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).