Class and Crass. I watched/listened to a good portion of the Corretta Scott King funeral today at lunch and found myself very moved by President Bush's speech. You might say, "well, you're a Bush supporter." Yeah, that's been true in the past, but I haven't been too happy with him lately -- and not blogging enough to set forth the reasons why. But that will wait for another day. His address, which is available here, was very moving -- it nearly brought me to tears. One of the attorneys I work with said she thought the President sounded more like a minister than a politician.

He touched on the details of her life -- including the ministry at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, addressed her family heritage ("the Scotts were strong, and righteous, and brave in the face of wrong"), noting it wasn't just "vicious words," but also having her house firebombed. And he addressed the spirit which made Coretta great, concluding:

But some had to leave before their time -- and Dr. King left behind a grieving widow and little children. Rarely has so much been asked of a pastor's wife, and rarely has so much been taken away. Years later, Mrs. King recalled, "I would wake up in the morning, have my cry, then go in to them. The children saw me going forward." Martin Luther King, Jr. had preached that unmerited suffering could have redemptive power.

Little did he know that this great truth would be proven in the life of the person he loved the most. Others could cause her sorrow, but no one could make her bitter. By going forward with a strong and forgiving heart, Coretta Scott King not only secured her husband's legacy, she built her own. Having loved a leader, she became a leader. And when she spoke, America listened closely, because her voice carried the wisdom and goodness of a life well lived.

In that life, Coretta Scott King knew danger. She knew injustice. She knew sudden and terrible grief. She also knew that her Redeemer lives. She trusted in the name above every name. And today we trust that our sister Coretta is on the other shore -- at peace, at rest, at home.

I listened up to, and through, the address of Rev. Joseph Lowery, which I found very disappointing. He seemed to forget why they were there and just wanted to make points at the expense of Bush. He seemed to think it was a time for "vicious words," not the loving, forgiving, healing words of Jesus. He seemed to want to be a politician, not a minister.

Sad.

But I guess he got what he wanted.

More

Here's a sample of a funeral address by Dr. King, the Eulogy for the Young Victims of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing, delivered at Sixth Avenue Baptist Church:

And so my friends, they did not die in vain. (Yeah) God still has a way of wringing good out of evil. (Oh yes) And history has proven over and over again that unmerited suffering is redemptive. The innocent blood of these little girls may well serve as a redemptive force (Yeah) that will bring new light to this dark city. (Yeah) The holy Scripture says, "A little child shall lead them." (Oh yeah) The death of these little children may lead our whole Southland (Yeah) from the low road of man's inhumanity to man to the high road of peace and brotherhood. (Yeah, Yes) These tragic deaths may lead our nation to substitute an aristocracy of character for an aristocracy of color. The spilled blood of these innocent girls may cause the whole citizenry of Birmingham (Yeah) to transform the negative extremes of a dark past into the positive extremes of a bright future. Indeed this tragic event may cause the white South to come to terms with its conscience. (Yeah)

And so I stand here to say this afternoon to all assembled here, that in spite of the darkness of this hour (Yeah Well), we must not despair. (Yeah, Well) We must not become bitter (Yeah, That’s right), nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. No, we must not lose faith in our white brothers. (Yeah, Yes) Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect the dignity and the worth of all human personality.

Here is the heart of Rev. Lowery's address:

She secured his seed, nurtured his nobility she declared humanity's worth, invented their vision, his and hers, for peace in all the Earth. She opposed discrimination based on race, she frowned on homophobia and gender bias, she rejected on its face. She summoned the nations to study war no more. She embraced the wonders of a human family from shoulder to shoulder. Excuse me, Maya.

She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.

The words of a politician, not a minister.

The Liberal Supreme Court. In an essay, still not on-line (except to subscribers), WaPo editorialist Benjamin Wittes observes,

In the past few years alone the Court has upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, struck down state laws banning partial-birth abortion, upheld the sweeping new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law, affirmed federal power to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, and struck down the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for those who committed their crimes as juveniles. It has dealt two body blows to the so-called property-rights movement - last term holding that localities could seize private property for economic- development purposes if they paid appropriate compensation, and a few years ago rejecting an attack on the power of state governments to restrict development around Lake Tahoe. It has curtailed it earlier experiment with carving out broad immunity for state governments from lawsuits seeking money damages. It has asserted jurisdiction over military detentions at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, in Cuba. And it has entirely rewritten federal law relating to criminal sentencing, requiring that juries, not judges, make the key factual findings that determine how much prison time a convict may receive.

Benjamin Wittes, The Atlantic Monthly (January/February 2006) at 48.

It sounds like something I've mentioned before...

Prediction: Steelers win 48-6. Jerome Bettis passes for a touchdown to Marvel Smith; runs for 3 more. Troy Polamalu has an INT return for a TD.

More

I was wrong on all counts -- the Seahawks made a much better game of this than I expected. Nevertheless, neither team played to its potential -- if the Steelers had played this poorly against Indy, they wouldn't be here. Take away 3 plays and Seattle wins 10-0?

The zebras really stung Seattle -- there wasn't sufficient evidence to overrule that call on Roethlisberger's TD -- yet, there wasn't any evidence that he had scored to begin with. The holding call on Sean Locklear was very weak. I don't have a big problem with the offensive pass interference call on DJax, but I wouldn't have a big problem if it wasn't called. And what was the deal with Hasselbeck getting called for a below the legs block when he makes a tackle?

But the refs didn't take the game from Seattle -- if anything it was the Ike Taylor interception that did that.

In any event, a fun game to watch.

[click]

. . . I got you to hold me tight
I got you, I won't let go
I got you to love me so
I got you babe

I got you babe, I got you babe
I got you babe, I got you babe

Sorry, I always wanted to do that. I wonder how many radio stations play that song starting at 5:58 a.m.?

more

from Roger Ebert:

"Groundhog Day" is a film that finds its note and purpose so precisely that its genius may not be immediately noticeable. It unfolds so inevitably, is so entertaining, so apparently effortless, that you have to stand back and slap yourself before you see how good it really is.

Certainly I underrated it in my original review; I enjoyed it so easily that I was seduced into cheerful moderation. But there are a few films, and this is one of them, that burrow into our memories and become reference points. When you find yourself needing the phrase This is like "Groundhog Day" to explain how you feel, a movie has accomplished something.

This is the way I feel about the movie -- at the time, I liked it, but didn't think it would hang around like it has. It should be February's answer to "It's a Wonderful Life" -- some network should show it on every 2/2.

SciFive. Via Peter Sean Bradley, here's one SciFi top five list and here's mine:

1. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
2. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
3. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451; Martian Chronicles, Illustrated Man.
4. The Stand by Stephen King
5. ...

Since I cheated with choice number 3, I'm not picking a 5th. (If I were, it would probably be Nineteen Eighty-Four.*)

Discussion

Prologue

To answer this question, one first must address what is Science Fiction? Here is a page which collects the definitions from a number of SciFi writers. I pick one from Robert A. Heinlein:

Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy.
from: Ray Guns And Spaceships, in Expanded Universe, Ace, 1981

Accordingly, to me, the best science fiction is an extended meditation on the nature of man that begins with a premise: "What if...?" In some ways, it's like the economist who begins with "assume full employment." Assume that a plague has decimated the human race..., assume that a man can harness electricity and re-animate a dead human body... and so on.

My List

• Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. Some call this the first Science Fiction novel (although there is a good argument that the first SciFi story was Shakespeare's The Tempest [via Eric Rabkin lecture]). Others say it's a Gothic, still others say it's pure horror. Nonsense, it's science fiction. First of all, the novel is different from the classic movie. Dr. Frankenstein's creation is (or becomes) quite eloquent, yet without a conscience. It explores the relationship of man and his attempts to become like God and what it means for all of us. This novel, especially when set in the context of the literature of the time, is incredibly revolutionary. Notes
  

• The title of the novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley is taken from Miranda's dialogue in Shakespeare's The Tempest, mentioned above:

O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't! (V.i.181-4)

It appears that in the future, we have achieved utopia -- we're all healthy and well-ordered Poverty and war are no more. We're all equal and happy (Soma). Okay, so we had to get rid of a few small things: God, family, literature, art, and philosophy, to name a few... Plus, we don't have to worry about pregnancy -- just take that magic pill (who needs Humanae Vitae?). Who needs love?**

• Bradbury. I have always loved Ray Bradbury -- he was my stepstone (thanks Mom!) into the world of Science Fiction (if you don't count the Danny Dunn books). And I can't pick just one! F451 is a dystopia consistent with the first two mentioned above. Yet, Bradbury is so poetic and lyrical in his descriptions -- I'd probably pick this just based on the title alone ("the temperature at which book-paper catches fire and burns ..."). Both the Martian Chronicles and the Illustrated Man are loose collections of short stories with common themes. In part, I like Bradbury because he writes anti-science fiction. In part, because he is a wonderful writer. In part, because he forecast the future so well. The iPod, the Wall-to-Wall, hidef TV, microwave ovens, the smart house, and others I am forgetting now, all appeared in these stories, back in the 1940s.
  

• The Stand. This comes in two version - the original release and the director's, err, author's uncut version. Essentially biological warfare preparation goes bad and a superbug, Captain Trips, is released killing 99.4% of the world's population. The book looks at three distinct events -- the release and decimation of society; the eventual gathering; and a showdown between the forces of light and of dark.
  

-------------------

*So why Brave New World and not 1984? In the foreword of Amusing Ourselves to Death (1986), Neil Postman compared the two worlds:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

While I think we need to guard against the abuses Orwell feared, I think Huxley's view is more likely.

** "Whoever wants to eliminate love is preparing to eliminate man as such."
Who wrote that? Huxley? No, Benny16

Deus Est Caritas (2006) via PSB

It's over. Steelers Win. 24-19. No word whether Mick and the cardiac-kids made it through the half-time show.

Sad Day. Coretta has passed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares I have already come
‘Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me home

The Lord has promised good to me; His word my hope secures
He will my shield and portion be as long as life endures

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail, and mortal life shall cease
I shall possess, within the veil, a life of joy and peace

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow, the sun forbear to shine
But God, who called me here below, will be forever mine

-------------------------

I told the undertaker,
"Undertaker, please drive slow,
For this lady you are haulin'
Lord, I hate to see her go."

May she rest in peace...

What the [bleep]? In today's WaPo, Washington Post Staff Writer Caryle Murphy liberally throws around the "C" word (I count 8 uses), but no description such as the "liberal Episcopal denomination." Indeed the "L" word is not used once. I've written about this before -- the lack of context, that the Episcopal denomination is on the far left of the theological spectrum and that all the conservatives in that denomination are long gone.

One of the most disturbing examples of biased writing (and editing) by Ms. Murphy is when she quotes Truro Rector Martyn Minns:

The Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax City, a leading conservative church, said that "unless the diocese of Virginia moves in a different direction, it's hard to see how [conservative] congregations can survive in that setting." (emphasis added)

This is pretty appalling -- she edited his statement to make it reflect Murphy's own biases, inserting that "C" word. I'd like to know what Minns really said, without the bleeps and insertions.

Hotchpot.

• The 13th Man: Jumbotron.
• We already knew he was a pompous blowhard, but a plagiarist? Try claiming you were inspired, Fr. McBrien.
  
• What does "Cruel and Unusual" mean?
• Fake protests to gin up support? From the LA Weekly:
  
  [Bill] Bowers remembers collaborating with [Tim] Barrus on an erotic photo exhibit called Sadomasochism: True Confessions. After the opening night of the show drew lukewarm interest, Barrus assumed the fake name John Hammond and wrote an open letter to The Weekly News [a Key West gay paper] attacking the exhibit.
  
  “Sadomasochism is a disease,” the letter read “and gay men who are into that scene are wrong.” He then had Bowers write a response to their mythical antagonist Hammond, inviting him to “take a Valium, take a douche,” and published it in The Weekly News. “The next time Mr. Hammond wants to show his ignorance he should do some heavy research before he rejects his very own brothers.” The ensuing controversy rallied the gay community around the artists and propelled the exhibit to a successful run.
  
  “He would do anything to shock people,” said Bowers. “It works every time if you want a reaction, be it good or bad. Bad is good too, sometimes better.”
  

• Finally, Happy Birthday Wolfie -- thanks for the music.

Test Results: I'm a near heretic, your mileage may vary (edited, since the tables weren't displaying):

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant 100%
Nestorianism 58%
Pelagianism 58%
Monophysitism 33%
Donatism 17%
Adoptionist 17%
Modalism 17%
Apollanarian 8%
Monarchianism 8%
Albigensianism 8%
The rest were 0%
Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com

*****************

You scored as Amillenialist. Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view.

Amillenialist 60%
Moltmannian Eschatology 50%
Postmillenialist 45%
Premillenialist 45%
Preterist 30%
Left Behind 25%
Dispensationalist 25%

Quiz was here.


Finally, I forgot to copy and paste this one, but I’m a Chevrolet Corvette!

You’re a classic – powerful, athletic, and competitive. You’re all about winning the race and getting the job done. While you have a practical everyday side, you get wild when anyone pushes your pedal. You hate to lose, but you hardly ever do.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Munich. As my nom de blog indicates, I am of (partial) Slovak descent. Accordingly, when you say Munich to me, I associate it with "Peace in our time" and the coming of WWII. Steven Spielberg apparently wants you to associate Munich with the attack on the Twin Towers.

But I'm getting ahead of myself...

Mild Spoiler Warning! (I don't think I'm giving away much, however.)

There are about five things I liked about the movie Munich (in no particular order):

1. It equates marital fidelity with life, adultery with death. If you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.
2. I found myself thinking about it many days later -- to me this is always good (well, unless I'm just thinking of some pointless gore...)
3. It reminds the world that a group of Palestinian Terrorists attacked and deliberately murdered Israeli athletes during the Olympics violating the ideal of a time of truce for all countries.
4. It shows the Israelis (who are engaged in a new type of warfare) wrestling with their consciences.
5. It showed how the media can really screw things up (the terrorists were watching the attempted rescue in the Olympic village and called the negotiators to warn off the rescuers.
   

Yet the negatives far outweigh the positives:

• It treats the Israelis engaging in a defensive military action as the equivalent of the Palestinian terrorist who attack defenseless innocents. More about this below.
• It uses a grossly offensive Jewish stereotype to malign the Israelis ("Bring the receipts" bellows a Jewish accountant over and over.) Compare this from the real ex-spies.
  
• It uses fictitious history -- and especially fictitious statements -- to support its case, which is...
• Fighting back is wrong and leads to a cycle of violence.
• It implies that the United States was behind the attack on the Israeli athletes, or at the very least, sheltered the terrorists following murders (i.e. the US is an "accessory after the fact").
  
• Finally, as best put by David Brooks, "There is, above all, no evil. And that is the core of Spielberg's fable. In his depiction of reality there are no people so committed to a murderous ideology that they are impervious to the sort of compromise and dialogue Spielberg puts such great faith in.
  Because he will not admit the existence of evil, as it really exists, Spielberg gets reality wrong. "
  

This event happened when I was about 13 and still had a dream to make the 1976 US Olympic Swim Team. This was the Olympics in which Mark Spitz won 7 gold medals, Dan Gable won the gold medal without having a point scored on him, Olga Korbut, Dave Wottle's run from behind Sugar Ray Seales.

Yes, there were ugly politics, the US-USSR basketball game, the suspension of Vincent Matthews and Wayne Collett, the revocation of Rick DeMont's medal.

Then came September 5, 1972 and the Yasser Arafat backed (via Fatah) terrorists.

My blood still boils when I think about this attack -- during the movie, it took all my self-control from crying out "Waste those..." well, you get the idea...

The movie is full of fake dialogue and fact facts designed to portray the Israelis and the terrorists as engaged in some sort of yin and yang struggle, some sort of co-equal forces; both equally moral or immoral.

For example, the movie's 'Golda Meir' says "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." This is her justification for ruthlessly attacking other members of Fatah -- albeit those who planned the massacre. This is baloney.* What Mrs. Meir actually said was this:

From the blood-drenched history of the Jewish nation, we learn that violence which begins with the murder of Jews, ends with the spread of violence and danger to all people, in all nations. . . We have no choice but to strike at the terrorist organizations wherever we can reach them. That is our obligation to ourselves and to peace.

from Michael Medved, USA Today (quoting Mrs. Meir's Sept. 12, 1972, address to the Israeli Knesset). That was the case then; it's the case today. If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action.

The fact is the terrorists who hit the Israeli athletes in Munich were pure evil. Their backers and planners were evil. Their supporters and apologists are evil. This can not be denied, ignored, or spun away with false history.

By definition, terrorists strike innocent victims; helpless people in a defenseless situation. Their goal is to spread terror. This is evil, pure and simple. It must be crushed, not appeased.

Negotiating with terrorists, like negotiating with Hitler, only allows evil to grow stronger and the innocent to suffer.

You would think the man who directed Schindler's List would know this.

Big Spoiler Alert

Last, and this is a definite spoiler, Spielberg closes with a long shot dwelling on the World Trade Center. He has made an argument throughout the movie that striking back at evil just causes the evil to escalate and his unmistakable conclusion is that Israel's decision to strike back at terror instead of negotiate with it is what led to 9/11.

--------------------------

*Similarly, Premier Meir is said to have avoided attending the athletes' funerals because she was afraid of being booed (because she refused to negotiate with the terrorists). However, a Jerusalem Post poll found her the most popular figure in the nation, just one week after the killings.

--------------------------

More. Here's a good story looking back at the Massacre, by CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/world/main520865.shtml

Back again. As I indicated, I was out for awhile on a trip for work. I've got a piece I started on Munich -- maybe I can get it up tonight.

In the meantime, here's the sunrise from where I was on my birthday while I was gone:

Call to repentance. I've been traveling, yet again, but in the meantime, here's this, regarding The Falls Church:

Virginia's largest Episcopal parish, in a letter to the church's 2,200 members, yesterday called on Virginia's the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee to "repent and return to the truth" over supporting the ordination of the openly homosexual bishop of New Hampshire.
Leaders of the Falls Church Episcopal said in their eight-page, single-spaced letter that "no compromise on this issue is possible," although they refrained from specificthreats. In the past, the parish's rector has threatened schism.
"A Christian leader does not approve of sin, or purport to declassify it," the letter said to Bishop Lee, who backed the 2003 consecration of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. "Rather, he calls sinners to repentance and proclaims the Good News that sin can be forgiven and new life can be obtained in Christ."
The letter was sent to Bishop Lee on Oct. 4 but was not made public until yesterday. Calls to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia yesterday for comment were not returned. Bishop Lee, however, did meet with parish leaders soon after the letter was sent.
The letter is modeled after Matthew 18:15-17, which advises Christians that "if your brother sins against you," one is to first privately show him his fault, then repeat the message accompanied by "two or three witnesses."
If the exhortation still is ignored, Christians are to "tell it to the church," the pattern that church leaders followed yesterday. If still nothing happens, the offender is to be treated "as you would a pagan or a tax collector," the verses say.

The remainder of the story is here.

I do not believe the letter is available on-line, as yet. The letter is available here in .pdf format. And here is the Rector's letter to the congregation regarding subsequent discussion with Bishop Lee.

Favorite Movies - 2005 edition. Last year I had the dilemma of selecting either Temptation or Incredibles as my favorite movie and I yielded entertainment to a truly excellent movie with a great message. This year, entertainment and an excellent message combine in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. That's my movie of the year.

Other favorites:

2. Cinderella Man. Terrific Movie -- even if it didn't have the wonderful comeback and rise, the portrayal of the Great Depression was one of the best I've seen.

3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire -- this is my favorite of the HP series (to date). Unfortunately, the movie does not live up to the written story. For one thing, too much had to be cut out -- really, this could've been broken into two movies. Second, the guy who plays Dumbledore, Michael Gambon, is way over the top at times -- just out of control. The rest of the time he seems to be channeling William Shatner. He's completely wrong for the character.

4. Batman Begins. Finally gets it right. Except for all the hokey oriental stuff.

5. March of the Penguins. Nice.

6. Walk the Line. Good movie about the descent of Johnny Cash. It's sad to think about how he threw away his marriage. Great acting.

7. The Great Raid. This makes the list based on being a terrific true story.

8. Munich. I'll have to say more about this later -- it was very well done, but also very frustrating. Slips away from the true story into being manipulative propaganda. More later.

9. Because of Winn-Dixie. A kids movie that was actually watchable by all. Again, pretty good acting.


Movies I haven't seen, but would probably like:

• Pride & Prejudice
• Dreamer
• Millions
• Crash
• The Gospel
• Bride and Prejudice
  

Two Disappointments:

• Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
• Mr. & Mrs. Smith
  

Out of the Mouth of Babes (Ch. 942). My Emilie was singing this the other day, to the tune of "Davy Crockett:"

Jesus,
Baby Jesus
King of the Wild Frontier...

Not bad theology, either...

Favorite Books, 2005 edition. I went back and re-read a lot of old books this year -- no real classics, but some old Stephen King (Carrie, The Shining) and Pat Conroy (Lords of Discipline), among others. There was no real new fiction I read that really stands out -- the aforementioned Lords of Discipline was probably my favorite read for last year.*

If I had to pick the best of the new was The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason -- this is best described as a thinking person's Da Vinci Code. The new Jasper Fforde -- I don't even recall the title -- was boring and disappointing; I didn't even finish it. Ted Dekker's Ring trilogy was so-so. Charlotte Simmons was okay. Etc.

On the other hand, I read several good non-fiction books. If I had to pick one favorite it would probably be No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah by Bing West. This is an excellent book that allows one to grasp the confusion of the policy, the war, tribes, factions, men, soldiers and Marines, insurgents, terrorists, the battles and skirmishes of Fallujah. West gives you the feel of the frontline and the perspective of the overall battle(s). Truly an amazing feat standing by itself, but so close to the actual battles makes it even more amazing.

The NF runner-up would be Loving Homosexuals As Jesus Would: A Fresh Christian Approach By Chad W. Thompson. (This could easily be titled "Loving ___ as Jesus Would.") Here's a good review by Doug LeBlanc.

My 3rd favorite non-fiction was Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human by Joel Garreau -- very thought provoking.

Other favorites: Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights, and Murder in the Jazz Age by Kevin Boyle (the trial of Ossian Sweet); Hammers & Nails: The Life and Music of Mark Heard by Matthew Dickerson, Between Good and Evil : A Master Profiler's Hunt for Society's Most Violent Predators by Roger L. Depue & Susan Schindehette, and The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague In History by John M. Barry.


*Duh!

I can't believe I overlooked Harry! Yes, I really liked Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book 6) by J.K. Rowling, Mary GrandPré (Illustrator). I also re-read Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire.

Other re-readings of excellent books included the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Last Battle. Also, I read the last two Brian Haig novels -- these weren't bad.

More on the Narnia "Allegory." I meant to mention this earlier, but just forgot. While I was at my parents for Thanksgiving, my nephew, Brian, passed on his New Yorker magazine and I read an interesting essay by Adam Gopnik on C. S. Lewis. In the essay, Gopnik demonstrates considerable knowledge of the Lewis oeuvre, yet he misses the fact that Lewis was emphatic that the Narnia series was not an allegory:

When “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (magical title!) opens, four children who have been sent to the countryside discover an enchanted land on the other side of an old wardrobe; this is Narnia, and it has been enslaved by a White Witch, who has turned the country to eternal winter. The talking animals who live in Narnia wait desperately for the return of Aslan, the lion-king, who might restore their freedom. At last, Aslan returns. Beautiful and brave and instantly attractive, he has a deep voice and a commanding presence, obviously kingly. The White Witch conspires to have him killed, and succeeds, in part because of the children’s errors. Miraculously, he returns to life, liberates Narnia, and returns the land to spring.

Yet a central point of the Gospel story is that Jesus is not the lion of the faith but the lamb of God, while his other symbolic animal is, specifically, the lowly and bedraggled donkey. The moral force of the Christian story is that the lions are all on the other side. If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who reëmerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now, that would be a Christian allegory. A powerful lion, starting life at the top of the food chain, adored by all his subjects and filled with temporal power, killed by a despised evil witch for his power and then reborn to rule, is a Mithraic, not a Christian, myth. (emphasis added)

As I note below (and please see the references), this was not an allegory. Yet, even if it was, I think Gopnik misses the central point of the Gospel story -- in fact Jesus is the King Lion. Yes, he came to us as a Lamb, last time, in the incarnation. He was not originally a lowly and bedraggled donkey. As is expressed in the letter to the Philippians while Jesus was,

... in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:6-8 (New International Version) (See also, the Message version of this passage).

The central point is that God became human, lived as a human, but being the only sinless and innocent human was able to die in our place to redeem us, so "death itself would start working backward." The central point wasn't a rallying of underclass animals to lead a rebellion against the ruling classes -- that's been done before.

The thing I think I still like best about The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is that is shows that Aslan would be willing to die for even one to redeem that one. Similarly, I know if we had some vast Garden of Eden and everyone else passed the test and lived sinless and I was the only one who sinned (yeah, I know I'm cutting big swatches in Christian Theology, but bear with me), Jesus would come and die in my stead to redeem me.

That's the central point.

He died for me.

He died for you.

Still more:

As I was checking this before posting, I came to this interesting post (and series of comments) by LaShawn Barber, where she argues "..."'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' is most assuredly an allegory." Interesting web journal (why hadn't I noticed this before?).


Finally and almost completely unrelated to any of the above:

This SNL rap on Narnia.

Narnia. We've been dying to see this one for years. In fact, due to some fortuitous circumstances, we've been praying about it since we learned of the meeting(s) of different principals. We had a couple of chances to see an early release, but just couldn't get everyone together to go.* Having viewed the trailers, it looks wonderful.

Some thoughts before we go see the movie. The Narnia series was never meant to be an allegory. As Peter J. Schakel writes:

To take the Chronicles as allegory, however, raises the danger of breaking their spell, either by destroying the independence of the imaginary world, as we begin looking outside it for the completion of its meaning, or by leading us to use our heads rather than our hearts in responding to the stories, or both. There are passages in the Chronicles which allow allegorical readings: Aslan’s death in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Eustace’s transformation in Aslan’s well in The Voyage of the “Dawn Treader,” and the final judgment and destruction of the world in The Last Battle, for example, have close parallels in Christianity and their meaning inevitably will be shaped to some extent by those parallels. But a brief comment by MacDonald puts them into proper perspective: “A fairytale is not an allegory. There may be allegory in it, but it is not an allegory.” [Notes omitted]

Peter J. Schakel, Reading with the Heart: The Way into Narnia (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 2-3. [As I mentioned earlier, Schakel's book is one of the best books about the Narnia series and you may find it on-line here.] Interestingly, there is a very good discussion of Lewis, Narnia and Allegory in the Dummies series which can be found on-line here.

Kids seem to pick up on the essential truths communicated in the Narnia stories -- I recall C.S. Lewis commenting on this. Adults seem to try to force it into an allegory. I say to see this movie with a kid and then listen to what they have seen as opposed to telling them what Lewis was trying to say.

More on communicating with kids:

I was originally going to tie this in to an excellent note by Peter Sean Bradley on the Catholic Church's efforts to pass on the faith to kids, but I'm still thinking about this. When I grew up, the Church of Rome was not doing a good job of communicating the faith to kids -- a large part of it, in my opinion, was they were jettisoning the richness of the heritage (no mention of Augustine or Aquinas). Passing on the faith to kids is easy, because entering the Kingdom requires us to come like a child. Yet the richness of faith in all it's complexity makes the most wonderful of libraries look like a mere roadside outhouse.

See also this note by Iain Murray:

The other day we set up our Christmas Tree while the children were asleep. The next morning, Helen, our five year old, was so delighted that she said, "Daddy, you surprised me with joy."

More on Narnia, the movie:

Mother Frederica's review

* [12/18/05] I didn't realize I had only posted this in draft version -- a week agoon Saturday afternoon we finally got to see the movie -- it is excellent!

Getting my feet wet. After being gone so long, please give me a chance to get my feet wet, before I get back in the water.

When I was 17 and the beaches were much less crowded, I surfed the Banzai Pipeline.

Once.

That is, one ride -- and body surfing, not on a board.

You see, while it's got beautiful waves, what makes it especially difficult is the water almost completely drops out when the wave breaks -- you're riding down the face of the wave and you're seeing coral below you instead of water. It's not safe.

Earlier this week, pro surfer, Malik Joyeux died in the surf there. Very sad -- he was a good rider. And young...

To borrow from and paraphrase C.S. Lewis; it's not a tame sport.

[very distantly related -- it's getting much more expensive.]

Grey Tuesday. I'm not a big Green Day fan -- they're poseurs who can't hold a candle to the orignal punks (what was it Pete Townsend said: "...we ... meant it"). Nevertheless, I'll begrudgingly admit their album American Idiot rocks.

Even better is the mash up by Dean Gray: American Edit. Now, here's the problem -- Green Day, their record label (Warner) and the RIAA have all cracked down on American Edit -- within days of the website with the production being made available, it has been shut down. So, there's a day of protest and civil disobedience set for next Tuesday. Click on the banner below next week for a (variable) list of sites which will have DG:AE available for download. In .mp3 format, it's about 67MB (192kbs).

I'm alive. Work has been a bear -- lot's of 12-15 hour days, lot's of travel (a trip every 3 weeks or so). It should be letting up soon, so I may be back. I hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving -- I'm with my parents and most of my sisters in NC.

See you around.

The Boy Who Lived. I'm getting ready to take the number one daughter to Borders where she will be waiting for the release of the sixth book just after midnight. She finished Phoenix in less than 24 hours, so I imagine I'll be reading this one starting Sunday.

I'm trying to decide whether to wear my Eskimo Joe's "Joey Potter" T-shirt to take her -- should I really embarass her? The Maruader's T-shirt, if I had one, would be cool. This one is so over-the-top, it could trigger the nerd-dad factor.

You may have seen the stories from earlier this week about the Pope supposedly condemning the Potter series -- when I read the letters, I saw this was hype. Now that has been confirmed -- see here and follow the links.

Next to the Narnia Chronicles, the Potter books may be the best kids books ever written. See John Granger's book "Looking for God in Harry Potter." See also, this article posted on-line by Christianity Today and this essay in Touchstone.

And who is the Half-Blood Prince? My stretch guess is Dean Thomas, but Granger's guess, Godric Gryffindor, makes a lot more sense. I guess I'll know by this time next week.

(the title of this post is the title of Chapter One from the first book -- one of the great chapter titles in history, in my opinion.)

More.

Jonathan Last: Appeasement fails with warlocks too

Programming (and prayer request). I had hoped to be around for more blogging than my semi-retirement notice indicated (do I qualify for emeritus status?); nevertheless we have had some setbacks.

In particular, while we were out for the reunion, a very close friend of ours had a massive heart attack. She is relatively young (40) and a mother of two kids under 5. She has slowly been recovering, but it has been especially tough for her husband; at one point he was told he was going to have to make a decision about removing her from the respirator. She has since come out of a coma, but has severe memory problems, not remembering much after 1996. Fortunately, my wife's relationship with her predates that and she has a really good relationship with the kids. We have been taking care of the kids and helping the husband in minor ways; we are willing to do more.

Prayer request: Please pray for Darlene, her husband, Matt, and their kids, Ryan and Michelle. Thank-you!

I'm mostly American...

You Are 78% American

You're as American as red meat and shooting ranges. Tough and independent, you think big. You love everything about the US, wrong or right. And anyone who criticizes your home better not do it in front of you!

How American Are You?

The Long List. Looking back over the most recent SupCt. nominees, most have been "non-surprises." David Souter was a minor surprise and Sandra Day O'Connor was a big surprise nominee. Nevertheless, most come from the short list.

If there is a nominee who is not on the short list, who could it be?

Herewith, are ten names who should make the long list* being considered by a conservative Republican president:

• Mary Ann Glendon, who I've flogged many times before. The major drawback for her is her age (67).**
  
• Leroy Roundtree Hassell, current Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. Liabilities (as a candidate being considered by a conservative Republican): he's a moderate Democrat. Liabilities (to the Left): he's long been a visiting scholar at Regent University, Pat Robertson's grad school, he dissented from the Davenport v. Little-Bowser decision (compelling the issuance of a birth certificate with two persons of the same gender listed as parents). (See also the Arlington Co. v. White case, where he would have invalidated Arlington County's expansion of health care benefits to domestic partners as a disguised attempt to legitimize same-sex unions.)
  
• Judge Frank Easterbrook, 7th Circuit. Surprisingly (to me anyway), he hasn't been making the short lists -- a good choice, perhaps too moderate for some.
• Judge Karen Williams, 4th Circuit. A sharp judge; endorsed by Southern Appeal.
  
• Judge Alice Batchelder, 6th Circuit. Endorsed by Todd Zywicki of the Volokh Conspiracy.
  
• Robert F. Nagel, Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Identified by First Things as "...one of our most forceful critics of judicial supremacy."
  
• Robert P. George, Professor of Law, Princeton University. "Conservative Heavyweight" - Crisis Magazine.
  
• O. Rene Diaz, Attorney and State District Judge in San Antonio, Texas. He is also the General Counsel for the Republican Party of Texas.
  
• Eugene Volokh, Geek, UCLA -- he has the reverse problem of Glendon: at 37, he's too young for this vacancy. (William O. Douglas was 40 when appointed; when the court was less important, Joseph Story was named at 32).
  
• Stephen L. Carter, professor of law at Yale. While a liberal, as a columnist for Christianity Today, he's probably too conservative for a Democrat to appoint.

-----

* I'm purposely bypassing the usual suspects mentioned on the published short lists, as well as others, such as Alex Kozinski or Richard A. Posner, who deserve more mention than they've been getting, yet appear to be making some of the more extended "short lists."
** Some others who will not be considered due to age: Judge John Noonan [with his criticisms of Scalia et al, he wouldn't be considered, I gather], 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; Charles E. Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame (all three of these are devout Roman Catholics, which could also pose a problem for the notoriously anti-Catholic Democrats on the Judiciary Committee).

My nominee. To replace Justice O'Connor Mary Ann Glendon, for reasons stated here.

Sandy Baby. Sandra Day O'Connor was a brilliant choice by President Reagan -- a surprise -- never as popular with the conservatives as Antonin Scalia, but far better than Anthony Kennedy. I had the pleasure of meeting her on two occasions -- she was always pleasant and gracious. Despite what John Riggens said, she had no need to "loosen up."

My favorite opinion was her concurring opinion in Johnson v. Transportation Agency. In this case, the liberal bloc essentially upheld quotas in hiring no matter what and the conservative bloc would strike them down. Justice O'Connor noted that the Santa Clara transportation agency had not ever hired a woman for the skilled position. Moreover, the woman (Diane Joyce) who had been selected scored a 73 on the qualifying test whereas the man who sued seeking the job scored a 75. The qualifying grade was a70 or above. This was not merely a case where O'Connor split the difference -- she looked to the record. It wasn't just a matter of sex (which the liberal block saw) or test scores (the conservative block) -- it was a consideration of all factors, including experience, background, education, and, yes, the fact that the County had failed to ever hire any women for that position.

She was a judge of common sense. Unfortunately, she didn't always apply it. My least favorite opinion was when she joined with Kennedy and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey where she wrote this accursed phrase:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

Gag.

She was at her best in the 1983 Akron case, a dissent:

The Roe framework, then, is clearly on a collision course with itself. As the medical risks of various abortion procedures decrease, the point at which the State may regulate for reasons of maternal health is moved further forward to actual childbirth. As medical science becomes better able to provide for the separate existence of the fetus, the point of viability is moved further back toward conception. Moreover, it is clear that the trimester approach violates the fundamental aspiration of judicial decisionmaking through the application of neutral principles "sufficiently absolute to give them roots throughout the community and continuity over significant periods of time . . . ." A. Cox, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 114 (1976). The Roe framework is inherently tied to the state of medical technology that exists whenever particular litigation ensues. Although legislatures are better suited to make the necessary factual judgments in this area, the Court's framework forces legislatures, as a matter of constitutional law, to speculate about what constitutes "accepted medical practice" at any given time. Without the necessary expertise or ability, courts must then pretend to act as science review boards and examine those legislative judgments.

It's too bad she lost her nerve...

Travelogue. I'm in Austin today -- we've spent the weekend in Bandera, TX at the Dixie Dude Ranch for a family reunion. Naturally, with the 10 commandments decisions coming out today, I'm heading for the state capitol building to see this controversial display. A good discussion blog here.

More.

Here's a picture of us with the monument (My middle daughter, Sarah is next to me, then my son, Joe, our baby, Emilie and our oldest, Joy):

Headlines. Accurate, but misleading:

Rich Gannon throws 5 TD Passes in Super Bowl XXXVII

Anglicans Won't Censure Wings of Church

Okay, you can make an argument that both of these headlines are accurate -- Rich Gannon did have 5 of his passes end in touchdowns, it's just that 3 of them were interception returns by the Bucs.

Similarly, as this AP story by Jill Lawless uses the "Anglicans Won't Censure Wings of Church" headline and begins this way:

The Anglican Communion on Wednesday rejected an attempt by traditionalists to punish the U.S. and Canadian wings of the church for their stance on homosexuality, watering down a resolution that called for the North Americans to be suspended from all church bodies.

But that wasn't the story. The story is more accurately written by Ruth Gledhill of The London Times; who explains in her first three paragraphs:

THE Anglican Church moved closer to schism yesterday when members of its central administrative council formally asked the Churches of Canada and the US to go.

Unconvinced by the justifications offered by both Churches on Tuesday for their actions in ordaining an openly homo- sexual bishop and authorising same-sex blessings, members of the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham asked them to leave the council and its central finance and standing committees.

Although the motion invites the Churches to withdraw voluntarily, it amounts in effect to a punishing expulsion. The debate was held behind closed doors at Nottingham Univers-ity yesterday, and the motion was passed 30 to 28 by secret ballot, with four abstentions.

Some things can be spun; Jill Lawless should learn that this story isn't one of them.

I took it...

If you blog, you can too.

The theology quiz -- Spurred on by Mark Byron and Peter Sean Bradley, I have taken the theology quiz. Although my "named" results are different, my percentages are very similar to each (my results below). For example, Peter clocks in at 75% Catholic, I'm 68%. Mark is a 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan, Peter scores 71% there. That was my top score -- 86%. (And that subject has lead Mark to do a series, which you can see here in Parts 1, 2 and 3). I am 79% Neo-Orthodox, Peter is 71%. Yes, we have our differences, Mark is 79% on the Reformed Evangelical, I am 46%. Peter is 39% on the Fundamentalist scale, I'm 57% (Mark is 68%). And I guess, befitting an Episcopalian, I score equally high (57%) on the PoMo scale.

Interesting...

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 86% Neo orthodox 79% Roman Catholic 68% Fundamentalist 57% Emergent/Postmodern 57% Charismatic/Pentecostal 54% Reformed Evangelical 46% Classical Liberal 32% Modern Liberal 25% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Oklahoma -- I've been in Oklahoma for the past two weeks for work. I spent some time in Tulsa in the early 1980's -- it's changed a lot. I visited All Souls in Oklahoma City -- very high Episcopal (can you say more Catholic than the Pope?). I dodged a lot of tornadoes and visited places from Jay to Bartlesville (Price Tower -- ugh!) to Stillwater (Eskimo Joe's) to Norman to Ada to Ardmore and all places in between.

The folks there are still as friendly as ever.

And the Joads and the dustbowl are still a myth.

R.I.P. Eddie Albert. I am a huge fan of Green Acres, yet an even bigger fan of the actor who played Oliver Wendell Douglas, Eddie Albert. Eddie Albert Heimberger passed away on Thursday, right before this Memorial Day weekend. It's fitting to remember his service to his country. He was an actor living in Hollywood and had been acting in movies since "Brother Rat" (a Ronald Reagan movie) filmed in 1938. After the attack at Pearl Harbor, he joined the Navy and was awarded a Bronze Star with a "V" for the rescue of about 70 Marines at the battle of Tarawa.

He was a good man; may he rest in peace.

Best News of the Week: The Corcoran Gallery announced it was shelving the planned Gehry addition. You have to understand that this was to be built right across from the Old Executive Office Building, half a block from the White house. And with it's sprawling sheet metal design, with it's very dark color and shine, it looked horrible. This was sort of a sculptural variation on Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase (No. 2) -- I call it Darth Vader falling down a staircase.

Now, if only we could get rid of the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art.

Semi-retirement. I think I'm going to have to go into a semi-retirement.

Or as Threepio said: "Sir, if you'll not be needing me, I'll close down for awhile."

Basically, I'm having trouble getting computer time these days -- unrestricted computer time. My daughter needs the computer for school, so I defer to her. (We're doing some work on the house and the other PC's are in storage, more or less). Also, you may be aware, I'm on the road at least a week a month. In the past, that was always a good time to work -- I could usually get a connection in a hotel room and and undistracted time to write. We've had a change in policy at work however which says no blogging using any work equipment. Since I need my work-assigned laptop for these trips, that essentially means no blogging during the days I'm out of town. (And no blogging at lunch.)

I really enjoy doing this -- I like to work out problems through writing. I love the people I've met and the responses I've had.

I'm honored and humbled by the attention these thoughts have received. Folks have been very kind.

But this isn't good bye -- it really is just a powering down. I may only have 1 or w things a week. Or I may have more. Or I may have less.

And if things change, I'll be back in full. In the meantime there are a lot of good blogs out there and I look forward to reading these.

See you around.

grace and peace,

William P. Sulik

Tagged with a Meme - The Bibliotheca Virus. (Answer is in progress)

Via Peter Sean Bradley, I hve been challenged to answer four simple questions and one direction to keep the virus going. I had to laugh at what Peter said about me, however: "for the culture that the High Church tradition can bring." It ain't me babe, no, no, no, it ain't me, babe, It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe. (See my response 4(4) below.) Here are the questions which I hope to complete in the near future (watch this space):

1. Total Number of Books I’ve Owned: All books -- ever? You gotta be kidding me? I've got no way of knowing -- just the text books I've gotten rid of run in the hundreds. Put it this way, when I moved back to DC from law school in the mid-70's I shiped back over 70 boxes of books by the U.S. Mail, each one with an average weight of 50 pounds.

I'd say the number of books I own currently is more than 1,000 but less than 2,000.

2. Last Book I Bought: Hmmm. I bought 3 grocery sacks of books at the library used book sale (during the last hour each bag was just $5). Among my finds was Charles Murray & Catherine Bly Cox's Apollo Story (which I found out is now back in print -- this is the ultimate book about the Apollo project -- if you have any interest, you must go buy this book), Odd Thomas by Dean Koontz, The Burden of Proof and The Laws of Our Fathers by Scott Turow, The Gulag Archipelago (Vol. 1) by A. Solzhenizyn, Toland's Hitler, etc. Almost all my books have been purchased at book sales -- especially library book sales.

3. Last Book I Read: meaning, I guess, finished. That would be Brian Haig's Private Sector. I'm currently reading The President's Assasin by the same author and Arc of Justice by Kevin Boyle. I should be finished with both by Friday.

4. Five Books That Mean a lot to Me:

This is what's going to take some time. I'm assuming these aren't desert island books (5 books I must have on a desert island) or my all time favorite books (that would include The Vicar of Christ by Walter Murphy). These are books that simply mean a lot to me and I'll tell you why.

(1) The Bible-- yes, I know it's a fairly standard answer but there's just so much there. Simple stories like the Tower of Babel or the Parable of the Good Samaritan. More complex stories like Job and Daniel. The story of Creation, the fall, the deluge, the calling of Abram, the exile, the plagues, passover, exodus, wandering; the conquest of promised land, the beginning of a nation, the struggle to live as a nation, the kingdoms, the exile, the prophets, the rebuilding. The Incarnation. The Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain. The calling, baptism, wilderness and temptations. The miracles, the parables, the questions and answers. Holy Week, from triumphant entry through Supper, arrest, judgment(s), condemnation, passion, crucifixion, death and burial. The resurrection. The Resurrection.
He Is Alive!
The road to Emmaus, Doubting Thomas, the restoration of Peter, the Ascension. Characters such as Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Saul, David, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John. Philosophy like Ecclesiastes or Proverbs. Poetry like the Psalms or Song of Songs. Not to mention the teachings in the letters and the very mysterious Revelation to St. John. It is wonderful.

By the way, I like the Berkley Version -- it's very clear and has terrific footnotes. For example, from I Chronicles 25:4, one of those lists of who begat who the footnote indicates:

Starting with the sixt son, Hananiah, the names, when translated from Hebrew, form the following prayer of Heman about his work as a singer: [6] Be gracious, O Lord; [7] Be Thou gracious to me! [8] My God, Thee; [9] I have praised: [10] And exalted for helping; [11] Though sitting forlorn; [12] I have proclaimed; [13] Highest; [14] Visions.

Another example, in the Gospel of Matthew 6:13, from the end of the Lord's prayer, he brackets the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." and in the footnote, observes,

The words enclosed in brackets are not found in the majority of the most reliable ancient manuscripts. The may have been added to the text here to make the prayer more appropriate for use in public worship. Certainly the last sentence is compatible with Scripture. Cf. I Chron. 29:11. In Luke's account of the Lord's Prayer, Lk. 11:2-4, this sentence is omitted.

(2) Mathematics by David Bergamini. New York: Time-Life, 1963. This book was something my parents bought when I was little. I first looked at the pictures and was gradually sucked in -- what a terrific book!

(3) I guess a play can count -- it's in book form. Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons is something I probably quote from at least once a month. It beautifully explores the relationship between conscience, duty, faith, honor, law

(4) Green Lantern No. 61 (June 1968). "Thoroughly Modern Mayhem!" Writer: Mike Friedrich Penciller: Gil Kane Inker: Sid Greene. This is a parable of sin and falleness is 23 short pages. Interestingly, the thrust of the story is shorter than those 23 pages, yet it speaks volumes. This opens with the Hal Jordan Green Lantern and the Alan Scott (Golden Age) Green Lantern teaming up to defeat “Captain Challenge." Following that story, Scott returns home to Earth-2, flying over scenes of evil and rottenness, returning to his house and finding it ransacked by a burglar, Scott/Green Lantern orders his power ring to get rid of all the evil in the world at which point everything including Scott/GL disappears. Hal Jordan later goes to Earth-2 and finds Scott/GL and the rest of humanity frozen in a state of suspended animation in a desert. They restore everyone to their natural state and Scott learns a lesson about sin. It’s funny, but this is a story which has stuck with me ever since – while we are created in the image of God, we are all fallen and in need of saving. There were a lot of other comics I grew up with that were also modern parables. See for example, Superman Issue 236, “Planet of the Angels” which can be read on line here.

(5)


5. Tag 5 people and have them do this on their blog.

Done -- look for these folks to (possibly) follow up on this:

• Captain Yip's Secret Journal
• Paul Glenn Christian
• Bill Baar
• Ann Salisbury
• Uncle Dino, and
• Kendall Harmon
  

Revenge of the Absolutes. [Revised and extended] I saw SW: E3: RotS today -- first impression is that it's better than the last two, but doesn't approach the original triolgy. The acting is incredibly wooden, the dialogue is horrible, the storyline is still confused, and the CGI is way overdone. Still, by closing on the events which will take us to the original Star Wars movie (which I refuse to call "A New Hope."), it wraps up well.

Now for my gripes.

I'm really bugged by George Lucas' desire to take a potshot at Dubya and his supporters -- not because he's doing it; rather, because he does it so poorly, with such over reach that it doesn't make sense.

The following may be a minor spoiler, but I don't think so.

There's a scene where Obi-Wan and Anakin have a duel and Anakin says something along the lines of:

ANAKIN: If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

OBI-WAN: Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

The problem is, Lucas seems to believe this.

I believe that there are seeds of greatness here, but because Lucas is unwilling to give up his fealty to relativism and his eastern theology ("Use your feeling"), he is not able to truly develop a basis for the transformation of Anakin to Vader.

Yes, the Jedi play a minor part in pushing Anakin over to the dark side: They don't make him a master although he sits on the council, they ask him to act deceitfully, they don't let him have a girlfriend (or wife). Still, Lucas want to put the blame exclusively on the Sith (I'm being somewhat general here because of my desire to avoid spoilers). "This is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause," Padmé laments as the Senate gives Palpatine new powers.

In many respects, Obi-Wan turns out to be the greatest villian (a la Steve Maryk of the Caine Mutiny) of the sexology, because his commitment to relativism blinds him to that which is truly evil. Consider these lines from Return of the Jedi:

LUKE: Obi-Wan! Why didn't you tell me?

The ghost of Ben Kenobi approaches him through the swamp.

LUKE: You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

BEN: You father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I have told you was true... from a certain point of view.

LUKE: (turning away, derisive) A certain point of view!

BEN: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

(emphasis added). Perhaps, if Obi-Wan and the rest of the Jedi had been a little less relativistic -- dare I say it -- perhaps if the Jedi had been more Christ-like, the double-dealing which leads to the fall of the republic and the rise of the Empire would not have occurred.

Second, and strongly related, as you can see by the above, my respect for the Jedi have been completely destroyed by this movie. It's been declining for awhile -- in SW: E1: PM, we learn that to be a Jedi, one must be specially enhanced with the Midichlorians. In SW: E2: TAotC, we learn that the Jedi cannot be in love. In this one, it is confirmed that the Jedi believe they can lie about anything (which explains why Old Ben Kenobi lies with such ease to Luke in the original Star Wars movie [lies, by the way, which aren't really disclosed to be lies until The Empire Strikes Back]). Serious spoilers follow. Or take Mace Windu...

[Last chance -- I mean it, really serious spoiler below]

In the scene where Mace Windu goes to arrest Palpatine, they have a big fight -- Palpatine kills three [expendible] Jedi, then he and Mace have a huge fight. Near the end, Anakin walks in (the following is rough, taken from this purloined script (which has a number of inaccuracies, although this appears to be correct):

MACE pushes PALPATINE out to the edge of the ledge. As the Jedi moves closer, the bolts from Palpatine's hands begin to arch back on him. The Chancellor's face begins to twist and distort. His eyes become yellow as he struggles to intensify his powers.

PALPATINE: I can't ... I give up. Help me. I am weak ... I am too weak. Don't kill me. I give up. I'm dying. I can't hold on any longer.

MACE WlNDU: You Sith disease. I am going to end this once and for all.

ANAKIN: You can't kill him, Master. He must stand trial.

MACE WlNDU: He has too much control of the Senate and the Courts. He is too dangerous to be kept alive.

PALPATINE: I'm too weak. Don't kill me. Please.

ANAKIN: It is not the Jedi way . . .

MACE raises his sword to kill the CHANCELLOR.

ANAKIN: (continuing) He must live . . .

PALPATINE: Please don't, please don't . . .

ANAKIN: I need him . . .

PALPATINE: Please don't . . .

ANAKIN: NO!!!

Just as MACE is about to slash PALPATINE, ANAKIN steps in and cuts off the Jedi's hand holding the lightsaber.

As MACE stares at ANAKIN in shock, PALPATINE springs to life.

It is clear that Mace and Anakin could have combined to arrest Palpatine, but Mace, acting like a Jedi, sees himself above the law (or a law unto himself) and in an act of perfect relativism acts to put an end to Palpatine, pushing Anakin over to the Dark Side.

Thus, it seems that all those infected with the Midichlorians -- all those controlled by the Force -- are relativists who see absolutes as something that only the little people worry about. In that respect, the Jedi and the Sith are two sides of the same coin.

I submit that there is another way -- a way which was nicely summarized by a man who used to be called Joe, who said the following not too long ago:

We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.

However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an "Adult" means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith--only faith--which creates unity and takes form in love. On this theme, Saint Paul offers us some beautiful words--in contrast to the continual ups and downs of those were are like infants, tossed about by the waves: (he says) make truth in love, as the basic formula of Christian existence. In Christ, truth and love coincide. To the extent that we draw near to Christ, in our own life, truth and love merge. Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like "a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1).

History Repeats itself. The first time as parody, then as tragedy.

"I could resign, but that would be the cowardly thing to do..."

-- David Frye's Richard Nixon

Michael Isikoff will not resign.

More on Dresden. Passing through the North Platte airline terminal (of all places) I picked up a copy of Wilson Quarterly that someone had left which had an article on the bombing of Dresden. Thinking someone may return for the article -- there was a bookmark -- I left it there. The whole issue looked interesting. Unfortunately the article is not on-line.

Grieve Not the Holy Spirit. This article by Frederica on the Holy Spirit parallels a lot of my experience. More later. (title from Eph. 4:30)

Yikes! Actually, I really, really didn't like a lot of these questions....

(via Peter Sean)

Your Political Profile

Overall: 65% Conservative, 35% Liberal

Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

What is meant by Conservative or Liberal Ethics? I was most surprised by the "Personal Responsibility"score.

Not Sully. On the Huffington's Toast site, not Andrew posts:

But here goes: I’m officially an ex-Catholic. Yes, you read that correctly. Liberace has left the Cathedral. Truly, this has been the most difficult decision of my life. But how can I continue to lend my voice to Benedict XVI’s agenda of anti-gay pogroms? I love the Church; I’ll miss it terribly; but any religion that can’t tolerate my repeated intentional violations of its most basic moral precepts is no religion I want to be a part of. And while my belief in an omniscient deity whose will is unchanging is as strong as it’s ever been, I can’t help but ask myself, “Didn’t God learn anything from Stonewall?” Thus are Protestants made.

There’ll be an adjustment period, of course, but I’m already starting to feel at ease in my new home, the profoundly gay Episcopal Church. Like me, it’s an English transplant to America, and like me, it couldn’t be more enthusiastic about anal penetration.

Go read it all.

Mighty Sore. We went hiking and rock climbing at South River Falls for Mother's Day. Yesterday, I was sore, but today, I can barely move. Pictures are forthcoming.

Here's all the kids with their Mom:

That's Emilie, Joe, Debbie, Joy, and Sarah.


Perhaps I should try this?

(p.s. yes, the title of this post is a throwback -- or tip of the hat -- to this issue of Not Brand Ecch!)