The bad news is: according to a Harvard researcher, orangutans may be extinct within 20 years.

The good news is: we'll never have to endure another of those horrid Clint Eastwood "Any Which Way But Loose" movies ever again.

Last night I took my family to see "Luther", the new flick on the life of the great reformer Martin Luther. The good news is, the picture was very good. The bad news is, if you want to see it, you'd better do it soon (like tonight), because there were only two people in the auditorium besides us.

Considering the inherent drama of the Luther story, along with Hollywood's propensity for Rocky-type "little guy against the establishment" genre, it's actually shocking that it's taken them this long to produce a full-blown motion picture treatment of his life.

Though the film is engrossing, it (somewhat mystifyingly) is not as compelling as it could be, considering the magnitude of the story. Nonetheless, it is well-acted, fairly historically accurate, and faithful to period detail. The performances are strong (particularly Sir Peter Ustinov as Frederick the Wise and Alfred Molina as the conniving, indulgence-peddling Johann Tetzel). Joseph Fiennes does a fine job as Luther, though as scripted many of Luther's more...ahem...eccentric qualities are left out. Give the filmmakers credit, however, for resisting the temptation to portray Luther as a pure iconoclast (which he wasn't) rather than a true reformer (which he was). It was the Roman Catholic Church that separated from Luther, not vice-versa.

Luther's story is inherently problematic in that its natural climax, the stirring "here I stand" speech at the Diet of Worms, occurs fairly early in the timeline of his life and work. After that point (the film's most stirring moment), the movie never quite regains the steam it had going, making the final 45 minutes or so seem like a very long epilogue. But this weakness is somewhat compensated for by the meat the film places on the historical skeleton of these watershed events. Anyone who's taken a history class (or at least a church history class) has read about Tetzel's indulgences, for instance. But while on paper his approach may look a little corny and medieval ("When into the coffers a coin rings, another soul from purgatory springs..."), in the hands of good actors, you can see how terrifying and compelling his pitch may have actually been. This guy's work raised a lot of money and built a lot of huge cathedrals, so there was something about what he was doing.

Anyone with an interest in history will enjoy "Luther." Anyone with an interest in the Church will enjoy "Luther." Even if it's not perfect. I mean, how often does Hollywood release a quality, sympathetic movie about a Christian giant? Rarely enough that when it does, you ought to go out of your way to see it.

Okay, California Republicans, you have a decision to make. According to a new USA Today poll of probable voters, if Republican-in-name-only Arnold Schwarzenegger were to drop out of the gubernatorial recall election, Republican Tom McClintock would beat Democrat favorite Cruz Bustamante by 19 points.

For weeks we've been hearing California Republicans (plus Sean Hannity, et. al.) telling us that only Arnold could win, and that McClintock (an actual conservative) owed it to his party to drop out. However, the other day McClintock won the televised debate by a wide margin (according to everybody on all sides of the race), and the polls are now showing he could win the recall election handily if Schwarzenegger were not there to split his vote.

So what will be your excuse for supporting Arnold now?

A couple of brief sports observations from the weekend:

--Some of my long-suffering friends in Chicago clued me in on a popular acronym years ago: C-U-B-S. Cubs Useless By September. This pattern is so set in stone that it long ago became expected of the Cubs. That's why it's almost impossible to overestimate the job that Dusty Baker has done in his first season as their skipper. He isn't only the manager of the year, he's the manager of the decade.

--We moved to South Florida in the spring of 1998, when Wayne Huizenga had sold off almost all the stars from the champinship Marlins team that had won the World Series only five months before. Since then, with an awful product and management that clearly didn't care, one would routinely find crowds of 5000 or less at Marlins games. It's been exciting to see that change this year. The momentum has built slowly, but there are now 30,000-plus crowds at Pro Player Stadium, and you hear people excitedly talking about the Marlins. During Dolphins season. That's only happened one other time in this town's history.

--It's always beautiful to see the St. Louis Rams beat the stuffing out of the Arizona Cardinals. Bill Bidwell is the lousiest owner in sports bar none--and that's saying something considering that particular group of cretins. Bidwll went to Phoenix with his never-won-a-playoff-game team and utterly destroyed a market that had been starved for pro football. Meanwhile, the patient fans of St. Louis have two Super Bowl appearances and a championship under their belts. Revenge is sweet.

--I'm extremely disappointed in the putrid Detroit Tigers. They had a chance to achieve ignominious immortality, but instead only lost 119 games, one short of the all-time record set by the expansion '62 Mets. Great job, guys. Hold your heads high. You averaged 7.166 wins per month this season. Good times.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit presumptuous?

According to the story on CNN.com:

HIV-infected Africans shouted down an American official Friday when she tried to defend the U.S. contribution to the fight against AIDS at a conference in Kenya.

In their second protest at the week-long gathering, the activists from across Africa stood up and walked toward the podium, waving placards and whistling and jeering at Leslie Rowe, a diplomat from the U.S. embassy in Nairobi.

With the slogans "Aids treatment now!" and "Generic drugs now!" emblazoned on placards, they got up from their seats in an auditorium, panicking organizers at the closing ceremony.

I find it interesting that not only would they like our help combating their AIDS problem, not only do they request that we help combat their AIDS problem, they demand that we solve their AIDS problem for them.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the simple biological facts of how this epidemic came to ravage Africa in the first place (though I'll give you a hint: it wasn't through blood transfusions), any compassionate person would grieve for the families and the children who have been chewed up by this epidemic. But my question is, how is it that they expect the United States to solve the problem for them? Even if we, as a nation, decide that we should be extending a hand (which we have), doesn't it take some chutzpah to start complaining about the nature of the handout? It's as though Jerry's Kids showed up at his estate every Labor Day, kicked in the door, and said "Get off the couch, fatso! You owe us a cure!"

Here's my idea, Kenya. No. How does that sound? Solve it yourself. In fact, we demand that you get to work right now on solving our heart disease epidemic. We haven't seen one cent from you in all these years we've been struggling with it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying every single year of heart disease, but the Kenyan government and people won't lift a finger to help.

It sounds a little odd when the attitudinal shoe is placed on the other foot, doesn't it?

The U.S. team won it's second straight game in the Women's World Cup soccer tournament!

Hang on, I need to go check on something here........

......Okay, I'm back. Nope. Still couldn't care less.

Conservatives are the real campus radicals. While many leftist college students think that they are somehow countercultural, in reality, they are as conformist as a high school cheerleader. It's the easiest thing in the world to be some campus blowhard protesting the World Trade Organization. It's the young conservative who is swimming hard against the tide.

I can't tell you how much I love this story. Or at least the actions of the conservative students in the story.

As it happens, the Young Conservatives of Texas chapter at Southern Methodist University decided to hold an affirmative action bake sale. According to the story:

A sign said white males had to pay $1 for a cookie. The price was 75 cents for white women, 50 cents for Hispanics and 25 cents for blacks.

Since, of course, universities are bastions of free speech, where flags can be burned and eggs can be thrown under the First Amendment, SMU stepped in and shut down the sale after 45 minutes:

A black student filed a complaint with SMU, saying the sale was offensive. SMU officials said they halted the event after 45 minutes because it created a potentially unsafe situation.

As it turns out, a number of students, including black ones, were incensed by the sale. Ironically, they seem to have taken offense at the obvious patronization of being charged only 25 cents for a cookie that cost others more. Yet few are offended by a lowered standard for college admission or employment.

I read Dinesh D'Souza's entertaining little book Letters to a Young Conservative a few months ago. I don't have it in front of me, but if I recall correctly, the plan for exactly this kind of bake sale was laid out there, along with some other eyebrow-raising events campus conservatives could do for fun and awareness. According to the news story, sales like this have happened on at least four or five other campuses this year.

Man, do I wish I had been mature and gutsy enough to have been a conservative in college. These guys are countercultural.

The Haloscan commenting system seems to be dead as a doornail for the moment. Sorry about the inconvenience.

Three words I had hoped to never see together: "Schwarzenegger," "Mapplethorpe," and "erotic."

Ewww.

Yesterday, I neglected to observe the passing of Gordon Jump, who played Mr. Carlson on the classic sitcom "WKRP in Cincinnati."

I'm actually a bit suprised at the amount of attention his death has drawn. It's truly a sign of the 80's nostalgia craze.

As someone who spent a number of years in radio as a career (and still dabbles in it on a semi-frequent basis), it's difficult to estimate how much a role in my career choice that "WKRP" played--but it wasn't small. In sixth grade, an English teacher had me read something out loud and told me she thought I had a voice that was pleasing to listen to. "You should consider doing something where you can use your voice--like radio broadcasting." My heart jumped, as I immediately imagined myself hanging around the "bullpen" with Johnny, Venus, Andy, and the gang. The hook was set, and I've been on the line (to one degree or another) ever since.

My first internship at a "real" radio station (the now-defunct KWK in St. Louis) proved to me how dead-on "WKRP" actually was, and the rest of my career only confirmed it. Sure, "WKRP" was a caricature--but not by much. The basic template is as true as it can be. The general managers really do hide in their offices and are afraid of the on-air people, the salespeople really are as slimy as Herb Tarlek, and the disc jockeys really are spaced out on heaven-knows-what drugs. I knew one who lived in his car and frequently did his program high on mushrooms--at the number one rated music station in a major market. And it was an adult contemporary, soft rock station! In the '90's! I'm frightened to think what must have been going on at classic rock stations in the '70's.

The only thing that disappointingly did not hold true from "WKRP" was the virtuous Andy Travis character. Most program directors are actually just as weaselly as the sales people.

Nonetheless, so long, "Big Guy." Thanks for being part of pushing me into an...ahem...interesting life.

Have you even begun to fathom how incomprehensibly awful the Detroit Tigers are this season?

They're two losses away from equaling the all-time record set by Marvelous Marv Throneberry's '62 Mets. And the '62 Mets were losing to girl's softball teams. There ought to be a rule, and I'm not kidding about this, that if your franchise loses more than 110 games in a single season, it's over. They pull the plug, shut you down, and distribute your god-awful players among any other teams that might inexplicably desire to have them.

Dennis Prager has a fascinating column today that's bound to bring a lot of grief his way. There's a lot to chew on here, but the facts are decidedly on his side.

According to Prager, there is a substantial gap between the voting habits of single and married women. The single women are much more likely to vote Democrat, and the married ones tend to vote Republican. The primary reason?

"...[W]omen's nature yearns for male protection," Prager says. I can hear the feminsts gasping as they read this. But, Prager says, even those feminists prove his point:

Extremely wealthy women almost always seek to marry men who are even wealthier than they are. Actress Jane Fonda had more money than almost anyone in America, yet she married Ted Turner, a man who had even more money than she. Though fabulously wealthy and a feminist, Ms. Fonda nevertheless could not shed her female nature.

Prager says that this urge is so primal that it almost completely accounts for the destruction of the family among the poorest communities:

Given women's primal desire to be protected, if a woman has no man to provide it, she will seek security elsewhere -- and elsewhere today can only mean the government. In effect, the state becomes her husband. . . .The welfare state simply rendered many black men unnecessary and therefore undesirable as spouses: Why marry when you can get more benefits from the state while remaining single (and get even more money if you have children while remaining single)?

Thus, the single woman, seeking a husband, votes Democrat so that the government can be her provider and protecter. When she marries, however, all this changes:

...[H]er need for the state not only diminishes, she now begins to view the state as inimical to her interests. For the married woman, especially if she has children, two primal urges work against her having a pro-big government attitude. Her urge to be protected, which is now fulfilled by her husband, and her primal urge to protect her nest are now endangered by the government, which as it grows, takes away more and more of her family's money.

Thus, she begins to vote conservative. For good measure, Prager provides a second major reason as well:

The other reason married women are less likely to be liberal and vote Democratic relates to maturity and wisdom.

Just about everyone -- a man as much as a woman -- is rendered more mature and wiser after marrying. . . . Am I implying that increasing one's maturity and wisdom works in favor of the Republicans and against liberalism and the Democrats? Absolutely.

You have to give him credit for having guts. Among men, the phrase "church bells" would probably come up. I love the truth of what he says, and even more, I love the sound of shrewish feminist battle-axes screaming.

The St. Louis Rams are toast.

With Marshall Faulk breaking his hand yesterday, any possibility of respectability was broken with it. Only two years ago, this offense (with much the same personnel) was called "The Greatest Show on Turf." In two short years, it has gone to being a below-average NFL offense. "Offensive genius" Mike Martz has engineered one of the greatest falls in NFL history. When I remember the thrill of watching that group work, and know that it is now all gone, it makes me want to cry.

There is a silly habit among sports fans to blame a team's best player for the team's struggles. Living in South Florida, I heard the constant refrain that the Dolphins' struggles were traceable to Dan Marino. Right. The best passing quarterback in NFL history--it's his fault you're not winning. Phillies fans booed Mike Schmidt through much of the time he was putting together a career as the greatest third-baseman of all time. Yeah, Mike Schmidt's your problem. I've seen much the same thing develop in St. Louis over the past year. "It's Kurt Warner's fault," the fans and know-nothing radio hosts bloviate. Right. He won the league MVP award in two of his first three seasons in the league, and then was hurt for much of last year. It's his fault you're not winning.

What these ignoramuses fail to see is that, much like with Dan Marino in Miami, Kurt Warner is the only chance you do have to win. You take him out of the lineup, and you are a strictly ordinary offense and aren't going to win anything. That was amply proved last year.

Incidentally, I'm trying really hard to believe that Mike Martz didn't intentionally leave an injured Warner, who suffered a concussion in the first quarter of the season's first game, in that game in order to have an excuse to bench him. I'm trying really hard to believe it doesn't have anything to do with Martz's blowup with Warner's wife in the press last season. I'm trying, but I'm not succeeding.

"Neocon" Alan Keyes appeared on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" last night and spent his entire appearance heatedly arguing with one of the hosts--Sean Hannity.

Hannity was critical of Keyes' adamance that he would never vote for a pro-abortion Republican candidate, whether it would risk handing the election to the Democrats or not. Keyes strenuously argued that political expediency is never a good excuse for voting for the "lesser of two evils," saying "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

"If evil is going to triumph, it will do so without my help. But if good is defeated, it will be despite 110% of my effort," Keyes said.

This from a "neocon" who opposes military intervention in other countries, denies the authority of the federal judiciary over state governments, and believes the income tax should be abolished.

As I recently told one self-described "paleocon" who sees Keyes as just another "neo," the difference between me and them is that I can respect and work with someone who only agrees with me 97% of the time. But much of the "paleo" movement demands absolute 100% adherence to its idiosyncratic orthodoxy, which virtually guarantees that it will never be an effective movement at all, but rather a million different "movements" comprised of one person each. If Alan Keyes is not "paleo" enough for that so-called movement, then it ain't worth having.

Here's one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. You just can't make stuff up that's this good. It's an article that has been approvingly circulated in some paleoconservative circles called "Why Don't We Have Answers to These 9-11 Questions? and apparently originated in the Philadelphia Daily News.

Try to keep in mind as you peruse some of these that there are real paleoconservatives who think this is big stuff. Art Bell is now their leader. Here's a sampling of some of these "unanswered questions," which appear in bold type, followed by actual text from the article:

* Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?

CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Rabe's explanation: Why? Isn't it obvious? Because Ashcroft planned the 9-11 attacks! Now of course, as the mastermind of the plot, one would have expected Ashcroft to know exactly which planes were going to be hijacked and just avoid them to keep himself above suspicion, but hey, sometimes terrorists like Ashcroft are irrational.

* Why did the NORAD air defense network fail to intercept the four hijacked jets?

Why didn't the fighters that were finally scrambled at Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Virginia fly at top, supersonic speeds? Why didn't fighters immediately take off from Andrews Air Force Base, just outside Washington, D.C.? Why was nothing done to intercept American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon, when officials knew it had been had been hijacked some 47 minutes earlier?

Rabe's explanation: Because NORAD wanted the attacks to happen! "Hey guys, the Pentagon is about to be attacked, so we want you to head out there. But fly slow!"

* Why did President Bush continue reading a story to Florida grade-schoolers for nearly a half-hour during the worst attack on America in its history?

Why did Bush read a children's story about a pet goat and stay in the classroom for more than a half-hour after the first plane struck the World Trade Center and roughly 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him that it had been a deliberate attack?

Rabe's explanation: Could it be that when the first plane hit the first building, it wasn't yet the "worst attack on America in it's history"? Could it be that it did not become the "worst attack" until over an hour later when the towers began collapsing? Could it be that nobody in the world knew that it was a deliberate act of terrorism until the second plane hit? Nope. The reason Bush stayed seated in the class is because he had so deliberately and precisely planned the attacks that he was expecting them and forgot to pretend to be suprised! Though even the Menendez brothers knew enough to pretend to be shocked at the shotgun deaths of their parents, President George W. Bush is so stupid that he forgot to act suprised when the attacks he masterminded against his own country actually transpired!

* Why did 7 World Trade Center collapse?

7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, was not struck by an aircraft on Sept. 11, yet the building mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 p.m. that afternoon.

Rabe's explanation: Isn't it obvious? That's where Bush and his cronies met to hatch and execute the plan! They had to destroy the evidence of their conspiracy, so as long as everything else in the area was on fire and there was lots of chaos, they had the building rigged with silent explosives and detonated them in front of an international viewing audience.

Here's my personal favorite:

* Where is Dick Cheney's undisclosed location?

Ummm, I believe that information has not been disclosed.

There's more, but you get the idea. You'll want to read the article yourself, print it up, and possibly take it to parties with you. It's that good!

I once again defy anyone to make a cogent distinction anymore between the ultra-ultra-conservative movement and Noam Chomsky.

Financial news provided by Pravda:

It would be difficult to find more inflammatory, class-warfare propaganda on economics in the "mainstream" media then in this story appearing on CNN.com today.

The story is Forbes magazine's annual release of the "Forbes 400." The headline of the story?:

America's rich get richer--After two years of declines, the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans see their nest eggs grow.

The rich get richer. That's always the line you hear from free market advocates who believe a rising tide lifts all boats, right? The first line of the body of the story gives you an idea of where they're going:

America's rich must be breathing a sigh of relief.

You can just see them sitting there with their smoking jackets and pipes, grinning about the one they just pulled over on us. It goes downhill from there:

Topping this year's list are the usual suspects: Bill Gates, worth $46 billion, Warren Buffett at $36 billion, and Paul Allen at $22 billion.

Ah yes, the usual suspects. The admiration just oozes through the prose.

The wealth also runs in tight circles. Among the top 25 richest, 12 are related, with members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame taking spots 4 through 8.

See? Not only are they rich, but they hate you! Their purpose in life is to inbreed, burn bundles of money in the fireplace, and keep you out of their country clubs.

Some recent newsmakers also appeared on the list. Kenneth Langone, a director of the New York Stock Exchange who adamantly defended now-resigned Richard Grasso, appeared on the list at 314 with $820 million.

One of them, if not exactly a criminal himself, defends people who are borderline criminals!

Man, I hate the rich. Things were so much better when everyone was losing money. Power to the proletariat! Kill the pigs! Close down all the Wal-Marts, Microsoft, Amazon.com, and the New York Stock exchange! That way, we can all work on the farm like in, say, Cambodia.

This David Blaine thing just gets more surreal by the day.

Last night, a scuffle apparently occured beneath the dangling, slumbering narcissist between a photographer and former Beatle Paul McCartney. Yes, that's correct: the composer of "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude," the most powerful living influence on Western pop culture, went out at 1am last night, entourage in tow, to watch a guy sleep in a box.

According to the news report, trouble began when a photographer at the site tried to photograph McCartney:

Photographer Kevin Wheal is quoted by the Standard as saying that McCartney and his friends tried to stop him taking pictures.

He added: "One of them said: 'There's no way you're going to take a picture mate.'"

This is outrageous. It's like the most famous musician in the world can't even go to one of the most public areas of one of the world's largest cities to watch a guy hanging over a major river in his underwear urinating through a plastic tube in a plexiglass box in peace anymore.

Fore!:

If there's one thing I hate more than street mimes, it's pretentious "performance artists." As you undoubtedly know by now, "street magician" David Blaine is hanging over the Thames River in London for 44 days in an effort to...well, nobody knows exactly. What they do know, however (at least the Londoners), is that they absolutely hate this guy's stinking guts. Not even two weeks into it, the good people of London have made it their mission to torture this putz in any way possible until he climbs down and leaves them alone.

Most recently:

On Tuesday a man was arrested for allegedly attempting to cut the New Yorker's water supply. Eggs have been thrown at the 30-year-old's box and he has been the target of a golfer aiming at him from Tower Bridge.

This is outrageous. It's like you can't even hang over a major metropolitan area near a river in your underwear in a plexiglass box in peace anymore.

I'm thinking of cashing in my life's savings just so that I can go over there and throw something at him before it's too late.

Today is Constitution Day, the 216th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution.

In 2003, the Constitution is under attack from all sides, from the judicial activists of the Left who have installed themselves as the philosopher kings of the country, to the ultra-right anti-federalists who resent having lost the national debate long before the Constitution was ever ratified and who hate the system of government it formed. Those in the latter group are in no sense "conservatives," since they never had anything to conserve. Though they hypocritically profess reverence for the Constitution, they actually hate it and the nation it formed with a white-hot passion.

For the rest of us, the freedoms and security guaranteed by the Constitution are to be cherished and defended. I'm pleased to see that something of a consensus is forming among conservatives that the time is ripe for a congressional remedy to the runaway judiciary. Alan Keyes has been promoting action in this area, and James Dobson advocated the same thing on MSNBC last night.

To celebrate the birthday of the Constitution, call your representative and tell him you want the Congress to do its constitutional duty in placing limits on the runaway authority of the federal judiciary. Congress has the authority to reign in the judicial monarchy, and if the drumbeat gets loud enough, they will do it.

I see that in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine, they have a survey of the 100 greatest guitarists of all time.

I have not seen their list yet, though I know Jimi Hendrix is on the cover, so I can guess that he placed rather high. But here is my own list of the top five (in no particular order), taking into account both virtuosity and impact on guitarists who came after them:

1). Jimi Hendrix
2). Eric Clapton
3). Eddie Van Halen
4). Chuck Berry
5). Jimmy Page

Obviously, this is just a rock 'n' roll list. I'm sure Charo is a wonderful flamenco guitarist, but in the final analysis, who really cares?