Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysOk. Not exactly, drop dead. But more like the way Gerald Ford told New York City to Drop Dead. In other words, get lost.
VINTON, Iowa (AP) - It's one thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign to turn down interview requests for the candidate's daughter, Chelsea. But can't a 9-year-old reporter catch a break?Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and "kid reporter" for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they've campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.
"Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?" Sydney asked, but Chelsea brushed her question aside.
"I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.
Sheesh. I know that Gen-Y is having a hard time growing up, but isn't just three years shy of 30 old enough to no longer be acting like a pimply-faced teen who is "hands off" to the press? Of course Hillary's lap-dog press followers — the same ones who hounded Jenna and Barbara Bush — honor the dictate from Democratic headquarters. Certainly Mitt Romney's adult kids get quizzed, as it should be. You stump for the man, you answer the questions. That's the way it works.
And, as a nice ending to this story, the dejected moppet's mother promises — despite the snub — to caucus for Hillary come Jan. 3. That's the cult of personality for ya.
UPDATE (Jan. 1): Here's a link to Romney's adult kids getting questioned by the press. With quotes and everything!
And, Hmmm. That most mainstream of lefty blogs, Wonkette, feels its fair game to call Mike Huckabee's sons "fat, creepy and sinister." Yet a 9-year-old asking the Fair Chelsea an innocuous question is out of bounds? Puleeez!
Politics ain't Golden like the Compass, but there is a political compass that will tell you where you sit on the philosophical spectrum, politically speaking.
Me? I'm halfway across the X-axis — to the right, of course. Which means, according to their calculations, that I have no candidates that I like. There are sucker questions meant to push you one way (authoritarian) or the other (anything-goes libertarian), so beware and take the test with a grain of salt.
But definitely report where you sit.
Damn, I can't believe I missed this. One of the greatest pianists (and not just jazz pianists) of the 20th century died Sunday. Oscar Peterson was 82. And although Peterson did not play especially well in his last years, the result of a stroke in 1993, his talent always managed to shine through. Leave it to Terry Teachout to write a most fitting tribute:
Peterson, who died on Sunday, was one of a handful of jazz musicians to have cultivated a virtuoso technique comparable to that of the greatest classical instrumentalists. In part for this reason, he never got along well with jazz critics, most of whom were (and are) too musically ignorant to appreciate the near-unique nature of his achievement. ... when he was good, no one was better.
There are dozens of great Peterson albums on Verve and Pablo. One of my favorites is "Ben Webster Meets Oscar Peterson," which I'm listening to now. May he groove in peace.
Best Yuletide ever.
No links. Too lazy. (Read: Far gone on cheap wine.) Use your imaginations, why don't you?
It's not Christmas until Bob and Doug McKenzie sing about comic books, packs of smokes, tuques (or tukes, in the American spelling), back bacon, french toast, turtle necks ... AND A BEEEER, IN A TREE.
Enjoy a song I played about 500 times a day when I was a young teen.
My favorite comic strip has again returned to the subject of monkeys. And this time, it is a discussion of ... INFINITE MONKEYS!!!!
And now, the airing of grievances: You monkeys are shiftless, lazy and smelly. You drink too much and post too little. Raising the traffic on this blog to more than a dozen a day would truly be a Festivus miracle.
Kudos to Jonah Goldberg, for drawing attention to an exhaustive list of the documented religious affiliations of the superheroes of the comic book universe.
Bruce Wayne is a lapsed Catholic (and now an Episcopalian), so he's probably not saying a Hail Mary above. But Catwoman is hip with the pope.
Indeed, there's lots of Catholics on this list, including such pulp fiction heavyweights as Nightcrawler (everyone who saw the X-Men movies knew that already), Hellboy and Daredevil.
Yet there is a whole list of "whooda thunk it" Catholics, including: The X-Men's Banshee, Captain Atom, Ghost Rider and even the Blue Beetle. Indeed, the Faith of My Fathers — at least in the comic book world — includes the "Order of the Magic Priests." Who knew that those who pray the Rosary were so bad-ass when it comes to fighting crime?
Methodists are well represented in the earthly realm of superheroes by the greatest of them all, Superman (apparently, Methodism was the same as the Krypton religion), and by, naturally, Superboy and Supergirl, as well as Wolfsbane.
I'm not going to go on and on about every denomination. But here, in the site's estimation, are the greatest heroes per division of Christendom:
Episcopalian (non-Batman division): Invisible Girl/Woman
Protestant: Spider-Man, Captain America (of course)
Jewish: The Thing, Magneto (Ok, not exactly a good guy)
Greek Orthodox: Electra
Greco-Roman Classical Religion (we're inclusive here): Aquaman, Wonder Woman (Amazonian. Classical? Ok, then)
As for Muslims? There's quite a bit, actually. My favorite: Darr the Afflicter, who was paralyzed in an accident caused by a drunk driver, then discovered that he was "inexplicably empowered with the ability to cause physical harm just by focusing his hatred on a living target."
Well.
If that's not a tailor-made warrior for the religion of peace ...
Say what you want about those Cheese-eating surrender monkeys (experiencing what is it now? The Ninth Republic? I lost count), but nobody — not even The New York Times — does lefty, anti-Bush, anti-war media bias quite like the French. Specifically, I'm referring to this Agence France-Presse wire dispatch from their obviously despondent Washington correspondent.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US lawmakers Wednesday passed a major bill including funding for the Iraq war for President George W. Bush to sign, after Democrats failed again in efforts to pressure him over the unpopular conflict.
Democrats "failed again" to stop that imperialist cowboy moron from his plans for world domination. Pity. And I'd have to quibble with that "unpopular" part. More and more Americans are seeing what the Democrats, thanks to the cynical and defeatist box they created for themselves, will not acknowledge: The surge is working. Even liberal American columnists see it now. We continue ...
Democrats took control of the US Congress in January 2007, propelled by voter discontent over Iraq, but they have had no luck in using the legislature's power over federal spending to force a timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq.
Yes. What a mystery that a surrender strategy by way of starving the troops — while all the time saying you support the troops — is proving politically problematic. Newsflash, Frenchie. Democrats did not campaign on a platform of forcing our withdrawal out of Iraq. They campaigned on a "change of direction" that Bush implemented after the election of 2006. Like Lincoln in the Civil War, Bush found his winning general. A little too late, perhaps, but he found him in Gen. Petraeus. Yet the Democrats are so enthralled with Bush hatred, they cannot now even root for a victory for the United States military.
However, this is the most hilarious, and telling part of this AFP dispatch: The first quote in the story does not come from a member of the humiliated Democratic Congressional leadership, but from a left-leaning, and equally despondent, member of the academy.
John Mueller, professor at Ohio State University, said the war has proved to be less of a rallying cry than most pundits expected, and even had failed to become the salient 2008 election campaign issue."The people who are opposed to the war don't have any place else to go," he said.
"If the enthusiasm for that issue fades, both money and energy is going to fade some," he said.
Yes. Boo hoo for you. Shades of Pauline Kael's infamous, and perhaps urban legendary, gob-smacking incredulity about Nixon's reelection in '72 ("How could he have won? No one I know voted for him.")
Yet this Ohio State pundit has it all wrong. What will be left for the '08 presidential election is not an issue that has faded, but a "salient" issue of greater clarity: the contrast between defeatist — and horribly wrong — Democrats and Republicans who are interested in victory for the United States. Come the summer of 2008, VICTORY! may even be a "rallying cry."
And Harry Reid's sheepish admission on PBS's News Hour today that the surge may have "helped" is a little to little and a little too late. (HT: K-Lo at The Corner) His more famous statement from April that the war in Iraq was "lost," and "is not accomplishing anything" is not so easily erased.
No wonder all the long faces at AFP and the rest of the left.
This serious fellow, who obviously is not to be monkeyed around with, is presumably among the primates who are nearly as good at simple arithmetic as most college students.
The macaques got their sums right 76 percent of the time, while the students got the correct answer 94 percent of the time in a series of increasingly challenging maths tests.
I am certain of one thing: Many monkeys would outscore me. But can a macaque make a dirty vodka martini?
So, what the hell, the WGA is not only going to allow any writers to write for the Oscars, but they are also going to stop any clips from being used?
This really sucks, since a good friend of mine is a partner in the company that provides the screens for the event, so he may be screwed. I tried to come up with some alternate ideas:
1. Still have the big screens, but don't show them on TV. Have John Stewart just describe what is happening in each scene ("So Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are getting it on, and uh, it looks like someone knocked on the door.")
2. Have mimes re-enact scenes from the nominated movies. You'll need really big screens from this, so you don't miss the details of the walking into the wind scene from "Michael Clayton."
3. Don't broadcast the Oscars on TV. Stream them on the web. Then you don't have to pay those rat bastard writers a cent.
Yes, not perfect ideas, but I've been informed that hiring Pinkerton detectives to knock some sense into those lazy scribblers might not be completely legal.
If you haven't yet checked out the Drew Carey Project at Reason, you should. The latest edition highlights the injustices of eminent domain and alternatives to heavy-handed redevelopment. I can think of a few elected officials in the Inland Empire who should see this video.
After 717 shows over five excruciatingly long years, Celine Dion is no longer inflicting her ear-shuddering shrieks upon visitors to Las Vegas. Yes. Toss flowers. Celebrate!
Since opening in March 2003, Dion's show, "A New Day ... " grossed more than $400 million and was seen by nearly 3 million fans. Dion said one fan had seen her Las Vegas show more than 100 times. Tickets for the final show were for sale on EBay for as much as $1,899.
Weep, friends, for the culture. Not only do we live in a country where people pay nearly two grand to listen to Dion's insufferable warbling, they will undoubtedly line up in droves to see the French Canadian's replacement ... Bette Midler.
A "new day," indeed.
I know the elegant and gracious Peggy deserves a better headline. But I couldn't resist.
This was an unusual Peggy Noonan column, as close to a "notes" column as she will probably ever get, taking on three different subjects. I was intrigued by the middle passage about Hillary. As usual, Peggy offers great insight into Hillary's appeal — or, better put, lack thereof.
This thought occurs that Hillary Clinton's entire campaign is, and always was, a Potemkin village, a giant head fake, a haughty facade hollow at the core. That she is disorganized on the ground in Iowa, taken aback by a challenge to her invincibility ... That she's scrambling chaotically to catch up, with surrogates saying scuzzy things about Barack Obama and drug use, and her following up with apologies that will, as always, keep the story alive.
Noonan notes that Hillary's "almost universally disliked" pollster Mark Penn is blowing Iowa for her, running her as "a defacto incumbent," just one sign that top officials in her campaign have never had a real understanding of Iowa's non-urbane dynamics.
This is true of Mrs. Clinton and her Iowa campaign: They thought it was a queenly procession, not a brawl. Now they're reduced to spinning the idea that expectations are on Mr. Obama, that he'd better win big or it's a loss. They've been reduced too to worrying about the weather. If there's a blizzard on caucus day, her supporters, who skew old, may not turn out. The defining picture of the caucuses may be a 78-year-old woman being dragged from her home by young volunteers in a tinted-window SUV.
I can totally see that happening. But I think the defining picture of Hillary's campaign is this:
But the really insightful part of this passage by Noonan is her take on Bill Clinton's effect on Hillary's campaign. He's out there, in New Hampshire and Iowa and everywhere else, drawing big crowds wherever the Mr. Bill show plays.
... the the logic, was this: People miss Bill. They miss the '90s. They miss the pre-9/11 world. So they'll love seeing him back in the White House. So they'll vote for Hillary. Because she'll bring him. "Two for the price of one."It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don't miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don't actually want Bill back in the White House?
Maybe. But maybe it's this. Maybe they'd love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don't want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo's Nest and they'd love having Jack Nicholson's McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don't miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?
Devastating. But, hopefully, true.
Mrs. Zaius and I decided to take in a dinner and a movie last night. The movie part didn't work out as "Juno" at the arty movie house in Old Pasadena was sold out and we ended up coming home to watch "The Lives of Others" on DVD (more on that great film, perhaps, later). But we made what turned out to be a mistake by trying out "Fred's Mexican Cafe." (Beware clicking the link. It's one of those annoying MySpace pages that blares music as soon as the page loads. GOD! I hate that.).
The food was just fair — the typical, bland Mexican chain fare. But at the front entrance of the restaurant was a Hispanic woman in "traditional" Mexican garb rolling out fresh tortillas. Her expression was blank, matching the drudgery of her work. Yet all around here were young, tattooed, pierced hotties wearing tight tank tops with charming sayings like "Kiss My Taco on Tuesday." The guys wore shirts that said on the back: "Liquor in the Front, Taco in the Middle, Poker in the Rear."
Classy.
And aside from the garish decor and literature, which seemed to encourage the consumption of tequila shots more than the guacamole dip, there was just something off-putting about the scene we saw upon entering the restaurant that lingered with us.
All the young, too-hip-for-you staff were standing around chatting with one another — doubtlessly about their new tats and where they'll be hanging out after work. Yet that Hispanic woman, the only minority in sight, was toiling away. No one was chatting her up. No one was offering her water. It was as if she was invisible.
It made Mrs. Zaius and I feel guilty about eating our "fresh" tortilla chips. I'd have eaten bagged chips. Wouldn't have improved the grub much, anyway.
No point, really, to this post. Just sharing a dining experience and increasing the posts in the "grub" category. Feel free to share other odd nights out to eat.
Peggy Noonan questions the evangelical zeal of Republican primary voters:
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.
This is a fine, fine ad.
And a Merry Christmas to you and yours, Dr. Paul. I have no plans to vote for you, but I wish you health, wealth and happiness for many years to come. God bless America!
Kant, schmant. Nietzsche would have about as much chance of getting elected as Alan Keyes. Or Mike Huckabee, for that matter -- but that's another subject for another time.
On the other hand, here is an ad I can appreciate. Sure, it's a vicious smear on the author of the Declaration of Independence. But I'd take resolute (if haughty) John Adams over Tom "Revolution-For-the-Hell-of-It" Jefferson any day.*
* I exaggerate, of course. Truth is, when it comes to fighting Islamist terror, we could use a man like Jefferson again.
(Via Steve Hayward at No Left Turns, which is probably where H.L. Monkey first saw that Kant ad.)
...this Kant character is a real scumbag. Vote Übermensch!
(Via The Corner and a couple of places I visited last night but was too lazy to link to.)
A father of rock 'n' roll and one of the greatest scoundrels in late-20th century American celebritydom is dead. He was 76 years old.
Ike Turner was a user and an abuser. He also happened to be a musical genius. Off stage, he was unspeakably cruel. A real bastard. But in his heyday, on stage with Tina Turner -- his better half -- Ike made magic.
Ike paid dearly for his sins. He lost his reputation, his livelihood and, for a time, his freedom.
But never mind all that. Listen to the man's music. Listen to the old stuff, from the '50s, before Tina entered the picture. Listen to the Ike and Tina years. By all means, listen to Turner's comeback material. He won a Grammy this year, for good reason. Ike Turner might have been a bad man. But he was a bluesman and a rocker of the first order. For that, he will be missed.
Americans can't risk a drug-using, Muslim apostate with a paper trail debasing the Oval Office. Americans have had enough turpitude in the White House.
Fellow Post-Trotskyist-Neocon-Bush-War-Shill Jonah Goldberg writes: "I would very much like to live in a country where a Ron Paul — though perhaps not this Ron Paul — had a much better chance of winning the presidency or the nomination. But they don't."
I agree. It's so obvious, it should require no argument. And I know I said I would write more about Ron Paul. But, dammit, I've had better things to do. I've had to string Christmas lights, do dishes, land a job with a major media conglomerate, fold clothes, take my son to karate class, shop for microwave ovens, clean out my refrigerator, work on a freelance assignment, peruse more interesting blogs than this one, clean out the cat box, shave, shower and so forth. So most people can understand why I haven't posted at great length in response to anonymous trolls who challenge my bona fides on the distinguished gentleman from Texas.
Look, I think I've made clear that Ron Paul is just the sort of man we liberty-loving Americans want to have in Congress. But I don't want the man to be president, even if I thought he had a prayer. America might have been better off listening to Washington's warning against "entangling alliances." But we didn't listen. We forgot. And now the United States is a smiling empire entangled in the affairs of hundreds of nations. Such alliances are tough to break. So instead of longing for a non-interventionist fantasyland, Americans need to elect a president who can best address the circumstances in which the country finds itself today.
This past Saturday night I was the default DJ for the school's seasonal dance for the 9th - 12th graders. This morning I opened the weekly newsletter with this Note from the Headmaster:
To the parents of all of our high schoolers, I have a concern and admission: we have left a gap in your children's music appreciation instruction. As the Winter Formal DJ, I was approached mid-song and asked to play some "80's dance music." Within seconds I cued up the B-52's Rock Lobster. A minute later, another student came up and asked, "Can you play some 80's dance music?"I replied, "That's exactly what this is."
"Really?"
"Er... what did you have in mind?"
The response? "Like... Eye of the Tiger?"
Yes, Survivor's Pop/Rock anthem from Rocky III (listed by the definitive Wikipedia as "Hard Rock" in genre). Let us pledge heretofore to work together, home and school, recommitting to bring our children up in "the classics."
1. Bring a Nerf gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have Nerf guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap -- life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a Nerf gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a Nerf gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel blows the powder from the flintlock of your musket."
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own Nerf gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. Barring that, buy stock in Hasbro.
24. Do not attend a Nerf gun fight with a handgun, unless it's this one, plus a backup.
25. You can't miss fast enough to win.
Kudos to enigmatic Finn and YouTube user StSanders, for producing what may well be the single funniest video clip I have ever seen: "Carlos Santana Shreds"
That Santana's keyboardist has not forged his own massively successful solo career is frankly criminal. Dude's got soul.
And if you enjoyed that, you may also enjoy "Jake E. Lee Shreds", in which The Ozzman Clappeth.
In Hugh Hewitt's recent interview with Tom Brokaw, the anchorman summarily dismissed Hugh's concerns about NBC's immediate publishing of the Virginia Tech killer's self promotional materials. Brokaw was offended. What was most disturbing to me was that he didn't even come close to understanding the nature of Hewitt's concerns. Brokaw seemed to think that impressionable sociopaths are just as likely to be inspired to horrible acts by violence in entertainment and the uncivil tone on blogs and talk radio as they were by seeing the news of who the Virginia Tech killer was and what he did, so long as they didn't glorify him.
He just. Doesn't. Get it.
This afternoon I read about the suicide in Omaha, preceded by a now tried and true method of getting one's pain publicized.
"[His] friend ... was quoted by Reuters as saying: 'He wanted to go out like a star.'
[The] suicide note allegedly said, 'Now I will be famous.'"
He got it.
Thanks, NBC. Thanks NBC apologists. You didn't pull the trigger, but I think you may have had something to do with his trip to the mall.
*N.B. I refuse to mention the names of these cowardly turds who seek notoriety. You should too. As the old Jewish books say, "May their names be blotted out."
I've heard it said that God is in the details, but this is ridiculous!
Huckabee's popularity is bothersome but, I suspect, short-lived. Let's face it, Huck is no Ronald Reagan, as voters are slowly discovering. The comparison to Jimmy Carter may be more apt, as the Powerline guys suggest. Although Huckabee is more affable and politically astute than Carter ever was, both men are dyed-in-the-wool moralists. Americans have been down that sorrowful electoral path before. God save us from making that mistake yet again!
Well, no, not really. But in the context of a discussion about religion in American politics, it's worth recalling Washington's 1790 letter to the Hebrew congregation at Newport, Rhode Island. While the short letter is worth reading in its entirety, here is the most relevant passage:
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
Note the last two clauses of that last sentence. As long as Americans "demean themselves as good citizens" and give the United States government "their effectual support," then they are free to believe anything they like. But when religious belief conflicts with the American form of government, the government -- in reality, the Constitution -- must prevail.
So it really doesn't matter what garments Gov. Romney wears under his impeccably tailored suits, or whether he believes Jesus Christ will return to reestablish His kingdom somewhere in Missouri. The only thing that really counts is whether Romney has the ability, the competence and the temperament to faithfully execute the constitutional duties of the president of the United States.
I'm just as eager to pile on CNN as the next guy — especially that whack-job, Jack Cafferty — but I think Duane at Hugh's blog might be a little to quick to throw out the "bigot" label in his comment about Cafferty saying: "It's Not Like [Romney's] A Catholic Or A Protestant Or A Lutheran Or A Methodist Or A Baptist."
As you can see in the video clip, it is a legitimate question — if uttered inartfully. Cafferty points out that 1 in 5 voters say they would be reluctant to vote for a Mormon. Cafferty is making the point that voters have questions about the "mystery" that surrounds the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And those questions will not be answered if Romney delivers a rather generic speech about his religion, or about religious tolerance in general. And when the speech is titled, "Faith in America," that sounds pretty general to me.
Romney has to directly address the questions voters have if the speech is to do any good. The National Review has said as much on its blog weeks ago.
It makes little sense for a blog that demands an open and frank discussion about Islam — "sensitivity" be damned — to now demand that an open and frank discussion about Mormonism is somehow out of bounds.
British teacher Gillian Gibbons is free, having been pardoned today by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir of the "crime" of "insulting the prophet." While it's great to see Ms. Gibbons alive and well, out of prison and now home safely (more or less) in the UK, the story is far from over. The civilized West should not be content to let the matter rest.
National Review Online today posted an excellent symposium on the teddy-bear jihad, commissioned before Sudanese authorities released Gibbons from her 15-day prison sentence. Cliff May offers the best solution: "Two rumors should be spread: 1) that (British PM Gordon) Brown is re-reading Churchill’s The River War, and 2) that British Special Forces are on alert. Brown can deny both publicly."
Alas, I suspect May is right about how the aftermath will play out:
After Ms. Gibbons is freed, there should be no effort to quickly “put the incident behind us.” An apology and a commitment to tolerance in the future should be expected.Instead, I fear, when this is over, the West will be one step closer to accepting the deal the Islamists are demanding: They get to say — and do — anything at all in regard to Christians and Jews. But Christians and Jews — “infidels” who are the descendants of monkeys and swine — are to learn their place and avoid acting uppity, either at home or abroad.
The trouble is, all too many Europeans and a growing number of Americans are willing to entertain preposterous concessions, such as international resolutions condemning blasphemy, in the name of "sensitivity." To hell with that. If the Danish cartoon jihad taught us anything, such resolutions and laws have no place in a free society. Nor does sharia. Civilization should not brook barbarism, cultural and religious sensitivities be damned.
Robert Spencer of the indispensable Jihad Watch writes in Human Events, (facetiously, lest you have any doubts):
It’s time we get serious about being culturally sensitive. The penalty for blasphemy in Islamic law isn’t fifteen days in prison — it’s death. What better message of accommodation, then, could we send to the Islamic world in these days of Islamophobia than to hand Gibbons over to the mobs? After all, if she isn’t executed, it will send a signal that blasphemy against Muhammad is just fine — and what will come next? Blasphemous…cartoons of Muhammad?
Indeed. Sudan, one of the most backward nations on earth, has made itself a pariah state. Let's treat it as such. And let's hear no more talk about a "religion of peace," which has become a cliché. The more accurate translation is "submission." Let the word go forth: We will not submit.
We will, however, ridicule and mock... as is our birthright. Irreverence is not a crime.
...but he is not fit to be president.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
Congressman Paul's supporters have found us. And may God bless them for it. With any luck, we'll get traffic like we got during the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy. The comparison is apt, I'm sorry to say. Fanaticism, while commonplace, comes in many hues and shades.
To Paul's supporters, I would say: The United States does not exist in a vacuum. We can spend days upon days recounting the sins of America and her foreign policy over the decades. But the bottom line is, the country acts in its interests, whatever those interests happen to be. And the rest of the world -- countries, nations, ethnicities, religious sects -- reacts.
But, not to put too fine a point on it, the rest of the world acts in its own interests. Ron Paul's philosophy of non-interventionism, though commendable in theory, does not recognize the ways in which the rest of the world acting in its interests adversely affects the interests of the United States.
Like it or not, America is an empire -- with all that word entails. Ron Paul may be a fine legislator, and a faithful acolyte of the Constitution. But he is not fit to be president. Read Fisher Ames. Read Cicero.
The great essayist and scholar Jacques Barzun celebrated his 100th birthday yestarday. (Truth be told, I began writing this on Friday, but I was distracted by... well, life. So it goes.)
Barzun's books, which include The House of Intellect, Berlioz and the Romantic Century, The Culture We Deserve, and, more recently, From Dawn to Decadence, have had a profound influence on my education. I never had a professor quite like Barzun, whose exploits in the lecture hall are legendary. But I had some great teachers, and great friends, without whom I would never have discovered Barzun. So I consider him an adjunct professor.
In my professional life I still refer to Barzun's writing guide, Simple and Direct: A Rhetoric for Writers, a far more lively and instructive volume than Strunk and White ever pretended to be. I'm not sure whether good writing is teachable, nor whether this is a good sentence. But I'm certain Barzun could provide a definitive answer.
Jeffrey Hart, a legend in is own right, pays tribute to Barzun in the November number of The New Criterion. "Barzun," Hart writes, "made his students feel that what they wanted to achieve was possible, and was an enabler.... Barzun was an educator in the literal sense of the word: educere, 'to lead out.' For that generations of students are indebted to him.
So indeed. Here are a few of my favorite aphorisms from the great man:
Happy (belated) birthday, professor.