The Incredible Shrinking Colin Powell

Colin Powell, failed diplomat, lashes out:

Colin Powell, the former US secretary of state, has for the first time publicly criticised troops levels in Iraq and spoken of the rifts between himself and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, that undermined his role as architect of American foreign policy.

Meaning he's finally putting his face on the backstabbing he did within the Administration.

Rifts? There were rifts? But I thought he said there were no rifts---publicly:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered a spirited defense of U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq, telling a convention of minority journalists in Washington yesterday that he was "solidly behind" the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

Speaking to Unity: Journalists of Color hours after Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry told the gathering that the Iraq war represented a failure of diplomacy, Powell replied: "We haven't had a failure in Iraq. We have gotten rid of a horrible dictator."

Asked about his experience being on the losing end of important foreign policy debates, Powell said "there was no split" over the invasion of Iraq once the Bush administration concluded Hussein had violated the final demands from the U.N. Security Council.

"I can assure you that I have in no way been constrained, contained or kept on the outside of our discussions," Powell said.

Was he lying then or now?

Mr Powell, in his first interview since resigning last November, also told The Telegraph of his "dismay" at the deterioration in relations between America and Europe and of his "disappointment" with France.

Perhaps he could have done something about either had he, you know, gotten on a plane or something.

But that would have meant Armitage would have had the pleasure of leaking to the Washington Post instead of ol' Colin "Senior Administration foreign policy official in a position to know" Powell.

While holding back from blaming Mr Rumsfeld by name for the problems that eventually persuaded him to resign, Mr Powell showed that much of the innuendo and leaks surrounding his volatile relationship with the defence secretary had been well-founded.

The source of leaks typically considers their own leaks to be well-founded, yes.

Admitting that Mr Rumsfeld's controversial plan to fight the war with limited troop numbers had been an outstanding success, Mr Powell said the "nation building" that followed had been deeply flawed.

Hmm, now which cabinet department is typically in charge of such ventures? Would that be the State Department? Perhaps if Mr. Powell had spent more time advocating and less time undermining he would have been entrusted with the critical effort to build a new Iraqi nation.

And given the outstanding success of the recent elections, it's hard to see how a Beltway hack who refused to climb on a plane would have done any better than the folks on the ground did in building a new nation on the ashes of the old.

There had been "enough troops for war but not for peace, for establishing order. My own preference would have been for more forces after the conflict."

Where exactly would we get these troops, sir?

Your European buddies wouldn't give enough.

You presided over the dismantling of the force structure during your tenure in the Pentagon.

Where exactly shall we get the troops necessary to secure peace in Iraq?

Shall we pull out of Europe, out of Korea, out of Japan?

You know better, sir.

You know that we have every Army division possible engaged in the region, and that we have greatly extended the active duty status of our reserve units.

You also know that it takes years to build up more troops, not days. You presided over the first Gulf War, and took over 6 months to get troops in place for that conflict, troops that weren't even intended to be used for pacification.

Score your cheap political points, Colin, you're just shrinking in stature by the soundbite.

It's like the great man once said: "When we are debating an issue, loyalty means giving me your honest opinion, whether you think I'll like it or not. Disagreement, at this stage, stimulates me. But once a decision has been made, the debate ends. From that point on, loyalty means executing the decision as if it were your own."

Oh waitaminute, that was no great man---the person who said that was Colin L. Powell.

Of course, the same wordsmith also said, "You don't know what you can get away with until you try."

Powell said he had warned President George W Bush over dinner in August 2002 that the problem with Iraq was not going to be the invasion but what followed.

He told him: "This place will crack like a goblet and it will be a problem to pick up the bits. It was on this basis that he decided to let me see if we could find a United Nations solution to this."

Such prescience. Such nonsense.

None of this would have been necessary, sir, had you not advocated quite so forcefully against destroying the Iraqi Republican Guard in Desert Storm.

Your UN effort failed miserably. Perhaps you could have gotten on a plane or something.

Mr Powell told Charles Moore, the former editor of The Telegraph who conducted the interview outside Washington, that he regretted the fall-out with Europe over the Iraq war.

Excuse me, but wasn't the diplomatic piece of this your job?

You apparently didn't regret it enough to, you know, get on a plane or something.

He also found Mr Rumsfeld's reference to "New Europe" and "Old Europe" unfortunate.

"I never used the phrase," he said. "It just wasn't a useful construct. I don't think the president ever used it.

"We've got a lot more work to do with European public opinion."

It is a perfectly "useful construct".

Rumsfeld used it to draw a line between those Eastern European nations who understood the need to overthrow the tyrannies you liked to preserve and those effete, well-tailored Brussels bureaucrats who are perfectly content hobnobbing with mass murderers at UN gatherings.

Blunt language, sir, is also a tool of the diplomat.

Which you might have known, had you, say, gotten on a plane or something.

Vox Blogoli 2.2: Charge!

Here's the current shape of the Grant v. McClellan GOP judicial strategy battleground:

GrabAByte wants to see the GOP "just do" the nuclear option, if only to see a Klansman's head explode. (Sorry---no permalink).

MDV Outlook thinks there will be a battle, and like the Washingtonians who once came out to view an anticipated Civil War skirmish, it should be entertaining.

The View from the Holy Coast yells "Fight! Fight!"

Screaming Diatribe demands Democrats surrender, and doesn't think the GOP needs to change the rules to win.

TBFKADVK says, simply, "Grant!"

Elgin Tyrell has a great photo illustration up which frames the debate nicely.

Ace of Trump says fortune favors the bold and Janice Brown should be the first battle.

California Mafia thinks--gasp!---Arlen Specter is right, at least about depoliticization of the process.

The New Federalist Papers sees no alternative---Grant it must be for the GOP.

The Larsonian says the Senate GOP is too nice---McClellanesque, one might say.

The Regulator posits the problem with a GOP stand---looming budget battles, no pressure from Dubya, and no electoral consequences if Frist opens his fist on this one.

Redford Outpost wants to let the public decide.

Poor Country Boy paints the picture simply: since the Democrats can't win electoral majorities otherwise, the judiciary is their last redoubt---they must be beaten there.

Notes in Samsara calls Hugh names, and promises karmic retribution if the GOP fights "consensus" on the judiciary.

Kicking Over My Traces advises a better avatar than McClellan or Grant---Patton: up-or-down on the entire slate of nominees.

Socially Conservative thinks obstructionism is a flat-out loser for the Democrats.

Wagonboy's Garage challenges "Drippy Harry" to make his day.

Mount Virtus wants an unconditional surrender from the Dems.

Criwulf thinks the real battle will be replacing Stevens on the Supreme Court.

My Dogs Are Smarter paraphrases Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the middle of making a mistake."

Whew.

That's a lot to chew on.

Some points raised by the above:

1. The Democrats have already changed the rules of the Senate game by obstructing justices, something which simply was not done until the Bush Administration came in. The original argument seemed to be that since Bush was "selected, not elected" the Democrats did not have to let him appoint anybody to the Courts. Now that that weak argument's been shredded, they simply claim that most of the inconsequential appointments have been filled, a very weak standard indeed. The Robert Byrds of the world who claim reverence for precedent yet ignore their own caucus' discarding of the same out of pure political pique are simply rank hypocrites.

2. The judiciary is clearly the last redoubt of Leftism in America. Without the White House, without Congress, without the state governorships, without the state legislatures, the Democrats are on the verge of being eliminated as a national party. They simply lack access to the levers of power, and the advantages of incumbency mean they need a revolution to get them back. They have clearly decided to use the Courts to impose Leftist will by fiat, without recourse to the will of the people. This will further erode their electoral position. The Left is simply hoping that the cult of personality will elevate Hillary Clinton to the White House, where she can ensure Leftist domination of the Courts for the forseeable future, until demographic shifts or the swinging pendulum of public opinion swings back their way (an American defeat in the War on Terror would help). This kind of white-knuckle political gamesmanship is virtually unprecedented in American history---perhaps the only example would be the domination of the Republican Party by the abolitionists and their eventual ascent to national power. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats have no single issue to rally around, only a hodgepodge of crackpot ideas which are essentially warmed-over Bolshevism.

3. If the Democrats intend to adopt the Gingrich model, they should first understand it. Gingrich didn't simply obstruct the Democrats. He first rallied the party around ten core ideas, most of which were new. This Contract With America was then put to the test of the electorate, open and honestly, and the electorate ratified it by throwing the Democrats out of the House for the first time in a generation. Moreover, the Democrat Speaker of the House was defeated, an electoral feat not matched until Puff Daschle got booted in the past election cycle. Once in power, Gingrich successfully beat down the Clintonistas, finally losing only when the Clinton/MSM axis managed to cast him as a big crybaby during the government shutdown. Since Bill first had thong on his pizza during the shutdown and eventually got impeached for lying about it in a court case, I don't think the Democrats emerged unscathed from the whole shutdown debacle. They haven't regained the House since, much to their dismay, and only regained the Senate by political machination. In short, you can't have a popular uprising if your ideas aren't popular.

4. As for the notion that GOP Senators will shy from the judicial battle due to love of pork, lack of outside pressure, or out of sheer arrogance and lack of accountability, it seems the Awesome Power of a Fully-Operational Blogosphere might be brought to bear on that, no?

The battlefield has been shaped. For better or ill, this is where we must fight and conquer, or fight and die. The future of America depends on Republican control of the Courts and the removal of the last impediment to reshaping our military, our national institutions, and our economy to ensure prosperity, peace, and liberty for the forseeable future. Victory in the War on Terror depends solely on victory in the Senate. If we fail, left-wing judges will do everything possible to enshrine treason as patriotism and cede American jurisdiction to European bureaucrats.

We didn't choose this battlefield. We didn't choose this battle. We must choose victory, for the sake of our party, our countrymen, our progeny, our legacy.

Update:

The California Mafia comment above has been edited to better reflect what KG was getting at, per the comment to this post. If I misinterpreted KG's original post, I apologize and hope this edited comment better captures its flavor and intent. In any case, please check out the source---lots of good stuff there.

Just A Bunch of Crackers Turning Left....

The NASCAR phenomenon continues:

They ran the Daytona 500 last Sunday afternoon and the New York Times even covered it. It was not so long ago that the Times would have considered stock-car racing unworthy of its attention; but there is no denying NASCAR these days. The Daytona race — broadcast on Fox — pulled higher ratings than the NBA all-star game. What was once the pastime of moonshine-running rednecks has gone mainstream. NASCAR is even listed on the New York Stock exchange.

As they say in the south, "Son, we ain't trash no more."

I've known some rabid NASCAR fans---this sport is still on the rise.

Something the NBA, MLB, and the NHL might well keep in mind as they watch their audiences erode.

Ann's a Gannon Fan

A priceless Ann Coulter column for you (sorry, no permalink---look for the Feb 23rd, 2005 column entitled "REPUBLICANS, BLOGGERS AND GAYS, OH MY!"):

Democrats in Congress actually demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into White House press conferences while writing under an invented name. How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for president under invented names? Admittedly, these men were not reporters for the prestigious "Talon News" service; they were merely Democrats running for president.

Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like The New York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job. (Also unlike Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on TV and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights.)

I'm sure glad she's on our team.

Victor Davis Hansen on "The Merchants of Despair"

Clip it. Cut it. Savor it.

Here's the last paragraph, for an aperitif:

A final prediction: By the end of this year, formerly critical liberal pundits, backsliding conservative columnists, once-fiery politicians, Arab "moderates," ex-statesmen and generals emeriti, smug stand-up comedians, recently strident Euros — perhaps even Hillary herself — will quietly come to a consensus that what we are witnessing from Afghanistan and the West Bank to Iraq and beyond, with its growing tremors in Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, and the Gulf, is a moral awakening, a radical break with an ugly past that threatens a corrupt, entrenched, and autocratic elite and is just the sort of thing that they were sort of for, sort of all along — sort of...

Through the Looking Glass of Academia

Funny---I thought good teachers were supposed to be treasured.

Here's another worthwhile blogosphere target---left-wing academics.

After Churchill's scalp hangs from bloggers' belts, sure would be nice to have an educrat's to hang next to it.

Hysteria Kills

A thorough debunking of the DDT myth came out today:

THE FIRST CHARGE AGAINST DDT was that it causes cancer. No search has ever turned up any evidence, despite massive use of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s. Wayland Hayes, U.S. Public Health Service scientist, for 18 months, fed to human volunteers, daily, three times the quantity of DDT that the average American was ingesting annually. None experienced any adverse effect, then or six to ten years later.

Workers without wearing protective clothing, with nine to 19 years of continuous exposure to DDT in the Montrose Chemical Company which manufactured DDT, never developed a single case of cancer. DDT caused no illness in the 130,000 men who sprayed it on the interior walls of mud and thatched huts, nor the millions of people who lived in them. Professor Edwards in his classroom occasionally ate a tablespoon of DDT to illustrate to his students that it is not harmful. Indeed, DDT is so safe that canned baby food was permitted to contain five parts per million.

"There has never been any convincing evidence that DDT (or pesticide residues in food) has ever caused cancer in man," concluded Ames and Jukes.

In fact, DDT prevents cancer. "DDT in the diet has repeatedly been shown to enhance the production of hepatic enzymes in mammals and birds. Those enzymes inhibit tumors and cancers in humans as well as wildlife," wrote Professor Edwards in 1992.

The Faustian bargain between scientists and the policymakers who fund their research continues to destroy the public's faith in both and cause disastrous consequences.

How long before the global warming myth gets similarly debunked, and how many must die before this comes to pass?

The Lingering Death of the MSM

From Drudge:

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS., FEB 24, 2005

FNC O'REILLY 2,181,000 [VIEWERS]
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,622,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,386,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,318,000
FNC GRETA 1,307,000
CNN LARRY KING 1,004,000
CNN ZAHN 673,000
CNN AARON BROWN 551,000
CNN COOPER 524,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 388,000
CNN DOBBS 379,000
CNNHN NANCY GRACE 366,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 240,000
MNSBC OLBERMANN/GANNON 208,000

Now I know why Matthews and Olbermann are angry all the time.

Vox Blogoli 2.2: Second Salvo

A roundup of the early phase of the Vox Blogoli battle:

Pekin Prattles thinks the Dems will stop short of electoral suicide.

As the Top of the World Turns offers a simple solution---make the Dems filibuster for real.

Greg's Truth agrees.

Red State Rant frets that the GOP might well come off looking like reactionaries here.

Slublog thinks it's payback time for the GOP.

Political Fan is also a history fan.

Lex E. Libertas looks at the 2006 Senate race and sees an opportunity for the GOP.

The Banty Rooster thinks the GOP has no choice but to be aggressive here.

From LA to El Dorado has found a better paradigm for the GOP.

The Broken G String says it's the judiciary, stupid.

Right Sided declares Specter the enemy.

For my money, I think fears of another government shutdown debacle are overblown. The tide has truly shifted, and the prevalence of alternative media have greatly weakened the MSM's ability to cast the GOP as villains.

I also think that while Arlen Specter isn't much help, we shouldn't lose sight of the true adversary here---it's the Democratic Party. Right now, they're holding firm. Like the Anaconda Plan, we need to use bold action to employ strong pressure on them, weakening their ability to resist.

Forcing true filibusters is a start. With the GOP in majority, this forces the Democrats to really suffer for their obstruction. While I do agree that a more effective communications campaign would help, all the Republicans really need do is raise the pain threshold for the Democrats. Harry Reid has no intention of going the way of Puff Daschle or Tom Foley, and Hillary wants back in the Oval Office.

Now is the time to strike. Let Lincoln Chaffee switch parties if he wants to. Let Specter go with him. The GOP still holds the reins, and they need only the fortitude to snap them once or twice.

Vox Blogoli 2.2: Does the Senate GOP Go McClellan or Grant When the Dems Go Gingrich?

Hostilities are set to break out once more in the Senate over judicial appointments. The Blogfather asks us to read the tea leaves and estimate which way the GOP wind will blow.

My prediction is counter-intuitive: the weak-kneed GOP Senate Majority will stand firm.

Here's why:

1. The battle over Arlen Specter's chairmanship made crystal clear that the GOP rank-and-file are evaluating Senate success for this term strictly on how quickly the Senate confirms Bush appointments. Senators need lots of money for reelection. The third of the body up for reelection next year will be very sensitive to their respective party bases. This is a red-meat issue for both parties.

2. The looming Supreme Court vacancies afford the chance to lock in the Republican realignment of the past 10 years. This is the Gettysburg of the Red/Blue Political War. If the Democrats run out the clock so that a Democrat administration in 2008 or 2012 gets to pack the Court, the GOP majority will be a thing of the past. The Dems know this; the GOP is learning this.

3. The public is with the Republicans on this one. Obstructionism has not played well---look at the continued erosion of the Democrat Senate seats in an election cycle where they should have gained. Momentum is swinging right on the Court and the American public is reexamining former shibboleths such as abortion-on-demand and affirmative action. The liberal wing of the GOP---Specter, Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, etc---are losing power daily.

4. The fear of Specter's wrath is overblown. He's a lame duck, and now he's got serious health problems. Arlen Specter simply does not have the wherewithal to scuttle progress in the Republican caucus over the next year.

5. The MSM is dead. The Democratic Party died by the time of Reagan's inauguration; the MSM provided life support. Now that life support has been unplugged. The last hurrah was the Kerry campaign in '04; the fact that the full power of the MSM was brought to bear nakedly in support of the Democratic candidate and he still lost indicates that the Hair Helmet Hamas isn't a game-changer anymore.

6. Bill Frist aims higher. If he wants to have a future in the GOP, he's on tap to deliver on judicial appointments. He wants that future.

7. Rick Santorum will be all over this. He's looking to repair his conservative rep after the Specter/Toomey debacle.

8. McCain needs the GOP. He wants to run in '08, and anyone who thinks he'll be on a non-party ticket wasn't paying attention in '04.

All signs point to the GOP getting real serious, real fast on this issue.

And not a moment too soon.

More on the Hariri Assassination

Jim Geraghty has an interesting analysis which points toward state-sponsored terrorism.

The Syrians are going to pay for this one---big time.

Whose Side Is Russia On in the War on Terror?

Nicholas Gvosdev thinks fears of a new Russian tyranny are overblown:

There are pronounced authoritarian tendencies, tendencies that have accelerated in the past year or so. But there is no justification for classifying Russia as a "tyranny" or lumping Russia in with countries like Egypt, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, or even the People's Republic of China.

For the last five years, I've felt Russia is best understood in terms of "managed pluralism" — a system which mixes democratic and authoritarian features, where zones of relative freedom uneasily coexist with areas where the regime exercises more control. Some of my colleagues believe that "managed pluralism" is but a fancy name for soft authoritarianism, a criticism I admit has some merit. But no matter what, it is a far cry from any sort of return to Stalinism.

This is patent nonsense.

There is no such thing as a half-tyranny---one either has liberty or does not. The most basic aspect of freedom is the ability to choose the nation's leadership. Can the Russians truly do that today?

Freedom of the press is another bulwark of liberty. Is the Russian press free to criticize Vladimir Putin?

Democracy is not meted out by the drop, but by the raging torrent. An authoritarian regime which permits some strictly-controlled pantomimes of liberty is not democratic. By this standard, Cuba is free because Fidel Castro allows state whores to set their prices. That may be good enough for Jimmy Carter, but conservatives need to set a higher standard for freedom.

Simply saying that Putin's Russia is not so bad as Stalin's Russia is not to say it is as free as it should be, or as it was during Yeltsin's tenure.

One can detest Honecker's East Germany while noting that it wasn't quite so monstrous as Hitlerite Germany was.

Freedom is on the march. Why tiptoe?

The Science of Tabloid Journalism

Iain Murray details the decline of scientific journals:

A prime example is the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which recently published a news story that suggested that Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac, had failed to disclose links between the drug and violent behavior and suicide. The story alleges that certain documents detailing the alleged links — and provided to the BMJ by an anonymous source — had not been shared with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and had gone "missing" during the trial of man charged with murder in 1994. In a strongly worded response, Lilly pointed out that the documents had been in general circulation for years. In fact, the BMJ's one example of missing scientific data had been published by Lilly in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology in 1992! The BMJ refused to allow Lilly to review the documents prior to publishing the story; Lilly was only able to do so after obtaining copies from Democratic congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York, who had received copies from the BMJ. Moreover, the BMJ told Lilly that it would have an opportunity to discuss the issue further after the Christmas holidays — but then went ahead and issued its story on January 1; it also sent the documents to the FDA.

I predict that the scientific establishment is going to undergo a shakeup closely akin to that of the MSM soon. The fudging of climatological data associated with global warming and the overt politicization of popular magazines like Discover and Scientific American are the warning tremors of the quakes to come.

How Do You Get Food Poisoning When You Don't Eat?

Whitney Houston comes down with severe vomiting on an airline flight.

Wonder if they'll haul Bobby Brown in for questioning again.

Does Tenure Accomplish Anything Positive?

I don't agree with Candace de Russy's NRO piece:

But — barring evidence of violations such as academic or resume fraud — boards such as UC's Regents should not fire Churchill, and not only because punitive action taken by a government appointed body against a public employee, on grounds of even the most vicious and intellectually nugatory speech, would set a dangerous precedent.

If I brought public disgrace upon the company I work for, I'd be canned. Period.

So why is it that intellectual mediocrities like Ward Churchill have six-figure jobs for life?

Abolishing tenure would improve the quality of instruction and bring some accountability to the academy for once. What is gained by having somebody spout off like Churchill did and retain their job?

Tenure simply enshrines mediocrity.

And for those of you worried about the lack of tenure protection for conservative academics, do the math. Conservatives don't get hired in the first place, don't get tenure even when hired, and if they do somehow attain tenure, the administration finds a way to ease them out anyhow.

The only people who should have jobs guaranteed for life are head coaches for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Heroes Aren't Hard To Find: Part IV

Hebrews 11: 7 --
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

In Heroes Aren't Hard to Find: Part I, I expressed why I feel the way I do about the state of the church as an institution; how it has bruised me and many others, but how I still strive for its health.

In Part II, I established what I understand Faith to be, explored dogma, and talked about how the "Heroes of the Faith" (specifically Abel) are no different than we. We went crashing through the myth that they somehow had superheroic powers and began to examine them as real people, instead of fables impossible to live up to.

In Part III, we looked at what Love is, what our basic job is as believers, and possibly how Enoch fulfilled those requirements.

Now we turn our attention to Noah.

Noah was the great grandson of Enoch. His name means "comfort" in Hebrew. His father, Lamech, named him that because, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." (Genesis 5:29) So from the beginning, we are optimistic concerning Noah.

Genesis 6:5-10 --

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD .

9 This is the account of Noah.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

This is not unusual for the LORD. Later, under Moses' leadership, He threatens to destroy the entire nation of Israel. And one can certainly understand why. People are pains in the butt. Yet Noah, as did Enoch, "walked" with the LORD. He stood up for justice, lived his life in peace, took care of his family, his neighbors, and in so doing, honored God. He also presumably honored Him purposefully by prayer and sacrifice.

Genesis 6:11-13 --

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Um -- Whoa! God's talking to Noah. Yowsa... We in the modern era don't get the privilege of hearing (well, except for televangelists) the audible voice of God. One wonders how things like this worked back in the day.

But we also have to remember that these stories were transmitted orally for years before anyone (historically Moses) bothered to write them down. And in the context of an oral story told 'round the campfire or in the sheep field, it's immensely more convenient to say, "And then God said," versus rambling on and on.

Still the questions remain. Was this an intuition? A dream? A vision? An hallucination? Or was God really and truly talking with Noah? Dunno'. But it's obvious they were pals.

Genesis 6:14-22 --

14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. 16 Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark-you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

However this information was transmitted to Noah, it was obviously specific. And I think dwelling on the transmissional form itself is missing the point entirely. The thrust of this passage (for our purposes, anyway) is that Noah did everything God asked him to do.

Noah and God had already established a relationship with one another. Notice how he -- and only he -- "found favor in the eyes of the LORD". Nothing is mentioned about the righteousness of Noah's sons. However, because of the LORD's regard for Noah, He promises to keep His covenant not only with Noah, but also his offspring. He could have ordered Noah to forsake his wife and children, placed him in the ark alone, created him another wife (i.e. a second "Eve," if you will) and propagated an entirely new human race. But He didn't. He chose to preserve Noah's family.

So Noah does all that is asked of him. He puts his family and all the birds and beasts (which are "clean", further bolstering the presumption that Moses transcribed this tale from his perspective) gets in the boat and endures the rain and the flood. He sends out the birds, finally gets out of the boat (with an aching back, no doubt) and, before he even settles his family, builds an altar to the LORD in gratitude (as would I... can you imagine?).

Genesis 8:21-22 --
21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 "As long as the earth endures,

seedtime and harvest,

cold and heat,

summer and winter,

day and night will never cease."

God was happy. And he blessed Noah.

Genesis 9:1-3 --

God's Covenant With Noah

1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Were you aware that people were originally vegetarians? Yep, it says so right there. ('Course there's no Biblical backing for it now, according to the preceding.)

Notice how this blessing echoes almost perfectly the blessing God gave to Adam and Eve in the creation story in Genesis 1:28-30 --

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God promises never to destroy the Earth with a killer flood (which doesn't preclude any other form of destruction) and signifies His Promise with a rainbow. Very nice. Then we are introduced to Noah's kids.

Genesis 9:18-27 --

The Sons of Noah

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.

Looks like Ham at least didn't father a people who were faithful. The Canaanites became an idol worshipping people who were eventually displaced and partly destroyed by Israel years later under Joshua.

Still, Noah's reputation is untarnished. One can envision him sitting in meditative prayer most of the day doing all the things that the sainted ascribe to; he never quarreled with his wife, lived under a happy rainbow with his children, kept to himself, worked hard, never played cards, smoked, danced, or was overtly passionate.

Then, we get this:

Genesis 9:20-
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.

Way to party, Noah! He's happy with the grape harvest and the first batch of wine he's made, so he gets a little drunkie-wunkie and passes out -- naked. This is a pretty typical Friday night at university. Albeit, without the Polaroids...

SO...

Genesis 9:22 --

22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

Ham gets a chuckle out of this. Thinks it's funny. The old man's passed out again. "Hey! You guys gotta' SEE this! Dad's not only shnoockered, he's bare-butt naked, too! Come 'ere! Check it out!"

Genesis 9:23 --

23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

Which is really the respectable thing to do. And we expect that a man such as Noah would wake up and settle the matter peacefully, right? Nope. Uhn-uh. He wakes up PEEVED.

Genesis 9:24-27 --
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said, "Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave."

Which is interesting because:

Joshua 16:10 --

10 They did not dislodge the Canaanites living in Gezer; to this day the Canaanites live among the people of Ephraim but are required to do forced labor.

The point? Noah was a hard worker who relied on the wisdom of the LORD. He walked with Him, prayed to Him, and yet, was a real person who made mistakes.

God might not come to you and me and request that we build an ark, start a ministry, or travel to Africa for missions work. He may only request that we love and serve, use our talents for Him (however humbly), and take care of ourselves, our families, and the strangers we encounter on the road. Remember, everyone's load is equal in the sight of the Lord.

What is significant is our response to His requests. Must we carry them out perfectly? No. We will try to, but because we inhabit this strange mortality where good and evil feud within the bounds of our skin, we cannot expect to be perfect in our bodies. We are however, perfect in His eyes through the accepted work of His Son. We strive to live in goodness because of our appreciation, but God's grace allows us, like Noah, to be imperfect in that striving.

Next: Abraham

Edited for misspellings and style -- WG

Blake The Magic Dragon

Looks like the defense isn't the only thing that's resting. When was the last time you smelled anything, Baretta?

Angry Lynch Mob Or Basketful of Puppies?

We know where John Leo comes down---he wants to scratch our bellies:

Here’s the retroframing: Some mainstream media fell back on their traditional view of bloggers as inaccurate, upstart nobodies who dare to criticize their betters. Last week, for instance, the New York Times, which had looked the other way for two weeks, ran a story dripping with disdain. Headlined “Bloggers as News Media Trophy Hunters,” it offered a simple-minded view of bloggers as wild conservatives out to collect liberal scalps. The story was laced with quotes assuring us that bloggers are a “lynch mob” of “salivating morons,” fanning fears of “the growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue” on the Internet (as opposed to the completely reliable and unrampant reports in mainstream media).

To make its case, the Times gave a sanitized account of Jordan’s comment on his panel and made no mention of two Democratic politicians, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, who were present at the panel and told the press they were aghast at what they heard Jordan say. Dropping Frank and Dodd from the story upheld the theme of out-of-control conservatives descending on famously liberal CNN. Jordan’s explanations that he was talking about mistakes and collateral damage caused by U.S. forces was directly contradicted by Frank, an antiwar liberal, who told the New York Sun that Jordan had said “he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops but had been targeted as a matter of policy.” Nothing like this appeared in the Times.

Why some in mainstream media keep depicting bloggers as inaccurate is a mystery. In the blogs I follow, accuracy is crucially important, and errors have to be admitted quickly, usually on the day of the mistake. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com suggests that mainstream media might want to hire some bloggers to check their stories before publication. This is a cheeky but polite reminder that bloggers are in the checking business and big media should get used to someone looking over their shoulder.

Think Rummy Signed Eason Jordan's Going-Away Card?

Nah, I don't think so either.

America's Heroes: Army Sgt 1st Class David J. Sallie

Once again, words fail me. They never fail Joe Galloway, thank God:

There he was. Six-foot-five, 200 pounds. His captain described him as a "mountain of a man." Also "a gentle giant." Wearing a high and tight haircut befitting a sergeant of Infantry.

``Well,'' he said, ``this is the suck tape. If you are watching this one, then you know I won't be coming home.'' He told Deanna and the children that he knew it would hurt "but I will always be there with you."

He added that there were things left undone in Iraq the last time he was in that part of the world in the Gulf War and that he believed we had to go back if the people of Iraq were to have a better life and better opportunity like his family enjoys here.

"The price is worth it," Sgt. Salie said. "In my heart."

Commenting On This Post Could Get You 14 Years In Prison

...if you happen to be living in Iran.

Arash Sigarchi and Mojtaba Saminejad have already been cast into the mullahs' dungeons for the crime of blogging.

Check out the Committee to Protect Bloggers for more information on how we can help keep Arash and Mojtaba's plight in the harsh glare of the global spotlight. Worldwide outrage is the only thing which keeps tyrants such as those ruling Iran from quietly exterminating the political prisoners in their clutches.

Effective immediately, we're adding this link to our BlogRoll.

Neidermeyer? Dead! Syria? DEAD!

James S. Robbins knows it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, and it ain't over now:

Instead, he has moved in the other direction and taken actions calculated to provoke the United States. Syria and Iran recently announced a united front, though stopped short of stating against whom or what they are uniting. It is not hard to figure out. Syria has been on the front lines resisting the move to bring democracy to Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Marines fought Syrian nationals in the swamps southeast of Baghdad. A source who was on the scene at the time told me that the last-ditch defenders of Saddam Hussein's main palace were Syrians. Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah snipers deployed to harass Coalition forces engaging in urban fighting in the months after the cessation of main combat operations. Today Syria remains a major transit point for men, money, and material going into Iraq in support of the insurgents. Bluntly, Damascus is helping kill Americans on the battlefield. One wonders how long this will continue before the expression "regime change" begins to be linked reflexively with Bashar Assad. The situation in Lebanon may soon be the least of his worries.

Who's with me? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Finally, Someone Who Can Stand "Judge" Napolitano Even Less Than Me

Andrew McCarthy's spot-on yet again:

Napolitano's latest op-ed should be called something similar. Maybe: "Chaos: What Happens When a Poseur Analyzes a Federal Prosecution." This is a truly excruciating read. There are, no doubt, any number of highly qualified academics and defense lawyers who are sympathetic to the cause of Lynne Stewart — a defense lawyer convicted for actions arising out of purportedly providing legal services to a client — and who would have given their right arms in exchange for space in the New York Times's vaunted opinion page. The Gray Lady, instead, managed to find someone nearly incapable of getting a single fact right, much less of explaining the relevant principles.

America's Real Allies

Tom Donnelly has the scoop.

Stone Dead

I care even less about Hunter Thompson than I did about Kurt Cobain, but Stephen Schwartz has an interesting piece about Gonzo going bye-bye nonetheless.

Kids, don't do drugs, mmmmmkay?

Condi! Condi! Condi!

John Tabin's trying to make me peel off my Condi '08 bumper sticker:

There's little evidence that blacks are much more likely to vote for black Republicans as they are for white Republicans, and the mention of Hispanics is, unless I'm missing something, a non sequitur. Maybe single white women would be more open to a candidate like Rice, but that's hardly a slam dunk. In a Rasmussen poll earlier this month, Sen. Clinton led Dr. Rice 55% to 32% among those who are not married. Overall, Rasmussen showed Clinton leading Rice 47% to 40%.

This isn't the first time Republicans have gotten starry-eyed about an idealized black candidate; there was buzz about a potential Colin Powell candidacy in the fall of 1995. Hilariously, William Kristol was a booster a Powell, years before Powell became undoubtedly Kristol's least favorite cabinet member. (Others at the Weekly Standard were less enthused.) By that time, it was clear that the GOP field was weak enough to make the lackluster Bob Dole the frontrunner. While the field for 2008 isn't looking all that exciting at this point, there is plenty of time for a formidable candidate to emerge. The slightly desperate courting of Rice seems awfully premature.

African-Americans are a 90%+ lock for the Democrats when they field a decent candidate. One should presume Hillary would be a decent candidate. Yet given a choice between having a white liberal woman as President or the first African-American President, you've gotta think Condi could peel off some of that 90%.

Americans love great stories, and President Rice is a lot better story than another President Clinton.

This isn't desperation---there is a genuine fondness for Condi Rice among Republicans. It's a fondness Colin Powell completely squandered by becoming a petty political bureaucrat instead of the statesman we'd all hoped he'd be.

In handicapping the '08 GOP field, I much prefer even an untried Condi to a tried-and-false John McCain.

Sycophants and Sissies

That's the Left's favorite roleplaying game. They've tried to cast President Bush as headliner on Bill Clinton's World Apology Tour. Fortunately, there are men made of sterner stuff:

Perhaps a greater cause for concern is England, which has been our steadfast ally in the effort to unseat Saddam and bring a whiff of freedom to Middle Eastern air. Prime Minister Blair, who represents a Liberal political movement, is motivated to wrest some concessions from our President to cash in the chips accrued by that fealty. In so doing, he hopes to achieve the auxiliary benefit of convincing his nation's wry culture mavens that he is not Bush's "poodle."

Naturally, we would like nothing more than to be accommodating. As the old Persian king said to Queen Esther, "ask up to half of the kingdom and it will be done." Even if Blair wants us to be open to the idea of importing fried fish, which would cause half the United States Customs Service to resign and write tell-all books, there might be room to talk. The kicker is that of all the cockamamie things that he could take as valuable door prizes, he seems to have set his little liberal heart on Uncle Sam giving his avuncular nod to the Kyoto protocols.

Those were the product of all the mendicant nations of the world, the almoners, the beggars, the solicitors, the organ-grinders and the all-purpose schnorrers gathering in Kyoto a decade ago to penalize the United States for using too well the resources of the Earth. This excess is said to have caused Global Warming, a prospect that shivering citizens of the U.S. Northeast and Midwest may regard with some joy but which, if not soon curbed, will cause our fragile planet -- any day now -- to be charred down to a sizzling scree of embers and cinders.

What's On the Blogs

The blogosphere fairly hums with diverse messages. Here's a quick stream-of- consciousness tour through the blogs at the moment:

1. Brainster's talking about Australian immigration, a new method for rating Congressmen, and Congressman Hinchey's Karl Rove conspiracy theories.



2. Rightwing Nuthouse is nattering on about George Washington's birthday, this season of "24", and a blog posting contest.

3. The Patriette is all over the benefits of communications technology, soliciting prayers for Captain Ed's First Mate, and yet another example of why NWA apparently stands for "No Way Airlines".

4. Over at the Quonset Hut, they're chewing the fat about network-centric warfare, GIs instructing Iraqi soldiers, and the importance of military care packages.

5. At the Wittenberg Gate, we hear soft chants urging mercy for Terri Schiavo, a rumination on whether it's impatience which drives calls for her death, and a roundup of links concerning the bloggers' vigil for her.

One wonders where the hatred of blogs comes from given the random selection above. The blogosphere seems rather like the world's best dinner party, where we're all invited, regardless of who we know or what schools we graduated from.

That's probably what the MSM hate the most about the blogs, come to think of it.

Shouldn't Howard Dean Be Working the Phones?

Good news for Republicans:

The Republican National Committee began the month with a 6-to-1 financial advantage over its Democratic counterpart, with $16.5 million in the bank compared to the Democratic National Committee's $2.6 million.

Let's see how Howard Dean does at closing the gap. He isn't going to get there with the screamers, since you can't make many big donations on what's left over from tie-dye sales after buying patchouli and reefer.

Protect Those Martian Wetlands

This is huge, if true:

Images relayed by a European space probe reveal the existence of a sea of ice close to the equator of Mars, scientists said Tuesday at a conference in the Netherlands. The existence of water or ice would significantly increase the chance that microscopic life may also be found on Mars.

As I understand it, scientists expected the greatest probability of extant Martian ice to be found at the poles. The fact that it has apparently been found at the equator would seem to signify a much greater quantity of it remaining on Mars than might have been dreamed.

This has enormous consequences for both the possibility of life on Mars as well as potential manned visits to the planet, as the presence of accessible water reserves would greatly ease the logistics of such a journey.

If true, this will also greatly intensify the push for further Martian exploration.

Update on The New York Times Purchase of About.com

Captain Ed blogs better bouncing between the hospital and home than most of us do on our day off with a T1 line humming along.

I should have known tax-dodging was at the heart of this odd transaction.

Heroes Aren't Hard To Find: Part III

Hebrews 11:5-6
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

We've already established what we mean by Faith. And Paul's explanation certainly does much to highlight it further. In his varied examples of "heroes of the Faith", he has chosen to focus this passage on Enoch. Remember who Enoch was? No? Well:

Genesis 5:21-24:

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

That's about all we get.

Yep, ole Enoch, he sure was... something. Mmm-hmm...

He's listed in the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:37), but he's also listed in just about everyone else's line since he's presumably only seven generations removed from Adam himself.

Where we finally get some meat is in Jude:

Jude 1:14-15 --

14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

This quote is included in Jude's observational rant and warning to the early church to be on guard against imposters who look like brothers but who are actually nasty and perverse thieves.

Because Enoch's "quote" is not mentioned anywhere else in the canonical books, we can infer that it was something common to Jewish knowledge. Why else would Paul (the valedictorian of the Pharisee class) have quoted it? References to it can most likely be found in the Midrash, Mishnah or other commentary, but nevermind.

Enoch "walked with the LORD". If we piece together the attributed quote from Jude and the excellent recommendation from Paul, we know he did the right things before God.

He had Faith. He stood up for the righteousness of God. He walked humbly and peacefully with Him and his fellows. And God thought so much of this that He "took him" instead of sending him to "be with his fathers." So what did Enoch do that was so admirable?

Enoch was (as in the case of Abel) a figure who knew God before the Mosaic Law had been handed down, so... Hmm... What did that entail?

Right now the pre-programmed, "group-think" Christians are confused: "There are no laws to follow or schedules to keep. There's no one prodding him to pray or go to Sunday school. No one standing over him with a hot poker accusing him of something horrible if he gets it wrong! Um... I... uh..." Is this hurting your brains, darlings?

John 6:28-30 --

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Mark 12:30-32

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." 31 The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself." There is no commandment greater than these."

When you Love someone, you want what's best for them; their interests, their health, your relationship with them. You strive to do things of which they will approve, things to honor them, things to make them happy. We are all pretty well informed on how to make our loved ones happy. It's easy. Help them, adore them, comfort them, show them affection, be loyal, speak kindly, bring them little gifts, etc.. Why then are we so confused on how to please God? He even showed up looking like us so He could make it MORE plain!

Would a just God dangle clues to the answer in front of us without ever giving us the real answer? Would a loving God promise us something we could never attain? Would this God expect us to understand Him (a Being we could never understand precisely because of our humanity) in a manner foreign to us? Would He demand understanding where there could be none?

No.

That's why we're called the "Bride of Christ"; why He's called "the Bridegroom." It's a love relationship that we are already programmed to understand. A passionate, wonderful fulfilling Love.

You don't have to speak it into existence, have someone bless it for you, confess it to someone else, pay for it, drink a potion to get it, order it C.O.D., or have it surgically implanted. All you have to do is Love and act on that Love.

Apparently, that's what Enoch understood.

Next: Noah.

Justified Shooting? The New York Times Doesn't Care

Steve Dunleavy notes that The New York Times somehow can't sink its teeth into a story about cops doing the right thing.

Ten Stories the MSM Didn't Want You To Know About

From WorldNetDaily (HT: Michelle Malkin), with my commentary on each:

1.America's vulnerability to nuclear terrorism.

In a society where legal secretaries can start a mass panic which results in enormous court settlements and a hit movie starring Julia Roberts in the lead, can you imagine how much damage even a dirty bomb could do?

And yet it's apparently not all that difficult to put a successful scenario together for the conduct of nuclear terrorism. There is a reason why the North Koreans and Iranians are fighting a mad race against time to develop both nuclear weapons and a means to directly threaten U.S. cities with them---they have good reason to believe that such a plan will work.

If we must have a Homeland Security Department, one would presume this would be at the top of their list. If we must have a MSM, one would presume it would be at the top of their list to report on the ongoing threat and so prompt proper action to safeguard the public.

So why aren't we hearing more about this? Might it be that the global warming hysteria is a much better weapon to use against the Bush Administration than calling attention to the ongoing need for a War on Terror?

2. Sandy Berger's pilfering of classified documents in an apparent attempt to sanitize President Clinton's legacy.

I like to think that the wheels of Justice are simply doing their usual slow but fine grind routine, but I'm mystified as to why the Plame non-scandal is getting lots of play but Sandy Berger's stealing classified documents does not. Okay, I'm not truly mystified---the MSM is whistling by the graveyard hoping against hope this will go away, as the real story will undoubtedly hurt the Democrats.

I don't know if Berger did it to sanitize the Clinton "legacy", but I do know that the MSM would be all over the Bush Administration if one of their lackeys had done something similar.

Whatever happened to the public's right to know?

3. The U.S. border as a conduit for terrorists.

Protect our borders? Are you crazy? That would mean kissing lots of Democrat votes goodbye.

4. The validity of the Swiftboat vets' charges against Sen. John Kerry.

Are we seeing a common thread here, yet? When valid, supportable, substantiated charges are raised against a Democrat, they're to be ignored as partisan trickery. When forged, repudiated, unbelievable charges are raised against a Republican, the source is "unimpeachable."

No bias in the MSM, whatsoever.

5. America's out-of-control judiciary.

The judiciary is the last redoubt of the Left in America, which is why Senate Democrats will go all the way to the unemployment line to run out the clock until a future Democrat administration can appoint reliable Lefties for life to the federal courts. With leftism increasingly unpopular, this is the only lever the diehards have left to pull to implement policy, and pull it they do and will.

6. Uncontrolled immigration.

More illegal aliens means less dead people one must dig up and drive to the voting booth.

7. The Philadelphia 5.

This is a story I hadn't heard anything about concerning a clash between Christian protestors and the gay lobby which resulted in several of the Christians being charged with felonies, but none of the "Pink Angels" being arrested. I simply don't know enough to comment, but this would seem to be terrific MSM story stuff---the clash between hardline religious "bigots" and an oppressed victim class.

That they didn't run it makes me think the Christians may be getting railroaded here.

8. The U.N. oil-for-food scandal.

With the foreign policy apparatus of the U.S. safely in Republican hands, the U.N. has become the savior of the appeasement Left in America. Do you really think the MSM wants to do any "Kofi's corrupt" stories? Not when it would serve to validate Condi Rice and George W. Bush, they won't.

9. Genocide in Darfur.

This is the same issue as #8. Treating Darfur as genocide, which it plainly is, would mean questioning why the U.N. has done nothing about it, or (quelle horreur!) encouraging the Bush Administration to successfully do something about it. Either outcome would be a tragedy beyond compare for Dick Holbrooke, so you won't be seeing the MSM fretting over all those dead Sudanese.

You won't see Bob Geldof launching Live Aid II either.

10. Saddam links with al-Qaida.

I blew soda through my nose reading this one. The New York Times investigating why Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and other terrorists (including Zarqawi) affiliated with al Qaeda all hung out in Saddam Hussein's police state? Yeah, right!

Another Laci Peterson?

Authorities have taken Stephen Barbee into custody in the disappearance of Lisa Underwood and her 7 year old son, Jayden. Barbee, the father of Lisa's unborn baby, is being held on $2 million bail.

Lisa, who was seven months pregnant, disappeared with her son this past weekend and was reported missing after she failed to show at a baby shower. Authorities found a pool of blood at her residence, but no sign of forced entry. Her SUV was found submerged in a creek.

The one question I've asked throughout the stories of Polly Claus, John Benet Ramsey, Laci Peterson is:

Why?

I don't get it. I truly, truly don't.

Update: Lisa's body, and that of her son, have been found and Barbee has been formally charged. Our prayers are with the families.

The Pernicious Influence of Abu Ghraib, or "24"?

Funny how all the people who routinely try to slaughter women and children are all claiming to be torture victims now:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A former Virginia high school valedictorian who had been detained in Saudi Arabia as a suspected terrorist was charged Tuesday with conspiring to assassinate President Bush and with supporting the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, a U.S. citizen, made an initial appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court but did not enter a plea. He claimed that he was tortured while detained in Saudi Arabia since June of 2003 and offered through his lawyer to show the judge his scars.

The federal indictment said that in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and an unidentified co-conspirator discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate Bush. They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."

According to the indictment, Abu Ali obtained a religious blessing from another unidentified co-conspirator to assassinate the president.

More than 100 supporters of Abu Ali crowded the courtroom and laughed when the charge was read aloud alleging that he conspired to assassinate Bush.

When Abu Ali asked to speak, U.S. Magistrate Liam O'Grady suggested he consult with his attorney, Ashraf Nubani.

"He was tortured," Nubani told the court. "He has the evidence on his back. He was whipped. He was handcuffed for days at a time."

When Nubani offered to show the judge his back, O'Grady said that Abu Ali might be able to enter that as evidence on Thursday at a detention hearing.

"I can assure you you will not suffer any torture or humiliation while in the (U.S.) marshals' custody," O'Grady said.

Abu Ali is charged with six counts and would face a maximum of 80 years in prison if convicted.

Here's an idea: the best way to avoid "torture" at the hands of the good guys in the War on Terror is to not be a terrorist or associate with terrorists.

Seems a lot easier fate to avoid than, say, getting blown up when a car bomb goes off nearby.

Guess He's Not Feeling Their Pain

Bill Clinton, class act, from Inside Politics 2/22/05:

$280, drinks extra
Seems like former President Bill Clinton has an additional agenda built in to the tail end of his government-funded trip to tsunami-damaged Indonesia with former President George Bush, which ended yesterday.
Mr. Clinton will journey on to Hong Kong today to sign copies of "My Life," his 2004 memoirs, according to the South China Post.
He'll appear for two hours at the Kelly and Walsh bookstore, with a limited number of $280 tickets available " and at such a bargain, too. The price includes the book.
Mr. Clinton then will head to Seoul and Tokyo for more meeting and greeting, according to the Post.
It's all last-minute, said the flabbergasted booksellers.
"It has been a very surprising, secretive, but exciting few days," one organizer told the paper.

Yeah, taking in all that tsunami devastation sure would make me want to make a few bucks off my wretched book.

I bet he bit his lip and went on and on about the shattered villages he'd seen while collecting his big fat checks, too.

Bad Boys, Bad Boys---Whatcha Gonna Do?

Bet this guy's making some attorney's day right now:

Police chased a naked man through the city's slushy streets early Monday after he allegedly stripped off his bathrobe, bit an officer, then stole a police cruiser in an attempt to escape.

The man was captured after he smashed the cruiser into several parked cars, abandoned the vehicle and tried to get away in his bare feet.

God Bless America

No one captures the grand sweep of history like Paul Johnson, especially when he's talking about America.

(Hat tip: Roger L. Simon)

MoltenThought Film Festival: "The Postman Always Rings Twice"

The next stop on the MoltenThought film festival is the 1946 film noir thriller, "The Postman Always Rings Twice", starring Lana Turner and John Garfield.



What I thought would be a lovely documentary of polite mailmen instead turns out to be a gritty little melodrama about love, betrayal, and murder in a California desert town.

John Garfield plays Frank Chambers, a malcontent drifter who stops by the Twin Oaks Inn, sees the proprietor's pretty young wife Cora (played by Lana Turner), and decides to take a job working the grill. Chambers does what any of us would do upon meeting our bottle-blonde boss' wife---he kisses her. This must happen all the time to Cora, because she just reapplies her makeup and goes about her business.

Soon, however, she's slinking off to the beach with handyman Frank, and spending her time alternately plotting to run away with him or looking earnestly into his eyes while her husband's on the road keeping their business going.

Before long, the tormented couple is planning to kill Cora's husband in order to take over the Inn for themselves. She first tries to brain him in the bathtub, but a cat climbed her escape ladder and electrocuted itself just as she struck the blow. Worried that a passing motorcycle cop saw the ladder, Frank and Cora take her husband to the hospital, where he has apparently forgotten that she struck him.

They next decide to fake a drunken driving accident, and succeed in killing Cora's husband by bashing him on the back of the head and rolling his car down an embankment. Unfortunately, Frank forgets to actually get out of the car first, so he winds up badly hurt as well.

The District Attorney soon pits Frank against Cora, but wily defense attorney Hume Cronyn somehow (blackmail? hypnotism?) gets him to push for Cora to get probation for manslaughter instead of a trip to the death house.

Frank and Cora are soon working to make the Inn a tourist attraction, aided no doubt by their newfound notoriety. When the townspeople begin to chatter about the propriety of Cora and Frank living together, they get married. Yeah, that should still the wagging tongues of those who think they might have murdered her husband.

They find that marital bliss for them consists of keeping one eye open all night lest the other betray them, but if the Clintons can live like that, why not some B-movie characters?

Events conspire against the couple and soon they get their just (and Code-mandated) rewards.

"Postman" ultimately fails on a number of fronts:

1. The chemistry between Garfield and Turner is about as hot as that between Seals and Crofts.

2. The husband isn't a bad guy. This means that however the movie pushes us to root for Frank and Cora, one can't help but feel sorry for the poor guy they plot against and kill for no good reason.

3. The legal maneuverings are ridiculous. Frank gets off because he signs a confession implicating Cora, yet the DA agrees to some sweetheart deal for her anyway.

4. Frank isn't likeable enough. The whole point of film noir antiheroes were that they were generally likeable people who did bad things, or vice versa. Frank is just some worthless jerk who stirs up trouble.

5. The ending is obviously tacked on. The filmmakers clearly intend for us to identify somehow with Frank and Cora, yet the faux redemption at the end is so plainly studio-mandated as to make the whole picture fall apart.

That's not to say there are not some good things about the film, just that I couldn't find any.

On the whole, the only real clunker thus far in the film festival---a movie with a much better reputation than it deserves.

Not recommended.

Middle East Showdown

March will be a huge month in determining the future of the Middle East.

We have a Syria-Iran bloc formed in opposition to the United States. We have the Iranian nuclear program coming to fruition, probably with aid from North Korea, possibly with assistance from Russia. We have the tenuous ceasefire between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We have Syria's terrorist acts in Lebanon. We have Moammar Qadafi's efforts toward detente with the U.S. We have continued Saudi waffling in the War on Terror. We have continued unrest in Iran.

U.S. gains in the region are easy to see on a map. Iraq, once a stalwart home to terrorists (to anyone who recognizes Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas as terrorists, at least), is now the frontline in the battle against international Islamic terror groups. Afghanistan, home to al Qaeda pre-9/11, is now vying with Pakistan to be the epicenter in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The Syria-Iran axis is made less tenable by the removal of Iraq from the Axis of Evil. Whereas the Israelis and Americans would have been hard-pressed to swiftly deal with Iraq or Syria before the Iraq War, we now have the bulk of our armed forces within easy striking distance.

The Iranians, Syrians, and Russians know the stakes, which is why they are acting as they are. They need to undermine the building of a democratic, Western-allied state in Iraq. Part of this involves dangling the prospect of an oil pipeline and Kurdish containment to the Turks, who are being pushed away from the U.S. and Britain already by the French and Germans and their bogus claims of consideration for Turkey within the EU. Weakening America's historically strong relations with Turkey must continue if U.S. interests in the region are to be thwarted.

Likewise, the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians must insert a wedge between the Iraqi people and the government it is about to form, or between that government and the Coalition. They cannot afford to have a stable, prosperous, pro-Western regime in the heart of the Middle East. Neither can the Saudis, who fear such a nation would undermine the House of Saud's grip on power while simultaneously strengthening the hand of the Wahabbists within the country.

For the U.S. and its Coalition allies, the course is likewise clear. Our gains in Iraq must be consolidated and reinforced while the Ba'athist regime in Syria and the mullahs' regime in Iran must be undermined and destroyed, both before the Iranians develop a deliverable nuclear weapon.

In retrospect, 2005 will look an awful lot like 1942. While the outcome remains in doubt, all the players are now on the stage and engaged.

Russian Retrenchment

More disturbing indicators that the Russian bear is stirring from its autocratic hibernation:

Telltale indicators of Russia's activism are everywhere. In late January, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad embarked upon a diplomatic visit to Moscow designed to upgrade the historic strategic ties between the two countries. Assad's consultations with Putin yielded a mutual commitment to closer cooperation between the Russian government and its "most important partner" in the Middle East. As part of this public reengagement, the Kremlin gave Damascus a much-needed economic shot in the arm, agreeing to write off almost three-quarters of Syria's $13.4 billion Cold War-era debt. The two leaders also began negotiations regarding the sale of an array of advanced missiles to the Baathist state in a deal that officials in Israel have warned could significantly alter the regional military balance in Syria's favor.

Russia is also dipping its toe into post-Arafat politics in the Palestinian Authority. In late January, on the heels of Assad's visit, the Kremlin played host to new Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. During his two-and-a-half-day visit to Russia, Abbas was warmly received by a slew of government officials, including President Putin, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, and Boris Gryzlov, the speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament. The new Palestinian leader, for his part, brought with him a consistent message: that Russia should increase its involvement in Palestinian politics, and in the mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Most recently, the Kremlin has formulated plans to break into the Saudi arms market. The Russian government is said to be finalizing its first major defense accord with the House of Saud — one that, if implemented, would mark "a landmark event in Russian arms exporting," according to Russian defense industry experts. News of the impending deal comes on the heels of a recent arms agreement between Russia and Morocco, the first between the two nations since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Then there is the issue of Iran. Despite mounting international concern over the nuclear ambitions of Iran's ayatollahs — and repeated entreaties from Washington and European capitals — the atomic ties between Moscow and Tehran are still going strong. Construction on the centerpiece of Russo-Iranian nuclear cooperation, the massive 1,000-megawatt plutonium reactor in the southwestern Iranian city of Bushehr, was officially completed in October of 2004. Final negotiations are now underway for fuel deliveries to the plant, which Western officials worry could yield weapons-usable plutonium and critical know-how that would accelerate Tehran's quest for the bomb. Russian officials, however, have gone even further, publicly hinting that they might be willing to build a series of additional nuclear reactors for the Islamic republic.

Moscow's renewed maneuvers in the Middle East have everything to do with ideology. Over the past year, Putin's increasingly authoritarian governing style has succeeded in eliminating any semblance of serious domestic opposition to the Kremlin, giving the Russian president virtual carte blanche to formulate foreign and defense policy. Worse still, this growing political mandate has been mirrored by the revival of unhealthy notions of Russian greatness and geopolitical opposition to the United States.

Condi Rice's knowledge of Russian language, history, and politics will be indispensable in the coming months, I'm afraid.

Obligatory Jeff Gannon Post

We haven't had much to say on the whole Jeff Gannon story, primarily because others have said it better.

Powerline has a roundup which exhausts every angle I could come up with.

Inventor of "Gonzo Journalism" Dead

Hunter S. Thompson commits suicide.

DecoWorld: Speed, Chrome, and Symmetry---Art for Modern Man

As you might infer from our site design, we here at MoltenThought are very big fans of Art Deco, a style of graphic, architectural, fashion, sculpture, and furniture design which fluorished roughly between the end of the First and the beginning of the Second World War.

Art Deco was more of an artistic metastyle than a style in and of itself, and there has been considerable debate over the precise definition of it. Like pornography, we tend to know Deco when we see it.

So in this inaugural installment of DecoWorld, we'll dispense with fleshing out definitions for the moment and rather provide you with a fairly extensive list of resources and examples of Art Deco in action. We'll then periodically return to this subject to revise and extend our treatment of it.



Art Deco Books

Art Deco 1910-1939 edited by Charlotte Benton, Tim Benton, and Ghislaine Wood

This is, for my money, the best overview of Art Deco available today. It covers all the major areas touched by Deco and offers an interesting look at the global influences upon it, particularly Asian, Ancient Egyptian, Latin American, and African art. It also gives ample space to American Art Deco, which other books sometimes discount in favor of European snobbery. Many full-color illustrations are included and the text is clear and detailed.

Art Deco: An Illustrated Guide to the Decorative Style 1920-40 by Arie Van de Lemme

A breezy overview which focuses on the decorative aspects of the style and provides fairly extensive coverage of areas often neglected by other books on the subject: metalwork, jewelry, ceramics and glass. Many full-color photos and a pleasing layout also add to the value of this book.

American Art Deco by Eva Weber

The American approach to Deco is sometimes derided by European purists who retroactively disdain its naked commercialism, despite the fact that the style itself began even in Europe due to commercial rather than artistic impulses. As with most commercial ventures, Americans tend to perfect and expand upon those ideas brought in from Old Europe. This book is particularly good at visually exploring the industrial design aspects of Deco and makes a great reference for engineers in this realm trying to recapture the magic of the interwar period. The text is quite sparse but Deco doesn't typically require lots of verbiage to communicate its meaning.

Art Deco by Eva Weber

This broad overview of the style is quite a bit more verbose than the same author's "American Art Deco" but the presentation frankly suffers a bit for it. Good coverage of the more practical applications of the style in architectural, interior, and sculptural design but weak on graphic design and painting, two aspects of Art Deco likely to be familiar to most people today.

Art Deco Graphics by Patricia Frantz Kery

A very well-designed and handy look at Art Deco's impact on the graphic arts, including detailed coverage of poster, magazine, commercial, font, book, fashion design. It's particularly good concerning the European foundations of the style, especially in covering the Bauhaus. Many, many full-colour large illustrations, with explanatory text neatly segregated from them. This is a great resource for artists and graphic designers looking to understand what all the fuss was about.

Art Deco Spot Illustrations and Motifs by William Rowe

513 Art Deco-inspired designs which should lend a practical approach to incorporating Deco within contemporary work. Unfortunately, the author has gotten a bit too carried away with most of the designs, resulting in a busy, cluttered look which ignores the simplicity of geometric Deco. However, I don't think the author intended these illustrations to be used as-is, but rather to be carved up into pieces and reassembled into one's own designs. This book served as the inspiration for the MoltenThought logo, a basic component of which you'll spot in the lower lefthand corner of page 28, somewhat altered in the execution.

Art Deco-inspired Movies

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

We've reviewed this elsewhere, but it's clearly a movie primarily moved by the Deco style of 30s serials.

Metropolis

Fritz Lang's mechanized masterpiece of silent film has long been a powerful force of inspiration for artists. He brought an industrial, mechanical sense to the visual arts which has been an almost indelible stamp on them. Every time you see gargantuan gears relentlessly grinding in film, or downtrodden people as fuel for a cold machine (yes, I'm talking to you, Pink Floyd), you're seeing Lang's influence.

Max Fleischer's Superman Cartoons

It's hard to overstate how iconic these cartoon shorts have proven. Suffice it to say that "Sky Captain" copied its opening montage of giant frickin' Nazi robots attacking New York from Fleischer's "Mechanical Monsters". Pini's work on the well-loved Batman and Superman cartoons over the past few years are a lovingly-executed homage to Fleischer.