The Black Republican

I strongly suggest this piece by Orson Scott Card as "Recommended Reading".

I saw The Passion of the Christ yesterday afternoon.

Steve had suggested after the movie that I would be posting a response here soon. I simply couldn't bring myself to do it when I got home. The movie left me physically drained and numb, and I ended up going to bed at the terribly early hour of 11:00 pm
(early for me, at least). Even though I'm supposed to be on my way to work right now, I had to sit down and write a few lines, especially since I've been thinking of little else.

I forced myself to read the worst of the reviews linked from the movie's page at Yahoo! The breadth and depth of vapidity I found there was stunning. I've read a few of the better reviews, but there's no point to it - you simply cannot get anything meaningful out of a review of this film, except from those who tell you they can't tell you what to think about this film.

You may think, after all the massive hype, the charges and countercharges, the endless media nattering (mea culpa, by the way), that you already know what's in store for you in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which finally opens today.

You don't. This is a movie so singular, so intense, so overwhelming that it simply has to be experienced. And nothing can prepare you for how brutal, how shocking, how awash in blood and pain Gibson has made his version of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

"The Passion" is so radically different from the normal moviegoing experience that people are going to have wildly varying reactions to it (the recent debate over anti-Semitism is just an inkling of the chasms of perception). A devout evangelical Christian, a Jew, an agnostic, a Muslim, a lukewarm believer may react so differently they might just as well have seen different movies.

So he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
- Luke 20, 25

If, having seen and endured the film, Christians are able in a fresh way to wonder at the vault of the Sistine Chapel, if they can humbly return to their churches to participate in the spoken and sacramentally enacted Word, then Gibson's Passion will have proven to be something even better than what it certainly is: the best movie ever made about Jesus Christ.

But all of this makes Gibson's Passion nearly the opposite of the arcane and politically fraught tradition of the passion play. Such performances were often staged to incite the audience to choose sides, to 'save' the integrity and honor of Christ by constituting a kind of party against Judas, the Jews, and the mob in Pilate's courtyard. Had Gibson used the power of film to give this twisted but all-too-human political stereotype a new lease on life, concerns about the film stirring up anti-Judaism or hostility against nonbelievers would be justified. To his credit, however, Gibson denies the audience any shred of political or religious triumph, or, for that matter, defeat. Even a viewer who already knows and religiously believes in the final outcome of the story must struggle to keep watching, which is humiliating in its own right. There might be reason for scholars and religious authorities to raise questions about Gibson's synthesizing of distinct scriptural accounts of the passion, or about his use of extra-biblical iconography. But it is hard to imagine anyone coming out of Gibson's movie with an appetite for a religiously politicized passion. If anything, this is the definitive post-passion-play passion.

So you tell me... would you rather be a Hawk or a Dove?

Isn't this story incredibly analogous? Hawks are more rare than doves (pigeons); the aggressive use of force trumps passivity every time, and doves (pigeons) will fly as far away from the hawk as possible - as quickly as possible - even to the point of abandoning their homes. Do you think that hawk would have even dared enter the building if it was inhabited by... let say... owls or eagles? Nature would have told that hawk to respect the strength of such opponents and stay away. Doves and pigeons, on the other hand, are easy pickings!

And how instructive to learn that while some people were revolted by the savagery and viciousness of the conflict (attack) - despite the fact that it's merely mother nature in action - others were in awe and wonder of the power and purpose of that nature.  I'd almost be willing to bet that you could predict their political leanings based just on those reactions.

And Home Depot will eventually be glad that this hawk (GWBush) moved in, because hawks (Republicans) tend not to defecate on their own home - unlike doves or pigeons (Kerry, Edwards, et al)  - and any problem they may have had with rats (Terrorists) or mice (Dictators) will soon begin disappearing as well!

Yep... heck of an analogy!

I strongly suggest this piece by Dana (Note-It Posts) as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mark Steyn as "Recommended Reading".

I'm sorry, but the illogic of this issue just toasts my cookies.

[I'd posted the following in response to a thread at Note-It Posts and figured it might just be the best I've put it yet. (With a tip o' the hat to Neal Boortz and a caller to his radio show who inspired several of my thoughts.) - Chris]

No one's rights are being violated by marriage laws. Once the antimiscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional, it became legal for any unmarried man to marry any unmarried woman and any unmarried woman to marry any unmarried man.

Cambridge: 'A legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this.'

I can no more 'marry' another man than I can marry my dog (for which I'm sure my dog is eternally grateful ;-)). That homosexuals find this 'discriminatory' is a mockery of the concept of equal protection. Race, color, and sex are all states of being - you are easily categorized as being a member of a specific group by visible inspection and without your consent. When homosexuals are 'discriminated against' by society they are categorizing themselves, and they do so by admitting that they engage in a certain activity. Once you've engaged in an activity it's no longer prejudice. There's no 'preconceived judgment or opinion' because you really have done something (as opposed to being someone of a particular race, color or sex that you have no control over).

And for those who would say that homosexuals have no more control over their situation than a person of a particular race, color or sex, the same can be said of the psychopath. But once the psychopath kills someone, he's still called 'a murderer' and we bring down all the power of law upon him - even if an equally psychopathic victim asks him to do it.

And if you absolutely, positively, can't agree with this (which means you probably disagree with the state's right to proscribe anything), you still can't make the leap that such a tangled mess of social engineering must be imposed on a population without their consent. Regardless of 24-hour news and the Internet, we're still a federal republic. Let California, Massachusetts, and whomever else do what they will, but leave the rest of us alone to set our own standards of decency in our states.

The American Conservative is a magazine from conservatism's dark side. It peddles crackpot theories, nativism, and bigotry on a regular basis. But occasionally its founder and editor, Pat Buchanan, makes a modicum of sense.

On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the "intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy."

The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, "There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust." "What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained" now menaces "our survival as a nation."

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

"[A] radical strain within Islam," says Perle, "... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws."

Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to "overthrow our civilization" and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?

I strongly suggest this piece by Peggy Noonan as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Hugh Hewitt as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Ann Coulter as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Michelle MalkinRemind me never to piss off Michelle Malkin. as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jonah Goldberg as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by James Lileks as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by James Lileks as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jonathan Tilove as "Recommended Reading".

When at first I spotted Jonathan Tilove's article, Blacks Line Up Behind "Electable" Kerry Because "We've Got to Get Rid of Bush", I thought "predictable". Predictable in the sense that those in search of anybody but Bush would find a way to position the Black vote as in favor of their man, whoever he may be. But, I took a look anyway, and after wading through the usual assumptions that Bush is bad, (no reasons given), and the claptrap of how their guy will be better, (even though they haven't shown him how to appear to be their friend yet); huzza, I found this telling paragraph.

In fact, after his last patron leaves, Ulysses Blakely, a barber on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Belle Glade, allows that he plans to vote Republican for the first time in his life. Bush is a leader, and more true to the Bible, said Blakely, who when he is through says he is grateful for the opportunity to get that out. "That felt great," said Blakely, for whom Kerry, at this point, is pretty much a cipher.

More than anyone else I've read recently, Brendan Miniter "gets it".

Terrorism is, of course, the big issue now facing America. That's not to say George W. Bush is of the stature of a Lincoln or even that the war on terror is as serious of an issue as the dissolution of the union. Today's war isn't even as divisive as the Vietnam War had become by the late 1960s. Fighting terrorism, however, is increasingly dividing this country--and not always along party lines. There are two distinctive camps developing. One comprised of Americans who don't think the war is something that should touch their everyday lives. And another that sees combating terrorism as a fundamental struggle not just between good and evil but also over the soul of this nation--a struggle over who we are, as a people, and what we will tolerate on the world stage.

But in recent months, the GOP and the Bush White House have suddenly faced a new, increasingly chilly reception from men and women in uniform. There are the growing ranks of retired generals who have turned Bush critics, like Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command and a special envoy to the Middle East. Zinni endorsed Bush in 2000, but recently during a particularly scathing public critique compared Iraq war strategy to a "brain fart" emitted from a Bush "policy wonk."

But perhaps more troubling for Bush is the increasing frustration and anger being voiced by officers and enlisted personnel alike. It's a frustration fueled not only by the unexpectedly difficult military situation in Iraq and the absence of a clear exit strategy, but by broken promises over veterans issues. Could 2004 be the year when the military vote swings to the Democrats? That might seem too farfetched a hope for Democrats, who have watched the military become a solidly Republican bloc over the past 30 years, to the point where a recent study found Republicans outnumber Democrats 8-to-1 among today's officers. But that trend, at least, could very well come to an end -- and the entry of four-star Gen. Wesley Clark into the presidential race as a Democrat and powerful Bush critic surely helps.

I strongly suggest this piece by David Ljunggren as "Recommended Reading".

I was glancing at the FoxNews website and found this - Under the Skin, by Joanne Jacobs.  It looks like a new section in their Views category.

The top story is great... but I have wonder if it will only serve to convince the NEA that too much technology and education is just not good for children! I mean... look what radical thoughts these kids are having thanks to advancements in technology. I'm sure the union will soon push for legislation that will ban this kind of divisive experimentation!

At San Jose's Piedmont Hills High School, biotechnology students tested their own DNA for a genetic marker that originated in central China or Taiwan. Seventeen students share a common ancestry -- but not a common race. Check out the caption on the photo:

Piedmont Hills High students who share a common ancestor include, from left, Simon Bao (Chinese and Vietnamese), Beth Gomes (white), Aaron Saini (Indian), Austin Buckner (African-American and Japanese), Michael Huynh (Chinese and Vietnamese) and Andrew Tran (Vietnamese).

Students began to question the racial and ethnic categories they've been taught to recognize.

Junior Aaron Saini, whose family comes from northern India, was surprised to learn that he has more in common genetically with classmate Christine Gonzalez, who is half Mexican and half European, than with Sefali Patel, whose heritage is also northern Indian.

After the lab experiment, junior Michael Huynh walked outside the classroom and saw a friend, who is Indian, in a different light.

"He was just standing there in the hallway, and I was just looking at him and thinking, `Wow. He may look different, but there's no real separation between us,' " the 16-year-old said.

Very cool.

I strongly suggest this piece by Ralph Peters as "Recommended Reading".

Hat tip: Sgt Grit via Cox & Forkum

This morning on Fox & Friends, U.S. Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tennessee) suggested that the Republican Party might be able to buy a pass on Lieutenant George Bush's National Guard record if the Democrats don't have to answer questions about John Kerry's national security voting record. I've got a better idea.

If you want to compare records, let's "Bring it on!" as the good Senator from Massachusetts is lately fond of saying. The Democrats can complain that George Bush is a deserter (which we have records to disprove), while we can suggest John Kerry's record as a "war hero" is diminished slightly by this:



Do you still want to "Bring it on!", Mr. Kerry? Is this the "band of brothers" you've been talking about? Do you think World War II and Korean War veterans - not to mention honorable veterans of the Vietnam War and our military actions since - would think you use that term without disgrace? Are these the same type of men as those depicted in the miniseries of the same name?

I strongly suggest this piece by Tony Blankley as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Cox & Forkum as "Recommended Reading".

There is a ray of daylight coming from the Baltimore Sun, and it's name is Star Parker.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced affirmative action. Hand-wringing liberals and ambitious black politicians joined hands, laying the foundation of a new political plantation that displaced the pillars of values, faith, family and personal responsibility with the catechism of victimization and dependency. The result is what we see today.

The success of welfare reform in 1996 hints at what we can expect if we allow blacks the dignity of freedom and choice. Despite predictions by liberals of impending doom if we started to dismantle the welfare bureaucracy, today there are 37 percent fewer mothers with custody living in poverty and 47 percent fewer children reported by the Agriculture Department as being hungry, compared with before welfare reform.

Let our black history lesson for 2004 be to recall that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s victories were achievements of courage and character. He succeeded despite racism, with little physical or political power.

Blacks today, particularly black youths, want real freedom.

I strongly suggest this piece by Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Brendan Miniter as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Christopher Ward as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Bill Kauffman as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Daniel Henninger as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by John Kerry   (Wall Street Journal) as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mitt Romney as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by IMAO as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by William Saletan, Slate as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".