From the Las Vegas Sun, an interview with John McCain:

(What about Reid saying you are temperamentally unsuited to be president and have an explosive temper and everyone knows it?)

That’s not unexpected for Senator Reid….He comes up to me all the time and wants to work with me. On the floor, he doesn’t seem to be that concerned about it. You cannot make a record like I have accomplished legislatively…and get things done if you have some kind of a problem…..Harry didn’t mind asking me to go to dinner with him and to a a fight a couple of years ago., The only difference is I paid for my tickets; he didn’t pay for his…That was rich.

(On the foreclosure bill in Congress)

It is imperfect but I am also saying, and I may not have said this a month ago, we may have to do more.

(Like what?)

I don’t know, but we may have to do more….The housing crisis continues to deepen….

(Worried about third Bush term as issue and will every ad show you running away?)

You have to convince people that you have a plan of action. They are going to look at people’s record and they should….Bob Dole, a great war hero, was not elected president (but) Americans appreciated his record and love him but he didn’t do as good a job as President Clinton did as to what do for them in the future……

(On why he didn’t choose Gov. Jim Gibbons to chair his Nevada campaign?)

I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.

(Why snub the governor?)

I didn’t mean to snub him,. I’ve known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we’ve been good friends….I didn’t intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.

(Maybe it’s the governor’s approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?)

(Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago….

Maya Angelou: I’m very excited. I’m so happy. I’m so happy that the two most powerful people who have really excited and changed our country already are getting together. This was inevitable. Once we saw that both of them really wanted to make our country more than it is today, more than what James Carville called “these yet-to-be-United States,” they are together together to talk. I don’t know how that will end up, but I know that it is wonderful that they are coming together to talk.

Larry King: Would you like to see her on of the ticket?

Maya Angelou: I would love it. Personally, I would love it. There are those who would not. But I would love it. I think she has all — all the qualities that I would want in a president. She is intelligent and funny. And strong. And she also has enough with it that she would be willing to go to the very end. I like that. I want that in the president. Now, I know that Mr. Obama has that as well. I love — I love the idea that the two of them are talking.

Larry King: You wrote a poem in praise of Hillary that starts You may write me down in history with your bitter twisted lies. You may tread me in the very dirt, but still like dust, I’ll rise.

Maya Angelou: Rise, exactly. And she has risen. She has dared. And that is fabulous. You know, just think of this little, young white woman coming out, deciding she’s going to be the president of the United States of America. And to see her sticking it, when people laugh at her. And there were those who decided she could not stick it. She would not go on. She would fall. And she stayed. You know, I believe in going out with whom you came in with. I believe in her and I stuck with her. When she said, “This is it,” then I said, now, I will support Senator Obama, but she’s a tough cookie.

Dave Neiwert at Orcinus has it right about the ugliness that has characterized this Democratic primary. Don’t read the comments though. They’re just more of the same — people who call themselves “progressives” and “liberals” so caught up in their own views that they can’t see past their own noses, which they’re in danger of slicing away any moment now.

(Sarcasm alert) It’s so encouraging to see Democrats/progressives/liberals engaged, not only in using the same talking points as the right-wing, but the same attack style as the right wing.(end sarcasm) I hope we get over it before it really is too late.

Here’s a sample of what Dave said:

Progressives need to wake up and realize they’re being played and refuse to buy into toxic crap that they should not, must not, be about. At some point we need to stand back and take stock and realize that damage has been done and it needs repairing, both for the short and the long term.

…

Let’s all acknowledge some realities here that fly in the face of right-wing bullshit. Hillary is a superb politician and a fighter, a master of policy whose competence and qualifications are unquestionable — and she is far from the cold, ugly human being the right and now her left-wing critics wish to paint her as. Obama, likewise, is a supremely gifted politician and a natural leader capable of convention-shattering feats, whose qualities in those regards progressives should never underestimate — though of course, it’s our hope that the right will.

The sooner both sides — not just the leaders at the top, but the rank and file troops — acknowledge these realities, and reject the right’s pervasive and toxic crap, the better off we will all be.

It can’t happen too soon.

And still the rabid Barack Obama fans are sounding like Ken Starr staffers. And so, frankly, do some of my colleagues.

So what that Hillary Clinton didn’t concede last night? Y’know, Obama’s not the nominee until the convention. Until then, he, like John McCain on the GOP side, is the presumptive nominee. Ted Kennedy didn’t concede in 1980 either, and he was much, much further behind than Hillary Clinton is now.

I’m just sayin.

Anyways, it’s over. Really. Unless something really supremely gravitas comes up between now and August, it’s done, put a fork in it. What next?

Next, Dems, progressives, liberals, and conservatives with half a brain, we get behind the presumptive nominee. No more whining, threatening to vote for McCain or not vote (or vote for some Nader wannabe). Next, dear friends, we make sure that no Republican sets foot in the Oval Office as its occupant for at least eight years, preferably much longer.

Now, I know there’s an awful lot of women out there who are mightily POd about the results of this primary. And many of ‘em think that rampant misogyny may have had a big part in it. That may even be true, just as it’s very likely true that racism played a roll in the votes Obama didn’t get.

But let’s get really serious here. It really doesn’t matter one iota. What matters is that John McCain must not become president of the United States. A third term for Bush? Hell, yes. Even worse. If Bush hasn’t already bombed Iran by the time January 20 rolls around, John McCain will. The man has promised to make Bush’s tax cuts for the rich permanent. He wants to make us pay taxes on health insurance our employers pay for.

Not good, ladies and gentlemen. Not good at all.

And let me take this moment to address those virulently pro-Clinton women out there still making noises about sitting out this one or casting a vote for McCain — and let’s be perfectly clear as well that a vote not cast is a vote for McCain.

Don’t do it.

Unless of course you’d like the United States to continue refusing to fund family planning groups overseas if they so much as breathe the word “abortion.” Maybe you even like President Bush’s “abstinence only” sex education policy, which John McCain strongly supports, although he voted against requiring such sex education programs to be scientifically and medically accurate.

McCain also opposes equal pay for equal work for women, because it would bring too many lawsuits, he says — although he did skip the vote on such a bill in April so he could campaign in Louisiana.

He’s also voted “no” on legislation to expand access to preventive health care services aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies — and abortions.

He voted against requiring health insurance to pay for contraception, and he voted against a bill that would expand health care services to low-income and uninsured women.

He is, however, opposed to a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, saying the issue should be left up to the states. Unless, of course, the states start allowing same-sex marriage, in which case there should be a constitutional amendment banning it.

And then there’s the one thing that should strike absolute fear in your hearts — the next president is going to appoint at least two Supreme Court justices. Do you really want them to be “strict constructionists” (GOP code for “will overturn Roe v. Wade”)? Because that’s what you’ll get if you help John McCain become president.

And having more judges like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito won’t just affect women’s issues. It’ll have a brought and calamitous effect across the board. Many of the progressive changes we’ve seen recent will simple disappear as the new judges overturn the actions of “activist judges” (GOP code for “judges who make decisions we don’t like”).

John McCain’s no moderate, and if you think he is, you’re reading from the wrong play book. Despite what Rush Limbaugh says, he’s a died-in-the-wool conservative.

Still, it’s your choice. If you want to see the final end of this country as we know it, to see its complete transition into a totalitarian theocratic state akin to the Republic of Gilead, feel free to stay at home or cast your ballot for John McCain.

But don’t be surprised if you’re held in more disdain than those Nader voters in 2000. The stakes are much, much higher now.

Delightful as it is that California’s Supreme Court correctly applied the law and overturned that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, this News Writer just can’t muster up a whole heckuvalotta enthusiasm about it. Maybe I’m just a jaded, a half-empty kinda girl. But the potential for trouble looms large on the horizon, not the least of which being a constitutional amendment initiative (sheesh, California and its voter-initiated laws!) that is awaiting signature verification before it can be placed on the November ballot. If that initiative passes (and the law that was struck down Thursday won with 61 percent of the vote), there is no judicial remedy.

Hey, but maybe my pessimism will all be for naught, and the good people of California will stand up to the forces of a religious minority that would like to make their beliefs required by all.

There’s also the potential for the issue to cloud more pressing issues during this election season, distracting voters and my colleagues in The News from matters that potentially affect us all (in some cases, alarmingly) — you know, like health care and pollution and energy and the economic crunch and war and such.

If that happens, we’ll be in for another season of parsing words and nuance. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex “marriage,” but are OK with “civil unions.” Both oppose an amendment to the U.S. constitution on the matter, believing the matter should be left up to the states, which is also John McCain’s position, although he has allowed that he’d favor a federal amendment if the states start permitting same-sex marriage, a position that makes no sense at all to me.

McCain wasn’t very happy with the California Supreme Court’s decision Thursday. According to a spokesman, he “doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”

Full stop.

John McCain doesn’t believe the California Supreme Court should be making decisions regarding the constitutionality of laws in the state of California? Well, gee, then maybe we don’t even need a Supreme Court at all. Just let California voters and whoever else wants to make up a law go ahead and make it up, regardless of what any old stupid constitution says. It’s just a piece of paper anyway, right?

Right.

When it comes down to it, that’s really what this election is about — the courts, laws, who gets to decide what they are and what they mean. We’ve had eight years of an administration that has interpreted laws however it wanted to, a president who attached “signing statements” to the legitimately approved legislation of the Congress explaining why he didn’t have to abide by the law.

The Republicans claim they’re offering “the change you deserve,” just like the anti-depressent Effexor. Oops, they changed that now. It’s “the change America deserves.” But what change are they really offering?

More war in Iraq? No change. More saber-rattling to Iran? No change. More tax cuts for rich Americans? No change. Less oversight on polluters? No change. More tax breaks for big corporations? No change. Less help for struggling Americans? No change. More judges who will rubber stamp whatever the GOP thinks should be the law of the land? No change.

More attempts to legitimize bigotry and discrimination by enshrining it in the constitution? No damn change.

And yet, out there in Democratic voter-land, there’s a call to “Turn Down Obama” (interestingly posted, as of this writing, directly beneath an ad for Michael Savage), which is just as ridiculous as all the anti-Clinton mania that has been rampant at many so-called progressive Web sites. Makes no freakin’ sense to me. None at all. Who are these people? Nader voters? That “protest vote” worked so well in 2000.

I’ve got complaints about both of the Democratic candidates. Neither were my first choice. But I’ve got a lot more complaints about the possibility of George W. Bush getting a third term vicariously through John McCain.

Enough already. This was supposed to be about the California Supremes. Good for them. And good luck to the Californians in the tough battles they’ll be facing ahead. In the meantime, go, get married, have a honeymoon. Celebrate, because who knows what tomorrow will bring?

So despite all the Clinton campaign’s huffing and puffing, this News Writer has to say the race for the Democratic nomination is pretty much over. Barring some unprecedented self-destruction, Obama’s going to be the nominee.

That’s upset no small number of Clinton supporters, many of whom believe (a) Obama is as dirty a politician as they come and/or (b) Obama and all the Democrats who support him are guilty of the worst sexism imaginable. And, they say, they’re not going to take it any more. They just won’t vote for Obama.

A quick note: If Clinton were to miraculously pull this one out, we’ll be talking about the other side of this unbelievably shortsighted coin because we’d have a sizable number of Democratic Obama supporters, who have spent this primary season espousing Republican-like Hillary hate, swearing they’d never vote for her.

In my state, I could say either one of those things and it’d be fine — McCain’s going to win my state no matter who I vote for or who is the Democratic nominee. But there are an awful lot of states out there where that’s not the case, where the race will be much closer — and a sizeable number of Democrats could spell the difference between a Democrat in the White House, and, well, four to eight more years of hell.

This country can’t afford that, folks. If you think it can, I got two words for ya.

Supreme Court.

Do you really want to see John McCain appoint at least three more Supreme Court justices?

Punishing the Democratic party at this point is pretty much akin to the old “cutting off your nose to spite your face” adage. It’s a bad idea. It’s petty, it’s selfish and it’s freaking dangerous. Don’t go there. Barack Obama isn’t the Savior some of his supporters believe him to be. Neither is Hillary Clinton. But either is way better than John McCain.

Again, two words: Supreme Court.

Need more words? Roe v. Wade. There are many, many more.

Clinton supporters, let me leave you with this, a relatively unbiased rundown of who Barack Obama is and isn’t from the Progressive Review’s Sam Smith. Obama folks, you might want to take a look too, if you can put aside any latent beliefs you may have that anyone who criticizes him is a racist pig. You might even learn a little something about being a progressive.

Don’t kid yourself — this is a vital election, folks. But it’s going to take a lot more than the next president to fix what’s been nearly destroyed by the Bush regime. Still, a McCain regime would serve only to seal our doom. According to Smith,

At worst, Obama will be one more fox placed in the chicken coop of democracy by the corporations and their outsourced workers in the media and politics. At best, he will rebel against his upbringing and offer America something new and better. Most likely, however, is that he will serve as a deeply frustrating transition between what should never have happened and what needs to be done — stabilizing our national dysfunctions as they continue to await proper and necessary treatment.

Honestly, I hold little hope that Obama will beat McCain in November. But then, I can be quite the pessimist at times, and I sure as hell hope I’m wrong. I never had all that much hope that Clinton could beat McCain either, but I think she had a better chance than the senator from Illinois. Not much though. But whether any of us believe that the Democratic nominee can win in November, it is seriously time to put aside our differences and work toward that goal. The consequences couldn’t be higher.

Well, well. It’s certainly been awhile. I’ve missed you. Truth is, I had nothing to say.

Now I do. So here goes.

The one thing that scares Republicans more than anything else in the world is the thought of a Democrat in the White House. The one thing that scares Democrats more than anything else in the world is the thought of a Democrat they don’t support in the White House.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Tell me it’s not true. You know damn well it is. Read the “progressive” blogs where Barack Obama has practically been anointed the second coming or the feminist blogs where anything less than total support of Hillary Clinton is proof of a misogyny worthy of the most regressive society imaginable.

On the former, Obama can do no wrong while Clinton can do nothing right. For the latter, the reverse is true.

Meanwhile, the Straight Talk Express gets the radioheads and my colleagues in the Mainstream Media to do their dirty work for ‘em. Hey, it works — Radiohead goes all Hussein on Obama, McCain “repudiates” the comments, and my colleagues talk about it for the next week. Mission Accomplished. The bullshit is out there, and it stays out there. Dirty work done by surrogates, St. John’s hands are clean.

And before you accuse my colleagues of Republican bias, let me let you in on a little secret. We’re not biased for anybody. We fall for any good trick of manipulation, and the Republicans are masters.

Democrats? Not so much. Democrats don’t have the stomach for it, really. They think all they have to do is tell the truth and the day will be won. Wrong. Ya gotta cheat. And, again, the Republicans are masters.

See this picture of Obama in traditional Somali garb, we’ll say, showing the picture — John McCain says its wrong to use it to denigrate Senator Obama. And Senator McCain also says he won’t be using Obama’s middle name, which is Hussein, to denigrate him either. And we’ll do that for hours, days even. The targeted voters get the picture, excuse the pun, and we helped.

Sounds pretty obvious, of course, and because of that, it’s no wonder some of you think we’re pro-Republican. But again, that’s not it. Wave a shiny object in front of our faces and we’ll salivate and jump all over it. At this very moment, some Michael Bloomberg flack has floated the idea of the New York mayor being Obama’s VP pick. Never happen, not in a million years. But that isn’t stopping our pundits from drooling all over the idea, wondering how much money Bloomberg could pour into the campaign and how they’d reconcile their very different views on certain issues.

Earlier, it was the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue demanding that John McCain disavow televangelist John Hagee’s endorsement because of Hagee’s anti-Catholic views. Interestingly, Donohue didn’t appear concerned about Hagee’s anti-gay views, go figure. Donohue is a shiny object. He squeals, and we give him a microphone. Even if he’s dissing John McCain. And besides, it’s only fair after we covered the heck of the Obama-Farrakhan shiny object.

See, it’s just that the Republicans are better at manipulation than the Democrats. And we really are that stupid.

I’m just beginning to wonder if an awful lot of Democrats aren’t that stupid too. The last time they got all huffy over what “liberal” to support for president, we ended up with eight years of George W. Bush. And don’t blame it on the Supreme Court either — honestly, it never should have been that close.

Once upon a time, when The News Writer was but a young and fiercely militant thing, she believed that The Patriarchy was the root of all evil and that only replacing that hideous thing with a Matriarchy could we correct the wrongs of the world and get down to the business of running it right.

That was probably a simplistic way of looking at the world, although, like any really good idea that isn’t quite there yet, it has some merit. Why not, for example, let women run things for a while? It didn’t kill Israel when Golda Meir was there, nor India when Indira Gandhi ran things, and certainly not Britain with Margaret Thatcher. Germany appears to be doing all right with Angela Merkel, as does Chile with Michelle Bachelet.

We may not agree politically with any of them, or only with some of them, but the point is that there’s no reason in the world to not consider a woman as chief executive of a country.

(And no, The News Writer is not about to endorse Hillary Clinton. She’s not endorsing anyone at this stage of the game.)

We’ve got a woman as House Speaker now, and women in charge of House and Senate committees, and they’re doing quite all right as well. But apparently, some aren’t so happy about it. Ever notice the tendency of white, conservative men to spout off about the women in charge in ways they never would about men?

Paul Waldman did, over at TomPaine.com. He noted Barbara Boxer’s response to James Inhofe’s attempt to control her committee last week, when Al Gore was testifying …

After some back and forth between Inhofe and Gore, the new chair of the committee, Barbara Boxer of California, put a hand on Inhofe’s arm and said, “I want to talk to you a minute, please.” After Boxer suggested that Inhofe give Gore the time to answer his questions, Inhofe replied, “Why don’t we do this: at the end, you [Gore] can have as much time as you want to answer all the questions…” Boxer then interrupted: “No, that isn’t the rule. You’re not making the rules. You used to when you did this,” she said, holding up the chair’s gavel. “Elections have consequences. So I make the rules.”

Boxer spoke with a particular kind of authority: not angry, not loud, but unmistakably firm. There was no doubt who was in charge in that room. You could almost see the steam coming out of Inhofe’s ears, not only because he had been deprived of his power, but because he was deprived of it by a woman. She even held up the gavel, the symbol of that power, and practically taunted him with it. Freud couldn’t have scripted it much better.

And then he noted the response of one Michael Savage to that exchange.

The response in some quarters was unsurprising. Michael Savage, whose hateful rants are reportedly heard by 8 million radio listeners every day, hit the roof. Referring repeatedly to “foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around,” he opined that the image of a woman giving a man orders would lead to more terrorist attacks (or something like that—it was a little hard to follow).

Whew. Not good to have all those nasty bitches bossing men around, huh? Sheesh, what will the world come to? A nation full of hen-pecked men who can’t do anything without a woman’s OK?

That’s probably not far from the truth of what folks like Savage are thinking. But Savage is, obviously, an extremist. What say some of the more moderate amongst the white, conservative men? Why, they’re not much better.

MSNBC host Tucker Carlson recently described Hillary Clinton as “castrating, overbearing and scary.” Why Carlson looks at the junior senator from New York and immediately fears for the safety of his testicles might be something he and his therapist should explore, but he’s hardly alone—after the election Chris Matthews wondered on the air if Nancy Pelosi was “going to castrate Steny Hoyer.” And Matthews has gone through a series of man-crushes on politicians whom he sees as super-hunky in their masculine ways. First it was George W. Bush, then John McCain and the current object of Matthews’ affections is Rudy Giuliani. “I think he did a great job,” Matthews said about Giuliani’s tenure in New York. “And I think the country wants a boss like that. You know, a little bit of fascism there.”

Or is that they’re all extremists?

Waldman’s really onto something here, though — that the conservatives are looking for a “super hunky” and “masculine” leader, and obviously, women cannot fit that bill. Not only that, but the way to diss your opposition is to portray them as un-”super hunky” and un-”masculine” — e.g., weak and, well, feminine.

Because feminine, y’see, can’t be strong and vibrant. Can’t be well-spoken or wise. That’s reserved for super hunky masculine guys who could run a war (never mind that most of them avoided military service — or combat service — themselves), something a woman just couldn’t do.

Bet me. It’s just not as likely that a woman would drag us unnecessarily into an unwinnable war and then proclaim it’ll be up to the next president to get us out of it.

But The News Writer thinks, and apparently so does Paul Waldman, that the real problem with these conservatives in search of the super hunky is that they’re just extremely threatened at the prospect of a strong woman, and completely insecure in their own masculinity. That would be why they need the image of the super-hunky to make up for their own fears.

One can’t avoid noticing that as a group, conservative media figures are not exactly secure in their masculinity. Forever promoting war when they avoided military service themselves and doubling over to protect their tender parts every time a strong woman appears on their television screens, it’s no wonder they are so impressed by politicians who may not be real men but know how to present a convincing facsimile of manliness.

Much of the audience that tunes in to the corps of overcompensating pretend macho men is just as insecure about their manhood, ready to cast a manly, masculine vote lest anyone raise an eyebrow at their choice for president. That doesn’t mean that Hillary Clinton—or any female presidential candidate, for that matter—can’t win. But if she goes around holding up any long, firm objects, a lot of guys’ heads might just explode.

And that doesn’t even take into consideration the religious conservative types who think women should be seen and not heard outside the house (or maybe not even seen). That’s a topic for another time.

A woman telephoned a radio call-in show the other night. The show was about the so-called “Lost Tomb of Jesus.” This woman, call her Juanita, because that was her name, told the talk show host and his guests that because the Old and New Testaments both spoke to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, any talk of finding his bones was “a fairy tale.”

“But,” she went on, “it must be a week for fairy tales, because Al Gore just won an Oscar for a movie about one.”

Your News Writer immediately turned off the radio call-in show, unwilling to hear any more such pronouncements. They just make her sad. Sad, and worried, concerned, frightened, even.

Frightened for our future. There are far too many people out there who think like that … that anything that goes against their beliefs is a fairy tale, not to even be considered with the slightest modicum of seriousness. And so global warming can be dismissed with a joke.

It will be the death of us all, that attitude, that adherence to outmoded and outlandish ideas. In our current day, of course, that attitude is aided and abetted by our Dear Leader, the Boy King George who does not believe in global warming, who believes that creationism is a science, who thinks that his higher father guides him in turning the United States into one of the most reviled nations on the planet.

And his millions of followers go blindly behind him, safe in their convictions that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong, wrong wrong.

But alas, they are the wrong ones. And their insistance that the rest of us follow their way is dangerous. It holds back humanity from its true course of continued growth and change. The News Writer imagines that god, the real god, is as dismayed as she is over this, that somewhere there is a creator/creative intelligence/god that is saddened to see what giving humans free will has done to some segments of this world’s vast population.

But then, The News Writer doesn’t really know the feelings of god, whoever he or she really is. It’s even possible that she is wrong and those she thinks are misguided miscreants are actually in the right, that ability to consider that one is wrong being a prime difference between her and them.

Maybe they are right. It just doesn’t seem possible. Only sad. Very, very sad.

Ask any True Believer and they’ll tell you that’s just not possible. Jesus can’t lie anywhere. He was resurrected and rose to heaven. Right?

Maybe. That’s the real beginnings of “faith” — to take the leap of faith necessary to believe that a man, divine or not, could die and then be resurrected, and then rise whole into heaven. It’s the very basis of modern Christianity (at least the version practiced by most modern-day Christians. Gnostics and others have a different view of the resurrection).

Now comes a Hollywood movie maker who says archaeologists have found Jesus’ tomb — and that of his mother, Mary Magdalene <i>and their son</i>. Shocking. True Believers are jumping to condemn what some say about the tomb discovered in a Jerusalem suburb in 1980, far from the Church of the Sepulchre, where legend has it Jesus was entombed before his resurrection.

The documentary about the find, produced by “Titanic’s” James Cameron, says the tomb actually may have contained the bones of Jesus. But that’s just not possible if the resurrection happened. It’s no wonder the True Believers are responding so quickly to this challenge to the very underpinnings of their beliefs.

Now, in reality, there’s likely no way we can ever know for sure if Jesus and his mother and Mary Magdalene and Judah, son of Jesus, at least the ones the ossuaries found in the tomb cite, are the real Jesus et al. Two thousand years have passed, and there are no known decendants to use for DNA testing that might prove or disprove the claim.

Your News Writer will take no side in this debate. She’s just intrigued by the argument and what it means to one of the world’s leading religions.

The True Believers will immediately dismiss this new claim as impossible, no possibility of being true. And they’ll hand out a few reasons it can’t be true — that Jesus’ family was from Galillee and would not have had a tomb in Jerusalem chief among them. That statement in itself can’t be proven or disproven, of course. But it behooves the TBs to dismiss this, otherwise, they must question their entire faith. And we can’t have that, of course.

But what if it were true? What if Jesus was buried in a tomb, where also lies his mother, father, perhaps a brother, Mary Magdalene … and his son? The question of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries too, most recently brought into the spotlight by “The DaVinci Code,” and what a row that started! The very idea struck a blow at the Jesus as Divine view.

But it’s not beyond the pale to think that Jesus, a teacher, a rabbi, if you will, could have been married. It’s not mentioned in the Gospels, of course, but then the Gospels that were saved and put into the canon were just a few among many — and only those that backed up the Roman church’s view of the divinity and resurrection of Jesus were kept. The rest — heresies.

Perhaps Jesus was “a man, just a man,” as Mary Magdalene sings in “Jesus Christ Superstar.” Maybe he died, maybe he was crucified, and buried. Maybe there even was a resurrection, just not of the body he wore during his teaching ministry — the disciples, you may recall, didn’t recognize him after the resurrection; something was surely different.

What would happen to Christianity, though, without the “leap of faith” at its very heart? Could Jesus not have still “died for our sins?”

The News Writer brings up these questions, but alas, has no answers. Curiousity, she does have. She also tends to believe that religions are made up of myths, some based in reality, some not at all. Here is the most basic myth of Christianity, challenged by the discovery of a tomb in suburban Jerusalem. What if, Dear Readers? What if it were true?