The Anti-Passion Passion

I've seen and read more blather over Mel Gibson's movie than there was hype over The Cat in the Hat. I don't intend to go see the film, but not because I disapprove of Gibson's motives nor because I think any of his critics have made any useful points against it. The oddest complaint is that it isn't accurate history. Yeah, not like all those other biblical epics that have come out of Hollywood.

I don't really mind that it's supposed to be violent. How could an accurate depiction of crucifixion be otherwise? Just reading historical accounts is enough to weaken one's stomach.

And, as for its supposed anti-semitism, it seems to be based more on anti-Gibson propaganda than anything in the New Testament. Jesus was a Jew and his disciples were nearly all Jews. His apostles certainly were all Jews. Peter received a special revelation to convince him that the gospel was for gentiles as well as the Jews.

The reason I don't plan on seeing this film is that I don't believe that any film, no matter how violent and graphic, can accurately depict the Atonement. It is more important for us to know and obey his teachings than to try to portray the infinity of pain he suffered. I'm not sure anyone but he can understand that.

Kerry's book

from 1971 opposing the war in Vietnam is selling for $595 on Ebay. I wonder the buyers are liberals trying to take it out of circulation. ; )

Still not clear whether Kerry was waffling, or pandering.

That's because he's waffling about pandering.

Kerry previews his foreign policy

He'd really get tough on Haiti:

"I think you've got to be real and threatening,"

So he's consistent with his vote to authorize war in Iraq, which he says he only meant to be "real and threatening." Maybe if we had reports that the Aristide has WMD, he'd drop even the threat.

(Link via Best of the Web)

The Censorship meme

Glenn Reynolds turns out to be more reasonable than I expected, on the war cry going up about the FCC cracking down on prime-time MTV vulgarities. I'm sure we would still disagree on how far liberty should outweigh democracy, but I'm glad that he recognizes reasonableness. I think that raising children does that to you. You want to protect them and instill values, but you soon learn that there are lots of ignorant people that seem determined to make it harder for you.

Of course, Howard Stern isn't being clipped by the FCC, but buy some stations that were airing his show. The thing about the shock jock shtick is that you have to keep getting more shocking to get the effect. It's all built on the kind of gasping attention a junior high rebel gets when he mouths off to the principal, but it gets old fast. And most of us outgrow it, at least by the time we're past college age.

The John Birchers may have been right

For many years, I saw a billboard in Provo, UT underwritten by the John Birch Society, reading "Get US out of the United Nations." I always thought it was kooky. But no more.


First, there's the disappearance of billions into the bureaucracy that was supposed to be assuring food and medicine would be delivered to the Iraqi people.

Then there's this.

Today, we're suggesting that the U.N. should be sent into Haiti to restore order. How about making it a test case? See if the U.N. can do anything worthwhile without us. If they do no better than they did in Rwanda or Bosnia, we're out.

You mean this?

Is this the impugning of your patriotism you're talking about?

Or is this the one?

Maybe this?

Or this?

I'm so disillusioned!

Apparently the McCain-Feingold law hasn't kept big money out of political campaigns. Why doesn't SCOTUS do something?!

And what do other Vietnam Vets think of Kerry's heroics?

Here's one guy's opinion:

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress.

Read the rest. I guess wimps like myself and Josh Marshall would know this stuff if we knew anything about the military.

(Via Instapundit)

Equal Time: Snopes.com calls these criticisms of Kerry unfounded, although I have to wonder if some of the comments from his former superiors wasn't affected by the fact that he had since become a U. S. Senator.

Speaking of Josh Marshall,

it appears that he really wants to be a campaign consultant. That's where the big bucks are. And he's ready with all the war metaphors. He won't let the Republicans get away with any dirty tricks this time. He knows that they're too simple to realize that there's a difference between the dopey "You didn't serve, so you don't get to talk," rhetoric and the point that just being a veteran doesn't make you unassailable on foreign policy and national defense. Ask George McGovern.

Marshall explains:

Republicans believe past military service counts on political and character grounds. So without a flutter of conscience they can maul Democrats who don't match up and even many who do. But Democrats don't think it should matter. So they should remain mum when Republicans run candidates who skated out of military service with whipped up medical ailments or political connections.

That sounds to me like unilateral disarmament, which last I heard is something Republicans don't believe in. I can understand why Republicans would want a political rule book that permits aggressive attacks by Republicans and prescribes timidity from Democrats. But I can't fathom why Democrats should go along with it.

Hmm. So, if I admire people who served in the military, it follows that not having served must be a devastating liability as a candidate? But then, why don't we have President McCain today?

Actually, Republicans believe that past military service helps people understand why a strong military is important and what it requires, but if it hasn't had that effect, I doubt that service, without more, will be enough. Likewise, the fact that someone won medals in Vietnam or was wounded in action doesn't entitle him to be president if he has spent the rest of his life demeaning the military and trying to cut funding for national defense. Protecting the country is the real issue. Kerry's been campaigning with denial of his vote for war in Iraq, claiming that he only meant it to authorize the threat of war, not war itself. If his testimony to the Senate in 1971 is to be believed, his service in Vietnam makes him a war criminal and those medals he won were given to him by leaders who betrayed him and forced him to commit atrocities.

Doesn't this violate the prime directive?

I love this!

One of the big backers of the Southern Utah Wilderness Association is involved in an accounting scandal.

Kerry's Doctrine of Preemption

Robert Musil has comments on John Kerry's jumping the gun on his reactions to President Bush's attacking his service in Vietnam, (Kerry served in Vietnam? Who knew?) when Bush hasn't done anything of the sort. Kerry will use this dodge whenever anybody mentions his radical anti-war activities after he came back from Vietnam.

Not that he would listen, but I wouldn't discourage him from starting this ploy too early. He's about the most boring politician since before Al Gore started channeling Hitler. On about the fifth time through this bit, people will stop listening.

Of course, Kerry has a Democrat brain trust to help him. He doesn't need advice from us.

Backdate: Josh Marshall already used the Preemption Doctrine trope, which makes it all the more ironic, since it consists of attacks against the straw men that Democrats are building. The seem to be thinking, "If Republicans attack us on lack of support for national defense, we're ready to blast their own lack of service in the military. Yeah, that's the ticket!"