“Seeker Sensitive” Means “Believers Ignored” and “Christian Insensitive”

By Bobby

An observation of a performance by the church's puppet team recently forced me to review a song that had what I considered a "mantra-type" mention of Jesus. In the review of the song in question, “Call Him Up” by Ron Kenoly, the reading of the lyrics found Joel Osteen-style "best life now" themed lyrics, with a “call it and receive it” theme similar to the “prosperity gospel” movement. Unfortunately, Mr. Osteen's false gospel is one of the worst in the market, and yet leaders do not have an understanding that the Joel Osteen “best life now” (also called “health and wealth” or “prosperity” gospel – a prevalent “Emergent Church” agenda) songs are highly inappropriate for a church, and they also are similar to the "7-Eleven" song variety that is a problem with the modern worship.

In the review of the song, I was unable to identify any theology in the song, and in the performances of the song, the “worship leader” is shouting incessantly “Jesus!” as if it was a mantra in Buddhist circles where people scream the mantra continuously throughout the session. While the kids were able to turn blacklight signs around, the use of the song's endless screaming “Jesus” (which was followed by the blacklight signs being turned around) seemed similar to Buddhist chanting as it turned “Jesus” into a mantra.

John MacArthur warned the “gospel music” movement in churches turned church music into one based on personal experience and feelings, and the modern movement turned music into “a device for stimulating intense emotion,” forgetting the mandate of it teaching sound doctrine and theology. When the loud volume of the music, set to prerecorded accompaniment, is added, it takes away from any message, since if there is no message, they could simply turn up the volume to make you feel only the beat, and the message can be ignored. (1)

In this time and age, modern worship tunes, and many of the popular “Christian” music used by children to dance is too similar to secular sappy love songs, which are highly inappropriate for church usage. Meanwhile, a hymn of sound doctrine is greatly ignored.

Last year, the very same team performed a dance set to the 1960's psychadelic rock tune “Spirit in the Sky” by Norman Greenbaum. A review of the lyrics of the song, used in a popular dance routine, had me asking what "spirit in the sky" and "place that's the best" mean, as answers are not found in the song, written by a Jew who is not a Christian.

Another quattrain in the song simply called Jesus a “friend,” reminding me of many false religions, and the message was similar to the salvation by works (“deeds not creeds”) mantra that is prevalent in the Emergents, violating Ephesians 2:8-9, and even promoting other New Age mantras. There is also a section violating Revelations 21:27 by saying that Jesus only “recommends” where you go after you are dead.

In a signature section of the song, Romans 3:23 is violated ("For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.") when he claims he has never been a sinner or sinned. He also never refers to Christ as Lord and Saviour.

By being seeker-oriented, and forgetting the Biblical teachings that many adults desire in favour of emotion-based and relationship-based “sermons” that have no Biblical teaching, we have fallen into the trap of “seeker-sensitive,” which means “ignore those who are saved” and only preach a “watered-down” gospel with nary any message. The term used is “we exist for non-believers”. The seeker-sensitive movement is an utter failure, as spiritual baby food is still fed, while strong messages of faith are ignored, to believers and those who want to keep their walk with God by learning more about God's Word.

Paul Proctor of newswithviews.com asked, “Could it be there's too much theology in them - too much humility and holiness - and not enough sensuality and groove for today's 'Christian' consumer who fancies rhythm and romance over reverence and repentance? “(2)

In an interview with a few public school teens at church, they actively defended the theology-free "modern worship" in churches today, saying that they liked the modern pop/rock beat, and said it is the "music of today" while bashing the great hymnals of the past as not current. When they were asked about the teen puppet and dance team's popular tunes from the “prosperity gospel” or “call it and get it” style, they defended the music as suitable because it drew people to church, and told me songs devoid of theology were appropriate because it is modern and has a beat, while the older hymns written by theologians and pastors (Watts, Wesley) were old and out of touch. One kid then told me the Bible can be wrong and said it was passed down by generations, so it could be wrong. Remember, this is a group of children in church in public schools, poisoned by postmodern teachings in the schools today.

They then defended the "Christian content" of the modern worship tunes when I noted the songs were blatantly secular in nature, and none of them would even want to understand they were sappy secular "love songs".

To them, dancing to "Saviour Song" or "Call Him Up," was more fit for church than singing "Crown Him with Many Crowns," singing an unadulterated Isaac Watts or Charles Wesley hymn, or reading the Bible. Imitating musicians with pop tunes, or even dancing to pop tunes devoid of theology in a manner similar to MTV is more appropriate to them instead of learning to properly sing like classically trained sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses, and playing these hymns on the church organ, piano, or orchestral instruments such as those used by the South Carolina Philharmonic.

In feeding them the poison of the seeker-sensitive, believer-insensitive movement, they are fed the poison of the postmodern philosophy that often bashes the Bible and God's Word. The idealism of Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bill Hybels, and others in the Religious Left who believe in the "salvation by works" movement and against the inerrancy of the Bible has taken hold in today's generation because of the seeker-insensitive movement. What will they be thinking in the coming years? Will a trend of New Age in schools push them that way?

It is time we look carefully at the seeds we sow. Sowing the seeds of the seeker-sensitive movement means the church has gone believer-insensitive. It is highly inappropriate that we are believer-insensitive by being seeker-sensitive, as the way of God is removed in support of being of the world today.

Notes
(1) John MacArthur, “Style or Substance? What's the Biggest Problem with Contemporary Church Music.”

(2) Paul Procter, “Are Hymns Becoming Precious Memories?” January 16, 2008, newswithviews.com,

Lyrics to two of the named songs:

"Call Him Up" -- Ron Kenoly.
If you confess the Lord, call Him up
If you confess the Lord, call Him up
If you confess the Lord, call Him up
If you confess the Lord, call Him up
If you believe on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
Call Him up, and tell Him what you want
(Repeat)
(Bridge)
Delight thyself in the Lord
And He will give you the desires of your heart
Even though sometimes we stumble
Even though sometimes we fall
Call Him up, and tell Him what you want
(Repeat)
When darkness comes your way, call Him up
He'll brighten up your day, call Him up
When darkness comes your way, call Him up
He'll brighten up your day, call Him up
If you believe on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
Call Him up, and tell Him what you want
(Repeat verse, then bridge)
(Chorus)
Can't stop praising His name
I just can't stop praising His name
I just can't stop praising His name
Jesus
(Vamp)
Jesus
Hallelujah Jesus
Praising His name
(repeated endlessly)
(Chorus repeated again)

“Spirit in the Sky” -- Norman Greenbaum
When I die and they lay me to rest
Going to go to the place that's the best
When they lay me down to die
Going up to the spirit in the sky
Going up to the spirit in the sky - spirit in the sky
That's where I'm going to go when I die - when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
I'm going to go to the place that's the best
Prepare yourself, you know it's a must
Gotta have a friend in Jesus
So you know that when you die
He's going to recommend you to the spirit in the sky - spirit in the sky
Oh, recommend you to the spirit in the sky
That's where you're going to go when you die - when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You're going to go to the place that's the best

Never been a sinner, I've never sinned
I've got a friend in Jesus
So you know that when I die
He's going to set me up with the spirit in the sky
Oh, set me up with the spirit in the sky - spirit in the sky
That's where I'm going to go when I die - when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
I'm going to go to the place that's the best
Go to the place that's the best

Hogan's Heroes - the Final Episode

By Mitchell

We've got a delightful comment thread that has suddenly sprung up on this piece, which originally appeared in November 2007. I've bumped it back up to the top of the blog so you can all appreciate and join in on the wonderful scenarios that are being offered for what surely must be one of the most-loved of all 60s sitcoms, Hogan's Heroes.

*****

I don’t know how many of you have the Isaac Asimov Super Quiz features in your newspapers. There was one this week dealing with final episodes of TV series. You’d think it might have been one in which the Cultural Archaeologist would have excelled; if you’d had that thought, you’d have been wrong. I owe it to the abundance of questions featuring series from a year starting with 2. (Frankly, it’s been about twenty years since I’ve watched any current series with any kind of regularity. I don’t say this boastfully, except to note that most of what passes for TV nowadays is crap. I still prefer the oldies but goodies, which is another reason why I get down on my knees every night and thank God for the DVD.)

None of us sitting around the table did very well with the quiz, but it did instigate an interesting question – what TV series do you think should have had final episodes? The phenomenon known as the “final episode” is a fairly new innovation, relatively speaking. Can you think of the final episode of I Love Lucy? Gunsmoke? The Beverly Hillbillies? Does Lucy leave Desi, is Matt gunned down on Main Street, does Jed hit rock bottom as oil prices collapse? These series didn’t require any kind of resolution; they left you with the impression that things would continue more or less the same forever.

The first major series to introduce a final episode was The Fugitive, in which Richard Kimball finally catches up with the One-Armed Man. (Sorry if I’ve ruined it there for you.) This made sense; the whole series was about Kimball’s dual quests to clear his own name and to find the man who actually killed his wife, all the time while escaping from the relentless Lt. Gerard. The final episode of The Fugitive was the highest rated program ever seen on television at the time, and remained so for many years. The lesson for television executives and producers alike: final episodes could be profitable as well as fun. Nowadays, any show that runs for more than a couple of years seems to merit a fare-thee-well to its loyal viewers.

One series that definitely deserved a final episode was a 1967 mid-season replacement called Coronet Blue. It starred Frank Converse as an amnesiac trying to find out who he was and why people were trying to kill him. (Think The Bourne Identity, which once again proves there’s nothing new under the sun.) Converse’s only clue was a piece of paper he was found clutching, with the words “Coronet Blue” written on it. Coronet Blue was thrown on almost as an afterthought by CBS, with little publicity or notice, and only after it had been sitting on the shelf for months. It went on the air and immediately became the smash hit of the summer. By that time, however, all those involved with the show had gone on to other projects, since there’d been no particular reason to think they’d be needed again. Despite best efforts, they were never able to pull everyone together to continue the series, or even offer a one-shot episode resolving the loose ends. Today, they’d probably get together for a big-screen movie.

The series I’d most have liked to see come up with a final episode was the long-running sitcom Hogan’s Heroes. I’ve never been ashamed to admit that Hogan was, and remains, one of my all-time favorites. I own the entire series on DVD; the acting was superb, the writing often brilliant, the plots usually literate and clever and frequently downright hilarious. The cast – Bob Crane as Hogan, Werner Klemperer as Klink, John Banner as Schultz, Klink’s nemeses General Burkhalter and Major Hochstetter (Leon Askin and Howard Caine) and the whole cast of heroes (Robert Clary, Richard Dawson, Larry Hovis, Ivan Dixon and Kenneth Washington) were uniformly great.

The last episode, airing on July 4, 1971 could have been any particular episode from that final season, and in fact there’s no reason to think it was conceived any other way. The show had been around for six years and, like most extended-run shows, was beginning to show its age, the ratings had begun to fade, and the cancellation was not particularly unexpected. In other words, a perfect candidate for a wrap-up episode.

So what would that final episode have been like? Well, many of the major events of the war had come and gone during Hogan’s run, including D-Day. The Allies might have come to liberate the camp, or they might simply have terminated Hogan’s assignment (the POWs, you recall, were stationed at Stalag 13, posing as prisoners but in reality operating a massive underground commando and espionage ring). Myself, I prefer to think of the series concluding with the end of the war; Burkhalter and Hochstetter, being true believers in the Nazi regime, probably would have been taken prisoner themselves by the Allies. (In reality, they might have committed suicide, but let’s not make this too realistic.) Hogan and his men probably would have vouched for Schultz, who really was just a working man at a job he didn’t particularly like, and possibly even Klink, who when all was said and done didn’t really bear the POWs any real malice; he was too incompetent to have done too much harm.

The men would have been lauded as true heroes for their daring behind-the-lines escapades, none more so than Colonel Robert Hogan himself. Already a full colonel, it’s reasonable to assume that Hogan would have come out of the war at least a Brigadier General, with a brilliant future should he decide to stay in the service. The Army, recognizing what it had on its hands, would have made the most of the photogenic, dynamic Hogan. (An earlier episode had actually involved the brass bringing Hogan back home, cashing in on his accomplishments by having him lead bond drives throughout the country.)

And where do things go from there? There certainly would have been a book about such an audacious assignment, just as there was with A Bridge Too Far, A Man Called Intrepid, The Great Escape and other true war stories, probably called, simply, Hogan’s Heroes, by General Robert Hogan as told to David Halberstam. In due course, a movie would have been made based on the book, and it’s fun to speculate on who would have played Hogan in the movie. (Greg Kinnear, anyone? Probably more likely Kirk Douglas.) Hogan might have served in Korea, flying the same kinds of bomber missions he flew in Europe during WWII; on the other hand, he probably would have already been back in Washington, with a high-level job in the Pentagon.

Come the early 60s, Hogan would still have been only about 50. JFK, who also recognized talent when he saw it, might have made Hogan his Air Force aide, working directly out of the White House. (I'll bet they would have had some adventures together.) Our co-blogger Steve suggests that Hogan might have been in charge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which would have meant that the fiasco would have been averted, Castro toppled, and Cuba liberated. Without Castro and the CIA working behind the scenes, JFK doesn’t meet his death at the hands of conspirators in Dallas, and as we all know that means no expanded war in Vietnam. (Yeah, right.)

See how easy this is? The world as we know it changes completely! Kennedy goes through with his plan to dump LBJ from the ticket in 1964, choosing instead the charismatic Senator from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey. Bobby lives, not being shot in the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, because it is JFK’s loyal Vice President Humphrey who becomes the unanimous choice to continue the legacy of the New Frontier. (Bobby continues as Senator from New York, even providing consultation with that young Clinton fellow from Arkansas who’d had his picture taken with JFK that time. Bobby and Bill fly to Hollywood often and hang out with friends.)

The Republicans, of course, turn to Richard Nixon as the best bet to unseat Humphrey and end eight years of Democratic dominance. In a peaceful campaign prosperity becomes the number one issue, and the voters decide to give the Republicans and their tax breaks a chance, electing Nixon as president. True to form, Nixon immediately sees an opportunity to wreak havoc on his enemies, even authorizing a burglary at Democratic headquarters at the Watergate. (What was that about history changing?) The country in a shambles, being led by the president who pardoned the man responsible for it, the people turn to someone they can trust: Robert Hogan, the now-retired military hero, the man who has always stayed above politics, the most trusted man in America (next to Walter Cronkite). And with him, the charismatic former actor and governor of California, Ronald Reagan. What a match! Hogan and Reagan – or is it Reagan and Hogan? Whatever. Happy days are here again.

All that from a simple half-hour sitcom. See why it’s so important for series to have final episodes? You can never tell how history could turn out differently.

Ignorance Isn't Bliss

By Bobby

The following originally appeared as a comment under Mitchell's recent piece, but due to popular demand (OK, due to Badda's request) we're reprinting it here in it's own right.

*****

There is obviously no respect or excellence in public schools. I was forced into them in high school because of threats to my life in private school (fondling of breasts, bleach thrown into my eyes, repeated attacks) that my grades dropped.

In some cases they started using Klansman language.

What I didn't know then was moving to a worse school killed me schoolingwise, and also I had faced the generation that did not know anything right from wrong.

Now we have a generation where emotions from the major pop psychology figures (including the New Age) is replacing the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic, the idea of "global warming" replaces real science (note the new light bulb regulations, the new fuel-economy standard that will force everyone into 2-seat 45-CID minicars with no protection, and "global warming" as religion), and self-esteem means more than winning. Think of it now that instead of learning of the wars in World War II and the numerous victories of the Allies, they learn instead anti-war legislators and famous losers, and support Communists instead of patriots. The great works in literature are removed because they are "dead white males," and the same goes with music.

Modern "church" is built around the same emotions as in school thanks to the recent development of "megachurches" such as Willow Creek and Saddleback, where their learning is on the same principle as in schools today. In music, instead of learning to sing sacred choral works, is learning to dance to the latest pop tunes, some of which includes the false theology of the "prosperity gospel".

One kid told me Wednesday in an interview that the Bible was "passed down generation to generation and there are mistakes in it." That is the type of postmodern teaching they learn in the teachers union-run schools today.

They believe in mediocrity instead of excellence, losing instead of winning, that when I watched Toyota win Sunday in Hampton, Georgia, I thought of Grantland Rice when I wrote after the Toyota victory, "An atomic bomb was dropped in Hampton, Georgia Sunday. The Americans quickly surrendered, and the former State of Georgia was surrendered to the Japanese. It is now the Georgia Perfecture of Japan." I thought of the complexities of Grantland Rice, and history, when I wrote that line.

For 40 years the environmentalist movement has destroyed education and the American industry. When the Japanese and Chinese Communists take over much of our industrial production, we have suffered under them. When the Europeans are winning the contract to build US military tankers, something is deeply wrong. Have we lost our way?

Saturday's Congressional election showed the Left's increasing power that supports the immoral lifestyles and the idea that America must have gobs of self-esteem and must lose, instead of going for the win. It seems Hollywood's infiltration of their values has shown victories everywhere when real leadership is no longer permitted, but instead Hollywood puppets are in control.

When people do not know our Presidents of the United States, but know the characters from the latest MTV series, and when people know American Idol but not the history of the Quiz Show Scandals of the 1950's that affected (production company) Radio Television Luxembourg's predecessors in the United States, what is happening?

Eliot Spitzer and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

By Mitchell

Yesterday was a bad day to be Governor of New York, and by all indications today isn’t going to be any better.

It’s a challenge trying to find anything to say about this sad situation that hasn’t already been said. Of course, that doesn’t stop most pundits, and I doubt it’s going to stop us either. But there are, I think, a couple of observations that are worth making:

Let’s take a moment first of all and say a word in praise of honest language. Listening to the spin doctors working their magic was enough to make one throw up, as it usually is. Predictably, there was this missive from the Republican Governors Association, calling on Spitzer to resign to

"allow the people of New York to pursue honest leadership. . .The American people are tired of corrupt and hypocritical politicians. The governor of New York is just another in the long list of politicians that have failed their constituents," said Nick Ayers, the association's executive director.

Now I ask you: is there any real feeling, any passion, in that statement? Does it stir you to act, or just to go for the Pepto-Bismol? Not only that, it winds up sounding simply like the words of a partisan hack - which it is. Then there was this series of email blasts from the NRCC (which I believe stands for National Republican Campaign Committee) attacking candidates who have received contributions from Spitzer:

NRCC-Communications» Will Eric Massa Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?
NRCC-Communications» Will Dan Maffei Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?
NRCC-Communications» Will John Hall Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?
NRCC-Communications» Will Michael Arcuri Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?
NRCC-Communications» Will Kirsten Gillibrand Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?

Give me a break. Again, I ask you, does this wince-inducing bromide really accomplish anything? As NRO's David Freddoso points out, "I'd actually admire any one of them who has the courage to keep the money and say: 'Well, at least this $2,300 won't be spent on a whore!'"

Now, by contrast, take the comments of New York Representative (and Republican) Peter King:

"Spitzer himself was very severe going after prostitution rings that had to do with white collar crimes. He was very hard-nosed with his tactics. To leave himself open to blackmail — putting himself and the state in a compromised position like that — it's just awful. . He's going to have to resign...At one level, it has to do with his integrity and his personal morality, but I don't even want to go into that. Without even touching on that, he has to resign...I'm one of those people who actually said Clinton should not have been impeached. I try to avoid personal moral issues in politics. But prostitution rings are invariably linked to organized crime. He, as the former attorney general and the current governor, had to know about the link between organized crime and prostitution rings."

Now, I don’t care whether you agree with King or not. My point is that here at last was a true bit of straight talk. It wasn’t crude or demeaning nor, I thought, unduly harsh; at the same time it wasn’t the bland, predictable, memorized, by-the-numbers type of statement that sounds more like a speech than an honest observation, and a very bad speech at that. King meant what he said and he said what he meant, and I respect that.

Second, it does seem that what goes around comes around. Notwithstanding the shock and surprise so many seemed to experience following the revelation, it appears that Spitzer wasn’t necessarily all that nice a guy. Again, King: "I don't know anyone who is more self-righteous or unforgiving than Eliot Spitzer. So he's going to have a hard time finding friends right now...” And you read this kind of thing in several places: talk that Spitzer had a double-standard, that he unnecessarily

Then there was this from John Podhoretz, which I think lays out the case nicely (and points out that things like this seldom come clear out of the blue):

The thing is, Eliot Spitzer is a crook. I’m not referring to the current prostitution scandal. I’m not referring to the scandal last year involving his senior aides and the leaking of confidential police information to the Albany Times Union. I’m not referring to the threatening phone call he made to the august John Whitehead, retired head of Goldman Sachs, who had the temerity to question a case Spitzer was building against an old friend of Whitehead’s. I’m referring to his conduct dating back to 1994, when he designed a complex scheme involving loans and real estate and collateralized apartments to evade campaign-finance laws so that his own father, Bernard Spitzer, could pay for his campaign as attorney general of New York state. Millions of dollars. And then, in 1998, running for the same office, he did it again. It’s hard to explain, but basically, Spitzer’s father gave him a lot of real estate. He used it to secure loans totaling more than $8 million. Then his father paid back the loans. He was supposed to pay his father back. He said he did. Then he acknowledged he hadn’t. Then somehow it all went away. I’m not a big fan of campaign-finance laws, but they are laws, and they are supposed to apply to everybody.

So what happens next? I don’t pretend to know whether or not Spitzer will resign, but I think he should. There’s the political angle, of course – what he did was (choose one or more) illegal, unethical, immoral – and that combination ought to cost you your job, when that job is built upon the public trust. Regardless of how repentant he may be, there is generally a price that has to be paid for the violation of that trust. Even the Good Thief wasn’t spared death on the cross, after all.

More significant, though, is the cost in human terms. We don’t know what caused Spitzer to do what he did. It could have been anything from poor judgment to an addiction or sickness, but I think we should be very gentle with him in this respect. We should look at him with compassion and understanding. Whether we agree with him or not we can't cease to care about him and his family as human beings. The important thing is that he gets the help he needs, whether that means professional help or merely time away from the spotlight to try and put his family back together.

Destructive behavior such as this doesn’t usually change overnight. Even for those who are absolutely dedicated to riding themselves of such urges, it can take a great deal of time and effort, perhaps over a lifetime, to overcome it. Although we may call this a weakness of character, that is only part of it - it is a weakness born of an overriding ego, a will that puts itself over that of God’s. As Paul comments, it is only when one truly becomes weak that they can obtain the strength that is found in God.

Again, we don’t know what lies behind Spitzer’s actions. Perhaps even he doesn’t know. But for his sake, and that of his wife and daughters, the proper thing to do is to take his medicine – to resign from office, to accept whatever legal consequences there are, and to address the most important issue facing him – his life.

Maybe it’s no accident that this has happened in the waning days of Lent, as we walk deeper into the shadow of the Cross, for Eliot Spitzer and his family are surely going through a Lenten trial of their own. One can only hope that this terrible moment will result in something that will strengthen their marriage, that will make him a better, more humble man. It often seems, to those in the middle of such turmoil, that this is an impossible task. But, as we all know, with God nothing is impossible.

The Answers, Please

By Mitchell

Last week we offered a sixth-grade test that had appeared on a 1963 episode of I've Got a Secret, and we invited you to take a stab at the ten questions. Did you take the challenge? For those of you who did, here are the answers:

1. JFK was the 35the President of the United States.
2. The first permanent English settlement in this country was in Jamestown, VA.
3. The largest city in Africa as of 1963 was Cairo, Egypt.
4. There are 100 halves in 50. Add three and you come up with 103.
5. The three parts of an atom, in no particular order, are Electron,
6. Proton, and
7. Neutron.
8. The lowest geographical point on Eart is the Dead Sea.
9. The Roman numeral MDCIX is 1609.
10. That odd-shaped diagram is called a trapezoid.

So how did you do? I'll tell you, you'd have to go some to top Hadleyblogger Bobby, who scored 9 out of 10. The top scorer on the I've Got a Secret panel was Bill Cullen, who got 8 of 10.

We are, of course, forced to ask why it seems that the tests back then were tougher than they are today. There are many who link the collapse of public education to the rise in power of the teachers' unions, and, frankly, it's difficult to disagree with this. Some have suggested that the education establishment has done more damage in this country than terrorism. I will mention, on a personal note, that from my 20 years in political life I have not one good thing to say on behalf of teachers unions. Not one.

Now, this isn't meant as an indictment of individual teachers, many of whom are asked to perform above and beyond the call by a system that cares more about putting forward a liberal political agenda than teaching basics to children. However, if I had a child of school age I'd do just about anything humanly possible to keep that child out of public school - homeschooling, if I could. But one of the ultimate tragedies of American society is the total destruction of our education system by an invidious ideological monster, and if there is any justice in the hereafter, as I belive there is, there will be a special place in hell for those who have done so much to distort and misshape helpless young minds for their own craven purposes.

Wish I'd Written That

By Drew

People will laugh when I say it, but I feel there has been for some years now a ground-swell of demand for mediocrity. They don't want excellence. We don't have positive heroes anymore; they're negative heroes. What do we attack? We've attacked all the great pillars of civilization. We take great heroes of history and so far as we are capable we snoop around in the excretia of some of these heroes until we find a flaw. So because a hero is not perfection, which if he was he would be God himself, then he's nothing more than anybody on the street.

Jon Vickers, 1981 interview

My Thoughts Exactly

By Drew

John Derbyshire, yesterday at NRO:

. . .I really believe we would be as well, or as badly, governed if the Chief Executive were chosen by lots from among a pool of willing citizens who had passed a modest general knowledge test and background check. For sure we are not going to get a philosopher king out of the current process, even assuming we wanted one — which, as a republic of free citizens, we ought not.

Bill Buckley famously asked: "Who is the President of Switzerland?" Nobody knows, of course; yet Switzerland seems to get along pretty well. Is all this hullabaloo really necessary? Can anyone give me a good reason why I should go on wading through the reams of commentary and prediction on Mrs. Clinton's this and Barack Obama's that and what McCain should or shouldn't do and what a grand fellow Huckabee is? I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.

The Buckley reference is, of course, entirely appropriate this week.

Are You Smarter than a Sixth Grader?

By Mitchell

You may recall that a while back, we reminised about an appearance by Sam Levinson on the 60s TV show I've Got a Secret in which he asked the panel questions that the average fifth grader in New York's public school system of the 1960s would be expected to know.

Well, last week GSN ran the IGAS episode from June 24, 1963, and Sam Levinson is back with another test for the panel. This time, the questions are from sixth graders at Brooklyn's P.S. 249 and the F.E. Bellows School in Mamaroneck, New York. If you liked the fifth grade test, you'll love the one from the sixth graders; as Levenson said, a high school test would be out of the question. Ready? No checking with Wikipedia - this is not an open Internet test.

Question 1: We all know George Washington was the first president and Abraham Lincoln the 16th. What number was John F. Kennedy? (Who was president at the time of the program.)

Question 2: What was the first permanent English settlement in what was to become the United States?

Question 3: As of 1963, what was the biggest city in Africa?

Question 4: Divide 50 by 1/2 and add 3. (Not a trick question, but a tricky one.)

Questions 5, 6 and 7: Name the three major parts of an atom.

Question 8: What is the lowest geographical point on Earth?

Question 9: Translate the Roman numeral MDCIX.

Question 10: Identify the geometric shape seen below:



A reminder: no cheating. We'll have the answers later this week.

Random Notes

By Drew

Time we caught up with a little music.

Have you been paying attention to the controversy surrounding the New York Philharmonic's recent concerts in North Korea? This is more than a music story, really; it's all about global politics and propaganda, and perhaps appeasement of a dictatorship. Or is that giving away too much of my own opinion? At any rate, Terry Teachout, who has been a harsh critic of the Philharmonic's tour, weighs in at The Wall Street Journal with this excellent piece talking about everything that was wrong with this idea. In particular, I enjoyed this quote:

We just went out and did our thing," Mr. Maazel told reporters, "and we began to feel this warmth coming back. . . . I think it's going to do a great deal." Bunk. All it proves is that apparatchiks can be sentimental, too, a fact that the Wagner-loving Adolf Hitler proved long ago.

Well put. Keep reading the piece for more. I recall during Nixon's visits to the Soviet Union and China that it was said only he, with his staunch anti-Communist credentials, could have made such a trip without having been accused of selling out. I hardly think the New York Philharmonic can make such a claim.

*****

What did Bach look like? CNN tells you. All quite interesting, I'm sure, but does it bring Bach to life in a way that his music fails? I don't think so. "It only shows his facial appearance," said the anthropologist in charge of the project. "I wish it could give us some sense of what was going on inside of his head, but it can't." I suppose we should be grateful that science admits they can't quite accomplish everything. Yet.

*****

The great Italian tenor Giuseppe Di Stefano died yesterday at the age of 86. I mention this not only in tribute to his great talent - if you don't own the legendary recording of Tosca in which Di Stefano plays Cavaradossi to Maria Callas' Tosca and Tito Gobbi's Scarpia, you really should - but because he's someone you should know about. Rudolf Bing, the major domo of the Met in the 50s and 60s, said that Di Stefano's was "the most beautiful sound he had heard come out of a human throat." Pavarotti modeled himself after Di Stefano. His parings with Callas were always worth looking forward to - they recorded ten operas together. A short career perhaps, only about 20 years, but a worthy one nonetheless. R.I.P.

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.

By Mitchell

What is it about death, I wonder, that holds such a fascination for us? Why do we spend so much time thinking, and writing, about the dead? It seems as if every other piece we write on this site is an obituary on someone or other, an icon of the past that oftentimes few in the present seem to remember.

It is more than just a personal reflection, although there is no denying that our mortality comes into clearer focus for us as the years pass. Likewise, it is more than simple curiosity, even though for those of us who cherish the thought of an eternity in heaven, there is endless wonderment about what it will be like.

But there is more to it than that. We look back on the deaths of people we have never met, and still there is something intensely personal about it. We write elegies, we leave flowers, we grieve as if we have lost a friend who was near and dear to us.

Undoubtedly, the Oprahfication of society has something to do with this, but I think there is more to it than that, something operating on a deeper level. It is, I think, that we become more conscious of the death – the passing, if you will – of a way of life, the only way which we have known.

In our youth, the fundamental aspects of our lives are developed. Our first contacts with life – our family members – are generally also our first contacts with death. And although we meet those passings with grief, we are also intrinsically aware of the importance these milestones play in our maturation. It is popularly said that with the death of our parents we truly become adults, and I suppose there is more than a little truth in that. We are not the same once an event like that has happened.

In a similar way, our lives evolve as we are introduced to elements outside our immediate family. Our schoolmates, our teachers, our friendships – they become an equally important part of our development and growth. We pass through these years into early adulthood, and the formation of our personality continues. Death remains, in these years, a rare intruder. In times of peace, when young men and women are spared the realties of war, we seldom experience the death of a peer, and when it does happen it burns an indelible impression in our psyches.

Eventually, there comes a point in life when we enter into a new relationship with death. This relationship ends with the deaths of those around us – our friends, our siblings, our contemporaries. As they begin to pass away, we are aware that our own time is approaching, and we begin (if we have not already done so) to take stock of our life, to add up the balance sheet, hoping and praying that we come up with a positive number.

I said that this is how our new relationship with death ends. It is, however, the beginning of that relationship that interests me now. And to understand that relationship we need to look back into those formative years I mentioned, the people that helped us create our essential selves. It is as these people die that our relationship with death changes inalterably, for as they do so, we become painfully aware that a way of life – the one we have grown up with, the one that has fundamentally formed us – dies with them, and there is nothing we can do about it. And as our culture continues to fragment, as there are fewer and fewer shared experiences that we can appreciate, we become more and more alone with our memories, and the things we can depend on in life continue to shrink.

So it has been with the many obituaries that have appeared here throughout the years, and so it is now with this one. I think it's quite possible to say that there was a little bit of William F. Buckley, Jr. in all of us, either in the reality or the desire. Perhaps it was the delight he took in life, whether in the intellectual combat of politics or the solitude of sailing on the high seas. Maybe it was his love of fine music or stimulating company. It could have been the sly grin that enveloped his face when, with just the right word and inflection, he was able to stick the knife in sideways during a debate and give it that little extra twist. Or maybe it has to do with the relationships he had formed over a lifetime, and the way in which those on both the left and the right counted themselves fortunate to number him among their closest friends. I don’t think there’s any doubt that most of us envied his quick wit, his sharp tongue, his cleverness of thought. Whether or not we agreed with him, or even understood the words he used, we knew there was a part of him that we would have liked to make our own.

And as far as the conservative movement is concerned, his influence can’t be overestimated. In that sense there is a part of Buckley in all of us, embedded in our DNA. Who can say whether or not there would have been a conservative movement in America without Buckley? One can only say that if there had been, it would not have been the same.

As I look in our library, I count 22 of Buckley’s books on the shelves. I’ve read them all, or most of them. Some, the collections of writings and transcripts from television shows, act more as reference than as something to be read from cover to cover. Others have been part of my essential political education – God and Man at Yale, for exampe, which imbued in me the cynicism toward higher education that I have carried with me ever since. The Blackford Oakes spy novels, delightful stories that combined fact and fiction and featured cameo appearances from real-life historical figures, saying the things that you'd have liked to imagine really did come from their mouths at one time or another. Books on gratitude and faith, interviews and essays offering perspectives on the events that helped shape our times, making one realize that things really have changed a great deal over the years. And this, of course, merely scratches the surface. It's not a bad legacy for a lifetime.

The overriding impact of death, as we've discussed here, is that it changes things. Buckley's death is no exception. The conservative movement, which has seemed rudderless since the end of Reagan's presidency and the fall of Communism, seems now to be in more flux than at any time pre-Buckley. Some even wonder if the conservative movement, per se, even exists. On that point I have my doubts, but wihtout the founding father of conservatism, it is clear there is that much less remaining to hold it together.

Sometimes we are driven to wonder what there is in modern life that can possibly hold our interest. Those of us that are of an age - my age, for example - feel increasingly out of place, as if there was no room for us at the inn anymore, even though there seems to be more than enough room for so much pablum and drivel. And so we find ourselves driven to the past, to a life more familiar, where we might still find a place we could call our own.

Buckley would, I think, urge us not to succumb to that temptation. He would point out that we have come far further than anyone might have thought possible, and he would remind us that life is far to precious to simply give up on it like that. He always found a challenge to be accepted, a white steed in need of a mount, a cause to be championed. He once stood athwart history yelling "stop," and he would tell us that in his absence, someone would have to perform that duty. And the marvelous obituaries which he himself wrote, some of his best writing, are a testimonial to our ability to live with one eye on the future even as we cast the other eye backwards.

Perhaps he would also have reminded us of Christ's reassuring words, that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." We can take those words and in them find a reassurance that even though the mileposts of our lives may leave us, the impact they made on us will always remain; and in doing so we can feel that we are not fleeing into the past but honoring it, and the life (our own) that it helped to create. And for those who make up that past, those like William F. Buckely, Jr., we can be eternally grateful.

Quotables

By Bobby

"(Nicholas Smith, who is the former South Carolina Philharmonic conductor and has worked with the Palmetto Opera) was discussing the da capo style of singing), and the ornamentation (on the repeat of the same lines), and I was reminded of running (North) 29th Avenue at the (Bi-Lo Myrtle Beach) Marathon (XI February 16):"

"The first two times (going eastbound) around it seemed flat, but the final time around (westbound to the finish) it was a climb -- I was dehydrated and weak, and headed towards the finish."

-- me, to my voice teacher Sunday night. She was singing in "Opera on the Nile," a selection of opera selections based in Egypt (or so, Nicholas thought!).

Anger In Music

By Bobby

We associate rock music most with anger, if you've heard the loud bangs and the garble that these "artists" sing. But in attending the National Symphony Orchestra's concert at the Koger Center for the Arts Tuesday night, I wondered why William Schuman's Prayer in the Time of War composed an element which the program states Mr. Schuman found no element in glory, and even took a solemn theme.

But at the time it debuted in 1943, and the reason for its composition in 1942, and the other war music, I wondered the similarities and differences between then and now.

The United States was at war with a clear enemy in 1941 when our bases in Pearl Harbor were attacked by bombers of the Tojo régime dead-set on attacking us. The next day, the country, after having the defense give up a touchdown (the attack on Pearl Harbor), decided to go on the offense, where we continued until victory. In 2001, the United States, after playing a hard "peace dividend" and giving up the necessities of protecting the nation (lost many bases; military was converted for other unauthorised uses), found the lack of defense led to the attacks on September 11, with a commerce building and defense building destroyed, and the potential of a major government building being attacked by Al Qaeda homicide bombers. The offense started attacking terrorists afterwards.

Textbooks today glorify the one Congresswoman who voted not to authorise the nation to go on offense, and defeated; her peace activism is more glorified than the heroes who fought in Guadalcanal, Midway, and our victories in both Europe and Asia (the United States was forced to war when Germany, like Japan, declared war on the United States). The modern liberal thought is to glorify the one Congresswoman who refused to support the war.

When I listen to compositions composed during wartime, I expect an aggressive march to symbolise our troops in the fight of their lives against the enemy of enemies, and from the fight to a long tussle, and then to victory. Cheerful compositions reminding us of the victory ahead meant much to the troops. Think about the major rock hits that taught an anti-war message, and did not preach to America the sign that victory against Communism was a must, as it should.

While walking from the parking lot to the concert hall, I saw signs endorsing a pullout from Iraq, and they defended it by saying the Americans lost nothing and did not lose the war by pulling out of Vietnam. Unfortunately, they do not understand that the pullout led to the confidence of the Communists, who ransacked South Vietnam, and later took over the entire nation. The victory of the Communists was a major confidence-booster, which led to major takeovers by the Left in other nations, knowing the Free World would not fight. That win gave us dictatorships in Nicaragua, Granada (shot down by the US), Angola, and even dictatorships in Iran.

Who knows if the Americans pull out of Iraq what will happen. But it's clear dictatorships and terrorists would use it as a sign of our weakness, just like what happened 35 years ago after the fall of Vietnam. To modern liberalism, keeping self-esteem means more, and losing is acceptable. That is unacceptable when we are at war.

The only think that matters when we are fighting the enemy is to go for the win.

As for the music from the hall, I wonder how Leonard Slatkin altered Ravel's interpretation of Pictures at an Exhibition. Is it correct for a conductor to change it to run the real meaning of the work? I wonder why he altered it considerably from what it really is intended to be.

End of an Era

By Drew

Just over the wire: William F. Buckley, Jr., died this morning. I know we'll be doing an obit on him this week, but I think it appropriate that we take an immediate moment to note his passing. He was truly a titan of modern conservative thought, a man who made it respectable, if not fashionable, to be an intellectual and political conservative. He was witty, erudite, and a whole bunch of other things. Most of all, he will be missed. There are many who would say that the political movement he represented for so many years had faded away long before his death, taken over by the neocons - but regardless, there can be no question that it will not be the same without him. More later. R.I.P.

Barry Morse, R.I.P.

By Mitchell

The Canadian actor Barry Morse died earlier this month and in a way it’s appropriate that we’re late getting around to writing about it, for in his most famous role Barry Morse was often arriving on the scene just a step or two behind.

Although he was an actor for over 50 years, it was as the relentless Lieutenant Philip Gerard in The Fugitive that Morse came to greatest fame. For four seasons Gerard tracked his prey, the escaped Dr. Richard Kimball, and that step or two by which he trailed Kimball would always make the difference. Gerard was a brilliant lawman, often displaying a stunning instinct for anticipating Kimball’s thinking – hardly the stereotype of the bumbling, slow-witted cop – but ultimately he would miss Kimball by just that much. With that slight advantage Kimball might form relationships with people who would then aid him in eluding Gerard, or he would slip unnoticed out of a room just as Gerard entered it, or he would snatch the last seat on a bus pulling out of town just before Gerard arrived at the station. It might be different from week to week, but it would always be something.

It may be hard to appreciate now, but The Fugitive was quite the counter-cultural program when it debuted in 1963. Sponsors and network executives alike had a real problem with the idea of the police pursuing (some might say persecuting) a man whose innocence, in the opening credits of each episode, had clearly been established. Series creator Roy Huggins recalled a programming executive at ABC who railed at “how un-American it was, how it was a slap in the face of American justice, week after week.” Indeed, the idea that an innocent man could be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death made a great idea for a movie or dramatic special, but was a bold idea for a television series – as was the idea of having, as a series regular, a man determined to bring the innocent hero to justice, a role guaranteed to generate the ire of every viewer in America. This was the part Barry Morse played to perfection.

For, as Morse once said, the role of Lt. Gerard was "carefully designed to be disliked.” As the show increased in popularity, so did the reactions of fans. "Elderly ladies bashed me across the head with their handbags, or some hulking great man would come up to me in a bar and say: 'Don't you understand? The guy's innocent!' It was an enormous compliment -- and quite dangerous." Morse reveled in the reaction: “I was the most hated man in America, and I loved it.”

Gerard was hardly a one-dimensional villain, though. He constantly defended Kimball when other lawmen would attempt to implicate the doctor in various crimes. Gerard understood that Kimball was not a run-of-the-mill killer – the murder of wife, for which Kimball had been convicted, was presumed to have been a crime of passion. Nor was Gerard particularly surprised at the many acts of kindness and charity which Kimball would perform in the various cities and towns through which he passed. Kimball even became involved in Gerard’s own life from time to time, saving his lost son, befriending his troubled wife, and more than once saving Gerard from people who would want to kill him as a favor to Kimball.

It wasn’t that Gerard wasn’t grateful for Kimball’s actions, but it didn’t change what was for him the central fact of the matter: Kimball had received a fair trial and had been convicted by a jury of his peers. As an officer of the law, it was not Gerard’s job to determine Kimball’s guilt or innocence, but to carry out the decision of the court. Gerard was the anti-Oprah – a man determined not to let feelings or emotions get in the way of his duty. It may have been maddening, but there was a true dignity and nobility in the way in which Gerard did his job. It also made for great television.

As time went on, one could sense more and more that doubts were beginning to creep into Gerard’s mind. The one-armed man whom Kimball had seen fleeing the scene of his wife’s murder, a man whom Gerard had initially viewed as a figment of Kimball’s imagination, now began to appear with increasing regularity. It could be that Kimball had convinced himself this particular man (whom we learn is named Fred Johnson) was responsible for his wife’s death – or it could be that Kimball had been telling the truth all along. No matter how Gerard tried to remind himself that this was not his job, it was becoming harder for him to dismiss the possibility. Finally, in the climactic final episode, Kimball is able to persuade Gerard to give him a chance to trap Johnson and prove that he is the real killer. (One can almost sense Gerard thinking, “How did I let myself get talked into this?”) Kimball’s plan backfires – after admitting his guilt, Johnson tries to kill Kimball as well, and Gerard is forced to kill Johnson in order to save Kimball’s life. But even this is not enough for Gerard – since he didn’t hear Johnson’s confession, there still is no evidence of Kimball’s innocence. It’s only when a heretofore unknown witness to the murder steps forward and fingers Johnson that Kimball is truly cleared.

In the epilogue, as Gerard stands outside the courtroom and offers his hand to the now-exonerated Kimball to shake, it is clear that he is asking Kimball to see him as a cop who was just doing his job, that it wasn’t anything personal. And it wasn’t. There was no room for emotion, for personal feelings, in the job that Philip Gerard did, and that’s what made him a good cop. There was room for instinct and intuition though, and that’s what made him a great cop. It is also what made Barry Morse a great actor and the role of Philip Gerard one of the best in the history of television.

Wish I'd Written That

By Mitchell

Few entertainers were smoother or could prick the balloon of Hollywood pomposity better than Johnny Carson. With this being Oscar® night tonight, here’s a sample of Johnny’s quotes from his years hosting the show:

As you all know by now, this is the 51st annual Academy Awards. Two hours of sparkling entertainment spread out over a four-hour show.
1979

I see a lot of new faces. Especially on the old faces.
1979

This is the night that Hollywood puts aside its petty jealousies, and brings out its major jealousies.
1982

You people who just tuned in at home, this is the Academy Awards. Warning: contents may cause drowsiness; do not drive or operate heavy machinery.
1984

Okay, folks, we're into our fourth hour now. Let's check the board and see how much we've raised.
1984

Super Secret Memo

By Kristin

With Fox's recent announcement that the hit series "24" wouldn't return until January 2009, we couldn't help wondering just what Jack Bauer would be doing with all that free time. We can now report, after having obtained a copy of this confidential memo, that an ordinary day in the life of Jack Bauer isn't that much different from yours or mine.

Memo
To: Jack Bauer, Ops.
From: Clark C. Miller, Accounting
Re: Expense Report 01/20/2007

Mr. Bauer,

I am writing to clarify a few items on your expense form dated 02/20/2008. Specifically, items A, B, D, and E have been cleared: one armored tank, one keg of Heineken, two rolls of duck tape and 12 feet of electrical wiring.

However, items C and F are still waiting approval pending further explanation. As you may recall, the addendum to Budget Section 17, subsection (A), entitled "Thermonuclear Weapons," specifically requires authorization in triplicate from the chief administrative officer of Branch 6, Unit 10, in cases where a proper receipt for said weaponry has not been submitted. Since you did not include either the authorization or the receipt with your form, I am forced to deny your expense claim as stated on Page 2, Section 5, Line H. Should you wish to appeal this decision, please submit Form R28-9 (10/03), along with a narrative stating why you were not able to obtain prior authorization and were not able to provide a copy of the receipt.


Memo
To: Jack Bauer, Ops.
From: Clark C. Miller, Accounting
Re: Expense Report 06/13/2007

Mr. Bauer,

Regarding your recent request, may I remind you that Budget Memo XZ7-2, dated 12/17/2003, specifically requires that all expenses in excess of $3 (three) million dollars be subject to pre-approval by your department head. Your expense item for Twelve million Canadian Dollars is, therefore, four times the pre-approved amount allocated to field agents. Your years of dedicated service and self sacrifice noted in your request form were not sufficient explanation to justify that amount. Also, your request for lauch codes for the nuclear weapons stationed in Nebraska is highly irregular, to say the very least.

Please note that your cooperation is respectfully requested in the future when submitting your expense report. Failure to provide required information in a timely manner can result in undue delay in processing your request, as well as creating a great deal of additional work for the Accounting Department.


Memo
To: Jack Bauer, Ops.
From: Clark C. Miller, Accounting
Re: Expense Report 10/24/2007

All right Bauer, just where do you come off asking for reimbursement of expenses due to collateral damage resulting from the use of 1 (one) Sidewinder shoulder-launched ground-to-air missile. Do you think we're made of money here? $28 (twenty-eight) million doesn't just grow on trees, you know, not even for the great Jack Bauer.

Oh, that's right, you were just saving the world. Again. We just forgot. We’ll get right on that! You know Bauer, you don’t get all the tough assignments around here. Balancing budgets is no easy task, buddy. I bet you couldn’t even run a standard PT Report. If the Finance Department was run the same way your Ops Department functions, this agency would be bankrupt in 6 (six) months. Then who'd keep your precious butt afloat, huh?

On behalf of the Accounting Dept. I would like to personally wish you luck on your super secret mission to Canada. I hope you break a leg!

Did You Hear the One About St. Peter and the Senator?

By Mitchell

The following comes from a friend who knows us well enough to know we'd appreciate this story:

*****

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. "Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem," says the senator. "Just let me in,"

"Well," St. Peter replies, "I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St Peter is waiting for him. 'Now it's time to visit heaven.'So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers, "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hellNow the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."

(Appropriate on a primary day, don't you think?"

Washington's Rules of Life

By Drew

Speaking of Washington as we were yesterday, there was this bit from CNN on Washington's "self-help" tips. They come, of course, from Washington's Rules of Civility, a little book that everyone should have, or at least read once in their lifetime. (I'd recommend the version linked to above, with commentary by Richard Brookhiser.)

The list of 110 rules, based on a compilation from French Jesuits, was something that Washington worked on as a young man, and became the foundation on which he based his life. Some people have commented that many of them are simply common sense (don't talk with your mouth full), but common sense is something that seems to be increasingly in short supply nowadays, and at any rate it doesn't hurt to be reminded of it every once in a while.

Anyway, here are some of the rules CNN mentioned, and I think they're worth sharing in an age when civil discourse, whether in politics or the blogosphere, often seems to be lacking. Some of the language may be slightly antiquated, but the wisdom contained is timeless.

Let your countenance be pleasant but in serious matters somewhat grave.

Shew not yourself glad at the misfortune of another though he were your enemy.

To one that is your equal, or not much inferior, you are to give the chief place in your lodging, and he who 'tis offered ought at the first to refuse it, but at the second to accept though not without acknowledging his own unworthiness.

Mock not nor jest at anything of importance, break no jests that are sharp, biting, and if you deliver any thing witty and pleasant, abstain from laughing thereat yourself.

Let your conversation be without malice or envy, for 'tis a sign of tractable and commendable nature, and in all causes of passion permit reason to govern.

Speak not of doleful things in a time of mirth or at the table; speak not of melancholy things as death and wounds, and if others mention them, change if you can the discourse. Tell not your dreams, but to your intimate friend.

Be apt not to relate news if you know not the truth thereof. In discoursing of things you have heard name not your author. Always a secret discover not.

In company of those of higher quality than you, speak not till you are ask'd a question, then stand upright, put off your hat, and answer in few words.

Speak not evil of the absent for it is unjust.

How many of us can say that we strive to live by even a few of these rules? The best I can say is that I try, but often fall short. You could take many of these into the confessional with you and make a pretty good confession.

I have a feeling we'll be visiting many of these precepts again in the near future. They are wonderful food for thought - and action.

George Washington's Birthday

An Our Word Flashback

From February 20, 2006:

In this fascinating little tidbit from The Corner, John J. Miller provides the answer, courtesy of Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation:

The third Monday in February has come to be known - wrongly - as President's Day. ... Although it was celebrated as early as 1778, and by the early 19th century was second only to the Fourth of July as a patriotic holiday, Congress did not officially recognize Washington's Birthday as a national holiday until 1870. The Monday Holiday Law in 1968--applied to executive branch departments and agencies by Richard Nixon's Executive Order 11582 in 1971--moved the holiday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Section 6103 of Title 5, United States Code, currently designates that legal federal holiday as "Washington's Birthday." Contrary to popular opinion, no action by Congress or order by any President has changed "Washington's Birthday" to "President's Day."

I’ve always had a great admiration for Washington. He towers over the history of our country, even in those scenes in which he doesn’t directly appear (in the musical 1776, for example, Washington’s presence is always there through the dispatches he sends the Second Continental Congress, even though Washington himself is not a character in the story). There’s a nobility about him that made quite an impression on his contemporaries, a nobility that seems to be missing from much of our culture today, political or otherwise.

Washington had quite a different view of the presidency (an office that was tailor-made for him, as the documents from the Constitutional Convention show) than we do today, believing that the president should be more of an impartial adjudicator of events, a man whose first priority was to represent the interests of the nation as a whole, even as Congress had their own personal constituencies to represent.

There is much to admire in Washington, both as a man and as president. He is, in my estimation, the greatest American (which is not to denigrate men such as Franklin and Lincoln, who would stand out in any age). There are many outstanding books on Washington; two of my favorites are the multi-volume biography by James Thomas Flexner (available in this handy one-volume printing), and the brief, excellent Founding Father by Rick Brookheiser. A pity that so many schoolchildren nowadays, when they hear of Washington at all, are taught merely that he was a slave-owner.

So, at a time when our political discourse seems to sink lower and lower into irrelevance and our "leaders" provide very little leadership other than in raising money, let us take a moment to remember with gratitude our first president, the Father of His Country, perhaps the greatest American ever: G. Washington.

Kirk Browning, R.I.P.

By Mitchell

Longtime readers will recognize Kirk Browning as the director of the premiere telecast of Amahl and the Night Visitors in 1951. He was, therefore, one of the few major figures remaining from the Golden Age of Television and one of the last to still be active in television production, which he was right up until his death on Sunday at age 86.

Kirk Browning started out as a chicken farmer and wound up as one of the icons of the technical side of the tube. His obit in the New York Times relates the wonderful story of how one of his egg customers, Samuel Chotzinoff, the director of NBC’s music division, helped get him a job with the network. He worked with everyone from Arturo Toscanini to Frank Sinatra to Arthur Godfrey in a career that ran from 1947 to 2008, and his productions won 10 Emmy Awards.

It was for classical programming that he became most famous however, as director of the long-running PBS series Life From Lincoln Center. He directed 185 telecasts, and was in fact working on the post-production of the March telecast at the time of his death. He was known for his innovative techniques, including his use of sports technology such as the small "lipstick" camera, to generate views for the television audience that no person in the concert hall could ever see.

And it would require an innovative mind for perhaps the single most enduring program with which Browning was involved, the 1951 telecast of Amahl. Browning often said that the opera's composer, Gian Carlo Menotti, was the decisive force in the production, but there is no question that it was Browning's skill and understanding as a director that shaped the production of television on opera. It is difficult to appreciate the complexity of putting on that live broadcast; Browning and Menotti worked closely to frame the action on the small screen, to block out the camera angles, to create an air of intimacy that would itself be an innovation in the world of opera. Singers used to broad gestures would have to contrict themselves so that their movements would not break the frame of the screen. Camera shots would have to be orchestrated in such a way that the noise generated by the lens change would not be heard on the telecast. Closed-circuit hookups would be arranged so that the orchestra, working from a separate area behind the set, would still remain in visual contact with the singers. And all this would be done, live, in an environment where union rules prohibited the television director (Browning) from communicating directly with the cameramen - all such communication would have to go through a technical director.

Needless to say, it worked - not just with Amahl, but with the hundreds of shows on which Browning worked through a half-century of television. Working in a brand-new medium frequently results in genius born of necessity, and the work of Kirt Browning, then as now, was just that.

What a Visitor to Earth Might Say About the American Political Process

By Drew

"Look on the bright side. If this is the best they've got around here, in six months we'll be running this planet."

Rod Serling, dialogue for Planet of the Apes

Poetry Wednesday

By Mitchell

Here's a poem suitable for a lead-in to St. Valentine's Day, from Lord Byron (1788-1824):

She Walks In Beauty

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.

One shade the more, one ray the less,
Had half impair'd the nameless grace
Which waves in every raven tress,
Or softly lightens o'er her face;
Where thoughts serenely sweet express
How pure, how dear their dwelling-place.

And on that cheek, and o'er that brow,
So soft, so calm, yet eloquent,
The smiles that win, the tints that glow,
But tell of days in goodness spent,
A mind at peace with all below,
A heart whose love is innocent!

A Philharmonic Incident

By Bobby

Recently, I attended a performance of the South Carolina Philharmonic Youth Orchestra, where great young musicians begin their training with great masterpieces and sometimes even a movie selection or two. I almost wished Radio Television Luxembourg would even return "Pink Panther Theme" to The Price Is Right (from 1976-1992, the pricing game "Safe Crackers" used the theme; Mark Goodson had to pay the copyright holders, so it was dropped, despite it being a signature of the game) after hearing the youth orchestra play it.

However, while the music showed the proficiency of the youth (in three groups), I wonder about the dress code of an orchestra today, as the attending parents and friends have even tripped over the dress codes that I have learned over the decade I have attended orchestral events.

Female Conductors
Is a skirt with a high slit on the front corner appropriate where as she is walking on stage, where she is baring her left leg as she walks on stage? The slit was very high from my perspective. You do not wear a slit where almost the entire body can be shown as you walk to your perch at the centre of the orchestra where the players can see your bare leg!

The fact the bare leg showing is dangerous is ironic, considering the younger orchestra members are wearing black tops and slacks, something which has changed over the past forty years, when full black dresses were the rule (and still is for singers). But instrumentalists today have the choice of a jacket and slacks, something female vocalists do not have.

The younger boys did not wear the formal clothing as the older ones do, but that is understood. They had to wear identical clothing. But any young music leader should understand what you wear matters! In the "senior" group of the youth orchestra, the lead violin player herself had a jacket she took off when she was the featured soloist, with the bare-shouldered look for the feature.

General Audience
Some of the youth who attended the concert seemed to violate the cardinal rule of concert dress. Why do kids think jeans, tee-shirts, and shorts are appropriate for these events? Now this is a youth event, and some parents followed the rules, but some parents and a slew of youth violated the cardinal rule of concert dress. Who would attend a Philharmonic event dressed as if they were going to rock concerts, or even church?

Yes, I mean church. Today’s generation, who has attended Emergent Church services where the Bible is ignored for popular culture, or where teen dancers who jiggle to rock has replaced sacred music, is known for their rag-tag looks. One year I observed a few leaders wearing Viagra tee-shirts! In another situation, one adult had Viagra memorabilia pasted on the back of her car window and bumper sticker!

Youth need to remember when going to a concert, please wear a suit or a dress, and ladies, make sure the hems are calf-length or below, and absolutely no cleavage. This should be a place of modesty.

How the Democrats Can Win It

By Drew

As Jim Geraghty points out at NRO, there is one thing that the Democrats can do that will improve their chances of victory in November more than anything else:

Avoid antagonizing people.

I mean it. A number of us have talked about this in the past, how we’re all tired of having voted against candidates instead of voting for them. And when you keep doing negatives rather than positives, it does tend to wear you down.

This is something that liberals have often overlooked. You’ve heard the joke about comparing the Democrats to a firing squad standing in a circle with the guns pointed inward? Well, that's the Democrats in a nutshell. This party, even more than the Republicans, seems to have perfected the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Think about what Geraghty says. How many times can you remember the in-your-face attitude of so many liberals who literally drive you to vote for someone, anyone, besides their candidate? It happened (as Geraghty reminded us) with Cameron Diaz suggested that Bush would legalize rape in his second term, with Paul Wellstone’s memorial/pep rally, after convention speeches by Ann Richards and Ted Kennedy and any number of Democratic stalwarts, after appearances by race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It happens after you read the cruel, crude, relentless, conspiracy-laden, over-the-top hype from sites like the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org, and it happens every time you see Rosie O’Donnell or Whoopi Goldberg or Barbra (I’ll move to Europe if the Republicans win) Streisand or any number of smug, self-satisfying Hollywood types. They remind good, decent people everywhere of why this culture seems to be in such lousy shape, and who's responsible for it. You might find yourself getting angry about it all over again just reading this.

In fact, you’re probably starting to recall the number of times you weren’t planning to vote at all until someone pushed you just too far, walked into your wheelhouse and dared you to go into the booth and mark that ballot. Which is what you did, and their candidate wound up losing. You remember those times, don't you? The wonder is that the Democrats don't. At least, perhaps, until now.

Looking back at Mitchell’s piece from earlier this week, I'm struck by a couple of things. First, that the Democrats might take his advice, look into their own echo chamber of history, and learn the lessons that come from the school of hard knocks. Second, it seems as if the most likely way that conservatives will rally around McCain (and thus give him any chance of victory) is if the Democrats make this mistake again. But if they can just play it cool, if they can keep their supporters under control and avoid what a friend of mine would call “walking into the crosshairs of a stationary cannon” (i.e. one that can hurt you only if you stand right in front of it and wave your arms), if they can just let sleeping dogs (and conservatives) lie, then they improve their chances dramatically.

It’s always dangerous trying to predict the future, especially a future that’s nearly nine months away. (Just ask yourself how accurate your TV weather guy has been lately.) But barring the unforeseen (note to aspiring pundits: always leave yourselves wiggle room, or, as we say in the political game, "plausible deniability"), you have to think that having these liberals revert to type is just about the best chance John McCain has. If, as Geraghty suggests, they’ve actually figured this out – if, in other words, they don’t blow it – then McCain might want to forget about wooing conservatives, and start writing his concession speech instead.

What a New Left Would Offer

By Bobby

The dangers of a Presidency of the Left is one that we must be aware as we continue the Chase to the Presidency. Sadly, too many people do not understand the point of history we are facing, and do not understand what a vote on the Left would mean:

Energy Policy:

A federal speed limit of 55 MPH, similar to 1974 policy misguided by a Democratic supermajority, is almost assured as one of the “save the earth” mantras that fit with the “save fuel” mantra that together, will easily be part of a liberal agenda to regulate automobiles to fit with standards in Europe.

A federal energy policy banning drilling in ANWR, and all new drilling of oil in all areas of this country, including waters. This policy will be accompanied by new “National Monuments” imposed near areas where coal, shale, and other oil developments are found to ban energy independence. Under the Clinton administration, the Grand Staircase Escalante monument in Utah was added to prevent American clean coal from being mined, and instead force us to buy Chinese Communist coal.

Continuing federal light bulb regulations that will ban anything that does not fit within the mantra of made-in-ChiCom, mercury-poisoning lightbulbs.

Continuing automotive regulations to force Americans into 2-seat, 2 or 3-cylinder minicars, including bans on large automobiles.

Continuing the purchase of Japanese hybrid small cars as federal policy.

Mandatory alcohol fuel in cars.

A windfall profits tax to charge 100% taxation of all profits on oil companies. All profits to government mean oil companies would have to leave the country or quit the business. The taxes would go to fund what liberals request, including numerous pork (think of “peace parks” in highway bills).

Health Care:

Socialised medicine that would effectively create bans on health research except for baby-killing research (which is protected by liberal mantra).

To cut costs, clinics such as Mayo and other massive cancer centres would be closed, and their medical research will be banned. This will prevent life-saving cures from being considered, since they are considered to be a harm.

Long lines in single-payer clinics where even basic health care will be rationed. People with even the flu will not be permitted to be treated for such.

Federal windfall profits tax on health care. Profits to government social control.

Federal controls of the health care system where no new doctors will be created, and no new innovations will happen because of policies designed to destroy the market.

Taxation:

A 50% tax rate (or higher) will be imposed on income taxes. This not only repeals the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, but adds to the Clinton-era tax rates.

A Capital Gains tax rate of 50% (or higher) will be imposed to discourage investing. Add the anti-investing mantra to the windfall profits tax and onerous government regulation to kill industries will create a country where investing will be discouraged and instead people will be asked to spend.

New consumption taxes on gasoline.

New taxes on internet usage.

New environmental taxes to ensure everyone drives the minicars.

More taxes for the government to take land away from people they wish to strip property (speedway owners, churches) so they can create more earth-worship parks.

The destruction of Wall Street, especially the stock market, when Reagan-era policies encouraging investing are repealed for a New Left-era policy discouraging investing and creating more dependence on government.

Media Regulations:

New onerous media regulations include the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine. In the 1960's, the Johnson administration used the Doctrine to get their way to have laws passed when opposition rose.

New media regulations will dictate the political slant of radio. Bans on conservative talk radio will be added with mandatory “public service” announcements to force-feed listeners to participate in rallies to support same-sex “marriage”, declaring the Bible as hate speech, and to push people to support higher taxes, government regulations, and anti-business tax codes.

Media controls of Hugo Chávez-style proportions, similar to what he did with RCTV.

The federal government will control the airwaves by banning anything that does not fit with the new liberal speech codes.

A ban on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and even Fox News, because they do not fit the agenda of the media control bureau.

Speech codes that even Congress will regulate. My Congressman, Joe Wilson, cannot even speak in the House because of onerous regulations on who can speak.

The Family:

Declaring the Bible as hate speech as part of a homosexual agenda.

The homosexual agenda will become the law; even declaring it is a sin will be a crime, and laws will be written to mandate where child molesters can work in schools will be required.

Education standards will be rewritten to redefine family.

Abortion on demand will become federal regulation, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban will be voided.

New laws will be created to allow criminals to have rights, while victims will not have any.

Refugees of Communist nations and other despots will be forced to return to the land of the dictator they came, as the Elián Gonzáles case was one where the US under a pro-Communist leadership forced a kid who escaped the dictator back as part of a Lenin's Birthday celebration.

Lenin's Birthday will usurp Washington's Birthday as a major celebration in the United States; currently, kids are more aware of Lenin's Birthday (through a veiled “Earth Day” celebration) than of Washington's, because the philosophy of the Soviet dictator is celebrated on Earth Day.

Our Courts:

The courts of the new liberal Presidency will declare laws passed in Europe usurp the laws of the United States, hereby moving the capital of the United States to Bruxelles, Belgique.

The Law of the Sea, which surrenders sovreignity of the seas of our country, will become law and third-rate dictators control this nation's resources.

Rogue Nations and the War on Terror:

Usama bin Laden and his Henchmen will start invading Iraq and winning the minute the United States leaves under liberal requests.

To conform to the Leftist World, the United States will leave Iraq, making it a more dangerous area where terrorists will use to create the next major attack. The Left has made it clear conforming to what their fellow liberals want, and not going full-on to attack terrorists is priority #1. They would rather be praised by the world for losing than to go all-in for the win, and we learn in the Bible to not be of the world, and liberals prefer to be of the dangerous world that does not believe in going for the win, but keeping their self-esteem.

Iraq will become a more dangerous nation without support from the Free World because of the Leader's decision to leave to please the MOVEON.ORG organisation.

The People's Republic of China will have the right to invade, and destroy, Taiwan with the blessing of the new Administration.

Other Things of Danger:

MOVEON.ORG will become the massive think tank that will effectively rent more space, and force the Heritage Foundation, TOWNHALL.COM, the Cato Institute, and other major organisations leaning conservative to leave town under orders that only one side of political thought would be allowed.

Is this the type of government we want to elect? Such is the dangers of the New Left and their attempt to take back America for the sake of turning this nation into a totalitarian dictatorship of the extremists. After studying this, I know this is not the world I want to have after November 2008.

The Echo Chamber of History

By Mitchell

I’ve got this whole political thing figured out.

It’s not 2008. It’s 1964. And John McCain is Barry Goldwater.

Think about it for a moment. The similarities are there, and they’re more than the fact that McCain and Goldwater both come from Arizona and have white hair. And if you understand these similarities, if you understand the way history repeats itself, you’ll understand what just might happen in the next four years.

• McCain, like Goldwater, pictures himself as a “straight shooter.” (Remember Goldwater’s campaign theme, “A Choice, not an Echo.”) His opponents, as did Goldwater’s, think of him more as a “loose cannon.”

• McCain, like Goldwater, faces enormous opposition from one wing of his party. Just as the liberals accused Goldwater of seeking to destroy the Republican Party, the conservatives now make the same claim against McCain.

• And McCain, like Goldwater, seems determined to do everything he can to antagonize his intra-party opponents, to the point that one has to ask whether John McCain really wants to be elected president, or just wants the chance to lord it over the other side.

How else can one explain the almost pathological urge McCain has to poke his finger in the other fellow’s eye, to speak with the most inflammatory language possible, to disregard any chance that might presently exist to make a conciliatory statement toward the conservative wing of the party? Quite frankly, I can’t come up with another rational explanation for his behavior.

John McCain is not, dare I say, a stupid man. He’s seen the polls; he knows the GOP faces an uphill fight in November. Undoubtedly, he counts on Clinton Derangement Syndrome as a party unifier. But he has to know that Hillary’s victory in the Democratic race is no sure thing, and that the smart thing to do would be to start building those bridges just in case Barack Obama wins the nomination. Obama has, let’s face it, a lot of advantages that Hillary lacks; his lean, confident visage appearing opposite McCain’s scowling, snarling, nasty, brutish and short appearance at a debate would be like revisiting the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960. If McCain doesn’t know better than that, I’m afraid I’ve given him credit for being smarter politically than he really is.

Barry Goldwater had also seen the polls, had known even in 1963, when he had planned to run against John F. Kennedy, that it would be an uphill fight. Following Kennedy’s death he briefly considered giving up the race altogether, knowing it was unlikely the American people would go for the idea of three presidents within 14 months. When he did jump in, it was with the fatalism of a man who knows his victory is destined to be a pyrrhic one. He ran a crusade, rather than a campaign, seeking to purge the Republican Party of its liberal elements and create a movement that was pure to its cause, welcoming those who agreed with him and inviting the rest to go to hell. You’re either with me or against me, he told Republicans. Many opted for the later. Sound familiar?

Lyndon Johnson jumped all over Goldwater and what was left of the Republican Party after its disastrously fractious convention in San Francisco. The Daisy ad was only shown once, to devastating effect, but in the end even that might have been overkill, using a howitzer to destroy a gnat. Goldwater won only 38.5% percent of the vote, and carried but six states – five from the Deep South, rabidly against Johnson’s civil rights legislation, and his own Arizona. The Republican Party was left in an absolute shambles: Democrats controlled the Senate by 68-32, and the House 295-140 – both veto-proof margins.

Now, while I’m not predicting this kind of disaster for the Republicans in November 2008, I don’t think you can rule it out, either. So, with this bleak outlook, where does this leave the GOP entering 2009? In the same place it was in 1965 – with work to do.

And work, they did. In the 1966 midterm elections they staged a remarkable comeback, gaining 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate. It is true that the party in power generally loses seats in the midterms, and the increasing unpopularity of the Vietnam War also played a role. However, a large share of the credit has to go to one man who spent 1966 tirelessly campaigning for Republican candidates through the country, building up a storehouse of support and IOUs along the way: Richard Nixon.

Nixon emerged from the 1964 debacle as the elder statesman of the GOP. He introduced Goldwater at the convention and campaigned for him that fall, earning goodwill from conservatives while maintaining respect from liberals. Although Goldwater remained the titular head of the party following the election, this was all but meaningless; he’d given up his Senate seat in Arizona, his choice for national party chairman was ousted, and the party itself was deeply divided.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped Nixon – still immensely popular with many, well-versed in the issues, tireless in his support for the party and its candidates. He remained, as he had always been, controversial, with the reputation of being a loser (having lost not only the presidency in 1960 but the gubernatorial race in California in 1962), polarizing (the liberals never did forgive him for the Alger Hiss affair), shifty (“Tricky Dick” didn’t start during Watergate, after all). Yet, despite these perceived drawbacks, the GOP coalesced around Dick Nixon. He entered the 1968 race with a base of support no other candidate could match; thanks to his efforts the South held firm for him, when they might naturally have been expected to side with his conservative rival, Ronald Reagan. He fended off the challenges of Reagan and Nelson Rockefeller and won the nomination on the first ballot, then defeated Hubert Humphrey in November.

Can the Republicans hope for a similar turnaround in 2012? Well, as we all know, history is nothing so much as an echo chamber, and the one who looks to the past in order to glean clues about the future is often far ahead of the game. A great deal of this will depend on the Democrat in the White House, of course. Should Clinton emerge with the victory, we could see more parallels to the 60s; for all her anti-war rhetoric, she appears to be the Democrat most likely to continue prosecution of the war in Iraq, and with her cahunas (and ego) it’s hard to see her allowing the Iranians to push her around. Should things go well, she’ll be hard to beat in four years, and deservedly so. Anything less than that, however, and the anti-war liberals completely take over the Democratic Party, leaving the outlook not dissimilar to 1968.

If Obama wins, there’s an even more recent parallel: although many compare him, in terms of youth and magnetism, to Bobby Kennedy in 1968, there are others who compare him, in potential, to a different candidate – Jimmy Carter. You’ll recall that after four years of Carter, the Republicans didn’t do too badly.

Either way, history suggests a reason for the Republicans to remain optimistic about the future, despite the current dismal outlook. To truly have a chance in 2012, however, they desperately require one thing above all: a leader. Someone to speak for the party in the media, to energize the base and rally the troops, to campaign for Republicans nationwide and hold the administration’s feet to the fire.

Who might this be? McCain’s running mate might fit the bill, depending on who it is and whether or not this person had come through the campaign without being tainted by defeat or antagonizing activists in either wing of the party. A tall order, but parties have traditions of looking at former running mates as potential candidates, so anything’s possible.

Also possible is that McCain’s rivals, particularly Mitt Romney, might come to the fore. Romney is, after all, available, and a few more years of proving his bona fides to suspicious conservatives wouldn’t hurt. Mike Huckabee, having been tarred somewhat by the same brush that has gone after McCain, is less likely, although he may emerge as an evangelical leader. Rudy Guiliani, having wasted his political capital, may well be reduced to a campaigner for others – a spear-carrier, but no longer a general.

It’s more likely, however, that we need to look elsewhere for the one who will ultimately unify the Republican Party. Following our model, we should be looking for someone who continues to maintain a large base of support, can articulate the issues important to the Republican faithful, is respected by a sizeable number of people within the party, is an effective and energetic campaigner for candidates around the nation, and is not seen as being part of a 2008 fiasco. As was the case with Nixon, the apparent drawbacks – a polarizing, occasionally brash personality, personal foibles, a retreat after embarrassing election defeat – are not necessarily the obstacles that one might think on first blush.

And so we are left with the man to whom history would suggest the Republicans can and must turn, the man who in 2010 will emerge as the leader of the minority party and in 2012 will be their presidential nominee.

I give you Newt Gingrich.