Well, the fundamentalist secularists now have themselves whipped into a certifiable frenzy over Mel Gibson's "Passion" movie. Andy Rooney opened his trap the other night, and today's Boston Globe features this even-handed, fair-minded look at the film by James Carroll:

"The Passion of The Christ" by Mel Gibson is an obscene movie. It will incite contempt for Jews. It is a blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ. It is an icon of religious violence. Like many others, I anticipated the Gibson film warily, especially because an uncritical rendition of problematic Gospel texts which unfairly blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus threatened to resuscitate the old "Christ-killer" myth.

...It is a lie. It is sick. Jews have every reason to be offended by "The Passion of The Christ." Even more so, if possible, do Christians.

Uh, does that mean you didn't like it?

Jeff Jacoby, in the same paper, dredges up the old "unintended consequences" saw. At least he is willing to admit (which few other critics will) that his main problem is with the Gospels themselves--indeed, with Christianity itself, rather than with Gibson's film:

I don't believe that Jesus was God come to earth in human form -- I believe that God is one, incorporeal and indivisible. To me, the Passion is not a manifestation of divine love but a vicious and evil ordeal inflicted on a victim who didn't deserve it. As a Jew I cannot look at the savage murder of an innocent man as anything but a grievous sin.

...But there is no getting around the fact that the parts of "The Passion" that are the most unflattering to Jews -- the bloody-minded and hateful Temple priests, the Judean mob howling for Jesus' death -- come straight out of the Gospels. I shudder at those depictions and reject them as historically false, but I cannot call a Christian anti-Semitic for believing in the truth of his Bible. I will not smear Gibson as a Jew-hater.

But neither will I pretend that he is unaware of the long and horrid history of Passion plays or of the millions of Jews who died at the hands of killers demonizing them as "Christ killers." It is not unreasonable to worry about the effect of a movie like "The Passion" at a time of surging anti-Semitism.

I mean this as a serious question: why isn't Jeff Jacoby worried that his column will result in attacks on Jews?

The theory, supposedly, is that hateful Christians will be stirred to wrath against Jews by Gibson's portrayal of Christ's suffering. But if there are all sorts of bloodthirsty Christians just waiting to attack, won't Jacoby's anti-Christian, Christ-denying column incite the same violence? Sure, that's not Jacoby's intention. But we always have to be aware of those pesky "unintended consequences." Why does Gibson have to forsee them, but Jacoby does not?

Indeed, the outrageous, anti-Christian rhetoric spewing from the critics of this film will do at least as much to encourage anti-Jewish sentiment as anything Gibson has put on celluloid.

Jacoby goes on:

I don't believe that Jesus was God come to earth in human form -- I believe that God is one, incorporeal and indivisible. To me, the Passion is not a manifestation of divine love but a vicious and evil ordeal inflicted on a victim who didn't deserve it. As a Jew I cannot look at the savage murder of an innocent man as anything but a grievous sin.

What is happening is that a hardened American people is finally beginning to see the scandal of the cross for what it is, and many are recoiling from it. The Apostle Paul pointed it out 2000 years ago:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God....we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18, 23-24)

My wife and I recently got around to watching Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean," for which Johnny Depp was nominated for a best actor Oscar.

Depp's nomination is well deserved; he's delightful in the film. But as I watched, I kept thinking "I know this guy. Who is this guy?"

Then the lightbulb went on.

"Keith Richards!" I shouted, startling my wife.

"Huh?" she said.

"He's doing Keith Richards! The slurred English drawl. The rubbery wrist. The semi-drunken but confident shuffle. He's doing a spoof of Keith Richards!"

If you haven't seen it yet, watch it and tell me I'm wrong.

Arnold Schwarzenegger got a great line off on Tim Russert yesterday on NBC News' "Meet the Press." Absolutely classic. (Wow, that's sentence # 10,368 that I never expected to hear myself say in this lifetime: "Hey, did you hear what Arnold Schwarzenegger said on 'Meet the Press' yesterday?")

From the transcript at MSNBC.com:

MR. RUSSERT: In your book, "Education of a Body Builder," you said something that caught my attention. "I was always honest about my weak points. ...I think it's the key to success in everything: be honest, know where you're weak, admit it." After 100 days as governor, what do you think your weakest point is in trying to be governor?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, first of all, I'm very happy that you studied so thoroughly my body-building books, and I can tell on your body that this is a whole different ball game now, Tim. I mean, look at your deltoids and your six-pack. It's amazing, so congratulations on that.

In case you missed it, President Bush issued another recess appointment to the federal appeals court on Friday. As he did a few weeks ago in the case Charles Pickering (who had been filibustered by Senate Democrats for nearly three years), Bush pulled a procedural end-around to place Alabama attorney general Bill Pryor on the bench without Senate approval after nearly a year of inaction on the Senate's part.

When the Pickering appointment was announced, I said that after three years of this nonsense Bush needs to make many more of these appointments to show the obstructionists in the Senate that he means business. This is another positive step in that direction.

I have mixed feelings at best on Pryor. He blew it bigtime in the Roy Moore case. But he also had the guts, when asked by Chuck Schumer in front of the Senate judiciary committee if he still thinks Roe v. Wade is "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law," to reply, "I do."

Mixed feelings aside, these hardball maneuvers are exactly what are needed to show these clowns that the president means business. Predictably, they were in full-scale apoplexy over the weekend. According to CNN:

The move infuriated Democrats, who now may be even less likely to cooperate with the White House on getting judicial nominees through the closely divided Senate in an election year.

"Regularly circumventing the advise and consent process is not the way to change the tone in Washington," Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said.

Oh, right. Now the Democrats will be less cooperative on judicial nominees. Let's see. Thus far, their "cooperation" has been exacly "zero." It will be interesting to see how they plan to subtract from that.

And by the way. Stick that tone in your ear, Senator Schumer. Multiple, simultaneous filibusters are not a circumvention of the advise and consent process? We've seen what "improved tone" will get us. The president needs to keep going and going on this. The more ultra-conservative the nominees, the better. A few more of these and you will see nothing but cooperation from Senate Democrats, who at that point will try anything to moderate the flow of far right judges by having a voice in the process.

I'm suprising my wife with a weekend getaway to New York City next weekend for our anniversary. Don't say anything to her, because she's not going to have any idea what we're doing until we actually get to the airport. I discovered an unbelievable deal that included hotel and airfare on one of those online travel sites. She's going to flip.

Does anyone know of a good church someone could worship at if they were going to be in midtown Manhattan on a Sunday morning?

I've said all along that the best thing to do at Ground Zero in New York is to rebuild the Twin Towers. Put 'em right back, pretty much just as they were.

Evidently, there is still a group that's moving toward that end. They're not satisfied with the awful Superman's-house-in-the-North-Pole design that was settled on last year. Here's hoping they can get it done.

Judging by the reactions of the Deaniacs at his Blog for America over his withdrawal from the race, I'm wondering if there might not be some truth to Dean's earlier threat that his supporters would not be transferrable.

It's a pretty bitter, discouraged group over there, and if there's one person they hate, it's John Kerry. Could the Dean supporters be this year's version of the Nader factor?

The woman who made headlines a few years ago for being a placekicker for the University of Colorado football team now says she was sexually taunted and abused by her teammates.

Oh boy. I'm going to sit on this one for a few days and not say too much to avoid offending just about everyone. My thoughts are way, way off the politically correct reservation these days.

But I will say at least this much: Rape is an abominable crime. I would be perfectly satisfied with death being punishment for rape.

But what the hell kind of father allows his daughter into a men's football locker room to play on a men's football team? And what the hell kind of woman goes into one?

If that sounds like I'm blaming the victim, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not. It's simply an observation on what should be obvious but evidently isn't: the stupidity of a feminized culture that wants to put women in Army barracks, foxholes, and football locker rooms will occasionally result in some nasty situations. We ought not to act so suprised when it does.

If you are outraged that I'm even saying this, then you've already been thoroughly feminized, and I can only hope you don't have a daughter of your own to throw to the wolves.

Incidentally, she transferred a couple of years ago and currently plays football for the University of New Mexico.

Because of my schedule, I rarely see any prime-time television. For the first time, I've recently started watching occasional episodes of "The West Wing" (in reruns), since it's on late at night when I sometimes flip on the tube.

Though obviously I disagree with its political bent, I've found it to be a suprisingly good show. But I have to ask: would someone mind turning on a light? It's dark in that place.

I've seen pictures of the Oval Office, and it has never once looked like Don Corleone's study during Connie's wedding. I've watched briefings in the White House press room on C-Span, and I've never once seen a glint of late afternoon sunlight, filtered through louvered blinds, splash across the face of the press secretary.

If someone doesn't run down to Office Max and pick up some halogen lamps, those people are going to ruin their eyes.

It appears that Clayton may have pulled the last straw that broke the camel's back with Dr. Victor Christopher Abana-Amudo. In passing, as they trashed out the details for Clayton's trip, he asked the good doctor a perfectly innocuous question:

One quick question. Are you gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that mind you. It's just that when I opened your e-mail I got a banner ad for a gay online dating service on the page. A lot of times those things aren't a coincidence. I'm straight, so I figured, you know, maybe there was something attached to your e-mail that only other gay people can see. Anyway, like I said, no big deal. Just be honest with yourself.

Apparently it didn't go so well, and the doctor has hurled a good bit of hurtful invective Clayton's way:

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY THIS MAIL AS I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU AGAIN. I HAVE GOTTEN ANOTHER INTERESTED AND STRAIGHT FORWARD PERSON THAT COULD ASSIST US IN THE TRANSACTION. LITTLE DID I KNEW THAT YOU ARE SUCH A VERY STUPID AND HOPELESS IDIOT THAT IS ONLY INTERESTED IN WESTING MY PRECIOUS TIME AND ENERGY.

Now them's fightin' words. Clayton is not interested in westing anyone's time. Notice, though, how Dr. Amudo conspicuously included the word "STRAIGHT" in there. He then ends with an imprecatory psalm of his own composure:

I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A BOUNCH OF FRUSTRATED AFRICAN RESIDING IN USA AND PERPETRATING CRIMES. ONE DAY YOUR SINS WILL CATCH UP WITH YOU AND YOU WILL BE DEPORTED TO NIGERIA WHERE BELONG AND I PRAY THAT I WILL BE IN POSITION TO RECEIVE AND TEACH YOU THE LESSON OF YOUR LIFE.

GO TO BLAZES AND BURN TO ASHES.

Well call me an optimist, but I'm still hopeful they'll be able to trash out their petty differences. If you can't find conciliation with the person who wanted to lure you to Nigeria, murder you, steal your money, and teach you the lesson of your life, who can you find it with?

On my way into work this morning, I saw a United Methodist Church with this on its sign:

JESUS FIRST SAID: MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR

Aside from the dubious biblical value of such an assertion, I also had to double-check my watch to make sure that it's still 2004, and that I didn't wake up in a rip in the fabric of the time/space continuum. What will they have up there next week?:

TUNE IN, TURN ON, DROP OUT

THIS IS THE DAWNING OF THE AGE OF AQUARIAS

FLOWER POWER

Or perhaps:

WE LOVE RINGO!

Men's Journal magazine has named Hillary Clinton one of it's "25 Toughest Guys in America."

She was number 25 on the list, only two positions behind rapper 50 Cent, who once drove himself to the hospital after being shot nine times.

Johnny, we hardly knew ye. Next up to the plate, please give a warm welcome to Sen. John Edwards.

A girl is not allowed to pray over her lunch anymore in a public school, but at least she can still perform "The Vagina Monologues" there.

I just received my own Nigerian scam email today. Do I dare?

Nah, it would be redundant. It's already been done to perfection.

Watching the primary returns last night, it finally sank in on me just how monumental Howard Dean's fall from grace has been. This is a guy who not more than a month ago was on the cover of every newsmagazine in the nation and the anointed presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. And in the course of a few weeks, he can't even draw double digits in a primary.

I'm sure there have been other presumptive nominees who have fallen that far that fast--but I can't think of any. There are a whole bunch of Democrats (a veritable Mt. Rushmore of historic losers, including Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Al Gore) who got caught with their pants down after trying to hitch their wagons to a sure thing. It's like one of those dream sequences on TV. In this one, an entire party wakes up at once, shakes off the sleep, suddenly (and I mean suddenly) comes to its senses, and says "There's no way in the world this clown could ever get elected."

The only thing that remains is for the delusional candidate and the delusional true-believers at his blog to come to the same realization that the rest of the party came to simultaneously.

On another note, I saw excerpts from a John Kerry interview last night on Fox News. He was poised, articulate, and (dare I say?)....presidential. He has yet to really endure the microscope of the big time presidential campaign, but I suspect he's going to make things very difficult for George W. Bush in November.

Clayton (a.k.a. Brian at Terrible Swift Word) continues to trash out final plans with Dr. Amudo, as they are both gentlemen of good respects.

It seemed that the plans were endangered when Dr. Amudo accidentally signed one of his emails "Dr. Victor Abana." However, Clayton is not the type to cut bait over something as inconsequential as an alias, and lets him off with a little of the what-for, saying:

Well, I can tell you something, Mr. Dr. Chris Amudo ... I'm not giving up. We've fought too hard and come too far to give it all up at the first sign of trouble. I'm gonna fight for this, because I think it's worth fighting for. And I know you, Dr Chris. Not you you, but the you that I see, in your letters ... in the funny little way you say, "hotle," and in the way you have your birthday in February. Let's do this!

And of course, Dr. Amudo has a ready explanation for the mixup:

CHRISTOPHER IS MY BAPTISMAL NAME BECAUSE I AM A CATHOLIC. AMUDO IS MY NATIVE NAME WHILE ABANA IS MY SURNAME. THEREFORE I COULD USE DR. ABANA OR DR. AMUDO. I AM VERY SORRY FOR CAUSING YOU ANY EMBARRASSMENT WITH THE NAME.

This is good enough for Clayton, though something in the back of his mind points out that the good doctor still hasn't explained the "Victor" part. But we can't get burnt off with such trivialities. As Clayton says, "I'd say I'm about 40% resplendant / 60% confident at this point," (whatever the hell that means.) "Maybe only 42/58. I'm sure that once I hear an equally logical explanation of how Victor fits into it all I'll be bribing with confidence."

In the meantime, Clayton is trashing out the details for his departure to Lagos, though Amudo/Abana insists he fly into Enugu, where he already has a hotle picked out for Clay. I'll bet he does.

UPDATE: One of Brian's readers noted that Dr. Amudo-Abana's name put him in the mind of the old Barry Manilow song "Copacabana." Thus inspired, I composed a little ditty to the tune of "Copacabana" over at Brian's comments section.

Robert Novak points out today that Republican Sen. Bill Frist quietly threw his main judicial assistant, Manuel Miranda, overboard on Friday in capitulation to Senate Democrats. As Novak says, once again we see who's willing to play tough and who's not. What should have been a major victory for Republicans, as they discovered proof of Democrats conspiring to block judicial nominees, was instead turned into yet another defeat by the gutless GOP.

Says Novak:

By a stroke of luck, Republicans had found a trail of e-mail messages by Democrats that exposed a coolly crafted plan to reject President Bush's federal judges. But Democrats managed to turn their own corruption of Senate confirmations into bipartisan outrage over a staffer leaking a senator's sacrosanct communications.

The Democrats got the Republican pansies in the Senate to dance for them yet again:

Republican senators agreed that the real scandal was the leak, not the leaked material. Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, displaying greater indignation than he ever did about the filibusters, called himself "mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."

Rams backup quarterback Kurt Warner has been taking more heat lately, this time for some comments he evidently made at the Super Bowl implying that the reason for his benching could be that some coaches are uncomfortable with his Christianity.

The notion that Warner's faith has anything to do with his benching seems suspect to me, and even Warner has publicly declared in the aftermath that that's not what he meant.

Regardless, Jeff Gordon has a nice column today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's online edition, in which he deals with Warner's Christianity and whether it has done something to diminish his competitive fire. Says Gordon:

...[T]he religious stereotype is just that, a stereotype. The sports world is heavily populated with men and women that possess a strong faith AND the burning will to win.

Kurt Warner is one of those athletes.

....Warner is as overtly competitive as any athlete I've come across. He often speaks of "God's plan" for his life, but, judging from his actions, this plan demands that he battle his guts out on the football field.

I also take this article as an indication that St. Louis media support is building for Warner to regain the starting role with the Rams. I think he has a 50-50 shot at it next year, though Marc Bulger's MVP performance in Sunday's Pro Bowl may alter that equation.

Didn't you know about the constitutional separation of church and air travel? Neither did this guy, evidently.

Yes, it may have been a clunky and hamfisted way to promote Christianity, but I must say that I still vastly prefer it to the way that Islam has been recently promoted on U.S. airliners. At least when a Christian fanatic pilot is finished with the flight, the plane is safely sitting on a runway with people getting off of it.

No major suprises today at the Anti-Defamation League's meeting. One minor suprise, however, was the fact that Abraham Foxman was actually about the most moderate, reasonable guy on the dais. You know you're in some trouble at that point.

There's something funny about these confabs that uber-liberals have. They are attracted to the word "dialogue" the way the rest of the world is attracted to the word "sex." It's like catnip for them. They seek it like the moth seeks the flame.

I wish I had a way to count the number of times I heard the word "dialogue" this morning. Everything is about "dialogue." "We hope to educate our brothers and sisters so that we can engage in a more fruitful dialogue." "We hope that as a result of this, there will be more dialogue."

Great. But once you get everybody together for the big dialogue, just what in the world is everyone going to talk about? These lefties actually think that as long as "dialogue" has taken place, the victory has been won. On the other hand, I prefer an even better-known phrase: "talk is cheap."

You know something? I actually think dialogue in and of itself accomplishes very little. Sure, negotiating can accomplish much, but that's not the same as dialogue. Dialogue is just two people talking, and it doesn't necessarily mean a thing, as anyone who's ever sat through a Pinter play can tell you.

Oh, by the way, their verdict today was that Mel Gibson in his heart might not be anti-Semitic ("who can know?"), but that the "unintended consequences" of his movie probably will be. Funny you don't hear much about the "unintended consequences" of "Friends," or "Will and Grace," huh?

From an article at the ADF's website co-written by Abe Foxman, which was also printed this week in the New York Daily News:

We have urged Gibson to consider adding to the movie a postscript with him coming on screen at the end to implore his viewers not to let the film turn some toward a passion of hate.

Ah yes, those roving bands of murderous Christians might go out on the loose.

A collegue of mine interviewed the Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin on this subject a few weeks ago. I love what Lapin said:

[M]any people have raised the specter of anti-Jewish violence as a result of the movie, and I think this is a complete red herring and I’ll tell you why. It’s a red herring because in the entire history of hundreds of years of American-Jewish life, not a single Jew has ever been murdered or mugged or robbed or raped by a Christian on his way home from church on Sunday morning. That’s not what happens in America. When Jews and other law-abiding people are attacked and assaulted and endure violence, this is always inflicted upon them by conscienceless hooligans raised in an utterly secular atmosphere in which the words “thou shalt not...” were never ever heard....

Lapin also elucidated the threat posed by Christians to those like Foxman and the secular fundamentalists at the ADL:

The threat is that you could, possibly, make Roe v. Wade go away. You could, possibly, stop homosexual marriage. You could, possibly, lower taxation and lower the size of government, because nothing threatens the body politic of what has become the Jewish communities’ public voice as much as the growing power of Christian conservatism.

The Anti-Defamation League is having its annual National Executive Committee Meeting tommorrow in Palm Beach. National Director Abe Foxman and others are going to try to ratchet up their hysteria level on Mel Gibson's new Christ movie a few more notches.

The event is purported to be open to the media, so I'm supposed to go there tommorrow with a camera crew. It should be interesting to see this silliness firsthand (if my evangelical press credential doesn't get me thrown out). Perhaps someone could do a reading of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf."

I don't know exactly what to make of this, but a fascinating new 4000-word piece in the Villiage Voice claims that a GOP strategist is masterminding the Al Sharpton campaign:

Roger Stone, the longtime Republican dirty-tricks operative who led the mob that shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.

Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections.

....Stone is apparently confident that he can use the Democrat-bashing preacher to damage the party's eventual nominee, just as Sharpton himself bragged he did in the New York mayoral campaign of 2001.

If there is any truth to the notion that the Sharpton campaign is a Republican dirty trick against the Dems, my respect for the GOP has just ratcheted up several notches.

Brian (a.k.a "Clayton V.") at Terrible Swift Word has received an impatient email back from Dr. Amudo (as part of Brian's ongoing dialogue with a Nigerian Scam emailer) essentially telling him it's time to fish or cut bait.

Said the good doctor:

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH KIDS. I AM 55 YEARS THIS FEBUARY. IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS AND DO NOT WANT TO ASSIST , BETTER COME OUT OPEN AND DECLEAR THAT AND TELLING ME UNEXISTING STORIES.

Of course, Clayton will declear no such thing. Instead, he seizes the opportunity to make amends by noticing that Dr. Amudo's birthday is coming up.

But first, Clayton takes a risky gambit, pointing out to Dr. Amudo that, according to the Internet, there are some business schemes like the one he's proposing that are not entirely on the up-and-up:

Before I put myself on the line for yet another plane ticket however, there is one issue I must bring up with you. And, I apologize for even roaching this subject as you are men (not children) who command good respects and do not joke with your reputation.

...I realize that this is a green accusation that I am leveling, but I must ask - how do I know that what you are proposing is not one of these scams? Again my repeated apologies for even asking. I know how it is: a few bad apples can spoil the whole flock. Once I have received your assurances of good will, we'll no longer speak of this nastiness.

Clearly, Clayton (who has been increasingly affected by Dr. Amudo's tortured syntax) is uncomfortable calling the doctor's integrity into question, as any of us would be. To heal the wound, he sends Dr. Amudo this e-birthday card, which I can only imagine will be received with tears of grateful appreciation.

The card features monkeys on a beach singing (reggae style) the immortal lyrics: "You got another birthday and you gonna get right, You eatin' lotsa cake now, and your pants are tight."

Again, I say, this whole thing needs to be made into a book. Brian fears that the game is nearing its end; I can only pray he's wrong.

If the early exit poll numbers posted at NRO have any basis in reality whatsoever, today is essentially the last day of the Dean for President campaign. It's over.

These polls are showing Dean trailing the frontrunner (sometimes Kerry, sometimes Edwards, depending on the state) in many states' primaries by at least 30 points. That's Kucinich territory.

Interestingly, Garry Trudeau lampooned John Kerry in a series of "Doonesbury" cartoons back in 1971. It seems that even then, a lefty True Believer like Trudeau saw a vainglorious streak in Kerry.

You can see the strips here, and the first one stands just on text alone.

Mike: Hey B.D.! John Kerry of the Vietnam vets is speaking at the auditorium. Wanna go?

Unidentified character: You better! If you care about this country at all, you better go listen to that John Kerry fellow....He speaks with a rare eloquence and astonishing conviction. If you see no one else this year, you must see John Kerry!

B.D.: Who was that?

Mike: John Kerry.

Occasionally when I change planes in Atlanta, instead of a jetway, they'll have you exit the airplane via a stairway right onto the tarmac. I'm sure there are still a lot other airports that do this for certain smaller flights, too.

In these situations, I like to walk very slowly down the steps and wave to an imaginary crowd. Sometimes I'll even say "Thank you, thank you very much" as I'm waving, and hum "Hail to the Chief." It drives the other people waiting to exit the plane nuts, but it's fun for me.

John Piper has started a new, daily radio program that bears your attention. You can listen to it online at Desiring God Radio, or check local listings for airings in your own area.

Piper's radically biblical message of the supremacy of God in all (and he does mean all) things might prove to be shocking to ears used to being tickled by the contemporary pablum featured on so many preaching broadcasts today.

You'll be challenged and inspired. Tune in and spread the word.

When I was at lunch, I heard a caller on Rush point out something interesting: if, as MTV and the performers in question are claiming, the Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson halftime thing was unplanned, then Mr. Timberlake probably should be sitting in a Houston jail cell right now for sexual assault.

I'd love to see someone press the issue. Did they pre-plan this display (which, of course, we all know they did), or is it something that Timberlake just did, in which case he fondled a woman and forcibly exposed her in front of hundreds of millions of people?

A Few Super Bowl Observations:

• The big halftime fiasco: I didn't see it. But considering that the media has been awash in surgically modified Jackson family appendages recently, the thought of being subjected to yet another one induces little more than a yawn in me.



• Historically, the Super Bowl has been synonymous with "anticlimax." But since 1998, every other game has actually been quite exciting. The Super Bowl is still far from money in the bank from an excitement standpoint, but this year's game was full of tension and thrills, as were the terrific games between the Pats and the Rams in '02, the Titans-Rams in '00, and the Broncos victory over the Packers in '98. The Super Bowl used to be a guaranteed snooze-fest. Now it's only a snooze-fest half the time.



• I know it's an accepted part of the game, but I still can't seem to shake the feeling that winning a game on a field goal kick is kind of wimpy. Football is such a hard-fought game; it just doesn't seem right to have a bruising NFL football game ended by an effete European in a soccer shoe. Of course, the fact is that most overtime and close games are settled by field goals, and that's the way it's always been. Still, it doesn't sit well.



• Tom Brady deserves a lot of credit for leading his team to victory again. He's accomplished much in a young career. Still, the Joe Montana comparisons I heard all week are absurd. Please. Don't get me wrong--Brady is a top-notch QB. He's on a pace for easy entry into the Pro Football Hall of Fame if he can even put up merely respectable numbers for another seven or eight years. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I watched Joe Montana. I saw Joe Montana play. And you, sir, are no Joe Montana.



• The Patriots deserved this victory, though the Panthers suprised everyone by putting a scare into them. Jake Delhomme showed he belongs among the big boys in the NFL quarterback ranks. But the play that cost Carolina the game was the atrocious kickoff by John Kasay after the great Panther TD drive to tie the game with just over a minute left. He practically handed the Patriots field goal position, giving Adam Vinatieri the chance to win a second Super Bowl with his foot.

I have a close friend who also happens to be the wisest guy I know. Earlier today, I was whining to him via email about an extended-family situation.

When he wrote back, he told me what I needed to do, rather than merely whining. He then added: "That doesn't sound sympathetic, but we aren't girls."

Classic. I'm glad some men are still men, and can offer wisdom when I'm failing to be one.

As regular visitors know, I've often vented about my frustration with the lunkheaded lack of manners on the part of clerks, drive-through attendants, and other customer service agents.

I never read Florence King (or the National Review, for that matter) when she was still writing for NR, but they occasionally reprint one of her "Misanthrope's Corner" columns online. The one they have up today perfectly encapsulates my frustrating experiences, including a quintessential illustration:

Take my catalog order. In the "Color" block I wrote "1st choice, blue; 2nd, green," but all I got was a postcard saying, "We are unable to fill your order. Please call our toll-free number." I did. When the rep came on, I gave her my order number and she pulled it up on her computer and read my name and address back to me. "Right," I said.

Then, silence. A long silence. I thought she had put me on hold but there was no rock music, and it didn't sound like hold somehow. The silence had a nice antiquated sound, making me think of the days when a clerk simply laid the phone down and "stepped away from her desk" to retrieve an actual file from an actual file cabinet.

As my reverie faded, I had an eerie feeling that she was still there. "Hello?" I said.

"Yes." Just that, no more, not even an inflection.

"I got a card saying you're unable to fill my order but it doesn't say why."

"We didn't know what color you wanted."

Nearly two minutes had passed in total silence, yet she had sat there in ox-like placidity, waiting for me to speak first, unable even to bring herself to prompt me. I had to supply all the initiative.

Ever experienced the slack-jawed stare of a moron who's just handed you a bag of McDonalds, and because he hasn't said "thank you" or "have a nice day," or whatever, you don't know if the order is complete yet or not?

Many know my pain, but Florence has expressed it perfectly.

More of Those Progressive Europeans:

The German guy who was convicted of murdering, dismembering, and eating another guy has been smacked with a draconian 8 1/2 year sentence:

Armin Meiwes, a 42-year-old computer expert, had no "base motives" in the crime, a state court ruled, sparing him a murder conviction. Explaining the verdict, the presiding judge said Meiwes' intention was not evil but "the fulfillment of his fantasy."

His primary motive was "the wish to make another man part of himself," Judge Volker Muetze said. "Meiwes reached this bonding experience through the consumption of the flesh."

Oh, I see. He had good intentions when he ate the guy. It was a bonding experience. A little quality time. Some people show love for their fellow man by buying a gift for him, and others by eating him. Who could send someone to prison at all for such a display of magnanimity?

To paraphrase an old Steve Martin joke about smoking marijuana in California: Boy, I wouldn't kill and eat a guy in Germany these days. You can get a ticket for that.

Those Progressive Swedes:

Sweden is frequently held up to us as the model of where America could go if we were only more civilized like our Swedish friends.

Our more evolved role-models from across the pond are now reporting some negative consequences from their recent illegalization of child pornography (which occured as recently as 1999, because sophisticated societies don't rush into something like a kiddie porn ban haphazardly). Evidently, the resulting pent-up frustration is now being taken out on Fido:

....[E]very year between 200 and 300 pets are injured because of sexual assaults.

....“We have seen an increase since 1999 when child pornography became illegal,” said Johan Beck-Friis. “It appears, in other words, as there are some people who have replaced children with animals. In both circumstances, it is sex with defenceless individuals.”

Maybe those pet injuries will eventually be covered under our forthcoming, single-payer, Swedish-style, federalized medical coverage.

Jonah Goldberg today takes apart the doltish "undecideds" whom the media slavishly adore:

Being undecided, in and of itself, is not a mark of seriousness or intelligence. If you really are undecided between having a bowl of strawberry ice cream and being smacked in the forehead with a garden rake, you're not very intelligent; you're just very, very stoopid.

No, I'm not saying that all undecideds are dumb, and I'm not saying that the choices in presidential elections are as cut-and-dried as the strawberry ice cream versus the garden-rake smack. But what I am saying is that the rush to show one's independence of mind in contests between Republican and Democratic candidates usually stems from intellectual vanity and insecurity, not intellectual discernment or rigor.

What it actually is, is the Clinton Syndrome. When one has no principles, one must laboriously anguish over each issue before any decision (if ever) can be made. This is mistaken by many for depth, when in reality it is the utter absence of any coherent worldview.

I'm really beginning to hope John Kerry wins the Dems nomination. That wife of his will be non-stop entertainment. She makes Watergate-era sideshow Martha Mitchell look like George Will.

Meanwhile, in the Nigerian scam email correspondence, Brian/Clayton ups the ante with the suddenly-silent Dr. Amudo by CCing him on an email from his lawyer advising Brian to pursue a different venture in the emerging biomedical field:

>Unless you've heard something, I think we should consider taking a pass on
> [the Nigerian Deal] and go check out the pancreas farm up in Indiana. I talked to
>one of my old frat buddies who is a doctor now, and he says these internal
>organ ventures are going to take off within the next year and a half.

The reasons for the fall of Howard Dean are many and diverse. Most of us recognized very early on that his campaign would never be able to attract more than the radical fringe of his party--which is enough to make a name for one's self, but not enough to win anything on.

Because history has a way of boiling things down, however, I believe posterity will ultimately remember the "The Scream" as the thing that did him in. Remember, The Scream actually occured after Dean had already lost big in Iowa, but it will be seen as the defining, symbolic moment in his campaign, and will take its place in the gallery alongside Muskie's crying, Mondale's pledge to raise taxes, Dukakis' tank ride, and Clinton's Jennifer Flowers tapes.

What's that? Clinton won? That's impossible....

As the late Jack Paar would say, "I kid you not." I received a Google hit yesterday for "Howard Dean Transgendered Wife."

With the primary season in full swing, the death of Jack Paar yesterday at 85 has registered as barely a blip on the radar screen. That's a shame.

Paar was one of the greatest true broadcasters who ever lived, and perhaps the last (except for Johnny, who has no peer) of a generation of them. Along with his predecessor on the "Tonight Show," Steve Allen, Paar used the then-young medium of television to its fullest potential, managing to be funny, entertaining, suprising, volatile, and absolutely compelling every night.

Because of his sharp wit and tremendous storytelling ability, Paar remained one of the most entertaining talk show guests around in his rare appearances on Carson and Letterman well into the 80's and 90's. But because he essentially retired from television in the mid-'60's while at the top of his game, an entire generation of television viewers has little idea who he was or the impact he had in his era.

If you ever have a chance to watch a video or a documentary featuring some of his stuff, I can't recommend it highly enough. If there were about a dozen more Jack Paars, television might actually be worth watching again.

You know those Nigerian scam emails where they, with the use of much tortured syntax, try to get you to send them all your bank information so they can use your account for a major bank transfer, with the promise they'll let you keep $10 million (or however much) for your trouble?

The intrepid Brian at Terrible Swift Word actually decided to respond to the inquiry, and a fascinating email interaction has begun as a result.

The saga began (as it always does), with the request for information:

If this proposal interest you of which I hope it would, please forward to me immediately the followings by e-mail address above.

1. Full company's Name and Address
2. Private telephone and fax numbers
3. Your full bank name and address
4. Bank account number, account name, telephone and fax numbers

However, there is one proviso, of course.

You must maintain the topmost confidentiality of this transaction because we are top civil servants who would not joke with our reputation.

Certainly not.

Brian (as "Clayton V.") responds, saying:

I am certainly very interested in exploring the opportunity you have presented. Once again, however, I must apologize. I do have a few questions before we proceed. I'm sure you and your colleagues are quite anxious to consummate this deal, and I certainly don't want to lose out on the opportunity by being too careful. At the same time, I didn't become the "Applesauce King of the Ohio Valley" by entering into deals uninformed.

He asks the Nigerian ("Dr. Amudo") for a face-to-face meeting, though he will need to find an alternate pilot for his time-share private jet, since his "regular pilot, Armand, refuses to fly to Nigeria (something about an old soccer grudge - he's very passionate about his sports)."

Quivering with excitement and moving in for the kill (having no idea what he's in for), Dr. Amudo informs Brian that a meeting can be arranged in Amsterdam in a few weeks. But rather than wasting time just waiting, he encourages Brian to take some prelimenary steps towards finalizing the transaction:

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS BY TOMORROW BEFORE THE OFFICER LEAVES NIGERIA SO THAT HE COULD GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU AND KNOW WHEN YOU WILL JOIN HIM THERE FOR THE MEETING. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT WILL NOT BE FEASIBLE FOR YOU TO MAKE THE TRIP TO AMSTERDAM, I SUGGET YOU FORWARD THE DATA AS STATED ABOVE TO ENABLE ME PROCEED WITH THE TRANSACTION. DO NOT HAVE ANY DOUBT OR FEAR AS YOU ARE FULLY PROTECTED.

At this point, we begin to see Dr. Amudo's syntax beginning to rub off on Brian. It is rather infectious, I must admit. Says Brian/"Clayton":

My apologies. I'm not sure where we got our wires melted. I did not receive your emails of last week. Yesterday's (Wednesday) e-mail was the first contat I've received from you in the last couple of weeks.

Many thanks for the discrete and metallic manner in which you addressed my concerns. Also I thank you for updating me on your culture and the role of a civil servant like yourself. Until you enlightened me, I was totally endarkened in regards to such things.

A tentative meeting is scheduled in Amsterdam, provided, of course, that Dr. Amudo's associate isn't actually in Amsterdam to "score opium."

The opium implication (which Brian makes several times) grievously wounds Dr. Amudo, who notes that it was "uncivilized and very abusive." His patience is waning:

I CONFIRM RECEIPT OF YOUR MAIL AND THE CONTENTS ARE WELL NOTED. I QUITE FELT THAT IT IS HIGH TIME WE STOPPED THIS LONG STORIES AND PERSONAL TROMPET BLOWING....

....NOTE WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DRUG OF ANY KIND. IF YOU COULD BELIEVE ME, PERSONALLY I HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN OPIUM FOR THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE ANY THING TO DO WITH IT. PLEASE LETS BE CAUTIOUS WITH OUR PARLANCE WHEN COREESPONDING. I DO HAVE MUCH CONFIDENCE IN YOU AND THAT IS THE MAJOR REASON WHY I CONTACTED YOU FOR THIS TRANSACTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Noting that the window of opportunity is closing for the face to face meeting in Amsterdam, Dr. Amudo says that if

...IT WILL NOT BE CONVENIENT AND HENCE POSSIBLE FOR YOU, THEN YOU SHOULD FORGET ABOUT THE MEETING AND LETS MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TRANSACTION. I HAVE ASSURED YOU THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH GENTLE AND RESPONSIBLE MEN. SO YOU HAVE NO CAUSE TO BE AFRIAD.

To cool things down, Brian has wisely enlisted his "attorney," Thomas S. Hamblin, who defends Brian's long stories and "personal trompet blowing" by saying that he advised Brian "to throw in some business anecdotes simply to calm any fears you might have about partnering up with him."

The ball is now in Dr. Amudo's court.

I don't know that I've ever enjoyed reading anything more on a blog. This ought to be a book. I'm tempted to send my own bank account just to keep the correspondence going.

Al Franken is in the news yet again. He was only about 20 years off in his prediction; as it turns out, the 00's are the "Al Franken Decade."

This time he's made news for attacking a Howard Dean heckler in New Hampshire yesterday. The heckler was one of those Lyndon LaRouche kooks, and when he began shouting at Dean, Franken "body-slammed" him to the ground, according to the New York Post.

The story goes on to point out that:

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

I just want to make sure I have this right. A guy at a rally started excercising his free speech rights by speaking out, and Franken attempted to silence him by body-slamming him -- in order to protect free speech.

Makes sense to me.

Here's something to ponder. With the nomination of Bill Murray this morning for the best actor Academy Award, two of the four Ghostbusters have now been nominated for acting Oscars (the other being Dan Aykroyd, who was up for best supporting actor for "Driving Miss Daisy" back in the 80's).

Or, to look at it even more poignantly, both guys who played goofball greenskeepers in "Caddyshack" films are now Ocsar-nominated actors.

I wonder if Murray will do his recurring "Oscar Picks" bit on SNL this year?

While I was out of town and not paying attention, Jon Barlow went and became famous.

He's been written up this week in the BBC, Newsweek, E!Online, and about a million other places. Tonight I even heard his Howard Dean mix over the closing credits of a show on VH1.

Who'da thunk it?

I've been out-of-pocket for the past few days, so I apologize for the lack of activity here. I did want to pop in for a reminder, though. Dennis Miller's new nightly show on CNBC kicks off at 9pm Eastern tonight, and promises to be worth watching if your sense of humor isn't too delicate.

I'm in Nashville tonight for some work stuff. It's currently 29 degrees.

This South Florida boy hasn't been in this kind of temperature in six or seven years. I had forgotten what it felt like to have my face numbed after a few minutes outside. I had also forgotten how much I really don't like cold weather.

On to Baton Rouge tommorrow--hopefully it'll be a tad warmer there.

Unfortunately, even many self-described "conservatives" don't understand the concept of judicial conservatism. They are so steeped in the notion of an activist judiciary that they are now intent on getting judges appointed who will impose by fiat a more "correct" agenda.

This is demonstrated by one of the responses to my post from yesterday on the Charles Pickering appointment. The anonymous respondent posted something from what he described as "Log Cabin Republicans - GOP Sodomite Publication":

WASHINGTON -- "I have spoken with Judge Pickering at length, and have reviewed his record and consulted with several people around the country. Judge Pickering reiterated to me his strong belief that all Americans should be treated equally under the law, including gay and lesbian Americans, and his record as a federal judge clearly demonstrates it," said Rich Tafel, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.

This was posted anonymously, without comment, as if it were some sort of self-standing, knockdown conservative argument against Pickering's appointment to the bench.

It isn't.

Even if the anonymous poster is correctly relaying the article from the Log Cabin Republicans, based on a conversation one of them allegedly once had with Pickering, nothing in this third-hand report militates against Pickering's credentials as a judicial conservative. The reason is that when judicial conservatism is applied, it doesn't matter what a candidate's personal beliefs are. All that matters is what the law says. Indeed, that's the entire point of judicial conservatism--returning the power to make laws back to the electorate.

A true judicial conservative enforces duly-passed laws he doesn't agree with. He applies each law equally, according to its plain meaning, forgoing the opportunity to force his own philosophy (even if his philosophy is noble and correct) on the people, to whom he is not even accountable.

If the people pass bad laws, then we need to work to change those through the democratic process. But lawmaking is supposed to be a political process. Judicial rulings are not. Judges are not supposed to be a corrective to bad laws--they are simply the appliers of them.

I don't care what a judge's personal opinion on homosexuality, abortion, or any other issue is. What I care about is that he will correctly interpret and apply the laws that the legislature has given him. If Charles Pickering will refrain from distorting laws to further his own agenda, then his personal opinion on homosexuality matters little to me. It seems we've gotten so used to judicial activism that conservatives now want their own activists.

Incidentally, I'm also curious as to what Pickering actually said in the quote above that would be disagreeable to a conservative. Note that Pickering allegedly said that all Americans, including homosexuals, should be treated equally under the law. Does anyone disagree with that? He didn't say they should all be treated equally. He said they should all be treated equally under the law. It's a simple statement on due process.

Since a judicial conservative doesn't make laws, Pickering is simply accused here of saying that a judge should apply the law--as written--regardless of a person's race or sexuality or whatever. He says nothing about what kind of laws can exist.

If any "conservative" has a problem with this, he needs to read his Constitution again. It's the Fourteenth Amendment.

I guess Janeane Garofalo, in Iowa to support Howard Dean, must've put that Midwestern, soft-spoken charm of hers to work. Dean's numbers only went down about 20 points there in the last few days.

If working folks in Iowa can't get behind an emotionally unstable, dyed-blonde, Hollywood actress wearing (according to Dean's blog) "a red Perfect Storm hat, a Stand up for Choice Sticker, a Generation Dean sticker, a pink shirt with FREE SPEECH she made herself with a magic marker (and a pen stuck in her pink shirt), a TEXAS DEMOCRAT pin, and on her backback a Dissent protects Democracy pin, Give ?em Hell Howard pin, and I won't Cross the Line pin," who can they get behind?

If you haven't listened to Howard Dean's WWF performance from last night's Iowa Caucuses, you really need to, for the sake of the nation. I know the chances are very, very slim, but this guy theoretically could be president someday (if the President, the Vice President, and also John Kerry, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark were all to suddenly die in the next 10 months).

Here's the 13 second MP3 clip from the Drudge Report. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

UPDATE: Byron York at NRO says last night's speech may have been the death knell for the Dean candidacy.

So, Dick, who's the miserable failure now?

President Bush's recess appointment of Charles Pickering to the federal bench is the first hopeful sign that the administration recognizes the seriousness of the judicial issue. As I've said here many times before, there simply is no other political issue right now. The nation is ruled by an unelected, unaccountable, activist judiciary, and no legislation means anything if it can immediately be trumped or rewritten by a moody judge somewhere.

Bush took good early steps by nominating judicially conservative judges to the bench. But the liberals, realizing that their true power lies in the judiciary--through which they can rule without the consent of the American people--have done everything in their power to obstruct the appointments of judges who will read the Constitution as written rather than imposing a "progressive" agenda from the bench.

Until now, the Bush Administration (and Senate Republicans) have, for the most part, simply shrugged their shoulders as if to say "what else can we do?" Recess appointments, which do not require the consent of the Senate (where a supermajority of 60 votes is required to break the ongoing filibusters) are perhaps the most effective way to break the deadlock by simply removing the ability of the minority party to short-circuit the democratic process.

The administration deserves credit for finally waking up on this one, and they need to follow the Pickering appointment with the appointments of some of the most radically, ideologically driven right-wing judges they can find. Such a move would tell Senate Democrats that if they don't like the filibustered nominees, they ain't seen nothin' yet. The Dems might possibly even end their filibusters at that point, in order to avoid a worse-case scenario. Those strict-constructionist conservatives will suddenly look awfully good next to a few radical, activist wingnuts.

For Martin Luther King Day, Jay Bryant has a remarkable column delineating the covert racism of the Democrat Party.

He begins by citing an astounding fact, considering the lofty rhetoric on affirmative action that regularly spews forth from Democrats: Carol Moseley Braun is the only African-American Democrat ever to serve in the United States Senate. And even then, she only won office by defeating the white guy that the Illinois Democrat party had put forward for the nomination.

Says Bryant:

...[S]omewhere between a quarter and a third of all Democrats are African-Americans. So if we applied the concept of affirmative action quotas to the Democratic Senate membership, there should be approximately twelve black Democratic Senators in the current Congress. But in fact, there are none. There weren't any in the last Congress either, or the one before that. Except for Moseley Braun's single six-year term, there have never been any black Democratic Senators.

Well, sure, but still that's one more than those awful, racist Republicans, right? Wrong. As Bryant points out, "There have been three black Republican Senators: Hiram Revels, Blanche Kelso Bruce and Edward Brooke."

Of course, none of this would even be worth mentioning were it not for the harsh rhetoric that Democrats often hurl towards Republicans on race. But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding:

Oh, Democrats will let African-Americans serve in the House of Representatives, but only after carefully carving out black-majority, which is to say segregated, districts for them. Well, you can't expect white Democrats to vote for one of them, can you?

So the Democratic Party's policy, throughout the modern, post-World War II era has been to create separate-but-equal congressional districts. Keep blacks in the ghetto ? the urban plantation. The handful of African-American Republican members of Congress, by contrast, have come from suburban and rural areas, where they have been, often enthusiastically, supported by Republican voters.

The black community's monolithic, inexplicable support of the Democrat party is one of the great mysteries of our time. I've often asked why African-Americans view the Democrat party as their friend on several local radio programs I've hosted. The response is always something like "I have to vote for the one who has my best interests at heart."

So be it. And if your best interests include crippling dependence on government, urban blight, and not being invited to the dinner party unless you've got your maid's outfit on, then keep on pulling the donkey lever--they've definitely got your "best interests" at heart.

In a crushing blow to the other Democrat presidential candidates, George McGovern has given his endorsement to Wesley Clark. As you'll recall, McGovern was narrowly defeated by Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential contest 49 states to one.

You needn't fret, though, guys. That Michael Dukakis endorsement is still out there for the taking.

Mrs. Discoshaman has entered the blogosphere under the pen-name TulipGirl.

Says her hubby: "...[I]n time, it'll be a virtual smorgasboard of estrogen-laced goodness."

So often, we're assured by our little warm-hearted liberal friends that "human nature is basically good." My response to that is usually to ask them if they have locks on their doors, and if so, why. I haven't gotten a coherent answer yet. But it does demonstrate the power of a pithy aphorism against all contrary evidence.

A recent little picture of human nature: last weekend in College Station, Texas, somebody discovered that an ATM machine gave him twice as much money as he had asked for--and a receipt that didn't show it. According to KBTX-TV in College Station:

....[T]he word spread like wildfire and before long there was a line of people waiting for the handout.

No telling how long this was going on when a police officer noticed a long line gathering at five o'clock Saturday morning at that machine. He noticed the users putting their coats over their heads as not to be identified by the photograph device built into the machine. Like many others, one woman received $1,000 after requesting just $500.

Asked by police if she thought she was doing anything wrong, she said "being a broke college student, I had to take the chance." She told investigators that a friend called her at two o'clock in the morning to let her know about the ATM.

It seems to have escaped these geniuses that not being photographed by the machine still won't negate the fact that they put their bank card into it.

Now of course, none of us are naive enough to think this incident wouldn't happen. But if human nature is basically good, how is it possible that not a single person called the police to tell them there was a problem with the machine?

Even more scary: Some who read this will think "What's the big deal? I would've probably taken the money too."

There's an interesting ad being broadcast locally during the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows on the news/talk radio station here in South Florida.

The ad implores conservatives to stand against a marriage protection amendment in the United States Constitution. It cites quotes from Bob Barr, Alan Simpson, George Will, and others, and then says something like "Real conservatives agree. Be conservative with the Constitution -- don't amend it."

The kicker is at the end. "Brought to you by Citizen Outreach and the Human Rights Campaign."

Of course, the Human Rights Campaign is a radical, left-wing organization "working for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender equal rights."

Interestingly, the libertine, transgender left believes it has found a ready ally in the paleo right. Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Al Franken used to be very funny. He's now much more sanctimonious than he is funny, but every now and again he still gets off a good one.

According to Drudge, at Monday night's frenzied-left Moveon.org awards event, Franken took the stage as a presenter.

"I'm Al Franken," he said. "I'm here to present the funniest ad award. I'm a last-minute substitution, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was supposed to be the presenter, but unfortunately he was murdered."

The bottom line is that some people "get" the space program and some don't. Fortunately, the "do's" still seem to outnumber the "don'ts," though by an increasingly narrow margin.

Nearly 35 years ago, we first put human beings on the moon. And then we just....stopped.

Someone who doesn't "get" it--who has simply imbibed the utilitarian ethos of the day--can't even see why I would consider that sad and incomprehesible. The soul which only sees such things in pragmatic terms of expediture of dollars and manpower ("What a waste..."), or in consumable products generated, is far too impoverished to be convinced by any few words I might say. My hope is that those who were inspired to greater achievement in their lives by people like Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong will defend that vision, on behalf of their children and grandchildren, against those who see visionary exploration as less important than the "John Q. Patron Interstate Rest Area."

It's been 31 years since a human being last walked on the moon. An entire generation has now grown up without seeing a live image of the Earth over another horizon, without the dream of personally exploring God's universe and of standing on the soil of another world. I think our collective ambition and imagination is much the poorer for it.

St. Louis is installing a new Roman Catholic bishop shortly, and he's Bishop Raymond Burke from LaCrosse, Wisconsin. Burke is already well-known, because in Wisconsin he announced that the Church would withhold communion from Catholic politicians in his diocese who support abortion or euthanasia. Presumably, he will be bringing this view to St. Louis with him.

This has some politicians in the heavily Catholic St. Louis area a bit on edge.

According to a story in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Missouri Democratic Party Chairwoman May Scheve acknowledges that she's in a fix.

Scheve, a former legislator from South County, is a practicing Catholic. She also supports abortion rights.

. . . ."I'm very passionate about my politics and I'm very passionate about my religion," Scheve said, noting that she sends her daughter to a Catholic school. "For the two to collide is an issue that troubles me to my core."

Good. It ought to trouble her. What troubles me is that one could claim to believe in the God of the Bible and not think that this God might just have something important--perhaps even binding-- to say about when life begins and when it should end. If it takes the Roman Catholic Church threatening to excommunicate chuckleheads like this until they can get it figured out, I say good for the Church.

It also removes the weaselly option currently taken by so many politicians.

"Of course I personally am pro-life," they inform us. "But it's not my right to make that decision for someone else." Imagine the silliness of this relativistic argument in any other context.

"Of course, I personally abhor wife-beating. But it's not my right to make that decision for some other husband." The latter is obviously ridiculous. But the former argument is made with a straight face by well-known politicians every day. Because abortion advocates have been so successful in framing the argument as a matter of mere taste, pro-life versus pro-abortion merely becomes another version of "tastes great" versus "less filling."

Of course, such a position actually takes a very particular stance on the issue. By claiming it's a matter of mere preference, one has already presupposed that there are no moral absolutes, that God has not created each individual life, and that He has no particular opinion on the matter--if He exists at all. Bishop Burke is taking this option away from the Catholic politician.

If you think your church is wrong on the sanctity of life issue, fine. Leave your church. If you think they're right, then they have conveyed to you the Word of God on the matter, and you must obey what you know to be true. In either case, stop being such a muddle-headed doofus.

People are beginning to wonder where Howard Dean's wife is. Evidently he has one, but she's usually nowhere to be found.

According to today's New York Times:

Some Dean backers see Dr. Steinberg [Dean's wife] as a role model for independent women balancing careers and children, but others in the campaign increasingly regard her absence as a potential liability for a candidate who is known for his reluctance to discuss his personal life or upbringing. Yet the topic is all but off-limits with the candidate. Voters also have begun to ask about a marriage in which the partners are so often apart — she skipped Dr. Dean's birthday-party fund-raiser, the family-oriented Renaissance Weekend, even the emotional repatriation ceremony of his brother's remains in Hawaii.

It's not all that hard to understand, if you think about it. I mean, if you were married to Howard Dean, would you want to be seen in public?

Well, I just added RSS syndication to the site. What does that mean? Beats me, but the Evangelical Outpost said I ought to do it, and who am I to argue?

"Well if the Evangelical Outpost told you to go jump off a bridge, would you do that too?" Quite possibly.

Did I do the syndication right? Does it work? Does it matter? I have no flippin' idea. I don't even really know what it is. Is it that mark from Revelation that Tim LaHaye is always talking about?

I really wanted to be wrong about the Rams.

As they racked up win after win against subpar competition, and as I continued to complain about their spectacular mediocrity, I had hoped in the recesses of my mind that everybody else saw something I just wasn't seeing. It's never been less satisfying to be right.

The Carolina Panthers tried to give the game to the Rams in about five different ways, but the Rams would not accept it. Mike Martz, who has become almost legendary for taking foolish chances, suddenly become conservative at the one time it would have actually made sense to take a risk. Marc Bulger threw three crucial interceptions. Three.

For those scoring at home, the Rams have been winning games mostly on defense, and they are about to lose their defensive architect to the Chicago Bears. They are about to let go of a two-time MVP quarterback. And the quarterback they do have threw (counting the postseason) 22 touchdowns and 25 interceptions this year.

I'm trying hard not to be negative, but I don't see things moving in the right direction for next year.

Paul O'Neill? Oh yeah, I remember him. He was the Treasury Secretary back when the economy still sucked.

Since blogging is a relatively new entity, much of its eventual nomenclature is still up for grabs. There are terms there just for the coining.

So I'm trying to invent a term to describe the phenomena of deleting someone from your blogroll in the heat of a hissy-fit. It's happening to me more and more frequently lately, and it's crying out for a name.

Some possibilities:

Deletaliation

Microsoft XPunged

Blogdignation

Estrovenge

Exlinkommunicated

Auburned-out

Any votes or other suggestions?

As I've previously mentioned, I like Pete Rose, and I want him in the Hall of Fame. But he has this truth problem that makes it difficult for even ardent supporters to stand by him sometimes.

In the recent swirl of publicity, Rose has been taking some heat for detracting from the announcement of this year's Hall of Fame electees.

Pete's response, from an official statement on his website:

At this time I would like to personally congratulate the newest Hall of Fame Members, Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley. I never intended to diminish the exciting news for these deserving players. The scheduled launch date for this book, established many months ago, was Thursday January 8, 2004. My publisher worked hard to contain the news of this book until after the Hall of Fame announcements and we were both upset when a media leak on Sunday caused the news to be announced on Monday.

It kind of sounds as if this whole Hall of Fame announcement caught Pete and his publisher by suprise, doesn't it?

Now here's an Associated Press story from 12/5/03--a little over a month ago. It's entitled "New Pete Rose autobiography coming sooner than expected":

PHILADELPHIA -- The publication date of Pete Rose's new autobiography has been moved up two months to January.

My Prison Without Bars, written with Rick Hill, will go on sale Jan. 8, Rodale Inc. said Wednesday.

The publication date is two days after the announcement of 2004 Hall of Fame inductees.

Hmm. Of course, it's possible that Pete had no idea of the release date coinciding with the Hall of Fame announcements. But his publisher clearly did, and they had not had this release date planned "many months" ahead of time. In fact, it appears that they moved the date up specifically to coincide with the Hall's announcements.

It's this kind of thing that always ends up making him look bad. He lies even when he doesn't really have to.

Well, Lottery Lady now admits she was lying through her teeth.

But, of course, though she is now facing jail time, at least her motives were pure:

[Elecia Battle] apologized to her husband, her lawyer and [the real winner] Jemison, saying she wanted to use the money to help her family and recently laid-off Cleveland police officers.

Right. She wanted to help police officers, some of whom will be swinging by shortly to take her to get her picture taken.

I'm stunned and saddened. If you can't take somebody's word for it when they assure you that they purchased a $162 million lottery ticket that they don't have on them at the moment, when can you do it?

Brian at Terrible Swift Word has an amusing take on the chutzpah of that gal who claims she bought the lottery ticket worth $162 million--but can't seem to locate it just now:

. . . .the likelihood of success was almost a small as one's chances of being struck by lightning or, well, winning the lottery. Naaah. It's only $162M. C'mon. It's not like the real winner is ever going to come forward, right? You know, just like all those other Hundreds of Million Dollar lotteries that have gone unclaimed!

. . . .even if the winner hadn't surfaced, what did she expect? The Lottery Commission is just going to say, "Oh, you lost it? Well that's understandable. We all lose things. Here's a check for $162M. Can we get you anything else?"

She claims that she lost the ticket, and that the actual winner must have found it afterwards. However, the actual winner has other tickets purchased from the same place at the same time on the same day as the winning ticket, as well as previous lottery tickets in which the same numbers were played.

I almost can't help admiring this gal in a twisted way. I mean, this scam takes cajones! She's quintessentially American, lying boldly and loudly. The more overwhelming the proof against her, the louder she gets.

Come to think of it, I also bought the winning ticket and then lost it...

I'm not comfortable with Dennis Eckersley as a Hall of Famer. In fact, I'm not comfortable with relief pitchers in the Hall period. Rollie Fingers belongs there, because he pretty much invented the closer position. But that's about it.

I don't ever want the Democrat presidential race to end:

Kucinich Shows Pie Chart on Radio Debate

Pete Rose: I never, ever, ever bet on baseball.

Pete's friends: Pete did too bet on baseball. A lot, for a long time.

Pete Rose: Okay, I bet on baseball. But I never bet from the clubhouse.

Pete's friends: Actually, he did bet from the clubhouse. Quite a bit.

Pete Rose: Uhhhhhh....okay, I bet from the clubhouse. But I never bet on Tuesdays.

Pete's friends: Sorry. Tuesday was probably Pete's biggest betting day.

Pete Rose: Doh!

Boy, those Howard Dean rallies are becoming more and more unsettling.

Just sent to me by a friend:

Tommorrow's New York Times headline: "Dean Blames Bush for Job-less New Testament"

Dude, check it out! I've finally made it--I'm Discoshaman's "Clog of the Week"!

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the little people. No, really--I mean dwarves. They inspire me.

Pete Rose has finally admitted betting on baseball.

The announcement comes as a shock to no one, but I can't tell you how profoundly strange it is to hear those words coming out of his mouth after all these years of denial.

I worked with Pete Rose at the SportsFan Radio Network from 1995-1997. It would be going too far to say that we were friends, but we got to know each other as well as you get to know most coworkers. I was based (as was most of the network) in Las Vegas. Pete usually did his radio show from his restaurant in Boynton Beach, Florida via an ISDN hookup.

Once every month or two, he'd come out to Las Vegas to do his show for a few days--usually live from our broadcast set at the MGM Grand sports book. Often, I was the on-set producer for those broadcasts. Though he had a roving band of lackeys and hangers-on, they stayed out of the "booth," and so during the two hours of the program, I'd get to shoot the breeze with him during the commercial breaks about everything from the toughest pitchers he ever faced (Koufax, Gibson, and believe it or not, Randy Jones) to his ban from baseball. Through it all, Rose never admitted that he bet on baseball. Not a wink, not a nod, not any indication of the truth. He always relied publicly and privately on the commissioner's official statement in 1989 that baseball made "no finding" as to whether or not he bet on games.

I liked Pete Rose. In my time around him, I saw some very unappetizing things. He's a deeply flawed guy in innumerable ways. He is driven, as he concedes, entirely by appetites. But there is a better side. Despite being a rather big-named star, he treated the rest of us like teammates. He was even nice enough to once let me and another guy hitch a ride with him in his hotel-provided limo for the long trip from Lake Tahoe to the Reno airport. I never saw him turn down an autograph seeker. He doesn't drink a drop of alcohol (which often suprises people). And when he's in a good mood, he can be enormous fun to be around.

The thing about Pete is, he likes to gamble. No kidding, Sherlock. Right? But I mean, he really likes to gamble. He can't not gamble. It's part of who he is. He's the most competitive person I've ever known, and long past the point of being able to compete physically, he seems to channel that competitive instinct into gambling. There was nothing he wouldn't gamble on for the sheer thrill of competition--even eight or nine years after his banishment from baseball.

During the radio program, he'd be doling out $50 and $100 bills for one of his lackeys to run up to the sports book window to bet on the next horse or dog race. The MGM showed races on TV monitors from at least four or five different tracks at once. Pete bet all of them. And he only bet to win--never to place or show. He rarely won. But he couldn't not bet.

One time, we were all watching an NFL game on the monitor, and he bet one of our hosts $100 (off the air) that one team would do an onside kick on the next play. The host, a little embarrassed said "Well, Pete, I really don't have $100 bucks I can spare. I'm not quite in your income bracket." No problem, said Pete. "If I'm wrong, I'll give you $100. If you're wrong, you don't have to give me anything." As it turned out, Pete was wrong, and he handed the guy a crisp c-note. It seemed like it was worth it to him; the kickoff just wouldn't have been interesting without something riding on it.

Another time, several of us watched in amazement as Pete played blackjack (a real rarity--he is almost exclusively a sports bettor) for $1000 per hand. He lost $12,000 in less than ten minutes.

I'm convinced that he frequently bets everything he has. Because of who he is, his name is an endless source of renewable income (at card shows, etc.), but I doubt that he has anything in the bank. During the aforementioned limo ride out of Lake Tahoe, from where we had been broadcasting for their annual celebrity golf tournament, Pete wistfully commented on how beautiful Lake Tahoe was. "I could stay here a while," he said.

"You ought to," I said. "We have to be back in the office for the weekend, but there's no reason you can't stay."

Pete leaned forward and pulled out his empty wallet.

"With what, Johnny?" he shot back with a grin. "I ain't got any (bleepin') money left!"

I never entertained any illusions that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball. I would have been shocked if he didn't. As I said, betting is who he is. For that reason, I think baseball needs to work out a deal that will allow Rose to enter the Hall of Fame, but not to have any day-to-day involvement with a Major League Baseball franchise. If he were allowed back into the game, it would only be asking for trouble.

But I also know this: the betting rules in baseball are in place to forestall the possibility that a player or manager might be tempted to throw a game to cover a bet. Pete Rose would never, ever, ever bet against himself in anything. The desire to win is the reason he gambles to begin with. Yes, he broke the cardinal rule of baseball, and yes, he deserves to be punished for that (though one could argue that the punishment has been more than served). But no one ever need question the integrity of a game Rose played in or managed, which is what this is all about to begin with.

Newly-minted Christian Howard Dean is continuing with his God strategy. Recently asked which is his favorite New Testament book, Dean again demonstrated his expertise, according to the New York Times (free registration required):

Asked his favorite New Testament book, Dr. Dean named Job, adding: "But I don't like the way it ends." "Some would argue, you know, in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different," he said. "I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later."

Dean was later informed by an aide that Job is in the Old Testament, and revised his answer.

The article from the Times contains an even more telling quote, however. Dean has been trying to get mileage out of his newly adopted posture as a "Christian" alternative to the "Christian right." It's fascinating to watch his philosophy spill out as he does it. Witness this statement:

"Don't you think Jerry Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings of Jesus?" he added. "And don't you think this campaign ought to be about evicting the money-changers from the temple?"

Did you catch that? Dean considers the federal government to be the temple. It's the holiest of holies for him (and most of his fellow Democrats).

In that passage in the Bible (hey, at least Dean finally picked a New Testament story), Jesus casts the money-changers from the temple saying "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business." (John 2:16)

Howard Dean is religious, all right. The federal government truly is his father's house.

Happy New Year to all!

I had the rare opportunity to interview former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on a year-in-review radio program yesterday.

While continuing to pursue appeals in his dismissal as Chief Justice, Judge Moore is currently working towards federal legislation that would specifically circumscribe the federal judiciary's powers and authority in ruling on matters of public acknowledgement of God. With his own case and the Pledge of Allegiance case still in the forefront of the battle for religious freedom, the time might be ripe for just such legislation, which is well within the Congress' constitutional purview. It's high time that the legislative branch act within its delegated authority to reign in the runaway judiciary.

We encouraged Justice Moore to run for the United States Senate. His response was a non-committal chuckle, but I suspect we have not seen the last of Roy Moore on the national scene yet.

Even though this was published over a year ago, it's always appropriate during the farcical holiday of Kwanzaa.

Interesting, thought-provoking column from Thomas Sowell today.

Two earthquakes; one in California registers 6.5 on the Richter scale, one in Iraq registers 6.6. The one in California kills less than 10 people. The one in Iraq kills tens of thousands of people. The primary difference? Wealth.

Sowell says that wealth saves lives:

Wealth enables homes, buildings and other structures to be built to withstand greater stresses. Wealth permits the creation of modern transportation that can quickly carry people to medical facilities. It enables those facilities to be equipped with more advanced medical apparatus and supplies, and amply staffed with highly trained doctors and support staff.

Those who disdain wealth as crass materialism need to understand that wealth is one of the biggest life-saving factors in the world. As an economist in India has pointed out, "95 percent of deaths from natural hazards occur in poor countries."

I'll leave the implications for how last summer's French heatwave (and the catastrophic loss of life that resulted) reflects on their culture for another time. But as Sowell points out, there is a cultural aspect to all this:

There is another side to the story of these two earthquakes and their consequences. It gives the lie to the dogma being propagandized incessantly, from the schools to the media, that one culture is just as good as another.

It is just as good to lose tens of thousands of lives as not to? What hogwash! It is just as good to lack modern medicine, modern transportation, and modern industry as it is to have them? Who is kidding whom?

Of course there are other differences between the Iraq earthquake and the California one. Still, the wild disparity in natural disaster deaths between the United States and much of the rest of the world must be accounted for.

There's just no way that someone as tone-deaf as Howard Dean becomes President of the United States in this day and age. It just doesn't happen. Think about it--who's the last elected president who was this graceless and artificial in his attempts to pander?

The most recent example, his laughable attempt to "Christianize" his campaign in an effort to appeal to the South, is just the latest in a string of disingenuous posturings. Unfortunately, none of them are attributable to some finely-honed sense of irony, since Dean is notably (and disturbingly) berift of a sense of humor.

His out-of-the-blue efforts to identify himself as a Christian will be meaningless to those whose brand of Christianity he evidently shares (the New England, congregationalist, non-supernatural, Unitiarian-leaning social gospellers) and it will actually repel the evangelical Christians to whom he ostensibly is trying to appeal with this gimmick.

Dean says, according to the Boston Globe:

''Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind,'' Dean said. ''He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything . . . He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.''

Oh yeah, that's going to get them fired up in the pews down in Louisville: Jesus set kind of an inspiring example--when you think about it.

Dean honestly doesn't seem to realize that such tonally awkward declarations ring as unadulterated counterfeit and patronizing balderdash (which, let's face it, it is) in the ears of those who believe that Christ was the divine, miracle-working messiah, offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.

He'll find out soon enough, and it will be fun to watch this aspect of his campaign fall flat on its misbegotten face.

Just when I tried to jump on the feelgood bandwagon, the Rams had to go and boot me back off again with this little abomination in Detroit yesterday.

Home field advantage was more crucial to the Rams than any other team in the NFL, and they squandered it yesterday against one of the worst teams in the league. I have no reason to believe that the Rams would beat the Eagles in Philadelphia if they played 20 times.

This is my team. I want them to win. I hope that they'll win. I even believe that Marc Bulger has earned the opportunity (whatever I might think of his abilities) to lead this team in the playoffs. But it's just very hard for me to envision a scenario in which they get out of the NFC.

I think Rams fans need to root very hard for whoever plays the Eagles in Philly's first playoff game, because the Eagles getting knocked out is the only thing that can return the home field advantage to the Rams--and the home field advantage is the only chance they have.

From Matthew, chapter 1:

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us."

For some reason, Psalm 68 is striking me as a wonderful Christmastime verse today, though I'm not sure I've ever heard it in that connection. Verses 4-6:

Sing to God, sing praise to his name,
extol him who rides on the clouds -
his name is the LORD -
and rejoice before him.
5 A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,
is God in his holy dwelling.
6 God sets the lonely in families,
he leads forth the prisoners with singing;
but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.

The NASB translates the first line of v. 6 as: "God makes a home for the lonely." What a beautiful statement.

Merry Christmas!

I was reminded this weekend while driving around listening to the radio that the best pop Christmas song ever is Bruce Springsteen's version "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." Bar none.

The worst? The horrendous piece of Paul McCartney dreck, "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time." It's a stupid song to begin with, and it sounds like it's being played on a dime-store Casio keyboard.

The most pitiful football story of the week would have to be Joe Namath's bizarre interview with ESPN's Suzy Kolber at Saturday night's Jets/Patriots game.

As observed in USA Today:

...ESPN sideline reporter Suzy Kolber interviewed Namath. After initially speaking coherently, Namath then used halting language to repeatedly tell Kolber, "I want to kiss you" — before Kolber ended the interview.

It's a shame that America had to see it, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's been well-known in the sports media for some time that...ahem...to put it politely, you don't call the NFL Hall of Famer after dinner time, if you know what I mean. But even his boldness in public intoxication has been growing over the past few years.

Kolber undoubtedly knows this too, but probably thought that Namath would have it together at a football game, and as the article says, he was at first coherent. She probably chatted with him first for a minute or two and deemed him fit for broadcast before telling the truck to have the guys in the booth throw it to her for the interview.

I don't feel sorry for him, since he's responsible for his own behavior. But it's still unsettling to look inside the psyche of a has-been.

Assuming a win next week against the hapless Detroit Lions, the Rams have wrapped up a first round bye and home field advantage throughout the playoffs. They don't lose at home, which would have to make them at least an even bet to go to the Super Bowl.

Yesterday was a high-quality performance all around--including Marc Bulger. The past is the past, and this team ain't the Rams of '99 or '01, but they'll actually finish with a better record than the championship team of '99. In my opinion, the only team that has a shot against them is the Eagles, and they won't face them until the NFC Championship game--at the Edward D. Jones Dome.

The fact that the Rams have largely remained under the radar this season (they are the number one team in the NFC now, and yet one still sees relatively little national coverage of them as contrasted with the Eagles or the Cowboys) will only work to their advantage. They don't have the huge target on their back that they had in '01.

This is just too good not to post. I found it over at Hugh Hewitt's blog: