Brutally Honest

Bush Derangement Syndrome...

... can apparently be fatal:

Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.

Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

But rather than a repeat of JFK's shooting or Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.

The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.

In Death Of A President, which will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival later this month (SEPT)before being shown on Channel 4's satellite channel More4 in October, the assassination is a starting point for a retrospective fictional documentary about what happened next.

The Anchoress sums things up like only she can:

This much hate backfires on the hater. You’d think they’d know it by now, but they don’t, of course. They always overplay their hand. They can be counted on to do it.

I feel kind of sorry for the people who - undoubtedly - are multiple-orgasming over this story today. You know what sites to visit to find them, if you must seek them out. I feel sorry for them because this is all they are, loyal subjects enthralled to a Kingship of Hate, which is an evil and a real oppressor, although they don’t think they’re oppressed - well, except by that evil moron, Bush, who is keeping them from living freely or speaking out while they sip their lattes.

Just as prayer is a force, and love is a force, hate is a force, too. It has power, horrible, destructive power. And the worst part about the power of hate is that it is so often invisible - it cannot be seen - its effects cannot be seen until much later. Its effects are not immediately clear, as with a hurricane, or even “eventually” clear, as with a child loved into being. The effects of hate prefer to remain hidden - they hate to be brought out into the light and examined. Hate’s hiding place, of course, is deep within the human heart and soul. It slumbers there, eats there, plays there, sends forth destruction from that comfortable and well-camouflaged bunker.

The intriguing part for me about all this is that in my experience, it's those who are big on loving your enemy that seem bigger on hating Bush...

... what in hell is that about... anyone?

Check your schedules

Not long ago, The Discovery Channel contacted me to ask if I would preview their upcoming two-hour special on 9/11, Inside The Twin Towers. They sent me a DVD of the special, one that had no credits or introductions. That struck me as unusual, as if they had not quite put the finishing touches on the production. However, after watching the documentary, the stark and no-frills nature of the DVD seems fitting, given the uncompromising look TDC gives to the collapse of the towers.

Inside focuses on the human stories where some of the other documentaries spent more time on the physics of the collapse. (In fact, I would highly recommend The History Channel's The World Trade Center: Rise And Fall Of An American Icon for those who want the best exporation of that topic.) In the two hours of the documentary, it seems that very little time is spent on graphical representations of the attack and its effects. It serves as it should -- as an explanation of why the attack doomed so many people, and how some people managed to survive it.

-Captain's Quarters.

Sunday night, 9 PM EST on The Discovery Channel.

A blogger's dilemma

In the height of summer-holiday season, bloggers face the inevitable question: to blog on break or put the blog on a break? Fearing a decline in readership, some writers opt not to take vacations. Others keep posting while on location, to the chagrin of their families. Those brave enough to detach themselves from their keyboards for a few days must choose between leaving the site dormant or having someone blog-sit.

To be sure, most bloggers don't agonize over this decision. Of the 12 million bloggers on the Internet, only about 13% post daily, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Even fewer -- 10% -- spend 10 or more hours a week on their blogs.

-Wall Street Journal Online.

Well... I'm not agonizing because I'm counting on my guest bloggers (no pressure) to step in when I step away for a short time beginning 9/13...  and I'm not agonizing because I've convinced someone new to join that talented group (and I suspect that choice might more than surprise some of you regulars)...

So stay tuned...

H/T, by the way, to PJMedia for the WSJ piece.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock, Tick Tock

Is she perky?

Or pudgy? 

We report, you decide. 

FishKite provides the animated gif.

Rumsfeld speaks truth...

... and the MSM spins what was said:

Interesting little side by side here. Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to the American Legion. You can read it here. Robert Burns from AP reported on the speech. You can read it here.

Go to qando and read the rest.  Now.

Bald face manipulation by the AP who are then joined by CNN, ABC, and even FOX.

The Pentagon rightly calls foul.  And the Democrats pounce on the opportunity.

While the enemy gleefully watches it all.  We're in trouble folks because we're not just fighting the jihadists.

Chief Petty Officer Paul J. Darga...

... is someone you should know. 

I had the honor and privilege today of riding with fellow Patriot Guard Riders on a mission to serve as a member of his pre-memorial service honor guard, as a detail member making up a Corridor of Flags and as a rider in an honor motorcade escorting Chief Darga's family from the chapel at Little Creek Amphibious Base to the memorial reception.

It was an emotional time. 

Chief Darga was killed by an IED in Iraq on the 22nd of August.  He leaves behind Karie, his wife of 12 years and Kailey Rose, his beautiful 2 year old daughter.

Pray that God will rest his soul and grant peace and comfort to his loved ones.

File it under asininity

Three years have passed since this Jonah Goldberg piece was posted at National Review:

It's not just the intellectual poltroons of the Internet who feign bravery by loudly saying what is patently stupid so that people a fraction dumber than them might mistake it for boldness and conviction. It's not just the masses of undifferentiated cattle who sport their Hitlerfied George Bush T-shirts and who chant slogans with a verve more truly reminiscent of Nuremberg than anything ever uttered by George Bush.

Indeed, "smart" people mouth this nonsense too. Scholars at Berkeley insist that George Bush shares a psychological profile with Hitler. An editorial writer for the Kansas City Star invokes Martin Niemoller's "First they came for the Jews…" mantra to decry the alleged excesses of the Patriot Act. Various Muslim activists are constantly suggesting that they are the Jews of the Nazified America. Almost everyday I get dozens of e-mails from seemingly intelligent liberals — and a few conservatives — who insist that I "can't deny it" anymore — it's 1933 Germany in America.

...

As for me, I'm simply reminded of Walter Bagehot's observation that "In the faculty of writing nonsense, stupidity is no match for genius."

Nor is it a match for the sycophantic writings of an avowed atheist or the emergent leftist socialist Christian who sees him as Einstein. 

I sit here and shake my head in wonder.  How can someone with a supposed brain in his head, with knowledge of history, and the understanding that ought to come when one combines both, come to these inane comparisons?  Are they simply being obnoxious to meet some ideological goal?  Or do they really and honestly believe what they're writing?  And if they do, who in his/her right mind would find anything they have to say to be credible?  Who?

Jonah Goldberg said it best some 36 months ago (do read every word and savor the meaning):

By the way, I don't say this because I feel a passionate need to defend George Bush. I would make the exact same points if Al Gore were president. I would make the exact same points if anybody running for the Democratic nomination were president. This has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with the fact that such comparisons are slanderous to the United States and historical truth and amount to Holocaust denial. When you say that anything George Bush has done is akin to what Hitler did, you make the Holocaust into nothing more than an example of partisan excess. Tax cuts are not genocide, as so many Democrats have suggested over the years. (For example,. during the Contract with America debate, Charles Rangel complained that "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things" that were in the Contract with America. In other words, the Contract with America was in some way worse than what Hitler did. At the end of the day, that is Holocaust denial.)

"Darn those Republicans" does not equal "Darn those Nazis." The Patriot Act is not the final solution. The handful of men in Guantanamo may not all be guilty of terrorism, but it's more than reasonable to assume they are. And no matter how you try to contort it, Gitmo is not the same thing as Auschwitz or Dachau. There are no children there. You don't get carted off to Cuba and gassed if you criticize the president or if you are one-quarter Muslim. And, inversely, there was no reasonable justification for throwing the Jews and the Gypsies and all the others into the death camps. The Jews weren't terrorists or members of a terrorist organization. To say that the men in Guantanamo — or any of the Muslims being politely interviewed by appointment — are akin to the Jews of Germany is to trivialize the experiences of the millions who were slaughtered. Even if you think Muslims are being unfairly inconvenienced, when you say they are the Jews of Nazified America you are in essence saying the worst crime of the Holocaust was to unfairly inconvenience the Jews.

But let's stop talking about Nazis.

I hate blue cheese. I mean I hate it. To me, it tastes like death or Al Sharpton's socks after they've been under the fridge for a year. But no matter how much I hate it, no matter how much I loathe its texture and smell and taste, it's still only blue or, if you must, "bleu" cheese. Even if you tripled my hatred for it, it would still just be a musky fromage from the land of cheese, long speeches, and short-lived loyalties. It would not, through the mysterious alchemy of hatred and bile, become poison. Sure, I could call it Sarin or Anthrax but that would not make it so. Because, you see, hating an object doesn't change an object. Only the most arrogant and solipsistic fool would argue or convince himself that his hatred of something increases the importance of that thing.

And that's how I think of all these people who e-mail me insistent that George Bush is a Nazi. They believe they are so important, so noble, their hatred and fear must be rooted things of Great Consequence. It's just so prosaic to hate Republicans. I am better than that. So, Republicans must be Nazis. They must be a threat to the whole world and to the sanctity of everything I hold dear because anything less would not be worth my time. George Bush can't simply be someone I disagree with. No, his popularity must be an indication of mass hysteria, of Nuremberg-style devotion to evil.

So desperate are these people to live in interesting times and play the hero, that they are willing — eager — to topple every significant moral and historical category so they can role play as the Heroes who Would Not Stay Silent. That would be fine if these losers were playing some multisided dice game in their basements. But they're not. There's a war going on and these guys are acting like we're the real enemy. That's not just shameful and stupid, it's unhelpful.

Desperate losers.  Shameful and stupid.  Role playing "Heroes Who Would Not Stay Silent" with an emphasis on role playing.

Nice descriptive words that I think make the point.

You?

Not enough murder charges against our troops...

... according to the Washington Post:

The majority of U.S. service members charged in the unlawful deaths of Iraqi civilians have been acquitted, found guilty of relatively minor offenses or given administrative punishments without trials, according to a Washington Post review of concluded military cases. Charges against some of the troops were dropped completely.

Though experts estimate that thousands of Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of U.S. forces, only 39 service members were formally accused in connection with the deaths of 20 Iraqis from 2003 to early this year. Twenty-six of the 39 troops were initially charged with murder, negligent homicide or manslaughter; 12 of them ultimately served prison time for any offense.

Some military officials and analysts say the small numbers reflect the caution and professionalism exercised by U.S. forces on an urban battlefield where it is often difficult to distinguish combatants from civilians. Others argue the statistics illustrate commanders' reluctance to investigate and hold troops accountable when they take the lives of civilians.

"I think there are a number of cases that never make it to the reporting stage, and in some that do make it to the reporting stage, there has been a reluctance to pursue them vigorously," said Gary D. Solis, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former Marine prosecutor. "There have been fewer prosecutions in Iraq than one might expect."

Perhaps the Post's staff writers would have been willing to embed themselves with our men and women serving in the war and get a first hand glimpse of conditions, then decide to report on details and circumstances surrounding the story...

... perhaps not.

A review of Spencer Burke's A Heretic's Guide to Eternity

Nearly a month ago I received an unsolicited e-mail from a Mike Morrell, editor of The Ooze.  It began " I wanted to drop you a line today because yours is a blog we keep an eye on."

Well, that intrigued me to say the least.  So I read on. "Spencer Burke (the founder of The Ooze) and Barry Taylor (musician and Fuller Seminary professor) have just written a book that I think you’ll be interested in:  A Heretic’s Guide To Eternity.  We’d like to send you a free limited edition press run copy for review.  Would you be interested?"

A free book?  On things spiritual?  What the heck.  So I wrote back and shortly thereafter I received my very own copy.  I was disappointed to see it hadn't been signed.  I mean, if Spencer were to be burned at the stake, wouldn't it be valuable to have an autographed copy of the book that was probably used to light the pyre?

But I digress.  I've read about half of the book as of this writing and have found points I have no problems with yet I've found more that I find most troubling.  Rather than bore you with where I agree, allow me to dwell on just a couple of items I've come across that need some further exposition if I'm going to buy into the premise being marketed (and perhaps I'll find what I'm looking for once I'm finished with the book... but I doubt it).

In one section, Spencer makes the point that "the message of Jesus is about making connections with each other and rooting the world in the love of God."  He then goes on in the subsequent paragraph: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you.  Pray for those who abuse you.  Treat others as you would have them treat you. These are the kinds of things Jesus said to do, and you don't have to become religious or believe a set of prescribed things about him in order to do them." 

Yet, not two pages later, Mr. Burke is doing what is done often in the book, heaping criticism on the fundamentalists, specifically the "narrow and literal interpretation" institutional Christians tend to have of John 14:6. He then writes: "So how do I interpret this particular Scripture? First, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when Jesus spoke these words.  Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into an other language can be taken literally anyway."

I happened to be on the cross trainer when I read those words, words that followed his "love your enemies" soliloquy not two pages before, and I nearly fell off the damned thing.  We are clearly led to believe that when Jesus spoke words that ring true in the ears of the Religious Left, we are all to sit up and listen.  Yet when Jesus spoke words that hint of exclusivity, then we must question whether he said the words at all or that if he did, we must surely not be able to take him literally because Jesus spoke Aramaic and that precludes us from reading his words literally.

Later in the same chapter, Spencer adopts the mantra most often taken by those who see problems with Christianity: "The Crusades were a battle, not just between competing ideologies but between competing kingdoms - the kingdom of heaven represented by the Church and the kingdom of the world represented by all those outside the authority and rule of the Holy See.  The goal was to bring everybody into the church and do away with non-Christian options.  Everybody was to become a Christian.  It was the cultural religion of the Western world, and it aspired to be the religion of the entire world."

Thankfully, I had written on this subject some time ago.  In that writing, I had referenced this Christianity Today piece written by Thomas Madden who would pointedly (and authoritatively) disagree with Mr. Burke as to the specifics of The Crusades and the goal of Christians in that era.

With more than half the book to go, I'm trying hard to keep an open mind on what else Mr. Burke might have to say about Christendom and it's woes but I'm not holding on to the notion that he'll say anything persuasive, which is really too bad.  When he focuses on God's grace, he says things that ring true and that ought to be said.  But when he treads into other areas, he quickly loses me and his credibility and instead displays his bonafide Religious Left credentials.

But I'll read on and let my readers know if something else comes up worth sharing.