Damning the State in 3 easy lessons

Mr. Rockwell writes an excellent explanation of the State and its inherent characteristics, using the new anti-spam law to demonstrate the foundational principles. The entire article, entitled Why the State is Different is at the Mises Institute.

"Lesson One in the uniqueness of the state: the state has one tool, and one tool only, at its disposal: force. Now, imagine if a private enterprise tried that same approach. Let's say that Acme Anti-Spam puts out a product that would tag spammers, loot their bank accounts, and hold them in captivity for a period of time, and shoot spammers dead should they attempt to evade or escape. What's more, the company doesn't propose to test this approach on the market and seek subscribers, but rather force every last email user to subscribe. How will Acme Anti-Spam make money at its operation? It won't. It will fund its activities by taking money from your bank account whether you like it or not. They say that they can do this simply because they can, and if you try to stop it, you too will be fined, imprisoned, or shot. The company further claims that it is serving society.Such a company would be immediately decried as heartless, antisocial, and essentially deranged. At the very least it would be considered uncreative and dangerous, if not outright criminal. Its very existence would be a scandal, and the people who dreamed up such a company and tried to manage it would be seen as psychopaths or just evil. Everyone would see through the motivation: they are using a real problem that exists in society as a means to get money without our permission, and to exercise authority that should belong to no one.

Lesson Two presents itself: the state is the only institution in society that can impose itself on all of society without asking the permission of anyone in particular. You can't opt out. A seemingly peculiar aspect of the anti-spam law is that the government exempts itself from having to adhere to its own law. Politicians routinely buy up email addresses from commercial companies and send out unsolicited email. They defend this practice on grounds that they are not pushing a commercial service and that doing so is cheaper than sending regular mail, and hence saves taxpayer money. It is not spam, they say, but constituent service. We all laugh at the political class for its hypocrisy in this, and yet the exemption draws attention to:

Lesson Three: the state is exempt from the laws it claims to enforce, and manages this exemption by redefining its criminality as public service. What is considered theft in the private sector is "taxation" when done by the state. What is kidnapping in the private sector is "selective service" in the public sector. What is counterfeiting when done it he private sector is "monetary policy" when done by the public sector. What is mass murder in the private sector is "foreign policy" in the public sector. This tendency to break laws and redefine that infraction is a universal feature of the state. When cops zoom by we don't think of them as speeding but merely being on the chase. Killing innocents is dismissed as inevitable civilian casualties. So it should hardly surprise us that the state rarely or even never catches itself in the webs it weaves. Of course it exempts itself from its anti-spam law. The state is above the law."

Fifty thousand

50,000 visits since this blog began on October 8th. Not exactly Instapundit territory, but it's been quite a success in my opinion. Thanks to all the regulars stopping by, and I hope you'll all continue to do so in 2004. I've very much enjoyed the experience, and I have no intention of stopping anytime soon.

Have a happy and joyful new year.

Mowbray gang agley

Joel Mowbray writes: Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say “Jews.” He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: “neoconservatives.” As the name implies, “neoconservative” was originally meant to denote someone who is a newcomer to the right. In the 90’s, many people self-identified themselves as “neocons,” but today that term has become synonymous with “Jews.”

Joel Mowbray has done some yeoman's work on Saudi Arabia in the last year, but he's seriously smoking crack if he thinks that neoconservative is synonymous with Jew. A neoconservative is someone who pretends to be a conservative, but supports a Wilsonian foreign policy. Alternatively, a big government conservative. In either case, a left-moderate in conservative clothes.

There may be many Jewish neoconservatives these days, as their formerly beloved Marxists and left-liberals have turned on them with a vengeance over Israel. Unfortunately, they haven't abandoned many of their anti-conservative positions. If they had, there would be no need for the adjective "neo" now, would there. I am opposed to neoconservatives. I also defend the Jewish people and Israel at every opportunity. Am I, too, an anti-semite? The fraudulent manufacture of verbal offense via code word is much better left to the anti-intellectual vocabulary perverters of the Left.

Zinni hasn't tarnished his reputation. Mowbray, sadly, has.

Shut up, TMQ, we know

In fact, by Monday that page [at NFL.com] opened with, "The football gods must have something against the Vikings."

Clearly, it's time for Ragnar to execute the blood eagle on representatives from the Dallas Cowboys, the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Falcons and now the Arizona Cardinals. Why do I have the feeling that there's a lot of Redskins' fans who'd like to nominate Steve Spurrier?

Mailbox: the vanity of virtue

JX writes: Yeah, Vox. Slice and dice those morally self-righteous liberals. Sometimes it's like picturing a primetime fight between Lennox Lewis and Rosie O'Donnell. I have an important question:How do you deal with those people around you who accuse you of being 'better' than they for your choices? I've come across that lately, some people I used to hang with back in my secular days referred to me as Mr. X in the street instead of my first name in order to diss me, and their sly assaults on my character are making me madder than I should be. How would you go about attacking this?

Well, first, I don't get a lot of this, if any. I've made some impressively bad choices in my day, so the notion of portraying myself as some sort of behavioral exemplary would strike a lot of those who know me well as being more than a little humorous. Your problem is that you are still too concerned with what the world thinks of you. Who cares? And what is important to keep in mind is that even as they are mocking you, they are watching your behavior. It's good that they have noticed a difference - a very minor, but totally uncharacteristic change in the White Buffalo's behavior was integral to my reassessment of Christianity - so you should not be angered by their taunts, you should be pleased. If you are greeted as Mr. X, then smile, give them a little mock bow, greet them with a friendly "Mr. Y" and let it slide. Don't attack it, ever. Eventually, one of them will probably approach you quietly and want to talk in depth about the changes in your life.

What is this, an advice column today? Where's the hate?

Mailbox: On learning language

JB commiserates about the Vikes and asks: Question...did you learn those foreign languages at an early age? I have recently tried to learn a bit of Italian. Although I can speak and understand some basics, I can't imagine the amount of work it would take to get fluent at reading the language. If you learned to read either of these languages as an adult, were there any particular strategies you used to help you in your quest?

No, I did not. I had five years of German in junior high and high school with an excellent German teacher. I studiedJapanese in college and learned Italian as an adult while living in Europe. My Italian is usually described as "bellissimo... per un americano", which is to say that it's functionally conversational as long as the other person doesn't speak troppo veloce or use a lot of idioms. I still remember trying to figure out how the heck a wolf had come into the picture during a conversation about school when my friend saw my confusion, laughed, and explained that "in the mouth of the wolf" is an idiom used to say that you're facing a difficult situation. One responds by saying "hit the wolf", if I recall correctly. Of course, Italians are so shocked that you speak any Italian that they tend to give you far too much credit. My German used to be quite good, but it's been so long since I've used it that it's a real struggle. More often than not, it tends to come out Italian. The Japanese is totally shot.

I find that reading a language is much easier than speaking it. The tough part about reading Italian is the placement of pronouns, as they tend to scatter si and ci around pretty haphazardly - the fact that both words are part of the reflexive verb structure as well as serving as a pronoun and at least one other unrelated word doesn't make it any easier - and the use of the gender-specific "the" as a pronoun is also confusing. La what? Which la? Le? Who? Speaking also doesn't help as much with reading as you'd hope. I was reading "Il visconte dimezzato" and fortunately, references to starvation, putrifecation and corpses hadn't tended to come up in my everyday conversation with people, so I was forced to resort to the dictionary distressingly often.

I would recommend starting with a book like 501 Italian Verbs, published by Barron's, which has the seven simple tenses and seven complex tenses for the most common verbs. Verbs are the key to any language, as once you have that, its usually relatively easy to figure out the subject and the object. Make up a flash card system or use something like WinFlash on your computer. Don't go on from the present indicative until you know 85 percent of them down cold, then start mixing in the imperfect, future and present perfect conjugations. Unfortunately, there's a lot of irregulars, but having the basics down really helps. Just do 15 minutes every day, and you'll make progress.

I warned you, Penelope

I find it tremendously amusing when someone complains that I have embarrassed them by utilizing the cruel device of quoting them at length in public. It is particularly ironic when they are clearly unaware that I respond every week to critical email, while at the same time asserting detailed knowledge of me, my philosophy and my membership, or lack thereof, in various organizations.

I do not post private correspondence. When you send me an insult-filled diatribe about a column I have published somewhere, we are not corresponding. I freely admit that I rather enjoy vivisecting nonsensical lunacies for the benefit of my readers, but such missives are wholly unsolicited nevertheless.

I have zero sympathy for those who believe they should be able to freely rail at public figures without consequence. Perhaps most columnists suffer such blather in Olympian silence; I do not. I stand by what I write, and I expect everyone else to do likewise. Polite and reasonable criticism will always receive polite and respectful treatment, both in this blog and via email. Baseless assertions and petty insults will be mercilessly mocked. The choice, dear hate mailer, is always yours.

I have said it before. I will say it again. Don't bring it if you can't take it.

So not surprised

California's parks department, staggered by the state's budget problems and trying to avoid closing dozens of parks, announced Tuesday it will raise entrance and camping fees to their highest levels in history. Some fees will more than double at California's 277 state parks, which range from redwood forests to ``Baywatch'' beaches, desert ghost towns to mountain ranges, and battlefields to Lake Tahoe shoreline sites. Getting into Hearst Castle, for example, will jump from $12 to $25.

I warned about this. When you vote for a pragmatic Republican, you not only get tax increases, you usually get tax increases that are worse than anything the Democrats can put together. This is the first step - Arnold will soon go back on his pledge not to raise taxes, because "the situation is worse than he realized it was before he took office." Isn't it always.

The spending half of the equation won't be significantly addressed because that's harder. So, Schwarzenegger will be saluted in the press for his "courage" and California Republicans will finally begin to realize that they screwed themselves badly in electing a pragmatic man without any commitment to small government principles.

In truth, he's already violated his pledge. Fees are taxes, they're just slightly more optional.

Mailbox: Howard Dean, compassionate conservative

Seriously, the header on an email from one SP is "Howard Dean Lives Compassionately and is Conservative", who goes on to write: How sad that your religious convictions preach exclusion rather than inclusion. Jesus was anything but exclusive is thoughts and deeds. Jesus did not use invective as you do, he loved rather than hated. Where are you sitting to judge others who differ in opinion on issues of separation of church and state. Do you support those who call themselves Christians but practice exclusion and spew invective.

Looks like Gov. Dean has nailed down the LSD vote. Yes, I fully support those who practice exclusion and "spew invective". I think a few quotes from the man whose words are clearly unknown to SP will suffice by way of response:

"None shall come to the Father but by me." (Sounds pretty exclusionary to me.)

"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth." (For those who don't know, Jesus is the Son of Man. More exclusion, and at his command.)

"Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites!"

"It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." (Samaritans being equated with little dogs.)

"O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?"

"Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like white-washed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."

The only significant flaw that I can see with my invective is that it falls far short of the slashing example set by Jesus Christ. There was more from SP, but it didn't merit response, being wholly delusional. His argument boils down to the notion that since Howard Dean wants to take your money away from you and give it to other people, he is being loving like Jesus.

Never mind that Jesus also said: "But if he refuses to even hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

Poorly educated, easily led

PhD Mom writes: I had to laugh when I read the email from someone who couldn't imagine what a "leftist" education would be. Although I have since recovered, in my elementary, secondary, and most of my college educations, I was the victim of just such a scheme.

For example, in my junior high years, I was taught that the Palestinians were right and Zionism was racism. I was taught that abortion is a right, and "anti-choice" extremists were not only disagreeable, but both stupid and cruel. I was taught that animals are more important than people. In my math class, we once figured the cost of raising a child as opposed to the cost of having an abortion. Every year, when we had debates and individual presentations, the issues of gun control, abortion, prayer in schools, and Palestine were always among the most popular. There was no question which side of the argument would garner the better grade.

In college, I was trained in Marxism, Maoism, and feminism. I was taught a class on sexism, racism, classism and heterosexism in American life by an avowed Wiccan who wore a pentagram around her neck in class. I was taught political economy by a professor who carried a copy of Das Kapital everywhere he went and called it his "Bible." (Of course, none of my instructors would ever have carried a REAL Bible.)

At long last, God chased me down and changed my mind. I became a Christian just before beginning my PhD dissertation, after many years as a teacher's pet feminist secularist. Things...changed. My professors were terribly disappointed and lost all respect for me (though eventually they did pass my dissertation which was promptly academically published, despite treating pro-life activists as a legitimate political faction instead of a disease in the body politic).

On the way, however, there was no end to the insults to which I was subjected. For example, I asked my major professor for a letter of reference to apply to teach at a Christian college. He agreed, but told me I shouldn't need it. "A place like that," he said, "isn't looking for excellence." Really? Suppose I had received the same reply when asking for a reference for a historically black university? Would I have had grounds to sue? You betcha--and this professor would have been the first to say so. But in the rareified air of the academy, only one kind of prejudice doesn't have an odor to it.

At any rate, I hope now your correspondent understands what a "leftist" education is. It is not a "fair and balanced" (you'll excuse the expression) view, egalitarianism, or a grounding in justice and equality. It is a form of elitist brianwashing that beats down those who are subject to it, presses its case at every opportunity, and demands adherence to communist catechism in even the smallest of things. And, in the absence of radical internal change, the victim nearly always emerges in the form required for the Democratic party to succeed.

Another poorly-educated, easily-led Christian. And a mother, no less! I wonder how she manages to survive the sexist oppression of her home life. The poor thing.

Mailbox: the Secular Inquisition

JH writes: In your latest column, you refer to secularist American politicians as a "secular inquisition." In using this phrase, you trivialize the sufferings of hundreds of thousands of Christians (and non-Christians). If you were a reader of European history, you would know that Protestants and proto-Protestants suffered appallingly at the hands of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions. You insult the memory of these martyrs when you compare non-violent advocates of secularism to the fiends of centuries past.

I am, as many of you know, a reader of European history. Which I have read in italiano and Deutsch, as well as English. The purpose of the Spanish Inquisition - which was a government affair instigated at the command of Queen Isabella - was not to persecute non-Christians, it was to ferret out non-Christians - mostly Jews - who were falsely pretending to be Christians in order to violate the King's proclamation which banned Jews from the kingdom, as well as heretics pretending to be orthodox. It was not a haphazard persecution of imaginary enemies, although like all government programs, it had a tendency to run amok at times.

I once thought much as JH, until I began reading some of the historical documents relating to the Spanish Inquisition. The first thing that struck me was how the rules and procedures were tightly written to protect those being "asked the question". They could only be tortured twice, by law, and no blood was allowed to be shed. Contrast with this the procedures which are used by modern secular torturers, which are far more savage and used with far less discrimination. Much of what was assumed of the Inquisitions was largely after-the-fact Protestant propaganda - and please keep in mind that I am a Protestant myself, I am no Catholic apologist.

Furthermore, the most recent analyses of the Inquisition estimate around 6,000 executions in 356 years. This pales in comparison to nearly every human tragedy of the past, and is again testimony to the relatively civilized nature of the Inquisition. One can hardly call it a great tragedy when more than twice as many American children are killed on bicycles ever year than perished in the dread flames of the auto-da-fe. I am not defending the Inquisition itself, I do, however, insist on defending the historical record and I stand by my condemnation of the secular inquisition, which poses a far greater threat than the Spanish Inquisition ever did.

I think it is fair to lay at least partial blame for the Molochian holocaust of American abortion at the feet of this secular inquisition; a tragedy which in a single year far exceeds the 356-year toll of the Inquisition. In any case, the secular inquisition - which consists of more than America's politicians - has only been with us for about thirty years; it has another 326 to go before one can absolve it of innocence in comparison with one of its historical predecessors. As to the Roman, I have not done my due diligence, but I will be glad to address that question once I have.

Mailbox: Failing reading comprehension 101

PZ writes: As a flaming liberal I don't understand why your side thinks we need government running our religious lives. Is it he place of government to decide if a gay couple can get married? If so, show me where it's at in the Constitution. Is it the place of government to say gays should go to jail for having consensual sex? I don't think so. Religion is an excuse to hate, or better put, your version of religion justifies your hate on anyone who doesn't pander to your religious beliefs. I have a suggestion, grow up.

PZ leaps in by demonstrating that he's unfamiliar with both my column and the blog, as well as his failure to comprehend what he reads. It seems that in his mind, defending Howard Dean's suspiciously timed quasi-profession of faith is tantamount to advocating government running the religious lives of the people. As all my regular readers know, I am a libertarian and do not want the government doing anything except defending national borders and property rights. While I have supported the Defense of Marriage Amendment in the past - not that PZ would know - this is only because the state is already integrated into the process. I will withdraw my support of DoMA the moment marriage is returned to the sole purview of the churches. As for religion being an excuse to hate, I have a plethora of hate-filled emails from atheists that disprove this, as do the writings of many a secularist hatemonger such as Lenin. Furthermore, PZ contradicts himself. Howard Dean is pandering to Christians, so therefore I hate him because he isn't pandering to my religious beliefs? This makes no sense.

I'm thinking you're one of those religious nuts who has to have YOUR religion stroked or you're not satisfied. If Dean wasn't a Christian you'd have another reason to hate him wouldn't you. I like how so-called Christians use their religions to justify bigotry and hate.

Here PZ equates a failure to support politically with hate. An interesting insight into the unstable mind of the Left. He may like how so-called Christians justify bigotry and hate, but I don't know what that has to do with my column on Howard Dean, except for PZ's very broad expansion of the concept of hate. And, of course, Howard Dean IS stroking my religion, so again, PZ reveals his inability to understand either what Howard Dean is doing, why Christians are taking exception to it or what I wrote in defense of his actions.

This statement is a blatant lie; "And having wrapped up the loyalties of the small, but vicious anti-Christian left, Dean knows he now must tack hard to the religious right to have any hope of winning in November. He cannot hope to win the evangelical vote.: I dont have a problem with religions but clearly you think anyone who disagrees with YOU is a "vicious anti-Christian." Once again, grow up...and stop listening to those whove taught you to hate.

Another howler. Is there an anti-Christian left? Yes, there certainly is. Is it numerically large? Not according to any poll I've ever seen. Is it vicious? Yes, one need merely peruse its writings. Who do these people most strongly support in the Democratic primary? Howard Dean. Is Howard Dean tacking to the religious right? He has announced his intention to do so in the Boston Globe. Can he win the evangelical vote? No, not a single political expert believes he can. Not a single untruth, much less a blatant lie, in my statement. There are many, many people who disagree with me, Republicans and Democrats alike, for I am neither. Considering that I stated the number of vicious anti-Christians is small, how is it remotely conceivable to state that I think anyone who disagrees with me belongs to that group?

As to the repeated instruction to "grow up", these, combined with the baseless and irrational assertions made, demonstrate that PZ is engaging in some powerful emotional projection. He would do well to heed his own advice.

An adult knows people have opposing points of views and doesn't label everyone in a group as being anti-anything. When you attack, expect to be attacked back. If you can't take it, stop attacking or stop writing.

Again, PZ engages in projection, while making me wonder how he would choose to label a group that consists solely of those who virulently oppose something in every way. Would no adult label Greenpeace anti-pollution? Just a silly, silly assertion. I never said all Dean supporters fell into the anti-Christian category, only that those individuals who do fall into that group are strong Dean supporters. And once more, PZ reveals his total lack of familiarity with me, my column and my blog, as I can state with reasonable assurance that there is no nationally syndicated columnist who responds publicly to a higher percentage of his critical mail than I do.

Of course, as PZ has now learned, there's a reason why my hate mail has dropped 90 percent since I instituted the Mailbox. Write whatever you want - attack me however you like - there's a reasonable chance I'll publish it. And it's possible that you might even come off well.

But your odds, well, they're not so good.

He shore is smart, that'un

I spotted this on Julian Sanchez's blog, via an Instapundit link:

I think you're giving too much credit to religious folks. For one, this whole religious-tactic is only being discussed within the blogsphere - it hasn't made it's way into the mainstream yet. Hell, I doubt most Southern churchgoers evey know who Dean is... Consider the demographic Dean's trying to target: White, conservative, religious Southerners... it's not exactly a group that's known for it's smarts.

On the lower end of this group's income spectrum you've actually got people who vote Republican when it runs counter to everything they actually need (welfare, aid, education) from an elected official. This was Dean's whole point with the confederate flag comment - that he wants to reach out and grab a group who vote with their bibles and not their brains... based upon just a few issues. If he can sway them it will be a windfall.

Yes, as the Washington Post famously reported, we evangelicals are poorly educated and easily led. I look forward to hearing how this joker - Will, by name - plans to explain it after these poor ignorant folk too stupid to see that they're being used see through Mr. Dean's transparent ruse and fail to deliver him a single Southern state in the general election. Assuming, of course, that this doesn't blow up so badly in his face that he doesn't make it that far. Don't get me wrong, Dean has the right idea if he wants to have any chance of winning, it's just that his execution is appallingly clumsy.

The first irony is that there are quite possibly more evangelical bloggers than there are arrogant left-wing cretins like Will. Which is why it is being discussed in the blogosphere. One of my favorite studies a few years back showed that members of the Christian Coalition were significantly more likely to own computers and modems than the average American. Let them keep underestimating us; they've been doing it since the days of Nero.

On the radio

Kevin McCullough invited me to talk with him about Tolkien on his radio show this afternoon. It was fun, although radio is an annoyingly short-term medium that prevents one from going into any reasonable detail. He did ask me one tough question, though: who is the hero of The Lord of the Rings. I went with Frodo, although I think you can make a reasonable case for Aragorn. I tend to agree with those who think Peter Jackson went just a little overboard with the noble Sam.

One aspect that I find interesting is that Tolkien creates three, not one, Christ-figures. Frodo is the Lamb, who must shoulder the burden. Gandalf is the Savior Risen. And Aragorn, of course, is the King Returning back to claim his throne. The trilogy may have been accidental, but I don't think this three-in-one is, do you?

I would have mentioned that, but we ran out of time. Sorry, Kevin. Maybe we can talk about CS Lewis next time?

Not off the top of my head

CW writes: I enjoyed your article this morning on WND. I had one question, though. You quoted from the Bible a statement that Paul made. Can you tell me where that statement can be found?

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I should point out that the reason this column took longer to write than normal was that I couldn't find the verse - I had to skim everything from Acts onward to find it. But sure enough, it was there. Philippians 1:15-18.

"The Secular Party Emerges"

Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News writes in Touchstone magazine:

"The bias of the news media against religious conservatives is by this point a dog-bites-man story of the first degree. Everybody knows that pro-life marchers and churches who resist gay "marriage" aren’t going to get a fair shake from the newspaper, and we’ve gotten used to that. But the importance of this phenomenon is both broader and deeper than individual stories. In a media-driven society, the press sets the terms of public debate, and in so doing establishes the narrative that will inescapably influence the way society thinks about and acts on issues and challenges.

Anti-religious media bias has profound implications for the future of American politics, or so say social scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio in "Our Secularist Democratic Party," an important article published in a recent issue of The Public Interest. The Baruch College researchers say that the parochialism of journalists is blinding them to one of the biggest stories in American politics: how the Democratic Party has become a stronghold of fervent secularists, and how secularism "is just as powerful a determinant of social attitudes and voting behavior as is a religiously traditional outlook."

Among political journalists, the dominant paradigm—what you might call the "official story"—holds that religious conservatives bullied their way onto the American political scene with the election of Ronald Reagan, and rudely brought into the political arena the culture war that had been raging since the 1960s. That’s exactly wrong, say the authors, who attribute the "true origins of this conflict" to "the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic Party, and the party’s resulting antagonism toward traditional values."

Until relatively recently, both major parties were of similar mind on issues of personal morality. Then came the 1972 Democratic Convention, at which secularists—defined as agnostics, atheists, and those who seldom or never attend religious services—seized control of the party and nominated George McGovern. Prior to that year, neither party had many secularists among its delegates. According to a comprehensive study of survey data from the Democratic delegates, the party was badly split between religious and moral traditionalists on one side, and secularists on the other. They fought over moral issues: abortion, women’s rights, homosexuality, the traditional family. What the authors call a "secularist putsch" triumphed, giving us what Richard Nixon mocked as the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion," and instigating—with help from the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973—the long march of religious and moral conservatives to the GOP, which became the party of traditionalists by default. "What was first an intra-party culture war among Democratic elites became by the 1980s an inter-party culture war."

Survey data from the 1992 national conventions show how thoroughly polarized the parties had by that time become around religious orientation. Only 20 percent of white Democratic delegates (N.B., this secular-religious antagonism is a white voter phenomenon, the authors say) went to religious services at least once a month, while over three times that number of white Republican delegates did. A fascinating set of statistics emerged when questioners polled each party’s delegates on their views of various subgroups among the other party’s activists. Both Democrats and Republicans were "significantly more negative toward groups associated with the newer religious and cultural division in the electorate than toward groups associated with older political cleavages based on class, race, ethnicity, party or ideology." That is, Republican delegates felt much warmer toward union leaders, mainline liberals, blacks, Hispanics, and Democrats than toward feminists, environmentalists, and pro-abortion activists. For their part, the Democrats were more favorably disposed to big-business types, the rich, political conservatives and Republicans than toward pro-lifers and conservative Christians. Of the 18 groups covered by the survey, Christian fundamentalists came in as the most despised, with over half the Democratic delegates giving them the absolute minimum score possible. Put another way, Republican delegates thought more highly of those who favor the legalized killing of unborn children than their Democratic counterparts thought of people who believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture."

For the entire article, read The Godless Party.

Mailbox: Why write?

BG writes: I read your articles from time to time. I feel they are above the average individual. Do you feel that your articles are directed to a certain person, or just for whoever stumbles upon them? I myself have read only a few, and think you are one of the best writers I have ever heard of.... Surely you must have a plan, or have been given a call. I truly hope you don't waste your talents picking apart the evil of the left while trying to show off your obviously elevated writing intellect. I'm not slamming you at all. I wish there were more people like you, a long time ago there were.

What makes this a difficult question to answer is that the truth is rather prosaic. I write because that's what I do. I was writing almost every day back when no one ever read anything I'd written, and were I ever to lose my various publication outlets, I would continue to write in much the same manner that I do now.

It is possible that my writing is at times too elevated. Certainly, UPS has been told this by editors at some of America's largest newspapers and I have been encouraged by numerous people, including members of my own family, to make it more accessible. I even made an attempt at this - rewriting my WND column for the syndicate using less complex sentences - but it was too much work to be worth the effort. This isn't an artistic arrogance thing or anything like that, it's just that one writes how one happens to write - which is usually not the way one speaks, by the way. One thing I have noticed is that there is a rhythmic component to my prose that only becomes noticeable when an editor modifies a word or two and throws the pattern off - often the changes are quite gramatically correct, but I find them very jarring.

For whom am I writing? Those who love truth and freedom. Those who are open to new ideas. Those who are willing to read and weigh the evidence before dismissing what is written. I'm not particularly interested in preaching to the choir nor in earnestly trying to convince those who think differently than I do - I'm well aware that most people think very differently, and that's been the case for as long as I can remember. It doesn't bother me in the least.

On a daily and weekly basis, I simply write about what interests me and is at least vaguely related to the topics of the day. I don't have a plan, and I don't write to show off. My friends are often amused by the assumptions made by people who believe they know much about me, much less understand me. Writing is my amusement, not my work, and I consider myself truly fortunate to have achieved a small measure of success at something I very much enjoy. This is why you will probably never see me running from news show to news show, trying to build my career and literary fame by becoming a talking head. It's not of zero interest to me, but my interest level in it is just slightly ahead of the notion of acquiring a coaching license and becoming a professional soccer coach. I probably won't do either.

Is that crazy? Perhaps, by modern standards. But I am happy and I am content, which in this age of envy, dissatisfaction and rage, is more than many can honestly say.

We don't deserve the playoffs

13:06 ARI - TD, STEVE BUSH 2 YD PASS FROM JOSH MCCOWN (TWO-POINT PASS CONVERSION FAILED)
Drive:15 plays, 60 yards in 4:54
Key Plays: McCown 6-yard pass to Boldin on 4th-and-6 to midfield; McCown 15-yard pass to B Johnson to Minnesota 35; McCown 37-yard pass to Poole on 3rd-and-13 to Minnesota 11; MINNESOTA 17-12

15:00 ARI - TD, NATHAN POOLE 28 YD PASS FROM JOSH MCCOWN (TWO-POINT CONVERSION FAILED)
Drive:6 plays, 61 yards in 1:54
Key Plays: D Anderson recovery of onside kick at Arizona 39; 30-yard pass interference penalty on Vikings' Walker to Minnesota 31; McCown 13-yard pass to Poole to Minnesota 13; ARIZONA 18-17

How do you let this happen? How? And how do you lose to Arizona, San Diego, Oakland AND New York this year? That's four of Dr Z's bottom five in his power rankings for the last week of the season! My mother could throw for 200 and 2 against Arizona's secondary. Who are Steve Bush and Nathan Poole?

I hate our defense. And I'm not too fond of the offense or the special teams right now.

Skol Vikings.

UPDATE: "Fifty-one teams have started 6-0 or better, and only three failed to make the playoffs: 1963 Browns, 1978 Redskins and the 2003 Vikings." - Sports Illustrated

Because he's a coward

Tim Graham writes in NRO's Corner: Al Franken's boast in his book that he challenged Rich Lowry to a fistfight gains a little bit of perspective in today's Washington Post magazine. Humor columnist Gene Weingarten wanted to parody a moment of right-left civility, but guess who was too "busy" to even get in an e-mail sandbox with one of his hate objects, the Ann Coulter doll:

"I decided to invite an arch-liberal and an arch-conservative to meet in this column and constructively discuss their differences, with me as moderator. I wanted the liberal to be Al Franken, the author of the best-selling Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and the conservative to be Ann Coulter, author of the best-selling Traitor: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Ann agreed right away. But Al begged off, saying he was too 'busy,' even for a worthy cause like helping combat the plague of name-calling. What a milksoppy, pantywaist, jellyfish, weasel-out wuss he turned out to be." Weingarten reports that Michael Kinsley and Molly Ivins also rejected the challenge. So Gene and Ann have a typically Weingartenesque exchange on toilet paper and the merits of dogs vs. cats.

I still haven't heard back from Al about my challenge. So, obviously he's just as much of a coward as he claims Rich Lowry to be. I have to admit, I'd never considered making the same offer to Mr. Kinsley or Ms Ivins - I imagine Molly probably packs an okay punch, but she's surely about as quick as molasses. I am, of course, far too much of a elite university-neutered, gender bias-free, sensitive New Age 90's male to harbor any compunction about beating down a woman, even one who is old, fat and slow. We're all equal, right?

No f$*^@(%$! chance!

Jean-Francois "hey, the FCC says it's okay" Kerry announces that Howard Dean has no chance to get elected. Right, like he's one to talk. Dean is at least somewhat interesting. Kerry is the biggest dork in the history of American politics. Seriously, it cracks me up every time I see him in that ridiculous leather jacket. I hope he gets the Democratic nomination, so we can see if it's possible for a candidate to lose all 50 states.

It's true, Dean probably doesn't have chance, but wouldn't you love to see the look on Hillary Clinton's face if Dean somehow managed to beat George Bush? Considering that senators are almost never elected president, you have to wonder how divorced from reality they are to keep throwing their oversized hats in the ring. I think Orrin Hatch's candidacy was probably my favorite no-hope run.

Microsoft's first flat-quarter

The fact is, if you are negotiating with Microsoft, and you pull out a SuSE or Redhat box, prices drop 25 per cent from the best deal you could negotiate. Pull out a detailed ROI (return on investment) study, and another 25 per cent drops off, miraculously. Want more? Tell Microsoft the pilot phase of the trials went exceedingly well, and the Java Desktop from Sun is looking really spectacular on the Gnome desktop custom built for your enterprise, while training costs are almost nil.

We'll see. It could be prophetic, or perhaps just wishful thinking. I have no doubt that "pull out all the stops" means the infernal Trusted Computing. But it's a nice thought, anyhow.

Speaking of OpenOffice, I hope that reader who's working on the random slide show for OpenOffice Impress is able to get that going. Let me know when you do.

Red zone bug

Madden's 2004 has a pretty humorous bug in it. When the computer has the ball inside the five-yard line, a play-action call will result in the quarterback faking the handoff to the running back, then immediately throwing the ball while he is still facing backward. This, of course, is a fumble, and since the defense is usually rushing aggressively, will tend to result in the ball being scooped up and returned for a defensive touchdown.

I thought it was just an anomaly when it happened the first time a few weeks ago, but when it happened again today from a similar formation, I realized it was a bug. The quarterback is obviously programmed to throw the ball before he has time to turn around. A nice 14-point turnaround there.

Propaganda in education

K-girl writes: Here's a few tidbits for you, based on my (brief) experience in university education classes:
A) In a three-week course - where time was extremely limited already - my instructor spent 20 minutes convincing her students why vouchers were bad. She did not stop this lecture until virtually the entire class had verbally confirmed that vouchers were a bad idea. Furthermore, she announced that vouchers were a conservative, Republican idea, and wrote "Republican" on the board -- all to make a point about vouchers, a subject not contained within the lesson plan.
B) There was a great deal of emphasis based on politically correct language in the special ed class.
C) There was a guest speaker who flat-out told us that most of the time we would be more important to the student than the student's parents, because most parents were too consumed with their own problems to care much about their own kids.
D) There was one America-bashing instructor who loved to spin us these lovely leftist tales about how America was consumed by violence and unfair to the poor and how socialist countries avoided those problems because of their very nature. She was a nice woman who was more than willing to listen to the handful of conservatives in her class, so I am willing to cut her a little slack.

Sadly, (C) may very well be true, at least of parents who send their children to government schools when they need not do so. I'd be interested to hear how the lady in (D) would explain the 20+ democidal massacres that took place in socialist countries since 1917. I suppose there's not much room for the people to commit violence when the government is committing so much against them.

In any case, it's no wonder that the teaching community is such a disaster, when considered in the collective. Take the dregs of the university, then send them off for a year of being steeped in propaganda. Even if the educratic bureacracy actually wanted to help children develop the ability to use their minds, they wouldn't have much success working with that material.

Religion and War

The Star Tribune reports: Most Minnesotans say religion plays a role in causing war, and most also think that certain religions are more likely than others to encourage violence among their believers.

The latter is certainly true, the former is absurd. This sort of ignorance, bordering on complete idiocy, really annoys me. I am a bit of an armchair military historian - I've had a strong interest in wargames since I was young - and for some time, I have been contemplating an exhaustive compilation of all the recorded wars of history and determining if their root cause had much, if anything, to do with any religion in general and Christianity in particular. My historical instincts lead me to estimate that 15 percent of all wars have a partial or primary religious component - albeit only 5 percent if Islam is excluded.

An initial look at the Wikipedia list of wars seems to indicate that this estimate is a reasonable one. The list of 126 wars is by no means comprehensive, but includes all of the major wars of the post-Renaissance, including many that most people have never heard of. Everyone knows of the Crusades, but few realize that Russia fought seven distinct border wars with Turkey, not including the Crimean War, only one of which was nominally religious. This list is heavily oriented towards the modern era and Europe in particular, so it is quite likely that the percentage of wars involving religion is unusually high since wars of the ancients and in the Far East were usually fought between co-religionists or were simple wars of conquest.

In any event, of the 126 wars, only 14 can be reasonably laid at the feet of religion. That is 11 percent - meaning that 89 percent of history's wars have little or nothing to do with religion. This calculation includes counting all four Arab-Israeli wars separately and splitting the difference in the two wars of Chechen independence as well as the two wars of the ongoing War on Terror. There is a reason that the Thirty Years' War - a vicious, but fairly minor war in terms of historical significance - is often cited when religion is blamed for war, there simply aren't very many wars that centered around religion as a cause.

Note that the medieval period is sadly underrepresented - not a single war between the war-torn Italian city-states is listed - as are the Middle and Far Easts. This list would lead one to think that Japan was a peaceable land until the Sino-Japanese war of 1894, while anyone familiar with Japanese history and the culture of bushido knows that nothing could be further from the truth. Balancing this is the fact that the religion-based wars of Islamic expansion are also left out - but then, so are the irreligious wars of the Mongols, Huns, Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians.

Of course, some will probably argue that the fact that people harbor religious beliefs allows the various kings, emperors and governments whose hunger for fame, wealth and power to more easily manipulate their people into war. But this is semantical nonsense, one might as easily say that having a good harvest "plays a role in causing war" with equal accuracy. Furthermore, the scant history of irreligious states such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China is no more peaceful than the historical norm. Throughout most of history, people have had no choice about fighting the wars imposed upon them by their leaders. And, in any case, that's not what the Star Tribune article is implying, nor it what most people are saying when they blame religion for the human failing that is war.

Democrats is Socialists

Not all of them know they are, and even fewer are willing to admit it publicly, but it's true. Henry Lamb points this out in a typically solid article.

If there is a difference between the Socialist Party and the Democrat leadership, it is a difference without distinction. In fact, the Socialists' web site says: "We are not a separate party ... Many of us have been active in the Democratic Party ... to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus."

And they said the era of Big Government was over. Right.

A little test

I probably won't keep this referral script on for long, but I am curious to know from where folks are hailing. I assume most come here originally from WND, but that's not necessarily so. If this gets annoying, I'll remove it. I spotted it at Desert Cat's site - apparently a fair amount of you are visiting there. Which is cool, as he has some interesting links there.

If you check out the link, you'll see again how always comes down to Plato, Rousseau and Marx. You can blame a surprisingly significant percentage of the world's problems on those three men.

Dick Simkanin Trial

If you live near Fort Worth, Texas, and are opposed to raw government tyranny, you should consider showing up at the Fort Worth Federal Courthouse at 9:00 AM on January 5th. Dick Simkanin, a man who refused to withhold income taxes for his employees, has languished in jail for seven months despite having no criminal record and NOT having been convicted of a single crime. After two grand juries failed to indict him, he finally faced a trial on November 26, which ended in a mistrial after Judge John McBryde refused the jury nine separate requests for information, including one for a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and one for the judge to provide a copy of the specific US statute that required Simkanin to withhold. Simkanin was then re-indicted by a grand jury that refused to either take Simkanin's testimony or see evidence that Simkanin wished to present in a process that violated numerous rules of court procedure.

The second trial will be on January 5th. The US government and the corrupt IRS-Federal Court cabal must not be permitted to run roughshod over the Constitution, Federal law and the rules of court procedure to imprison an innocent man who is guilty of nothing more than obeying the law.

Eventually, the truth will come out.

Why I like George Bush

I don't like him as a President, although as a Commander-in-Chief, I think he's pretty good. I despise what he's done in allowing Congress to sabotage both the future economy and future American liberties with Patriot I and II - you'd think Mr. Goldberg and the other conservative Patriot apologists would be sharp enough to discern the fact that something HAS NOT been used does not mean that it WILL NOT be used - and he did not take the opportunity to take the US out of the UN when it was sitting there like a fat pitch over home plate, just waiting to be driven out of the stadium, prior to the start of the Iraqi war.

What I like, though, is how President Bush is always visibly uncomfortable in a suit on a state occasion, especially when you contrast this with how happy and relaxed he appears when he's in a flight jacket surrounded by the soldiers under his command. For all his failings, I can't help but like seeing a president who manifestly doesn't get off on the trappings of his power.

Will I vote for him? No. But I think I 'd enjoy shooting the breeze with him for an evening. It's entirely possible that, like Churchill, the president is so focused on the ongoing war - he has a lot of information that we do not - that he sees everything else as completely irrelevant for the time being. It's even possible that he is correct.

Mailbox: Exemplary Indoctrination

SB writes: Now I know why I read this blog again. Wow, that's just about the oddest thing I have ever read. My son attends a public elementary school that is only slightly less conservative than Jerry Falwell. Of course, I live in a relatively conservative state (Texas), and grew up in one (Tennessee), so perhaps the experience differs depending on where you have children in school. I'm not sure a "rightist" education is any better than a "leftist" one. Granted, I'm not exactly sure what would constitute a "leftist" one (teaching egalitarianism, avoiding sexist language, leaving religious references out of the curriculum, perhaps?).... I have a feeling my version of politically neutral education is exactly what this person was referring to as "leftist indoctrination."

Never trust your feelings in matters of simple fact. This straightforward role-playing of Marxist distribution theory is what the public school teacher was writing about - hardly politically neutral - and this is only one example of many. I got my hands on a Profiles of Learning test five years ago, and the amount of raw propaganda in the reading comprehension section was unbelievable. I'm quite sure I would have completely failed the "comprehension" test, simply because I was in possession of facts that contradicted the "correct" answers - the test really struck me as being more something to weed out those with views deemed inappropriate than to test any ability to read. I recall that one Wisconsin homeschooled girl who scored over 1400 on her SATs failed it - fortunately, the public outcry in Minnesota over the PoL's brainwashing program caused the state Senate to repeal it, which has slowed down its implementation somewhat.

Like most parents whose children are in public school, SB is unlikely to have much information about precisely what is being taught in his child's school, what the education establishment is planning to teach there in the near future, and why. He cannot know, because he is not permitted to see the most important tests that his child is given. This determination to hear, see and think no evil of the government schools is interesting, in light of the fact that more and more public school teachers - even award-winning teachers like John Gatto - are damning them in no uncertain terms.

That explains it

The Star Tribune reports: An overwhelming percentage of Minnesota, 78 percent, have a definite belief in God. Another 13 percent lean toward believing there is a god, according to a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.

No wonder Howard Dean is suddenly finding the words to talk about his faith, if one can call it that. Even if the belief of this 91 percent doesn't have an impact on their lives or their political views in the majority of cases, blowing off a huge portion of the electorate in order to win favor with the virulent secularists does not sound like a winning strategy, no matter how favorably the New York Times regards it.

I'm not questioning Howard Dean's faith, I just don't know what it is. I haven't heard him make any precise statements about where he stands; his recent comments , however positive, have been too general to make any firm conclusions. More on this Monday.

Mailbox: Irony in Education

A public school teacher writes: I am a Christian teaching in the public schools, [subject deleted] to be precise. I have been teaching for [a reasonable number of] years. Some days, I think I need to stay in the classroom. Who else is going to stay and fight to see that these kids get something better than a leftist indoctrination? On the other hand, my wife is expecting, and I want to be able to provide for my family. I'm looking at going into administration, where I can still impact kids in a positive way, yet make enough money to send my child to a private school (or have my wife stay at home and home school). Maybe I just needed a sounding board, but I would appreciate any thoughts you have.

P.S. On your recommendation, my cousin and I are reading Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. I'm only 200 pages in, but I'm enjoying it so far.

Interesting, to say the least. It's easy to dismiss what I say about leftist indoctrination; one hopes it would be a little more difficult to ignore similar statements coming from a veteran public school teacher. Note that this man sees a need to keep his child out of the very schools with which he is intimately familiar. I advised him to pursue administration, since he has no real power to fight the noxious indoctrination as a teacher, and in any case, his first responsibility must be to his own children, not those whose parents unfortunately see fit to abandon them to the intellectual wolves. One leads best by example, I think.

By the way, please note that I cleared it with him before posting his email here.

And one more gift

However much it would bother the official Favorite Scottish Neo-pagan of Vox Popoli, I consider this to be a real Christmas present of sorts. Mr. Charles Stross announces that he has finished the first draft of the ninth and final novellette of Accelerando. The novel will be published by Ace in 2005. I will certainly be picking up a copy of that, along with Glasshouse, its already-written - albet not yet published - sequel.

I sent him an invitation today to be interviewed on the fascinating subject of singularity. The short length of a column cannot possibly do him justice, of course, but we can post the whole thing right here. Ah, yes, the joy of the blog....

UPDATE - Before we make it official, we should probably make sure that Nell McAndrew is not a neo-pagan herself first. As much as we admire Mr. Stross, there is simply no comparison. Shall we say, presumptive Favorite Scottish Neo-pagan, then?

Speaking truth to power and parents

Neal Boortz writes: The single most prevalent form of child abuse in this country is the act of sending a child to a government school. We worry incessantly about the separation of church and state. We would do well to devote half as much attention to the separation of government and education.

I spent the entire fifth grade reading novels in the library, because my teachers realized that there was absolutely no point in making me sit through class. And I laughed when the Indiana Law professor on Fox the other night inadvertantly let the cat out of the bag when he was explaining why a child giving out candy canes with Bible verses or something on them was violating the separation of Church and State.

What is okay in a public street, said the professor, is not okay in a public school, because the children are not there because of choice, they are forced to be there. With the government, it always comes down to force, doesn't it?

Decisions, decisions

Thanks to Santa, I'm looking forward to reading the following books:

Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson
Ilium by Dan Simmons
Singularity Sky by Charles Stross
Kant and the Platypus by Umberto Eco

I'm just finishing the first Aubrey-Maturin book now. Not the first I've read, but the first in the series. Like it, don't love it. I started with book seven, mostly because it was in the right place at the right time. I think I'll probably start with Stross. I've been looking forward to reading it for a while - love his Atrocity Archive - and besides, I need to savor the notion of having new Stephenson that I can start reading anytime I want for a while before I actually crack the cover.

Logitech spies

RM writes: I took special interest in your Logitech adventure and decided to write you. I recently had my own Logitech experience. After purchasing their $100 web cam, I installed the software and drivers on my Windows XP Pro system. Not only did I get a wonderful collection of software to "help me", I also received some spyware. I do not recall if it was Backweb Lite or another snoop.... In case this happens to you, I recommend using the following free spyware detection and removal tool: SpyBot: Search and Destroy at http://www.safer-networking.net. Be sure to type .net and not .com. I had the pleasure of typing in the wrong URL while working on my mother's computer after Christmas dinner today.

Tales of the White Buffalo

Julie writes: I can only imagine who the WB picked number 1 to earn his glorious award, but try these two daisies on for size: In a league where receptions are only worth 1/2 a point, the first overall pick this year was: Terrell Owens. Thusly, the male coach of team Furious Anger has ever since been refered to as Nancy. Ouch. Worse yet, the number 5 overall pick: Amos Zero... Zero... How the heck to you spell that anyway? Ah well.. you know who I'm talking about. This is far worse when you consider that Clinton Portis was still on the board.

I'll bet there are a lot of us out here who'd like to see more WB tales...

Ask and you shall receive... this is also a belated response to a request from CL regarding campus poetry slams. First, the WB's infamous pick was Randall Cunningham in 1999, echoing Dennis Green's third-worst coaching decision - that is to say: 1) taking the cursed knee; 2) Picking Dimitrius Underwood; 3) Going with Randall over Brad Johnson in 1999. Still, none of these are as bad as one guy in my brother's league, who last year picked Kordell "INT" Stewart #1. You can't even ride a guy who does something like that, you just have to replace him with someone who actually watches football now and then.

Anyhow, our senior year of college, I inadvertantly made an enemy of a squidgy little girl in one of my classes, who took great exception to not being able to make inane assertions about the assigned text without being verbally sliced and diced in public. She complained to my professor, who then requested that I refrain from criticizing anything this poor, intellectually-defenseless female might happen to say in the future. Since she was the 4.0 apple-of-her-professor's eye and I had shown up two week's late for the semester on the very last day that one could show up without being dropped, I could hardly fault the man for his partiality. So, I agreed to the condition and promptly stopped going to class. Got an A anyhow, since it mostly was on Plato and I already knew the material, so the whole thing was no big deal in my opinion.

The White Buffalo, however, disagreed and vowed that Squidgy must be destroyed. Such is the Way of the White Buffalo. He learned that Squidgy, being a good campus pseudo-intellectual, took active part in a monthly poetry slam, where everyone wore black mocknecks and inflected execrable verse on one another, invariably to polite applause. The WB proposed that the three of us - WB, Big Chilly and I - should each compose the worst poems we could possibly write, then read them aloud at the lunchtime poetry slam. The brilliant clincher, contributed by Big Chilly, was that we would not show each other the poems before reading them aloud to an unsuspecting public. And so it was agreed, and we drank a solemn toast to confusion upon the foe.

I composed an abomination that ran thusly:

I like you
You like me
I think that's neat,
Like a room that's just been vacuumed.
Vaccuum me.

And so on, in like manner. I should note that this was prior to any of the infamous trio of "sexist pornographers" becoming Christians, and that in this particular crowd, a white male talking about anything that could possibly be interpreted as female submission was tantamount to a chauvinist act of war. After sitting through a few howlers, including one by the university's Poet Laureate which began, unforgettably: "Where do the homeless people go when it rains?" Big Chilly was the first to step up to the podium, reading first a short poem about losing his keys, then wowing the crowd with The Eagle and the Lama. It was hard not to laugh, especially when he dropped the bomb about "swooping down upon the back of that belching beast."

I was up next, and I did not dare to meet anyone's eyes, reading my splendidly awful creation in a tightly compressed voice that the crowd mistook for deep emotion, although the metaphor could hardly be missed by a coma victim. Their intense interest only made it harder to keep a straight face, especially when the newspaper that Big Chilly was hiding behind began to shake. But I held it together, even through the applause, and then all eyes were on the White Buffalo, who unleashed the unspeakable act of artistic desecration that is The Heart: A Tautology. It struck the awed crowd into respectful silence, with lines like "won't you send up a Space Shuttle Columbia of love to colonize my windswept soul", "my hopping, sneezing pomegranite" and that unforgettable stanza:

"Agammemnon, slay my combatants
So that the mighty hand of Jocasta,
Like a very large lemon drop,
Will fall upon my brazen breast."

I seriously thought I was going to blow out my spleen or something, but even under this intense provocation, all three of us held it together, as our intent was to leave decorously without alerting the ridiculous would-be artistes that they'd been brutally mocked. Unfortunately, before we could make our escape, Squidgy took the podium and prefaced her poem with the statement: "Okay, this poem is from the point of view of me - dramatic pause - and a lizard." That was too much. She'd effortlessly managed to top our very worst. All three of us simultaneously exploded with laughter and fled outside, where we nearly expired from laughing so hard.

So, the moral of the story is: do not mess with the White Buffalo. I seem to recall hearing that Squidgy never showed her face in that class again, although I can't vouch for it because, as I said, I'd already bagged it myself. Believe it or not, this was not the only time that The Heart: A Tautology appeared in public - it was even published in a real newspaper once - nor was this our only act of artistic ridicule on campus. But those are stories for another day.

A not-so-merry Logitech Christmas

Okay, who is the conceptually-challenged programmer who failed to foresee that there might, possibly, somewhere, be someone with a dual-boot system that wanted to use a web cam? Especially considering that it's the Pro version. This is why I absolutely hate it when companies try to "make it easier" for their customers by taking over the installation process. At the very least, provide a way for those of us who know what we are doing to have access to the necessary files. After following the instructions - which consisted of two pages saying nothing more than "install the software from the CD and follow the on-screen instructions" - I was most displeased when no such instructions appeared following the automatic reboot.

Digging into the CD revealed a README file, which in the Windows 2000 section stated "due to a bug in the installation program, an installation on a dual-boot system will fail." That's it. No work-around, no information on where one can find .inf files to install the drivers manually, nothing. The installation dates back to 11/02, however, and there's a newer download dated 10/03 on the Logitech website, so I'll download that and give it a try. Maybe they've fixed the bug; unfortunately, there's no way of knowing ahead of time, since Logitech's support FAQ deals with nothing but the most basic information, uttering banalities such as "if the camera doesn't work, see if the USB cable is plugged in" and "if the install fails, turn the computer off and try installing again". Then what, repeat as desired? Thanks, that's a big help.

Anyhow, if this newer install doesn't work, we have two options. Convert her system back into a single-boot Windows system or take this one back and get a different web cam. Gee, such a difficult choice....

UPDATE - No harm, no foul. The install downloaded from the web site can handle dual-boot and Space Bunny is in, as they say, full E-F-F-E-C-T otherwise known as effect. I think it was easier when you only needed batteries for the new toys, instead of drivers.

Glory to God

Christ the Savior is born! Merry Christmas to all, and may God bless us, every one.

Mailbox: True

D-Lo writes: After reading your commentary on the JRR Tolkien fiction epic turned movie" Return of the King" I can now understand why you are also so intrigued by football in the NFL. The former was written as a work of fiction, the latter has become a work of fiction on par with WWF/WWE. Since the Minnesota Vikings were egregiously robbed by overt officiating on behalf of the Dallas Cowboys on December 28th, 1975 in the famous Hail Mary pass, it's all become a sham!

You mean, infamous Hail Mary pass. The game that stole the Super Bowl. The game that killed Fran Tarkenton's dad. The game that defined my Purple heart. I had cheered both the Vikings and the Cowboys as a small child, because my mother was a college friend of Roger Staubach and I'd been brought up to support the Naval Academy, Roger Staubach and the Dallas Cowboys. But that game....

Speaking of Mom, I probably get my taste for the martial arts from her. She was at that game with my Dad and when they got back, some hours later, she was still hopping mad. At some point, apparently her primary affection had been transferred to the Vikes. When I told her that a referee had been injured by a thrown bottle, her response was as immediate as it was unchristian. "Good - I threw everything I had except my purse!" Which explained why they hadn't brought me home a program.

Okay, maybe it wasn't right, but it still makes me laugh. You have to love Mom. She dresses up with a full headdress complete with tom-tom to watch the Redskins - alone. I don't quite understand it, but she likes the Vikes, the Redskins and the Cowboys, in that order... I think. Her only real football loyalty is to USC, as far as I can tell, unless they play the Naval Academy.

Maybe that's a BIT much

TPS writes: Brett Favre's stunning preformance against the Raiders brought me to tears over the loving-kindness that the Triune God bestows upon his creatures. "What is man that you are mindful of him?"

Then again, Dr. Z of SI said: "What I think is that we saw a once-in-a-lifetime performance Monday night, not only by Favre, but also by his receivers, who were catching everything deep, no matter what kind of adjustment they had to make. You seldom see a team come together like this and rally round one player in such dramatic fashion."

God cares about sparrows, so I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that he cares about football games. I have to say, I quite like the idea of an all-powerful deity who would take an interest in such things, especially one who might not be able to resist helping out a grieving quarterback. You don't think that would be right? Hey, come on, they were playing the Raiders.

We hates the Raidess.

On Monday the Rabbi Went Off the Deep End

I completely disagree with the notion that Brett Favre is somehow "dishonoring" his father by playing a football game. Indeed, his performance suggests precisely the opposite to me. Not only did he not dishonor his former high-school coach, he honored him before the nation. We all knew for whom he was playing, and he came through in spades. I couldn't help cheering for Brett, even if one of his vintage 4-INT games would have served my Vikings much better.

I'm with the WND emailers on this one. The more I read of Boteach, the less I like his writing He seems to be more interested in celebrities and telling other people what to do than writing anything of substance. I see a lot of Kobe columns in his future. How boring.

Secession and slavery

Walter Williams raises some excellent points about the Constitutionality of secession, and the unlikelihood that such exercising such a right would be permitted. I only wonder what the Federal excuse for an invasion would be. I expect that all of those who still believe that the Civil War was primarily about slavery - all the repeated declarations about preserving the Union to the contrary notwithstanding - would probably swallow whatever nonsense was given out as the official reason.

Why is it that the right to self-determination is something worth fighting for in foreign lands, and something that must be fought against in our own? If slavery trumps a right to self-determination, why are we not invading the Sudan right now, not to mention Eastern Europe? I often wonder if those who mindlessly repeat what little they remember of fifth-grade history ever stop to think about the logical implications of what they are saying.

Abraham Lincoln said the Civil War was not about slavery. Jefferson Davis said the Second (failed) American Revolution was not about slavery. Robert E. Lee didn't even own slaves - what on Earth was he fighting so brilliantly for? If the principles on both sides of the Civil War didn't believe it had anything to do with slavery, why do you? And if secession was treason, why was no Confederate ever tried for it, much less found guilty? Perhaps a second war of States Rights will one day convince the doubters.

I am, like most Americans, opposed to slavery. But I do not believe in throwing out the Constitution and using the evil of totalitarian oppression to end other evils. If there is an evil worth fighting a war to stop, it is the Holocaust of the Innocent. By the slavery theorist's logic, we should impose a Federal ban on abortion, then invade any states that refuse to honor the ban. If the slavery theory is correct and the Civil War was right, then there is no reason why we should not resort to the same extreme measures to end what is surely a far worse evil.

Mailbox: Fear of a Metaphorical Planet

JD writes: I can tell that you are a baptist because your ravings about "your" view of the world and its similarities to Tolkiens writings are waaay off to the religious right. To compare the United Nations to Sauron, and the nations of France, Germany, Russia and, China to the Nazgul, is just ridiculous. I somewhat agree to your comparison between orcs and islamic extremists because of their violent natures. But to label them as "monsters" or less than human, publicly no less, is un-christian. And what are baptists after all, but uber-christians. There are no christians but the baptists.

Why is "your" in quotes? Whose view do you expect me to have? Strange. Anyhow, this sort of historical ignorance is depressing, as people used to say the same sort of thing when they would insist that the European Economic Community was nothing more than a trade federation intended to boost the economies of Europe, and would NEVER prove to be the framework of a political entity, much less a totalitarian one. Of course, I don't hear that argument anymore now that the European Commission is giving orders to the once-sovereign English Parliament and entire nations are forced to vote and re-vote until they finally produce the acceptable response.

At what point will JD and others begin to understand that the UN is a great threat to humanity, perhaps even the greatest it will ever face? Once it usurps the laws of the USA? Once it has taxing power and an army? When it orders the confiscation of all private firearms? No, as usual, the threat will not be recognized by the Great Fat and Happy until it is too late and the enemy is at their throats. This is not theoretical; Kofi Annan has been stumping hard for the global UN tax as proposed by Paul Tobin, and the EU already has what could be used as the nucleus of the blue-helmeted horde. Furthermore, there is already precedent for American soldiers being forced against their will to serve under UN colors as in the Michael New court martial. I have no doubt at all that I will be proved correct on this matter, and I can tell you now that I will take absolutely no joy in being right.

As to orcs... it's called metaphor, JD. Deal with it. I never wrote anything about monsters or literal subhuman status.... Oh dear, it just occurred to me that perhaps he thinks the Sauron-UN comparison is ridiculous because there isn't a great flaming eye on top of the building in New York City. For the love of all that's good and holy, JD, get thee to a dictionary!

I am, as anyone who reads my column knows, a Southern Baptist. I have never once claimed, nor ever heard a fellow Baptist claim, that our understanding of Christianity is the only correct one. To believe with your heart and confess with your tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord is the only standard to which I subscribe, and while I can judge the latter, none but God can judge the former. Tonight, as is my custom, I will take great joy in attending midnight mass with my Christian brothers and sisters who happen to be Catholic, and together we will celebrate the birth of Our Lord.

The White Buffalo on Title IX football pools

While I appreciate your vigor and enthusiasm for the exceptional performance of the female members of this pool, especially Michelle my respected friend and co-worker, I find your e-mail demeaning and harassing, This is exactly the type of behavior that spawned the Salem Witch Trials, the Sacco and Vanzetti debacle, and the Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef” advertising campaign. Treating men as if they have no feelings or emotions relegates them to couch-sitting, beer guzzling, sports-watching, poor-fantasy-football-picking oafs. And while it may be completely and utterly applicable here, it doesn’t matter. This is America. The fact that the men in this pool are poorer at picking football game outcomes does not make the women better. It clearly makes the men victims. In this country, our utter lack of skill and applied talent does not make us less talented, it makes us worthy of special consideration and legal protection. I propose some sort of Fantasy Football Title IX treatment. I propose that if 50% of the top 5 winners (yeah, I know its 2.5 people, but some of the guys in the pool aren’t that tall) are not men than no-one gets to participate in this league. At the very least, we should eliminate some of the women who are in the league to make sure men have an equal chance. Anything else would be ridiculous, and to reject my idea would make one a sexist pig.

The WB is legendary in our fantasy football league for his insane approach to evaluating football talent - winner of the worst #1 pick ever award - and he's in third place in a 30+ man (and woman) NFL pool. No wonder the women are winning.

Fred on TV

The inimitable Fred Reed writes: The lobotomy box is all ads, with a sprinkle of stupid shows for people with the IQ of an avocado. Yes, I've heard the sheepish shuck-and-jive toe-dance about "But Fred, there are SOME good things - the History Channel and Discovery." Yeah: Sharks, Nazis, and pyramids. The absolute minimum necessary so that people who can't be alone with themselves will gawp at singing deodorant applicators.

I'm with Fred on this. I'd much rather read a book, play a game, surf or even write than watch TV - NFL excluded.

Nietzsche and the Marshwiggle

A nice irony is this: Whereas Christianity (and Judaism) can give atheists a dignified place within their own theory of religious liberty, it seems quite difficult for atheists such as Dawkins to assign religious people any place in their own theory other than the loony bin. For Jews and Christians, freedom is so dear to the Creator that He allows free human beings to turn away from him, to reject the granting even of His existence, and to scorn Him and His works. In their refusal of His friendship, He vindicates His love of liberty. Thus, atheists too give witness to His glory.

By contrast, Dawkins in his apoplexy can find no place for believing Jews and Christians except delusion. He thinks of atheism as a place of honor and of religion as a disease; teaching of the latter, a crime; teaching of the former, a way of light, knowledge, and truth.

There is a further irony. Time and again in history, reason has proved to be inadequate to its own defense. Most people most of the time live by passion, sentiment, custom, emotion — many such guides influence them — but few live purely by reason. Even famous philosophers of very high scientific standards have insisted that they did not choose their wives or guide their loves by scientific reason. Reason is but a thin sliver to build a civilization upon.

And the situation is far worse than that. The scientist qua scientist typically writes that the universe was formed by chance. At this starting point, then, there is a fundamental irrationality at the heart of science. There is a superstructure of towering reasonings, but based upon an absurdity — in the strict sense, an utter absence of discernible reason, a surd at the root of the matter. The thorough cultivation of science alone as a philosophy of life, therefore, normally ends as Nietzsche sadly announced, that, in our civilization, it already had: in nihilism.- Michael Novak, NRO

Novak pinpoints the base irrationality of atheism, the foundation upon which others are thereby constructed. To pretend that reason rules where it manifestly does not, to fly under a moral flag that is not - and in most cases cannot be - reached by reason, these are mere quotidian irrationalities. Perhaps some dim awareness of this self-delusion accounts for the rage of so many atheists when confronted by the ironic reality of their lives. They say they laugh, even as their foam-flecked lips spew curses.

It does not bother me in the least that many call me a fool or an idiot for my faith. But then, I believe in the biggest absurdity of all; that an all-powerful Creator God would deign to become Man, that He might save His creation from itself. Embrace the rational nihilism of the Void if you choose, as for me, like the Marshwiggle, I will hold to the fairy tale.

We'll have none of that around here

The plaintiff's bar wants to keep religious people off the jury, because they believe in personal responsibility. Won't they be in for a surprise, when those legions of highly ethical atheists pop up and throw their nefarious plans to win massive damage awards into disarray.

Somehow, this reminds me of how the courts go into panic mode whenever anyone within a five-mile radius of the courtroom utters the words "jury nullification".

Isn't it interesting how the most corrupt institutions in the USA - the courts and Wall Street - always rely on abstract theoretical arguments to justify their existence, while daily behaving in a manner that almost precisely contradicts their justifications.

On Ents and Elves

LV points out: "The Ents were really dissed, being presented as whiney sniveling cowardly appeasers, where in the book, they were mightily disturbed, but merely slow to anger and action. Not being hasty is not being French."

It's true, having them get "tricked" by Merry was rather lame, but I don't think Jackson had the time to show their slow rise to anger. I think LV is being too harsh, here. Jackson kept the essence of their nature intact, and furthermore, I submit that any clumsiness here must be forgiven by the awesome and overpowering attack on Isengard. He really surpassed my expectations there.

To be honest, I never much liked the Ents anyhow. I'm definitely a Rohan guy. Space Bunny is an Aragorn fan, and I understand the teenyboppers quite like Legolas, but I think that one starry-eyed female writer is correct in saying that Eomer is unfairly overlooked. After Faramir, he was my second favorite character in the books; unlike Faramir, the films did him justice.

As much as I like Cate Blanchett as an actress, I wasn't terribly fond of her as Galadrial. She was adequate, but she wasn't as ethereal and overpoweringly beautiful as my mind's eye pictured. I can't think of an actress I would have preferred, though. I also thought it was interesting how the elven armor was definitely influenced by the Ulthuan High Elves of Warhammer. The process goes full circle.

Where to start

RS asks: Would you consider Tolkien to have been a Christian?

I really dislike answering this sort of question. It does not fall to me, or any other man, to judge another man's soul. However, we can certainly say that JRR Tolkien was a devout Catholic, considered himself to be a Christian, was instrumental in leading CS Lewis to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and wrote a literary masterpiece that is rife with Christian references, analogies and metaphor.

In other words, if he was not a Christian, I don't know who is. And if we judge Tolkien by his fruits, as we are instructed, there can be very little doubt as to the nature of the tree. In other words, yes.

By this same metric, I very much doubt that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, his sometime public protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. His blasphemous attempts to usurp the role of Jesus Christ would alone appear to rule him out as an antichrist, not to mention the small matter of his massive body count and notorious hatred for God's Chosen. But the truth is, we do not know the truth of what was in either man's heart at the end.

It is possible to imagine that Hitler repented of his sins in the Berlin bunker. In near-total ignorance of his life, it is possible to imagine that Tolkien secretly abjured Jesus Christ and embraced Belial. But both possibilities, especially the latter, are so uncharacteristic of what we know as to be monstrously absurd, in my opinion, and not worth the breath required to discuss them. For my part, I hope to one day leave as bold a Christian testimony behind as did Mr. Tolkien.

Sharpening the blades... with a smile

JM writes about a friend at a certain university who was assigned to write an essay on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After writing one supporting the Israeli side, her professor refused to grade it and told her to rewrite it - either supporting the Palestinians or writing objectively - in order to receive a grade.

What do you say I give this professor a jingle? As my brother used to say, I FEEL a jacuzzi coming on!

We need more of these?

Now they've cloned white-tailed deer. Why? We don't have enough? While I don't have anything against hunting, I've never quite understood the allure of driving three hours north and freezing your rear end off sitting in a tree in the north woods in order to wait for a glimpse of the very same animal that is in your backyard, en masse, every single night. I remember one evening when my Dad and brothers had left to go hunt, and two hours later, I barely managed to avoid running over three deer less than fifty yards from the house with the truck. And no, we did not live in the country.

I have to say, as much as it still boggles my mind that Man has developed cloning technology in my lifetime, I'm a little disappointed with the results. I hope someone is building a secret army of clones somewhere or something, because the reality is really falling far short of all the science fiction I've read. Where's my laser pistol? Where's my lightsabre? The real globalist conspiracy has to be the most boring conspiracy ever - what lousy excuse for a conspiracy to take over the world has a web site announcing their intentions? A web site, by the way, they don't bother to update.

And if you're going to clone something, clone Morgan Fairchild. Can't have too many of those.

I'm not sure how I feel about cloning. I don't know enough to have an opinion on it, although from what little I understand, I can't support either the destruction of conceived but unused people or the use of clones for harvesting or study purposes. My technophilic instincts tend to war against my ethics here, to a certain extent.

That's what I'm talking about!

According to Len Pasquarelli: It hasn't yet been officially announced, but the starting quarterbacks for the Pro Bowl will be Steve McNair (of Tennessee) and Daunte Culpepper (Minnesota).

Good onya Daunte! This only goes to show why fans should not be voting for All-Star games - or at least that their votes should not be taken as a serious indicator of a player's skill. In keeping with this season's Black Quarterback Watch, here's yesterday's results:

Culpepper: 20/29 260 yds 69% 8.97 avg 3 TD 1 INT 117.0 rating
D. McNabb: 17/27 238 yds 63% 8.81 avg 1 TD 2 INT 72.8 rating

The ESPN fans, as I mentioned before, favored McNabb over Culpepper as the starter by 51 percentage points. Ludicrous. Week 16 actually wasn't a bad game statistically for McNabb. But as usual, the Eagles weren't in the game because of him, they were in it because of Brian Westbrook's punt return - although the defense was no help at all. McNabb even made a very nice play in the pocket to avoid what looked like a certain sack, then seemed to overthrow Chad Lewis but the TE managed to go up and get it for a vital 4th-quarter first down on third-and-long. But that last INT that gave the game away was pretty bad. Not exactly the crunch-time performance that is supposed to excuse his "misleadingly" average stats.

Okay, but overrated. That's my verdict. Still. And yes, I'll continue hammering this into the ground for the rest of the season. It's football. This is what we do. If anyone wants a long-winded rant on how Two-Minute Tommy Kramer was a better quarterback when he was drinking, I can deliver that too. My theory is that his balance was off without the beer in one hand.

And yet they argue

A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid

Not that this will stop Jean-Francois Kerry or numerous other Democratic cretins from insisting that the two events are unrelated. Then again, most Democrats still believe in the tooth fairy, the labor theory of value and wealth through taxation, so I see no reason why they should start being bound by objective reality now.

Thanks for stopping by

Couldn't help but notice that there appear to be some newcomers to the blog today. I hope that you're enjoying it. There's a good bit of archives to plow through here if you're so inclined, a few ill-considered rants and some interesting, if random links here and there. Stop by again sometime.

I try to blog four times a day, but the mileage varies depending on mood, current events and numerous other vagaries. Feel free to let me know what you think.

Random observation of the day - I think my two favorite Christmas carols are Silver Bells and Good King Wencelas, with a slight edge to Silver Bells.

An even more comprehensive list

You can see why this gentleman was a little less sanguine about The Return of the King. The Physics Geek says it's been linked up the wazoo around the blogosphere, but since there may be a few of you new to this brave new world of the all-conquering blog, I figured it was worth posting. It made me laugh, anyhow.

Now, if everyone would just be satisfied with posting links on their blogs instead of sending me "Send This to 10 STRONG WOMEN You Know" or stupid videos of cartoon babies dancing to horrid pop songs, the world would be a better place. Not any less dangerous, perhaps, but indubitably better.

I'll take credit for this

I was most pleased to see an article by Fred Reed being posted on the WND Commentary page today. He's a great expatriate freedom writer, who regularly puts to shame the perverted modern American notion of what it is to live in a free society. I recommended him to WND's commentary editor a few months ago; he's a great writer and if you enjoy my stuff, you'll love his.

Here's his archives. They're well worth going through.

Return of the King: Nitpicks and Niceties

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

1. Faramir was one of my favorite characters in the books. He is markedly less noble here, although most of the damage was already done in The Two Towers. His heroism, as well as his admiration for his older brother, does not come across well.
2. Denethor was an epic tragic figure in the books. Here, he comes off as petty and vindictive; a crazy man, not a great man crazed by the loss of his beloved son. The handling of the Denethor-Faramir relationship was probably the biggest disappointment to me, aside from Liv Tyler's unaccountably tepid Arwen. She's beautiful, but bland, bland, bland.
3. Horses don't charge for over a mile. They also don't charge walled positions. Silly. This happened several times.
4. The Great Sleepless Eye as spotlight. Sauron can see across Middle Earth, but not through a rock right in front of it? What was that? Minor, but very weird.
5. The tiny size of the Army of the West, and the way it gets surrounded. Ever heard of a defensive square, gentlemen? Or better yet, a fighting withdrawal using the seven hills of the book? It didn't make sense and it wasn't dramatic. Again, minor, but a strangely inept touch. The same sort of thing happened when Eomer's riders surrounded Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. If you crowd too much, no one can do anything. What was the point? Yes, they're surrounded. We get it. Oh, they're really, really, really surrounded? Come on.
6. Elrond's reduction in stature. I'd prefer to have seen him remain aloof, even bitter.
7. The siege of Gondor seemed rushed. I thought the siege of Helms Deep came off more powerfully.
8. Aragorn seemed rather lacking in authority when he confronted the dead. He was such a stud taking on the Nazgul and the orcs; I found this a little surprising and disappointing.

THINGS I REALLY, REALLY LIKED

1. The Riders of Rohan were perfect. Theoden's transformation from deceived victim to triumphant victor was great. His line about being able to enter the Hall of his Fathers without sorrow or shame brought tears to my eyes. I loved Theoden in the books, loved him even more in the movies.
2. I had my doubts about Eowyn. While the actress didn't quite fit my mental picture of her, she gradually grew on me. In The Return of the King, she comes into her own. I hope we'll see more of her and Faramir in the extended DVD.
3. The charge of the Rohirrim. Yes, they didn't fight the Oliphaunts in the books. No, it made little tactical sense considering their superior speed. But holy cats, it was so freaking cool!
4. Legolas rules, again.
5. The devotion to the close relationships of the hobbits. Some may have felt that the ending(s) was too drawn out, but I say no. These four had been through Hell and back, been irreparably changed - even maimed - and a quick Hollywood wave-and-ride-into-the-sunset would have been wrong, wrong, wrong. I never found Frodo terribly interesting in the books, but Elijah Woods did an outstanding job of bringing him to life. By the end, I wanted to weep with Sam.
6. The last fight with Gollum was much better than I imagined it could be.
7. The horrors of war and its effects on the women and children was tremendously powerful in each movie. The grief of the women and children as their men rode out on Faramir's hopeless charge on Osgiliath was overpowering. Also great was the constant reminders that the men were fighting to protect those they loved. They rode willingly to die, that their loved ones might live.
8. The power of the Nazgul ripping apart the retreating cavalry of Gondor. And then, the aerial assault on the city walls.
9. Grond. It WAS Grond, nightmarish and terrifying.
10. The crotchety old hobbit glaring at the returning heroes, as he did at Gandalf before. There is the unconquerable strength of The Shire. He who refuses to be impressed by the glamour of the great will never lick the boots of a tyrant.
11. Loved the lighting of the watchtowers. Huge tension, plus it demonstrated some of the tactical realities involved. Very cool stuff.
12. The final scene. Sheer perfection. In a hole in the ground....

(My apologies to regular blog readers. There wasn't room for all of this in today's column, and I didn't want to force any newcomers to wade through the last few days of posts.)

Thus spake Jean-Francois

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a presidential aspirant, portrayed the success with Libya as an exception to the Bush Doctrine. "Ironically, this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush administration's overall foreign policy," he said in a statement Saturday. "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy."

Let's see. Two American enemies have been beaten down and smacked around. Immediately after this, an old American enemy decides to make nice. Can you spot the connection? Jean-Francois Kerry can't. Ironically, it is those who believe George Bush is too synaptically-challenged to be President who will consider this a persuasive argument. I am not a Bush fan, but neither do I recommend making the mistake of confusing a glib tongue with intelligence, much less wisdom.

The man's man

Congratulations to St. John's and its now-legendary coach, John Gagliardi. Not only did the man collect his 4th NCAA Division III national championship, but he and his team did it in style by knocking off Mount Union, the top-ranked defending champions who were on a 55-game winning streak and had outscored their opponents 249-6 this year.

24 - St John's
06 - Mount Union

John Gagliardi is one of my heroes. Not because he's a winner 414 times over, but because of the way he wins. You have to read about him to believe him. In the world of football, he is the ultimate maverick.

So the Chiefs are frauds

I was actually surprised by this. Sure, it's no secret that the Vikings offense can explode from time to time, but I expected the defense to wilt under the pressure of the hammer that is Priest Holmes. Skoal Vikings! This season has been a pleasant surprise, regardless of how it turns out, and I hope that our insane owner will not go off the deep end and fire Mike Tice. The guy may not be a rocket scientist, but considering how the geniuses of the league have fared of late, he increasingly appears to be a solid coach. Anything short of one more year would not be a fair shake.

It will be interesting to see if he can further strengthen the defense without the benefit of George Leary. Strange season this year, setting up for a playoffs that could be one of the most difficult to predict in years. Right now, Rams and Eagles look tops in the NFC - both look better than the other at home - and I like the way the Colts are playing, but I don't like them at New England in December.

I love THIS game.