Sad Day. We lost a police officer in the line of duty here in Fairfax County today. There are two more who have been hospitalized in critical condition. Please pray.

More. Here is an article on the officer, Vicky Armel, who was shot and killed. An excerpt:

Vicky Armel made a life-changing decision about two years ago, and she wanted everyone to know it.

“She was on fire for the Lord,” said Julie Higdon, part of a home-based Bible study with Armel in Jeffersonton.

Armel, an outgoing mother of two young children and a resident of the Quail Ridge subdivision in northern Culpeper County, was killed Monday afternoon in Chantilly when a gunman opened fire on the Sully District police station.

She was a nine-year veteran of the Fairfax County Police Department. Her husband, Tyler, also worked with the FCPD.

Armel leaves behind a 4-year-old girl, Mason, and a 7-year-old boy, Thomas.

“She accepted Christ within the last couple of years,” said Mark DeCourcey, assistant pastor at Mountain View Community Church. “It was fairly new to her, which is what made her so exciting to be around. The new relationship with Christ was just energizing to her.”

Church members say Armel performed several behind-the-scenes roles such as painting, planning a family retreat, folding bulletins, making decorations and doing administrative tasks.

“Knowing that she had given her life to Chirst,” DeCourcey said, “that’s something we’ll be able to celebrate soon once we get through the shock and the loss.”

Word spread quickly that the Mountain View Community had lost a loved one. Lead pastor Mark Jenkins and Bible study leader Dwayne Higdon were in Chantilly Monday night and could not be reached for comment.

Members of the Mountain View congregation did not know Armel’s age or when she moved to Culpeper, but Julie Higdon said she had lived here “for a while.”

“She was probably one of the nicest people you’ll ever want to know,” said church member Kim Elias. “Great mom.”

This is so sad -- to leave behind young children.

I live in a neighborhood with a lot of police officers and they're really great men and women -- this loss affects us all.

A few months ago I was in a McDonalds with my son out in Chantilly and a very beautiful female police officer came in and was keeping an eye on some [probable] gang members. My son was very impressed with her -- her uniform and of course the pistol. She struck up a conversation with my son and he was just so impressed. She was 30-ish and had a boy about his age. The thing that really impressed me was that she could be so gentle with my son and yet, I could see her tough vigilance of the gang guys. It was like being in two worlds at once.

And that's the way most of the force that I encounter seem -- they walk in two worlds and do so with skill. It's gut-wrenching to think of one of these women or men cut down in the prime of life with young kids.

Pray for Tyler, Mason, and Thomas.

Still More. I don't mean to imply that the police officer I met was Officer Armel; it's possible, but doubtful. While that McDonalds was in Chantilly (Greenbriar Shopping Center, for those familiar with the area), it's kind of far from the police station and may be in another district. I just meant that, well, we have some really good folks on the force and I appreciate them.

YES!

(Jai Lewis, please work on your foul shots -- nearly all of Fairfax just had heartattacks.)

Forget "Roe for Men," what about Roe for Children, Babies, and the Unborn?

What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of person, and what kind of society, will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually?

- Jesse Jackson, Jr., quoted here

Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between.

- Mother Teresa, Address to the Nobel Committee, November 11, 1979

Mickey Kaus, in his very concise manner, throws out some quick scenarios if the "Roe for Men" case were to have some degree of success. Yet, what so much of what the Roe for Men issue misses is Roe’s impact on children, born and unborn. The current issue* of the Harvard Journal for Law & Public Policy has a valuable essay which explores “the connection between the mistreatment of children and the dehumanization of unborn children, and will argue that both wrongs stem from the misguided premise that human lives only deserve constitutional rights once a set level of development is reached.”

Moreover, as author Tracy Leigh Dodds states in the next sentence, “[t]rue recognition of the civil rights of children will not meaningfully progress until America learns to value children at all stages of development.”

This is something I firmly believe – it used to be a tenet of progressivism, witness the Jesse Jackson quotation above – but it is something which has been lost along the way.

In the Guardian last week, Madeline Bunting wrote “…a bias against having babies has permeated our culture. This phenomenon needs a new word - anti-natalism…”

No, actually, I think Pope John Paul, II had a better grasp of what civilization was up against – it’s the culture of death:

Above all, society must learn to embrace once more the great gift of life, to cherish it, to protect it, and to defend it against the culture of death, itself an expression of the great fear that stalks our times. One of your most noble tasks as Bishops is to stand firmly on the side of life, encouraging those who defend it and building with them a genuine culture of life.

- John Paul, II Address of the Holy Father to US Bishops of California, Nevada and Hawaii, October 2, 1998

* In addition, the Journal republishes one of William Hubbs Rehnquist’s more important law review articles, The Notion of a Living Constitution from 1976. I know when he passed away, I wanted to link to it, but it was not on-line at the time. The article shows Rehnquist’s always dry humor (“At first blush it seems certain that a living Constitution is better than what must be its counterpart, a dead Constitution.”) but was really one of the first to scrutinize the arguments for the “living constitution” fallacy.

Out Again. *sigh* Yes, I do travel too much -- I was in NC recently -- we stayed in the same hotel with the VaTech and Boston College Teams for the ACC tournment. Also, the Miami cheerleaders -- why don't the cheerleaders stay in the same hotels as the teams?

Anyway, I probably won't be blogging much until July -- I'm managing a Little League team (the A's!) and it's taking a lot more time than I expected. Plus, still traveling for work.

Also, rumor has it that two people at work were fired for misusing the computer. Since our organization has a "no blogging with Corp. equipment" rule, and when I travel, I only use a Corp. computer (as I mentioned when this rule was put into effect), well you get the picture. I miss writing while I'm on travel, but I do like my job.

Ding-Dong. (repeat frequently) . From afar the congregation of Truro Church has been watching young love in bloom -- (am I being too corny? -- hang it -- who cares). Specifically, for a number of years, the son of one minister has been dating the daughter of another minister. Sometimes, (speaking for some of the parents at least) we feel less like a congregation and more like those background singers in "The Little Mermaid" (kiss the girl Sha-la-la-la-la-la )

The daughter, Catherine Crocker, was my oldest daughter's small group leader for a number of years. The son, Jamie Brown, has been, among other things, the worship leader for the Saturday Night service at Truro Church.

And Catherine blogs about her life and experiences. So when my daughter, Joy, told me the bare minimum, namely that Catherine had a ring, I turned to her blog (on xanga) to get the details that Joy was too stingy to share.

It's a really sweet story -- I urge all of you to read it. A very romantic day with some very romantic traditions (the ding-dong of the title could be wedding bells, but isn't -- you'll see if you follow her story). Start here, then go here (this is the one with all the details), and go here to see the ring.

Oh and she has lots of great pictures.

(and since Catherine said I had a really big blog that everyone read, I'm hoping her news will get picked up by some of the real biggies, like CANN and Kendall)

Now we're all wondering who will celebrate (or is the proper ecclesiastical word "officiate") the service?

Alternate History and the Constitution. One of my resolutions for the new year has been to read at least one law review article a week. This isn't a discipline, so much as it is a treat -- yeah, it's good for me, but I also love it. I've come across quite a few things I should be sharing. Here are two bits of alternate history.

Both come from Michael Stokes Paulsen's "Captain James T. Kirk And The Enterprise Of Constitutional Interpretation: Some Modest Proposals From The Twenty-Third Century" 59 Alb. L. Rev. 671 (1995), which riffs off from the Star Trek episode The Omega Glory.

The gist of Paulsen's article is that the Constitution is for "WE THE PEOPLE" not just for the high priest known as the Supreme Court. In making his argument, he puts forth a number of hypotheticals and proposals. The first hypo is this one:

Consider another not too far-fetched hypothetical. The year is 1861. Abraham Lincoln has been inaugurated as President and southern states are seceding in droves. Suppose that the same southern-dominated Taney Court that decided Dred Scott ruled that the South could lawfully secede, and that President Lincoln's prosecution of the Civil War was therefore unconstitutional. If Lincoln is persuaded that the decision is wrong, lawless, and immoral, is he nonetheless bound to recall Union troops, vacate the White House, and move the capital of the remaining states in the United States of America somewhere north of the Maryland border? Or suppose instead - quite plausibly, in light of Dred Scott - that the Supreme Court declared the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional as a taking of property. Should Lincoln acquiesce in a judgment returning freed blacks to slavery?

I say, and Lincoln (by then) certainly would have said, absolutely not.

Notes omitted. Interesting question, no? Is the Supreme Court always right?

Okay, now consider this hypo, which relates to the doctrine of interposition:

As a way of trying to consider this issue afresh, and counteracting out instinctive biases, I ask you to consider the real-life case of Lemmon v. The People, decided by the highest court of the Empire State, the New York Court of Appeals, in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War. Lemmon is, in many ways, the companion piece to Dred Scott.

A Virginia family was travelling to Texas by way of New York City. (That was the most efficient route in those days, because of the efficiency of steamboat travel from New York City to New Orleans.) The Virginians brought their eight slaves into New York State, where they were freed on a writ of habeas corpus. New York was, of course, free soil. Under New York law, Negro slaves brought by their owners voluntarily into New York immediately became free. (Runaways were governed by the Fugitive Slave Cause and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.) The New York courts chose to apply their own state's law, rather than the law of Virginia, to this choice-of-law situation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' holding that these were free men and women.

Suppose now that history had played out slightly differently in 1860 and 1861: Either Vice President John Breckenridge or Senator Stephen Douglas is elected President in 1860, rather than Lincoln, and the South stays in the Union. Lemmon goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. The Taney Court reverses the New York Court of Appeals, on the authority of Dred Scott's recognition of the right to hold slaves as property and a determination that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects a slaveholder's right to keep that property when he travels to another state.

This was a foreseeable, even an expected result, noted by Lincoln and a good many others in the aftermath of Dred Scott. Lemmon would be simply the next logical step from Scott. And, as a consequence, it would require that slavery be tolerated in the North, confirming Lincoln's prophecy that the Nation could not survive half slave and half free. Lemmon would make slavery the law of the land. There could be no such thing as a "free" state.

Suppose now that you are the Governor of New York. The pro-slavery Taney Court has held that former slaves freed under the laws of New York must be returned to their Virginia masters. Indeed, anyone may move to New York from the South and keep their slaves. Moreover, it follows that native New Yorkers can start holding slaves too. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, which you firmly believe is both wrong under the Constitution and wrong as a matter of morality, New York harbor is about to become the largest slave-trading port in the world. What do you do? May you refuse to obey the Supreme Court's decision, refuse to return the freed slaves, and resist the Douglas or Breckenridge administration's attempted enforcement of the Lemmon decree?

I am inclined to say yes, yes, and yes. State government officials - governors, legislators, judges - also swear an oath to support the federal Constitution. Fidelity to that oath, I should think, requires resisting violations of the Constitution by the federal government with all the powers at your disposal as a state, including, perhaps, calling forth the militia. I have to tell you that, under this scenario, I would expect (or hope) that Governor Paulsen would be leading the Yankees into armed rebellion against the lawful government of the Union, rather than acquiescing in the extension of slavery to free soil and the sending of freed men back to bondage.

Now this should be disturbing. For, in a sense, this is Governor George Wallace blocking the schoolhouse doors to resist integration. My point here is simply that interposition can be used for good or for ill, and its legitimacy should not turn on the historical accident that it has been most regularly invoked for ill.

Again, note omitted.

Girl Scout Cookies. Ever feel like eating a whole box of Girl Scout cookies? Want to know what will do the most damage? My wife, the troop cookie Mom, has figured this out.

Calories per box

Trefoils . . . . . . . 1430
Cafe Cookies . . .1410
Thin Mints . . . . . 1330
Do-si-dos . . . . . .1320
All Abouts . . . . . 1200
Samoas . . . . . . . 1125
Tagalongs . . . . . .975
Lemon Coolers . . 858

Sorry, no internet sales allowed.

Of Partial-Birth Abortions and Heart Attacks. Okay, why does our beloved media feel compelled to refer to partial birth abortion in scare quotes or with other qualifiers? See, for example, this WaPo Story from yesterday, which began,

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether a 2003 federal ban on the procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional . . .

The justification ususally given is that this is a term that pro-lifers came up with or that it's not medically accurate (or both).

Of course, I would reply that it doesn't matter who came up with it and that it is accurate.

In any event, why can't our beloved media get the story of Harry Whittington's heart irregularity correct? So far, I've only seen one story, by the LA Times, surprisingly enough, describe it correctly. It wasn't a "heart attack."

The rest of the media keep referring to it as a "heart attack." See, for example, this story by ABC, also posted yesterday:

Whittington, 78, was struck by up to 200 shotgun pellets in the right torso, neck and face. He sustained a mild heart attack caused by a pellet lodged at his heart three days after the shooting but was released from a Corpus Christi hospital Friday.

As explained in the Best of the Web,

A physician who reads this column writes:

Calling the pellet-induced arrhythmia a "heart attack" is a little sensationalist. A "heart attack" is not an official medical term, and is generally taken as meaning a blockage of a significant cardiac artery and resultant damage to the heart. Calling the pellet-induced heart damage a "heart attack" is like calling a bruise a "tissue infarction." The pellet presumably irritated a small area of heart tissue or obstructed a tiny blood vessel.

If the media can go through all its pains when it comes to partial birth abortion (or what journalists call "a procedure critics call 'partial-birth abortion.") why can't they get Whittington's heart irregularity correct?

Admittedly, I've had way too many arguments about this in the past, but this is one of those things that will not go away...

Which Sci-Fi crew would you fit best in? Hmmm....

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)

created with QuizFarm.com

I'm afraid of this one.

What do you get? An ambiguous Derrida mug with no top and no bottom?

Hurricane Names, 2006. My name is on there -- is yours? Is this the year your name becomes mud? We have two friends named Katrina -- both have told us they always loved their name until this year.

Alberto
Beryl
Chris
Debby
Ernesto
Florence
Gordon
Helene
Isaac
Joyce
Kirk
Leslie
Michael
Nadine
Oscar
Patty
Rafael
Sandy
Tony
Valerie
William

I predict the one to watch out for is Nadine.

The Pacific names (including "Bud" -- how can anyone evacuate when faced with a Hurricane Bud?) and future names are here.

Test: Keys to the Heart.
(Valentine's Day Edition)

The Keys to Your Heart

You are attracted to those who are unbridled, untrammeled, and free. In love, you feel the most alive when things are straight-forward, and you're told that you're loved. You'd like to your lover to think you are loyal and faithful... that you'll never change. You would be forced to break up with someone who was emotional, moody, and difficult to please. Your ideal relationship is open. Both of you can talk about everything... no secrets. Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment. You think of marriage as something precious. You'll treasure marriage and treat it as sacred. In this moment, you think of love as commitment. Love only works when both people are totally devoted.

What Are The Keys To Your Heart?

Global Warming. I had hoped to get back to the subject of global warming, but the "Blizzard of '06" took up too much of my time this past weekend. (No, I'm not trying to be snarky there -- although the juxtaposition is definitely difficult for those making the global warming comments. [When I was a boy living in DC from 1969-71, we had one big snow and at least one winter with no snow. These days we get more frequent snowfalls and also heavier snows.]) I had some time yesterday to go on-line, but couldn't get through to my dial-up, so I did taxes instead. And shovelled a lot of snow...

I hope to come back to this in a day or two.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article about the political developments regarding global warming in the US: Academy to Referee Climate-Change Fight from the free section of the WSJ last Friday, regarding the National Acadamy of Sciences.

And a big hello to Bruce Geerdes a gentleman I truly want to recommend.

I met Bruce through the Daniel Amos Discussion List and its various Off-Topic lists he established. Bruce is a very thoughtful person -- I especially recommend him to those of you who are bloggers on the Right side of the political spectrum. Bruce is faithful to Christ and brings a perspective that will make you think twice about your political beliefs.

Go forth and be challenged.

Truth as a Defense. I've read a couple of things since the funeral. As Howard Kurtz notes, in the WaPo,

Whether you think it was appropriate or galling for Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery to use a funeral to take partisan shots at a president who was sitting behind them, this was news.

As I indicated, just below, I thought this was crass -- but others, including conservative commentators James Taranto and Mark Byron didn't find it so bad.

Lee Harris, on the other hand, aptly describes the situation,

This week, at the funeral for the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, two of the speakers, Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery, might have opened their remarks by saying that they came not to bury Coretta Scott King, but to bash Bush, which is exactly what they proceeded to do. They exploited a solemn occasion in order to take cheap pot shots at the President, keenly aware that their remarks would be broadcast around the world, and into many American classrooms.

Of course, both Carter and Lowery were also aware that the target of their attack, George W. Bush, was sitting right behind them. Had he not been present on the occasion, their Bush-bashing would have only been an affront to good taste. But because Bush had come there to honor the memory of Coretta Scott King, and not to engage in a debate with his political opponents, the attacks on him crossed the boundaries of mere bad taste, and became low blows. They were deliberately attacking a man who they knew could not, under the circumstances, defend himself against their assault. Their aim was quite obvious -- to embarrass and humiliate Bush in the full knowledge that there was not a thing Bush could decently do about it.

I've listened to the defenders of Rev. Joseph Lowery (and Carter although, as I indicated, by that point in the funeral, I was gone -- I had to get to work) to understand their point. As best I understand it, their defense is truth. Even Mark Byron set out this defense:

I wasn't appreciating the digs that folks were getting in at Dubya's expense, but it was within their character, speaking what they saw as the truth to the power in front of them.

In his initial response (and a comment to my posting below) UCC Seminarian Chuck Currie used this defense. Now his response is a modification of that -- it's the Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" response. Anyone who disagrees is a "right winger" who "Just Hates Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mrs. Coretta Scott King." (I'm glad to see the spirit of moderateness and temperance still lives in the UCC.)

As an aside, before I proceed, not all the commenters agreed with Currie -- there was a moderate spirit there trying to persuade him to the contrary. I particularly liked this:

While I may agree with what was said, there is no one on this earth that could make me believe that Mrs. King would have wanted an invited guest to be embarrassed. There is a time and a place for everything and I think what Rev. Lowery and President Carter did today was terrible. A funeral is not the place for partisan politics. It was to lift up Mrs. King - not the time for digs at a President.

No, truth is not a defense to charges of gracelessness or crassness. It never has been.

Let's try an experiment. Imagine if President Bush had stood up and said something that included the following lines:

• On October 10, 1963, the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephones, and then hotel rooms. He did this even though Dr. King was not a terrorist, always preached and lived a life of non-violence. He did this even though Dr. King was a U.S. Citizen, living in the U.S.
  
• The tapes were played for the President of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat, who enjoyed the salacious details.
  
• The government of the United States even delivered a copy of the tapes to Coretta exposing her to the sordid details of his infidelity. An infidelity that whet beyond the '?lusts of the heart'? in the words of one former president and were more akin to the exploits of another president....
  
• Yes, Dr. King was not always with his wife, but at least none of his lovers drowned while he was driving...
  
• Why the President of the United States, Democrat Lyndon Johnson couldnÂ?t even find the time to attend the funeral of Martin Luther KingÂ?.

Yuck . . . I can'?t go on. All I'?ve written above it "?true"? yet, it'?s disgusting -? it'?s beyond crass. We'd all be condemning him. (Except, maybe the right-wingers, which sort of proves my point about people like Currie.)

In short, like what Lowery did, it doesn't belong at a funeral.

Let Her In. I'm alive today because of a private bill of Congress -- it's a long story -- another time.

Kim-Hoan Thi Nguyen, Mother of Binh N. Le, USMC, needs a private bill to get to the floor of the Congress in order to be permitted to stay in the U.S.

So she can leave flowers on the grave of her son, who gave his life for our country.

It's time Congress -- let her in.

On-Line. It's weird the things you can find on-line. When I was 15 and fresh off the plane in Hawai'i, I swam in the Waikiki Roughwater Swim. It's 2 and a half miles in the sea, outside the reef, from Diamond Head to the beach by the Hilton. I see now my results are on-line -- I did it in 1:05:43. I see now I placed 65th overall and 15th within my age-group. Not bad, but not spectacular. However, little Dickie Walter, age 10, swam it in 59:52 and placed 34th overall (and first in his age group).

It's the closest I'll ever get to a marathon.

And I'll never do it again. (But I would love to do the Maui Channel Relay...)

Earth Day (early) - According to the NYT, today is evangelical earth day -- specifically a number of evangelicals (86 according to the NYT, "more than 85" according to its website) held a press conference this morning in DC to announce a new initiative: the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The publicist for this group is Jim Jewell of Rooftop MediaWorks. The group is funded by the Hewlett Foundation ($475,000), among others -- it is not clear whether this is a grass-roots organization or an astroturf organization.

I hope it is an organiztion which is genuinely concerned about doing well and truth -- I am concerned, however, that the emphasis is on "global warming." According to their FAQ's:

What is Climate Change or Global Warming?

Climate change, also called global warming, is an urgent problem that can and must be solved. The problem is caused primarily by human activities that produce heat-trapping or greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, artificially warming the planet and thereby changing the climate. Serious consequences include dryer droughts, fiercer floods, and harsher hurricanes. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas or global warming pollutant, is released when fossil fuels such as oil, gas, or coal are burned in our vehicles, by power plants, and by industry. The good news is that there are plenty of cost-effective solutions that will create jobs, clean up our environment, and enhance national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, thereby creating a safe and healthy future for our children.

Why is global warming an urgent problem?

There are three basic reasons for urgency: (1) Global warming is happening now. Impacts are already starting to be felt, e.g., a 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed approximately 20,000 people. (2) The oceans warm slowly, creating a lag in experiencing the consequences. Many of the impacts from climate change to which we are already committed will not be realized for several decades. The consequences of the pollution we create today will be visited upon our children and grandchildren. (3) As individuals and as a society we are making long-term decisions each day that determine how much carbon dioxide we will emit in the future, such as whether to purchase energy efficient vehicles and appliances that will last for 10-20 years, or whether to build more coal-burning power plants that last for 50 years rather than investing more in energy efficiency and renewable energy. We need to start solving global warming now to make it easier and less expensive for our children to deal with in the future.

Recently, I was reading The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time by John Kelly and came across this passage:

Sometime between 750 and 800, Europe entered the Little Optimum [note omitted] a period of global warming. Across the continent, temperatures in-[45]creased by an average of more than 1 degree Celsius, but rather than producing catastrophe, as many current theorists of global warming predict, the warm weather produced abundance.* England and Poland became wine-growing countries, and even the inhabitants of Greenland began experimenting with vineyards. More important, the warm weather turned marginal farmland into decent farmland, and decent farmland into good farmland. In the final centuries of Roman rule, crop yields had fallen two and three to one – a yield represents the amount of seed harvested to the amount planted: a return so meager, the Roman agricultural writer Columella feared that the land had grown old. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as winters became milder and summers warmer and drier, European farms began to produce yields of five and six to one, unprecedented by medieval standards.

*Says Dr. Phillip Stott, professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, “What has been forgotten in all the discussion of global warming is a proper sense of history... During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer than even today and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone.” (Phillip Stott, interview, Daily Telegraph, 4/6/2003.)

From pages 44-45. (I include two links in Kelly's footnote so you can critique Stott yourself.)

This seems to make sense to me. First, I am not sure that "global warming" exists; second, I'm not sure, if it does, that it is human-created; third, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if it did exist.

Actually, there are two notes in the FAQ I find more troubling:

Does addressing climate change mean we're becoming liberals?

No. We believe that creating a better future for our children and grandchildren by fulfilling out biblical call to stewardship and love of neighbor through reducing pollution is simply being a good biblical Christian. Climate change is not a liberal issue. It is a profound problem for people Jesus loves, people Jesus died to save.

Are we working with environmentalists?

No. While we are not working with environmentalists, and are critical of some of their views and approaches, we also feel that once we have established our own voice on this issue we should use this as an opportunity to share the gospel with those who care about "environmental" issues. We also appreciate all environmentalists have done to protect God's creation. Finally, we do not rule out working with environmentalists and anyone else of goodwill in the future.

Umm, excuse me -- who really cares if "we're becomming liberals?" Nothing's wrong with that, is there? Second, what's wrong with working with environmentalists?

I'm sorry, but there's a lot in this whole "initiative" which rubs me the wrong way...

More

See also these two excellent posts by Mark Byron: 1. Christians and the Environment-Part I-The Purpose-Driven EPA? and 2. Christians and the Environment-Part II-Who's in the ECI?. Then there's this in GetReligion and this on the CTwebsite.

Mary Magdalene. One of my wife's friend's called her last night looking for information on Mary Magdalene. I know the basics -- she was a follower of Jesus, she was not a hooker, nor was she ever married to Jesus. Beyond that, I don't have a lot of recall. I handed her this book by Ben Witherington, III (I didn't know until just now that he has a blog...) and she read aloud an extensive passage.

Anyway, today I see there's a long piece on MM in the New Yorker. It's not bad -- I don't agree with a lot of the spin (definitely not evangelical) and the ending's weak -- but there's a few things I hadn't seen before.

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