True Confessions

By Mitchell

By now you've probably heard about Barbara Walters' admission of her 1970s affair with Senator Edward Brooke. You may even have heard more than you wanted to hear about it. And so the question that has to be asked is: who cares?

Not "who cares" in the sense that an adulterous affair with a United States Senator is something that can just be dismissed. Nor in the sense that it's old news, a story about a fading media celebrity and a politician long since disappeared from the scene.

No, in this case "who cares" has to mean: Babs, why do you consider yourself so important that you feel the need to discuss in the pages of a book the most intimate details of your private life?

Now, Walters could have kept her mouth shut entirely. After all, adultery - regardless of the prevaling moral climate - isn't something one should feel particularly proud of. And if you're not proud of it, if you even feel a little shame, why go blabbing about it to the public? Wait, I forgot - blabbing to the public is what Barbara Walters does for a living. Never mind.

Besides, what were the alternatives for Walters? If she felt she just had to share the details of an adulterous affair, she couldn't just say it was with "a U.S. Senator." That would have cast a net of suspicion on at least 100 men who'd have fit that description during the time in question, and you know there's someone out there who would have grabbed a copy of the World Almanac and gone through it trying to figure out who it was. You probably would have been able to make book on the odds in Vegas. It would have been just like the search for Deep Throat. (OK, maybe that isn't the best analogy, but you know what I mean.)

If not a U.S. Senator, then what about simply identifying him as "a prominent Washingtonian"? That would have retained for Walters the prestige of having attracted the attentions of a powerful man to her bed, while having widened the pool of suspects to the point where it might have been impossible for his identity to be discovered. There's still that possibility of mistaken identity though - Walters herself says that the affair ended to protect both of their careers from scandal, so you have to think she's aware of the pitfalls of a false ID.

Well, it seems as if Walters didn't really have any other choice then, did she? So let's assume that Walters just had to talk about it. Notwithstanding the damage it does to Brooke's reputation ("Man, I thought he'd have better taste than that"), think of the effect it might have on Brooke's family, his former wife (if she's still alive), his current wife (who knows if Brooke ever told her about it?), and all sorts of others. Brooke himself refuses comment, saying that he doesn't talk about his or other people's private lives, which goes to show that at least some people still have a touch of dignity about them.

In fact, this used to be the kind of thing that "gentlemen didn't discuss." (Whether or not that applies to women, Barbara Walters notwithstanding, is apparently debatable. Apparently that's one part of sexual equality that didn't make the jump.) There was not only a sense of shame to be considered, but propriety as well. It used to be that there were some things that simply weren't discussed in public, and naming names was one of them.

So in fact the only alternative that Barbara Walters had was to keep her mouth shut (or her pen capped, as it were). If she really felt it was necessary to mention an affair in order to explain some critical aspect of her life and how it had developed, then she could simply have said something about having made mistakes in the past, about having done things she shouldn't have done. Unless, of course, she doesn't see it as having been a mistake.

But the point here is to ask whatever happened to the idea that there are some things one doesn't discuss in public. The "true confessions" craze is everywhere, from the "kiss-and-tell" book to the "reality" TV show to the "dear diary" blogs. And again, one wonders if there is anything such as "dignity" left in today's culture? Do we have to make our lives an open book to others? Aren't there some things we can at least save for the Confessional? Whatever happened to the idea of interior privacy, of public decorum, of taking some secrets to the grave? Whatever became of keeping your mouth shut?

I don't know if I have all the answers to those questions, but I do have one: money. There's big money to be had for spilling your guts in public, though, and we all know that money talks. (At least bloggers - most of them, anyway - do their emoting for free, which makes their behavior all the more puzzling, but that's another story.)

Was it really necessary to identify Ed Brooke by name as her lover? Of course it was. You notice that the CNN story about Walters put it not in the news or political section, but in entertainment. For whatever Barbara Walters' credentials of the past, she surely can't be viewed any longer as a serious news reporter. It's all about entertainment, baby, about keeping them amused out there, titilated even. Sell the books, keep the ratings and the ad revenue up.

And so if it is all about the money, and we all know it is, then what these tell-alls really do is turn the storytellers into high-priced whores, selling their inner secrets for the almighty dollar, or fame, or - preferably - both.

If there is no shame any more, as the true confessions lifestyle would seem to indicate, then what other conclusion can we reach?

The More Things Change - Part 1,276

By Mitchell

"Despite the reverence, there is still criticism that the [National Hockey League] playoff system drags the season to an absurd length, and that this extension is a mere money-grubbing device of the owners. The charges are correct, but the fans couldn't care less. There are many who would watch hockey in July if they could. There is tension in a Stanley Cup game that no regular season contest can engender."

Truer words have seldom been written, as we sit here on May 7 waiting for the semifinals of the Stanley Cup Playoffs to start. The regular season ended in early April. The playoffs still have possibly another five weeks or so to go.

However, the quote above was written not today, not even yesterday - but by Martin Kane in the April 25, 1966 edition of Sports Illustrated. At that point the Montreal Canadiens had defeated the Toronto Maple Leafs in the semis, and were waiting for the winner of the Detroit-Chicago series to settle the whole thing.

That's right: forty years ago, people were complaining because the playoffs hadn't ended by the middle of April. Today, people are complaining because the playoffs haven't ended by the middle of May. We may not make it into July, but certainly the Stanley Cup won't be awarded until sometime in June.

Undoubtedly there are a lot of fans who still would be fine if the playoffs didn't end until July. Unfortunately for the NHL, hardly anyone else would even notice.

They Said It

By Drew

"What I am opposed to is not the feeling of the pacifists, but their stupidity. My heart is with them, but my mind has contempt for them. I want peace but I know how to get it and they do not. You will notice that I sent a friend of mine, Colonel House, to Europe, who is as great a lover of peace as any man in the world, but I didn't send him on a peace mission yet. I sent him to take part in a conference on how the war was to be won, and he knows, as I know, that that is the way to get peace."

Woodrow Wilson

(Just in case you thought George Bush was the only headstrong president we've ever had in wartime. Wilson also held presidential powers that would have made Bush blanche, but that's another story.)

There's much truth in what Wilson says, though. In particular, I will never believe the hoary liberal quote about being unable to simultaneously prevent and prepare for war, for peace is more than merely the absence of war. Wilson's main flaw was his inability to differentiate between disagreement and opposition - from the earliest times he displayed something of a "you're either for me or against me" mentality, a trait that was exacerbated during his years as president.

Wilson's presidency provides a prime example of the arrogance of power and the delusion of idealism. Without the hubrus that regards disagreement over policy as a personal attack, Wilson might have avoided his place as a tragic figure in history, and his administration the contempt it often deserves. Wilson was what he was, however, and thus sealed both his fate and that of America: a changed conception of the presidency, a changed role for America in the world, and a century of warfare.

What McCain Wants

By Mitchell

Today over at NRO, K-Lo discusses why it would make sense for McCain to choose Mitt Romney as his running mate. Now, anyone who's read The Corner during the political season knows about K-Lo's infatuation with Romney, but in this case there's a pretty sound logic to her thinking. (A logic that isn't always present, it might be noted.) However, there's something she writes that I'm just not sure about. It's this line, with which she concludes her thought:

McCain (I assume) wants to win.

I'm not so sure about that. As you'll recall from the story I wrote earlier this year (which we linked to this week), I have this feeling that McCain is motived more by a sense of personal animus and a desire to settle old scores than he is in actually winning the White House. Now, I don't mean that he actually wants to lose, or that he'd do something to intentionally throw the election. I just don't know that he's willing to do what needs to be done to win if that takes him away from his prime motivation: sticking it to his political enemies.

After all, everyone has known for at least two years that this was going to be an extremely difficult election for the Republicans to win, and that in fact defeat was quite likely. I think McCain saw this as his chance to take a few well-placed shots at his long-standing enemies, that it would give him a chance, as I put it in that February story, "to lord it over the other side." Like fellow Arizonan Barry Goldwater, it was this feeling that I think marked McCain's drive for the nomination. (Goldwater's, to be sure, was also about ideological purity; but don't you think there's a sort of purity present - or imagined - in McCain's "me vs. the world" mentality?)

And then, wonder of wonders, the Democratic battle descends into a nasty intra-party fight that threatens to tear the Dems in half. Suddenly, McCain discovers he might actually have a chance to win. I wonder if he was really ready for that? What does he do? I mean, if he really wants to win he has to run a much more cautious campaign; he has to try his best to avoid offending conservatives, keeping his temper in check, playing nice with others. He has to stop making the snide comments that he knows drive conservatives up the wall. Is that really what John McCain wants? I mean, where's the fun in that?

Again at NRO, Jay Nordlinger relates how many of his readers have emailed him to say something along the lines of how

The less McCain talks, the more I like him. And the more he talks, the more I dislike him. When he’s been on the sidelines for a while, I start to like him better. But when he gets in, and starts to talk: I think, ‘Oh, yeah — that’s how he is.’”

When Nordlinger suggested that the traditionally outrageous Democratic attacks will produce the traditional result - motivating previously doubtful Republicans to crawl over broken glass to vote for McCain - one replied that he'd crawl over broken glass all right, but he'd only have one bloody hand: " the other will be holding my nose."

McCain does seem to have that effect on people, doesn't he? And I think he gets kind of a charge out of it. That's why I wonder just how badly he wants the White House. He seems to have an almost palpable unease in engaging the Democrats compared to the vigor with which he attacks "fellow" Republicans. Look at how uncomfortable he was at the start of the Wright case, except when it came to criticizing Republicans who tried to make an issue of it. Every time you hear the shrill liberal rhetoric and start to think that maybe McCain isn't so bad after all, you listen to what McCain actually has to say, and within a few minutes you start to get that queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach, the one that asks you if you're really sure that supporting McCain is what you want to do.

It will be interesting to see McCain struggle with this over the next few months. Does he run a campaign to please himself, or does he try to win? When I ran for the state legislature ten years ago, I was confronted with a somewhat similar situation: the state party had targeted my district as a winnable one, but it meant I would have to moderate my conservative message somewhat to try and attract swing voters. This I dutifully did, with the result that I lost anyway, and deprived myself of the chance to take solace in the thought that I'd gone down swinging. I don't pretend to think that I would have won if only my handlers had just "let Hadley be Hadley" - I probably would have lost by an even greater margin. But at least I would have had the satisfaction of having lost by doing it "my way." That, I think, is the conundrum that McCain faces. He does have to live with himself in the end; what is it that he wants to accomplish?

So does John McCain want to win? Well, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, I suppose that depends on what the definition of "win" is.

Put Up the Duke

By Drew

According to our new "Daily Almanac" feature on the sidebar, today (April 29) is the birthday of the great Duke Ellington. What better way to celebrate than with this performace of one of his signature pieces, "Take the A Train." Enjoy!

Bringing You Up to Date...

We thought it might be nice to catch up with some of our stories from earlier in the year and see just how well they've held up over time:

• In April we wrote about the sordid Nazi sex scandal surrounding Max Mosley, head of Formula 1. Well, it's almost a month later, and Mosley is hanging in there, if barely. He was persona non grata in Barcelona at yesteday's Spanish Grand Prix, and was informed that he was not welcome at the Bahrain Grand Prix earlier in the month. Amidst continued calls for his resignation, Mosely vows to step down in 2009 (and not before) even if he receives a vote of confidence at a special meeting in June of Formula 1's governing body, the FIA. How likely any of this is to happen is anyone's guess - considering the perpetually dysfunctional nature of Formula 1 management, a vote of confidence would be somewhat less than unthinkable. However, if you look high in the sky, you can still see the vultures hovering, looking somewhere for a corpse. Mosley, it should be added, has retained as his PR man a former advisor to Heather Mills. . .

• Earlier in the year, we mentioned that Obama seemed to be avoiding some of the pitfalls of his liberal predecessors. The thought was that, in downplaying the inflammatory rhetoric that often encouraged - nay, forced - conservatives to support a Republican despite their personal misgivings, Obama was increasing his chances of winning in November. Well, that's pretty much gone down the drain, hasn't it? Between the Rev. Wright controversy, the "bitter" voters of Pennsylvania, and the perpetually disgruntled and only recently proud-to-be-an-American Michelle Obama, the Illinois senator has managed to fit quite well into the traditional political landscape. Once again the Democrats seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

• But will they succeed? In losing, that is, rather than in winning. That certainly depends on how well John McCain can succeed in not shooting his mouth - or his foot - off. In February we compared McCain to his Arizona predecessor, Barry Goldwater, as a man who would rather defeat his opponents than win the presidency. However, in the comments section Bobby quite rightly pointed out that the Democratic contest might wind up doing more to unite the Republican base than McCain ever could. McCain hasn't given up though, criticizing North Carolina Republicans for running an anti-Obama commercial that sought to use Rev. Wright's rhetoric as an issue. He might be backing away from that, however, having come under a fair amount of criticism from conservatives (who continue to wonder "whose side are you on, anyway?"). It remains to be seen how McCain will handle a campaign in which he unexpectedly appears to have a chance of winning. Will success spoil Rock McCain? We'll find out.

• One last thought on Max Mosley - don't you keep waiting for Kenneth Mars to show up somewhere?

The Scandal of "The Cure"

By Mitchell

Most of you probably know this already, but as we approach Mother’s Day it bears repeating.

Mother’s Day has, over the years, become a sort of unofficial celebration of Breast Cancer Awareness. With it, we’ve seen a proliferation of pink ribbons blossom across the landscape, the most prominent of which belong to the organization known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, formerly the Susan G. Komen Foundation. And it's almost impossible to go anywhere at this time of the year without being assulted by the Komen campaign.

The Race for the Cure is probably the best known of the Komen activities, and if you haven't already been asked, it's likely that someone running in one of the Mother's Day races will be hitting you up for a contribution at some point in the next couple of weeks. But that's not all: retailers offer a percentage of their sales to Komen, Major League Baseball donates funds to Komen based on the number of home runs hit on Mother's Day, pink accessories appear in jewelry and clothing stores, each one carefully designed to allow the wearer to make a political statement about fighting breast cancer. The whole thing has become a cottage industry.

What none of them want to talk about, of course, is the dirty little secret - the relationship between Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood, the number-one provider of abortions in the United States.

According to Komen, their grants to Planned Parenthood are specifically for breast cancer testing. However, as anyone with experience in the charity world knows, organizations such as Planned Parenthood operate on a budget, which means that any money specified for one area (such as breast cancer testing) frees up money which can be used in other areas – and we all know what those areas are. Various sources put Komen’s contribution in grants to Planned Parenthood in 2003 alone at more than $475,000. That means $475,000 was freed up for some of Planned Parenthood’s “other” activities.

(And even if one were to accept Komen's explanation, it's a little harder to understand some of the other "relationships" into which local Komen chapters enter, such as the Denver afiliate's past funding for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community (GLBT) Center of Colorado.)

The Bioethics Defense Fund page offers an excellent synopsis of Komen’s relationship with the pro-abortion movement over the years. Among the highlights:

• Susan G. Komen for the Cure awarded 72 grants to Planned Parenthood afflilates during the years 2000 through 2005.
  
• Nancy Brinker, Komen Founder, was listed as an advisory board member in the 2002 annual report of Planned Parenthood of North Texas, the fifth largest Planned Parenthood affiliate in the nation.
  
• Despite Komen's assertion that the grant money is for breast services only, Planned Parenthood’s own records show their breast services are declining while their abortion numbers are increasing

Unfortunately, it seems that you can't go many places without being assulted by the Komen campaign. Thankfully, not everyone is taken in by Komen’s campaign. For example, Curves, the women’s fitness franchise, stopped supporting Komen events because of their involvement with Planned Parenthood. In 2007, the Archdiocese of St. Louis adopted a policy of non-support because of Komen’s ties to Planned Parenthood. Pro-life groups have called supposedly pro-life Congressmen on the carpet for supporting Komen's activities.

What’s also interesting about this is that Komen, in supporting Planned Parenthood, completely ignores the ongoing examination of the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. While the National Cancer Institute, in a 2003 study, concluded that there was no relationship between the two, this has by no means been universally accepted. The outstanding pro-life organization American Life League thinks the issue is still in doubt; the Polycarp Research Institute feels likewise. Komen may not want to talk about it, but the jury's still out.

You know, there’s an old saying about how when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. The fact is that nobody doing business with Planned Parenthood, no matter how good intentioned they might feel it is, escapes the taint of the evil that they do.

If a friend asks you to make a pledge for the Race for the Cure, tell them the history of Komen's association with Planned Parenthood. Most successful propaganda agencies depend on the work of useful idiots, and it's just possible your friend doesn't know about Komen's agenda. Be polite, but firm. They may not understand, but if you handle it right they'll probably respect you. They might even thank you.

If your favorite retailer dedicates a portion of their sales to support Komen, stop buying from them. But don't stop there - tell them why you're not buying from them. Retailers are just as susceptible to being fooled as individuals are. They also tend to get concerned when people stop buying their wares, especially when they find out why. And if they don't care about your concerns, tell them you don't care about their products. And that you'll tell your friends.

If you hear others discussing Komen, don't hesitate to point out the facts to them. I've just included a few of them here - a quick Google will give you more information than you could possibly ask for. Don't be surprised if they find what you have to say hard to believe, for the idea of an organization fighting breast cancer providing support to an abortion provider has no inherent logic to it. Maybe they'll listen to you and maybe they won't, but you can never go wrong standing up for the truth.

And that's the key to all this - standing up. Too many times we sit back and let others do all the standing, and they run right over us. Komen may not stand on the hilltops and shout the news of their association with Planned Parenthood, but they haven't made a secret of it either. And frankly I think there are a lot of good, decent people with their hearts in the right place who would be shocked and outraged to hear about it. You owe it to them to be a witness to the truth. Seek out the many breast cancer groups that don't give to Planned Parenthood, or other abortion providers, and support them. Let Komen know they can't play everyone for a fool. For God's sake, you can do no less.

It's ironic that Komen has chosen Mother’s Day as the focus of their activities; for, in supporting the work of Planned Parenthood, they are only seeing to it that fewer and fewer women will have reason to celebrate the day.


Cross-posted to Stella Borealis Catholic Roundtable

History As She Ain't

By Mitchell

Politics may be history, but a lot of it is also mythology, and the problem comes when you believe the myth without understanding the history.

Undoubtedly you've noticed the comparisons during this campaign between Obama and Robert F. Kennedy, the idea that Obama is the next Bobby. That puts liberals of a certain age (you know, the ones with grey hair and ponytails who still worship the 60s) into a contemplative moode, and pretty soon they're musing themselves about how things would have been different if Bobby hadn't been assassinated - the war in Vietnam (Bobby would have brought the troops home), race relations (Bobby was a uniter), Watergate (Bobby would have kept that Nixon from being elected). The assassination of RFK was kind of the political equivalent of the day the music died - at least, whatever music remained after the death of JFK. (Which, as we detailed here, was a far more significant cultural event.)

Yes, Robert F. Kennedy does make for quite a mythic figure. Trouble is, as is so often the case with myth, the facts don't quite bear it out. It's popular to think that Sirhan Sirhan's bullets prevented Kennedy's election - but, in fact, it was doubtful that RFK would have even won the Democratic nomination.

For evidence, check out this collection of clips from network coverage of the California primary. As you can see, the consensus in this contemporaneous coverage - all coming prior to Sirhan's fatal shots - was that Hubert Humphrey (the eventual winner) was still the front-runner, even with Kennedy's triumph in California, and that it was highly unlikely that Kennedy would be able to deny Humphrey the nomination.



Of course, we really don't know what would have happened in 1968, and it's unlikely we'll ever be able to figure it out. The political world of 1968 bears no resemblance to that of today - what with favorite sons, surrogate candidates, party bosses and the prospect of multiple ballots at the convention - and it's doubtful that we can even comprehend how things operated back then.

Which is why it's so important to go back to the original source. Never mind what the historians say, or the movie makers, or the conspiracy buffs, or anyone else. Go back and find out what they were saying at the time. Bobby's assassination was a tragic event, and there's no doubt it impacted history - but not quite the way people think.

Many of Obama's more avid supporters like to see him as a reincarnation of Bobby Kennedy. But Bobby Kennedy, had he lived, probably wouldn't have won the nomination, let alone the election. Is that really what Obama's people want to emulate?

Earth Day: a Celebration of Lenin's Philosophies

By Bobby

April 22 is the annual celebration of “Earth Day,” which has been celebrated since 1970, as a way the organisers believe would help be aware of “saving planet earth”. But the sinister goals of the organisers of Earth Day are intentionally hidden around the centennial of the birth of Soviet dictator Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known to the world as Lenin, and the philosophies of the Soviet Union that failed when Ronald Reagan successfully choked the CCCP into submission in 1991.

Sadly, children in schools today are taught to glorify the ideas of Lenin and not that of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Madison today.

The major teachings of Lenin that embodies the spirit of Earth Day mainly consist of government control of everything – and that includes property. By denying people the right to private property, the government can control what they can and cannot do. Such philosophy is adhered by environmentalists and the policies established against drilling for coal (the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument was established by the Clinton administration as a payoff to Chinese interests, banning resourceful Utah coal from being drilled), oil (witness their winning battle against drilling in ANWR), cutting forests to prevent forest fires caused by ignition of waste, and other crucial activities, as these policies established by the government are part of the idea that the government, not the people, control the land.

Environmental policies have created things such as the ban on DDT that has harmed developing countries, a ban on lightbulbs that do not contain mercury, as they “waste” energy, and now even banning mid-size to large cars, including banning the sport-utility vehicle, which are being replaced by small cars that “save energy” but have no safety.

People should remember today that “Earth Day” is the liberals' attempt to celebrate the idea of total government control, and that is something embraced through Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth lie, and also the “greenie weenie” policies of the 2007 Energy Act, and the land grabs frequently embraced by liberals to restrict the rights of people with their private property, in an attempt to have government control everything, similar to to the philosophy of Lenin, of whose birthday they celebrate today.

* * *

For more on the scam that liberals have made out of environmentalism, check out the "Planet Gore" blog at NRO.

This Just In

By Steve

Area Man Disappointed By "Jersey Boys" Four Seasons
"Those little punks sounded nothing like Vivaldi"

(MINNEAPOLIS, MN -- April 16) Local theater enthusiast Sherman Fedwick came away from the latest Broadway-touring production in Minneapolis a bit confused and more than a little disappointed.

"I hear Four Seasons and I think classical, cellos, violins, Vivaldi, you know, the whole nine yards," Fedwick was overheard remarking to a companion after emerging from the Orpheum Theater, where the popular musical was playing. "I pay big money and what do I hear? Four teenagers in t-shirts and jeans singing on a street corner about crying girls and walking like a man. And using four letter words, no less. What's up with that?"

Walters expressed hope that his next theater ticket for the upcoming production of “Mama Mia" will meet his expectations. "You can always bet on Italian opera to deliver the goods,” he said.

Thoughts on Liturgical Dance

By Bobby

Our Recovering Dissident Catholic had an interesting reflection on "worship dance," an issue I've had at our church for years. This issue is not Catholic vs Protestant, but it seems it's Catholics vs Emergents. In some churches, the choirs have been dumped for dancers. Catherine's thoughts were mine too.

They Said It

By Mitchell

"To treat elocution as a substitute for action, to rely on highsounding words unbacked by deeds is proof of a mind that dwells only in the realm of shadow and of shame."

Said by Theodore Roosevelt about Woodrow Wilson in 1915. But for a the use of a couple of anachronistic words, it could have been spoken today, don't you think? Perhaps even about, say, Senator Obama?

It never ceases to amaze how the more things change, the more they stay the same. If you're a student of history it's somewhat comforting to know that things are seldom as bad as they seem, because there's very little that we haven't already experienced before. (Of course, it's also true that some of those experiences didn't turn out very well.) It is depressing, however, to realize that for all that history, we don't ever seem to learn much from it.

Poetry Wednesday

By Judith

From time to time in Poetry Wednesday we've looked at the poems of T.S. Eliot. Here is something a little different: listening to the voice of Eliot himself, reading "The Burial of the Dead" from "The Waste Land":



It is always startling when we realize we can hear the actual voices of some of the great poets reciting their own work, isn't it?

Telling It Like It Is

By Drew

You remember that was the mantra of Howard Cosell - telling it like it is. (You do remember Howard Cosell, don't you? Or am I showing my age?)

At any rate, if you really want someone telling it like it is, check out Bernard Goldberg's comments as quoted by Richard Deitsch yesterday at SI.com. That's right - it's the same Bernard Goldberg that we know and love for books such as Bias, 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America, and Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right. Goldberg is known for turning the harsh light on the phonies in media, politics and culture, and now he'd like to turn it on the scandal known as "college athletics."

Not having HBO, I had no idea that Goldberg was a correspondent for their Real Sports series, hosted by Bryant Gumbel. (Talk about phonies - but that's another story for another day.) At any rate, Goldberg talks to Deitsch about ideas he has for future stories:

Goldberg says one of the future stories he'd like to tackle is the corruption of the university. "Not the corruption of college sports but the corruption of the university itself, accepting people into the college who really should not be accepted into the college," says Goldberg, who worked as a producer and reporter at CBS for 28 years. "When some of my colleagues bemoan the fact that so and so only played one year in college and then wet to the pros, I say he should not have gone to college at all.

"I interviewed Father (Theodore) Hesburgh of Notre Dame once and he had a very good line. I said, "What about the argument that these kids are better off at Notre Dame then they would be on a street corner in Newark or someplace? He said, "Let me tell you something: This is not a gymnasium. This is a university." And he's right. As a journalist I find it interesting how university presidents will sell their soul for a winning football team, how they will look the other way. And if we're lucky, they are just looking away. Otherwise, they know what is going on and they simply don't care."

Now that is telling it like it is. The corruption of college sports is nothing new, as anyone familiar with Wossamotta U can attest. But it's about time someone put this in the perspective of the larger scandal that is education in this country. Isn't it about time the government just got out of the education business for once and for all?

And before anyone complains, I know that many of the most corrupt universities out there are private institutions, albeit ones who receive government funding, at least in the form of scholarship aid. But, as Bishop Sheen once said, corruption - like the bubbles in a glass of beer - always travels from the bottom up.

Jack Handey Lives!

By Mitchell

It will come as no surprise to longtime readers of this site that Jack Handey's Deep Thoughts is a personal favorite. (For those of you unfamiliar with Deep Thoughts, a sample: "Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." Personal favorite: "If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy.")

Many have wondered if there is, in fact, a real Jack Handey, so it was fun to see this piece at CNN that not only confirms he is real, it includes an interview with him. His new book, "What I'd Say to the Martians and Other Veiled Threats," features musings such as "a pseudo history of a friendship between Al Capone and Albert Einstein." (Capone: 'With your brains and my muscle, we'll be unstoppable') Really, you can't pass something like that up.

Having admitted this appreciation of Jack Handey, you're bound to think this explains a lot about the somewhat bizarre nature of Our Word. And if you haven't figured that out, I don't know what more we can offer to convince you of it.

It's All in the Way You Play It

By Mitchell

It’s been a quiet week here at the blog, what with vacations, illness, work, busy schedules. So how about we end it with some music?

In my obit of Charlton Heston, I linked to Terry Teachout’s story about the memorial service for William F. Buckley Jr. Discussing the music that Buckley had chosen for the service (tip: always choose your funeral music yourself. Catholics who’ve been to bad funeral masses will understand what I mean), Terry mentioned the music used during communion, the Adagio in G Minor by Albinoni (which we now know was written by Remo Giazotto). He doesn’t think much of it – in fact, he called it “a preposterously operatic piece of spurious yard goods.”

I, on the other hand, rise to defend it. Someone once facetiously called it “the happiest piece of music ever written,” but don’t let that turn you off from it. True, it is what you might call a moody piece, but if you can’t appreciate that at a funeral, where can you? Anyway, I like it, and I don't apologize for it. So in searching for a clip to present to you in order to build my case, I came across these two. And in listening to them, it brought to mind a much more extensive conversation, one that becomes the true thrust of this piece.

It dates back to a comment I made at our sister blog Stella Boralis back in November of 2006. At the time we were discussing the orchestral masses that are a standard at St. Agnes church in St. Paul, and I offered the following opinion regarding the way in which that music was conducted by their director, Dr. Robert Petersen:

My concern is that Dr. Peterson mistakes "deliberate" for "solumn," with the result that the music's effect is becoming less and less representative of what the composer had in mind.

Take, for example, the Mozart and Haydn masses which are a principal part of the repetorie. There are a lot of people who don't think they like Mozart or Haydn - they think them too sentimental, too cloying. At least they think this until they hear the music performed as it was written - with a faster, almost joyful tempo. This is typical Hayden, typical Mozart, and it is also what is often missing from St. Agnes since Dr. Peterson assumed direction of the Chorale. You don't have to be a musicologist, or even a classical music buff, to detect the shortcomings in this approach to liturgical music. The slower tempo not only distorts the sound of the music, making it much more difficult for both singers and musicians to keep a steady line while performing, it also, I think, dilutes the liturgical impact of the music.

I made some other comments as well, but I think you can take from this that I was not particularly impressed with the way the music was being performed. Now, this can be a difficult concept to explain, which is what makes the two versions of the Albinoni (or Giazitto, if you prefer) so ideal for demonstration.

Our first version features Herbert von Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic. It runs approximately ten minutes. Take a listen.



Now here's the second version, by the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra (performing, as always, without conductor). It lasts just a shade over seven minutes:



Do the differences leap out at you? For starters, Karajan's version lasts about three minutes more than that of the Orpheus, a substantial diffrerence in relatively brief piece. And Karajan is working with the Berlin Philharmonic rather than a much smaller chamber group, so his sound is going to be bigger and more lush. But what does this mean?

Karajan was unquestionably one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century, but he had the reputation for frequently producing a sound that was "calculatedly polished." In the words of critic Harvey Sachs, "Karajan seemed to have opted instead for an all-purpose, highly refined, lacquered, calculatedly voluptuous sound." A review by the Penguin Guide to Compact Discs of Karajan conducting a Haydn piece underscores the point. “It goes without saying that the quality of the orchestral playing is superb. However, these are heavy-handed accounts, closer to Imperial Berlin than to Paris ... the Minuets are very slow indeed ... These performances are too charmless and wanting in grace to be whole-heartedly recommended."

Listen again to each piece, particularly one section. It starts around 7:50 on the Karajan version. Did you notice this originally when listening to the two performances. Notice how deliberate this. Lush, rich, yes - but very, very slow.

This same section comes around six minutes into the Orpheus rendition. See how tightly orchestrated it is in this performance? The tightness creates an atmospheric tension that, I think, adds to its effectiveness. It stabs you, stings the heart, rather than the soothing balm that comes from Karajan.

So ask yourself what Karajan's pacing added to the performance. Did it make it more solumn, more imposing, more stately? Or did it simply make it slower and less effective in its emotional impact? I suppose in part it depends on why you come to this music: do you want the music to be sentimental and emotional, or are you looking to be challenged, even attacked, by the composer?

There probably isn't any truly correct answer to this question unless you're able to look at the original intent of the composer. The Orpheus version, based on what I've heard over the years, seems to be the most typical way this is performed; Karajan's deliberate rendition is more of an anamoly. Does this mean that the faster tempo is closer to the mind of the composer, whoever it was? Truth be told, I actually like the heaviness of Karajan's version the more I listen to it. But I still don't think it's as effective - it is more cloying, more manipulative, less honest.

And so I stick by my original comments regarding the importance of tempo. Just as bigger is not necessarily better, slower is not necessarily more stately, nor more solumn. The conductor Benjamin Zander once said that Beethoven wrote music that was meant to attack the audience, but that most contemporary conductors no longer presented him that way. In a sense, the lion had been turned into a pussycat. Beethoven, with that great mane of hair, would not have appreciated that. I don't think most composers would. And it's something that the conductor needs to keep in mind, whether you're in a concert hall in Berlin or the choir loft of a church.

It's also something to keep in mind, and to listen for, when you're sitting in the audience (or the congregation, if you will). Let classical music come to you, and attack you. By being an active listener, by interacting with the music, you also let it enter you. And if you let it, it will change your life.

Wish I'd Written That

By Drew

"It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them! . . . You tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher. You've gotta tell them! Soylent Green is people! We've gotta stop them somehow!"

Stanley Greenberg, script for Soylent Green, delivered by Charlton Heston

(Apropos for Cathy's comments below)

Charlton Heston, R.I.P.

By Mitchell

Our loyal reader Cathy of Alex mentioned the other day that it sometimes seems this site should be renamed " Requiescat in Pace" based on all the obits we do. I wondered about that earlier myself, and in a very imperfect way speculated on why this might be.

Of course, leave it to a professional writer to boil it down to a few words that explain it all. In his piece on the memorial service for William F. Buckley Jr., Terry Teachout summarized it thus: "Somehow you never imagine outliving the people who show you through the doors that lead to the rest of your life." And I thought to myself: "That's it."

In their own way, the obituaries we write tell our stories as much as they do those of the deceased. For when they die we feel the need to reflect on the particular role they played in our lives. Under the influence of the world they open to us they help shape us, form our preferences, our tastes, our mannerisms. They become the people we admire, or decry, or want to emulate. We want to get the girl like Cary Grant did, we want to save the day just like John Wayne; we want to be Mickey Mantle hitting the game-winning homer, or we want to be the pitcher that strikes him out. We want to be like them, we want to convert them, we want to best them. And when they die, something more than a little piece of yourself dies with them; it's a piece of the world they helped to create.

Charlton Heston created a larger-than-life world, and it's no wonder: he parted the Red Sea, won a chariot race for the ages, discovered the secret of the Planet of the Apes, baptized Christ, rescued a circus from bankruptcy, died trying to save Ava Gardner from an earthquake that devastated Los Angeles, and warned everyone that Soylent Green was people. And that was just for starters. Charlton Heston came from an era in which epics required more than acting in front of a blue screen, when battle scenes were created not on computers but instead on massive, detailed sets with featured thousands of flesh-and-blood extras.

There were those who scoffed when he won an Oscar for Ben-Hur, and he probably would have been the first to agree that there were more gifted actors out there. (Jimmy Stewart, for instance, was nominated for Anatomy of a Murder that same year.) That underestimates the effect Heston had on a movie. Look at Ben-Hur for example - there's an epic sea battle in the first half that would have been the centerpiece of most movies; in this story, remembered as it was for the chariot race, it was just another scene. Movies like this require more than just acting - they need someone who can hold the story together, who can keep the pieces of such an epic from spiraling out of control. It was Heston's presence, his voice, the power that radiated from his person, that helped to hold these movies together.

Not every movie he made was an epic, and that was part of his appeal. Nobody would think of Planet of the Apes or Soylent Green as great art, but they were great fun. Heston could chew the scenery with the best of them, and these movies contained some of his greatest lines. In making Earthquake and Airport 75 and the TV series The Colbys (the Dynasty spinoff) Heston demonstrated that not everything had to have a message, or be weighed down with gravitas. Actors were allowed to make popular movies back then (or at least movies that paid well), not just prestige "films." They were even allowed to make fun of their own images, as Heston did often. It's a lesson more actors ought to follow today. The industry might find itself in better financial shape if they did.

There was more to Charlton Heston than acting, of course. He was a longtime fighter for civil rights who walked the walk with the marchers. He headed the Screen Actors Guild and the National Rifle Association (talk about two extremes), and did both with power and style. He watched the Democratic Party betray the beliefs he had grown up with, and joined the Republicans - as did another actor who felt abandoned by the Democrats, Ronald Reagan. There was never a battle from which he backed down, and he more than held his own with the best (and worst) of them.

In later years he checked into rehab out of concern that he might be developing an alcohol problem, but in all likelihood it was instead the onset of Alzheimer's, the disease that also claimed his friend and political ally Ronald Reagan. It was a curious, but somehow appropriate coincidence that he died one day after the public memorial service for Bill Buckley, for whose National Review he had done so many commercials throughout the years.

It's very easy, when someone dies, to say that "they don't make 'em like that anymore." We probably say that too often, about too many people whose accomplishments are anything but unique. But Charlton Heston was a man who took on those epic roles and pulled them off, and was as large on screen as he was humble off it. His was a life well-lived, both in movies and in real life.

They don't make 'em like that anymore.

Memories of a Childhood Movie

By Kristin

Once every few months, I venture to a video store in hopes of updating my ever-growing movie collection. I browse the new releases, usually passing them over to look at old-new releases that have been marked down to move out inventory. I’ll look for a comedy, adventure, no horror. The genre that I save for last and look forward to most are the children’s movies. I see the new films for preschoolers and movies for the teeny-boppers. What I look for most are films from my childhood; movies that I remember watching on tapes recorded from TV. Last week I happened upon one of those great childhood epics, Muppet Treasure Island. I wasted not time adding it to the pile.

Much to my delight, my roommate also had a great fondness for the Disney take on a classic adventure story. Deciding it was worth sacrificing a night with Wolf Blitzer, we popped in the DVD. In no time, the images came flooding back. Songs, dialogue and jokes seemed as familiar as if we had just watched it earlier that day. Katie and I began to sing along to the opening number not only remembering lyrics, but vocal inflections and facial expressions. Lines that I could not remember, or remembered incorrectly, Katie effortlessly filled in. We began to laugh at scenes that had not yet played out. With tears in our eyes from laughing we watched the movie on the edge of our seats, anticipating the next old-new moment for us.

The movie ended and we talked about our experience down memory lane. The movie was by no means as scary as I remembered. The plot was much less complicated. The struggle between good and evil seemed a little less epic. And, it was definitely not as long as I remembered. Despite this, Katie and I could not have been happier. For the next few days, we quoted songs and lines from the movie laughing harder each time we recited them, the best being a response to the ship’s roll call by one of the Muppets, Clueless Morgan: Huh?

Over the next few days I talked with other friends about my rediscovery and found similar stories from them. Movies taped off television recently released on DVD. One remembered so vividly her favorite film that she could remember the exact spots where commercials had interrupted the story. He was caught off guard when the movie continued uninterrupted with ads from Cabbage Patch Kids or My Buddy. Another friend was delighted when she realized her bootlegged copy omitted several key scenes that as a child were not missed, but as an adult, finally cleared up a confusing story. We found surprising similarities in the movies that we remembered having previously thought them to be our own secret treasures.

What is the point of my story down memory lane? My motivation is to simply share an experience that will spark thoughts of your own childhood memories. Weather it be a book or movie, a record or song I welcome the feelings of excitement and wonder, as I feel, because these are an invaluable tool to bring us back to a simpler time, when all it took to make us laugh was a funny looking puppet with a pirate hat and a funny accent. In conclusion, if you have not seen this movie, come find me, and I will lend you my copy.

Racing Towards Gomorrah

By Mitchell

As you're probably aware, in the world of motor sports we at Our Word (meaning mostly me, but we choose to use the editorial form of the noun anyway) tend to favor racing of the open-wheeled kind, especially Formula 1.

So it should come as no surprise that we were unable to pass up this story regarding F1 president Max Mosley - which, gospel truth, has not been made up. The headline alone is marvelous: "F1 boss Max Mosley has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers. Son of fascist Hitler lover in sex shame." (Do the British know how to write headlines, or what?)

The son of infamous British wartime fascist leader Oswald Mosley is filmed romping with five hookers at a depraved NAZI-STYLE orgy in a torture dungeon. Mosley— a friend to F1 big names like Bernie Ecclestone and Lewis Hamilton— barks ORDERS in GERMAN as he lashes girls wearing mock DEATH CAMP uniforms and enjoys being whipped until he BLEEDS.

At one point the wrinkled 67-year-old—who publicly likes to give the impression he has put his father's evil legacy behind him—yells "she needs more of ze punishment!" while brandishing a LEATHER STRAP over a brunette's naked bottom.

Then the lashes rain down as Mosley counts them out in German: "Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier! Fünf! Sechs!.."

The story goes on from there. But wait - it gets better, as NRO's Mark Hemingway points out:

Oswald Mosely, founder of the British Fascists Union, was the model for Roderick Spode, a.k.a Lord Sidcup, the loutish leader of the fascist "Black Shorts" in [P.G. Wodehose's] Jeeves and Wooster series. [Since the Nazis were the Black Shirts and the Facists the Brown Shirts, the only thing left to this group were Black Shorts.] Wodehose described him thusly: "as if Nature had intended to make a gorilla, and had changed its mind at the last moment." No doubt if Wodehouse were still alive, he would be amused and unsurprised by his son's public humiliation — particularly since in the books Spode is revealed [spoiler warning] to be ashamed of his secretive double life as a famed designer of ladies lingerie.

Hemingway also mentions that Oswald [pictured at right] "is the 'Oswald' from the lyrics to Elvis Costello's song 'Less Than Zero' off of [the album] My Aim is True." And that's not all. Jonah Goldberg adds that Oswald Mosely also appears in the Superman title Superman: War of the Worlds, and was married to Diana Mitford, one of the famous Mitford sisters. The most famous of those sisters, Jessica (author of The American Way of Death) was a committed Communist who married fellow traveller Robert Treuhaft, a California lawyer who counted among his interns - Hillary Clinton.

You could not make this up even if you tried. You'd be laughed right out of town. The whole thing would be funny if it weren't so grotesque, and even at that it's hard to keep a straight face reading it.

Bernie Ecclestone, the corrupt F1 chief executive, says Mosley's job is not in jeopardy. Needless to say, Jewish leaders aren't particularly thrilled about the whole thing. " 'This is sick and depraved,' Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said, according to Times Online. ' ... I am absolutely appalled.' "

After all this, it would seem that there are no more words to say, but leave it to Mark Steyn to come up with the final thought: "Say what you like but this week's Governor of New York has got his work cut out topping that."

Picture Credit: Two disgruntled fans holding a "Blame Mosley" banner at the 2005 US Grand Prix. Photograph taken by Dan Smith.

The UN Goes to the Movies

By Mitchell

This is no April Fool's joke: back in the mid 1960s, the United Nations was involved in a effort to produce a series of made-for-TV movies promoting their work. How effective was it? Well, ask yourself if you've ever heard of it - if you haven't, that should tell you just successful it was.

You can read all about this little-known piece of TV and political history in my latest article over at the terrific TVParty! (And I don't say that just because they've published a couple of my pieces - Billy Ingram really runs a wonderful site. After all, I'm there, right?)

A Reflection on Churches and Schools

By Bobby

In reflecting on comments from Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes, I wonder if schools' decision to follow the postmodernism influenced by John Dewey has caused a decline in musical standards in our society.

If the schools are not teaching children music abilities, the church should be feeding children with a steady diet of sacred music from centuries ago and teaching it to them. It is time the OCP/GIA (Catholic church music's major issue is with both Oregon Catholic Press and GIA) or the major secular music publishers' control of church music departments end. We do not need to have church teach children to jiggle to the latest pop tunes they hear off the local hip-hop, r&b, or pop radio station in the hallowed sanctuary of a church; rather, they need to learn to sing the great songs of faith.

Mr. Starnes, a Protestant, wrote on his Blogspot page, "There's a new generation of young people who will not be exposed to the great hymns of our faith --- who will never know the joys of Royal Ambassadors or Bible Drills."

The truth sadly is a generation which does not know the sacred masterpieces, both Catholic and Protestant, is being developed because of the major secular labels, Oregon Catholic Press, or GIA Music. It is time the church be willing to take charge of teaching youth music, and teaching the fundamentals of wonderful sacred song, from the pipe organ to choral masterpieces, not the karaoke pop that dominates today.

Reading the Wires

By Bobby

In the wake of auto racing's new open-wheel unified series following the IRL-Champ Car merger, IRL Ministry.com, a charity of the League, discusses open-wheel reunification as an analogy with unity in the Bible.

According to the IRL site, there will be three religious services on race day (Saturday):

9 AM - Chapel services (Grand-Am Road Racing and Indy Lights)
4 PM - Chapel services (IRL)
4:30 PM - Mass

Mass will be held just before the drivers' meeting.

In related IRL news, as per recommendation of Rusty Wallace after the tragic 2006 practice session at Homestead, FL (site of the season opening race) in which IRL rookie Paul Dana was killed, there is no race-day practice before any IRL race, just like Indianapolis. The last practice will be held before qualifying, which will be a 4-lap format.

Wallace, who was the ESPN IRL analyst in 2006, criticises the idea of race-day practice, being a short-track racer who believes if you have two days of practice and a one-engine rule, race-day practice isn't needed.

"They used to have morning practice sessions because teams used to change engines all the time; and when you put a new motor in the car, the driver wants to try it out and make sure everything is fine. But now with the one-engine rule (they don't change engines) they don't need to have it."

Bruce Martin previews the upcoming season, which begins tomorrow night at Homestead, here.

Wish I'd Written That

By Drew

"You American haters bore me to tears, Ms. Barham. I've dealt with Europeans all my life. I know all about us parvenus from the States who come over here and race around your old Cathedral towns with our cameras and Coca-Cola bottles... Brawl in your pubs, paw at your women, and act like we own the world. We over-tip, we talk too loud, we think we can buy anything with a Hershey bar. I've had Germans and Italians tell me how politically ingenuous we are, and perhaps so. But we haven't managed a Hitler or a Mussolini yet. I've had Frenchmen call me a savage because I only took half an hour for lunch. Hell, Ms. Barham, the only reason the French take two hours for lunch is because the service in their restaurants is lousy. The most tedious lot are you British. We crass Americans didn't introduce war into your little island. This war, Ms. Barham to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of 2,000 years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don't blame it on our Coca-Cola bottles. Europe was a growing brothel long before we came to town."

Paddy Chayefsky, screenplay for The Americanization of Emily (Spoken by James Garner)

Separated at Birth

By Drew

Regarding Eliot Spitzer, the most common opinion expressed seemed to be that he’d gotten what was coming to him. The second most common was generally an expression of great satisfaction. And as the stories began to accumulate, there truly did seem to be a sense that “time wounds all heels.” Or perhaps it was “what goes around comes around.” For a collapse as spectacular as Spitzer’s, there are endless clichés available for use.

In that sense, there is much to be said in comparing Spitzer’s fall to that of a diva from the opera world. Kathleen Battle, who appears at Orchestra Hall in Minneapolis this weekend, was – as one critic put it – the “chief wacko” in classical music. (And that’s saying a lot for a medium as eccentric as the classical field.) Nobody ever doubted Kathleen Battle’s talent, just as nobody doubted that she epitomized the phrase prima donna in the worst possible way.

The stories of Battle’s tantrums are legendary in the music field – the most famous perhaps being the time she called her agent from the back seat of a limo in which she was riding to have him call the limo company and have them tell her driver to turn the air conditioner down (an act which was apparently far beneath her, considering it would require her to possibly tap on the glass partition separating the two). On the other hand, it could have been the time in Boston when she phoned the management of the Boston Symphony to complain that the Ritz-Carlton hotel’s staff had put peas in her pasta. Possibly it might have been her frequent demands that those working with her not look at her. It’s really hard to say for sure.

Battle was an equal-opportunity diva, however – she was known to berate stagehands, conductors, musicians, and fellow singers with an even-handed abusiveness. As Time once wrote, she left a trail of ill will in her wake wherever she went, and it was only her talent that saved her – and her popularity with a public who saw only her marvelous presence on stage, and not the fireworks behind the scenes.

Eventually, of course, this kind of behavior caught up with her. In 1994, following a blow-up during preparation for a production of La Fille du Régiment at the Metropolitan Opera, the Met’s general manager, Joseph Volpe, fired her. He did this despite the opposition of artistic director James Levine, who had long been a champion of Battle despite her erratic behavior. Volpe later admitted that perhaps he had done it at least partly out of a need to show everyone who was boss, but regardless of the reason, he pulled the trigger and summarily dismissed her from the Met.

Volpe’s move was greeted with a reaction strikingly familiar to that which met Spitzer’s downfall. Directors of other opera companies publicly (and loudly) supported his action. The cast of La Fille burst into applause upon hearing the news, as did the office staff of her management company. Battle complained that she’d never been warned her behavior was causing a problem, which sounds just a tad disingenuous, unless it was that she simply couldn’t have been bothered to listen to anyone who tried to talk to her. Considering that she wouldn’t let people look at her, out of sight, out of mind, eh?

Today Kathleen Battle continues to be a big name in the music business, as is witnessed by her recital in Minneapolis this weekend. But she has not sung for an opera company since her dismissal by the Met; her last Grammy wins were a decade ago; and her recitals are frequently one-time deals with orchestras who do not ask her back. Even her partnership with Levine is said to have finally disintegrated, her antics apparently becoming too much even for him. To this day classical insiders speculate seriously on her sanity.

Of course, people thought Eliot Spitzer was crazy as well, as in, “he must have been crazy to throw it all away.” Well, that’s something that crazy people – either clinically or merely informally – do tend to do. Witness Kathleen Battle, for example. But she still knows how to wow an audience, and her presence on the stage can still sell tickets. That, at least, is one area in which she has the upper hand on Eliot Spitzer, who I doubt will be selling any tickets for anything for quite some time.

This Just In

By Steve

Tiger Woods Loses Golf Tournament to Some Guy

(FLORIDA, March 24) - Tiger Woods, arguably the greatest golfer in the history of the sport, shot a closing round one-under 71 to finish three shots behind some guy in a professional golf tournament at some Florida golf resort yesterday.

Woods, who finished at -13, wound up in fifth place, behind the winner and three other guys, all of whom nobody had ever heard of. Two of them were said to be from foreign countries, and one was left-handed.

(Left) Tiger Woods watches in dismay as some guy finishes ahead of him.

For Woods, who was going for a sixth consecutive tournament victory, the disappointment was obvious, though he displayed his customary graciousness in a post-tournament interview.

“I’d like to congratulate what-his-name on his victory today,” said Woods, flashing a brief smile. “Obviously whoever he is, he played a good round on a tough course. Although I don’t know how good you can say this course really is, seeing as how my tee shots kept going in the rough. The photographers kept taking my picture, and the back nine was laid out in a really awkward way, with all that sand and water getting in the way. And I think they moved the holes on me just before I teed off. But you still have to take your hat off to him. It’s nice to see other guys get a chance out here once in a while.”

NBC analyst Johnny Miller said that he was at a loss to explain Woods’ defeat. “I mean, it’s something that none of us really prepare for,” Miller said after the telecast, which concluded when Woods finished up on the 18th hole. “To ask me to be ready to analyze something like this is really asking too much, even for me, the world’s greatest golf announcer.”

NBC made a brief announcement at the end of the broadcast that anyone who might possibly care could probably find out who the winner was sometime later on the Golf Channel.

Woods said his next tournament would be The Masters in April, leaving the PGA Tour to be dominated by an assortment of no-names for the next four weeks, probably including more foreigners and Southerners with three names.

Paul Scofield, R.I.P.

By Mitchell

It does seem as if we spend much of our time writing obituaries, doesn't it? Today it is for Paul Scofield, the marvelous Oscar-winning actor who died of leukemia at 86. We wrote about his signature movie, A Man For All Seasons, last year. a movie well worth meditating on at this time of the year. It's a nice reminder for these secular times that there have always been those for whom faith was important enough that they were willing to risk their lives for it.

Scofield was dominating in A Man For All Seasons, just as he was dignified as the moral conscience in Quiz Show, for which he received another Oscar nomination. He was rarely seen on television, but was one of the stars (along with Peter Finch and Michael Caine) of the 1969 TV drama Male of the Species. He was a man who apparently put great stock in family, who did not let his professional life overwhelm his personal, who took pride in what he did and in the quality of it. In short, a gentleman. They don't seem to make 'em much like that anymore, do they?

In writing about Arthur C. Clarke earlier this week, NRO's John Derbyshire mentioned one of Clarke's famed short stories, The Nine Billion Names of God. And indeed one can't help but think of the final image at the end of that story, of the stars in the sky slowly winking out. Another obituary is written, a way of life increasingly passes away, and we wonder what will provide the light to fill the increasing darkness.

Ivan Dixon, R.I.P.

By Mitchell

You always had the feeling that if something had gone wrong with the espionage group at Stalag 13, that if Colonel Hogan himself were ever in trouble, Kinch would have been the one to step in and take charge. He was the most serious and the most loyal of Hogan’s subordinates, rarely questioning even the most outrageous of Hogan’s schemes, and usually the first one to ask “how are we going to do it” when the rest of them were saying it couldn’t be done. He (along with Hogan himself) was the oasis of sanity in that delightfully insane lot, and the one real regret of Hogan’s Heroes was that Ivan Dixon, alone among the original cast, didn’t stick around to the end. That last season just wasn’t the same without him. And so it was good to hear from his daughter that “he had no mixed feelings about being recognized” for his years on the show.

There was a lot more to Ivan Dixon than playing a POW, of course. For example, I remember his performance in a 1967 television play called “The Final War of Olly Winter." I didn’t really understand the play, which dealt with the struggles of a black soldier during the Vietnam war, but it was the first time I’d seen him in anything other than Hogan, and even a precocious seven-year-old could tell he was good. (So could his not-so-precocious peers, who nominated him for an Emmy for his performance.) Not as funny in that role, though…

You might have wondered what happened to Ivan Dixon after that, as he seldom appeared in front of the camera. He had a terrific career behind it though, and if you paid attention to the credits you’d have noticed his name on the hundreds of episodes he directed of shows such as Magnum, P.I. and The Rockford Files.

Back in another life, when I was hosting my “Richfield Republicans on TV” cable access show, I did a bit spoofing the then-hot rumor that the soundtrack of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” was synched up to “The Wizard of Oz.” I suggested that we do the same thing with C-SPAN and Hogan’s Heroes. And when it came to Kinch, I remarked that he was probably the best actor in the show who people didn’t notice. (I compared him to Alan Keyes, as I recall, who was the best speaker in politics who people didn’t pay any attention to.)

In reality, though, it was hard not to notice the quiet dignity and class that Ivan Dixon brought to his profession. He died today at 76, and he will be missed. It’s funny that we've been talking a lot about Hogan recently on this site, and now we're talking about it again. It's only Robert Clary and Richard Dawson from that original cast now, and it just goes to remind us once again how quickly the years seem to pass by. Enjoy them while you can – and there are far worse ways to enjoy life than by watching an episode of Hogan’s Heroes, where Ivan Dixon, as well as the rest of us, will always be young.

Random Notes

By Mitchell

• Arthur C. Clarke, the great science-fiction author, died this morning. His short story "The Sentinel" was made into one of the great sci-fi movies of all time, 2001. Yes, I know there are those who always downgrade 2001, but for me it remains a landmark in how to use the imagry of film. It was incomprehensible yet brilliant, which may owe more to Stanley Kubrick than to Clarke. Nonetheless, I have a great fondness toward that movie, and perforce a respect for its progenitor, whose passing deserves notice.

• Speaking of death and movies, the director Anthony Minghella died yesterday. I didn't have strong enough opinions on Minghella to do a full-blown obit on him, but he first come to my attention for his work on the great British police drama Inspector Morse in the 80s and 90s. His most famous movie, of course, was the Oscar-winning The English Patient, which I've never been able to rouse myself to watch. A couple of years ago, to great fanfare and mixed reviews, he directed a production of the opera Madama Butterfly, which caused quite the sensation when it debued at the Met last season. From what I understand, it was far from the definitive reading of the opera; still, he appreciated the visual possibilities of opera, and I suppose we should be grateful anytime you can generate a positive buzz in the opera world. I understand there was the possibility he was going to work on another production, and it's a shame we won't get to see where he might have gone in this medium. RIP.

• Over at NRO, Kevin Williamson offers what I think is one of the finest definitions of conservatism: a consciousness of things lost. There's more to it than that, but I think that is an integral part of the philosophy - or, at least, of mine.

• Also at NRO, John Derbyshire sums up my feelings - and, I suspect, the feelings of a growing number of people: "I'm starting to really dislike Obama." I do not, however, share the opinions of several conservative pundits, who think that Obama's chances are toast. I'm much more of a believer in the school articulated by David Hannum.

“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