I just finished reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code last night. I didn't want to read it, but I've had so many people ask me questions about it that I thought I needed to.

A couple of quick thoughts. First of all, I was suprised by how clumsy it was. I expected to find a book that was theologically abhorrent but a great read. What I found was a book that was theologically abhorrent and a mediocre read. The first half of the book is pretty entertaining, with lots of twists, suprises, and suspense. The second half of the book is all thumbs. It's didactic, lazy in its exposition (how about showing us something in the narrative rather than just having a character explain it all?), and pointed toward a denouement that makes hash of most of the first half of the book.

Secondly, The Da Vinci Code is as historically uninformed as can be imagined. This is no small point since millions of people are reading this book and saying "Hey, what about this? Is this true?" Brown presents the murder-mystery part of the story line as fiction, but claims that it is ensconsed in a shell of historical truth. In fact, Brown's history is as fictional as his murder mystery. He makes claims that no serious historian--religious or secular--would affirm. For instance, Brown claims that until the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., nobody believed in a divine Christ--that this was a new invention imposed on the world by the Emperor Constantine, and that "by a relatively close vote."

In fact, whether one personally believes in the divinity of Christ, there can be no serious historical dispute that His followers did not believe in and celebrate His divinity. The New Testament documents (which are more well-attested than any other ancient documents, and certainly more well-attested than anything Brown cites) make clear that Christ's disciples believed He was divine, and that Christ taught that He was divine. And other extra-biblical evidence from the earliest days of the Church indicate that Christians worshipped Christ as God, including a surviving letter from Pliny the Younger in only 112 A.D. Furthermore, the "close vote" in the Council of Nicea was actually nearly unanimous in upholding what was by then the core teaching of the Church: the divinity of Jesus Christ.

For his main contention--that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdelene and that they had a child together, and that Christ's bloodline thus continued through the centuries--Brown doesn't even attempt to offer anything approaching evidence. There's a good reason for this: none exists. Even the Gnostic "gospels" which Brown relies upon heavily (and which were written much later than the four gospels of the Bible) do not make this claim. Even the ultra-liberal Jesus Seminar, which believes that Christ's body was taken off the cross, thrown in a shallow grave, and eaten by dogs, doesn't make this claim. Brown's main "proof" for the claim seems to be that Leonardo Da Vinci, who lived about 1500 years after Christ, believed it was true. And even that is a dubious assertion, based on such concrete foundations as Brown's interpretation of the smile on the Mona Lisa.

Having now read the book, I have to admit it is a mystery--a mystery how over four million people could flock to buy this book. It would be an unremarkable piece of pulp fiction were it not for the outrageous false claims it makes about the history of Christianity. And ultimately, that's what this book is about. It's not meant to simply be a harmless mystery. It's intent is to redefine and overthrow the faith once for all entrusted to the saints.

I zipped up to R.C. Sproul's national conference in Orlando over the weekend and had an outstanding time. I even got to bump into blogging friends Anne and Valerie!

This is now two weekends away with my wife out of the past three. I'm scoring some bigtime points!

Considering that they call Muzak "elevator music," it's odd that most elevators you ride on are suspiciously silent. Why don't they call it "supermarket music" instead?

Bernie Goldberg, the author of Bias and Arrogance, which exposed liberal media bias from an insider's perspective, is coming up from Miami today to do an interview. I'm looking forward to meeting him.

In my opinion, his books have done more to further the cause of fairness in media than anything I know of in the last 20 years.

More on "insider trading":

"I don't think the [Enron and Global Crossing] scandals would ever have erupted if we had allowed insider trading . . . because there would be plenty of people in those companies who would know exactly what was going on, and who couldn't resist the temptation to get rich by trading on the information, and the stock market would have reflected those problems months and months earlier than they did under this cockamamie regulatory system we have." -- Dean emeritus Henry Manne of the George Mason University School of Law


"Whether it's fair or not, it's the nature of markets that people benefit from specialized knowledge. I might know that there's oil on your land and you don't, and I buy it from you for a pittance and earn millions. Is that fair?

"Take the Enron and WorldCom cases. Long before their collapse, there were insiders who knew about the accounting fraud and other management sharp practices that inflated the worth of the companies. Had just a few of Enron's and WorldCom's many insiders, who knew of these practices, sold their shares or gave out well-placed tips, shareholders would have learned much earlier about the true value of the companies and might have been better able to protect themselves." -- Walter E. Williams


"What if the information was come by accidentally? I overhear some people talking in the lavatory or at a bar after they’ve had too much to drink and have loose tongues. Am I wrong to make use of it?

"Here again the issue is just what I owe others. Do I have a natural obligation to share my good fortune with other people? In emergency situations, when others are in dire need or have met with some natural disaster, virtues such as generosity and charity are usually binding on those who are able to assist. Yet these are not obligations in the sense of something the law must enforce. Indeed, enforcing generosity or charity is impossible--the moral significance of a virtue is destroyed if it is practiced at the point of a gun!" -- Tibor R. Machan


As I said before, insider trading laws are nothing more than misguided egalitarianism. They're based on a utopian notion that somehow everyone in every business transaction ought to have the same knowledge as everyone else. This assertion rests on dubious moral grounds, and is a practical impossibility. But such things never stop the utopians from trying...

Incidentally, it is instructive to note that in this "slam-dunk" insider trading case, the SEC had to drop that particular charge against Martha Stewart.

Martha Stewart has never struck me as a particularly likeable person, but I've been uncomfortable with the feeding frenzy surrounding her for two reasons.

1). It has the stench of class warfare about it. Much of what I hear on the talk shows calling for her head is coming from people who simply want to see a rich person get prison-raped. If it were Bill Gates or Donald Trump on trial, they'd be saying exactly the same things. America loves to see someone become rich. And a couple of days later, America loves to see that person torn to shreds.

2). I don't think "insider trading" ought to be illegal in the first place. The fact is, stock trading is nothing other than people trying to gain an edge over one another through better information and predictive abilities. "Insider trading" laws have always struck me as anti-conservative. They're a misbegotten, egalitarian attempt to artificially level the playing field by making sure that nobody could possibly have an inherent advantage over anyone else.

This, of course, is simply stupid. The person who knows more than me about medical products is not penalized for buying stock in better medical companies than I do. Why should he be penalized for knowing something about what that company is actually going to do? "Insider trading" laws are nothing more than an attempt to handicap people down to the lowest common denominator. It's like putting cement blocks on Carl Lewis's feet so he won't have an "unfair advantage" in a footrace against me.

Stephen Moore in National Review Online has a terrific piece in which he gives voice to exactly the reservations I have about jumping on the Lynch Martha bandwagon. Says Moore:

...[E]veryone who makes money in the financial markets is engaging in some degree of insider trading -- some just have better information than others. Being a good stock picker involves having more information, and knowing how to get it, faster than other traders. What is the difference, really, between a hot stock tip, and insider trading? The line is so murky that it makes the enforcement of insider-trading laws inconsistent and capricious.

...The source of my uneasiness is that many in our society applaud her downfall precisely because of her enormous success. But success is a virtue in America, and when we start treating it as vice, we denigrate our capitalistic system. And then we have a much bigger problem in our society than whether people are trading on hot stock tips in the middle of the night.

It reminds me of the factory workers who are always complaining in the media (along with Ralph Nader) about how we're being "sold out by corporations." They never seem to be able to understand the simple fact that their "evil coroporation" is the reason they have jobs. If they were successful in banishing all the successful people and corporations, where exactly do they plan to work?

(Incidentally, I know that Stewart was actually convicted of lying to investigators, and I have no sympathy for her in that. Still, there'd have been no investigation were it not for these stupid laws to begin with.)

This is one of the things that makes Florida slightly different from some of the other states. A school bus in Lacoochee, Florida was taking some kids home from school last Thursday when a four-foot alligator crossed the road in front of them:

"Can we catch it? Can we catch it?" asked some of the 11 kids on board, according to Jimmie Scroggins, father of two riders.

[The bus driver] first said no, then changed her mind and pulled over.

Four boys ran off the bus, hopped a fence, chased the alligator into a mud hole, got it to clamp its teeth around a stick and wrapped its head with their shirts. A fifth boy happened to have a roll of electrical tape handy, which took care of keeping the reptile's jaws shut.

"It was the first thing that came into my head," said 14-year-old Jacob Scroggins when asked why he wanted to catch the gator.

After a 15-minute struggle, the boys triumphantly got back on the bus with their squirming, angry prize.

The bus driver has been suspended for letting the boys do it, and I guess I can't argue with that. But it's still kind of cool.

So I see that the title of disgraced former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair's new book is Burning Down My Master's House.

What a jackass.

As if he were some sort of indentured slave who cried "enough!" and heroically exacted revenge upon an evil opressor, rather than a lazy half-wit who was prematurely elevated without qualifications to a post far beyond his abilities exclusively because of his race and stupidly whizzed it all away.

On my way into work this morning, I noticed that a sign outside one of our Broward County elementary schools had marked March 17 as "Green day."

Assuming this elementary school is not hosting rock concerts, do you think they merely did this to save letters on their billboard? Or is it possible that even "St. Patrick's Day" is now considered too religious/ethnic/partisan to be mentioned in a public school?

John Kerry will be a formidable candidate this year because he has one Clintonian quality that the media salivates over: a paralyzing, handwringing indecision on almost every important issue.

The media sees this quality as reflecting great depth. It was one of the keys of Clinton's "genius." Because Clinton had no worldview or actual principles, each issue that came up had to be weighed anew. Each issue had to be laboriously parsed, analyzed, and dissected because he had no overarching principles which helped him define them and no intellectual structure by which he could frame them.

If possible, Kerry exhibits this complete worldview vacuum to a greater degree than even Clinton. Presumably, this will cause him to be seen by the media as even more "brilliant." Kerry displays some of this brilliance in an interview in this week's TIME Magazine:

TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?
KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to?because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament....

...TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?
KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction? and we may yet find some?then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still?wait, no. You can't?that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

Dazzling.

As a Washington Post article points out (dug up by Taranto), this kind of thing is seen by his supporters (and the media will be among them, soon enough) as Solomonic wisdom:

"George Bush is, 'I know what's right, and I know what's wrong,' regardless of the nature of reality," said Jonathan Winer, Kerry's counsel from 1983 to 1994. "John takes the opposite approach: 'Don't assume you know where I am. Don't assume I know what I think. We'll talk it through.' It's a deliberate suspension."

Kerry is a man who studies the menu at restaurants, even when he knows what he's going to order. Entering a room, he pauses and looks around, as if to weigh his options. He is so fond of the phrase "tough choices" that Senate staffers routinely inserted it in his speeches because they knew he would say it anyway.

As Mel Gibson's "The Passion" crossed the $200 million box office mark this weekend, the savage violence continued unabated. As predicted by the intelligentsia, synagogues were burned and looted, and Jews were dragged out of their cars and beaten by frenzied moviegoers as they pillaged the countryside looking for someone--anyone--to seek revenge on for the death of Christ.

We can only hope that the film fades away soon, and the inevitable onslaught of violence and carnage it has brought with it. Soon, we will begin the hard work of rebuilding our shattered society, a society in which no person of any ethnic group will ever be forced to suffer the way they have the past ten days in this darkest period of our nation's history.

As regular readers know, I spend my time in many high-minded pursuits. That's why I was pleased to pick up another prize in this week's "Late Show Top 10 Contest."

The topic was "Top 10 Suprises in 'The Passion of the Christ.'" My entry? "The Kenny Loggins theme song."

It's good to know that I'm not wasting my life on useless, trivial minutia. After all, I won a Dave Letterman mouse pad in the deal.

Believe it or not, my one-year blogoversary is tommorrow. At this time last year, many thought that I simply wasn't creative enough to produce enough material to keep an interesting, informative, and entertaining blog up and running for a year.

Unfortunately, of course, those people were proved correct about three days into it, but we've slogged through nonetheless. Here's to another year of gleeful misanthropy!

In case you've missed it, my recent post on alleged anti-Semitism in "The Passion," which featured a demand that those who were whipping people into a frenzy over the supposed danger now show us evidence that they were right, has led to where all such discussions must ultimately lead: jokes and puns about "Gilligan's Island."

Feel free to skipper on over there and join in.

In St. Louis, a Boeing engineer is working to have the theory of Intelligent Design taught to students alongside Darwinian evolution in public school science classes.

This article in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch is perhaps the most well-informed, well-balanced article on this subject that I've ever seen in the mainstream media. The guy who wrote it ought to win an award just for fairness, which is usually hard to come by when the media treats "religious" issues.

Occasionally, I get some flashes of insight into what enrages my paleoconservative friends about inauthentic conservatism.

Such is the case recently in a discussion I've been having over at PunditFilter (a site I really like, by the way) with some folks about the Locke v. Davey case.

One of the correspondents there was decrying the decision against Davey as a travesty of religious freedom. I disagreed, pointing out that the duly-enacted Washington state constitution specifically disallows taxpayer money to fund religious study, and that there is no constitutional right to scholarship money, and that the Supreme Court's ordering the funding of these scholarships would be the height of the judicial activism that all conservatives ought to oppose.

To my chagrin, I've found that some self-styled conservatives really have no interest in reasoning through this; they know the end they desired, and like the Left, would see it imposed by any means neccessary--including judicial fiat.

One correspondent said:

I don't think anyone would have seen a different Court ruling in favor of the scholarship as "rewriting the democratically-enacted constitution of the state." Instead it would have been upholding those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It wouldn't have overruled the people, it would have protected their rights, as it should. Instead, with its decision, the Supreme Court is re-writing law in this case, ignoring the US constitution in favor of a misinterpretation of a state constitution.

First of all, however it may be "seen" is irrelavant to me, and irrelevant to the case.

But beyond that, this seems like Orwellian double-speak to me. The claim here is that a ruling in favor of Davey would have protected the rights of Washingtonians by denying them the provisions of the state constitution they enacted. In other words, it would have protected them from themselves, a concept with which the Left regularly rules.

Furthermore, no actual provision of the U.S. Constitution is cited in support of the "freedom" of tax-funded religious education it allegedly guarantees.

And to top it off, it is alleged that the U.S. Supreme Court is "re-writing law in this case," despite the fact that there is no right to scholarships in the U.S. Constitution that I can find (though you'll probably begin to hear it in lots of John Kerry stump speeches), and that the constitution of the state of Washington bans such funding.

I pointed out that we conservatives ought to be consistent. Conservatism means something. It is against over-centralization. It is for local government. We supported Roy Moore in his battle against the federal court. Do we want constitutional change by judicial fiat or don't we?

Another correspondent said that I ought not to "[lump] conservatives into the same basket":

Not all of us supported Moore and his thumbing his nose at the federal court.

Personally, I don't think this is a state's matter because it cuts to the core of religious freedom. When that's curtailed, it transcends states rights and becomes a federal issue, period.

This person claims the label of conservative, but whatever philosophy this is, it isn't conservatism.

Roy Moore is said to have "thumbed his nose" at a federal court because he believed they had no right, citing no law whatsoever, to order him to not acknowledge God. Yet self-styled "conservatives" evidently believe that we are not a nation of laws, but rather a nation of men who tell us what the law is.

Of course, these lofty-sounding (though radically unconstitutional) notions of "greater freedom" and "transcendance" are precisely the same reason we've now had Roe v. Wade for the last 30 years. The reasoning is exactly the same as that on the Left--that some issues are just to big to let the unwashed masses decide.

Such "conservatives" have allowed the Left to formulate the mechanism for social engineering, and they only want to take their own turn at the wheel every now and again. They've allowed the Left to choose the city, stadium, and boundaries of the field that the game will be played on, and then label temselves "conservative" because they think they've chosen the correct color uniform.

So, to my paleoconservative friends, let me say: I think I understand now what you feel when you think you see Statism disguised as conservatism.

Whatever your opinion about George W. Bush, the so-called "furor" over his campaign ad (which briefly alludes to 9-11) is nonsense.

If the commercial were blatantly fear-mongering or sensationalizing 9-11, the detractors might have a point. But to claim that the President ought not to reference it at all during the campaign is ridiculous. Did FDR never mention World War II in a campaign?

The fact is, 9-11 happened during George W. Bush's presidency. The fact is, it changed this country. And the fact is, it has a great deal to do with the future of the country. To say that the Bush campaign cannot legitimately raise the issue as a defnining moment in the Bush presidency, or can't ask who we would want to be president in a 9-11 situation, is absurd.

The "furor" only confirms what had been murmered all along: Democrats see Bush as being one lucky fella for getting to be president when 9-11 happened. Many of them were openly lamenting that Bill Clinton never had an "opportunity" for a moment like that. They'd love for terrorism to be ruled out as an issue in the campaign because its an issue they get killed on. They dread the thought of anyone asking of their candidate, "Would you want this man to be president if a 9-11-type attack occurred again?"

They know that even they wouldn't have wanted Al Gore to be president on September 11, 2001. Thus, they need to have the issue declared out of bounds in order to get their next guy elected.

The Gibson movie has now been viewed by millions of Americans. Yet last night on cable, I still saw the usual suspects (Shmuley Boteach, etc.) claiming that the film is dangerous.

It seems to me that those who have been crying "wolf" on anti-Semitism had now better put up or shut up. At this point, any claim that "The Passion" is "dangerous" or "anti-Semitic" or could lead to "unintended consequences" should be met with a demand for proof.

Where are the acts of violence? Where are the mobs of people looking to spill Jewish (or any other) blood? Is it time yet to admit you were simply wrong? If not now, when?

Our long national nightmare has ended: Discoshaman has returned to blogging!

David Frum posted a column over at National Review Online yesterday that infuriated me. Like so many others, he accused Mel Gibson of anti-Semitism while at the same time denying that he's doing it.

His particular beef is with how Gibson answered a question put to him by Diane Sawyer regarding his views on the Holocaust. He says he has friends with numbers tatooed on their arms, and says that there were atrocities committed, and that Jews were among the tens of millions of people who were killed during World War II.

Frum's problem was with what Gibson did not say:

Note that Gibson did not say, "Don't be absurd, Peggy. Obviously it is a matter of historical record that Adolph Hitler and the Nazis deliberately murdered millions of Jews." Note that Gibson did not cite the universally accepted casualty count of between 5 and 6 million Jewish fatalities. Nor did he acknowledge that Jews were special targets of Hitler's hatred or that anti-Semitism occupied a central place in Hitler's ideology.

Note next that Gibson did not use the word "murder." Instead, he used the generic term "atrocities," which could cover anything from mass murder to assault and arson. And whatever was the point of that strange formulation, "Some of them were Jews..."?

I'm not a "letters to the editor" kind of guy (believe it or not), but I couldn't hold back. I sent the following email to Frum:

Dear Mr. Frum,

I appreciate your work a great deal, but I must say that your National Review Online diary of February 29th ("Passionata") was full of the kind of political correctness run amok that NRO usually (rightly) stands against.

Instead of taking someone's words at face value, we must now try to psychoanalyze him through his phraseology; His plain statements are reinterpreted in light of his ambiguous statements, rather than vice versa. If he does not formulate his thoughts using precisely the accepted and approved verbiage (even if he states the same thought in essence), he is anathema.

First let me say (because in this ridiculous climate, we evidently have to say it specifically, or we are immediately tagged as unorthodox) that I believe that the Nazis murdered between 5 and 6 million Jews in concentration camps in World War II, that it was an act of incomprehensible evil, and that it was carried out intentionally by Hitler and his minions as a result of Hitler's racist philosophy. I renounce it, I hate it, and I think every last one of them should be (or should have been) prosecuted to the nth degree.

I truly believe that, but I resent that I am also required to say it in exactly those words in order to conform and avoid the charge of anti-Semitism. Why? Because merely by questioning the treatment Gibson has received, I open myself to the charge, and evidently only the approved language will vindicate me. Heaven help me if I express the same thought in different words. Nothing else will then matter.

So. Mel Gibson does not use those words. He refers to the Holocaust instead as an "atrocity." The word comes from "atrocious," which, according to my dictionary means, "extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel." Do you really mean to imply that Gibson believes the acts of the Nazis against Jews were "extremely wicked, brutal, and cruel," but that they were not murder? Is it not possible that Gibson actually means exactly what he said--that the acts of the Nazis against Jews were wicked, brutal, and cruel? Is to affirm this to be a "Holocaust denier"? Has Gibson ever done anything to forfeit the simple benefit of the doubt? Must he (and everyone else) spend their lives proving a negative--that they do not harbor feelings of anti-Semitism?

You essentially accuse Gibson of playing the same game that the Holocaust deniers do by using carefully chosen language to obscure his true belief while seeming to tentatively affirm the opposite. And yet that's precisely what you do with Gibson! You spend much of the column comparing him with Holocaust deniers, and then you disingenuously say that you are not accusing him of being a Holocaust denier. You claim that you are not lumping him in with that group, and then imply (using an argument from silence) that he must be.

In your column, you actually run through a specific litany that Gibson (or presumably anyone else) will have to cite in order to pass muster with you and be pronounced free of anti-Semitism. You even go so far as to delineate specific wording that he must abide by. It is not enough for him to say that the Holocaust was an abomination. If he fails to cite specific numbers, motives, and tenets of the philosophy of Adolph Hitler, he is an anti-Semite, case closed. He is pilloried for what he (supposedly) fails to say, and what he does say is viewed with unmerited suspicion. You are searching for "code words" with the tenacity of a Jesse Jackson or a Noam Chomsky.

If this is not a play straight out of the Political Correctness Handbook, I don't know what is. The totalitarian enforcers of Political Correctness say, "Express the same thoughts that we do, exactly the same way that we do, with no deviation. If you fail to do this, you will be labeled as evil. Period." And that is exactly what you (and others) have done with Gibson. The difference is: I would have expected it from the others, but not from you.

This is a game for Leftists; any conservative who plays it should be ashamed of himself.

I respect you, but I am very disappointed.

Sincerely,
John Rabe

Taranto gives me a shout-out (along with dozens of others) in the credits section of Friday's "Best of the Web Today" column. I had sent him a quote from Maureen Dowd's recent travesty of a column.

If I hadn't previously been irredeemably tainted in the eyes of the paleocons, that ought to do it....

We arrived back from New York late last night after an incredible weekend. It's amazing both how much you can pack into 48 hours, and how much is still left undone after that time. I couldn't live in Manhattan, but what a great place to visit.

On Sunday morning, we attended Redeemer Presbyterian Church (thanks for the heads-up, Jane D.) which meets at several different points in Manhattan (since they aspire to have very local congregations, rather than one megachurch). The service we attended was at the Hunter College Auditorium on the Upper East Side about two blocks from Central Park. Much to my suprise, there were probably 1500 people there.

It was an incredible encouragement to see a thriving, growing, Bible-believing congregation in the heart of New York City. After a few days of walking around, you can start to get the feeling that you're the only one. Tim Keller and the foks there are being used in a tremendous work.

Mel Gibson's movie has divided people many different ways. Some have accused the film of anti-Semitism; this has provoked a firestorm of reaction from those who are tired of such specious charges.

Some Christians are treating the film as if it were a sacrament; other Christians scolds are using it as yet another opportunity to look down their noses at the unwashed masses of their fellow Christians who are interested in seeing the film. (Ironically, these are many of the same ultra-Christians who are always carping about the modern lack of Christian art.) Most of this particular group would be shouting about the film from the rooftops if they could only be assured that nobody else would actually see it; their defining belief is that "popular" always and neccessarily equals "bad."

Some Protestants oppose it because it's too Catholic. Some Catholics oppose it because it's too Protestant.

Still others seem to oppose it simply because "it focuses on the last hours of Christ, rather than on his teachings." These are the folks who see Christ's crucifiction along the lines of the Kennedy or King assasinations--the unfortunate and marring end to what might have been a good life and philosophy until that point. These are the ones who fail to understand Christ's self-stated mission for coming into the world--not to teach a philosophy, but to give his life as a ransom.

Yet with all of those divisions, the film made something like $117 million this weekend. Controversy alone won't do that; Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ" was highly controversial, and didn't even break double-digits. Someone is evidently going to see it. For better or for worse, Mel Gibson's film is a cultural event.

Because of that, I saw "The Passion of the Christ" on Friday.

I found it to be a very good film. Not without flaws, not a transforming religious experience (which would be a bad thing for a movie to be anyway), but a very good film.

First, to address the two issues that everyone is curious about:

1). The anti-Semitism charge as laughable. If anything, the film ought to be protested by the Italian Anti-Defamation League. Throughout the film, it is the Romans who come off as the bloodthirsty, sadistic, hardened malefactors. One could hardly help but notice that the cast credits at the end of this supposedly "anti-Semitic" movie were made up almost entirely of Italian names. Gibson's picture simply addresses the undeniable historical fact that Christ was crucified by Jews and Romans (the people who were there) 2000 years ago.

2). Yes, the violence is disturbing and graphic. But none of it was gratuitous (in my opinion), and the notion expressed by Roger Ebert (in a highly positive review) that this is the "most violent film ever" is simply nonsense. "Saving Private Ryan" was more violent, as was every Tarantino film. DePalma's "Scarface" (made about 20 years ago) is much more gratuitously violent, as was Oliver Stone's "Platoon" and "Natural Born Killers." After the breathless reports from the critics about the violence of "The Passion," I had steeled myself for something like "Pulp Fiction." It just isn't like that.

As for the movie itself, the longer I've had to think about it since I watched it, the more it impresses me. It is a brutal depiction of a brutal event. But Gibson has the guts to put them into context (notwithstanding the clueless objections of some critics), and he makes clear all the way through that this is happening for a purpose.

The charge that Gibson ignores the life of Christ is misguided; all of Christ's major teachings are represented in wonderful flashbacks, which are both some of the best moments in the film and needed respite for the audience from the brutality that is being inflicted. But the movie makes no apologies for focusing on Christ's Passion, which was His mission on Earth. Gibson presents these facts as one who has a personal stake in them, rather than as dispassionate (no pun intended) biography. In this day and age, that takes a lot of courage and boldness. The film takes more interest in the relationship between the intense suffering of Christ and horrific nature our sin than any other movie I've ever seen.

I'm told that Gibson put some "Catholic" things in the film, but as a Reformed Protestant I found little to object to from that standpoint. The character of Mary, the mother of Christ, is handled wonderfully, and Gibson resists the urge to run off on a superstitious tangent with her.

There were some things I thought didn't work. The confrontation between the Roman soldiers and the disciples in the garden of Gesthemene plays out like a scene in an action film--Romans punching disciples and disciples punching Romans with traditional movie-fight sound effects. I also thought some of the devices used to portray the presence of Satan and his demons tended toward the cheesy (though in a relativistic culture, I commend Gibson for having the courage to portray evil as real and personal).

But this film has an aftertaste, and it makes it better upon reflection. Much is made of the harrowing violence of the film, but it's often overlooked (even by Christian critics) that it has a happy ending. Some have dismissed Gibson's depiction of the resurrection as "merely 30 seconds at the end of two hours of savagery." I found it to be just right. After two hours of the most merciless, horrific, orgiastic infliction of punishment and death on Christ, it is all wiped away in a moment; all the frenzied beatings and calculated tortures have come to naught as Christ simply rises and walks out of His grave.

If you are concerned that a graphic portrayal of the passion of Christ might violate the Second Commandment, or you are concerned about the violence, obey your conscience and do not see it. Films ought not to be "religious experiences" per se. This movie should not be considered some sort of means to a spiritual result. That's what your church, your pastor, and your Bible are about. But if you lament the 21st century's dearth of authentic Christian art, you should consider seeing it. It could go a long way towards dispelling that poverty.

So I'm finally going to see The Movie today. I say "finally"--it's odd to feel like you're way behind on a movie that's hardly been out 48 hours, but there it is. I'm already about the only person I know who hasn't seen it. Normally, I would just wait for the crowds to die down for a few weeks and then go. But I've found myself in so many situations in which I've had to discuss this film that I think I need to see it sooner rather than later.

Then, after the movie, I'll head home and sweep the missus away for that anniversary weekend in New York City. I'll give my thoughts on the movie (which will be worth just about what you've paid for them...) Monday.

Anti-Semite Maureen Dowd of the New York Times says that viewing Mel Gibson's "Passion" made her "want to kick in some Jewish and Roman teeth." This is an incredible admission.

Ominously, she adds, "And since the Romans have melted into history . . ."

I've talked to dozens of Christians who have seen this movie, and not one has reported feeling the hatred towards Jews that Maureen Dowd felt on her way out of the theater.

Though it will be unpopular with some Christians, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling yesterday in the Joshua Davey case was both right and conservative (despite the dissent of the Court's two most conservative members).

The Court ruled that the state of Washington had the right to decline to fund education for religious vocations with tax dollars. As I argued a few months ago, Davey's attorney, Jay Sekulow, was essentially arguing in favor of judicial activism. He wanted unelected judges to, by raw judicial fiat, overturn the democratically-enacted constitution of the state of Washington.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said of the law:

It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction.

As we conservatives are always saying, the Constitution limits the Congress from passing laws regarding the establishment or the free excercise of religion. It says nothing that mandates (or precludes, on a state level) tax dollars being spent on religious instruction.

It's inevitable that Clear Channel Radio's move to take Howard Stern off of its radio stations will be met with howls of "censorship!" Of course, it's actually nothing of the sort. The same free market that made Stern has now shifted a bit, and Clear Channel believes that it will be more profitable for them to not air his show than to air it.

I don't doubt that their decision comes primarily as a result of fear of major FCC fines (their blather about suddenly being "shocked" at Stern's content notwithstanding; anyone radio executive who claims to not know about Stern's act is a flat liar), but those fines are also a result of public pressure and outrage.

For the time being, the people appear to be deciding that they want their airwaves cleaned up. Perhaps they'll change their mind tommorrow--and that's the free market too.

I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ" yet, and probably won't get to for a few weeks. Though I'm intrigued by the film, I'm not jumping up and down merely because it's a rare film that takes Christianity seriously. I'll wait and watch it, and then decide what I think of it.

Regardless, I'm amazed at some of the vitriol I'm seeing in reviews. I have to think that Gibson is onto something powerful here, if only because it has so many secularists literally losing their minds. It's nothing short of astounding--they're frothing at the mouth like rabid dogs.

Here's one from Roger Friedman, who writes the "Fox 411" gossip column at FoxNews.com. (Incidentally, I've never known of a straight, male gossip columnist, but perhaps Roger is the exception....) Note the now-textbook technique of branding Gibson an anti-Semite while pretending not to:

Is the movie anti-Semitic? Several reviewers have already said it is. I can tell you this: Thanks to Gibson, when non-Jews around the world now see the Jewish prayer shawl, the tallis, on the heads of praying Jews, they will think, 'Oh yeah, those were worn by the angry crowds in "The Passion" who insisted that Jesus be killed and then patiently watched him be tortured to death.' Thanks to Gibson, we are reminded that Jesus' friend Judas ? a Jew ? was easily sold out for some gold that was thrown at him in exchange for his betrayal. It's the return of the money-grubbing Jew, straight out of the old anti-Semite playbook.

There's more, of course, but none of this is a revelation at this point. Gibson's Jews are caricatures with bulbous noses. To say they lack compassion is an understatement. They are almost always pictured as an angry, unrelenting mob that wants Jesus dead no matter what. It's so stupid that it's almost not anti-Semitic. It just makes Gibson look like an idiot.

"Supid." "Idiot." You don't see film reviewers attack Pauly Shore and Tom Green this way. There's something personal going on here that runs much deeper than a movie. One wonders if Mr. Friedman, like so many other male gossip columnists, has a sausage-swallowing problem that might be jeopardized by Christian truth claims.

And I love how film reviewers are now suddenly all anti-violence. As if they weren't soiling their shorts over Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill" a few months ago.

One of those soiling her shorts over that film was Jami Bernard of the New York Daily News. So great is her devotion to Tarrantino, she's even written a book called Quentin Tarantino: The Man and His Movies. She objects to "The Passion," because, yep, you guessed it: it's too violent.

Says Bernard:

The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here.

Ah, yes, I see now. If we tie a guy up, cut off his ear, have him spurt blood out of his head, and then we douse him with gasoline and set him on fire (as Tarrantino did in "Reservoir Dogs"), it's "cartoonish." It's fun! But if you treat violence as serious and real, it's out of bounds.

Bernard, who according to her bio "named her parrot Sensei after the kung-fu movies of her youth" and "also has two cats, Tsuko and Buzz" (read: "Jami is a bitter, budding spinster"), steps where most others have feared to tread:

Is it anti-Semitic?

Yes.

Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.

Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.

I've been reading a lot of things like this lately, and I'm curious. Since the movie is not animated, the noses shown onscreen belong to actual actors, many of whom are actually Jewish. Isn't the real anti-Semitism here being demonstrated by reviewers who insist on pointing out these "bulbous" and "hook noses"? Keep in mind, these are actual people with actual noses. By continually remarking on them, who is really foisting the stereotypes? How must the actual Jewish owners of these noses feel when they hear themselves described this way by reviewers? What would we say about a reviewer who attacks Steven Spielberg in "Amistad" for "cutting from one large-nostriled black nose to the next"? Would we think the problem was with Spielberg, or with the person who would write such a thing?

Considering how much some of these folks evidently have to lose (judging by their hysteria), I've actually been suprised with the number of guardedly positive (or at least fair-minded) reviews the film is receiving, including in both major papers here in liberal South Florida. Even the New York Times, which has been pillorying Gibson for months on its editorial page treats the film fairly on its review page.

Which all goes to show that you'll be able to tell a lot about a person by how frothing their reaction to it is .

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.