Not a Deal, Only a Delay

When I first heard that a deal had been struck that would protect the filibuster, confirm a few Bush nominees, and leave others in limbo, I was deeply suspicious. Upon further thought, I have tentatively concluded (I reserve the right to completely change my mind at any time; call it the Kerry Caveat) that the deal isn't so bad after all, so long as the Republicans actually enforce it. I fully expect the Democrats--who have grown quite adept at painting any conservative judicial nominee as Attila the Hun reborn--to renege on their end of the deal by interpreting "extraordinary" to mean any judicial nominee who is to the right of Ted Kennedy. Once that happens (the pressure brought to bear on Senate Democrats by the leftwing interest groups will be immense), as I understand the arrangement, the Republicans will be justified in seeking the end of the filibuster for juidical nominees. Whether they have the will to do so has never been less clear. There is some rather artful ambiguity on this point, which was probably deliberate, given that we are talking about politicians here. As things stand now, both sides have an escape route.

In the final analysis, this deal must be judged by its effectiveness in ensuring that President Bush's Supreme Court nominees (assuming there will be vacancies this summer) will be confirmed, which is what this entire standoff has really been about anyway. If Bush nominates an even remotely conservative judge, I expect the Democrats to play their part to perfection. Reid will have an attack of the vapors, Byrd will wax eloquent on the foundations of the Roman Republic, Schumer will lament that the President has not rewarded the Democrats' good faith, and Kennedy will blather on about how this nominee is the most extreme, dangerous nominee he's ever seen, blah blah blah. Again, it will be up to the Republicans to enforce this agreement; the Democrats cannot be relied upon.

Contrary to the breathless boasts of the 14 senators who saved Western civilization as we know it, this deal does not avert the coming clash; it only postpones it.

The DNC's New Chairman

The irascible Howard Dean is at it again. Recently, he told a Houston crowd that House Republican leader Tom Delay should "go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers." Never mind that Delay has not been convicted of anything, much less charged. But Dean is also infamous for another quote, in which he urged Americans not to "prejudge" Osama bin Laden's guilt, and that he should first be tried in a court of law. So it's okay to prejudge Republicans, but not terrorists. Tim Russert nailed Dean today on this, among other things.

But sadly, Dean is only all-too-representative of his party, which increasingly views the Republican Party as a greater threat to America than are bin Laden and his minions. While Dean's remarks may warm the hearts of the rabid Democratic faithful, I doubt it will win any converts to the Democratic side. As long as the Democrats use harsher language to describe their domestic political opponents than they use to describe our nation's foreign enemies, they will struggle to gain the electorate's trust on national security.

A Little Perspective

Amid all the Newsweek bashing going on in conservative circles these days (which is, of course, entirely warranted), we should be careful not to lose sight of a far deeper problem than media bias and low journalistism standards: A significant portion of the Muslim world is willing to riot and kill over one rumor printed in one magazine half a world away. The religion of peace seems awfully touchy, as Mark Steyn notes:

It's hardly Newsweek's fault that some goofy foreigners are so bananas they'll riot and kill over one rumor of one disrespectful act to one copy of one book. Christians don't riot over ''Piss Christ'' and other provocations by incontinent ''artists.'' Jews take it in their stride when they're described as ''a virus resembling AIDS,'' which is what Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris said a week ago in his sermon on Palestinian state TV, funded by the European Union. Muslims can dish it out big-time, so why can't they take it, even the teensy-weensiest bit?

Good question. But what is even more disturbing is the lengths that some American secularists will go to try to equate Islamic fundamentalists (the kind who execute homosexuals and, when Jerry Falwell calls Islam a violent religion, respond by going on murderous rampages; maybe Falwell was on to something) with conservative Christians, who support such nefarious ideas as traditional marriage and boob-free Super Bowl halftime shows. Many on the Left refer to conservative Christians as the "American Taliban," and that America is threatened by religious fundamentalism of all kinds, not just Islam.

This argument, such as it is, would be easier to take seriously if those who deride Christians as home-grown Osamas were not constantly bending over backwards trying to make excuses for the real Osamas in the Muslim world. When Salman Rushdie published his novel The Satanic Verses, which posited that it might not have been God who was instilling such fervor in Muhammed, the Islamic world erupted in rage. The Iranian government called for Rushdie's assassination, and the author was forced to go into hiding. Contrast this reaction with the Christian reaction to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Both novels have been regarded as blasphemous, but while Rushdie was forced into hiding, Brown is on talk shows every other week. Christians hold educational seminars on how to best refute Brown's book, while those peaceful Muslims talk of beheadings.

And yet many leftists still insist that there is little substantive difference between the two religions. If we are to take their arguments at face value, we are left with only two possibilities, both of which are quite revealing: Either they regard Muslim terrorists as mere annoyances, roughly on par with Christians who call the FEC with indecency complaints; or they view pro-life Christians as great a threat to America as are the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans in one day, and who are constantly plotting to kill thousands more. I'm not sure which is more disturbing.

P.S.--By the way, my previous post on the Newsweek debacle provoked a liberal friend of mine to post a few comments, which was the start of the first-ever debate on this blog. You can find the mini-debate here.

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

It is not often that I go into a theater with high expectations and come out with those expectations not only met, but blown away.

But that's exactly what happened in the wee hours of the morning as I forsook all mandates of sleep and common sense and attended the midnight premiere of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Simply put, it is the overall best Star Wars movie ever. Oh yes, I said ever. More thrilling than A New Hope, more emotionally engaging than The Empire Strikes Back, more satisfying than Return of the Jedi, and better written and acted than the first two prequels, Revenge of the Sith is the film by which all other Star Wars episodes must now be judged.

Bold words, I know. Even now the Jedi faithful are probably drawing their plastic lightsabers and moving in to silence this heretic in their midst. A few days ago, if I had walked up to the assembled throngs of costume-clad fans standing vigil at the ticket line and loudly proclaimed my belief that one of the much-maligned prequels would go down in history as better than the original trilogy, they would have looked at me as if I had just spit on Yoda's grave. But once Revenge of the Sith is watched and rewatched, and once its merits are endlessly debated in Star Wars chat rooms for years to come, I believe it will gain acceptance among fans and critics alike as the best of the entire series, supplanting even the current consensus favorite, Empire. Remember, you heard it hear first.

I won't delve too deeply into the plot, partly because it is already well-known (anyone going into the theater wondering what will ultimately happen to Anakin probably also went into the theater wondering what would happen to the Titanic), but mostly because the true greatness of the film lies not in its plot (although it is quite good), but in its pervasive, haunting tone and unexpectedly profound emotional depth. Anakin (Hayden Christensen) does not dive whole-heartedly into the dark side, instead, he is subtly and cunningly enticed by the manipulative Emperor (Ian McDiarmid, in a particularly strong showing), who positively oozes evil.

The most powerful and tragic relationship in the movie is between Anakin and Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor, who may actually be the film's star). In Attack of the Clones, theirs was a strict, hierchal relationship; here, they are comrades whose close bond has been forged in the horrors of war. When Anakin's betrayal of the Jedi is complete, and as he and Obi-Wan battle in a spectacular, epic lightsaber duel on a hellish nightmare of a world, in one final desperate appeal Obi-Wan cries out to his corrupted friend, "I loved you, Anakin; you were a brother to me!" By adding to Anakin's already immeasurable loss, it is the film's most powerful and emotional moment, and it adds another layer of depth to the rivalry between Vader and Obi-Wan in the original trilogy.

Revenge of the Sith is by far the darkest, most brooding entry in the series. It stands in stark contrast to the other five films, which seemed to be marketed almost entirely to young children. The scene in which Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) and a band of Jedi come to arrest the Emperor is particularly creepy, even disturbing. The underlying darkness, that delicious, ubiquitous sense of foreboding, permeates the film from beginning to end. And yet, even though we already know the outcome, we are still gripped in suspense as Anakin fulfills his destiny, one painful, tragic step at a time.

The writing of Episode III is much improved over the earlier prequels, although some movie critics still sniffily deride the dialogue as an affront to the English language, as if the the critically-acclaimed original trilogy was penned by Shakespeare. This is Star Wars, for goodness sake, not Casablanca. The story takes precedence here, enhanced by truly wondrous special effects.

And what a story it is.

This Just In...

The French are hard to like.

Language, history, cooking and support for rival football teams still divide Europe. But when everything else fails, one glue binds the continent together: hatred of the French.

Typically, the French refuse to accept what arrogant, overbearing monsters they are. But now after the publication of a survey of their neighbours' opinions of them at least they no longer have any excuse for not knowing how unpopular they are.

For the Germans, the French are "pretentious, offhand and frivolous". The Dutch describe them as "agitated, talkative and shallow." The Spanish see them as "cold, distant, vain and impolite" and the Portuguese as "preaching". In Italy they comes across as "snobs, arrogant, flesh-loving, righteous and self-obsessed" and the Greeks find them "not very with it, egocentric bons vivants".

Interestingly, the Swedes consider them "disobedient, immoral, disorganised, neo-colonialist and dirty".

But the knockout punch to French pride came in the way the poll was conducted. People were not asked what they hated in the French, just what they thought of them.

Wow...you know it's bad when even the famously libertine Swedes are calling you "immoral."

Pro-Saddam MP Denies Being Compensated for His Services

British MP George Galloway--the rabidly left-wing polemicist who once visited Saddam Hussein and praised him for his "courage, strength, and indefatigability," and who called on Arabs to attack British troops during the Iraq war--was in Washington today, defending himself against charges from a US Senate committee that he accepted bribes from Saddam through the notoriously corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program. Galloway was his typical combative self, and vigorously denied that he accepted any bribes from Iraq, which begs the question: Which is worse, getting paid to be an apologist for Saddam, or doing it for free?

Required Reading

The incomparable Mark Steyn weighs in today on the general uselessness of the UN in responding to the tsunami crisis, and he then compares that bureaucratic malaise with the farce currently going on in the Senate, where John Bolton is being lambasted by Senate Democrats (and one feckless Republican) for, in Steyn's words, "telling the truth about the system." You really owe it to yourself to read the entire piece. A snippet:

Which brings me to the John Bolton nomination process, which is taking so long you'd think the U.S. Senate was run by Indonesian customs inspectors. Writing of near-Ambassador Bolton's difficulty getting his paperwork stamped by the Foreign Relations Committee, National Review's Cliff May observed that "the real debate is between those who think the U.N. needs reform -- and those who think the U.S. needs reform.''
Very true. Sen. George Voinovich, one of those "maverick Republicans" the press goes goo-goo over, seems to believe, as Cliff May puts it, "that the problem is more American 'unilateralism' than U.N. corruption, immorality, anti-Americanism and ineptitude."

On the face of it, this shouldn't be a difficult choice, even for as uncurious a squish as Voinovich. Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed.

But none of that matters. As the grotesque charade Voinovich and his Democrat chums have inflicted on us demonstrates, all that the so-called "multilateralists" require is that we be polite and deferential to the transnational establishment regardless of how useless it is. What matters in global diplomacy is that you pledge support rather than give any.

Newsweek Lies, People Die

In last week's issue, Newsweek magazine published its weekly defense of the poor misunderstood jihadists currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. This has long been a regular feature in the magazine (scanning the table of contents, you can usually find the "More Allegations of Abuse at Gitmo" article tucked snuggly between the letters to the editor and the movie reviews), but this time, the article set off a deadly chain of events that provoked riots throughout the Muslim world, killing 15 people and injuring hundreds more.

Newsweek published allegations that US interrogators were flushing copies of the Quran down the toilet in order to break the will of terrorist suspects. A radical Islamist leader in Pakistan promptly held a news conference denouncing the US for this unfathomable act of disrespect against Islam. The Muslim world was enraged at the article's allegations. Riots broke out in Afghanistan, and violence soon followed. The Pentagon denied the veracity of the article, but it was only a trickle caught in a flood of holy anger directed towards the US.

But now Newsweek has admitted that the story was in error; they cannot back up the claim that US interrogators desecrated the Quran. Oops, sorry.

The Fate of Europe May Rest in the Hands of the French

If ever there were a foreboding post title, I daresay that would be it.

On May 29, French voters will go to the polls in a national referendum to decide whether to accept or reject the newly proposed European Union constitution--all 500+ pages of it. Many recent polls have shown the non votes to have a slim lead. This has sent Jacque Chirac's government and many EU officials into full-fledged panic, for if a leading proponent of European unity such as France were to reject the constitution, it would be a devastating setback to the grand European project, and some fear (and others hope) it would call into question the long-term feasibility of a united Europe itself. The stakes are very high.

As the London Times reports, many beleaguered non voters are feeling overwhelmed by the vast array of political and intellectual elites who are using every power available to ensure the constitution's ratification. Supporters of the constitution are appealing to that age-old French standby sentiment, virulent anti-Americanism, by darkly suggesting that a vote against the constitution would be a vote for continued American dominance. Chirac, doing his best Charlemagne imitation, even went so far as to say that the upcoming referendom was an opportunity to enshrine French "values" on one hand and repudiate "Anglo-Saxon" economics on the other.

But there is another age-old French quality besides anti-Americanism at work here: The French, God bless 'em, are the world's foremost practitioners of insufferable contrariness. When the French see nearly every major national and continental official give his unqualified endorsment of the EU constitution, they automatically get suspicious.

And even if the constitution is ratified, it will do nothing to reverse the demographic trends that threaten the long-term political and cultural viability of European unity much more than American indifference ever could. To sustain its lavish social entitlement programs for a rapidly aging population, Europe will be forced to absorb immigrant populations in numbers that no society has ever been able to safely assimilate. Most of these immigrants will come from Muslim North Africa. Don't be surprised if there are many rightwing backlashes against these growing and alienated Muslim communities in the years ahead. Escalating social unrest will make it increasingly difficult for the EU to consolidate; indeed, the EU itself will likely be seen as the cause of the problem, not the solution. If Europe is to unite, it had better do it now, while it is still (relatively) culturally and politically homogenous. Otherwise, it might never get another chance.

"The Best Man for the Job"

That's the title of an op-ed today by former secretary of state James Baker and former attorney general Ed Meese. They are rising in defense of John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be the next US ambassador to the UN. Democrats are trying to block the nomination on the grounds that Bolton is a chronic abuser of subordinates, and lacks suitable "diplomatic temperment." Both Baker and Meese have worked with John Bolton in the past. Their conclusion:

At a time when all sides acknowledge that fundamental reform is needed at the United Nations lest it see its moral stature diminished and its possibilities squandered, we need our permanent representative to be a person of political vision, intellectual power and personal integrity. John Bolton is just that person.

The Option Formerly Known as Nuclear

The National Review's Byron York reported today on the latest wheelings and dealings in the Senate over the judicial filibuster controversy. York claims that a negotiated peace might still yet be in the works, and that negotiations will truly begin in earnest once Frist reveals when he plans on invoking the dreaded nuclear option (or, in Republican parlance, the "Constitutional option"). That date may come as early as next week.

York reports that one arrangement under consideration would permit the Democrats to keep blocking the ten or so judicial nominees who have not yet been brought up for a vote, in exchange for a Democratic promise not to filibuster any of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

Such a deal doesn't sound so bad, if you really believe that the Democrats would abide by their promise. I have my doubts. If Bush were to nominate a judge in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to the Court, the pressure put on Senate Democrats by liberal special interest groups (People for the American Way, NARAL, the NAACP, etc.) to block the appointment would be enormous. It is unlikely that a secret backroom vow to Senate Republicans would withstand such pressure. Or, if Democrats admitted that they were breaking a promise not to filibuster, they would likely place the blame squarely on President Bush for "violating their good faith" with this "extremist" nominee. Can't you just hear them now.

But I am also leery of ending filibusters for judicial nominees, not because it is "unconstitutional"--as the reliably hyperbolic Senate Democrats keep insisting--but because it would make the Republicans the focal point for all the controversy, instead of the pressure being on the Democrats, where it belongs. Ideally, I'd like to see the Republicans call the Democrats' bluff by actually making them filibuster a few nominees, instead of just threatening to filibuster them. Beyond the obvious comic value of watching Ted Kennedy read out of the phone book for hours on end, it would have the added benefit of individualizing the opposition. As things stand now, Democratic senators from red states can hide behind Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, safe in the knowledge that they are only one of 45 or so. Their Bush-voting constituents will never know. But if they were actually forced to take the floor and filibuster, it would illustrate all-too-well to the red states just who is opposing Bush's nominess. I predict many Democrats, especially those up for reelection next year, would wilt under this harsh spotlight.

The Republicans can get their judges, and they can do it in a way that would limit any potential political backlashes.

Kingdom of Heaven

I love big, historical epics. If a movie has huge armies, lots of swords, goofy ancient costumes, and a bladder-damaging running time, chances are that I'll love it. Films are the perfect medium through which to capture the grandeur and sweep of history.

And so it was with a heavy heart that I trudged out of the theater this weekend after watching Ridley Scott's new epic, Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, it had the amazing battle scenes that define the genre. Yes, the cinematography was astounding, particularly the bluish fog that engulfed the French countryside. This movie had flashes of the brilliance that we have come to expect from a director of Mr. Scott's caliber.

But these flashes were not enough to redeem a film that, despite its two-and-half hour running length, felt rushed and strangely detached. The editors left only a shell of a story, as young Belian (played by the ever-earnest Orlando Bloom) travels thousands of miles over three years, leads an army, and yet returns to France no different than when he first left. Many scenes end rather abruptly, as if the producers were trying to shave off every unused second. Rather than creating the sense of a rapidly moving story, it was merely an annoying distraction. For instance, normally, the life-threatening shipwreck of the film's main character would be an occasion to slow things down a little. Not so here. The entire sequence from boarding to storm to wreck lasts maybe a minute. After regaining consciousness on a strange, foreign beach, Belian gets up, dusts himself off, and staggers through a maze of corpses as if nothing happened. The entire sequence seems more of an afterthought than a plot twist, and the movie is full of such annoyances.

I've read that the DVD version will be almost an hour longer than the theatrical release, which is both encouraging (maybe, in its final form, it won't be so bad after all) and revealing (sitting there in the theater, you can definitely tell there is a lot of movie missing). It seems that the studio, in an effort to appeal to the widest possible audience (i.e., even those with limited attention spans), cut out so much material that the entire film suffers as a result.

Kingdom of Heaven is also controversial for its fawning portrayal of the Muslim leader Saladin. While it's true that Mr. Scott portrays Saladin as a wise, thoughtful, tolerant leader who is forced into war by bloodthirsty Christian zealouts, I think these criticisms miss the point of the film. Kingdom of Heaven is not so much anti-Christian as anti-fundamentalist, both Islamic and Christian. It is a thoroughly agnostic work, suspicious of deeply held religious beliefs of all kinds. This may garner praise from 21st-century secularists, but as a history of the 12th-century, it falls well short. The film says more about contemporary religious attitudes than it does of medieval attitudes, and that is its greatest failing.

So it begins...

Allow me to break the proverbial wine bottle over my new blog with a introductory overview of what you can expect to find here. My interests vary widely, from politics and history to sports and literature, and my blog will reflect this variety. Don't be surprised to see a movie review posted alongside a foreign policy analysis, or a lengthy vignette extolling the virtues (and oh, there are many) of the Reds next to an essay on popular culture.

Politically, I am conservative. I realize this label is not as descriptive as it once was, as conservatism is now partitioned into neo-, paleo-, Christo-, and whatever other prefix strikes your fancy. I'll let others assign me a prefix.

I look forward to recording my thoughts here in the months and years ahead. And let me pre-emptively thank anyone who might take the time to read my humble musings, as I sketch the world according to me. I'll try to make that sketch as interesting, entertaining, and informative as possible.