Tuesday, September 07, 2010

On the Boardwalk, HBO Hangs Out With a New Mob

By CHARLES McGRATH
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
September 3, 2010


The series "Boardwalk Empire" revolves around a a political boss played by Steve Buscemi. The character is based on Enoch “Nucky” Johnson, who was “a political boss and stalwart of the Republican Party who from 1911 to 1941 controlled all the vice in Atlantic City.”

Credit: Craig Blankenhorn/HBO


ON a blistering afternoon last June, outside a Polish social club in Greenpoint, men in heavy wool tuxedos, with slicked-back hair and pencil-thin mustaches, were blotting their brows. They looked like overheated figures from a Peter Arno drawing. Nearby were some very slender young women in spangly, ankle-length dresses. A couple were wearing feathered headdresses; others had their hair in paper curlers. But because this was Brooklyn, where people wear weird getups all the time, nobody paid them any attention.

A few blocks away, on a lot once intended for a condo complex, a 300-foot long old-fashioned seaside boardwalk had miraculously arisen, not just a facade, but a collection of clubs, restaurants, a photo studio, salt-water taffy joints, even a place where for 25 cents you could have peered at premature babies. Except that the incubators were empty. So were the shops. The only sound came from a couple of squawking seagulls, doubtless disappointed by the absence of litter or garbage. At the end of the boardwalk a sandy, unpopulated beach baked in the sun, but where the ocean should have been, there was, instead, a wall of metal shipping containers.

This brand-new ghost town is the $5 million set for “Boardwalk Empire,” a new HBO series that begins Sept. 19. For more than a year now it has periodically sprung to life with hundreds of actors, like the ones milling outside the social club. They were getting ready to film a supper-club scene in which Hardeen, Houdini’s younger brother, escapes from an upside-down straitjacket.

“Boardwalk Empire” is set in Atlantic City in 1920, during the first year of Prohibition, and the big outdoor set, the vintage clothing and the kind of historical research that delights in Houdini’s sibling are all evidence of the unusual, painstaking lengths the show’s creators have gone to recreate an era that barely registers in the American historical consciousness. Daniel Okrent, a former public editor for The New York Times, who has just published a history of the period, “Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,” said that when he began his research, he was struck by how little most of us know about these years, which had such a profound effect on American political and social life. Prohibition was tied both to the introduction of the income tax and universal suffrage, and radically altered the relation of citizen and government. It also brought men and women — the ones who wanted to take a drink, that is — closer in ways they had never imagined.

“All we know is Robert Stack as Eliot Ness,” Mr. Okrent said, referring to the 1959 television series “The Untouchables.” “Prohibition is like a guilty secret, or an embarrassment,” he went on, explaining why the period has been so little studied. “How do you explain that for 13 years there was an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that said you couldn’t get a drink legally? It beggars the imagination.”

The series “Boardwalk Empire” is based in part on a book by the same name, a history of Atlantic City from its creation in the 19th century up to the present, by Nelson Johnson, a Superior Court judge in New Jersey. In 2006 HBO, already looking for a big series to replace “The Sopranos,” showed the book, which had been optioned by the actor Mark Wahlberg and his production partner, Stephen Levinson, to Terence Winter, who wrote many “Sopranos” episodes. “They said, maybe you’ll find something here,” Mr. Winter recalled recently, “and they added that, oh, by the way, Martin Scorsese is attached to this if it goes anywhere. I said that in that case I would absolutely find something.” (Mr. Scorsese wound up directing the pilot episode and became an executive producer of the series.)

Mr. Winter was initially interested in 1950s Atlantic City and a character named Skinny D’Amato, a club owner and Rat Pack hanger-on. But he quickly turned instead to the ’20s and Enoch Johnson, known as Nucky, by far the most vivid character in the book. The appeal of the period was that it had seldom been done on TV or even in the movies, he said. “I’ve always loved the way people talked in the ’20s, and the clothes, the cars,” he went on. “It was such a transitional period. The world was changing so much. And in some ways it was a very modern time. This was almost a hundred years ago, but they had airplanes, telephones, people went to the movies all the time.”

Nucky Johnson (no relation to the author of “Boardwalk Empire”) was a political boss and stalwart of the Republican Party who from 1911 to 1941 controlled all the vice in Atlantic City. He lived like a pasha, occupying a whole floor of the Ritz-Carlton hotel and rising every day at 3 p.m. to make his rounds in a powder blue Rolls-Royce.

The real Nucky was tall and broad-shouldered, with an enormous, domelike head. In the show, fictionalized slightly as Nucky Thompson, he’s played by the bug-eyed, slightly cadaverous Steve Buscemi, another “Sopranos” alumnus. “If we wanted the real Nucky, we would have cast Jimmy Gandolfini,” Mr. Winter said, “but by Episode 12 you’re going to think nobody else could have done it but Steve.”

If Mr. Buscemi doesn’t exactly look the part, he nevertheless dresses like Nucky, in sherbet-colored high-collared shirts and beautifully tailored suits in bold windowpane plaid. “My inspiration for Nucky was the Prince of Wales,” said John A. Dunn, the show’s costume designer, referring not to the current one but to the dandy who later became Edward VIII . Mr. Dunn was standing recently in a storage room in a Brooklyn soundstage that resembled an extremely well-organized attic. Racks of clothing were arranged by character: Nucky’s suits were on a rack next to Al Capone’s and near Arnold Rothstein’s and Lucky Luciano’s. (They, along with several other historical figures, are also characters in “Boardwalk Empire.”) There were racks of robes, beaded chiffon gowns, fox-trimmed evening coats and clothes for policemen, waiters and bellhops. A rack of corsets. A shelf of homburgs and fedoras.

Not a scrap of this stuff was polyester. Wherever possible Mr. Dunn used vintage clothing, either rented or bought on eBay or in vintage clothing shops; otherwise the costumes were handmade to designs of the period. He rummaged through the collections at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum and studied old magazines catalogs and tailoring books. “The great surprise for me was the color,” he said. “Because of photographs we tend to think of ’20s clothing as black and white, but really there was this splash of new, bold color, maybe in reaction to World War I. It’s almost a shock to the contemporary eye.”

The show’s music, bright and ebullient, is also authentic and also a reaction to the end of the war. People wanted to get up and dance, as Mr. Okrent pointed out, and Prohibition, or the speakeasy culture, conveniently (and for the first time) mingled men, women and alcohol in an atmosphere of congenial illicitness. Some of the show’s tunes, taken from silent movie arrangements or music found in old nickelodeons, hasn’t been heard for close to a century. The soundtrack also makes use of remastered 78 recordings by people like Al Jolson, who sings “Avalon” on the pilot. Eddie Cantor and Sophie Tucker are actual characters on the show and sing hits from the period like “Some of These Days” and the comic ballad “I Never Knew I Had a Wonderful Wife Until the Town Went Dry.”

“Marty and Terry both wanted the music to be historically accurate,” said Randall Poster, the music coordinator for the series. “So we just immersed ourselves in this fascinating transitional period when ragtime is just beginning to turn into jazz. It was like a musical scavenger hunt. A lot of the music on the show had never been recorded before because after talkies came in, there was no reason to record it. And yet it’s the birth of so much of what came later.”

Mr. Winter said he and Mr. Scorsese refused to fudge some of the historical detail, even though by doing so they could probably have saved a bundle and no one would have noticed. “If you’re going to this kind of thing, the little details are what’s important,” Mr. Winter said.

He added: “Thank God for HBO. They let you tell intelligent stories in a slow, careful way. You can let them breathe.” (The pilot alone cost nearly $20 million.)

The research even extended to the way people talked in the ’20s. “I didn’t want it just to be a caricature, where everybody was saying ‘23 skidoo’ all the time,” Mr. Winter explained, and so he studied old newspapers and magazines and carefully read the documentarylike novels of John Dos Passos. Books, of all things, are prominent props in “Boardwalk Empire.” One of the characters is reading a novel by Henry James; another keeps a copy of Sinclair Lewis with him.

“I hate to say it, but before TV people spoke better and were better read than we are,” Mr. Winter said. “They were probably more literate.”

The big details are important too. Prohibition didn’t just give rise to a generation of Charleston-dancing, flask-waving tipplers. It unloosed a wave of greed and violence. Atlantic City positively welcomed the 18th Amendment, seeing in it a huge financial windfall, and the characters in the show, authentic and imaginary, are besotted with money as much as with booze.

“We have whiskey, wine, women, song and slot machines,” the real Nucky once said. “I won’t deny it, and I won’t apologize for it. If the majority of the people didn’t want them, they wouldn’t be profitable.”

Monday, September 06, 2010

These Talks Are Doomed

Before peace can come, Palestine’s culture must be changed.

By Mona Charen
http://www.nationalreview.com
September 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.

Hamas sent a greeting card to the quintet of leaders meeting in Washington, D.C., this week to initiate negotiations about a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In a well-planned ambush, they killed four Israeli civilians near the city of Hebron, two men and two women (one nine months pregnant), creating seven orphans. The murderers escaped, and may perhaps have videotaped the atrocity. In Gaza that evening, 3,000 celebrants clogged the streets, waving flags, setting bonfires, passing out candy, and carrying their children on their shoulders. If there is videotape, it will presumably permit the revelers to relive the pleasure, even as the video of Daniel Pearl’s beheading has circulated on the Internet.

While the Palestinian Authority did condemn the attack, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad did so, he explained, because “the operation went against Palestinian interests.” It would be difficult for a leader of the “moderate” (that word is always attached) PA to condemn such attacks as, say, immoral or despicable, as the Palestinian Authority itself (formerly the PLO or Fatah) was conceived in violence and continues to honor its spirit. In the course of the past few months, the PA has named a square and a children’s summer camp in honor of a terrorist who murdered 37 Israeli civilians on a bus, and provided a hero’s funeral to Amin Al-Hindi, one of the terrorists who kidnapped and murdered eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. The official PA newspaper described Al-Hindi as “one of the stars . . . who sparkled at the sports stadium in Munich.” Both Abbas and Fayyad attended the funeral.

These realities, reflecting as they do the unreadiness of the Palestinian people for peace with Israel, have been and will continue to be ignored by the Obama administration, the so-called international community, and most journalists. Instead, world leaders, very much including President Obama, speak of borders, and confidence-building measures, and opportunities for peace, as if the problem were one of details. This thoroughly misconceives the nature of the dispute. An Israeli saying (now decades old) captured the essence: If the Palestinians were disarmed tomorrow, there would be no conflict. If the Israelis were disarmed tomorrow, there would be no Israel.

With whom would Israel be making binding agreements? Since a bitter civil conflict in 2007, Palestinian society has been divided. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and the PA controls the West Bank. Just last month, the PA canceled scheduled municipal elections for fear that Hamas might again triumph at the polls as they did in 2006. Hamas and Fatah thugs continue to target and assassinate one another. By standing up the wobbly Abbas and perhaps even signing a treaty with him, the Obama administration may imagine that they can strengthen him. But this is a figure so unsure of his current standing with his people — and this is before making any unpopular concessions — that he canceled elections.

Abbas’s weakness in this regard is not so much a personal failing as an inheritance. The entire Arab world (and Iran) has conspired to embitter and enrage the Palestinian people in perpetuity, encouraging maximalist demands and enshrining bloodshed and frenzied hatred. Though Abbas has shaken hands all around in Washington, D.C., the incitement at home continues. A year ago, at Fatah’s general congress in Bethlehem, the delegates reaffirmed their longstanding commitment to “armed struggle” as “a strategy, not a tactic. . . . This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated.”

Just this week, the PA’s minister for prisoners' affairs presented an award called the Shield of Resoluteness and Giving to Um Yousuf Abu Hamid. Her accomplishment? Four of her sons are serving long sentences in Israeli prisons for committing terrorist attacks. Handing her the plaque, the minister intoned: “The Palestinian mother is a central partner in the struggle, by virtue of what she has given and continues to give. It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honor.”

A Palestinian children’s-television program instructs its viewers that all Israeli cities — including Haifa, Lod, Ramle, and Acre — are “occupied Palestinian” cities. Another show aimed at children, which often dispenses advice like “drink your milk” and “obey your parents,” also advised a young viewer named Saraa that “all Jews must be erased from our land. . . . We want to slaughter them, Saraa, so they will be expelled from our land. . . . We’ll have to [do it] by slaughter.”

This latest iteration of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks midwived by the U.S. is doomed just as all of its predecessors were — because it is based on a fallacy and a stubborn refusal to face the truth about Palestinian society.

— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 Creators Syndicate.

Greed is the most powerful tradition in college football

By John Feinstein
The Washington Post
Friday, September 3, 2010; D1
http://www.washingtonpost.com


Once again, it is college football season. Let us all say together, "Hallelujah," because there are few things better than Saturdays in the fall, and the atmosphere in and around the sport's great rivalry games, ranging from Williams-Amherst to Army-Navy to Michigan-Ohio State.

While we do that, let us also pause to give thanks for the fact that even as the Big Ten pursues even more power and dollars by expanding to 12 teams, it has decided not to carry through with the folly of moving Michigan-Ohio State from the season's final weekend. If you have any doubt at all about how foolish such a move would be, simply grab your college history books and turn to the page marked, 'Nebraska-Oklahoma,' in the chapter entitled, 'Great Rivalries Flushed by Greed.'

Greed is the word that powers college football. Those who control the sport - the commissioners of the Bowl Championship Series conferences and the presidents of those conferences' schools - would have you believe that tradition is the word that matters most. Sadly, many of college football's most cherished traditions are going the way of the wing-T.

You can start with football Saturdays. Check this week's schedule: Among those opening their season on Thursday was Ohio State. When you think of tradition, you certainly think of Thursday nights inside the Horseshoe, don't you?

College football is now played every night of the week at some point during every season. Two of the best games - Navy-Maryland and Boise State-Virginia Tech - will be played Monday in NFL stadiums.

Tradition indeed.

The same university presidents who tell us that we can't have a postseason playoff in division I-A because that would be too many games for the student-athletes have contrived a system in which many big-time programs routinely play 14 games: 12 in the regular season, a conference championship and a bowl game. The 12th regular season game was created several years ago for one reason: so the power schools could schedule another home game, usually against a completely overmatched opponent, and collect another lucrative gate.

Defending national champion Alabama opens Saturday against San Jose State. In November the Crimson Tide will host traditional SEC rival Georgia the week before it plays Auburn. Oh wait, that's Georgia State, which is just starting its football program and likely to be no more than a 50-point underdog.

Clemson fans will get to pay serious money the first two weeks of the season to watch the Tigers play North Texas and in-state powerhouse Presbyterian. Nebraska will host Western Kentucky to open its season, and Thursday featured the revered traditional rivalry game between Norfolk State and Rutgers. That game no doubt brought back fond memories for Rutgers fans of Coach Greg Schiano using all three of his timeouts before halftime several years ago to try to pad a 42-0 lead - no doubt fully aware of how dangerous Norfolk State can be when down 42 points at intermission.

There's also Samford at Florida State, a game scheduled in honor of Coach Bobby Bowden, who began his coaching career at Samford, back when it was known as Howard College. The only problem is Florida State kicked Bowden into retirement before the game could actually be played.

And while we're on the subject of power schools scheduling themselves into bowl games, let's not forget Notre Dame. Do you know how many road games the Fighting Irish play this season? Three. They play seven home games, two neutral site games against Army and Navy and somehow have to actually play at Michigan State, Boston College and USC. If Brian Kelly isn't a candidate for national coach of the year with this schedule, people might become nostalgic for Charlie Weis.

There are good games this weekend. Some are even on Saturday, although a lot of the best games have been (surprise) moved from Saturday for TV.

The best of them is probably Boise State-Virginia Tech, and the BCS architects are no doubt concerned that the Broncos might actually win, run the table, and end up in the national championship game.

First off, the Broncos will have a tough time winning this game - they have to travel cross country and play what amounts to a home game for the Hokies - but if they manage to finish the season unbeaten, you can expect the usual refrain of 'There's no way Boise State would go undefeated if it played in the (fill in the BCS) conference.'

That might be true. But how can anyone make that claim when almost no one in the BCS will play Boise (or Utah or TCU, for that matter) in a home-and-home series, which would mean a road game for the big-conference school. Until someone in the Big Ten or the Big 12 or the SEC begins to schedule tough non-BCS schools home-and-home, they (and their fans) need to shut up. You want to prove Boise is overrated? Do it on the field.

In the next two years, the landscape of the sport will change radically. Nebraska will be in the Big Ten. That's certainly traditional, isn't it? Brigham Young and Utah will not be in the same conference, and the most important game of the Big Ten season will not be played on campus but inside a dome. Aaah yes, the tradition of Lucas Oil Stadium; one can almost feel it just saying the name.

So let's all be real about this: Because the greedy presidents and commissioners don't want to share the wealth, the power or the control of college football with their non-BCS brethren, there is no playoff. Because there is no playoff, millions of corporate dollars have been left sitting on the table. Because of that, the presidents and commissioners insist they must expand and re-align now because (wait for it) they need more money.

All of which means this: The next time you hear any of these people tell you the tradition of the bowls must be preserved, tell them you don't want to hear about the tradition of the Papajohn's; Little Caesars or Meineke Car Care Bowls. In fact, you might point out that the national championship game isn't even a bowl game anymore, and this season's will be played on Jan. 10 in Glendale, Ariz.!

Yup, there's tradition in college football, lots of it. But the number one tradition is greed. And there's never been more of it at any time in history than right now.

For more from the author, visit his Web site, www.feinsteinonthebrink.com.

Film Review: 'Machete'

‘Machete’ Review: Dull, Convoluted, Racist and Anti-American

by John Nolte
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/
September 4, 2010

Director Robert Rodriguez’s spoof trailer for “Machete” was easily the best part of his and Quentin Tarantino’s failed attempt to return to those glorious days of early ‘70s exploitation flicks with 2007’s “Grindhouse.” And it made sense that the fan reaction would eventually result in a feature film the director has wanted to make since the mid-nineties. If nothing else, Rodriguez is as famous for delivering low-budget, high concept genre films as he is for directing them. He’s even better at marketing himself and his latest project, exploiting to the hilt an intriguing concept that, unfortunately, usually fails to pay off in a satisfying way on screen. Politics aside, never has this been truer than with “Machete” (though the truly dreadful “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” is a close second).

Recently, Rodriguez has furiously tried to backpedal away from the racial bomb he exploded into the middle of the Arizona immigration debate back in May with his cravenly cynical attempt to market “Machete” using a racist trailer. After the backlash and with Texas tax credits on the line, the director’s now selling “Machete” as a goof, a “Mexsploitation” flick that harmlessly employs the same kind of over-the-top politics that have always defined the genre. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The story of a former Mexican “Federale” (the great Danny Trejo) framed for the attempted assassination of a racist Texas State Senator (the hammy Robert DeNiro) is both racial and racist. “Machete” isn’t about a political call for the powerless to fight THE corrupt MAN, it’s a call for revolution; Mexicans against Americans – and in the words of the character meant to be our evolving conscience, Jessica Alba’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Sartana, it’s about how those who believe in only LEGAL immigration “deserve to be cut down.” This is her rousing fist-in-the-air message to a gathered army of illegal day laborers who have been patiently waiting for the call away from their jobs as dishwashers, gardeners and hotel maids to wage war against a cruel America whose immigration laws, by the way, are nowhere near as harsh as Mexico’s.

Still, “Machete” offers no middle ground, no reasonable, non-racist position against wide open borders for those fleeing from what one character describes as the “personal hell” that is Mexico. And that character is Luz, (Michelle Rodriguez), a taco stand operator and the underground leader of a network dedicated to smuggling illegals across the border. However, she’s also stockpiling weapons of war for the coming “revolution” and represents SHE (an obvious reference to mass-murderer Che — nice, huh?), the mythical, female revolutionary figure who inspires illegals everywhere to fight for their right to be in America. Because, as Sartara sees it: We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us!

Director Rodriguez attempts to disguise his toxic and racist message as something more accessible, the simple fight against DeNiro’s corrupt pol, his slimy aide (Jeff Fahey), and Steven Seagal’s Mexican drug kingpin. But this disguise doesn’t work. SHE’ is not a figure representing the fight for justice against injustice but rather of a coming and necessary revolution against America. Furthermore, when the Alba character stands on the hood of a car to kick off the film’s incredibly un-exciting and poorly choreographed race war climax, the war she calls for is not to stop violent racists but against an America (or Texas) that, in her delusional mind, is keeping people off land that is rightfully theirs (remember, the border crossed us).

And yet, never once does the movie bother to explain exactly what it is that makes America so special and attractive to those willing to risk their lives to get here. Can’t have that. Nor does anyone suggest that maybe the best place to wage revolution would be, I don’t know, that “personal hell” called Mexico. Can’t have that, either. Not when your protagonists are driven only by seething radical resentments, a misplaced sense of entitlement, and that warm, smug feeling of superiority that comes with assuming the role of the victim. But not victims of their own country, mind you, victims of America.

Hey, no one said hate had to make sense.

Who the illegals fight against on screen is one thing. What their words mean is altogether something else. That’s the shell game Rodriguez plays and his racially divisive messaging goes way beyond the normal cinematic political posturing and button-pushing. And you will never see a more stereotypically racist portrayal of Southerners, who, in an obvious reference to the border Minute Men, are not only played for cheap laughs but portrayed as sub-human animals who hunt and murder illegals – kill a helpless pregnant woman and say “Welcome to America.”

And if all that’s not an artistically bankrupt and cheap enough outrage for you, Cheech Marin plays a violent, foul-mouth catholic priest who records confessions and there’s an explicit incestuous three-way sex scene involving Machete, Lindsay Lohan’s drug-addicted Internet porn star character, and her … mother.

Other than that, though, “Machete” just isn’t very good. After a promising opening that’s cut, scripted, scored, and performed to look like something that played in urban downtown theatres during the Nixon years (including a scratchy and dusty print), Rodriguez decides to play it straight, which is a fatal mistake. Trejo makes for a compelling protagonist and the girls are plenty pretty, but the story is tediously episodic and confusing, with no momentum whatsoever. Other than a couple of inspired ideas within surprisingly dull action scenes, there’s not much here to satisfy action fans, even racist ones who hate Southerners and despise America.

For the record, I believe in the American melting pot. My wife was born in Mexico, English is her second language, and she didn’t become an American citizen until she was in her twenties. For that reason, and others, my family is more racially diverse than the bus passengers in “Speed.” So I guess that what I’m really trying to say is, f**k you Robert Rodriguez.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

Unanswerable Prayers

First Person

What’s an atheist to think when thousands of believers (including prominent rabbis and priests) are praying for his survival and salvation—while others believe his cancer was divinely inspired, and hope that he burns in hell? Related: The first in the series, “Topic of Cancer,” by Christopher Hitchens.

By Christopher Hitchens
Photograph by Jonas Fredwall Karlsson
http://www.vanityfair.com/
October 2010


HE OF LITTLE FAITH
The author at home in Washington, D.C.


When I described the tumor in my esophagus as a “blind, emotionless alien,” I suppose that even I couldn’t help awarding it some of the qualities of a living thing. This at least I know to be a mistake: an instance of the “pathetic fallacy” (angry cloud, proud mountain, presumptuous little Beaujolais) by which we ascribe animate qualities to inanimate phenomena. To exist, a cancer needs a living organism, but it cannot ever become a living organism. Its whole malice—there I go again—lies in the fact that the “best” it can do is to die with its host. Either that or its host will find the measures with which to extirpate and outlive it.

But, as I knew before I became ill, there are some people for whom this explanation is unsatisfying. To them, a rodent carcinoma really is a dedicated, conscious agent—a slow-acting suicide-murderer—on a consecrated mission from heaven. You haven’t lived, if I can put it like this, until you have read contributions such as this on the Web sites of the faithful:

Who else feels Christopher Hitchens getting terminal throat cancer [sic] was God’s revenge for him using his voice to blaspheme him? Atheists like to ignore FACTS. They like to act like everything is a “coincidence”. Really? It’s just a “coincidence” [that] out of any part of his body, Christopher Hitchens got cancer in the one part of his body he used for blasphemy? Yea, keep believing that Atheists. He’s going to writhe in agony and pain and wither away to nothing and then die a horrible agonizing death, and THEN comes the real fun, when he’s sent to HELLFIRE forever to be tortured and set afire.

There are numerous passages in holy scripture and religious tradition that for centuries made this kind of gloating into a mainstream belief. Long before it concerned me particularly I had understood the obvious objections. First, which mere primate is so damn sure that he can know the mind of god? Second, would this anonymous author want his views to be read by my unoffending children, who are also being given a hard time in their way, and by the same god? Third, why not a thunderbolt for yours truly, or something similarly awe-inspiring? The vengeful deity has a sadly depleted arsenal if all he can think of is exactly the cancer that my age and former “lifestyle” would suggest that I got. Fourth, why cancer at all? Almost all men get cancer of the prostate if they live long enough: it’s an undignified thing but quite evenly distributed among saints and sinners, believers and unbelievers. If you maintain that god awards the appropriate cancers, you must also account for the numbers of infants who contract leukemia. Devout persons have died young and in pain. Bertrand Russell and Voltaire, by contrast, remained spry until the end, as many psychopathic criminals and tyrants have also done. These visitations, then, seem awfully random. While my so far uncancerous throat, let me rush to assure my Christian correspondent above, is not at all the only organ with which I have blasphemed …And even if my voice goes before I do, I shall continue to write polemics against religious delusions, at least until it’s hello darkness my old friend. In which case, why not cancer of the brain? As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be “me.” (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)

The absorbing fact about being mortally sick is that you spend a good deal of time preparing yourself to die with some modicum of stoicism (and provision for loved ones), while being simultaneously and highly interested in the business of survival. This is a distinctly bizarre way of “living”—lawyers in the morning and doctors in the afternoon—and means that one has to exist even more than usual in a double frame of mind. The same is true, it seems, of those who pray for me. And most of these are just as “religious” as the chap who wants me to be tortured in the here and now—which I will be even if I eventually recover—and then tortured forever into the bargain if I don’t recover or, presumably and ultimately, even if I do.

Of the astonishing and flattering number of people who wrote to me when I fell so ill, very few failed to say one of two things. Either they assured me that they wouldn’t offend me by offering prayers or they tenderly insisted that they would pray anyway. Devotional Web sites consecrated special space to the question. (If you should read this in time, by all means keep in mind that September 20 has already been designated “Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day.”) Pat Archbold, at the National Catholic Register, and Deacon Greg Kandra were among the Roman Catholics who thought me a worthy object of prayer. Rabbi David Wolpe, author of Why Faith Matters and the leader of a major congregation in Los Angeles, said the same. He has been a debating partner of mine, as have several Protestant evangelical conservatives like Pastor Douglas Wilson of the New St. Andrews College and Larry Taunton of the Fixed Point Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama. Both wrote to say that their assemblies were praying for me. And it was to them that it first occurred to me to write back, asking: Praying for what?

As with many of the Catholics who essentially pray for me to see the light as much as to get better, they were very honest. Salvation was the main point. “We are, to be sure, concerned for your health, too, but that is a very secondary consideration. ‘For what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his own soul?’ [Matthew 16:26.]” That was Larry Taunton. Pastor Wilson responded that when he heard the news he prayed for three things: that I would fight off the disease, that I would make myself right with eternity, and that the process would bring the two of us back into contact. He couldn’t resist adding rather puckishly that the third prayer had already been answered…

So these are some quite reputable Catholics, Jews, and Protestants who think that I might in some sense of the word be worth saving. The Muslim faction has been quieter. An Iranian friend has asked for prayer to be said for me at the grave of Omar Khayyám, supreme poet of Persian freethinkers. The YouTube video announcing the day of intercession for me is accompanied by the song “I Think I See the Light,” performed by the same Cat Stevens who as “Yusuf Islam” once endorsed the hysterical Iranian theocratic call to murder my friend Salman Rushdie. (The banal lyrics of his pseudo-uplifting song, by the way, appear to be addressed to a chick.) And this apparent ecumenism has other contradictions, too. If I were to announce that I had suddenly converted to Catholicism, I know that Larry Taunton and Douglas Wilson would feel I had fallen into grievous error. On the other hand, if I were to join either of their Protestant evangelical groups, the followers of Rome would not think my soul was much safer than it is now, while a late-in-life decision to adhere to Judaism or Islam would inevitably lose me many prayers from both factions. I sympathize afresh with the mighty Voltaire, who, when badgered on his deathbed and urged to renounce the devil, murmured that this was no time to be making enemies.

The Danish physicist and Nobelist Niels Bohr once hung a horseshoe over his doorway. Appalled friends exclaimed that surely he didn’t put any trust in such pathetic superstition. “No, I don’t,” he replied with composure, “but apparently it works whether you believe in it or not.” That might be the safest conclusion. The most comprehensive investigation of the subject ever conducted—the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer,” of 2006—could find no correlation at all between the number and regularity of prayers offered and the likelihood that the person being prayed for would have improved chances. But it did find a small but interesting negative correlation, in that some patients suffered slight additional woe when they failed to manifest any improvement. They felt that they had disappointed their devoted supporters. And morale is another unquantifiable factor in survival. I now understand this better than I did when I first read it. An enormous number of secular and atheist friends have told me encouraging and flattering things like: “If anyone can beat this, you can”; “Cancer has no chance against someone like you”; “We know you can vanquish this.” On bad days, and even on better ones, such exhortations can have a vaguely depressing effect. If I check out, I’ll be letting all these comrades down. A different secular problem also occurs to me: what if I pulled through and the pious faction contentedly claimed that their prayers had been answered? That would somehow be irritating.

I have saved the best of the faithful until the last. Dr. Francis Collins is one of the greatest living Americans. He is the man who brought the Human Genome Project to completion, ahead of time and under budget, and who now directs the National Institutes of Health. In his work on the genetic origins of disorder, he helped decode the “misprints” that cause such calamities as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease. He is working now on the amazing healing properties that are latent in stem cells and in “targeted” gene-based treatments. This great humanitarian is also a devotee of the work of C. S. Lewis and in his book The Language of God has set out the case for making science compatible with faith. (This small volume contains an admirably terse chapter informing fundamentalists that the argument about evolution is over, mainly because there is no argument.) I know Francis, too, from various public and private debates over religion. He has been kind enough to visit me in his own time and to discuss all sorts of novel treatments, only recently even imaginable, that might apply to my case. And let me put it this way: he hasn’t suggested prayer, and I in turn haven’t teased him about The Screwtape Letters. So those who want me to die in agony are really praying that the efforts of our most selfless Christian physician be thwarted. Who is Dr. Collins to interfere with the divine design? By a similar twist, those who want me to burn in hell are also mocking those kind religious folk who do not find me unsalvageably evil. I leave these paradoxes to those, friends and enemies, who still venerate the supernatural.

Pursuing the prayer thread through the labyrinth of the Web, I eventually found a bizarre “Place Bets” video. This invites potential punters to put money on whether I will repudiate my atheism and embrace religion by a certain date or continue to affirm unbelief and take the hellish consequences. This isn’t, perhaps, as cheap or as nasty as it may sound. One of Christianity’s most cerebral defenders, Blaise Pascal, reduced the essentials to a wager as far back as the 17th century. Put your faith in the almighty, he proposed, and you stand to gain everything. Decline the heavenly offer and you lose everything if the coin falls the other way. (Some philosophers also call this Pascal’s Gambit.)

Ingenious though the full reasoning of his essay may be—he was one of the founders of probability theory—Pascal assumes both a cynical god and an abjectly opportunist human being. Suppose I ditch the principles I have held for a lifetime, in the hope of gaining favor at the last minute? I hope and trust that no serious person would be at all impressed by such a hucksterish choice. Meanwhile, the god who would reward cowardice and dishonesty and punish irreconcilable doubt is among the many gods in which (whom?) I do not believe. I don’t mean to be churlish about any kind intentions, but when September 20 comes, please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries. Unless, of course, it makes you feel better.

Next: Doctors, remedies, and disappointments.

Victims on the road to ‘peace’

By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist
http://www.boston.com/
September 5, 2010


Hodaya Ames, nine, cries at her parents’ funeral after they were shot by Hamas militants last week. Hodaya’s mother was nine months pregnant with her seventh child. (Getty Images)

TALIA AND Yitzhak Ames met as students at Moscow University. They got married in 1985, and had two children by the time they emigrated to Israel in 1991. Four more children followed in the next 19 years, and Talia was nine months’ pregnant with their seventh when she and Yitzhak were murdered by Palestinian terrorists last week.

The killers ambushed them as they were driving home Tuesday night, heading south on Highway 60 toward Beit Haggai in the Hebron Hills. With Talia and Yitzhak in the car when the killers opened fire were two other residents of Beit Haggai: Avishai Schindler, a newly married yeshiva student, and Kochava Even-Haim, a nursery school teacher and the mother of an 8-year-old daughter. All of the victims were shot repeatedly at close range, and the car was riddled with dozens of bullets.

Hamas, a terrorist organization whose charter extols the murder of Jews, promptly claimed responsibility for the massacre, describing it as “part of the repelling operations against the occupation assaults on Gaza Strip and West Bank.’’ In Hamas-controlled Gaza, the bloodshed was celebrated; the news was broadcast from loudspeakers and there was a “victory’’ rally in the Jebaliya refugee camp. The Palestinian Authority, headed by Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas, issued a tepid statement condemning the Hamas “operation’’ — not because the deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians is a brutal atrocity, but on the dispassionate tactical grounds that it “contradicts Palestinian interests’’ by making it more difficult for “the Palestinian leadership to garner international support.’’

The killings took place as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was en route to Washington for a new round of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. When word of the bloodbath reached him, he could have cancelled the talks and immediately returned home to attend the victims’ funerals. He declined to alter his itinerary. “We are committed to peace,’’ his spokesman said. His position didn’t change even after a second attack along the same highway Wednesday night, when terrorists opened fire on an Israeli car, wounding a young rabbi and his wife.

A persistent myth of the Arab-Israeli conflict is that Palestinian terrorists kill Jews in order to “disrupt the peace process,’’ and that the best response to terrorism is to persevere with negotiations. That explanation for last week’s carnage was repeated everywhere, from the White House (“This brutal attack underscores how far the enemies of peace will go to try to block progress’’) to Israel’s opposition leader Tzipi Livni (“[the terrorists had a] cold, political motive: to prevent the peace process’’) to the international media.

But far from opposing a “peace process’’ meant to push Israel into ever-deeper concessions, retreats, and self-endangerment, terrorists — whether affiliated with Hamas or with Fatah — seek to accelerate it. The two Palestinian factions may be at war with each other, but they have always been as one in rejecting Israel’s existence as the sovereign state of the Jewish people. So long as they refuse to budge from that position, Israeli-Palestinian peace is impossible.

Yet rather than say so forthrightly, Israeli leaders keep insisting that diplomacy can end the conflict, and that they are prepared to sacrifice greatly for peace. It was once Israel’s policy never to bargain with terrorists, and to pursue peace through deterrence and patience and strength. But with the advent of the Oslo Accord, deterrence gave way to appeasement, talks, and a yearning for peace at any price. To Fatah and Hamas, that desperation has made the Jewish state seem weak — and vulnerable to further pressure. In an opinion survey released last week, 55 percent of Palestinians endorsed anti-Israel violence as “essential’’ or “desirable,’’ while less than 14 percent called it “unacceptable.’’ “Israel’s very pursuit of peace,’’ journalist Evelyn Gordon wrote earlier this year, “has spurred its enemies to go for the jugular.’’

Netanyahu should have walked away from the table after last week’s butchery. Instead, he publicly anointed Abbas “my partner for peace’’ and reasserted his commitment to negotiations. When those negotiations fail, as they inevitably will, the impasse will be blamed on the insufficiency of Israel’s concessions. That will further enrage its enemies, some of whom will turn to terror.

And so the peace process proceeds. The victims on Highway 60 were only the latest of Israel’s “sacrifices for peace.’’ They won’t be the last.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

The environmental movement in retreat

By George F. Will
The Washington Post
Sunday, September 5, 2010; A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com


The collapsing crusade for legislation to combat climate change raises a question: Has ever a political movement made so little of so many advantages? Its implosion has continued since "the Cluster of Copenhagen, when world leaders assembled for the single most unproductive and chaotic global gathering ever held." So says Walter Russell Mead, who has an explanation: Bambi became Godzilla.

That is, a small band of skeptics became the dogmatic establishment. In his Via Meadia blog, Mead, a professor of politics at Bard College and Yale, notes that "the greenest president in American history had the largest congressional majority of any president since Lyndon Johnson," but the environmentalists' legislation foundered because they got "on the wrong side of doubt."

Environmentalists, Mead argues, have forgotten their origins, which were in skeptical "reaction against Big Science, Big Government and Experts." Environmentalists once were intellectual cousins of economic libertarians who heed the arguments of Friedrich Hayek and other students of spontaneous order -- in society or nature. Such libertarians caution against trying to impose big, simple plans on complex systems. They warn that governmental interventions in such systems inevitably have large unintended, because unforeseeable, consequences.

In the middle of the 20th century, Americans, impressed by the government's mobilization of society for victory in World War II, were, Mead says, "intoxicated with social and environmental engineering of all kinds." They had, for example, serene confidence that "urban renewal" would produce "model cities." Back then, environmentalism was skepticism.

It was akin to the dissent of Jane Jacobs, author of the 1961 book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." She argued that ambitious social engineers such as New York's Robert Moses were, by their ten-thumbed interventions in complex organisms such as cities, disrupting social ecosystems. The apotheosis of technocratic experts such as McGeorge Bundy and Robert McNamara gave us "nation-building" in conjunction with a war of attrition -- the crucial metric supposedly was body counts -- in a Southeast Asian peasant society. Over time, Mead says, "experts lost their mystique":

"An increasingly skeptical public started to notice that 'experts' weren't angels descending immaculately from heaven bearing infallible revelations from God. They were fallible human beings with mortgages to pay and funds to raise. They disagreed with one another and they colluded with their friends and supporters like everyone else."

And expertise was annoyingly changeable. Experts said margarine was the healthy alternative to butter -- until they said its trans fats made it harmful.

Environmentalism began as Bambi doing battle with Godzillas, such as the Army Corps of Engineers. Then, says Mead, environmentalism became Godzilla, an advocate of "a big and simple fix for all that ails us: a global carbon cap. One big problem, one big fix." Mead continues:

"Never mind that the leading green political strategy (to stop global warming by a treaty that gains unanimous consent among 190-plus countries and is then ratified by 67 votes in a Senate that rejected Kyoto 95 to 0) is and always has been so cluelessly unrealistic as to be clinically insane. The experts decree and we rubes are not to think but to honor and obey."

The essence of progressivism, of which environmentalism has become an appendage, is the faith that all will be well once we have concentrated enough power in Washington and have concentrated enough Washington power in the executive branch and have concentrated enough "experts" in that branch. Hence the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to do what the elected representatives of the rubes refuse to do in limiting greenhouse gases. Mead says of today's environmental movement:

"It proposes big economic and social interventions and denies that unintended consequences and new information could vitiate the power of its recommendations. It knows what is good for us, and its knowledge is backed up by the awesome power and majesty of the peer review process. The political, cultural, business and scientific establishments stand firmly behind global warming today -- just as they once stood firmly behind Robert Moses, urban renewal and big dams. They tell us it's a sin to question the consensus, the sign of bad moral character to doubt. Bambi, look in the mirror. You will see Godzilla looking back."

Mead, who says that he is a skeptic about climate policy rather than climate science, says that the environmental movement has "become the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats." This is the wrong thing to be in "Recovery Summer" while the nation wonders about the whereabouts of the robust recovery the experts forecast.

georgewill@washpost.com

Thursday, September 02, 2010

FRIENDLY PERSUASION

By Mark Steyn
Steyn on Culture
http://www.marksteyn.com/
Wednesday, 01 September 2010

HAPPY WARRIOR
from the July 19, 2010 issue of National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/

“I think it is kids’ preference to pair up and have that one best friend. As adults – teachers and counselors – we try to encourage them not to do that.”

Thus, Christine Laycob, “director of counseling” at Mary Institute and St Louis Country Day School in Missouri, speaking to The New York Times the other day about why “best friends” are a bad thing. “Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend. We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”

By “we”, she means the expert opinion of “educators”. Granted that “educators” seem to have minimal interest in education, and that therefore it would be unreasonable to expect them to regard, say, American students’ under-performance in everything from math to music as a priority, one is still impressed by their ability to conjure hitherto unknown crises to obsess over. The tone of the Times piece is faintly creepy – not least in its acceptance of the totalitarian proposition that it’s appropriate for “experts” to re-engineer one of the most building blocks of our humanity: the right to choose our friends.

If the report reads like something out of The Stepford Kindergarten PTA, it is no more than the logical endpoint of the educational establishment’s preference for collectivized mediocrity over individual achievement: A child should no longer have best friends, and close friends, and people he’s happy to hang around with, and folks he doesn’t much care for. Instead, he should just be friends with the collective, with the commune, all the same.

We conservatives have been wasting our energy arguing the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The statists have moved on, and are now demanding equality of basic human relationships, and starting in nursery school.

Oh, come on, you scoff. Why make a big deal about one itsy-bitsy New York Times education story?


By Hall Smith, Hannibal Courier-Post via AP

The bronze statue of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn stands at the north end of Main Street in Hannibal, Mo.


Well, because much of the contemporary scene owes its origins to silly little fads among “educators” that seemed too laughable to credit only the day before yesterday. I see the Times piece references those literary best friends of yore, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. But Tom and Huck’s boyhood is all but incomprehensible to today’s children. Unlike its fellow Missouri educational establishment in St Louis, I don’t believe the grade school in St Petersburg had a “director of counseling”, because, if it had, she would have diagnosed Tom with ADHD, pumped him full of Ritalin, and the story would have been over before he’d been told to whitewash the fence. The suppression of boyhood would have been thought absurd half-a-century back. Yet the “educators” pulled it off, effortlessly. Why not try something even more ambitious?

Speaking of best friends, in 1902 Theodore Morse and Edward Madden wrote the song “Two Little Boys”, in which the eponymous tykes are wont to play soldiers on wooden horses. (The great Aussie didgeridooist Rolf Harris revived the song in 1969, and it got to Number One: Mrs Thatcher named it one of her favorite records). “One little chap/Then had a mishap,” as the song says, and breaks his mount. So his friend offers to share his steed:

“Did you think I would leave you crying
When there’s room on my horse for two?
Climb up here, Jack, and don’t be crying
I can go just as fast with two…”

Come the next verse, the horses are real, and they’re in the thick of battle. This time round, the other boy loses his mount, shot out from under him, and it’s Jack’s turn to say:

“Did you think I would leave you dying
When there’s room on my horse for two?
Climb up here, Joe, we’ll soon be flying…"

The lessons we learn in childhood stay with us. The Battle of Waterloo, they used to say (and with a straight face, too), was won on the playing fields of Eton. But in British schools today competitive sports have been all but abolished. It was recently reported that in one children’s soccer league in Ottawa any team that racked up a five-goal lead would be deemed to have lost, and the losing team declared the winners, to spare their feelings. By those standards, the hapless England footie team might have managed to “beat” Germany and get through to the next round of the World Cup (almost). What’s less clear is whether boys raised on such playing fields would be capable of winning another Waterloo, or even be prepared to fight it. Indeed, early setbacks in post-Saddam Iraq and current difficulties in Afghanistan derive in part from that Ottawa soccer mindset – that it would be insensitive to open up a five-goal lead over the enemy.

In an essay on democracy for The New Criterion, Kenneth Minogue began by “observing the remarkable fact that, while democracy means a government accountable to the electorate, our rulers now make us accountable to them. Most Western governments hate me smoking, or eating the wrong kind of food, or hunting foxes, or drinking too much… The distribution of our friends does not always correspond, as governments think that it ought, to the cultural diversity of our society. We must face up to the grim fact that the rulers we elect are losing patience with us.”

What to do? The state can, as Brecht advised, elect a new people – which the immigration policies of many western nations seem intended to accomplish. But you can also change the existing people, in profound ways and over a surprisingly short space of time. Give me a boy till seven, said the Jesuits, and I will show you the man. Give me a boy till Seventh Grade, say today’s educators, and we can eliminate the man problem entirely.

'Dracula's Guest' collection returns vampires to creatures of terror

[No emoting, baseball-playing, vegetarian vampires to be found here...only ravenous, blood-thirsty children of the night...just like in real life. - jtf]

By Tish Well, McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/books/
Sunday, August 15, 2010

Most vampires aren't handsome, romantic or protective. They kill. When they rip out your throat, you die smelling corpse breath and terrified.

If you need proof, read "Dracula's Guest," a superb collection of vampire fiction — and nonfiction — from writers dealing with the undead.

Michael Sims has culled stories from the Victorian era to make a collection guaranteed to delight anyone who enjoyed Bram Stoker's "Dracula."

Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901, but Sims stretched his selections to the beginning of World War I in 1914. He includes several nonfiction pieces reaching back to the 1700s.

In "Dracula's Guest," the vampires run from those who slowly drain the spirit — "Good Lady Ducayne" — from their victims to those who are frightening enough to give nightmares.

There is nothing seductive about the vampires in Aleksei Tolstoy's "The Family of the Vourdalak," set in Serbia, where family sentiment overrules the final warning words of grandfather Gorcha, and all the family dies only to come back and hunt an unwary suitor.

"I turned away from (the daughter) Sdenka to hide the horror which was written on my face. It is then that I looked out the window and saw the satanic figure of Gorcha, leaning on a bloody stake and staring at me with the eyes of a hyena. Pressed against the other window were the waxen features of Georges, who at that moment looked as terrifying as his father." Exit suitor chased by fiends.

Eastern Europe is just the best-known source for vampire tales. "Luella Miller" is placed in a New England village. Sweden is the setting for "Count Magnus." A chilling story, "A Mystery of the Campagna," is based in Italy.

What makes these Victorian stories different from contemporary ones? In general, the afflicted that run afoul of vampires die. There are very few happy endings here.

You have the lurid pulp fiction of James Malcolm Rymer's "Varney the Vampire," written in installments for the periodical market. "With a sudden rush that could be foreseen — with a strange howling cry that was enough to awaken terror in every breast, the figure seized the long tresses of her hair and, twining them round his bony hands, he held her to bed. Then she screamed — Heaven granted her the power to scream."

Sims' introduction covers the reality of death and how the legends of vampires might have come into existence. There are several nonfiction pieces, and an excellent bibliography provides more sources and websites.

Bram Stoker gets the last word. The final story is an early draft of the first chapter of his classic novel. The unnamed narrator ventures out on Walpurgisnacht, the last day of April, to run afoul of wolves and the dead. He's rescued by troopers on the orders of his host — Dracula.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

The New Moral Equivalence

Prominent media hosts equate Christian and Muslim violence.

By Dennis Prager
http://www.nationalreview.com/
August 31, 2010 12:00 A.M.

There was one thing more than any other that turned this New York, liberal, Jewish, Columbia University graduate student away from modern liberalism: its use of moral equivalence to avoid confronting evil during the Cold War.

There was a time when liberalism was identified with anti-Communism. But the Vietnam War led liberals into the arms of the Left, which had been morally confused about Communism since its inception and had become essentially pacifist following the carnage of World War I.

After the Vietnam War, even liberals who continued to describe Communism as evil were labeled “right-wingers” and “Cold Warriors.” And the United States, with its moral flaws, was often likened to the Soviet Union. I recall asking the preeminent liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in a public forum in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, if he would say that the United States was a morally superior society to the Soviet Union. He would not.

Little has changed regarding the Left’s inability to identify and confront evil. Its moral equation of good guys and bad guys was made evident again in recent weeks by hosts on three major liberal networks: ABC, National Public Radio (NPR), and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

First, on May 25, PBS host Tavis Smiley interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ex-Muslim Somali writer and activist for human, especially women’s, rights in Islamic countries. After mentioning American Muslim terrorists Major Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 fellow soldiers and injured 30 others at Fort Hood) and Faisal Shahzad (who attempted to murder hundreds in Times Square), this dialogue ensued:

Ali: “Somehow, the idea got into their [Hasan’s and Shahzad’s] minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.”

Smiley: “But Christians do that every single day in this country.”

Ali: “Do they blow people up?”

Smiley: “Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine is — I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian.

“There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.”


Then, on August 22, Michel Martin, host of NPR’s Tell Me More, in discussing whether the Islamic Center and mosque planned for near Ground Zero should be moved, said this on CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz: “Should anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh, who adhered to a cultic white supremacist cultic version of Christianity, bombed [the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City]?”

And third, on August 26, ABC 20/20 anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted this to his nearly 1 million followers: “To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics – before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades . . . . study them.”

I have known Tavis Smiley since the 1980s, when we both worked at the same radio station in Los Angeles. He is smart, and he is a gentleman who has accorded me great respect both on and off the air.

How, then, does such a man equate Muslims who murder in the name of Islam with Americans who “murder every day,” none of whom commit their murders in the name of Christianity?

How does Michel Martin equate the thousands of Islamic terrorists around the world, all of whom are devout Muslims, with a single American (one who professed no religion at all)?

And how does ABC’s Chris Cuomo claim that Christians cannot condemn Muslims for violence because of the Christian Crusades?

First of all, the Crusades occurred a thousand years ago. One might as well argue that Jews cannot condemn Christian and secular anti-Semitic violence because Jews destroyed Canaanite communities 3,200 years ago.

Second, it is hardly a defense of Muslims to cite comparable Christian conduct that occurred a thousand years ago.

Third, even if we do compare the Crusades with contemporary Islamic jihadism, there is little moral equivalence. The Crusades were waged in order to recapture lands that had been Christian for centuries until Muslim armies attacked them. (Some Crusaders also massacred whole Jewish communities in Germany on the way to the Holy Land, and that was a grotesque evil — which Church officials condemned at the time.) As the dean of Western Islamic scholars, Princeton professor Bernard Lewis, has written, “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

So how did Tavis Smiley, Michel Martin, and Chris Cuomo make such morally egregious statements?

The answer is not that these are bad people, or that they are not repulsed by terrorist violence.

The answer is leftism, the way of looking at the world that permeates high schools, universities, and the news and entertainment media. Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of making accurate moral judgments. They once regarded America and the Soviet Union as morally similar. Today, they claim that the people they call Christian “extremists” (who are they?) and Islamist terrorists and their supporters pose equal threats to America and to the world.

That is how bright and decent people become moral relativists and thereby undermine the battles against the greatest evils — Communist totalitarianism in its time, and Islamic totalitarianism in ours.

The only solution is to keep exposing leftist moral confusion. One problem, however, is that in countries without talk radio, an equivalent to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative columnists, and a vigorous anti-Left political party, this is largely impossible.

The other major problem is that the media that dominate American life have little problem — indeed, they largely concur — with the foolish and dangerous comments made by their mainstream-media colleagues. That is why these comments, worthy of universal moral condemnation, were ignored by the mainstream (i.e., left-wing) media. Instead, they directed mind-numbing attention and waves of opprobrium toward Dr. Laura.

Those who don’t fight real evils fight imaginary ones.

— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, www.dennisprager.com.

Glenn Beck’s Ecumenical Moment

The “Restoring Honor” rally showcased a nation dedicated to its constitutional heritage.

By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com
September 1, 2010 12:00 A.M.



TV commentator Glenn Beck addresses the crowd on camera as he stands on the steps in front of the Lincoln Memorial to address supporters at his Restoring Honor rally on theNational Mall in Washington, August 28, 2010. REUTERS

Predictably, the “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall last Saturday has evoked a lot of consternation.

Because the rally explicitly and studiously avoided trumpeting a political agenda, it freed up a lot of people to fill in the blanks themselves. For instance, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post insists it was all a con: “As high-minded as that may sound, the real point of stressing the rally’s apolitical goals was political.” By leaving the listener to infer an anti-Obama agenda from all of this talk of lost honor, host Glenn Beck was practicing “classic political demagoguery.”

So let me get this straight: If Beck had done the opposite, and invited hundreds of thousands of anti-Obama signs, and carved up Obama like a turkey dinner, folks like Sargent would think the rally was less demagogic? Hmmm.

Obviously, Sargent’s not entirely wrong about the rally’s political resonance. Of course it was a conservative-and-libertarian-tinged event. Of course it would have been impossible without the right-leaning tea-party movement. Of course the fact that Beck and Sarah Palin managed to attract so many people to the Mall is not a ringing endorsement of the Democrats.

But the partisan implications of the rally aren’t that interesting. Nor, really, is the argument that the relentless celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. at the National Mall amounted to some grave insult to his memory.

One striking feature of Saturday’s rally was how deeply religious and ecumenical it was. It seems like just yesterday that everyone was talking about how Christian evangelicals were too bigoted to vote for upright and uptight Mormon Mitt Romney. Yet Christian activists saw no problem cheering for — and praying with — the equally Mormon but far less uptight Beck, who asked citizens to go to “your churches, synagogues, and mosques!”

The inclusiveness transcended mere religion. While the crowd was preponderantly white, the message was racially universalistic. That was evident not just on the stage, but in the crowd as well. When Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie asked a couple whether as “African-Americans” they felt comfortable in such a white audience, the woman responded emphatically but good-naturedly: “First of all, I’m not African, I am an American . . . a black American.” She went on to explain how “these people” — i.e., the white folks cheering her on — “are my family.”

Peter Viereck, a largely forgotten conservative intellectual, would have found this familiar. During the 1950s, he noted that anti-Communism — whatever its other faults and excesses — had the remarkable effect of lessoning inter-ethnic tensions among like-minded activists. Anti-Communist blacks were celebrated and welcomed by anti-Communist whites. Anti-Communist immigrants and Jews were welcomed to the supposedly nativist and anti-Semitic movement. Viereck, who disliked the phenomenon (he said it was akin to xenophobia practiced by a “xeno”), dubbed it “transtolerance.”

I’m more upbeat about the dynamic. Of late there’s been a lot of debate, largely in the context of the so-called Ground Zero mosque, about the evils of American identity. Will Wilkinson, an influential liberal-libertarian writer, sees opposition to the mosque as an entirely reprehensible expression of the “cult of American identity” and the “zaniness of right identity politics.” The upshot of Wilkinson’s argument is that it’s absolutely preposterous for the American people to see themselves as a people.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently argued that there are “two Americas.” The first America is wholly secular, “where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.” The other America is culturally defined: “This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well.”

Douthat makes some good points, but he downplays the relationship between what are really the two faces of one America. It is America’s conception of itself as a people that keeps it loyal to the Constitution. The Constitution, absent our cultural fidelity to it, might as well be the rules for a role-playing game.

I confess, if Beck weren’t a libertarian, I would find his populism worrisome. But his message, flaws and excesses notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people, regardless of race, religion, or creed. Is that so insulting to Martin Luther King Jr.’s memory?

— Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

A ‘Family’ Celebration at the Emmys

By BRIAN STELTER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com
August 30, 2010

LOS ANGELES — “Where’s your cupcake?” Nolan Gould, the trouble-making boy on ABC’s “Modern Family,” asked Ariel Winter, who plays his sister Alex, backstage at the Emmy Awards on Sunday night.

After only one season, “Modern Family” had just come of age, capturing the Emmy for best comedy series and unseating NBC’s “30 Rock,” the winner for the past three years.

Behind the scenes, E! channel was handing out cupcakes, which Ms. Winter skipped, smartly, as Mr. Gould was soon whining, “Chocolate’s dripping everywhere!” He was doing what many 11-year-old boys do best: shouting.

The scene could have been pulled from the show itself. In “Modern Family,” ABC and the 20th Century Fox studio have successfully built a broad, relatable family comedy appreciated by critics and viewers alike.

“Everyone can see a little something about their family somewhere in the show,” said Jason Winer, one of its directors.

Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

Eric Stonestreet won an Emmy for outstanding supporting actor in a comedy for “Modern Family.” The series was named best comedy.


“Modern Family,” at least this year, occupies a sweet spot in television. With an average of 11.1 million viewers in its first season, it draws fewer people than the CBS sitcoms that are generally snubbed by Emmy voters but more than the NBC sitcoms that television critics tend to favor.

Clutching his two Emmys backstage (for best comedy and for writing), Steven Levitan, one of the show’s executive producers, said he would leave those labels up to reporters but added, “Believe me, I’m happy to be in that spot.”

So too is ABC, which hasn’t had a best-comedy winner since “The Wonder Years” in 1988. The network is trying to build an all-comedy night on Wednesday, with “Modern Family” as the backbone.

Although it hasn’t entirely won over Middle America, “Modern Family” is the kind of show that families can watch together, which partly explains its success. This mockumentary-style series follows three connected families: a nuclear family; a stepfamily with Ed O’Neill and, playing his much younger wife, Sofia Vergara; and a gay couple with a newly adopted Vietnamese baby. The families have an overtly upper-middle-class lifestyle, making the show either aspirational or envy-provoking, depending on the mood of the viewer.

Before the show had its premiere last September, Mr. Levitan, who has three children, said, “I just wanted it to be real.”

After the Emmy victory, after the interviews were all over, the cast looked remarkably like a real family, with each person reverting to his or her on-camera role. Ms. Winter, 12, was sending her friends text messages. Sarah Hyland, 19, who plays the older sister of Ms. Winter’s and Mr. Gould’s characters, was figuring out which after-party to go to first. And what was Julie Bowen, who plays the mother of the three, doing? Naturally, she was keeping tabs on Ms. Hyland’s party plans.

Meanwhile, Rico Rodriguez, 12, who plays the old soul Manny (son of Ms. Vergara’s character; stepson of Mr. O’Neill’s), was on the phone with his father, who was wishing him a good night. He had school on Monday morning.

The one family member missing from this scene was Eric Stonestreet, who won an Emmy for best supporting actor. He was the sole “Modern Family” actor with a victory Sunday night, although four other cast members — Mr. Stonestreet’s on-screen partner, Jesse Tyler Ferguson; Ms. Bowen; her on-screen husband, Ty Burrell; and Ms. Vergara — were also nominated in supporting roles.

Notably, Mr. O’Neill, the most recognizable cast member, was submitted as a supporting actor, not a lead, and was snubbed for a nomination, something that Mr. Winer chalked up to the idea that “people think of Ed as a lead actor.”

The cast of "Modern Family" poses after winning the outstanding comedy series award at the 62nd annual Primetime Emmy Awards in Los Angeles, California August 29, 2010. Shown (L-R) are Julie Bowen, Ed O'Neill, Ty Burrell, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Ariel Winter, Eric Stonestreet, Rico Rodriguez, Nolan Gould, Sofia Vergara, and Sarah Hyland .REUTERS/Danny Moloshok.

The show was introduced at a time when the TV chattering classes predicted that comedies were on the rise, a byproduct of the recession. ABC had so much faith in it that the network screened the entire first episode to advertisers at its new-season presentation in May. “Modern Family” was championed by ABC’s president of entertainment, Stephen McPherson, who hastily exited last month. Mr. Levitan thanked him while accepting the writing award.

Asked what viewers can expect in Season 2, Mr. Levitan said, “More of the same.” Someone is stuck in a bathroom during an earthquake. Ms. Winter’s character gets a boyfriend, kind of. Mr. Stonestreet’s and Mr. Ferguson’s characters, Cameron and Mitchell, kiss.

That kiss has been the subject of much speculation and some criticism, since there was no such kiss in Season 1. The producers say it has been planned for a while.

Backstage, Mr. Stonestreet was asked if he thought the show had influenced the same-sex-marriage debate in California. Without wading into that specifically, he said, “We get amazing compliments from kids of same-sex-marriage families” and recounted a recent conversation with a man who thanked him for giving his sister “ammunition for the bullies.”

Echoing Mr. Stonestreet in an interview, Mr. Levitan said, “We’re here to make people laugh,” but added, “I think that if people fall in love with Cam and Mitchell, then maybe they’ll be a bit more understanding when they’re thinking about those issues at the ballots or in general in life.”

Eventually on Sunday night, the cast and producers caught up with their real families. Mr. O’Neill walked quietly through a parking garage to the Governors Ball, holding his wife’s hand. Mr. Rodriguez was teased by his older sister, Raini, an actress, after accidentally referring to “Modern Family” as “Emmy-nominated.”

“Emmy-winning!” she said to him. “Emmy-winning show. There’s no more ‘nominated.’ You won.”