.
By Brian Palmer
Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2011, at 4:57 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2280830/

I have a different interpretation of the facts discovered by Brian Palmer. Brian's basic interpretation is that it is complicated, and assassins and wackos come from all over the place. Now, I don't disagree with him on that. But I also look at it a different way.

In my opinion, it does not really matter what the assassin believed. You may be simply wasting your time trying to figure it out in the case of a disturbed, unhinged psycho. One example would be Lee Harvey Oswald, where many have speculated on how his Marxist views could have led him to kill John F. Kennedy. Karl Marx didn't even know who John F. Kennedy was. I think someone else had to help point the way to Oswald, to interpret history and current events for him. Anyway that's only my opinion, as Oswald died long ago.

I think that the politics of the victims is more important than the politics of the killers. The reason you don't really care about the killers is that more and more often they are deranged individuals with no clear connection to any side. If you try to figure it out, you will become confused, and that obscures the most important pattern of who is being killed. There will be a pattern in who is being killed if there is a general culture of violence by one side and not the other. For example, if there really is some secret force promoting the killing of liberals, recruiting deranged killers without any real connection would help disguise their motives, but they obviously will not kill their own people just to throw you off the trail. The killers may be slightly unhinged lunatics from any political stripe who are merely duped by smarter, more goal oriented, possibly more normal people.

Recently there has been a clear pattern the assassination attempts, and it is known to be mostly against liberals.

July 2008, Jim Adkisson went into a liberal church and randomly killed two people, because he said he hated liberals:

August 2008, Timothy Dale Johnson walks into DNC headquarters in Arkansas and kills Arkansas Democratic Party chairman Bill Gwatney dead. http://www.mahalo.com/timothy-dale-johnson

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them…."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/jim-d-adkisson-charged-in_n_115281.html

April 2009: Richard Poplawski Killed three Pittsburgh police officers and injured two others. Although the police officers political leanings were not important, it was obviously about the liberal government directing the police to "take his guns away".

May, 2009 Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor was shot after being called a baby killer on Fox News.

Feb 18th, 2010 Joe Stack flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin, killing one and injuring numerous others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_plane_crash

January 2011, A mass murder focused on Democratic member Gabrielle Giffords, but involving other bystanders.

Against that, the right wing have desperately researched a number of offensive acts by left wing wack jobs, however, none of them appeared to result in killing anyone. And they have attempted to paint some of the killers in the above incidents as left wing wack jobs, and some of the victims as Republicans. The overall pattern though, is of a preponderance of liberals being killed.

By itself, this may be simply a coincidence. But combined with other evidence, such as a Sarah Palin rally where supporters were fired up enough with anger to begin yelling "Kill him" as she spoke about Obama. And there are plenty of examples of incitement to use firearms by prominent politicians on the right. Not to mention that the entire gun culture is owned by the right wing. That begins to add up to more than coincidence. It is the conservatives who are clearly feeding off anger, and may have crossed the line into terrorism.

But here is something I found very interesting in Brian Palmer's article. Following the Civil War, liberals were targeted for assassination by southern Confederate supporters. The Republican Party in those days was made up of liberals, and the most famous assassination was President Lincoln. But he was not the only one. According to Brian Palmer's article, apparently twenty-four politicians were murdered in the South, (not sure if this includes Lincoln) most of them Republicans. At the time Republicans were liberals who were trying to enforce liberal racial policies on the racist southern states.

The post-civil war era was not the only time when liberal politicians were murdered. Liberals were murdered during the Civil Rights era in the South. And if you call the Obama administration another liberal-killing period, that's three times. What do all of those three times have in common? White racism for one. The white racists being out of power. The people who support blacks are in power. The opposition to the liberal (and black-favouring) government is anchored in the southern USA in all three cases.

OK Maybe it's all just a coincidence, and really it's just random killings by unhinged wack jobs. Maybe leftists have just as many guns as right wing nut jobs, and maybe Liberal radio hosts are also calling for murder of Republican politicians, and maybe left wing TV news stations are encouraging their audience to "take out" people, and maybe Democrats hold assault weapon firing practices. But I don't think so. That all seems to be happening on the right.

Gabrielle Giffords, Democratic member of congress who was recently shot, won the election against Tea Party Candidate named Jesse Kelly, and you can see here he held a free public assault-rifle training session June 12, 2010 . (For you liberals who don't even know what an M16 is, it is classified as an assault rifle)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
http://proarizona.blogspot.com/2011/01/flashback-gifford-opponents-had-m16.html

So, Brian, still think it's complicated? Yes, it may be complicated, but there is a bit of a pattern emerging and unless you are bending over backward to be politically correct, you should not have to totally ignore it, no matter how ugly the truth is. And of course, nobody wants to encourage revenge or retaliation. That's why liberals are asking the conservatives to at least "tone down the rhetoric", and why the conservatives should heed that advice.

Picture: Got it from this web page. In case you don't know, American Chickens are NOT the Conservatives. Guess who? It's not that complicated.
http://virgomonkey.wordpress.com/2005/02/17/piss-off-a-liberal/

An Open Letter to All the Psycho Killers Out There

For the the last couple of years I have written many blogs about how our media spews incendiary propaganda.

For example, in this December 24, 2009 Blog titled "Solving the Gun Problem Just in Time for Christmas"

I wrote "Ever notice how, in almost every case the psycho could have been stopped beforehand? I think every one of the psychos made threats well ahead of time. Yet no one ever did anything, because psycho behaviour is actually considered pretty normal. Here's your solution. If normal people toned down the rhetoric a little, the real psychos would be much easier to pick out ahead of time."

But after writing this blog and many more, I was getting nowhere with the "normal" people. There was no letup in the rhetoric. I am beginning to think I understand Psychos better than the mentally healthy. I see that psychos are at least consistent with their ideas, and given the information they get from Fox news, they go ahead and do what Fox tells them to do instead of waiting for someone else to take the lead. That, at least, is not hypocritical. That is the type of logical thought and consistent action that I can at least relate to.

If everyone says Obama is a tyrant, and the government is tyranny, and the Supreme Court has ruled that you are allowed to use a gun to stop tyranny, then why are we calling these people psychos.  Aren't they simply the brave ones who are saving the country from an evil tyrant while all the cowards end up an Fox News tut tutting after each assassination?

So now I am going to appeal directly to the people that I still may have a chance to convince, and that is the psychos themselves.

I'm not writing this for wannabe psychos like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, who talk big about killing, and shooting and reloading, and the end of times, but are too hypocritical to actually do it. No, they are just "normal" and that type or person will always leave it to the others to get the dirty job done. I am talking to genuine wack job psychos. If you are a young person, with a love of guns and strong convictions, you may be who I am talking to. If your life sucks, and you are absolutely sure someone or some political faction or ethnic group is to blame for it, you may be the next big psycho If you have been recommended for psychiatric evaluation, and would like to make your name a household word, then I'm pretty sure I am talking to the right person. Are you that person? Then read on, this is for you.

There must not be more than about a hundred of you true psychos out there. I am going to ask you to read the rest of this blog, and give my ideas serious consideration. I think I understand you.

First, think about what good it does for America to actually kill people. Has any psycho killing spree ever managed to stop health care, has it ever managed to get rid of welfare fraud or stop any illegal immigrants? Has it ever won an election? Has it ever improved the general intelligence level of America? In the case of Timothy McVeigh, he singlehandedly put the cause of psychotic killers back ten years and actually helped re-elect Clinton, the very opposite of what he wanted to do. So far, killing never has done a damned thing that was good for psychos, and if you are currently planning to kill some people, I urge you to think carefully of the long term repercussions to others in the community of the unhinged.

Second, think about what good the killing spree does for you personally. Sure you may be quite looking forward to being dead, or at least getting four square meals a day for the rest of your life in solitary confinement. But let me assure you that being dead is not as great as you think it is. While you are alive, at least you can watch TV, eat pizza, and caress your guns. You can't do that when you are dead or in the slammer.

The problem is that one day you might get up on the wrong side of the bed and decide you need to kill people to make America a better place. You know that's not going to work, so if you have a gun, sell it and buy some pizza. If you don't want to sell your gun, at least put it in a bucket of water and put it in the freezer.

Here is my plan for your consideration. What could you do that would be better than killing liberals, gays, democrats etc.? Well, if you want to be famous and you want to do something for your country, and you are more than a little crazy, let me in on a secret to how you could get a job with a six figure salary on talk radio, or as a guest expert at Fox news.

Send an application to Fox News, telling them your name, who you are, and who you are planning to kill, and especially why. Refer to any media stories that may be currently angering you. Offer to appear on their news broadcast, giving colour commentary on what goes on inside the mind of a nut job. The next time a psycho strikes, they may very well hire you on for the breaking news commentary. Who better to give the inside scoop on what motivates a typical psycho than you? You're smarter than them, and you actually understand the mental process.

Trust me, Fox New is always looking for this "common man" angle. Look at how much fame and money "Joe the Plumber" accumulated in less that two months. You may want to go with the label "Joe the Right Wing Nut Bar", or you may want to make up something more original. Either way, you will be in for a lot of excitement and you will be famous. And you may actually do a lot more good in eliminating the bad from America than by putting bullets in people's heads.

Don't forget, on your application to Fox, mention this blog, and feel free to use me as a personal character reference. That's the least I could do for you.

Picture: Fox and Friends. They are not really your friends, but you could make as much money as them.

Sarah Palin is Not to Blame for the Killings

Sarah was obviously not to blame for a deranged lunatic killing people. However she is likely to take some heat for her overblown rhetoric.

Sarah is simply pushing the envelope of what is permissible, to the point where other people are asking her to turn it down. But she doggedly pushes ahead, heedless of the advice. After all, what could go wrong? Even after several other liberals or democrats have been murdered by other deranged gunmen.

Then, the unthinkable happens, and the person she set crosshairs on is actually shot in the head by a deranged lunatic. Even though that lunatic may never have set eyes on her campaign graphic.

Let's put it in Alaska terms, and explain it directly to Sarah.

Sarah: You're out there shooting moose. A neighbour asks you to stop shooting in the direction of his property with your fully automatic long range assault weapon with hollow tip bullets. You tell him to go to hell, this is Alaska and you'll do as you please. Then some deranged maniac comes along with a similar weapon to yours and deliberately fires an entire clip into your neighbour's house, killing his wife and daughter.

It was not your fault, but there are going to be bad feelings. Maybe you should have been a bit nicer before the killings.

Sarah is not responsible for the killings, but she could have heeded some warnings ahead of time: especially from Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and from Gabrielle Giffords.

Movie "Death of a President" was Not a Death Threat

With the recent murders and assassination attempt, the use of violent political rhetoric is being questioned by some people. The movie, "Death of a President", has been mentioned to me as an example of left wing death threats against Bush. Presidential death threats are in a class by themselves, because they are illegal (I think), and because they are not part of the usual political campaigning. But I will still take the time to compare this movie to the current violent political rhetoric which includes veiled death threats and gun references.

Out of curiosity, I Googled "Kill Bush" (images only) and got 8,180,000 hits. Judging from the first page, I'd say pretty violent stuff. "Kill Obama" had 17,800,000 images. If you are looking for threats you will find them. In case you were wondering, "Kill Myself" had 14,200,000 images on Google. Looks like people don't hate themselves as much as they hate Obama, but hate themselves more than Bush (and that would include Bush I and II).

"Death of a President" came out in Canada on 10 September 2006, at the Toronto International Film Festival. I saw the movie myself, soon after, also in Canada. It was released a month an a half later in the USA, to a limited number of theatres, (143 screens) on October 27, 2006. It grossed less than half a million dollars in the U.S. How many Americans saw it, maybe 50,000?

At that time, I did not get the impression it was a left wing death threat, other than the inflammatory title. Yes the title itself was a problem, even though it didn't name anyone or any country, even though it could have been a heart failure. And I'm really surprised that the movie was even shown with this title in the USA, as often titles are changed if they are even a tiny bit offensive in certain countries. And this film went under several different titles. It also had several different posters of more or less inflammatory effect. I don't know which poster was in the US, or Canada, but the picture I show here is the one I thought was least offensive.

This movie was not made in the USA, and even if you insist that this was a death threat (I don't think so myself), I actually didn't know that threats made to Americans by people in other countries were included as "left wing attacks on America". They should not be.

I do not know if the censors who let the movie into the USA were left wing or right wing, but they probably watched the whole movie, then decided it was not a threat, no matter what the title may have said.

If the assassin was actually an Arab Muslim terrorist, does that make this movie a left wing threat? Or is it more a terrorist threat, or are they both about the same. Actually the movie is like a murder mystery with a surprise ending, so I'm going to leave it at that.

The movie did not negatively portray George W. Bush. This movie did not portray the left winger protesters or assassins as heroes. They actually came off as being crazy. The movie showed an outcome for the country and the world that was actually worse than if Bush had lived.

Did this movie have the effect of increasing the general hate against Bush? I never saw anyone show up for a Bush rally packing loaded weapons, like they did with Obama. Yes, Bush was hated, but this movie did not have anything to do with that. That was partly due to it's limited distribution in the US, of course.

Finally, yes I thought it was a good, and thought provoking, movie. (The thought being OMG Don't anyone kill Bush!) We hardly saw anything about the assassination. It was more a what-if scenario "What would happen to the world if Bush was gone?". It had a lot of interesting ideas of what might happen, and none of those were appealing. Especially Dick Cheney taking over. The movie should actually have been called "What if Dick Cheney was President?"

Review by Roger Ebert (he also watched it in Canada. Did anyone go to this movie in the USA????)
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060912/EDITOR/60912001

Here's a guy who really hates this movie. He also seems to agree there is no implied threat to Bush.
http://illinformedgadfly.com/?p=93

Here is a guy who thinks this movie is a leftist propaganda attempt, that it will in fact encourage crazy leftists to try and assassinate Bush. But he has spoilers in his review, and tells who committed the murder. Oh, who am I kidding. Nobody is ever going to see this movie who has not seen it already.
http://markhumphrys.com/cinema.anti.reviews.html