Critics dismiss `Lion,’ but kids don’t
by John Kass
Chicago Tribune
Published December 23, 2005
There were about a couple of hundred children in the suburban theater to see the "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," the movie based on one book in the wonderful "Chronicles of Narnia" series by C.S. Lewis.
I took my 10-year-old twin boys to see it. The deal was we’d see the film only after they had read the book. They read it, we talked about it, and then the other night, we drove to the theater.
And what I saw there amazed me. On the screen, yes, but in the theater, too. If you’re a parent, or a teacher or have spent any time with kids, you’ll understand:
There wasn’t a peep out of all those kids during the movie.
There wasn’t a sound. Perhaps that’s because wonder doesn’t have a sound. But I could see it in the eyes of my boys, and in the eyes of the other children.
Though some critics treated the movie fairly, many others gave it the back of their hand. It never got the buzz that it should have received, most likely because C.S. Lewis delved into Christian allegory.
I understand. It’s not Aslan the lion that threatens many who ridiculed the film. Instead, what likely threatened them is the understanding of who the lion would have been had Narnia been Earth, and the unyielding message delivered almost 2,000 years ago.
But the kids weren’t threatened. They and their families were of various demographics, and presumably different religious backgrounds.
I don’t think the children were thinking about allegory, or polemics, or comparative religions, relativism, or culture wars.
They were watching a movie about children and a lion and a faun and an evil White Witch, in a frozen land where there was never any Christmas.
And you could have heard the crickets chirping in the theater, if there were crickets in December. You get the idea.
The behavior may have been quite different elsewhere. I’ll find that out when we see the movie again over the holiday break, but on that night, at an early evening show, the children were mesmerized.
Before we had the boys, I was an expert at child raising, with many theories. Now, since I’m a dad, I’m no longer an expert in the child-raising department. Many of those theories have been discarded.
Yet in my limited experience, the one thing I’m certain about is that kids are not silent creatures in theaters.
They’re full of questions and some are too used to talking, as if they were watching TV, and some are compelled to kick their feet, or jab their brother in the shoulder if the brother has filched too much of the popcorn. Sometimes the older ones offer running commentary, adolescents raising a shield against emotions thrown from the screen.
Surely you’ve witnessed such behavior. I have. As a kid, I engaged in all of it at the old Coral Theater in Oak Lawn.
But that evening there wasn’t any yelling, fidgeting or talking. There wasn’t any need to put your forefinger to your lips and "shhh" them.
Throughout the movie, I kept peeking at the faces of my sons. They’re boys and were attracted to the battles and the action, because boys love movie battles of all kinds, but it wasn’t the swordplay and centaurs’ cavalry charge that will stick with them.
What will stick is the sense of gentle wonder in the film, from the first step through the wardrobe into the snowy land on Narnia, to the first tea and toast served by the faun, to the gracious manner in which most characters addressed each other.
And what will stay with me was the pressure from my sons’ hands on mine. It wasn’t during a great battle scene. There weren’t any magic wands involved.
It happened when Aslan the lion spoke quietly on the hillside with Edmund, the boy who loved Turkish Delights, and who, through fear and selfishness had betrayed his family, and was redeemed.
You could see Edmund talking with Aslan, but you couldn’t hear dialogue. That’s when my sons, sitting on either side of me, squeezed my hands.
Aslan the lion fights evil, gives up his life to save others, is tried by his enemies and put to death only to be resurrected and triumph over the witch.
This apparently put some people off, but it wasn’t as if the lion carried a magic ring of evil that could destroy the world, and was helped by elves and dwarfs and a wizard, the ring finally destroyed in a river of molten lava.
It is not as if the lion went to an English boarding school to learn to cast fantastic spells.
Those are other movies, and quite entertaining, as was this one. But unlike the others, this one has Aslan, and all the children watching that evening were in awe.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
The House of Christmas
by Gilbert Keith Chesterton
There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.
For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay on their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honour and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.
A Child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost - how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.
This world is wild as an old wives' tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.
To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.
by Gilbert Keith Chesterton
There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.
For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay on their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honour and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.
A Child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost - how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.
This world is wild as an old wives' tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.
To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.
Friday, December 23, 2005
From National Review Online:
A Sword Will Pierce Your Heart
The dark side of Christmas.
By Amy Welborn
About a year ago, my husband and I traveled across the chilly cornfields of Indiana to the frigid cornfields of Ohio to have our younger son baptized.
It was not quite, but almost, spur of the moment. A bishop, an old friend of my husband's, would be visiting his mother for a few days after Christmas, and yes, he could certainly squeeze a baptism in. The parish church was available, the bishop's sister and mother would be witnesses, and there you have it: insta-baptism.
Perfect timing. A baptism is a happy occasion centered on a baby. Christmas is another happy time centered on a baby, and a fine opportunity to focus ourselves on the vaunted Real Meaning of Christmas. Babies, love, and family. Comfort, joy, and peace.
But perhaps not so fast.
The discussion about Christmas in our society is endless and loud. The self-proclaimed defenders of Christmas go about daring salespeople to wish them "Happy Holidays," boycotting businesses that sell "Holiday Trees," and reminding one and all that Jesus is the Reason for the Season.
Which he is. But I say that many of the Defenders of Christmas have it almost as wrong as the secularists. Their vision of Christmas — centered on words, a rather generic baby, and nostalgic visions of families and fireplaces — actually gets no closer to the real Real Meaning of Christmas than do generic wishes for peace and joy in this holiday season.
What they forget, neglect or conveniently ignore is what we can not-too-dramatically call the Dark Side of Christmas.
The really traditional Christian remembrance of the Nativity is not about sweetness. It is about awe, fear, and trembling, and it is shot through with hints of suffering to come.
Mary, with a scandalous pregnancy. Joseph, courageous enough to take her on despite it. A birth among farm animals. The threat of death, from the very start, necessitating flight. Mary, told by the prophet Simeon that because of her son, her soul will be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35).
We view the elements of the story in a nostalgic haze — how sweet to be born with the goats. But is it? Is it sweet? Would you want to give birth among goats?
How charming that Mary and Joseph had to wander before and after the birth of the child. Charming until you remember the reasons why, the doors shut in the face of a heavily pregnant woman, the threat of death from a jealous king.
Look at it closely, with clear eyes. At every turn in this story of this baby there is threat and fear and powers circling, attempting to strike at the light.
We might forget, we might wrap up Christmas in good cheer, but Christian tradition doesn't. It's striking that the next day — the very next day — after Christmas, the Church remembers not glad tidings, angels, and shepherd boys, but a bloody death by stoning. St. Stephen it is, the first Christian martyr.
St. Stephen is followed by St. John on December 27th, who may not have met a violent death, but who, the tradition tells us, died in a prison of sorts, in exile for his faith, far away from the "civilized" powers that had sent him there.
December 28th brings us back to babies, but with no relief — it is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, remembering the children Herod ordered slaughtered, according to Matthew's gospel, in his rabid fear of the rival king.
The message is clear and hard: Following this baby, as he reaches to us from the resin manger, looking out at us with the soft-eyed cattle and docile sheep, comes at a price.
There is an edge to Christmas, a harshness, and a different kind of promise than that implied by the easy words of peace and glad tidings. It is a mystery, all of it. The Word made flesh indeed, but into a world that was from the beginning set against it, that sought with every bit of strength at hand to stay in the darkness.
So it was that our baby's baptism was on that day, December 28, the Feast of the Holy Innocents. The heart skips a beat now. Not so fitting, perhaps, as we contemplate the lovely soft living baby being washed, but in the shadow of sorrow.
My baby's baptism in Ohio was, according to earthly judgment, a disaster. The weather was miserable, icy, and cold. No one's cameras would work. The bishop decided we might as well immerse the baby fully, which was okay with us, but turned out to be not okay with the baby, who commenced screaming his lungs out at the unexpected bath, and not okay either with the bishop's elderly mother, who was quite horrified. And circling around us the whole time was our three-year-old, who seemed to have absorbed the demons driven out of his brother during the exorcism part of the rite, and who would not, in the face of many and varied threats, be still. He raced like — yes — a demon, in and around the church, constantly, through the whole affair. I've helped out at many baptisms in my work in parish ministry but this one was, I think, the worst.
But perhaps it was more fitting than it first appears. Trivial problems, yes, but still an apt metaphor for the Christian life begun there, and yet to come for Baby Michael: not the warmth of a tidy, neat manger scene, with everyone gathered in comfort, calm, and peace, but something startling and new, a shock to the system, entered upon in a world of frustration and discord, circled by forces intent to disrupt.
Glad tidings of comfort and joy, and Merry Christmas indeed. But without awareness of the risk of discipleship, and the reality that the baby in the manger ends up hanging on a cross, those words have about as little power to change the world as "Happy Holidays."
Amy Welborn is the author of 12 books, most recently of The Catholic Woman's Book of Days. She blogs at http://amywelborn.typepad.com.
A Sword Will Pierce Your Heart
The dark side of Christmas.
By Amy Welborn
About a year ago, my husband and I traveled across the chilly cornfields of Indiana to the frigid cornfields of Ohio to have our younger son baptized.
It was not quite, but almost, spur of the moment. A bishop, an old friend of my husband's, would be visiting his mother for a few days after Christmas, and yes, he could certainly squeeze a baptism in. The parish church was available, the bishop's sister and mother would be witnesses, and there you have it: insta-baptism.
Perfect timing. A baptism is a happy occasion centered on a baby. Christmas is another happy time centered on a baby, and a fine opportunity to focus ourselves on the vaunted Real Meaning of Christmas. Babies, love, and family. Comfort, joy, and peace.
But perhaps not so fast.
The discussion about Christmas in our society is endless and loud. The self-proclaimed defenders of Christmas go about daring salespeople to wish them "Happy Holidays," boycotting businesses that sell "Holiday Trees," and reminding one and all that Jesus is the Reason for the Season.
Which he is. But I say that many of the Defenders of Christmas have it almost as wrong as the secularists. Their vision of Christmas — centered on words, a rather generic baby, and nostalgic visions of families and fireplaces — actually gets no closer to the real Real Meaning of Christmas than do generic wishes for peace and joy in this holiday season.
What they forget, neglect or conveniently ignore is what we can not-too-dramatically call the Dark Side of Christmas.
The really traditional Christian remembrance of the Nativity is not about sweetness. It is about awe, fear, and trembling, and it is shot through with hints of suffering to come.
Mary, with a scandalous pregnancy. Joseph, courageous enough to take her on despite it. A birth among farm animals. The threat of death, from the very start, necessitating flight. Mary, told by the prophet Simeon that because of her son, her soul will be pierced by a sword (Luke 2:35).
We view the elements of the story in a nostalgic haze — how sweet to be born with the goats. But is it? Is it sweet? Would you want to give birth among goats?
How charming that Mary and Joseph had to wander before and after the birth of the child. Charming until you remember the reasons why, the doors shut in the face of a heavily pregnant woman, the threat of death from a jealous king.
Look at it closely, with clear eyes. At every turn in this story of this baby there is threat and fear and powers circling, attempting to strike at the light.
We might forget, we might wrap up Christmas in good cheer, but Christian tradition doesn't. It's striking that the next day — the very next day — after Christmas, the Church remembers not glad tidings, angels, and shepherd boys, but a bloody death by stoning. St. Stephen it is, the first Christian martyr.
St. Stephen is followed by St. John on December 27th, who may not have met a violent death, but who, the tradition tells us, died in a prison of sorts, in exile for his faith, far away from the "civilized" powers that had sent him there.
December 28th brings us back to babies, but with no relief — it is the Feast of the Holy Innocents, remembering the children Herod ordered slaughtered, according to Matthew's gospel, in his rabid fear of the rival king.
The message is clear and hard: Following this baby, as he reaches to us from the resin manger, looking out at us with the soft-eyed cattle and docile sheep, comes at a price.
There is an edge to Christmas, a harshness, and a different kind of promise than that implied by the easy words of peace and glad tidings. It is a mystery, all of it. The Word made flesh indeed, but into a world that was from the beginning set against it, that sought with every bit of strength at hand to stay in the darkness.
So it was that our baby's baptism was on that day, December 28, the Feast of the Holy Innocents. The heart skips a beat now. Not so fitting, perhaps, as we contemplate the lovely soft living baby being washed, but in the shadow of sorrow.
My baby's baptism in Ohio was, according to earthly judgment, a disaster. The weather was miserable, icy, and cold. No one's cameras would work. The bishop decided we might as well immerse the baby fully, which was okay with us, but turned out to be not okay with the baby, who commenced screaming his lungs out at the unexpected bath, and not okay either with the bishop's elderly mother, who was quite horrified. And circling around us the whole time was our three-year-old, who seemed to have absorbed the demons driven out of his brother during the exorcism part of the rite, and who would not, in the face of many and varied threats, be still. He raced like — yes — a demon, in and around the church, constantly, through the whole affair. I've helped out at many baptisms in my work in parish ministry but this one was, I think, the worst.
But perhaps it was more fitting than it first appears. Trivial problems, yes, but still an apt metaphor for the Christian life begun there, and yet to come for Baby Michael: not the warmth of a tidy, neat manger scene, with everyone gathered in comfort, calm, and peace, but something startling and new, a shock to the system, entered upon in a world of frustration and discord, circled by forces intent to disrupt.
Glad tidings of comfort and joy, and Merry Christmas indeed. But without awareness of the risk of discipleship, and the reality that the baby in the manger ends up hanging on a cross, those words have about as little power to change the world as "Happy Holidays."
Amy Welborn is the author of 12 books, most recently of The Catholic Woman's Book of Days. She blogs at http://amywelborn.typepad.com.
From National Review Online:
Inventing Christmas
Here’s one Donald Trump didn’t come up with.
By Father James V. Schall
One writer against Christmas went so far as to say that the shopkeepers for their own commercial purposes alone sustain Christmas Day. I am not sure whether he said that the shopkeepers invented Christmas Day. Perhaps he thought that the shopkeepers invented Christianity. It is a quaint picture, the secret conclave between the cheese-monger, the poulterer, and the toy-shop keeper, in order to draw up a theology that shall convert all Europe and sell some of their goods. Opponents of Christianity would believe anything except Christianity. That the shopkeepers make Christmas is about as conceivable as that the confectioners make children. It is about as sane as that milliners manufacture women. — G. K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, January 13, 1906.
Exactly a century ago this Christmas-tide, Chesterton, with no little amusement, attacked the central heresy about whether the commercial side of Christmas invented this memorable feast, or whether Christmas came first and the commercialism came later, as a kind of prosperous afterthought. The very idea that commercial folks could get together in a backroom to dream up a theology explaining the core idea of Christmas, then proceed to convince the world of its truth, all so that the merchants could make a bundle of money during the otherwise-dull winter solstice, is, on the face of it, absurd.
Shopkeepers did not, in their greed or entrepreneurship, dream up Christmas. Neither did theologians. It is the other way around. Christmas, being what it is, a gift of no merely human origin, is a boon to shopkeepers and a stimulus to theologians. It is closer to the truth to say that Christmas invented shopkeepers and theologians, than it is to say that shopkeepers and theologians manufactured Christianity. Shopkeepers antedated Christianity. In Africa and Asia today, the shopkeepers are most likely to be Hindus or Arabs or Chinese. So shopkeepers did not need Christianity to be shopkeepers. It seems less clear, however, whether theologians could exist without Christmas.
No theologian could invent Christmas from the fervid ponderings of his own mind. Too few in this guild can, in fact, accurately explain what Christmas is about once it was invented not by themselves. Many opponents of Christianity "would believe anything except Christianity." That is, many would do anything but understand what exactly it is that constitutes the precise explication of Christmas.
Some relation does exist between what we understand Christmas to be and how festively we celebrate it, or how inappropriately celebrate it, or refuse to celebrate it, as the case may be. Christmas customs and traditions should exist in order to explain more profoundly what the feast is about. Too often, however, they obscure what it is about. Unless they were inspired by the truth of the feast and lead back to it, customs can, if we are not careful, lead us away from the heart of Christmas.
An ex-student of mine was in town recently. She, an American, had married a Spaniard, has a daughter. Their family spent some time in Switzerland. She laughed that one year her daughter had three "Christmases" — St. Nicholas Day in Switzerland, Christmas Day in Philadelphia, and the Feast of the Three Kings in Spain. These are all gift=giving and receiving days.
The American Christmas, like its population, is a collection and mixture, even a hodge-podge, of Christmas traditions from all over the world rolled into one. We add our own touches with Bing Crosby's "White Christmas," the ubiquitous and improbable Rudolf, and "All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth."
Mexican traditions of the lighted candles in sand bags to guide the Holy Family to our homes are found in the southwest. We all have, brightened with the latest technology, German Christmas trees, when we do not have artificial ones, made in China. Some have the English Yule Logs. Chesterton thought that the modern Christmas mood was largely the invention of Dickens. Santa Claus, though himself from Bari in Italy via a town in Turkey, has Scandinavian origins. Some reactionary people actually have mangers and cribs. I was once in Oberammergau in Bavaria where they produce wonderful wood carvings of the Nativity scenes sold all over the world.
There are purists who only want such Nativity scenes, no pagan greenery. Likewise, we find and ideologues who want anything but Nativity scenes, especially where anyone can see them. The early Puritans in New England forbad Christmas. There was a time a couple of years ago when greeting someone with a cheery "Merry Christmas" violated your neighbor's constitutional right to your silence. No one wants to be reminded of the day. And we all know the madness of substituting "Holiday" Parties for "Christmas" Parties. I refuse to go to anything called a "Holiday" party during the Christmas season.
School systems seem to have taken the lead in driving out any reference to Christmas, even its name. "Winter" not "Christmas" breaks are in order. We fear not only the idea of Christmas, but the very word "Christmas." I sometimes suspect there is more here than meets the eye. It is not just a question of "imposing" Christmas on others, but the unsettling sense that a joy is connected with this feast that cannot be admitted to exist. If Christmas is not a natural "right" for everyone of whatever persuasion, it must be gradually prohibited as a private privilege for anyone.
At bottom, however, Christmas cannot be held or enjoyed except on its own terms, that is, except on condition of acknowledging what it is that we celebrate. Christmas not only means that a Child is born unto us, but that, because of this birth, this world is not sufficient to us, not our final home. And Christmas is the feast of the home, both our family home and our eternal home. We live in the first age in the history of the world, aside from Plato's Republic, that questions both the proper make-up of a home, with husband, wife, and children, and actually engineers alternatives to it.
We Prepare Ye...
Roughly, there are two contrary traditions about Christmas and how properly to celebrate it. One is the "expectation" approach, the waiting-for-something-to-happen time of the year, the longing for the real explanation of what we are. This season in the Church is called "Advent." It recalls the long preparation for the coming of Christ that we see in the Old Testament. In the 25th Chapter of Isaiah, we read, "On this mountain the Lord of hosts will provide for all peoples a feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines." These are menus we Christians anticipate for Christmas.
We are to renew its mood and atmosphere in the month before Christmas. Of course, if someone sees no such expectant thing in the Old Testament, then Christmas, as we Christians know it, must seem like an imaginary illusion. Christians hold that solid textual, historical, and theoretical foundations exist for what they maintain about the Birth of Christ in Bethlehem, who He was, where He came from, both His far-reaching origins in a Jewish family, and in His transcendent origin as the Word now made flesh, the Son of God, to dwell amongst us
The "anticipation" approach is one of expectation, of a hushness over the world, even of penance. Advent contains a sense both of our unworthiness and of our longings. "Veni, veni, Emmanuel, Captivum solve Israel...." Preparations for Christmas begin to be seen in the streets and shops around Thanksgiving time in this country. Even in towns and cities that insist on practicing paganism in their decorations, whose public squares are truly naked, with only lights and greens and tinsel, no crèches, no angels singing on high, it is difficult to avoid the impression that, nevertheless, something not yet here is coming in the stillness of the night, in the "Silent Night, Holy Night.". Indeed, in areas where the Nativity scenes are still allowed, or in homes and churches that have them, the full Manger Scene, with Joseph, Mary, and the Child, the shepherds, does not appear until Christmas Eve.
However, in most cities, usually a radio station or two are still free to play the well-known and not so well-known Christmas music, from the classic traditions to those of various ethnic origins, even liturgical music. It is not uncommon to find CD's or other forms of recorded music with all of this music performed by finest orchestras and vocalists to be best-sellers. But if one likes bluegrass or country music, these stations specializing in it are sometimes very good in keeping, playing, and indeed composing Christmas music. It may be easier to drive the Christ Child out of the public square than out of the airwaves.
In any case, plans are made, presents bought, cards sent, homes decorated. Students come home, relatives plan to meet. Christmas, as I hinted above, is a season for food and drink, egg nog, wassail. Traditions and memories are kept alive simply by the smell of mince-meat pie, or turkey, or popcorn balls, or "chestnuts roasting on an open fire." Reds and greens appear in our garb.
Still behind all of these preparations lies the expectation, the sense of something being given to us, something intended for us but about which we have no control. We are not worthy. It is a gift, not a reward, not something earned. Yet it comes because we sense something lacking to us. We await. No real appreciation of something can exist unless we also wait for it, wait in some awe.
The second tradition is what I might call the "celebration" tradition, the Twelve Days of Christmas, the days from Christmas to the Feast of the Magi, the Three Kings in January, the Feasts of Stephen, the Holy Innocents, Beckett, and good King Wenseslaus in-between, with the rather secular New Year's Day being thrown for good measure. The dating of Christmas does seem to have something to do with supplanting pagan feasts, but also, as Chesterton said, with keeping what is best in the pagan traditions. Like any birthday of any given human being, Christmas, also the birth of one of our kind, cannot be fathomed in one day. Yet its own day, Christmas Day, is the best day. A celebration is what we do when something beyond our powers or sometimes even beyond our comprehension happens to us, something that is addressed to the heart of things, to our very meaning, to our very souls.
Easter Will Come
Of course, both the anticipation and the celebration are essential to Christmas. Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem because of a "decree that went out from Caesar Augustus." How remarkable in the Gospel of Luke is this "coincidence," this linking of the first Roman emperor with the birth of the Son of Man in a manger, in that particular place at the origins of the House of David. But few knew of this event when it happened. Though angels were singing on high, it was a whole before a couple of Roman historians even hinted at it. Christmas is not a feast of great events in this world. Rather it is a feast that reminds that great things take place in small towns, in out of the way places, things that need time to grow, to flourish.
Rush Limbaugh one day talked of a book called The War Against Christmas. No doubt there is such a war. Christmas seems to bring out in some a certain kind of venom that strikes us Christians as bordering on the diabolical. "Why is this most tender of feasts subject to such resentment?" we wonder to ourselves. In these days of an often-intolerant tolerance, we hesitate to speculate. We know of the words spoken of this Child born amongst us that many would rise and fall because of Him. A sword would pierce the heart of His mother. He could not be ignored, even if rejected, perhaps especially if rejected. Such things go against the mood of our age, yet are more true in our age than ever before.
In the Breviary for Christmas Eve, we find a sermon of the great Augustine. "Awake, mankind!" he tells us. "For your sake God has become man.... I tell you again: for your sake, God became man." Is this the clue we need? "You would have suffered eternal death, had he not been born in time. Never would you have been freed from sinful flesh, had he not taken on himself the likeness of sinful flesh." We do not like to be reminded of our sinfulness. We do not like to know what is wrong so that we are left free to do what we will.
On Christmas Eve, our redemption is at hand. But it does not work itself out as we might like, as we would have done it if we were in charge. The shadow of the Cross hovers over the Manger. But what happens is for "our sake." We are to be "awake," almost as if it is possible for us to miss the most momentous thing that has happened to our kind. We can, indeed, choose not to see.
About Christmas an incredible concreteness is found. Little things must be done for ordinary people, by ordinary people, ourselves included. John says in his first letter, "This is what we proclaim to you, what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have touched — we speak of the word of life...." Shopkeepers did not invent Christmas. Neither did the theologians.
What we most associate Christmas with is a gift. A gift is not something we can demand, not something that is due to us. Ultimately, the structure of the universe is first to be understood as a gift. Who made Christmas? "The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us." It has never been put more succinctly. We can choose other explanations and no doubt we do. All gifts must be freely received by those to whom they are freely given. This is the principle upon which the universe is constructed.
— Father James V. Schall, S. J., is a professor of government at Georgetown University. He is author of, among other books, Another Sort of Learning.
Inventing Christmas
Here’s one Donald Trump didn’t come up with.
By Father James V. Schall
One writer against Christmas went so far as to say that the shopkeepers for their own commercial purposes alone sustain Christmas Day. I am not sure whether he said that the shopkeepers invented Christmas Day. Perhaps he thought that the shopkeepers invented Christianity. It is a quaint picture, the secret conclave between the cheese-monger, the poulterer, and the toy-shop keeper, in order to draw up a theology that shall convert all Europe and sell some of their goods. Opponents of Christianity would believe anything except Christianity. That the shopkeepers make Christmas is about as conceivable as that the confectioners make children. It is about as sane as that milliners manufacture women. — G. K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, January 13, 1906.
Exactly a century ago this Christmas-tide, Chesterton, with no little amusement, attacked the central heresy about whether the commercial side of Christmas invented this memorable feast, or whether Christmas came first and the commercialism came later, as a kind of prosperous afterthought. The very idea that commercial folks could get together in a backroom to dream up a theology explaining the core idea of Christmas, then proceed to convince the world of its truth, all so that the merchants could make a bundle of money during the otherwise-dull winter solstice, is, on the face of it, absurd.
Shopkeepers did not, in their greed or entrepreneurship, dream up Christmas. Neither did theologians. It is the other way around. Christmas, being what it is, a gift of no merely human origin, is a boon to shopkeepers and a stimulus to theologians. It is closer to the truth to say that Christmas invented shopkeepers and theologians, than it is to say that shopkeepers and theologians manufactured Christianity. Shopkeepers antedated Christianity. In Africa and Asia today, the shopkeepers are most likely to be Hindus or Arabs or Chinese. So shopkeepers did not need Christianity to be shopkeepers. It seems less clear, however, whether theologians could exist without Christmas.
No theologian could invent Christmas from the fervid ponderings of his own mind. Too few in this guild can, in fact, accurately explain what Christmas is about once it was invented not by themselves. Many opponents of Christianity "would believe anything except Christianity." That is, many would do anything but understand what exactly it is that constitutes the precise explication of Christmas.
Some relation does exist between what we understand Christmas to be and how festively we celebrate it, or how inappropriately celebrate it, or refuse to celebrate it, as the case may be. Christmas customs and traditions should exist in order to explain more profoundly what the feast is about. Too often, however, they obscure what it is about. Unless they were inspired by the truth of the feast and lead back to it, customs can, if we are not careful, lead us away from the heart of Christmas.
An ex-student of mine was in town recently. She, an American, had married a Spaniard, has a daughter. Their family spent some time in Switzerland. She laughed that one year her daughter had three "Christmases" — St. Nicholas Day in Switzerland, Christmas Day in Philadelphia, and the Feast of the Three Kings in Spain. These are all gift=giving and receiving days.
The American Christmas, like its population, is a collection and mixture, even a hodge-podge, of Christmas traditions from all over the world rolled into one. We add our own touches with Bing Crosby's "White Christmas," the ubiquitous and improbable Rudolf, and "All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth."
Mexican traditions of the lighted candles in sand bags to guide the Holy Family to our homes are found in the southwest. We all have, brightened with the latest technology, German Christmas trees, when we do not have artificial ones, made in China. Some have the English Yule Logs. Chesterton thought that the modern Christmas mood was largely the invention of Dickens. Santa Claus, though himself from Bari in Italy via a town in Turkey, has Scandinavian origins. Some reactionary people actually have mangers and cribs. I was once in Oberammergau in Bavaria where they produce wonderful wood carvings of the Nativity scenes sold all over the world.
There are purists who only want such Nativity scenes, no pagan greenery. Likewise, we find and ideologues who want anything but Nativity scenes, especially where anyone can see them. The early Puritans in New England forbad Christmas. There was a time a couple of years ago when greeting someone with a cheery "Merry Christmas" violated your neighbor's constitutional right to your silence. No one wants to be reminded of the day. And we all know the madness of substituting "Holiday" Parties for "Christmas" Parties. I refuse to go to anything called a "Holiday" party during the Christmas season.
School systems seem to have taken the lead in driving out any reference to Christmas, even its name. "Winter" not "Christmas" breaks are in order. We fear not only the idea of Christmas, but the very word "Christmas." I sometimes suspect there is more here than meets the eye. It is not just a question of "imposing" Christmas on others, but the unsettling sense that a joy is connected with this feast that cannot be admitted to exist. If Christmas is not a natural "right" for everyone of whatever persuasion, it must be gradually prohibited as a private privilege for anyone.
At bottom, however, Christmas cannot be held or enjoyed except on its own terms, that is, except on condition of acknowledging what it is that we celebrate. Christmas not only means that a Child is born unto us, but that, because of this birth, this world is not sufficient to us, not our final home. And Christmas is the feast of the home, both our family home and our eternal home. We live in the first age in the history of the world, aside from Plato's Republic, that questions both the proper make-up of a home, with husband, wife, and children, and actually engineers alternatives to it.
We Prepare Ye...
Roughly, there are two contrary traditions about Christmas and how properly to celebrate it. One is the "expectation" approach, the waiting-for-something-to-happen time of the year, the longing for the real explanation of what we are. This season in the Church is called "Advent." It recalls the long preparation for the coming of Christ that we see in the Old Testament. In the 25th Chapter of Isaiah, we read, "On this mountain the Lord of hosts will provide for all peoples a feast of rich food and choice wines, juicy, rich food and pure, choice wines." These are menus we Christians anticipate for Christmas.
We are to renew its mood and atmosphere in the month before Christmas. Of course, if someone sees no such expectant thing in the Old Testament, then Christmas, as we Christians know it, must seem like an imaginary illusion. Christians hold that solid textual, historical, and theoretical foundations exist for what they maintain about the Birth of Christ in Bethlehem, who He was, where He came from, both His far-reaching origins in a Jewish family, and in His transcendent origin as the Word now made flesh, the Son of God, to dwell amongst us
The "anticipation" approach is one of expectation, of a hushness over the world, even of penance. Advent contains a sense both of our unworthiness and of our longings. "Veni, veni, Emmanuel, Captivum solve Israel...." Preparations for Christmas begin to be seen in the streets and shops around Thanksgiving time in this country. Even in towns and cities that insist on practicing paganism in their decorations, whose public squares are truly naked, with only lights and greens and tinsel, no crèches, no angels singing on high, it is difficult to avoid the impression that, nevertheless, something not yet here is coming in the stillness of the night, in the "Silent Night, Holy Night.". Indeed, in areas where the Nativity scenes are still allowed, or in homes and churches that have them, the full Manger Scene, with Joseph, Mary, and the Child, the shepherds, does not appear until Christmas Eve.
However, in most cities, usually a radio station or two are still free to play the well-known and not so well-known Christmas music, from the classic traditions to those of various ethnic origins, even liturgical music. It is not uncommon to find CD's or other forms of recorded music with all of this music performed by finest orchestras and vocalists to be best-sellers. But if one likes bluegrass or country music, these stations specializing in it are sometimes very good in keeping, playing, and indeed composing Christmas music. It may be easier to drive the Christ Child out of the public square than out of the airwaves.
In any case, plans are made, presents bought, cards sent, homes decorated. Students come home, relatives plan to meet. Christmas, as I hinted above, is a season for food and drink, egg nog, wassail. Traditions and memories are kept alive simply by the smell of mince-meat pie, or turkey, or popcorn balls, or "chestnuts roasting on an open fire." Reds and greens appear in our garb.
Still behind all of these preparations lies the expectation, the sense of something being given to us, something intended for us but about which we have no control. We are not worthy. It is a gift, not a reward, not something earned. Yet it comes because we sense something lacking to us. We await. No real appreciation of something can exist unless we also wait for it, wait in some awe.
The second tradition is what I might call the "celebration" tradition, the Twelve Days of Christmas, the days from Christmas to the Feast of the Magi, the Three Kings in January, the Feasts of Stephen, the Holy Innocents, Beckett, and good King Wenseslaus in-between, with the rather secular New Year's Day being thrown for good measure. The dating of Christmas does seem to have something to do with supplanting pagan feasts, but also, as Chesterton said, with keeping what is best in the pagan traditions. Like any birthday of any given human being, Christmas, also the birth of one of our kind, cannot be fathomed in one day. Yet its own day, Christmas Day, is the best day. A celebration is what we do when something beyond our powers or sometimes even beyond our comprehension happens to us, something that is addressed to the heart of things, to our very meaning, to our very souls.
Easter Will Come
Of course, both the anticipation and the celebration are essential to Christmas. Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem because of a "decree that went out from Caesar Augustus." How remarkable in the Gospel of Luke is this "coincidence," this linking of the first Roman emperor with the birth of the Son of Man in a manger, in that particular place at the origins of the House of David. But few knew of this event when it happened. Though angels were singing on high, it was a whole before a couple of Roman historians even hinted at it. Christmas is not a feast of great events in this world. Rather it is a feast that reminds that great things take place in small towns, in out of the way places, things that need time to grow, to flourish.
Rush Limbaugh one day talked of a book called The War Against Christmas. No doubt there is such a war. Christmas seems to bring out in some a certain kind of venom that strikes us Christians as bordering on the diabolical. "Why is this most tender of feasts subject to such resentment?" we wonder to ourselves. In these days of an often-intolerant tolerance, we hesitate to speculate. We know of the words spoken of this Child born amongst us that many would rise and fall because of Him. A sword would pierce the heart of His mother. He could not be ignored, even if rejected, perhaps especially if rejected. Such things go against the mood of our age, yet are more true in our age than ever before.
In the Breviary for Christmas Eve, we find a sermon of the great Augustine. "Awake, mankind!" he tells us. "For your sake God has become man.... I tell you again: for your sake, God became man." Is this the clue we need? "You would have suffered eternal death, had he not been born in time. Never would you have been freed from sinful flesh, had he not taken on himself the likeness of sinful flesh." We do not like to be reminded of our sinfulness. We do not like to know what is wrong so that we are left free to do what we will.
On Christmas Eve, our redemption is at hand. But it does not work itself out as we might like, as we would have done it if we were in charge. The shadow of the Cross hovers over the Manger. But what happens is for "our sake." We are to be "awake," almost as if it is possible for us to miss the most momentous thing that has happened to our kind. We can, indeed, choose not to see.
About Christmas an incredible concreteness is found. Little things must be done for ordinary people, by ordinary people, ourselves included. John says in his first letter, "This is what we proclaim to you, what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have touched — we speak of the word of life...." Shopkeepers did not invent Christmas. Neither did the theologians.
What we most associate Christmas with is a gift. A gift is not something we can demand, not something that is due to us. Ultimately, the structure of the universe is first to be understood as a gift. Who made Christmas? "The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us." It has never been put more succinctly. We can choose other explanations and no doubt we do. All gifts must be freely received by those to whom they are freely given. This is the principle upon which the universe is constructed.
— Father James V. Schall, S. J., is a professor of government at Georgetown University. He is author of, among other books, Another Sort of Learning.
From Ignatius Insight:
Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Not Quite a Movie Review
By James Como
December 7, 2005
All my life I’ve loved movies, but only at age twenty did The Chronicles find me. I’ve spent much mental energy paying close attention to both, and now that they have met and that I’ve witnessed that meeting I am thrilled. We could get picky, but we would be picky indeed to fault this book-to-movie; such pickiness would say more about us than the meeting.
Like most people I’ve more often suffered over than been delighted by this sort of transmutation. In moving from printed page to my mind, the book becomes my own; and I know that you, another reader, have your own book too. Certainly our mental books overlap, but the differences between them are a big part of what keeps us talking. In moving from the printed page to the screen, however, the book must first hit my eyeballs and my ears. Two senses are assaulted, and that is no small thing. Twenty-five hundred years ago, Aristotle wrote in his Rhetoric that to be persuasive one should "set it before their [the audience’s] eyes." (He didn’t say "ears," but he didn’t have amplifiers.) He was right then and he’s still right, which is why movies are so irresistible: heavy-handed or not, spectacle up there on that big screen makes all the difference. (And note well: in his Poetics Aristotle included spectacle as one of the five major features of dramatic poetry.)
As I watch the book-to-movie I may be (in truth, I usually am) swept away — but no longer, as with my mental book, when the movie is done. Moreover, you and I and all of us will have seen more or less (though never exactly) the same spectacle, so our talk changes. We no longer discuss author X’s book but director Y’s movie; we no longer talk about our own mental books — the one we’ve taken solitary walks within and lived through — but about our shared spectacular experience.
The point: if we cherish the book, if we regard our mental book as what the author closely intended, and if the director gets that wrong — or worse, betrays it — well, then, we want to throttle the director, who is undoing not only author X’s cherished world but our very own mental book as well. Worse: now with Y’s betrayal out and about, anyone who had not read the book but has seen the movie will get it all wrong. These . . . these turnips . . . will not know that Y is a knucklehead, or worse.
Why, then, has the Narnia movie thrilled me? Faithful both to the substance and spirit of the book, it overdoes nothing. This matters enormously, for the great danger of lavish spending on the production of a movie with epic promise is excess. In this case, though, from deep meaning to sheer spectacle — with the effect of talking and exotic beasts somewhere in between — we behold ordinateness: this movie is fitting.
That is a lot not to have to worry about: a great relief, given my not-inordinate worry. How unlikely an accomplishment is this absence of excess — in how very many ways the movie should have been seriously overwrought, given all the temptations of greed, proselytizing, and vanity, and all the risks of writing, casting, formal complexity, and technical innovation — how unlikely an accomplishment this ordinateness is I leave for each of us who love the books to marvel over and to give thanks for. I do thank God, and all the people who labored. And — without quite knowing exactly what he did or how he functioned, what he contributed or (more importantly) what he prevented — we should probably thank Lewis’s stepson and a co-producer of the movie, Douglas Gresham, and I do.
All of which is not to say there has been (or is) nothing at all to worry about. Along with Lewis’s Narnia (and our mental correlative) and the movie, there is the Twilight Zone Narnia — the Narnia of publicity, marketing and media chatter which bears little relation to either of the first two.
Over here we have a schizophrenic sales pitch: on the one hand an Evangelical Narnia, with its study guides designed to awaken every sleeping dragon that Lewis had sneaked past, and on the other a perfectly non-Christian Narnia that, according to a version of one Gresham interview, couldn’t offend the most devout secularist because there is nothing Christian about it. Over there we have venomous conflict and willfully wrong-headed criticism: the opportunistic Philip K. Pullman (the Christophobe of His Dark Materials fame) and a few smart-aleck New York pundits with really loud megaphones. And bit further away — barely discernible but no longer merely on the horizon — we have a tarted up Narnia, including a new Narnia tale "inspired" by C. S. Lewis, a simplified version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and a growing pile of trivializing merchandise. In short, the books and the movie have become both a goldmine (and we really must ask of C. S. Lewis Pte Ltd, the copyright holder, How much is enough?) and a battleground.
In truth, however, although Lewis had an indisputably Protestant cast of mind, he did not have an Evangelical one. He limited his religious thinking, writing, speaking, and witnessing strictly to those venues he thought appropriate; he had many Catholic beliefs and practices; and it is doubtful he ever would have referred to himself as having been "born again." Furthermore, we know that he did not set out to write Christian propaganda when he wrote The Chronicles. In other words, unless you are of Pullman’s febrile ilk, you really don’t have much to worry about; and if you don’t believe that then just ask the many thousands of people who love Narnia and who aren’t Christians and who don’t see its Christianity and who don’t care that others do. If Lewis was a commando, "behind enemy lines" as he put it, surely his battlefield was less the culture-at-large than the heart of each of his readers.
In that light, I note finally Lewis’s great accomplishment with Narnia. We recall his famous late-night talk with Tolkien and Dyson in 1931, the one that resulted in Lewis realizing that a myth could remain a myth and still be a fact. What Lewis has done in The Chronicles is to re-mythologize Christianity, re-locating our response from the intellect to the imagination. That is, with his fairy tales — and we do well to recall that, according to Lewis, "sometimes fairy stories may say best what’s to be said" — Lewis has restored that stage just before facticity, or its potential, breaks through, that stretch of time when the longing evoked by the myth as such still beckons pure. Let everyone who sees this movie feel that, and then let each of them wonder . . .
Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Not Quite a Movie Review
By James Como
December 7, 2005
All my life I’ve loved movies, but only at age twenty did The Chronicles find me. I’ve spent much mental energy paying close attention to both, and now that they have met and that I’ve witnessed that meeting I am thrilled. We could get picky, but we would be picky indeed to fault this book-to-movie; such pickiness would say more about us than the meeting.
Like most people I’ve more often suffered over than been delighted by this sort of transmutation. In moving from printed page to my mind, the book becomes my own; and I know that you, another reader, have your own book too. Certainly our mental books overlap, but the differences between them are a big part of what keeps us talking. In moving from the printed page to the screen, however, the book must first hit my eyeballs and my ears. Two senses are assaulted, and that is no small thing. Twenty-five hundred years ago, Aristotle wrote in his Rhetoric that to be persuasive one should "set it before their [the audience’s] eyes." (He didn’t say "ears," but he didn’t have amplifiers.) He was right then and he’s still right, which is why movies are so irresistible: heavy-handed or not, spectacle up there on that big screen makes all the difference. (And note well: in his Poetics Aristotle included spectacle as one of the five major features of dramatic poetry.)
As I watch the book-to-movie I may be (in truth, I usually am) swept away — but no longer, as with my mental book, when the movie is done. Moreover, you and I and all of us will have seen more or less (though never exactly) the same spectacle, so our talk changes. We no longer discuss author X’s book but director Y’s movie; we no longer talk about our own mental books — the one we’ve taken solitary walks within and lived through — but about our shared spectacular experience.
The point: if we cherish the book, if we regard our mental book as what the author closely intended, and if the director gets that wrong — or worse, betrays it — well, then, we want to throttle the director, who is undoing not only author X’s cherished world but our very own mental book as well. Worse: now with Y’s betrayal out and about, anyone who had not read the book but has seen the movie will get it all wrong. These . . . these turnips . . . will not know that Y is a knucklehead, or worse.
Why, then, has the Narnia movie thrilled me? Faithful both to the substance and spirit of the book, it overdoes nothing. This matters enormously, for the great danger of lavish spending on the production of a movie with epic promise is excess. In this case, though, from deep meaning to sheer spectacle — with the effect of talking and exotic beasts somewhere in between — we behold ordinateness: this movie is fitting.
That is a lot not to have to worry about: a great relief, given my not-inordinate worry. How unlikely an accomplishment is this absence of excess — in how very many ways the movie should have been seriously overwrought, given all the temptations of greed, proselytizing, and vanity, and all the risks of writing, casting, formal complexity, and technical innovation — how unlikely an accomplishment this ordinateness is I leave for each of us who love the books to marvel over and to give thanks for. I do thank God, and all the people who labored. And — without quite knowing exactly what he did or how he functioned, what he contributed or (more importantly) what he prevented — we should probably thank Lewis’s stepson and a co-producer of the movie, Douglas Gresham, and I do.
All of which is not to say there has been (or is) nothing at all to worry about. Along with Lewis’s Narnia (and our mental correlative) and the movie, there is the Twilight Zone Narnia — the Narnia of publicity, marketing and media chatter which bears little relation to either of the first two.
Over here we have a schizophrenic sales pitch: on the one hand an Evangelical Narnia, with its study guides designed to awaken every sleeping dragon that Lewis had sneaked past, and on the other a perfectly non-Christian Narnia that, according to a version of one Gresham interview, couldn’t offend the most devout secularist because there is nothing Christian about it. Over there we have venomous conflict and willfully wrong-headed criticism: the opportunistic Philip K. Pullman (the Christophobe of His Dark Materials fame) and a few smart-aleck New York pundits with really loud megaphones. And bit further away — barely discernible but no longer merely on the horizon — we have a tarted up Narnia, including a new Narnia tale "inspired" by C. S. Lewis, a simplified version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and a growing pile of trivializing merchandise. In short, the books and the movie have become both a goldmine (and we really must ask of C. S. Lewis Pte Ltd, the copyright holder, How much is enough?) and a battleground.
In truth, however, although Lewis had an indisputably Protestant cast of mind, he did not have an Evangelical one. He limited his religious thinking, writing, speaking, and witnessing strictly to those venues he thought appropriate; he had many Catholic beliefs and practices; and it is doubtful he ever would have referred to himself as having been "born again." Furthermore, we know that he did not set out to write Christian propaganda when he wrote The Chronicles. In other words, unless you are of Pullman’s febrile ilk, you really don’t have much to worry about; and if you don’t believe that then just ask the many thousands of people who love Narnia and who aren’t Christians and who don’t see its Christianity and who don’t care that others do. If Lewis was a commando, "behind enemy lines" as he put it, surely his battlefield was less the culture-at-large than the heart of each of his readers.
In that light, I note finally Lewis’s great accomplishment with Narnia. We recall his famous late-night talk with Tolkien and Dyson in 1931, the one that resulted in Lewis realizing that a myth could remain a myth and still be a fact. What Lewis has done in The Chronicles is to re-mythologize Christianity, re-locating our response from the intellect to the imagination. That is, with his fairy tales — and we do well to recall that, according to Lewis, "sometimes fairy stories may say best what’s to be said" — Lewis has restored that stage just before facticity, or its potential, breaks through, that stretch of time when the longing evoked by the myth as such still beckons pure. Let everyone who sees this movie feel that, and then let each of them wonder . . .
From Jihad Watch:
Muslims Are Held to Lower Standard
by Robert Spencer
Posted Dec 21, 2005
In Gaza some Palestinians greeted news of Ariel Sharon’s stroke with the “V” for victory sign, gunfire into the air, and pastries.
Schadenfreude is a recurring motif of Palestinian life. Some cheered the 9/11 attacks, passing out candy on that occasion as well. Many Palestinians have celebrated suicide bombings, including even mothers rejoicing in the deaths of their own children.
Much of this, of course, stems from a culture that celebrates death. As Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, a Palestinian Authority cleric, stated: “We tell them, in as much as you love life, the Muslim loves death and martyrdom.” That is the rationale behind the glorification of suicide bombers as heroes. They are celebrated not because they kill themselves but because they kill infidels as well. 9/11 and Sharon’s illness are worth celebrating because they represent more of the same: the defeat and destruction of the enemy.
The culture of death is not limited to Palestinians: an Afghan jihadist once declared: “We are not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death.”
In most places and times throughout history one who loves death has been considered at very least unbalanced. And rather than rejoicing in the misfortunes of their enemies, Americans rebuilt Germany and Japan after World War II. Personal graciousness between public opponents has for ages been a hallmark of civilization; indeed, even aides to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wished Sharon good health.
The gesture of Abbas’ office notwithstanding, the Palestinian culture of death and hatred casts a shadow over the future of the entire region. The prospects for a negotiated settlement and lasting peace are slim to none when so many on one side so openly and unapologetically hates the other and rejoices in its distress. Yet the international community has generally turned a blind eye. Although deeply concerned about the trumped-up, politically manipulative concept of “Islamophobia,” the United Nations has paid scant attention to the phenomenon of suicide terror -- indeed, criticism of suicide bombers has been silenced at the UN in Geneva by Islamic delegates.
This kind of inconsistency demonstrates that world opinion demands a higher moral accountability from the West than it does from the Islamic world. Were Americans or Israelis to hand out pastries and fire guns in the air at the illness or death of a Muslim leader, international opprobrium would be swift and sure -- particularly from the Leftist spokesmen who view all conflicts between the Islamic world and the West as having been caused by Western outrages.
There is an unacknowledged layer of ethnocentrism in this. The international media and governing bodies seem to assume that Palestinians and other Muslims are simply not capable of hewing to the moral and civilizational standards to which Westerners are held.
Less is expected of them. American military personnel who commit crimes at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere are excoriated by world opinion and prosecuted; immensely greater crimes by Muslim terror groups are simply a reaction to Western provocations -- witness the post-9/11 remark by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal when he gave ten million dollars to New York City. He asked the U.S. to “reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”
Rudolph Giuliani returned the Prince’s check, deploring the notion that anything could justify the 9/11 attacks. But the prince’s views are widespread in the West (and no one at Georgetown or Harvard seemed to mind when he just gave $20 million to each).
No one seems concerned about the fact that by tolerating joy at Sharon’s illness among Palestinians and the culture of death in general, international authorities are postponing, perhaps forever, any chance for so many Palestinians and Muslims to adopt the moral and ethical standards held by the rest of the world. By continuing to expect less from them, the West ensures that it will receive less from them. As a result, the global conflict, fueled as it is by the hatred that is spread so energetically among Muslims today, will doubtless not only continue to grow, but to escalate.
Muslims Are Held to Lower Standard
by Robert Spencer
Posted Dec 21, 2005
In Gaza some Palestinians greeted news of Ariel Sharon’s stroke with the “V” for victory sign, gunfire into the air, and pastries.
Schadenfreude is a recurring motif of Palestinian life. Some cheered the 9/11 attacks, passing out candy on that occasion as well. Many Palestinians have celebrated suicide bombings, including even mothers rejoicing in the deaths of their own children.
Much of this, of course, stems from a culture that celebrates death. As Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri, a Palestinian Authority cleric, stated: “We tell them, in as much as you love life, the Muslim loves death and martyrdom.” That is the rationale behind the glorification of suicide bombers as heroes. They are celebrated not because they kill themselves but because they kill infidels as well. 9/11 and Sharon’s illness are worth celebrating because they represent more of the same: the defeat and destruction of the enemy.
The culture of death is not limited to Palestinians: an Afghan jihadist once declared: “We are not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death.”
In most places and times throughout history one who loves death has been considered at very least unbalanced. And rather than rejoicing in the misfortunes of their enemies, Americans rebuilt Germany and Japan after World War II. Personal graciousness between public opponents has for ages been a hallmark of civilization; indeed, even aides to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas wished Sharon good health.
The gesture of Abbas’ office notwithstanding, the Palestinian culture of death and hatred casts a shadow over the future of the entire region. The prospects for a negotiated settlement and lasting peace are slim to none when so many on one side so openly and unapologetically hates the other and rejoices in its distress. Yet the international community has generally turned a blind eye. Although deeply concerned about the trumped-up, politically manipulative concept of “Islamophobia,” the United Nations has paid scant attention to the phenomenon of suicide terror -- indeed, criticism of suicide bombers has been silenced at the UN in Geneva by Islamic delegates.
This kind of inconsistency demonstrates that world opinion demands a higher moral accountability from the West than it does from the Islamic world. Were Americans or Israelis to hand out pastries and fire guns in the air at the illness or death of a Muslim leader, international opprobrium would be swift and sure -- particularly from the Leftist spokesmen who view all conflicts between the Islamic world and the West as having been caused by Western outrages.
There is an unacknowledged layer of ethnocentrism in this. The international media and governing bodies seem to assume that Palestinians and other Muslims are simply not capable of hewing to the moral and civilizational standards to which Westerners are held.
Less is expected of them. American military personnel who commit crimes at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere are excoriated by world opinion and prosecuted; immensely greater crimes by Muslim terror groups are simply a reaction to Western provocations -- witness the post-9/11 remark by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal when he gave ten million dollars to New York City. He asked the U.S. to “reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”
Rudolph Giuliani returned the Prince’s check, deploring the notion that anything could justify the 9/11 attacks. But the prince’s views are widespread in the West (and no one at Georgetown or Harvard seemed to mind when he just gave $20 million to each).
No one seems concerned about the fact that by tolerating joy at Sharon’s illness among Palestinians and the culture of death in general, international authorities are postponing, perhaps forever, any chance for so many Palestinians and Muslims to adopt the moral and ethical standards held by the rest of the world. By continuing to expect less from them, the West ensures that it will receive less from them. As a result, the global conflict, fueled as it is by the hatred that is spread so energetically among Muslims today, will doubtless not only continue to grow, but to escalate.
From National Review Online:
It’s God or Darwin
Competing designs.
By David Klinghoffer
December 21, 2005
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that disparaging Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?
Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is "an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International," according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe what she likes, but it's worth noting.
Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately I've been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the truth speak for themselves.
My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate "the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world." In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! "Safety demands that religion be put in cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for."
In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about "mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."
Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies" class and ousted him as department chairman.
I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore (obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God'] part."
God and Darwin
Admittedly, there are those in the Darwin community who argue that Darwinism is compatible with religion. Judge Jones himself, in the Kitzmiller decision, writes that
many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" — by discovering God's creative powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every presumed miracle, where will that leave God?
Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.
Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.
It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.
Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not — no more than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is "to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a "Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism.
In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.
In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.
In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.
— David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a columnist for the Jewish Forward. His most recent book is Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History. His website is www.davidklinghoffer.com.
It’s God or Darwin
Competing designs.
By David Klinghoffer
December 21, 2005
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that disparaging Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?
Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is "an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International," according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe what she likes, but it's worth noting.
Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately I've been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the truth speak for themselves.
My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate "the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world." In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! "Safety demands that religion be put in cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for."
In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about "mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."
Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies" class and ousted him as department chairman.
I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore (obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God'] part."
God and Darwin
Admittedly, there are those in the Darwin community who argue that Darwinism is compatible with religion. Judge Jones himself, in the Kitzmiller decision, writes that
many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" — by discovering God's creative powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every presumed miracle, where will that leave God?
Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.
Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.
It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.
Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not — no more than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is "to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a "Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism.
In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.
In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.
In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.
— David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a columnist for the Jewish Forward. His most recent book is Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History. His website is www.davidklinghoffer.com.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
From Mere Comments at the Touchstone website:
Big Bang of the Gavel vs. ID
Joe Loconte, William E. Simon Fellow in religion at the Heritage Foundation, responded to the recent federal court ruling banning intelligent design from science classrooms in the Dover, Pa., school district with this commentary on National Public Radio's All Things Considered. (This is the audio file.) The text of his comments:
The Dogmas of Science
By Joseph Loconte
Defenders of evolution are calling the federal court ruling in the Dover case the death knell for Intelligent Design. District Court Judge John Jones even criticized intelligent design theory as “nothing less than the progeny of creationism.”
Not so fast: We’ve heard declarations like that before.
Back in the 1920s, a new scientific theory emerged to explain the origins of the universe. Its advocates claimed that the facts were on their side. But their theory seemed to echo the Biblical story of Creation. For decades, many scientists said it looked like a subversive attempt to mix science and religion.
A physics editor for Nature magazine denounced the theory in part because he said “creationists and those of similar persuasions” would be encouraged by its implications.
The controversial new theory would come to be called the “Big Bang.”
At the time, however, most scientists believed the universe had no beginning point, that it was static, neither expanding nor contracting. And they let loose a hailstorm of criticism—even as the evidence for the Big Bang kept piling up.
Many scientists, distressed by the religious implications of the theory, offered some pretty wacky alternatives. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, in an effort to explain how a universe with no starting point could be as dense as ours, claimed that hydrogen was continually being created—from nothing. It just came into existence. Hoyle’s “steady state” theory was a dead end.
Even Albert Einstein searched hard for another explanation. He introduced, somewhat capriciously, a “cosmological constant” into his equations to counter the argument for an expanding universe. “I have not yet fallen in the hands of priests,” he wrote. He later admitted it was the greatest mistake of his career.
By the 1960s, however, evidence for the Big Bang seemed overwhelming, and it finally gained widespread support by the scientific establishment. It ranks as one of the greatest achievements of contemporary physics.
Like Fox Mulder from the television show The X-Files, some scientists just want to believe—not in God, but in his absence, no matter what the evidence suggests.
The Intelligent Design theory is an effort to decide, by empirical observation, whether the apparent design in nature observed by scientists is actual design. Is the astonishing complexity of life more likely to be the product of an organizing intelligence, or can it reasonably be explained by chance and mechanical natural laws?
I’m neither a physicist nor a fundamentalist. But it seems to me that the court ruling in the Dover case claims that the question of Intelligent Design is settled. But the history of scientific ideas reminds us that dogma can be held as easily by the scientist as by the priest.
Big Bang of the Gavel vs. ID
Joe Loconte, William E. Simon Fellow in religion at the Heritage Foundation, responded to the recent federal court ruling banning intelligent design from science classrooms in the Dover, Pa., school district with this commentary on National Public Radio's All Things Considered. (This is the audio file.) The text of his comments:
The Dogmas of Science
By Joseph Loconte
Defenders of evolution are calling the federal court ruling in the Dover case the death knell for Intelligent Design. District Court Judge John Jones even criticized intelligent design theory as “nothing less than the progeny of creationism.”
Not so fast: We’ve heard declarations like that before.
Back in the 1920s, a new scientific theory emerged to explain the origins of the universe. Its advocates claimed that the facts were on their side. But their theory seemed to echo the Biblical story of Creation. For decades, many scientists said it looked like a subversive attempt to mix science and religion.
A physics editor for Nature magazine denounced the theory in part because he said “creationists and those of similar persuasions” would be encouraged by its implications.
The controversial new theory would come to be called the “Big Bang.”
At the time, however, most scientists believed the universe had no beginning point, that it was static, neither expanding nor contracting. And they let loose a hailstorm of criticism—even as the evidence for the Big Bang kept piling up.
Many scientists, distressed by the religious implications of the theory, offered some pretty wacky alternatives. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, in an effort to explain how a universe with no starting point could be as dense as ours, claimed that hydrogen was continually being created—from nothing. It just came into existence. Hoyle’s “steady state” theory was a dead end.
Even Albert Einstein searched hard for another explanation. He introduced, somewhat capriciously, a “cosmological constant” into his equations to counter the argument for an expanding universe. “I have not yet fallen in the hands of priests,” he wrote. He later admitted it was the greatest mistake of his career.
By the 1960s, however, evidence for the Big Bang seemed overwhelming, and it finally gained widespread support by the scientific establishment. It ranks as one of the greatest achievements of contemporary physics.
Like Fox Mulder from the television show The X-Files, some scientists just want to believe—not in God, but in his absence, no matter what the evidence suggests.
The Intelligent Design theory is an effort to decide, by empirical observation, whether the apparent design in nature observed by scientists is actual design. Is the astonishing complexity of life more likely to be the product of an organizing intelligence, or can it reasonably be explained by chance and mechanical natural laws?
I’m neither a physicist nor a fundamentalist. But it seems to me that the court ruling in the Dover case claims that the question of Intelligent Design is settled. But the history of scientific ideas reminds us that dogma can be held as easily by the scientist as by the priest.
From National Review Online:
The Christmas Songs
Just like the ones I used to know.
By Doug Gamble
While grinches continue their campaign to eliminate the word "Christmas" from the national vocabulary and drive the holiday and its symbols underground, they have yet to have any appreciable effect on Christmas music on the airwaves.
At least for now, Yule-song lyrics have not been changed to "I'm dreaming of a white holiday," "It's beginning to look a lot like winter solstice," or "I'll be home for the seasonal celebration." And not only does Christmas music continue to pour forth from radio stations; some around the country have embraced an "all Christmas music all the time" format lasting from the day after Thanksgiving until midnight on December 25.
Earlier this month, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers released results of a survey to identify the most-performed Christmas songs in the first five years of the 21st Century. Not only is the list comprised of the expected old chestnuts, but the number-one song is literally that, "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire," officially titled "The Christmas Song."
Others making up the top ten are: "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," "Winter Wonderland," "White Christmas," "Let it Snow," "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer," "Jingle Bell Rock," "I'll be Home for Christmas" and "Little Drummer Boy."
"The Christmas Song" was written in 1945 by a 19-year-old Mel Torme and collaborator Bob Wells during a sweltering summer day in Palm Springs. They decided a way to cool down was to write a Yuletide tune, which they dashed off in a mere 40 minutes.
Singing cowboy Gene Autry is associated with three big Christmas hits, including one he almost passed up. When writer Johnny Marks presented him with "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" in 1940, Autry called it the silliest song he ever heard. He had to be talked into recording it, doing it in one take and then washing his hands of it. He apparently changed his opinion of it soon thereafter, though, when it sold two million records in its first year.
In 1947, Autry recorded a song he had co-written, "Here Comes Santa Claus," inspired by the anticipatory shouts of children lining Hollywood Blvd. as he rode ahead of the Santa float in the Hollywood Christmas Parade. It no doubt drives the ACLU crazy that the song contains both the words "God" and "Lord," the only Christmas song, as opposed to a carol, to do so. Autry followed it with "Frosty the Snowman," penned by Jack Nelson and Steve Rollins in 1949.
When Bob Hope decided he wanted a Christmas song included in his 1951 movie The Lemon Drop Kid, he turned to the song-writing team of Jay Livingstone and Ray Evans, who balked at first, protesting that it was an almost impossible task because all the great Christmas songs had already been written. What they eventually came up with wasn't too shabby, the now-classic "Silver Bells."
Some Christmas songs made their debut during wartime, including a longing for home in 1943's "I'll Be Home for Christmas," by Kim Gannon, Walter Kent, and Buck Ram. "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," by Ralph Blane and Hugh Martin, was introduced in the1943 Judy Garland movie Meet Me in St. Louis and Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" was first sung by Bing Crosby in the 1942 movie Holiday Inn.
As originally written, the Garland song began grimly with, "Have yourself a merry little Christmas. It may be your last." She so hated those five words, the lyrics were changed to, "Let your heart be light." But taken as a whole, it is still one of the most poignant Christmas songs ever written, with an undercurrent of melancholy that captures the way many people feel about this time of year.
Despite its fifth-place standing on ASCAP's list of most-performed seasonal songs over the last five years, "White Christmas" is the chairman of the board of Christmas songs. It is the most-recorded song in history, with Crosby's version alone selling 31 million copies. It has been recorded by everyone from Frank Sinatra and Doris Day to Elvis Presley and Kiss.
"White Christmas" held the record as the top-selling song of all time from its release in 1942 until it was eclipsed by Elton John's horrid song about Princess Diana following her 1997 death, "Candle in the Wind." Not even original, the song was a derivative of one he had written about Marilyn Monroe.
Five years after "White Christmas" was first recorded, Crosby went back in the studio to do it again, because the master version was worn out after millions of reproductions. It is the 1947 version we are mostly familiar with, with Crosby's voice sounding slightly deeper than when he first recorded it.
While some uncertainty surrounds the origins of "White Christmas," many music historians believe Irving Berlin wrote it during the 1937 Christmas period when staying at the Beverly Hills Hotel. He was making a movie at the time, and was homesick for his family, New York, and its seasonal snow. After it was written, the song sat in a drawer for five years.
But if "White Christmas" has done much to fuel the enjoyment of Christmas celebrants around the world, what it did for our troops overseas during World War II is inestimable. Brought to troops in the form of 78-r.p.m. records contained in "recreation kits" supplied by the military, heard on Armed Forces Radio and played on jukeboxes at PX stores and USO halls, it served as a powerful reminder of why they were fighting.
The Buffalo Courier-Express editorialized, "When Irving Berlin set people dreaming of a White Christmas he provided a forcible reminder that we are fighting for the right to dream and memories to dream about."
As expressed by author Jody Rosen in his book, White Christmas, the Story of an American song, "'White Christmas' never mentioned the war, yet it was a potent wartime anthem, inciting patriotism in its most primal form: homesickness." He adds, "With its mystical vision of the home to which they longed to return, 'White Christmas' was, for many American soldiers, a 'why we fight' anthem that was true to life." It was more popular with troops than, "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition," and other fighting songs.
Little known is the fact it was actually the unprecedented demand for "White Christmas" by overseas troops in 1942 that started the song on its journey to the pinnacle of the music charts here at home. On November 21, it began an unprecedented ten-week reign atop the Hit Parade.
On overseas trips to perform at USO shows, Crosby was always asked to do his signature song, no matter the season. Rosen tells of a Crosby appearance before a paratroop unit in France where a gruff, square-jawed sergeant approached him before the show and asked if he was going to sing "White Christmas." When Crosby assured him he would, the sergeant said he would have to duck out. "I'll listen from behind the portable kitchen," he said. "It's no good for the men's morale to see their sergeant crying."
This Christmas season again sees Americans fighting overseas. I haven't come across any polls on the subject, but I have to believe that "White Christmas" and other seasonal songs mean as much to our troops now as they did to their counterparts on earlier battlefields.
The themes and words of many Christmas songs beautifully express the way of life we hold dear. Our country is blessed to have men and women who have always been willing to sacrifice to preserve it, including the sacrifice of being far away from home and hearth during what Andy Williams famously calls "The most wonderful time of the year."
— Doug Gamble is a former writer for Bob Hope, as well as for former presidents Reagan and Bush 41. He is also the writer of the song, "It's Happening in Monterey," which made its radio debut on Dec. 4. He lives in California.
The Christmas Songs
Just like the ones I used to know.
By Doug Gamble
While grinches continue their campaign to eliminate the word "Christmas" from the national vocabulary and drive the holiday and its symbols underground, they have yet to have any appreciable effect on Christmas music on the airwaves.
At least for now, Yule-song lyrics have not been changed to "I'm dreaming of a white holiday," "It's beginning to look a lot like winter solstice," or "I'll be home for the seasonal celebration." And not only does Christmas music continue to pour forth from radio stations; some around the country have embraced an "all Christmas music all the time" format lasting from the day after Thanksgiving until midnight on December 25.
Earlier this month, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers released results of a survey to identify the most-performed Christmas songs in the first five years of the 21st Century. Not only is the list comprised of the expected old chestnuts, but the number-one song is literally that, "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire," officially titled "The Christmas Song."
Others making up the top ten are: "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," "Winter Wonderland," "White Christmas," "Let it Snow," "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer," "Jingle Bell Rock," "I'll be Home for Christmas" and "Little Drummer Boy."
"The Christmas Song" was written in 1945 by a 19-year-old Mel Torme and collaborator Bob Wells during a sweltering summer day in Palm Springs. They decided a way to cool down was to write a Yuletide tune, which they dashed off in a mere 40 minutes.
Singing cowboy Gene Autry is associated with three big Christmas hits, including one he almost passed up. When writer Johnny Marks presented him with "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" in 1940, Autry called it the silliest song he ever heard. He had to be talked into recording it, doing it in one take and then washing his hands of it. He apparently changed his opinion of it soon thereafter, though, when it sold two million records in its first year.
In 1947, Autry recorded a song he had co-written, "Here Comes Santa Claus," inspired by the anticipatory shouts of children lining Hollywood Blvd. as he rode ahead of the Santa float in the Hollywood Christmas Parade. It no doubt drives the ACLU crazy that the song contains both the words "God" and "Lord," the only Christmas song, as opposed to a carol, to do so. Autry followed it with "Frosty the Snowman," penned by Jack Nelson and Steve Rollins in 1949.
When Bob Hope decided he wanted a Christmas song included in his 1951 movie The Lemon Drop Kid, he turned to the song-writing team of Jay Livingstone and Ray Evans, who balked at first, protesting that it was an almost impossible task because all the great Christmas songs had already been written. What they eventually came up with wasn't too shabby, the now-classic "Silver Bells."
Some Christmas songs made their debut during wartime, including a longing for home in 1943's "I'll Be Home for Christmas," by Kim Gannon, Walter Kent, and Buck Ram. "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," by Ralph Blane and Hugh Martin, was introduced in the1943 Judy Garland movie Meet Me in St. Louis and Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" was first sung by Bing Crosby in the 1942 movie Holiday Inn.
As originally written, the Garland song began grimly with, "Have yourself a merry little Christmas. It may be your last." She so hated those five words, the lyrics were changed to, "Let your heart be light." But taken as a whole, it is still one of the most poignant Christmas songs ever written, with an undercurrent of melancholy that captures the way many people feel about this time of year.
Despite its fifth-place standing on ASCAP's list of most-performed seasonal songs over the last five years, "White Christmas" is the chairman of the board of Christmas songs. It is the most-recorded song in history, with Crosby's version alone selling 31 million copies. It has been recorded by everyone from Frank Sinatra and Doris Day to Elvis Presley and Kiss.
"White Christmas" held the record as the top-selling song of all time from its release in 1942 until it was eclipsed by Elton John's horrid song about Princess Diana following her 1997 death, "Candle in the Wind." Not even original, the song was a derivative of one he had written about Marilyn Monroe.
Five years after "White Christmas" was first recorded, Crosby went back in the studio to do it again, because the master version was worn out after millions of reproductions. It is the 1947 version we are mostly familiar with, with Crosby's voice sounding slightly deeper than when he first recorded it.
While some uncertainty surrounds the origins of "White Christmas," many music historians believe Irving Berlin wrote it during the 1937 Christmas period when staying at the Beverly Hills Hotel. He was making a movie at the time, and was homesick for his family, New York, and its seasonal snow. After it was written, the song sat in a drawer for five years.
But if "White Christmas" has done much to fuel the enjoyment of Christmas celebrants around the world, what it did for our troops overseas during World War II is inestimable. Brought to troops in the form of 78-r.p.m. records contained in "recreation kits" supplied by the military, heard on Armed Forces Radio and played on jukeboxes at PX stores and USO halls, it served as a powerful reminder of why they were fighting.
The Buffalo Courier-Express editorialized, "When Irving Berlin set people dreaming of a White Christmas he provided a forcible reminder that we are fighting for the right to dream and memories to dream about."
As expressed by author Jody Rosen in his book, White Christmas, the Story of an American song, "'White Christmas' never mentioned the war, yet it was a potent wartime anthem, inciting patriotism in its most primal form: homesickness." He adds, "With its mystical vision of the home to which they longed to return, 'White Christmas' was, for many American soldiers, a 'why we fight' anthem that was true to life." It was more popular with troops than, "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition," and other fighting songs.
Little known is the fact it was actually the unprecedented demand for "White Christmas" by overseas troops in 1942 that started the song on its journey to the pinnacle of the music charts here at home. On November 21, it began an unprecedented ten-week reign atop the Hit Parade.
On overseas trips to perform at USO shows, Crosby was always asked to do his signature song, no matter the season. Rosen tells of a Crosby appearance before a paratroop unit in France where a gruff, square-jawed sergeant approached him before the show and asked if he was going to sing "White Christmas." When Crosby assured him he would, the sergeant said he would have to duck out. "I'll listen from behind the portable kitchen," he said. "It's no good for the men's morale to see their sergeant crying."
This Christmas season again sees Americans fighting overseas. I haven't come across any polls on the subject, but I have to believe that "White Christmas" and other seasonal songs mean as much to our troops now as they did to their counterparts on earlier battlefields.
The themes and words of many Christmas songs beautifully express the way of life we hold dear. Our country is blessed to have men and women who have always been willing to sacrifice to preserve it, including the sacrifice of being far away from home and hearth during what Andy Williams famously calls "The most wonderful time of the year."
— Doug Gamble is a former writer for Bob Hope, as well as for former presidents Reagan and Bush 41. He is also the writer of the song, "It's Happening in Monterey," which made its radio debut on Dec. 4. He lives in California.
From Replacement Level Yankees Weblog:
Johnny B. Good Enough
by Larry Mahnken
Stop it, stop it, stop it. Shutup, shutup, shutup. You shouldn't be
complaining about this one. The Yankees just won the AL East, and
vastly improved their chances of winning the World Series.
No, Johnny Damon isn't worth $13 million a year, or even close to it.
More like $7 million or $8 million, but it's not your money, and their
payroll isn't (and won't be) close enough that this will hamper their
ability to sign anyone this season or next.
This isn't Tony Womack or Jaret Wright who they brought in, a player
coming off a flukish year who looks to the team to be far better than
he is, this is a player who is actually good.
As sabermetrics has entered the mainstream, I've heard more and more
arguments that are based, seemingly, on a half-understanding of
sabermetric principles. Damon seems to be a whole lot of them put
together.
Damon is 32 and will be 36 at the end of the deal, similar to Bernie
Williams. His defense is based largely on speed and he has a very,
very, very weak arm. Sound familiar?
Well, it's not the same thing. Yeah, Bernie had lost all defensive
value by age 33, but his defense was based entirely on his speed.
Damon has a distinct advantage over Bernie: he actually knows how to
play center. When Bernie couldn't outrun his mistakes, those mistakes
killed the team. Damon soon won't be able to outrun his mistakes, but
he won't make nearly as many as Bernie does. Think about how much
better the Yankees would have been had Bernie taken the right route to
the ball most of the time.
And it needs to be pointed out that Bernie was hitting great at the
start of 2003 when he hurt his knee. Had he not hurt his knee, there's
good reason to believe he'd still be a good hitter -- and good reason
to believe that Damon will still be a good hitter for a centerfielder
at the end of this deal. It is only four years -- it'll be over before
you know it.
Rating by straight OPS among qualifield MLB centerfielders, Damon
ranked 5th last year, 5th in 2004, 13th in a lousy 2003, 9th in 2002,
11th in a lousy 2001, 6th in 2000. None of the players rated above him
the last two seasons were available to the Yankees. Turn OPS into EqA,
which includes Damon's excellent baserunning and those ratings are
5th, 3rd, 16th, 7th, 23rd, 7th.
I know how my friends look at it, they're inclined to do the same as I
initially did. 16th! 23rd! We're ruined!
Well, look at the last two years. Look at four of those six seasons --
we got one of the best hitting centerfielders in the game, and the
best available. Will he be that good over the course of his contract?
Probably not, but I'd bet good money that he'll be closer to those
best years than those worst years.
Is he a better leadoff hitter than Derek Jeter? No, of course not,
because there is probably no better leadoff hitter right now than
Derek Jeter. But is the fact that he never has had an OBP near .400
really a killer? Newsflash: that's not the standard, and it shouldn't
be the standard.
Again, this isn't Womack batting first when he should be batting
ninth. This isn't a guy stealing 100 PAs from hitters much better than
him, this is a guy stealing, maybe, a dozen PAs from better hitters.
Frankly, Damon's best spot on this team is leadoff -- that's where he
should be batting.
Look at this likely lineup:
CF Damon
SS Jeter
3B Rodriguez
RF Sheffield
1B Giambi
LF Matsui
C Posada
2B Cano
DH Williams
Compare it to a likely lineup with Damon not batting leadoff:
SS Jeter
3B Rodriguez
RF Sheffield
1B Giambi
LF Matsui
C Posada
CF Damon
2B Cano
DH Williams
The first one looks more impressive, at least to me. 1-5, the Yankees
are stronger in the second lineup than the first, but in the second
lineup Damon is pushed to, basically, an RBI spot. Not a spot where
he'll get a lot of RBIs, but a place where that'll be where most of
his value will come in. Getting on base, Cano and Williams won't be
driving him in a lot, and while Damon hits about 35 doubles a year and
10-15 homers, he won't really be driving Matsui or Posada home. In the
7th spot, his value is less.
And what of Jeter through Matsui? What's the gain there? Well, there
certainly is some, they all gain 10 PAs or so. But come on, that's not
really much.
Really, the best spot for Damon is either first or second, and the
better hitter (Jeter) really should be batting second. This isn't
Womack, where he shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the lineup, and
preferably not in the lineup at all, and this isn't Soriano, where his
value was minimized by batting him leadoff, this is a situation where
the player's value to the team is maximized by batting him leadoff,
and he's worthy of hitting there.
He gets on base enough. His OBP is usually above .350, he steals a
good number of bases at, over the past 4 seasons, an 82% success rate.
He hits doubles, but not many homers. He puts himself in position for
the team's betst hitters to drive him home -- he's scored over 100
runs 8 years in a row, averaging 114 runs scored a season. No, he's
not as good as Jeter, but he's good.
Seriously, what did you guys prefer? Jason Michaels? Yes, he could be
very good for them -- better than Damon, and he wouldn't cost $13
million -- but he's not freely available. The Yankees will have to
trade to get him (which the still can -- they really could use another
backup outfielder), but they have competition for him -- and unlike
with Damon, they don't have the ability to outbid their competitors.
They just don't have the chips.
Next, replacement level. Last year, Damon's WARP3 was 6.9, 8.2 in
2004, 6.3 in '03 and 7.1 in '02. As it stands, the Red Sox are faced
with a replacement level centefielder to replace Damon -- in signing
Damon the Yankees have likely taken 6 wins away from the Red Sox.
They'll likely make a trade, but probably have to deal Manny Ramirez
to get someone good. In the end, they're worse.
Damon replaces Bernie Williams, whose WARP3 last year was 3.1. In
other words, Damon improves the Yankees by three or four wins
immediately, and perhaps by as many as ten wins over the Red Sox.
TEN WINS. Think about all the moves that have happened this offseason
with Boston and the Yankees, think about the moves that happened last
season. Did any single move shift the the balance of power by ten
wins? Or even close to that? No. Purely measuring the AL East, this is
the biggest move for the Yankees in the last decade.
OK, so the world doesn't end in the AL East, but this move does make
them heavy favorites to win the division again, in my opinion. More
than that, it seals up the gaping hole they had in centerfield, which
has cost them so dearly in the postseason the past four seasons.
Defense isn't vital over the course of the regular season -- you can
make up for it with offense as the Yankees have the past four years --
but in a short series, one bad defensive play can cost you a game, and
with it a series. Damon will make fewer of those bad defensive plays,
and he helps the offense, too.
Damon's signing also means that it's "safe" to sign Bernie. Yeah, he's
not really a very good option at DH, but that's all he'll be. Torre
will never bench Damon to put Bernie back in center like he would have
with Crosby -- like he did with Lofton -- so we'll never have to
suffer that sight again.
The Yankees entered the offseason with two pressing needs: relief
pitching and centefield, center being the bigger of the two problems.
Let this be clear: there was NO better option available to the Yankees
this offseason than Johnny Damon. None.
They've signed Kyle Farnsworth, who should be okay. They've signed
Mike Myers and traded for Ron Villone, who should be good enough as
lefty relievers. They've signed Octavio Dotel, who could potentially
be dominant when he comes back in mid-season. They may not be done
yet, but while I really wish they'd brought back Tom Gordon, they've
done okay in addressing the bullpen.
Most importantly, they didn't sign bullshit. Miguel Cairo is probably
coming back to be a super-utility, the role he should have filled in
2004 and will be outstanding at. They didn't sign Tino, they didn't
sign Womack, they didn't sign a bunch of starters they don't need.
They've gone after what they needed, ignored what they didn't.
Brian Cashman is doing a fantastic job this offseason. Until now, he
hadn't made any big splashes, but he's greatly improved the team while
doing nothing to hurt it down the road.
And Damon won't hurt them down the road. He won't be an offensive and
defensive sinkhole in four years, though he won't be ideal, and will
certainly decline further. But he won't stop them from bringing in,
say, Andruw Jones next year. When Sheffield leaves, they can move
Matsui to right and Damon to left, and they're fine with Jones -- not
that I expect Cashman to pursue him.
I'm convinced the Yankees won the AL East last night. At the very
least, nobody should be complaining -- this is a good day
Johnny B. Good Enough
by Larry Mahnken
Stop it, stop it, stop it. Shutup, shutup, shutup. You shouldn't be
complaining about this one. The Yankees just won the AL East, and
vastly improved their chances of winning the World Series.
No, Johnny Damon isn't worth $13 million a year, or even close to it.
More like $7 million or $8 million, but it's not your money, and their
payroll isn't (and won't be) close enough that this will hamper their
ability to sign anyone this season or next.
This isn't Tony Womack or Jaret Wright who they brought in, a player
coming off a flukish year who looks to the team to be far better than
he is, this is a player who is actually good.
As sabermetrics has entered the mainstream, I've heard more and more
arguments that are based, seemingly, on a half-understanding of
sabermetric principles. Damon seems to be a whole lot of them put
together.
Damon is 32 and will be 36 at the end of the deal, similar to Bernie
Williams. His defense is based largely on speed and he has a very,
very, very weak arm. Sound familiar?
Well, it's not the same thing. Yeah, Bernie had lost all defensive
value by age 33, but his defense was based entirely on his speed.
Damon has a distinct advantage over Bernie: he actually knows how to
play center. When Bernie couldn't outrun his mistakes, those mistakes
killed the team. Damon soon won't be able to outrun his mistakes, but
he won't make nearly as many as Bernie does. Think about how much
better the Yankees would have been had Bernie taken the right route to
the ball most of the time.
And it needs to be pointed out that Bernie was hitting great at the
start of 2003 when he hurt his knee. Had he not hurt his knee, there's
good reason to believe he'd still be a good hitter -- and good reason
to believe that Damon will still be a good hitter for a centerfielder
at the end of this deal. It is only four years -- it'll be over before
you know it.
Rating by straight OPS among qualifield MLB centerfielders, Damon
ranked 5th last year, 5th in 2004, 13th in a lousy 2003, 9th in 2002,
11th in a lousy 2001, 6th in 2000. None of the players rated above him
the last two seasons were available to the Yankees. Turn OPS into EqA,
which includes Damon's excellent baserunning and those ratings are
5th, 3rd, 16th, 7th, 23rd, 7th.
I know how my friends look at it, they're inclined to do the same as I
initially did. 16th! 23rd! We're ruined!
Well, look at the last two years. Look at four of those six seasons --
we got one of the best hitting centerfielders in the game, and the
best available. Will he be that good over the course of his contract?
Probably not, but I'd bet good money that he'll be closer to those
best years than those worst years.
Is he a better leadoff hitter than Derek Jeter? No, of course not,
because there is probably no better leadoff hitter right now than
Derek Jeter. But is the fact that he never has had an OBP near .400
really a killer? Newsflash: that's not the standard, and it shouldn't
be the standard.
Again, this isn't Womack batting first when he should be batting
ninth. This isn't a guy stealing 100 PAs from hitters much better than
him, this is a guy stealing, maybe, a dozen PAs from better hitters.
Frankly, Damon's best spot on this team is leadoff -- that's where he
should be batting.
Look at this likely lineup:
CF Damon
SS Jeter
3B Rodriguez
RF Sheffield
1B Giambi
LF Matsui
C Posada
2B Cano
DH Williams
Compare it to a likely lineup with Damon not batting leadoff:
SS Jeter
3B Rodriguez
RF Sheffield
1B Giambi
LF Matsui
C Posada
CF Damon
2B Cano
DH Williams
The first one looks more impressive, at least to me. 1-5, the Yankees
are stronger in the second lineup than the first, but in the second
lineup Damon is pushed to, basically, an RBI spot. Not a spot where
he'll get a lot of RBIs, but a place where that'll be where most of
his value will come in. Getting on base, Cano and Williams won't be
driving him in a lot, and while Damon hits about 35 doubles a year and
10-15 homers, he won't really be driving Matsui or Posada home. In the
7th spot, his value is less.
And what of Jeter through Matsui? What's the gain there? Well, there
certainly is some, they all gain 10 PAs or so. But come on, that's not
really much.
Really, the best spot for Damon is either first or second, and the
better hitter (Jeter) really should be batting second. This isn't
Womack, where he shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the lineup, and
preferably not in the lineup at all, and this isn't Soriano, where his
value was minimized by batting him leadoff, this is a situation where
the player's value to the team is maximized by batting him leadoff,
and he's worthy of hitting there.
He gets on base enough. His OBP is usually above .350, he steals a
good number of bases at, over the past 4 seasons, an 82% success rate.
He hits doubles, but not many homers. He puts himself in position for
the team's betst hitters to drive him home -- he's scored over 100
runs 8 years in a row, averaging 114 runs scored a season. No, he's
not as good as Jeter, but he's good.
Seriously, what did you guys prefer? Jason Michaels? Yes, he could be
very good for them -- better than Damon, and he wouldn't cost $13
million -- but he's not freely available. The Yankees will have to
trade to get him (which the still can -- they really could use another
backup outfielder), but they have competition for him -- and unlike
with Damon, they don't have the ability to outbid their competitors.
They just don't have the chips.
Next, replacement level. Last year, Damon's WARP3 was 6.9, 8.2 in
2004, 6.3 in '03 and 7.1 in '02. As it stands, the Red Sox are faced
with a replacement level centefielder to replace Damon -- in signing
Damon the Yankees have likely taken 6 wins away from the Red Sox.
They'll likely make a trade, but probably have to deal Manny Ramirez
to get someone good. In the end, they're worse.
Damon replaces Bernie Williams, whose WARP3 last year was 3.1. In
other words, Damon improves the Yankees by three or four wins
immediately, and perhaps by as many as ten wins over the Red Sox.
TEN WINS. Think about all the moves that have happened this offseason
with Boston and the Yankees, think about the moves that happened last
season. Did any single move shift the the balance of power by ten
wins? Or even close to that? No. Purely measuring the AL East, this is
the biggest move for the Yankees in the last decade.
OK, so the world doesn't end in the AL East, but this move does make
them heavy favorites to win the division again, in my opinion. More
than that, it seals up the gaping hole they had in centerfield, which
has cost them so dearly in the postseason the past four seasons.
Defense isn't vital over the course of the regular season -- you can
make up for it with offense as the Yankees have the past four years --
but in a short series, one bad defensive play can cost you a game, and
with it a series. Damon will make fewer of those bad defensive plays,
and he helps the offense, too.
Damon's signing also means that it's "safe" to sign Bernie. Yeah, he's
not really a very good option at DH, but that's all he'll be. Torre
will never bench Damon to put Bernie back in center like he would have
with Crosby -- like he did with Lofton -- so we'll never have to
suffer that sight again.
The Yankees entered the offseason with two pressing needs: relief
pitching and centefield, center being the bigger of the two problems.
Let this be clear: there was NO better option available to the Yankees
this offseason than Johnny Damon. None.
They've signed Kyle Farnsworth, who should be okay. They've signed
Mike Myers and traded for Ron Villone, who should be good enough as
lefty relievers. They've signed Octavio Dotel, who could potentially
be dominant when he comes back in mid-season. They may not be done
yet, but while I really wish they'd brought back Tom Gordon, they've
done okay in addressing the bullpen.
Most importantly, they didn't sign bullshit. Miguel Cairo is probably
coming back to be a super-utility, the role he should have filled in
2004 and will be outstanding at. They didn't sign Tino, they didn't
sign Womack, they didn't sign a bunch of starters they don't need.
They've gone after what they needed, ignored what they didn't.
Brian Cashman is doing a fantastic job this offseason. Until now, he
hadn't made any big splashes, but he's greatly improved the team while
doing nothing to hurt it down the road.
And Damon won't hurt them down the road. He won't be an offensive and
defensive sinkhole in four years, though he won't be ideal, and will
certainly decline further. But he won't stop them from bringing in,
say, Andruw Jones next year. When Sheffield leaves, they can move
Matsui to right and Damon to left, and they're fine with Jones -- not
that I expect Cashman to pursue him.
I'm convinced the Yankees won the AL East last night. At the very
least, nobody should be complaining -- this is a good day
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
From Bronx Banter:
Shave and a Haircut
by Cliff Corcoran
While we were busy yesterday fretting over possible non-tenders such as Corey Patterson, Russell Branyan (both of whom were tendered after all), and Hee Seop Choi (who was re-signed by the Dodgers), Brian Cashman was cooking up a much tastier treat. Never mind Jason Michaels, Johnny Damon is coming to the Bronx. Get that barber's chair ready.
Pending a physical and the hammering out of a few details, the Yankees will pay Damon $52 million over the next four years. My initial two bits:
* That's the exact same deal the Yankees gave to Hideki Matsui, who is just seven months Damon's junior.
* Damon will be 35 when his contract expires, which is how old Bernie Williams was in 2004.
* Damon's home/road splits have been striking during his four years with the Red Sox. Fenway has added some thirty points to his batting average, but negatively effected his power:
2005 Home: .334/.391/.440 - .106 ISP
2005 Road: .298/.342/.438 - .140 ISP
2002-2004 Home: .318/.388/.448 - .130 ISP
2002-2004 Road: .278/.340/.433 - .155 ISP
As nearly all of Damon's home runs are shots pulled down the left field line, expect Damon's power numbers to improve as a result of the move from Fenway to Yankee Stadium.
* Not only have the Yankees just added one of the five best center fielders in the game, but they've subtracted that same player from their closest rivals, sending that gaping hole in center to Boston in exchange for Damon. Jesus Caveman was worth 5.5 wins to the Red Sox last year according to WARP. That's an eleven-win swing in the division as the result of a single move.
* Say what you want about the likelihood of Damon remaining above average in his age 35 season, this 2006 Yankee line-up is mighty impressive:
R - Derek Jeter (SS)
L - Johnny Damon (CF)
R - Alex Rodriguez (3B)
L - Jason Giambi (1B)
R - Gary Sheffield (RF)
L - Hideki Matsui (LF)
S - Jorge Posada (C)
L - Robinson Cano (2B)
R - Andy Phillips (DH)
Now if the Yankees were to sign Mike Piazza and bump Phillips to the bench . . .
Shave and a Haircut
by Cliff Corcoran
While we were busy yesterday fretting over possible non-tenders such as Corey Patterson, Russell Branyan (both of whom were tendered after all), and Hee Seop Choi (who was re-signed by the Dodgers), Brian Cashman was cooking up a much tastier treat. Never mind Jason Michaels, Johnny Damon is coming to the Bronx. Get that barber's chair ready.
Pending a physical and the hammering out of a few details, the Yankees will pay Damon $52 million over the next four years. My initial two bits:
* That's the exact same deal the Yankees gave to Hideki Matsui, who is just seven months Damon's junior.
* Damon will be 35 when his contract expires, which is how old Bernie Williams was in 2004.
* Damon's home/road splits have been striking during his four years with the Red Sox. Fenway has added some thirty points to his batting average, but negatively effected his power:
2005 Home: .334/.391/.440 - .106 ISP
2005 Road: .298/.342/.438 - .140 ISP
2002-2004 Home: .318/.388/.448 - .130 ISP
2002-2004 Road: .278/.340/.433 - .155 ISP
As nearly all of Damon's home runs are shots pulled down the left field line, expect Damon's power numbers to improve as a result of the move from Fenway to Yankee Stadium.
* Not only have the Yankees just added one of the five best center fielders in the game, but they've subtracted that same player from their closest rivals, sending that gaping hole in center to Boston in exchange for Damon. Jesus Caveman was worth 5.5 wins to the Red Sox last year according to WARP. That's an eleven-win swing in the division as the result of a single move.
* Say what you want about the likelihood of Damon remaining above average in his age 35 season, this 2006 Yankee line-up is mighty impressive:
R - Derek Jeter (SS)
L - Johnny Damon (CF)
R - Alex Rodriguez (3B)
L - Jason Giambi (1B)
R - Gary Sheffield (RF)
L - Hideki Matsui (LF)
S - Jorge Posada (C)
L - Robinson Cano (2B)
R - Andy Phillips (DH)
Now if the Yankees were to sign Mike Piazza and bump Phillips to the bench . . .
Brooks & Dunn to open for Stones
NASHVILLE (AP) — One of country's hardest rock bands will open for one of rock's hardest country bands. Brooks & Dunn will warm up for the Rolling Stones in Omaha, Jan. 29.
"We've thrown around the concept of opening for the Stones forever," singer Ronnie Dunn said Tuesday. "I can't believe we're doing it."
When the duo got word of the invitation from their manager, they were told not to call or tell anyone until it was final.
"Of course, we started calling our friends as fast as we could as soon as we walked out of the room," he said.
Though billed as the world's greatest rock and roll band, the Stones have drawn from country music over much of their storied career. Their early 1970s albums Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, in particular, had strong country influences often attributed to Keith Richards' friendship with Gram Parsons of the Flying Burrito Brothers and previously of The Byrds.
Over the years, Richards has worked with George Jones and Willie Nelson, and the Stones — individually or collectively — have covered songs by Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, the Everly Brothers and others.
Country artists in turn recorded a tribute to the Rolling Stones in 1997 called Stone Country, which had artists like Tracy Lawrence singing Paint It Black, Sammy Kershaw Angie and Colin Raye Brown Sugar.
Like many country performers, Kix Brooks said he and Dunn grew up listening to the Stones and performing their songs. Between them, they've seen the group in concert nearly a dozen times.
"We were influenced by classic country acts like Merle Haggard and George Jones and Hank Williams but also by Clapton and the Stones and all the rock acts like that," Brooks said. "I mean, what guitar player didn't start out with Satisfaction ?"
The roots rock influence is apparent in Brooks & Dunn's music, especially their recent albums. The songs are soulful, with slide guitar, horns, organ and soaring gospel choruses. Alongside straight ahead country numbers are songs that echo artists like Leon Russell, Tom Petty, Lynyrd Skynyrd and vintage Stones.
"I'm sure we've gotten as close to their licks as we can without ripping them off," joked Brooks.
The nod to '70s rock and soul is deliberate. After studying theology at Abilene Christian College in Texas, Dunn moved to Tulsa, where Russell's Shelter Records was based, and artists such as J.J. Cale, The Gap Band and, occasionally, Clapton visited or recorded.
"I soaked up all that stuff," Dunn said.
By opening for the Rolling Stones, Brooks & Dunn become an instant trivia question for obsessive Stones fans. The group's opening act announcements can be as anticipated as their set lists, with everyone from Metallica to the Black-Eyed Peas to Beck warming up the crowd in recent years.
Other than shortening their act to fit the opening slot, Brooks said the duo won't change much on Jan. 29.
"I don't think we should try to do what the Stones do," Brooks said. "Hopefully, it will be the best of what we do.
NASHVILLE (AP) — One of country's hardest rock bands will open for one of rock's hardest country bands. Brooks & Dunn will warm up for the Rolling Stones in Omaha, Jan. 29.
"We've thrown around the concept of opening for the Stones forever," singer Ronnie Dunn said Tuesday. "I can't believe we're doing it."
When the duo got word of the invitation from their manager, they were told not to call or tell anyone until it was final.
"Of course, we started calling our friends as fast as we could as soon as we walked out of the room," he said.
Though billed as the world's greatest rock and roll band, the Stones have drawn from country music over much of their storied career. Their early 1970s albums Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, in particular, had strong country influences often attributed to Keith Richards' friendship with Gram Parsons of the Flying Burrito Brothers and previously of The Byrds.
Over the years, Richards has worked with George Jones and Willie Nelson, and the Stones — individually or collectively — have covered songs by Buddy Holly, Johnny Cash, the Everly Brothers and others.
Country artists in turn recorded a tribute to the Rolling Stones in 1997 called Stone Country, which had artists like Tracy Lawrence singing Paint It Black, Sammy Kershaw Angie and Colin Raye Brown Sugar.
Like many country performers, Kix Brooks said he and Dunn grew up listening to the Stones and performing their songs. Between them, they've seen the group in concert nearly a dozen times.
"We were influenced by classic country acts like Merle Haggard and George Jones and Hank Williams but also by Clapton and the Stones and all the rock acts like that," Brooks said. "I mean, what guitar player didn't start out with Satisfaction ?"
The roots rock influence is apparent in Brooks & Dunn's music, especially their recent albums. The songs are soulful, with slide guitar, horns, organ and soaring gospel choruses. Alongside straight ahead country numbers are songs that echo artists like Leon Russell, Tom Petty, Lynyrd Skynyrd and vintage Stones.
"I'm sure we've gotten as close to their licks as we can without ripping them off," joked Brooks.
The nod to '70s rock and soul is deliberate. After studying theology at Abilene Christian College in Texas, Dunn moved to Tulsa, where Russell's Shelter Records was based, and artists such as J.J. Cale, The Gap Band and, occasionally, Clapton visited or recorded.
"I soaked up all that stuff," Dunn said.
By opening for the Rolling Stones, Brooks & Dunn become an instant trivia question for obsessive Stones fans. The group's opening act announcements can be as anticipated as their set lists, with everyone from Metallica to the Black-Eyed Peas to Beck warming up the crowd in recent years.
Other than shortening their act to fit the opening slot, Brooks said the duo won't change much on Jan. 29.
"I don't think we should try to do what the Stones do," Brooks said. "Hopefully, it will be the best of what we do.
My Gloom: Back to September 10
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
December 20, 2005
The attacks of September 11, 2001, made me feel more secure, unlike most Americans. Finally, the country was focused on issues that had long worried me.
"The FBI is engaged in the largest operation in its history," I wrote in late 2001. "Armed marshals will again be flying on US aircraft, and the immigration service has placed foreign students under increased scrutiny. I feel safer when Islamist organizations are exposed, illicit money channels closed down, and immigration regulations reviewed. The amassing of American forces near Iraq and Afghanistan cheers me. The newfound alarm is healthy, the sense of solidarity heartening, the resolve is encouraging."
But I agonized whether it would last. "Are Americans truly ready to sacrifice liberties and lives to prosecute seriously the war against militant Islam? I worry about US constancy and purpose."
And right I was to worry, as the alarm, solidarity, and resolve of late 2001 have plummeted lately, returning us to a roughly pre-September 11 mentality. A number of recent developments leave me pessimistic. Within America:
*
The USA Patriot Act, a landmark of post-September 11 cooperation between the military and law enforcement, passed in the Senate 98-1 in October 2001. Last week, the same bill stalled in the Senate.
*
The mainstream press does not take Islamist aspirations seriously and sees the war on terror basically as over, as shown by Maureen Dowd's comment in the New York Times that the Bush administration is trying "to frighten people with talk of Al Qaeda's dream of a new Islamic caliphate."
*
Harvard and Georgetown universities each accepted $20 million for Islamic studies from a Saudi prince who overtly promotes his government's Wahhabi outlook, Alwaleed bin Talal.
*
A Florida jury somehow managed to overlook the massive evidence of Sami Al-Arian's leading role in Palestinian Islamic Jihad and acquitted him on this charge.
*
One leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, boasts an endorsement from Wells Fargo Bank, an invitation from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and a letter of congratulations from the president's brother, Jeb Bush. Another, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, hosted representatives of the departments of Justice and State at a conference last week.
Then American foreign policy:
*
Fixated on the goal of perfecting Iraq, where no major danger remains, the Bush administration seems to be allowing the Iranian regime to build nuclear weapons, stipulating only that the Russians carry out the uranium enrichment, an ineffectual safeguard.
*
Pursuing its democracy campaign to its logical conclusion, Washington is signaling a willingness to deal with Islamists in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and elsewhere, thereby bolstering radical Islam's power.
Then international setbacks:
*
Elite opinion ascribes the French intifada only to faults in French society, such as unemployment and discrimination. When one leading intellectual, Alain Finkielkraut, dared bring Islam into the discussion, he was criticized savagely and threatened with a libel lawsuit, so he backed down.
*
The July transport bombings in Britain seemingly highlighted the dangers of homegrown Islamism. Five months later, however, lessons learned from this atrocity have been nearly forgotten. For example, the Blair government appointed an Islamist banned from entering America, Tariq Ramadan, to a prestigious taskforce; and it abandoned efforts even temporarily to close down extremist mosques.
*
As Israel's population lurches leftward, led by a defeatist government ("We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies," Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared), it forgets the lessons of Oslo, appeases its enemies, and virtually invites more violence against itself.
Rudolph Giuliani worries that we are "going backward in the fight against terrorism." Andrew McCarthy concludes that "the September 10th spirit is alive and well." Steven Emerson tells me that "pre-9/11 political correctness has reasserted itself."
And I worry that not even a catastrophic act of terror will return a desensitized West to its post-September 11 alarm, solidarity, and resolve. John Kerry's notion of terrorism as a nuisance similar to prostitution or gambling has taken hold, suggesting that future acts of violence will be shrugged off. And, even if mass murders do awaken the public, a next round of alertness will presumably be as ephemeral as the last one.
If there ever was a crisis, it is over. Life is good, dangers are remote, security appears adequate … sleep beckons.
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
December 20, 2005
The attacks of September 11, 2001, made me feel more secure, unlike most Americans. Finally, the country was focused on issues that had long worried me.
"The FBI is engaged in the largest operation in its history," I wrote in late 2001. "Armed marshals will again be flying on US aircraft, and the immigration service has placed foreign students under increased scrutiny. I feel safer when Islamist organizations are exposed, illicit money channels closed down, and immigration regulations reviewed. The amassing of American forces near Iraq and Afghanistan cheers me. The newfound alarm is healthy, the sense of solidarity heartening, the resolve is encouraging."
But I agonized whether it would last. "Are Americans truly ready to sacrifice liberties and lives to prosecute seriously the war against militant Islam? I worry about US constancy and purpose."
And right I was to worry, as the alarm, solidarity, and resolve of late 2001 have plummeted lately, returning us to a roughly pre-September 11 mentality. A number of recent developments leave me pessimistic. Within America:
*
The USA Patriot Act, a landmark of post-September 11 cooperation between the military and law enforcement, passed in the Senate 98-1 in October 2001. Last week, the same bill stalled in the Senate.
*
The mainstream press does not take Islamist aspirations seriously and sees the war on terror basically as over, as shown by Maureen Dowd's comment in the New York Times that the Bush administration is trying "to frighten people with talk of Al Qaeda's dream of a new Islamic caliphate."
*
Harvard and Georgetown universities each accepted $20 million for Islamic studies from a Saudi prince who overtly promotes his government's Wahhabi outlook, Alwaleed bin Talal.
*
A Florida jury somehow managed to overlook the massive evidence of Sami Al-Arian's leading role in Palestinian Islamic Jihad and acquitted him on this charge.
*
One leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, boasts an endorsement from Wells Fargo Bank, an invitation from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and a letter of congratulations from the president's brother, Jeb Bush. Another, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, hosted representatives of the departments of Justice and State at a conference last week.
Then American foreign policy:
*
Fixated on the goal of perfecting Iraq, where no major danger remains, the Bush administration seems to be allowing the Iranian regime to build nuclear weapons, stipulating only that the Russians carry out the uranium enrichment, an ineffectual safeguard.
*
Pursuing its democracy campaign to its logical conclusion, Washington is signaling a willingness to deal with Islamists in Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and elsewhere, thereby bolstering radical Islam's power.
Then international setbacks:
*
Elite opinion ascribes the French intifada only to faults in French society, such as unemployment and discrimination. When one leading intellectual, Alain Finkielkraut, dared bring Islam into the discussion, he was criticized savagely and threatened with a libel lawsuit, so he backed down.
*
The July transport bombings in Britain seemingly highlighted the dangers of homegrown Islamism. Five months later, however, lessons learned from this atrocity have been nearly forgotten. For example, the Blair government appointed an Islamist banned from entering America, Tariq Ramadan, to a prestigious taskforce; and it abandoned efforts even temporarily to close down extremist mosques.
*
As Israel's population lurches leftward, led by a defeatist government ("We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies," Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared), it forgets the lessons of Oslo, appeases its enemies, and virtually invites more violence against itself.
Rudolph Giuliani worries that we are "going backward in the fight against terrorism." Andrew McCarthy concludes that "the September 10th spirit is alive and well." Steven Emerson tells me that "pre-9/11 political correctness has reasserted itself."
And I worry that not even a catastrophic act of terror will return a desensitized West to its post-September 11 alarm, solidarity, and resolve. John Kerry's notion of terrorism as a nuisance similar to prostitution or gambling has taken hold, suggesting that future acts of violence will be shrugged off. And, even if mass murders do awaken the public, a next round of alertness will presumably be as ephemeral as the last one.
If there ever was a crisis, it is over. Life is good, dangers are remote, security appears adequate … sleep beckons.
Bruce Springsteen music featured on CBS drams "Cold Case," Jan. 8th.
ORIGINAL BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN SONGS FEATURED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGHOUT THE EPISODE
IN WHICH LILLY AND THE TEAM REOPEN THE 1988 CASE INVOLVING FOUR HIGH SCHOOL
FRIENDS WHO ARE ALL SUSPECTS WHEN ONE OF THEM IS FOUND DEAD, ON "COLD CASE,"
SUNDAY, JAN. 8
"8 Years" -- Lilly reopens the 1988 case involving four high school friends
who are brought in for questioning when one of them is found dead, on COLD
CASE, Sunday, Jan. 8 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Mark Pellington directed the episode that was written by Executive Producer
and Creator Meredith Stiehm.
Original Bruce Springsteen songs will be featured exclusively throughout the
episode.
In 1980, four high school friends went off to pursue their dreams, but
nothing ended up as planned and one was murdered in 1988. Now, Lilly and
Danny get a tip about the murder that reveals how these friends' hopes and
dreams unraveled as they faced the harsh realities of life.
The following nine original Bruce Springsteen songs from the 1980s will be
heard throughout the entire episode:
"No Surrender"
"Bobby Jean"
"Brilliant Disguise"
"Glory Days"
"I'm On Fire"
"Drive All Night"
"Stolen Car"
"Atlantic City"
"One Step Up"
"Because there are such vivid stories and characters in Bruce Springsteen's
music, we decided to let the lyrics do a lot of the storytelling for us,
instead of depending on dialogue, said Executive Producer and creator
Meredith Stiehm. So in this case I chose the songs first, and then designed
the story around them. 'No Surrender,' 'Bobby Jean,' 'Drive All Night' and
six other songs help tell the story of four optimistic kids 'busting out of
class' with big hopes and dreams, who hit harder times as the years go by.
The episode also tracks the life and death of a young marriage, and what
happens when 'hearts of fire grow cold.'"
"We often use music in the show to evoke a time period, she added, but Bruce
Springsteen's music spans over 30 years, so we chose a specific span of time
(1980-88) for this story. The '8 Years' of the episode includes music from
four different albums: The River, Nebraska, Born in the USA and Tunnel of
Love."
ORIGINAL BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN SONGS FEATURED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGHOUT THE EPISODE
IN WHICH LILLY AND THE TEAM REOPEN THE 1988 CASE INVOLVING FOUR HIGH SCHOOL
FRIENDS WHO ARE ALL SUSPECTS WHEN ONE OF THEM IS FOUND DEAD, ON "COLD CASE,"
SUNDAY, JAN. 8
"8 Years" -- Lilly reopens the 1988 case involving four high school friends
who are brought in for questioning when one of them is found dead, on COLD
CASE, Sunday, Jan. 8 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Mark Pellington directed the episode that was written by Executive Producer
and Creator Meredith Stiehm.
Original Bruce Springsteen songs will be featured exclusively throughout the
episode.
In 1980, four high school friends went off to pursue their dreams, but
nothing ended up as planned and one was murdered in 1988. Now, Lilly and
Danny get a tip about the murder that reveals how these friends' hopes and
dreams unraveled as they faced the harsh realities of life.
The following nine original Bruce Springsteen songs from the 1980s will be
heard throughout the entire episode:
"No Surrender"
"Bobby Jean"
"Brilliant Disguise"
"Glory Days"
"I'm On Fire"
"Drive All Night"
"Stolen Car"
"Atlantic City"
"One Step Up"
"Because there are such vivid stories and characters in Bruce Springsteen's
music, we decided to let the lyrics do a lot of the storytelling for us,
instead of depending on dialogue, said Executive Producer and creator
Meredith Stiehm. So in this case I chose the songs first, and then designed
the story around them. 'No Surrender,' 'Bobby Jean,' 'Drive All Night' and
six other songs help tell the story of four optimistic kids 'busting out of
class' with big hopes and dreams, who hit harder times as the years go by.
The episode also tracks the life and death of a young marriage, and what
happens when 'hearts of fire grow cold.'"
"We often use music in the show to evoke a time period, she added, but Bruce
Springsteen's music spans over 30 years, so we chose a specific span of time
(1980-88) for this story. The '8 Years' of the episode includes music from
four different albums: The River, Nebraska, Born in the USA and Tunnel of
Love."
From Captain's Quarters:
Stevens: I'm Here All Month, And Don't Forget To Tip The Waitresses
Senator Ted Stevens has raised the temperature in the Senate by attaching ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill that needed to get signed to keep the troops funded in the field. Senate Democrats howled at the supposed breach of rules, and Harry Reid has promised to block all sorts of Senate business as a result. Now Stevens has raised the ante on Reid, threatening to Grinch the Senate into working right through the holiday season and forcing them to give up their Christmas:
It's an audacious power play, even for Sen. Ted Stevens.
The wily and cantankerous Alaska Republican is trying to secure the mother of all pet projects for his state: oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Stevens has attached the provision to a popular defense spending bill and has put holiday plans of his Senate colleagues on hold as he dares Democratic and moderate Republican opponents to vote against it. ...
Even more ominous for impatient senators, he appeared to be in no rush. "I could go all month," Stevens said on the Senate floor Monday. "I've been with it for 25 years."
Stevens is not usually one of my favorite Senators, especially given his love affair with the pork barrel at taxpayer's expense. However, this cause raises my estimation of the Alaskan at least a notch or two. We finally have a GOP Senator who hasn't put "comity" as the overriding concern of their service in Congress, but in actually getting things done. ANWR drilling makes sense and has the support of a clear majority in both houses of Congress. The only hurdle has been Democratic obstructionism by filibustering the legislation every time it comes up, an undemocratic but legal maneuver for that chamber.
Now, however, the GOP has played hardball by attaching ANWR to an unfilibusterable bill, one that if rejected would defund the DoD while we're at war and American troops fight in the field. This bill also got endorsed by a joint conference committee and passed overwhelmingly in the House, putting even more pressure on Democrats to pass it. Reid's threats have caused Bill Frist to back down in the past to maintain the old-boy nature of debate in the Senate, but Stevens has had enough of delaying tactics over 25 years on ANWR. He makes it clear that Christmas in DC sounds just fine to him, and he'd like nothing better than to celebrate the holiday with 99 of his closest co-workers ... and not just the Senators, of course, but their staffers and volunteers, and so on.
Stevens is putting on a school for hardball for his Republican colleagues, who in several conflicts with Reid and the Democrats have shown a burning need for such an education. Stevens may have his flaws, but in this case, he's absolutely right.
Stevens: I'm Here All Month, And Don't Forget To Tip The Waitresses
Senator Ted Stevens has raised the temperature in the Senate by attaching ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill that needed to get signed to keep the troops funded in the field. Senate Democrats howled at the supposed breach of rules, and Harry Reid has promised to block all sorts of Senate business as a result. Now Stevens has raised the ante on Reid, threatening to Grinch the Senate into working right through the holiday season and forcing them to give up their Christmas:
It's an audacious power play, even for Sen. Ted Stevens.
The wily and cantankerous Alaska Republican is trying to secure the mother of all pet projects for his state: oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Stevens has attached the provision to a popular defense spending bill and has put holiday plans of his Senate colleagues on hold as he dares Democratic and moderate Republican opponents to vote against it. ...
Even more ominous for impatient senators, he appeared to be in no rush. "I could go all month," Stevens said on the Senate floor Monday. "I've been with it for 25 years."
Stevens is not usually one of my favorite Senators, especially given his love affair with the pork barrel at taxpayer's expense. However, this cause raises my estimation of the Alaskan at least a notch or two. We finally have a GOP Senator who hasn't put "comity" as the overriding concern of their service in Congress, but in actually getting things done. ANWR drilling makes sense and has the support of a clear majority in both houses of Congress. The only hurdle has been Democratic obstructionism by filibustering the legislation every time it comes up, an undemocratic but legal maneuver for that chamber.
Now, however, the GOP has played hardball by attaching ANWR to an unfilibusterable bill, one that if rejected would defund the DoD while we're at war and American troops fight in the field. This bill also got endorsed by a joint conference committee and passed overwhelmingly in the House, putting even more pressure on Democrats to pass it. Reid's threats have caused Bill Frist to back down in the past to maintain the old-boy nature of debate in the Senate, but Stevens has had enough of delaying tactics over 25 years on ANWR. He makes it clear that Christmas in DC sounds just fine to him, and he'd like nothing better than to celebrate the holiday with 99 of his closest co-workers ... and not just the Senators, of course, but their staffers and volunteers, and so on.
Stevens is putting on a school for hardball for his Republican colleagues, who in several conflicts with Reid and the Democrats have shown a burning need for such an education. Stevens may have his flaws, but in this case, he's absolutely right.
Iraq vote leaves Dems looking like the losers
By Mark Steyn
December 18, 2005
Well, that old Iraqi quagmire just keeps getting worse and worse, if only for the Democratic Party. What was the straw they were clutching at back in January? Oh, yeah, sure, gazillions of Kurds and Shiites might have gone to the polls, but where were the Sunni? As some of us said at the time, the Sunni'll come out tomorrow. And so they did. On Thursday, they voted in record numbers, leaving Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats frantically scrambling for another disaffected Iraqi minority group they could use as proof that the whole crazy neocon war-for-oil scam was a bust.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any disaffected Iraqi minority groups left. Oh, wait, there's Ahmed at 37 Sword of the Infidel Slayer Gardens in Ramadi. Apparently, he's still rejecting the new constitution. Maybe, if we're lucky, he's got a brother who's mildly irked. Whoops, sorry, they just went off to vote, too.
Heigh-ho. The Iraq election's over, the media did their best to ignore it, and, judging from the rippling torsos I saw every time I switched on the TV, the press seem to reckon that that gay cowboy movie was the big geopolitical event of the last week, if not of all time. Yes, yes, I know: They're not, technically, cowboys, they're gay shepherds, but even Hollywood isn't crazy enough to think it can sell gay shepherds to the world. And the point is, even if I was in the mood for a story about two rugged insecure men who find themselves strangely attracted to each other in a dark transgressive relationship that breaks all the rules, who needs Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger when you've got Howard Dean and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi? Yee-haw! And, if that sounds unfair, pick almost any recent statement by a big-time Dem cowboy and tell me how exactly it would differ from the pep talks Zarqawi gives his dwindling band of head-hackers -- Dean arguing that America can't win in Iraq, Barbara Boxer demanding the troops begin withdrawing on Dec. 15, John Kerry accusing American soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, Jack Murtha declaring that the U.S. Army is utterly broken. Pepper 'em with a handful of "Praise be to Allahs" and any one of those statements could have been uttered by Zarqawi.
The Democratic Party have contrived to get themselves into a situation where bad news from Iraq is good for them and good news from Iraq is bad for them. And as there's a lot more good news than bad these days, that puts them, politically, in a tough spot -- even with a fawning media that, faced with Kerry and Murtha talking what in any objective sense is drivel, decline to call for the men with white coats but instead nod solemnly and wonder whether Bush is living "in a bubble."
One day Iraq will be a G7 member hosting the Olympics in the world's No. 1 luxury vacation resort of Fallujah, and the Defeaticrat Party will still be running around screaming it's a quagmire. It's not just that Iraq is going better than expected, but that it's a huge success that's being very deftly managed: The timeframe imposed on the democratic process turns out to have worked very well -- the transfer of sovereignty, the vote on a constitutional assembly, the ratification of the constitution, the vote for a legislature -- and, with the benefit of hindsight, it now looks like an ingeniously constructed way to bring the various parties on board in the right order: first the Kurds, then the Shia, now the Sunni. That doesn't leave many folks over on the other side except Zarqawi and Dean. What do the two have in common? They're both foreigners, neither of whom have the slightest interest in the Iraqi people.
And no, I'm not questioning their patriotism. Honestly, who can be bothered questioning anything so footling as Howard Dean's patriotism? If you're a Democratic patriot and you're outraged by my linking your party to the "insurgents," take it up with your leaders: They're the ones who've over-invested the party in American failure. And instead of being angry at me you should be ashamed of them. Your party is regarded as unserious on national security because it got it wrong last time round, when Kerry spent the last half of the Cold War siding with every loser on the planet -- opposing the liberation of Grenada, supporting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And at least that little Sandinista guy looked awful cute in his fatigues, like a novelty houseboy Teresa picked up on vacation. It's hard to believe a bunch of crazy mullahs and suicide bombers are going to do much for the lefty T-shirt business.
George Clooney, the matinee idol, made an interesting point the other day. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. So I hope he won't mind if I make a suggestion. The best way to reclaim "liberal" for the angels is to get on the right side of history -- the side the Iraqi people are on. The word "liberal" has no meaning if those who wear the label refuse to celebrate the birth of a new democracy after 40 years of tyranny. Yet, if you wandered the Internet on Thursday, you came across far too many "liberals" who watched the election, shrugged and went straight back to Valerie Plame, WMD, Bush lied.
Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)
The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up.
© Mark Steyn, 2005
By Mark Steyn
December 18, 2005
Well, that old Iraqi quagmire just keeps getting worse and worse, if only for the Democratic Party. What was the straw they were clutching at back in January? Oh, yeah, sure, gazillions of Kurds and Shiites might have gone to the polls, but where were the Sunni? As some of us said at the time, the Sunni'll come out tomorrow. And so they did. On Thursday, they voted in record numbers, leaving Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats frantically scrambling for another disaffected Iraqi minority group they could use as proof that the whole crazy neocon war-for-oil scam was a bust.
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any disaffected Iraqi minority groups left. Oh, wait, there's Ahmed at 37 Sword of the Infidel Slayer Gardens in Ramadi. Apparently, he's still rejecting the new constitution. Maybe, if we're lucky, he's got a brother who's mildly irked. Whoops, sorry, they just went off to vote, too.
Heigh-ho. The Iraq election's over, the media did their best to ignore it, and, judging from the rippling torsos I saw every time I switched on the TV, the press seem to reckon that that gay cowboy movie was the big geopolitical event of the last week, if not of all time. Yes, yes, I know: They're not, technically, cowboys, they're gay shepherds, but even Hollywood isn't crazy enough to think it can sell gay shepherds to the world. And the point is, even if I was in the mood for a story about two rugged insecure men who find themselves strangely attracted to each other in a dark transgressive relationship that breaks all the rules, who needs Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger when you've got Howard Dean and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi? Yee-haw! And, if that sounds unfair, pick almost any recent statement by a big-time Dem cowboy and tell me how exactly it would differ from the pep talks Zarqawi gives his dwindling band of head-hackers -- Dean arguing that America can't win in Iraq, Barbara Boxer demanding the troops begin withdrawing on Dec. 15, John Kerry accusing American soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, Jack Murtha declaring that the U.S. Army is utterly broken. Pepper 'em with a handful of "Praise be to Allahs" and any one of those statements could have been uttered by Zarqawi.
The Democratic Party have contrived to get themselves into a situation where bad news from Iraq is good for them and good news from Iraq is bad for them. And as there's a lot more good news than bad these days, that puts them, politically, in a tough spot -- even with a fawning media that, faced with Kerry and Murtha talking what in any objective sense is drivel, decline to call for the men with white coats but instead nod solemnly and wonder whether Bush is living "in a bubble."
One day Iraq will be a G7 member hosting the Olympics in the world's No. 1 luxury vacation resort of Fallujah, and the Defeaticrat Party will still be running around screaming it's a quagmire. It's not just that Iraq is going better than expected, but that it's a huge success that's being very deftly managed: The timeframe imposed on the democratic process turns out to have worked very well -- the transfer of sovereignty, the vote on a constitutional assembly, the ratification of the constitution, the vote for a legislature -- and, with the benefit of hindsight, it now looks like an ingeniously constructed way to bring the various parties on board in the right order: first the Kurds, then the Shia, now the Sunni. That doesn't leave many folks over on the other side except Zarqawi and Dean. What do the two have in common? They're both foreigners, neither of whom have the slightest interest in the Iraqi people.
And no, I'm not questioning their patriotism. Honestly, who can be bothered questioning anything so footling as Howard Dean's patriotism? If you're a Democratic patriot and you're outraged by my linking your party to the "insurgents," take it up with your leaders: They're the ones who've over-invested the party in American failure. And instead of being angry at me you should be ashamed of them. Your party is regarded as unserious on national security because it got it wrong last time round, when Kerry spent the last half of the Cold War siding with every loser on the planet -- opposing the liberation of Grenada, supporting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. And at least that little Sandinista guy looked awful cute in his fatigues, like a novelty houseboy Teresa picked up on vacation. It's hard to believe a bunch of crazy mullahs and suicide bombers are going to do much for the lefty T-shirt business.
George Clooney, the matinee idol, made an interesting point the other day. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. So I hope he won't mind if I make a suggestion. The best way to reclaim "liberal" for the angels is to get on the right side of history -- the side the Iraqi people are on. The word "liberal" has no meaning if those who wear the label refuse to celebrate the birth of a new democracy after 40 years of tyranny. Yet, if you wandered the Internet on Thursday, you came across far too many "liberals" who watched the election, shrugged and went straight back to Valerie Plame, WMD, Bush lied.
Bush lied, people dyed. Their fingers. That's what this is about: Millions of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis beaming as they emerge from polling stations and hold up their purple fingers after the freest, fairest election ever held in the Arab world. "Liberal" in the American sense is a dirty word because it's come to stand for a shriveled parochial obsolescent irrelevance, of which ''Good Night, and Good Luck,'' Clooney's dreary little retread of the McCarthy years, is merely the latest example. (Clooney says he wants more journalists to "speak truth to power," which is why I'm insulting his movie.)
The Anglo-American political tradition is the most successful in the world in part because of the concept of "loyal opposition." Yes, the party out of office opposes the party in office and hopes to supplant it, but not at the expense of the broader political culture. A party that winds up cheerleading for a deranged loser death cult is the very definition of pointless self-defeating sour oppositionism. So, as Zarqawi flails, Dean and Murtha and Kerry flail ever more pathetically, too. Just wait till the WMD turn up.
© Mark Steyn, 2005
How Bush Turned It Around
By Pat Buchanan
Men who believe in something, even if wrong, will triumph over those who believe in nothing. That is the lesson of the Bush recovery of the past four weeks.
From August, when Cindy Sheehan set up Camp Casey to bedevil his vacation in Crawford -- which was cut short by Katrina and then the New Orleans debacle -- to November, George W. Bush seemed a man at sea.
Opposition to the war was rising to 60 percent, his approval rating had plummeted to 36 percent, his credibility appeared fatally impaired. There seemed a danger that, for three more years, an America at war would be led by a broken president.
But Bush has one advantage over his adversaries. He believes in the war and has the courage of his convictions. Unlike most of the antiwar politicians and demonstrators, he does not go limp when the nightsticking starts. His defiance calls to mind Lincoln's:
"I do the very best I know how -- the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference." Bush's strength is that he has made his peace with the idea that his presidency stands or falls with Iraq.
Thus, he set out in four speeches to defend his war policy, rally the nation, and characterize his opposition as trumpeters of retreat and defeat. By the Thursday of the Iraqi election, he had reduced them to squabbling and acrimonious incoherence.
Friday morning, to undermine the heartening headlines out of Iraq on the successful election, The New York Times plastered on its front page a story it had been holding for a year: that President Bush had authorized secret eavesdropping by the National Security Agency of telephone calls from U.S. citizens to terrorist suspects abroad.
After stumbling for 24 hours, the president came out smoking, dropping his Saturday morning radio address for an eight-minute televised address from the Roosevelt Room that bristled with angry defiance.
In summary, President Bush said: Yes, I authorized the eavesdropping -- to protect America in a time of war. I have the authority to do it. I vetted it with Justice. I informed Congress half a dozen times. And those who leaked and who published this state secret destroyed a crucial program, damaged our national security, aided our terrorist enemies and are lacking in patriotism, if they are not engaging in treason.
The president's political adversaries, save a handful, headed for the tall grass. That left the challenge to his authority to the press. On Monday, Bush used that White House press corps as a foil to repeat his charge that the Times and its leaker-collaborators were engaged in "shameful" misconduct that would almost certainly be investigated by the Department of Justice.
In his Sunday night address, carried by all three networks and all the cable news networks, President Bush altered his demeanor entirely. He made a reasoned and compelling case for why those who opposed the war, and those who disagree with his policy and war leadership, should yet stand by him.
Some Americans, he said, "conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders don't believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifices, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it."
Is he not right?
And if our soldiers in the field believe in and wish to fight on in this cause unto victory, upon what ground do we stand to declare them defeated and to deny them that right?
"I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq," the president said. "I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat."
Is he not right?
President Bush also warned that too rapid a U.S. withdrawal risks a U.S. defeat that would abandon our Iraqi friends to untold horrors, signal a lack of American resolve, undermine the morale of our armed forces, and embolden our enemies across the Middle East and terrorists worldwide.
Again, does he not have a point?
For students of the Oval Office, these last four weeks are an object lesson in how an embattled president who believes in the righteousness of his cause and is willing to put his office on the line can always, especially on an issue of war or national security, rout an adversary, even one with the backing of the national press.
The president has just bought himself another six months to a year to win this.
By Pat Buchanan
Men who believe in something, even if wrong, will triumph over those who believe in nothing. That is the lesson of the Bush recovery of the past four weeks.
From August, when Cindy Sheehan set up Camp Casey to bedevil his vacation in Crawford -- which was cut short by Katrina and then the New Orleans debacle -- to November, George W. Bush seemed a man at sea.
Opposition to the war was rising to 60 percent, his approval rating had plummeted to 36 percent, his credibility appeared fatally impaired. There seemed a danger that, for three more years, an America at war would be led by a broken president.
But Bush has one advantage over his adversaries. He believes in the war and has the courage of his convictions. Unlike most of the antiwar politicians and demonstrators, he does not go limp when the nightsticking starts. His defiance calls to mind Lincoln's:
"I do the very best I know how -- the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference." Bush's strength is that he has made his peace with the idea that his presidency stands or falls with Iraq.
Thus, he set out in four speeches to defend his war policy, rally the nation, and characterize his opposition as trumpeters of retreat and defeat. By the Thursday of the Iraqi election, he had reduced them to squabbling and acrimonious incoherence.
Friday morning, to undermine the heartening headlines out of Iraq on the successful election, The New York Times plastered on its front page a story it had been holding for a year: that President Bush had authorized secret eavesdropping by the National Security Agency of telephone calls from U.S. citizens to terrorist suspects abroad.
After stumbling for 24 hours, the president came out smoking, dropping his Saturday morning radio address for an eight-minute televised address from the Roosevelt Room that bristled with angry defiance.
In summary, President Bush said: Yes, I authorized the eavesdropping -- to protect America in a time of war. I have the authority to do it. I vetted it with Justice. I informed Congress half a dozen times. And those who leaked and who published this state secret destroyed a crucial program, damaged our national security, aided our terrorist enemies and are lacking in patriotism, if they are not engaging in treason.
The president's political adversaries, save a handful, headed for the tall grass. That left the challenge to his authority to the press. On Monday, Bush used that White House press corps as a foil to repeat his charge that the Times and its leaker-collaborators were engaged in "shameful" misconduct that would almost certainly be investigated by the Department of Justice.
In his Sunday night address, carried by all three networks and all the cable news networks, President Bush altered his demeanor entirely. He made a reasoned and compelling case for why those who opposed the war, and those who disagree with his policy and war leadership, should yet stand by him.
Some Americans, he said, "conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders don't believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifices, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it."
Is he not right?
And if our soldiers in the field believe in and wish to fight on in this cause unto victory, upon what ground do we stand to declare them defeated and to deny them that right?
"I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq," the president said. "I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country -- victory or defeat."
Is he not right?
President Bush also warned that too rapid a U.S. withdrawal risks a U.S. defeat that would abandon our Iraqi friends to untold horrors, signal a lack of American resolve, undermine the morale of our armed forces, and embolden our enemies across the Middle East and terrorists worldwide.
Again, does he not have a point?
For students of the Oval Office, these last four weeks are an object lesson in how an embattled president who believes in the righteousness of his cause and is willing to put his office on the line can always, especially on an issue of war or national security, rout an adversary, even one with the backing of the national press.
The president has just bought himself another six months to a year to win this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
