Persecution Watch: Close to Home

Well, now it isn't just anti-Christian fanatics in California using the ACLU to ban all crosses from Blue States. The persecution arena has arrived in the South. This time, the outrage is happening here in Georgia. According to Cybercast News Service, Savannah State University has expelled a Christian group called Commissioned to Love from campus for doing what it calls "hazing" of new members and "harassing" other students, then for violating its suspension. What lewd and inappropriate behavior invited this branding? Foot washing. This school has defined as hazing, literally, what Jesus did. The members of the group apparently shared their faith with other students, which the school labelled "harassment." How far behind can it be for liberal colleges to start defining corporate prayer as "harassment?" Foot washing earned them a suspension and a strict warning. When members of the group attended a Christian music concert off campus, the school authorities announced that they had violated the terms of their suspension and expelled them from campus. Does the Constitution protect freedom of peaceable assembly? I am certain the private peaceable activity of students on their own time off campus is legal in this state. Commissioned to Love is suing the college, and well they should. Add a lion's den and Savannah State could fit the bill for Babylon perfectly.

Movie Review: The Prestige ****

There are three steps in magic: the pledge, the turn and the prestige. The magician promises to do a trick, makes something disappear, and brings it back. Only the bringing back - the prestige - makes the show worth the cost of admission. A movie filled with twists of the plot and flashbacks, "The Prestige" is a movie that you must see straight through from beginning to end without interruption or you will be confused eternally. At the outset, a tragedy makes bitter enemies of former friends in late-19th Century London. A British magician (Christian Bale) and an American magician (Hugh Jackman) engage in a fierce duel to perform the most amazing trick possible and to sabotage one another. As one magician sits in jail for murder, flashbacks inform the viewers how he came to that point.
Michael Caine gives a characteristically excellent performance as the ingeneur to a number of magicians. The ingeneur is the brains of the operation - the man who knows the secrets to the magic tricks and teaches the magician how to perform them. A magician really is just a performer - a man entertaining the audience with the tricks that his ingeneur has developed for him. Scarlett Johansson plays the assistant to one of the magicians, who changes sides but may be either a double agent for her first boss or a turncoat. Despite their similarity of profession, the two magicians are not alike or cliched in their roles. One plays the confident master and the other an obsessive pretender, determined to discover the secret to the trademark trick of his adversary. Obsession leads him to America, to Colorado, where Nikola Tesla might hold the answer to his need for the greatest trick of all. The questions persist: who is the better magician, and what happens if the audience sees a feat of real magic? Does the audience want real magic, or would they prefer to be fooled?
In terms of content, "The Prestige" is rated PG-13 for disturbing images. There are some death scenes, including one suicide, so the kids definitely do not need to see this one. The language is relatively clean, however, and there are no naughty bits. You will want to see it more than once to try to catch the things you missed the first time. Most importantly for a cloak and dagger thriller, they tie up all of the loose ends at the conclusion. No matter how muddled you are at times, you will be able to understand exactly what happened and why.

Appeasement Watch

We remember the Day that will live in Infamy, 3/11/04, when terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda bombed the train system in Spain, killing 191 and wounding 2,000. Some observers thought optimistically that the Spanish people had just endured their own 9/11 and would redouble their efforts to fight alongside our troops against the threat that both nations faced from Islamofascists. Instead, we saw that enormous parade of Spaniards holding signs reading simple "paz," Spanish for "peace" and demanding an immediate retreat from Iraq. The terrorists timed their bombings perfectly, inflicting carnage only weeks before national elections. Al Qaeda spokesmen made it quite clear that they had attacked Spain because of Spanish troops in Iraq. Therefore, the Spanish people ousted Aznar's government in favor of Zapatero's Socialist Party, which immediately withdrew all Spanish forces from Iraq. Overnight, the Drive-By Media changed its alarmist mantra from "We're going it alone in Iraq!" to "We've lost one of our most important allies!" and thereby acknowledged for the first time that the United States had allies in Iraq.
Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that terrorists with links to Al Qaeda are training in Morocco for redoubled efforts at staging attacks in Spain. The story is here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-spain10mar10,0,5527219,full.story
After Spain kowtowed to Al Qaeda, the menace has not left her alone. Simon Cowell once advised a contestant on American Idol, "When someone is down, kick them," which is exactly the strategy that these terrorists employ. Concessions only show weakness to these terrorists, which the intend to exploit. Three years ago they attacked Spain because of her troops in Iraq. Today, they will attack Spain because they want an active hand in Spain's government and tomorrow they will attack Spain until all of Spain's non-Muslims pay the Jizya (the tax on non-Muslims) or convert to Islam. Appeasement will not save the non-Muslim world from the terrorists who kill in the name of Allah. These people will not agree to coexistence with us unless we assimilate to them and accept an inferior position. Just because you may be a tolerant pluralist Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, skeptic, atheist or agnostic, do not suppose that you will be able to persuade the leaders of Al Qaeda that you mean them no harm. All who have not converted to Islam or agreed to pay the Jizya are targets for their wrath.

Oscar Awards

By popular demand, I'll furnish a short review of the longest night in Hollywood. Now that I am an old married man, I actually pay attention to some of the fashion on the red carpet. This was a distinctly good year in that regard, with Jennifer Hudson's aluminum foil vest the biggest fashion problem. Meryl Streep with tacky beads and a dress that looked like a bathrobe was a bit on the Hippie side and the way Kirsten Dunst did her bangs mader her look younger than Abigail Breslin. Other than that, it was a good evening, with Best Dressed notices going to Penelope Cruz and Reese Witherspoon.
Ellen DeGeneres did one thing right and one wrong as hostess: she succeeded in her attempt not to steal the show from the nominees, but she tried way too hard not to steal the show. It would not kill her to dress formally and actually crack some better-than-lame jokes. She was not actively bad, but was passive in every regard. Is it just me, or do we hear every year that the show is TOO STINKING LONG(!!!) and then the next year they make it just as long again. Why can't they cut all of the elaborate introduction bits and just get on with the awards that no one cares about?! Jack Black and Will Ferrell were mildly amusing bemoaning the lack of Oscars for comedians, but that stunt should be scheduled for Saturday Night Live on the night before the Oscars show. Fundamentally, if they put the emphasis back on the actual winners of the awards, (and nominated more movies that people have actually seen) the Oscars could again rival major sporting events for popularity.
I watched part of the "Dogfights" marathon on the History Channel, but I could flip back every fifteen minutes or so and catch the next award presentation. Al Gore was actually funny as he did the botched presidential candidacy announcement. The straightest of all straight men has learned to laugh at himself - good job. The surprises for which the Oscars are famous hit us again this year in a few ways. First, how is it possible for the only foreign language movie with other nominations to lose the Best Foreign Language Film award? "Pan's Labyrinth" won - WON, mind you - Best Makeup, Art Direction, and Cinematography, but lost the trophy for Best Foreign Language Film. Stupid is the only word for that voting. The biggest other surprise was Alan Arkin's victory for Best Supporting Actor. Eddie Murphy was the sentimental favorite, but we have learned the lesson countless times that sentimental favorites do not win anymore.
After completing my German homework for the next day, I tuned in again to see the last four awards of the show. Had I not been suffering insomnia, I would not have seen the predictable outcomes of the big awards. Scorsese got his trophy at last, Forest Whitaker and Helen Mirren added the most coveted award to their trophy cases, Peter O'Toole will have to try again, and "The Departed" won Best Picture. This will be a trivia question year akin to last year. Nothing swept the awards and the biggest box office hits were not in the running. The Best News is that Babel lost everything, so we will not see a string of devastating, depressing movies all vying for Best Picture next year. Hua.

Justice Miscarried: Libby is Guilty

Scooter Libby has been found guilty after ten days of jury deliberations on four of five counts, including the count of obstuction of justice. How can a man obstruct justice in a case where no crime was committed? Why does it matter who told Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame's non-secret, non-covert, and non-protected identity? Even if he really did lie when he recalled how he found out about her status, he could only obstruct justice if the trail led somewhere, which it did not.
Take his place for a moment: As a prosecutor, I ask "Who was the first person that told you about the death of Anna Nichole Smith?" I am interrogating you because she might have been murdered. Let us suppose you tell me that you saw Shepard Smith on Foxnews covering the case, but he was not on any Foxnews shows that day or the next. In reality, it was a different reporter who you saw, but you mistakenly stand by your story of Shepard Smith. Later it turns out that she was not murdered, so I press no charges for the crime. Have you committed perjury and obstruction of justice? If you are a Republican, you have.
There are two lessons here. This verdict vindicates forever the Clinton strategy: when questioned under oath, claim to have a completely uncertain recollection about everything. Tell prosecutors that you remember nothing at all and laugh at them because they cannot prove you wrong. Claim that everything is privileged: attorney-client privileged, executive-privileged, etc. and take the 5th Amendment even when you are not under investigation. When given immunity, admit to everything and exonerate everyone else. That strategy enabled them to evade justice almost completely. Jim Guy Tucker and both McDougals faced convictions, but dozens of others got away scot free.
The second lesson here is that a judge can get whatever verdict he wants. The judge made no secret of his partisanship, denying the defense a key witness and expressing outrage that the defense did not call Vice President Cheney to testify. So much for a blind bearer of the equal scales of justice. Libby faces up to twenty-five years in prison for a conflicted memory about a non-crime, which the judge refused to say was a non-crime. The judge instructed the jury repeatedly not to take into account whether or not it was a crime for Valerie Plame's identity to be publicized, allowed the prosecution to portray her falsely as a covert agent to the jury, and claimed not to even know whether a crime had been committed in the case. Washington DC juries are notoriously partisan, so this conviction may be overturned on appeal, as was Oliver North's conviction, but this day's mischief is awfully upsetting.

Movie Review: The Guardian ***

For this review, I need to furnish full disclosure at the outset: I am a major anti-fan of Kevin Costner. Ashton Kutcher is not much better in my book, but for at least once in their lives they managed to put together a good movie. "The Guardian" celebrates the elite rescue swimmers of the Coast Guard. Yes, the Coast Guard actually does have elite personnel and they richly deserve the label. These are the swimmers who jump out of helicopters into frigid waters in Alaska to rescue fishermen whose boats have been wrecked. The helicopter crew lowers a basket or a cable and the rescue swimmer puts the survivors in the basket and sends them up to safety. There are 300 rescue swimmers currently, three of whom are women.
In "The Guardian," Kevin Costner is an old rescue swimmer who accepts a slot as the head trainer at the Rescue Swimmer course and Ashton Kutcher is the maverick hot shot from college who thinks he walks on water. Costner has marital problems, of course, (when was the last time you saw a happily married military man in a movie) Costner and Kutcher both have a tragic past and in time they discover how much in common they share. The trainer reinforces the themes of teamwok and self-sacrifice constantly as the young swimmers attempt to complete an extremely difficult 18-week course. The training sequences furnish the highlights of the movie. Recently in real life, the course started with twelve trainees and all of them washed out in the first week. The current class has condensed in number from twelve down to four. Needless to say, the course is unforgiving.
"The Guardian" is very long, 139 minutes, it suffers from anti-climax, and several subplots are completely unnecessary. Costner's marital issues do not advance the plot, nor do Kutcher's trysts with a local girl. I guess getting into bed on the second date is standard operating procedure now. The language is not bad, however, and the message is good overall. I would say it is worth seeing once.

Ire from both sides

Everyone by now has weighed in to criticize Ann Coulter for characterizing John Edwards with the other "F" word. I found the headline interesting, however, "Coulter draws criticism from both sides of the aisle." Every time you see a headline like that one, it tells you two things: 1) the object of wrath has committed a politically incorrect act and 2) the offender is a Republican. Isn't it interesting that only Republicans get criticized from both sides? Republicans express offense when anyone says something offensive; Democrats are offended only if Republicans say an ill-advised word.
A quick google search for "William Jefferson Criticism" turns up two headlines that both use the phrase "GOP criticizes Jefferson..." What? No outrage from the party that was hot to trot to rid Congress of the Culture of Corruption? Jefferson had $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer. Not only that, but in 2006 his seat was so safe that the next two finishers after him were also Democrats (in Louisiana, they do not have primaries). Nancy Pelosi is getting Jefferson placed on the Homeland Security committee now so that he can have access to classified documents. Can we identify the next Sandy Burglar? Why defend a man who is obviously guilty of a crime when his seat is completely safe?
The first reason is that Jefferson is black and the descendant of slaves. All of the Democrats feel the guilt of several generations on their shoulders when they look at him. Under the doctrine of Social Justice, no black man will ever truly be guilty of any crime until poverty has departed forever from the black community. The second reason they defend him is that Democrats never criticize one of their own, admit to any wrongdoing, or concede any point to their political opponents, whom they style enemies. They only oppose corruption when Republicans have red hands, and then they only oppose the Republicans who are corrupt. They couldn't lose Jefferson's seat if they tried, but more importanty to them, they will not suffer the indignity of seeing a Democrat forced out of office.

Pelosi Promises Watch

As we observed the campaigns for Congress last fall, the Democrats propelled their party to a narrow majority in both houses on a number of promises. Chiefly, they told us that all Republicans are racist, child molesters and corrupt money-grubbers itching for lobbyists' money. These caricatures each had patron saints, but Congressmen Foley, Ney and Cunningham all resigned voluntarily whereas William Jefferson, (D, LA) who was caught with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer got reelected and sits in Congress today. Even if all of the Democrats' charges were true, they ran on a surprisingly small number of agenda items. In addition to promising not to be George W. Bush, they ran on raising the minimum wage and possibly doing something about the war, but they were seldom in agreement about what. Since taking office, they have raised the minimum wage and taken decisive action on the war by passing a non-binding beauty contest resolution saying that they do not like the surge.
How is Speaker Pelosi doing on her principal promises? She vowed to end lobbyist corruption, allow the Republicans to participate in all debates and to make contributions to bills, and she decried the three-day workweeks that Speaker Hastert had allowed, vowing to make the five-day workweek a hallmark of the 110th Congress. Speaker Pelosi broke her promise of inclusion for the Republicans before the first gavel convened the House. She announced when she unveiled her 100 hours plan that no Republican amendments would be permitted. The majority party can do this, and no one was surprised that she did, but the fact that she had promised not to makes her a hypocrite. The fact that she broke this promise before the first piece of legislation also shows that she never had any intention of keeping her word. This story from the Politico is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2908.html
As far as lobbyist money, the Washington Post details here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301978_pf.html that the Democrats are using their various committee chairmen in the House to head fundraising events involving lobbyists. No one is surprised by this turn of events, but they did promise a change. For the final promise, in eight weeks, Pelosi's Congressmen have managed to log one five-day workweek, so that vow has not been a total bust.
Are you disillusioned by all this? I'm not because this is what I had expected to see happen. If any independent voters are watching, however, they might realize that their votes against an apparently incompetent party and for a change in 2006 have not had the desired effect. Instead, we have more of the same and a hypocritical new Speaker who thinks she needs a 757 provided by the Air Force at taxpayer expense.