I'm shocked, shocked . . .

Via Captain's Quarters:

CBS News reports that the American and Italian investigators looking into the death of Italian commando Nicola Calipari and wounding of hostage/journalist Giuliana Sgrena have evidence that Sgrena lied about the incident from the beginning. Sgrena has long insisted that the Italian driver slowed down to under 30 MPH before approaching the checkpoint, whereupon American soldiers opened fire without warning. However, CBS now claims that data from military satellites clearly showed the car traveling towards the checkpoint at over 60 MPH without slowing down at all, triggering the defensive response from the American soldiers.

Update: This -- from Patterico's Pontifications actually did surprise me, though I can't for the life of me say why it should: "Los Angeles Times editors have edited a Reuters story to remove critical facts supporting the U.S. position on an important international issue." [They omitted the facts about the satellite evidence of the car's speed.]

Friday afternoon drinking quote of the week

"To alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

--Homer Simpson

VDH explains it all for you

Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece on anti-Americanism abroad:

The United Nations has sadly become a creepy organization. Its General Assembly is full of cutthroat regimes. The Human Rights Commission has had members like Vietnam and Sudan, regimes that at recess must fight over bragging rights to which of the two killed more of their own people. The U.N. has a singular propensity to find flawed men to be secretary-general — a Kurt Waldheim, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or Kofi Annan. Blue-helmeted peace-keepers, we learn, are as likely to commit as prevent crimes; and the only thing constant about such troops is that they will never go first into harm's way in Serbia, Kosovo, the Congo, or Dafur to stop genocide. Even worse, the U.N. has proved to be a terrible bully, an unforgivable sin for a self-proclaimed protector of the weak and innocent — loud false charges against Israel for its presence in the West Bank, not a peep about China in Tibet; tough talk about Palestinian rights, far less about offending Arabs over Darfur. So U.N. anti-Americanism is a glowing radiation badge, proof of exposure to toxicity.

The EU is well past being merely silly, as its vast complex of bureaucrats tries to control what 400 million speak, eat, and think. Its biggest concerns are three: figuring out how its nations are to keep paying billions of euros to retirees, unemployed, and assorted other entitlement recipients; how to continue to ankle-bite the United States without antagonizing it to the degree that these utopians might have to pay for their own security; and how not to depopulate itself out of existence. Europeans sold Saddam terrible arms for oil well after the first Gulf War. Democratic Israel or Taiwan means nothing to them; indeed, democracy is increasingly becoming the barometer by which to judge European hostility. Cuba, China, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah — not all that bad; the United States, Taiwan, and Israel, not all that good. Personally, I'd rather live in a country that goes into an anguished national debate over pulling the plug on a lone woman than one that blissfully vacations on the beach oblivious to 15,000 elderly cooked to well done back in Paris.

Rules to live by

1) Don't tug on Superman's cape
2) Don't spit into the wind
3) Don't pull that mask of the Ol' Lone Ranger
4) And don't mess around with Mr. Kibbles

More on Hollywood and "Red Stars"

Cathy Siepp writes about communists in Hollywood and Ronald and Allis Radosh's new book, Red Star over Hollywood: The Film Colony's Long Romance With the Left.

An aside: Warren Beatty may be the typical limousine liberal, but I give him credit for one thing -- he stood up and applauded when little old Elia Kazan (who directed some of the greatest films ever made in Hollywood) walked out on stage to receive his Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. Amy Madigan, Ed Harris, and Nick Nolte -- who among the lot of them have about half as much talent as Elia Kazan on a really bad day -- sat on their hands and pouted at the camera. To paraphrase a comment I made in the early days of this blog, I am utterly sick of this "let's play dissident" mentality. Have these decrepit adolescents ever stopped to consider even the simplest hypothetical: what would have become of their art (and I use the term very loosely) if they had lived in Stalinist Russia? Of course, the answer is NOT that they would have become REAL dissidents, risking their lives for the sake of truth and their art -- no, that kind of courageous dissent is practiced only by artists who actually have something profound to say. The Madigans, Noltes, and Harris's of the world think in fashionable slogans, and were they living under Stalin's regime, or modern-day Cuba for that matter, they would be creating fawning, sycophantic dramatic portraits of Uncle Joe or el Jeffe to a chorus of "Dude, that is, like, so brilliant!" from their friends.

Another aside: The inimitable James Lileks on communism and anti-communism:

I’ve noted this odd phenomenon for years; you can be indifferent to Communism, you can be an actual Communist, and no one will really care, but opposition to Communism will really make some people suspicious.

It’s not that they support Communism - oh, heavens, no - but they’re suspicious of anyone who seemed particularly interested in confronting the Red Menace. Communism is like, well, chiropractic medicine. They might not believe in it, but they have a friend who did, and all in all what’s the harm, and besides, the doctors want to suppress it, and the doctors are a special-interest group interested in their own turf, so what are they trying to hide? I mean I knew this doctor who complained all the time about malpractice insurance costs, and you should have seen his house. Like he was hurting.That’s how the argument goes.

The argument is never about Communism, it’s about the reasons one might have for opposing it. The Fang’d and Hateful Shade of Reagan hangs over the conversation - in fact, now that I think of it, this is the adjunct to Godwin’s Law. Just as the invocation of Hitler in a usenet flamewar means the conversation has come to an end, the invocation of Reagan in defense of one’s anti-communism means you’ve just lost the case, because you’ve revealed yourself as an idiot from a strange alternate universe where Reagan is not a punchline.

Remember: some on the left in the 80s were seized with the Spirit of Nixon, and wanted nothing more than détente and rapprochement; they wanted endless negotiations that would codify the precise number, size, and destructive potential of the missiles aimed at our cities. If we all agreed to have 27,293 missiles apiece, and we swapped ballet companies once a year, everything would be fine. For us, anyway. For those living on the other side of the wall, well, they had our warmest personal regards and best wishes. We had our system; they had theirs.

Which is like saying we fed our dogs, and they beat them and put them in kennels, but since we both have dogs we must celebrate our common bond.

Tina Fey to Name Child "Rumpus"

Tina Fey, the first female head writer of "Saturday Night Live" and co-host of SNL's "Weekend Update" has announced that her first child will be named "Rumpus." Fielding questions in the wake of the announcement, she commented: "No, not 'Rumpelstiltskin,' 'Rumpus.' The name is taken from a weblog, 'What's the Rumpus?' where some guy named Wonderdog evidently didn't know who I am. Once I heard that I decided, boy or girl, this baby's name is 'Rumpus.' Let them try to forget me now! I figure from now on my baby can call them at all hours to yell, 'I'M the Rumpus, dangit, and don't you forget it.' Moments after delivery I myself plan to call the staff at 'What's the Rumpus' and ask them all, 'Who's your momma?'"

Redefining "Majority"

Scrappleface hits the mark once again.

(2005-04-28) -- Republicans in the House and Senate today introduced bills which would redefine the word "majority" to mean "a group compelled to do the will of a smaller group."
The change in definition is designed to bring the word back in line with current usage and practice, according to an unnamed Senate source.

The new definition of majority should help Republicans "deflect criticism from staunch conservatives who believe the antiquated, intolerant concept that 'majority rule' requires the more numerous group to prevail," the source said.

"When Republicans go to the polls in 2006," he added, "they must understand that victory for conservatives consists of getting the privilege to serve in the federal government which our Democrat colleagues created, not in changing that government to suit our own narrow ideology."
In the short term, experts said, the redefinition of 'majority' should clear up controversies about judicial confirmations, Rep. Tom DeLay's alleged ethics breaches and John Bolton's nomination as U.N. Ambassador.

"Republicans value results," said the Senate source. "If that means we have to adopt the Democrat agenda to get things done, then so be it. At least we'll get results."

Tina Fey is pregnant...

...Yup. That's the story as posted by Yahoo news.

Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I'm just not as hip as I used to be. But...Who in tarnation is Tina Fey? I've been fair and haven't peeked at the story I linked.

To me, this story is the equivalent of the headline, "A Lady Who Works at IKEA is pregnant".

Means nothing. Shrug shoulders.

I hate this kind of stuff

If these gated communities are keeping the likes of them out, then they've served their purpose.

I live in LA and very close to some of these gated communities (by the way, you need to travel far and wide to find them -- they're not on every street corner as these people are trying to suggest). I certainly don't live in a gated community but would if I could. My neighborhood is very nice but, like most nice neighborhoods in LA, if I go a few blocks south I have to start looking over my shoulder and protecting my wallet.

Here's what Heavy Trash member "Jake" has to say about the gated communities:

"...years from now, people will realize that the gates are an anathema to a democratic, open society, and that they instead make for a more fearful society."

Uh...Jake? I'm not afraid of that side of the wall. I'm afraid of this side.

"Time to Retire the Filibuster"

That's the title of a 1995 New York Times editorial. Power Line has the goods.

La Paglia speaks

Ann Althouse liveblogs Camille Paglia's appearance at a Madison Borders. Althouse uses a great Paglia quip as the title of her post: "Try to survive a tornado with a post-structuralist."

Invoking Paglia as my muse, I humbly offer the following:

Surviving a Tornado with a Post-Structuralist

"Il n'ya pas d'hors tornado,"
he said,
his fingers forming quotation marks
in sync with "tornado,"
his black clad back to the window,
his form refusing to brace itself
against the chaos
of defenestrating wind.
Retreating to the cellar
I wondered
on what far field his form would fall
and whether he would finally find himself
outside the text.

Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky . . . it's all Russian to me

Dartmouth Alumni Magazine's most recent issue has a short piece on Dartmouth's War and Peace Studies Program -- a straightforward description of the program and its goals. The title of the piece is "More than Dostoyevsky." I got to the end of the article and couldn't for the life of me figure out what it had to do with Dostoyevsky. Then it hit me -- the War and Peace Studies Program. Ooops -- somebody at Dartmouth magazine (though probably not the author of the article) is mixing up his Russian novelists.

Who goofed? I've got to know.

Al Gore: Yikes

Al Gore is frothing at the mouth again. He was spewing some bile today about Republicans looking to change some Senate rules to make it more difficult to filibuster our judicial system into oblivion. Here's Al (jowls moving violently):

"What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power."

Okay, we get it. Republicans want to rule the world and yada yada yada. Does anyone have a towel or something? Can we get a plastic bag over here to cover ourselves like they give out at a Gallagher concert for the remainder of this speech?

Al's jowls continue:

"This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place!"

Let's see now...We've got "aggressive", okay. What else? Oh, we've got "right-wing". We've got "religious". We've got "zealotry". I know there was another one in there. Oh, yeah, we've got "intolerance" of course. Old Al's slipping a little. Surely he could've worked in a "fascist" in there somewhere.

Okay, so what is he talking about again? Are they donning black robes and burning Democrats at the stake down there at the Senate these days? Oh, right, right. They're looking to change some procedural rules to prevent the filibustering of our judicial system into oblivion. I forgot.

And by the way, setting the buzz words aside, just what in the wide wide world of sports does that statement mean? Religious zealotry and intolerance led to the creation of America? Wow. This guy was almost president.

Al Gore, to me, is like that guy from the opposing team who hits the long fly ball in the bottom of 9th inning of game 7 of the World Series with a runner on and my team up by a run which hooks just foul of the pole, only to be called out on strikes to end the game on the next pitch.

Whew. That was a close one.

Err America

Here's the transcript of the Air America skit that ran on Monday:

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

My take on this is that it's just lame. It's stupid. It's vapid. It's lacking in wit. It's lacking in thought. It's childish. It's hateful. It's not to be taken seriously.

Yes, it's quintessentially leftist.

[Udate: Oops. Kate Marie beat me to this story]

Pot and Kettle Blogging

This kind of stuff is what makes me laugh about the hysterical complaints from leftists who claim that the "religious right" is inciting violence against federal judges.

Curious Casting

Which casting is the most curious?

a) Fred Flintstone as Travis Bickle

b) Ed Asner as Luke Skywalker

c) Harvey Fierstein as Chief Brody

d) Joan Plowright as Freddy Kruger

...I gotta go with (b). While it would be difficult to imagine Flintstone with a mohawk, I think he has just enough unstableness to pull off the mirror scene ("You talkin to me, Barn?"). Firestein would seem an obvious choice here though, call me crazy, but I think he could bring something to Brody that was missing -- flamboyance and a lisp (ssstthhhhmile yoou sttthon-of-a-bitch!). Plowright as Kruger is a bit off-putting but, once you get a little used to the idea, it seems to work in a weird way. Yup, I gotta go with Asner as Skywalker. No matter how hard I try, my imagination just won't allow me to see him bullseyeing wamp rats back home in Beggar's Canyon.

INFOMANIA

The relentless influx of emails, cellphone calls and instant messages received by modern workers can reduce their IQ by more than smoking marijuana, suggests UK research.

Let's see. . . tough choice. . come to work and be bombarded with calls, faxes, emails, websites, letters, and other various and sundry interruptions and get stupid. . . or stay home with the bong. . . .decisions. . decisions.

Grumpy Old Man smacks down Frank Rich

Over at As the Top of the World Turns, Grumpy Old Man eviscerates Frank Rich's recent rant about "Justice Sunday."

Poem of the Day

[I thought that, since I'd mildly dissed free verse in my previous post, I'd offer a poem which demonstrates how beautiful free verse can be.]

After Making Love We Hear Footsteps

For I can snore like a bullhorn
or play loud music
or sit up talking with any reasonably sober Irishman
and Fergus will only sink deeper
into his dreamless sleep, which goes by all in one flash,
but let there be that heavy breathing
or a stifled come-cry anywhere in the house
and he will wrench himself awake
and make for it on the run -- as now, we lie together,
after making love, quiet, touching along the length of our bodies,
familiar touch of the long-married,
and he appears -- in his baseball pajamas, it happens,
the neck opening so small he has to screw them on --
and flops down between us and hugs us and snuggles himself to sleep,
his face gleaming with satisfaction at being this very child.

In the half darkness we look at each other
and smile
and touch arms across this little, startlingly muscled body --
this one whom habit of memory propels to the ground of his making,
sleeper only the mortal sounds can sing awake,
this blessing love gives again into our arms.

-- Galway Kinnell

Blame it on Whitman

David Yezzi has an excellent article in The New Criterion about the study of prosody and the sad decline of traditional verse forms during the past century.

Here's his conclusion:

Surely, first-rate poems continue to be written today, in both meter and free verse. Still, in only a hundred years it would appear that both students of poetry and poets themselves are no longer masters of one of the essential elements of the art form. It’s as if our culture gave up study of the violin or artists no longer learned to draw (now too often the case). Recovery of these tools may take much longer than one might think. A poet cannot simply decide one day to write accomplished blank verse, for example, and expect that his unique stamp will appear on the form. The recent masters of blank verse and other traditional verse—Hecht, Wilbur, Edgar Bowers—spent a lifetime composing their signature music, finding within the language a rhythm distinctly their own, unmistakably, indelibly. If anything, poets and readers today have moved even further away from an appreciation of these gifts, and the tide shows no signs of reversing. For how many subsequent generations will the language of Shakespeare continue to be far too good?

Yezzi considers some of the reasons for the demise of traditional verse forms (for instance, the modernist idea that traditional forms couldn't reflect the chaos of contmeporary reality), and you should read the whole thing, but I'd like to suggest another, more mundane, reason for the state of the current study and practice of prosody -- laziness. Artists and poets are just as vulnerable to the temptations of laziness as anyone else -- especially, I would imagine, when their laziness provides no significant obstacle to the success of their work.

I used to teach high school students, and they hated to have to write poetry in traditional forms, partly because it required them to work harder and partly because, in their opinion, it "cramped their style." They all had some vague idea -- probably some notion that had trickled down to them, in much degraded form, from modernist thought -- that spilling one's half-articulate emotions onto a page was courageous and authentic and artistic. The result of their free verse attempts was always -- and I do mean always -- a jumbled, disjointed, incoherent, undisciplined, self-indulgent mess.

I'll not suggest that that's what modern poets do, as there are still great poems being written in free verse, but the less poets study and practice conventional forms, the less they will understand the paradox by which extreme antipathy to convention makes one a slave to unruly impulses and respect for traditional forms liberates one's thought.

When are "deeply held beliefs" a job-related issue?

Professor Bainbridge has an excellent post about the controversy surrounding Bush's judicial nominations and the possibility that Democratic opposition to judges with certain "policy views" has a disparate impact on judicial candidates who are deeply religious.

Hollywood, the blacklist, and myth

In the Los Angeles Times today, Ronald and Allis Radosh write about the way Hollywood's victims of McCarthyism have been romanticized.

Quote of the Day

"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it."

-- Vaclav Havel

(HT: Jonah Goldberg at The Corner.)

Rumpus Riddle Answer #11

Okay, the pressure has gotten to me.

A bright red flower he wears on his head;
His beautiful coat needs no thimble nor thread:
And though he's fearsome, I'll have you know
Ten thousand doors open when he says no!
What is it?

The answer to this Chinese riddle is a Rooster.

Not one person got this riddle correct (without cheating!)

"Pedagogy is the last refuge of scoundrels"

Over at Cliopatria, Robert KC Johnson comments on the David Project flap and whitewash at Columbia University.

Here is his conclusion:

Over the past few years at Brooklyn, I’ve been struck by how often an administration committed to reorienting the curriculum around a quite explicit ideological agenda has defended itself from criticism not by discussing the content of the courses it’s championing but by trying to obscure the issue through points about pedagogy. This pattern seems to have spread to defenders of MEALAC as well. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, it seems now as if, in the academy, pedagogy is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Professor's Johnson's observations about the sleight of hand by which some in the professoriate divert our attention from content to issues of "pedagogy" reminds me -- vaguely, and probably unfairly -- of Robert Warshow's great essay on the Rosenbergs (in The Immediate Experience). In the essay, Warshow dissects some of the Rosenbergs' private correspondence, remarking on the way that even seemingly irrelevant idiosyncracies (like their love of the Brooklyn Dodgers) get sapped of particularity and content. Warshow contends that the Rosenbergs were so steeped in ideology that almost all relationships became, for them, merely formal, like variously shaped molds into which they could pour the most recent Party-approved orthodoxy.

This kind of extreme ideological distortion happens on both ends of the political spectrum, but wherever it happens, it's troubling.

"Love's Language Lost"

Bradley C. S. Watson writes about the deconstruction of the term "marriage" as an Orwellian elimination of thoughtcrime in the latest Claremont Review of Books.

Arguing from a libertarian perpective in Policy Review, here's Jennifer Roback Morse on marriage and the limits of contract. And here is Megan McCardle's excellent post on the facile dismissal of "unintended consequences" objections to same-sex marriage.

It's all relative, right?

William Voegeli, writing for the Claremont Institute, critiques various critiques of the Catholic Church's "absolutism." He also reminds us that words and phrases, like "values" and "value judgments," have histories that we would do well to remember if we want to understand our own intellectual and cultural heritage. (I'm in my "Western civilization is going to hell in a handbasket mode" today, so I'll add that when most high school graduates can't tell you the dates of WW2 or of the Civil War, it's rather quixotic to suggest that they should pay attention to philology).

Here's Voegeli on the fact-value distinction:

The term "values" has become so widely used as a synonym for "moral beliefs" that it is hard to remember the term has a history. Though Max Weber did not invent the fact-value distinction, his profound influence on American social scientists caused them to promote the idea here after World War II. They insisted that their study of society was scientific because it was confined to statements of fact, which could be empirically verified or disproven, differentiating such statements from "value-judgments." "Values" were irrational, subjective personal preferences. Because value-judgments could not be tested, none could be described as true or false, much less as wise or foolish, or good or evil. A debate between people with opposed views about the meaning of justice would as pointless as a debate between people with different favorite flavors of ice cream.

The fact-value distinction has swept all before it. It's hard to find any American who doesn't speak the language of values and value-judgments, or who understands that this distinction is a recent innovation, one never employed before the last century and incomprehensible or ludicrous in any age but our own.

This triumph has occurred despite the weakness of the fact-value distinction as an idea. There is, for one thing, the inability of the fact-value distinction to account for itself. The assertion that every other assertion can be categorized as either a statement of fact or a value-judgment cannot, itself, be a statement of fact—there is no conceivable way to test it empirically. If it is a value-judgment, an expression of some arbitrary personal preference harbored by Max Weber or his followers, there is no reason to believe the fact-value distinction is true, or even a way to speak meaningfully of the possibility that it might be true. And if, finally, it is somehow true despite being empirically unverifiable, then we cannot rule out the possibility there are other assertions both true and empirically unverifiable—a possibility that, like a crack in a dam, would demolish the fact-value distinction.

Read the whole thing.

Sweet!

Via Our Girl in Chicago, I came across the following resolution in the Idaho House of Representatives. The resolution passed, 69-0-1. The lone dissenter was obviously a "freaking idiot!"

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION STATING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND COMMENDING JARED AND JERUSHA HESS AND THE CITY OF PRESTON FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE MOVIE "NAPOLEON DYNAMITE."

Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

WHEREAS, the State of Idaho recognizes the vision, talent and creativity of Jared and Jerusha Hess in the writing and production of "Napoleon Dynamite"; and WHEREAS, the scenic and beautiful City of Preston, County of Franklin and the State of Idaho are experiencing increased tourism and economic growth; and WHEREAS, filmmaker Jared Hess is a native Idahoan who was educated in the Idaho public school system; and WHEREAS, the Preston High School administration and staff, particularly the cafeteria staff, have enjoyed notoriety and worldwide attention; and WHEREAS, tater tots figure prominently in this film thus promoting Idaho's most famous export; and WHEREAS, the friendship between Napoleon and Pedro has furthered multiethnic relationships; and WHEREAS, Uncle Rico's football skills are a testament to Idaho athletics; and WHEREAS, Napoleon's bicycle and Kip's skateboard promote better air quality and carpooling as alternatives to fuel-dependent methods of transportation; and WHEREAS, Grandma's trip to the St. Anthony Sand Dunes highlights a long-honored Idaho vacation destination; and WHEREAS, Rico and Kip's Tupperware sales and Deb's keychains and glamour shots promote entrepreneurism and self-sufficiency in Idaho's small towns; and WHEREAS, Napoleon's artistic rendition of Trisha is an example of the importance of the visual arts in K-12 education; and WHEREAS, the schoolwide Preston High School student body elections foster an awareness in Idaho's youth of public service and civic duty; and WHEREAS, the "Happy Hands" club and the requirement that candidates for school president present a skit is an example of the importance of theater arts in K-12 education; and WHEREAS, Pedro's efforts to bake a cake for Summer illustrate the positive connection between culinary skills to lifelong relationships; and WHEREAS, Kip's relationship with LaFawnduh is a tribute to e-commerce and Idaho's technology-driven industry; and WHEREAS, Kip and LaFawnduh's wedding shows Idaho's commitment to healthy marriages; and WHEREAS, the prevalence of cooked steak as a primary food group pays tribute to Idaho's beef industry; and WHEREAS, Napoleon's tetherball dexterity emphasizes the importance of physical education in Idaho public schools; and WHEREAS, Tina the llama, the chickens with large talons, the 4-H milk cows, and the Honeymoon Stallion showcase Idaho's animal husbandry; and WHEREAS, any members of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Legislature of the State of Idaho who choose to vote "Nay" on this concurrent resolution are "FREAKIN' IDIOTS!"…

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

I've been meaning, for a long time, to post a review of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind here at Rumpus, since it is one of the best movies I've seen in the past five years. I've decided, instead, to direct you to a very nice review of the film by Terry Teachout (one of my favorite critics):

"Michel Gondry, the director of Eternal Sunshine, has put Kaufman’s wild fantasy on screen with bedazzling skill, investing it with eerie plausibility, just as Carrey and Winslet make their characters seem as real as the face you see in the mirror every morning. The result is a piercingly rueful film that is romantic, even optimistic, in spite of itself. As regular readers of this column know, I’m no postmodernist, but Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, for all the unabashed postmodernity of its narrative techniques, is anything but nihilistic. On the contrary, its characters labor desperately—and touchingly—to find meaning in a seemingly chaotic world in which reality itself can be altered."

This wonderful film reminds me of one of C. S. Lewis' observations about love: "This is one of the miracles of love: It gives a power of seeing through its own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted."

[What, you ask, are the other movies that I consider the best of the last five years? All right, you don't ask, but I'll tell you anyway. They are The Lord of the Rings trilogy (especially The Fellowship of the Ring), You Can Count on Me, and Moulin Rouge! I'm sure I'm forgetting some great movies, and I'm sure my very short list will elicit some howls, particularly in response to the last film I mentioned, but that's okay . . . bring it on. I can talk movies 'til the cows come home. Wait a minute, they are home . . . I'm going to bed.]

Benedict XVI and the dictatorship of knee-jerk punditry

""Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching," looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."

-- Cardinal Ratzinger, in his homily before the first meeting of the papal conclave

In a scene from Kenneth Lonergan's outstanding film, You Can Count on Me, Sammy -- one of the film's protagonists -- has invited the pastor of her church to her house out of concern for her brother, Terry, a sympathetic but screwed-up drifter who appears to be pathologically unable to get his life together. Sammy apparently hopes that "Pastor Ron" will offer some guidance -- even some hope -- to Terry. Here's part of their exchange:

Pastor Ron: Even in this little town, I really feel like what I do is very connected with the real center of people's lives. I'm not saying I'm always Mr. Effective, but I don't feel my life is off to the side of what's important. I don't feel that my happiness and comfort are based on closing my eyes to trouble within myself or trouble in other people. I don't feel like a negligible little scrap, floating around in some kind of empty void with no sense of connectedness to anything around me except by virtue of whatever little philosophies I can scrape together on my own. Can I ask you , Terry, . . . do you think your life is important?

Terry: Do you mean, like, me personally, like, my individual life?

Pastor Ron: Yeah.

Terry: Hmmm, I'm not really sure . . . what do you mean, I mean, it's important to me, I guess, and, like, to my, you know, the people that care about me . . .

Pastor Ron: But do you think it's important? Do you think it's important in the scheme of things? Not just because it's yours or because you're somebody's brother . . . because I really don't get the impression that you do.

Terry: I don't particularly think that anybody's life has any particular importance besides whatever, you know, like, whatever we arbitrarily give it . . . which is fine, I mean, you know, we might as well. I mean, I think my life is important as anyone else's. I don't know . . . a lot of what you say has real appeal to me . . . you know, the stuff they told us when we were kids. But, you know, I don't wanna believe in something or not believe in it because I might feel bad. I wanna believe in it or not believe in it because I think it's true or not. Yeah, I mean, I . . . I wanna believe that my life is important, that it's connected to something important.

Pastor Ron: Well, isn't there any way for you to believe that without calling it God or religion or whatever term it is that you object to?

Terry eventually shrugs, and says, "Yeah, I believe that," though I think it's clear that it's more something he desperately wants to believe than something he really does believe. What the film leaves open, however, or at least asks the viewer to consider, is the possibility that the answer to Pastor Ron's final question is always no -- that without God or religion, the meaning of any individual life is always arbitrary and contingent. It also leaves open the possibility that such arbitrariness and contingency is the true thing to which Terry refers when he says he wants to believe in something "because it's true."

This film doesn't answer any questions, but it asks some important ones. It doesn't offer the kind of relativism-sans-the-abyss that idiots like Margaret Carlson seem to embrace in their rush to declare the new pope an arrogant bully. Carlson translates Cardinal Ratzinger's concern with "the dictatorship of relativism" as, roughly, "don't worry, boys (wink, wink) -- we'll maintain our centuries-old sexist hegemony if it's the last thing we do." Carlson may be an idiot, but she is, of course, free to think and say whatever she wants about the new pope and the Catholic Church. She is free to concentrate on the "social issues" while whistling past the philosophical and theological ones.

Here's Cardinal Ratzinger again (from the same homily quoted above):

"We have received the faith to give it to others - we are priests meant to serve others. And we must bring a fruit that will remain. All people want to leave a mark which lasts. But what remains? Money does not. Buildings do not, nor books. After a certain amount of time, whether long or short, all these things disappear. The only thing which remains forever is the human soul, the human person created by God for eternity. The fruit which remains then is that which we have sowed in human souls - love, knowledge, a gesture capable of touching the heart, words which open the soul to joy in the Lord. Let us then go to the Lord and pray to him, so that he may help us bear fruit which remains. Only in this way will the earth be changed from a valley of tears to a garden of God."

Cardinal Ratzinger is asking Carlson -- he's asking all of us -- "do you think your life is important?" Carlson's answer seems to be, "Never mind about that. What about women priests?" That's why she's one of the semi-nameless rabble of knee-jerk punditry, and he's the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

CBS Under Attack

A homicidal undead creature tentatively identified as the reanimated zombie of Marlene Dietrich has been on a murderous rampage through the offices of CBS Productions. The proximal cause seems to be CBS' decision to air the made for TV movie, "Amber Frey: Witness for the Prosecution" on May 25 of this year. Reached for comment, one CBS executive said, "Someone told me that it would make Marlene roll over in her grave, but I assumed that was a figure of speech." Another CBS employee who preferred to remain anonymous commented, "Many times our breaches of good taste have been trumpeted as a sign of the 'end times.' I always laughed that kind of thing off. I mean, no matter how far we lowered the bar I was confident we could lower it further. But when the dead start rising from the grave it does make you wonder." Executives at the competing networks could not be reached for comment.

Poem of the Day

The Collar

I struck the board and cried, “No more;
I will abroad.
What, shall I ever sigh and pine?
My lines and life are free, free as the road,
Loose as the wind, as large as store.
Shall I be still in suit?
Have I no harvest but a thorn
To let me blood, and not restore
What I have lost with cordial fruit?
Sure there was wine
Before my sighs did dry it; there was corn
Before my tears did drown it.
Is the year only lost to me?
Have I no bays to crown it?
No flowers, no garlands gay? All blasted?
All wasted?
Not so, my heart; but there is fruit,
And thou hast hands.
Recover all thy sigh-blown age
On double pleasure: leave thy cold dispute
Of what is fit and not; forsake thy cage,
Thy rope of sands
Which petty thoughts have made, and made to thee
Good cable, to enforce and draw
And be thy law,
While thou didst wink and wouldst not see.
Away: take heed,
I will abroad.
Call in thy death’s head there: tie up thy fears.
He that forbears
To suit and serve his need
Deserves his load.”
But as I raved and grew more fierce and wild
At every word,
Methought I heard one calling ‘Child!’
And I replied, ‘My Lord!’

-- George Herbert

"If you want a gay, abortionist church, found one of your own."

Radioblogger has posted a transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Mark Steyn yesterday.

Here is Steyn on the the new pope and the rise of Islam in the West:

I think [Pope Benedict XVI] understands, for example, that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Canada, America, Britain and Europe because it's not like the Frank Griswold Episcopal Church. It doesn't say hey, man, whatever your bag is, we're cool with that. If you want a gay church, you want a lesbian church, you want an abortionist church, we'll go along with that. It's precisely because Islam is a demanding religion that it has an appeal. And no one needs a religion that merely licenses your appetites. And this is what the guys like Frank Griswold and the Episcopal Church don't seem to realize. You know, the churches that are complaining about this fellow, are the churches that the New York Times want the Catholic Churches to be like. These are the churches in decline, and frankly, I think a lot of these critics have made themselves look actually rather ridiculous in being unable to see it like this. If you want a gay, abortionist church, found one of your own. There's nothing in Catholic theology of the last 2,000 years to suggest that they'd be cool with that.

Steyn hits the nail on the head here. If Catholic and "mainline" Protestant churches are in decline in the West, the catalyst for that decline is the pervasive secularization of those churches, not their resistance to it. When churches become merely glorified social service organizations, people will eventually decide it's easier, and just as spiritually fulfilling, to send the check in to Chrisitan Children's Fund every month. People hunger for meaning -- for a reason to live and a reason to die. They may not always like it, but they nevertheless expect and want their church to say "change your life;" they want to be reminded of a God who says, "Give away all you have and come follow me." When their religious experience consists of getting together with a nice group of like-minded people -- most of whom have "Free Tibet" and "War is not the answer" bumper stickers on their Volvos -- and discussing how we can be tolerant of one another, with a few prayers tossed in as a kind of sacred spice, then religion becomes merely another niche market for the secular, consumerist culture. And the niche gets increasingly smaller as the consumer realizes that he can buy the same product, sans the sacred spice, much more cheaply in the "self-actualization" section of the nearest mega-bookstore. What we really want is a different "product" entirely -- a much more expensive one, for which we would be quite happy to pay the price.

Bendadryl XIII and the "new world papacy"

This is hilarious.

No real imagination was used in the making of this movie

On the few occasions that I've watched Disney Channel recently, I keep seeing previews for an "original Disney Channel movie" entitled Cadet Kelly -- about a girl who attends a military academy. Over the previews, an insistent graphic announces "No real guns were used in this movie." Whew! I'm glad they reassured me on that point.

Other disclaimers I'd like to see:

Schindler's List -- No real Nazis were used in the making of this film.

The Wizard of Oz -- No real witches or flying monkeys were used in the making of this film.

Gone with the Wind -- No real slaves were used in the making of this film.

A River Runs Through It -- No fish were harmed in the making of this film. [Actually, I did see this disclaimer; presumably, they used stunt fish.]

Star Wars, Episode II: Attack of the Clones -- No real writers were employed in the making of this film.

Lileks is back from a hiatus . . .

and in fine form.

Here he is on the selection of a new Pope:

I have no stake in the matter of who’s the Pope – or do I? Choose a cardinal who issues a homily titled “On the Need to Gas Grandpa When He Starts Crapping Himself” – I’m sure it would sound better in Latin – and this might have an impact on the society where I hope to find myself in 30 years. The selection of Ratzinger was initially heartening, simply because he made the right people apoplectic. I’m still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be? As if there this was some golden moment that would usher in the age of married priests who shuttle between blessing third-trimester abortions and giving last rites to someone who’s about to have the chemical pillow put over his face. At the risk of sounding sacreligious: it’s the Catholic Church, for Christ’s sake! You’re not going to get someone who wants to strip off all the Baroque ornamentation of St. Peter’s and replace them with IKEA wine racks, okay?

And here he is on the dashed hopes of those who hoped to usher in a "modern era" for the papacy:

One story, linked by Blair, had this remark:

"The election of Ratzinger to the papacy has disappointed the Ordination of Catholic Women who were hoping to begin a modern era with a new pope."

Habeum pap. Note: every era is the modern era to the people who inhabit it; a “modern” pope in 1937 would have announced that godless collectivism was the wave of the future, and ridden the trains to Auschwitz standing on top, holding gilded reins, whooping like Slim Pickens. The defining quality of 20th century modernity is impatience, I think – the nervous, irritated, aggravated impulse to get on with the new now, and be done with those old tiresome constraints. We’re still in that 20th century dynamic, I think, and we will be held to it until something shocks us to our core. Say what you will about Benedict v.16, but he wants there to be a core to which we can be shocked. And I prefer that to a tepid slurry of happy-clappy relativism that leads to animists consecrating geodes beneath the dome of St. Peter's. That will probably happen eventually, but if we can push it off for a century or two, good.

Read the whole thing.

If only the U.S. were more like Norway?

NOT.

Somebody needs to get Andrew Sullivan some smelling salts

He's got the vapors. Stephen Bainbridge eschews the smelling salts for a good, brisk slap in the face.

Update: Paul at Power Line joins in:

"The real beef with Ratzinger, then, isn't that he's a threat to liberal democracy; it's the fact that he agrees with the substantive tenets of his religion, including those regarding controversial social issues, and takes them seriously. Like it or not, this Pope is Catholic."

Pope Benedict XVI...

...and "the dictatorship of relativism".

Them's fighting words. Good for him. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)

Viva Il Papa!

Bianco!

Blowing Smoke

"The highest officials gathered in secret solemn conclave. Obsessive politicking, whispered deal-making, desperate intrigue. A rapacious media proposing name after name, possibility after possibility, almost all of which will turn out to be wrong. But enough about the NFL draft."
---Ron Rapoport, Chicago Sun-Times

Blame Canada?

Sounds good to me.

Wonders never cease

Check out this group at Princeton, whose spokesman says the following: "We don't believe that human beings should be used as instruments or objects. We think the proper relationship between humans should be one of respect and love, and we think promiscuity and random hook-ups are completely destructive to respect and love. Dignity itself is a moral standard."

And then there's the predictable response from the usual suspects:

"This is a position that comes from an extreme religious background that sees any sexuality in an open setting as too much sexuality," said Robert A. Kennelley, a junior and spokesman for the Princeton Pride Alliance, a gay umbrella group. "I have heard discussions at the other end of the spectrum about the over-chastity of students here and at the elite schools, where kids are far more interested in their résumés, and in getting into the right grad school or the right bank, than in interpersonal relationships."

I guess it all comes down to how you define "interpersonal relationships," doesn't it? Which do you prefer -- the Princeton "prudes" and their emphasis on Kantian principles or the Princeton Pride Alliance and their concern with the epidemic of "over-chastity" in the Ivy League?

(HT: Ann Althouse)

"Blame it on Neo"

No, not Keanu Reeves.

Wonderdog and I have been having a discussion about the use of the term "neo-con" among liberals, and Wonderdog pointed me to this WSJ editorial by Julia Gorin. Gorin notes that the term "neo-con," when used by liberals (and Buchananites) -- especially in conjunction with references to Likudniks and cabals and "neo-con influence" -- has a rhetorical valence that we should be suspicious of. Gorin paints with a bit of a broad brush, I think, but she makes a point that is worth considering.

Late morning mini-report

For the same reason that I believe Hillary will never be president, the same is true for Newt Gingrich. While he's a brilliant mind and political strategist, he's just too polarizing a figure to ever be elected by a consensus of Americans.

Let the Conclave begin. Sigh...Somehow, the tradition and ceremony is lost on me when I see Cardinals handing their "drivers" their vestments in a plastic zip bag as if it were a Dior or Versace while lugging their Kenneth Cole bag over their shoulder as if heading to Cannes for the weekend. As a Catholic, I'm allowed to bash my religion's hierarchal minions. However, I really do love my faith and my Church. Michael Novak explains why.

Here's a heartwarming story about Cub Scouts and Soldiers. [HT: Michelle Malkin]

If you haven't hugged a tyrant lately, Hollywood will show you how.

Chris Bochin, a substitute teacher who is charged with smoking pot with students is apologizing for his actions. He says that smoking pot for the last five years has made him "mentally powerless". Maybe this is why our public schools....pretty much suck?

And this ol' world just keeps on turning.

Death of a Skeptic

Richard H. Popkin was a UCLA professer who became an expert on skepticism and its history through the centuries. The Times is reporting his death. I have my doubts.

George Will, Howard Dean, Religion, and "Our Own High Powers"

George Will writes in his customarily trenchant fashion about the church's battle with modernity:

The challenge confronting the church can be expressed in one word: modernity. The church preaches that freedom is life lived in conformity to God's will as manifested in revelation and interpreted by the church. Modernity teaches that freedom is the sovereignty of the individual's will – personal volition that is spontaneous, unconditioned, inviolable and self-legitimizing.

Meanwhile, in muddled counterpoint to Will, here's Howard Dean waxing incoherent about how the Democrats are going to "use Terri Schiavo":

The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?

One might wonder why it is legitimate for Dean and his cohorts to "use Terri Schiavo" and illegitimate for Delay and the Republicans to do the same thing ("They used her first?" or perhaps "Because we're the good guys and they're the evil guys.") But I'm going to leave that aside for now. And I'm going to pass over the already tired theocracy slur by invoking the Inigo Montoya Retort: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What most interested me in the statement was Dean's faith in "our own high powers." Excuse me, but what exactly are "our own high powers?" Is it something like the Force? I imagine Howie Wan Kenobi throwing back his hood and saying, "Our own high power is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us; it penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together. Remember, your own high power will be with you, always." I'm supposed to tremble at the thought that American domestic policy might be influenced by a group of people who wish to follow God's commandments (or, in current leftist lingo, a bunch of scary, Bible-dancing, snake-handling freaks who want to institute a theocracy), but that guy named Chad with the pierced tongue who works at Starbucks and thinks "Jacklyn Pollock" is, like, a rilly cool artist and that the world would be like, so a better place if we just gave peace a chance and impeached Chimpy McHitlerburton and, like, followed our hearts -- everything will be hunky dory if we just allow him to consult "his own high powers?"

If Democrats don't want to be accused of endorsing the kind of modernity that Will describes -- a modernity that extols the naked will and its "self-legitimizing" power -- they must reconsider their use of a rhetoric which seems to mock and demonize political opinions which are motivated by religious and moral concerns. When it comes down to it, and when it's a matter of the "difficult decisions" that Dean refers to, I'll take the "Bible-thumpers" and their high powers over the Chads of the world and his every time.

If the Passover Story Were Reported by The New York Times or CNN

By Daniel P. Waxman

The cycle of violence between the Jews & the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. "It is simply impossible to report when you can't see an inch in front of you,"complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. "I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me."

While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim. "If only the plagues would let up, there would be no slavery. We just want to live plague-free. It is the right of every society."

Saeb Erekat, an Egyptian spokesperson, complains that slavery is justifiable given the Jews' superior weaponry supplied to them by the superpower God.

The Europeans are particularly enraged by the latest Jewish offensive. "The Jewish aggression must cease if there is to be peace in the region. The Jews should go back to slavery for the good of the rest of the world," stated an angry French President Jacques Chirac.

Even several Jews agree. Adam Shapiro, a Jew, has barricaded himself within Pharaoh's chambers to protect Pharaoh from what is feared will be the next plague, the death of the firstborn. Mr. Shapiro claims that while slavery is not necessarily a good thing, it is the product of the plagues and when the plagues end, so will the slavery. "The Jews have gone too far with plagues such as locusts and epidemic which have virtually destroyed the Egyptian economy," Mr. Shapiro laments. "The Egyptians are really a very nice people and Pharaoh is kind of huggable once you get to know him," gushes Shapiro.

The United States is demanding that Moses and Aaron, the Jewish leaders, continue to negotiate with Pharaoh. While Moses points out that Pharaoh had made promise after promise to free the Jewish people only to immediately break them and thereafter impose harsher and harsher slavery, Richard Boucher of the State Department assails the latest offensive. "Pharaoh is not in complete control of the taskmasters," Mr. Boucher states. "The Jews must return to the negotiating table and will accomplish nothing through these plagues."

The latest round of violence comes in the face of a bold new Saudi peace overture. If only the Jews will give up their language, change their names to Egyptian names and cease having male children, the Arab nations will incline toward peace with them, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah declared.

Word Association

1. Little is to Elephant as ____ is to Barbara Streisand

a) Celebrity b) Money c) Intelligence

2. Hot is to Cold as ____ is to Michael Moore

a) Gluttony b) Truthfulness c) Obnoxiousness

3. Chimpanzee is to primate as Liberal is to ____

a) Tolerant b) Smart c) Anti-Semite

4. Car is to Automobile as Pro-Choice is to ____

a) Noble b) Crushed baby skull c) Caring

5. "N" Word is to African-American as ____ is to People of faith

a) Friend b) Religious Right c) Neighbor

6. Fascism is to Jew as Academia is to ____

a) Wiccan b) Conservative c) Communist

7. The Beatles is to Paul McCartney as The Ku Klux Klan is to ____

a) George W. Bush b) Tom Delay c) Robert Byrd

8. Heaven is to Saddam Hussein as ____ is to Hillary Clinton

a) Starbucks b) The White House c) Commissioner of WNBA

9. Armpit is to Body as ____ is to America

a) Death Valley b) Cleveland c) Hollywood

10. Trash Can is to Trash as Paris Hilton's Dress is to ____

a) A Classy Lady b) A Sweet Girl c) Paris Hilton

[answer key (as if it's necessary) found in comments]

"Death and the Dictator"

No, not Hitler -- the other monster.

Someday I'd love to do a survey of high school seniors to determine what percentage recognizes the name Josef Stalin.

Dylan

I'm talking Bob, not Thomas.
Got this song in my head today from Blood On the Tracks.
Brings me back to my College Days.

SHELTER FROM THE STORM

'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood
When blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud
I came in from the wilderness, a creature void of form.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

And if I pass this way again, you can rest assured
I'll always do my best for her, on that I give my word
In a world of steel-eyed death, and men who are fighting to be warm.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Not a word was spoke between us, there was little risk involved
Everything up to that point had been left unresolved.
Try imagining a place where it's always safe and warm.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I was burned out from exhaustion, buried in the hail,
Poisoned in the bushes an' blown out on the trail,
Hunted like a crocodile, ravaged in the corn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Suddenly I turned around and she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair.
She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Now there's a wall between us, somethin' there's been lost
I took too much for granted, got my signals crossed.
Just to think that it all began on a long-forgotten morn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Well, the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount
But nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts
And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I've heard newborn babies wailin' like a mournin' dove
And old men with broken teeth stranded without love.
Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn?
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

In a little hilltop village, they gambled for my clothes
I bargained for salvation an' they gave me a lethal dose.
I offered up my innocence and got repaid with scorn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Well, I'm livin' in a foreign country but I'm bound to cross the line
Beauty walks a razor's edge, someday I'll make it mine.
If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."



Copyright © 1974 Ram's Horn Music

This will be fun

A number of the bloggers here will be gathering to break bread and spill wine on Saturday at one of our favorite downtown restaurants. We will have to be on the outside patio, because a large group has taken over the restaurant and needs it to make speeches. This group is part of the 2005 Democratic State Convention.
I have suggested that they need to call added security.
I checked out the DSC's website and just loved this little ditty:
"The Convention's theme, 'Democrats Protect Real People,' was chosen in part to illustrate the stark difference between Democrats - whose party is built on representing real citizens, such as nurses, firefighters, law enforcement, etc. -- and Republicans, who continue to protect and serve special interests at the expense of California's working families."
To harken back to a 60's expression, I guess I'm just "unreal, man".
Our friends at the restaurant have take a big hit with the NHL lockout, so they need the business. As hard as it may be, we will need to try to behave ourselves.

And now for the important (geek) stuff . . .

Those for whom the date May 19, 2005 is significant will appreciate this post over at Vodkapundit. (Mild spolier alert.)

Dueling Bumper Stickers

Driving in LA, one would surmise that the election must be about a week away. I saw dueling stickers today.

JESUS FORGIVES BUSH
But I wouldn't vote
for the idiot.

Terrorists around the world agree
Anybody but
BUSH

Honoring our heroes

David Gelernter has a magnificent editorial in -- gasp! -- the Los Angeles Times today, honoring Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, the first (posthumous) Medal of Honor winner in the Iraq war, and all the outstanding young men who choose to serve America in the military.

Update: A good related editorial here.

McCain goes over to the dark side . . . again

Hugh Hewitt has posted a very angry e-mail from an Arizona Republican to Senator John McCain, regarding McCain's decision to vote with the Democrats on the filibuster issue. Here's the conclusion:

"From this day forward, I will begin to actively campaign against you. In any capacity I possibly can. I will first work to defeat you in your primary and I will subsequently work (if necessary) to defeat you in the general by supporting whatever Democrat runs against you. I have never in my life supported a Democrat, but at least I know my enemy with a Democrat. You still have time to change your mind, but then if you did, Tim Russert might not like you."