Thursday, October 21, 2010

Sabathia Keeps Yanks Alive

Yankees, ace CC Sabathia rise as true champions to defend pride, Stadium against Rangers

By Mike Lupica
The Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com
Thursday, October 21st 2010, 4:00 AM

They got up again for CC Sabathia with two on and two out in the top of the sixth, got up on what could yet be the last night of baseball at the Stadium this season, got up big and loud and told Sabathia to get them one more out against the Rangers.

After all the pitches Sabathia had thrown, they wanted him to throw the one that would get him out of the sixth with his 6-2 lead, win the fight he was having with Mitch Moreland, hand Game 5 to Kerry Wood, who would then hand it to Mo Rivera. On the night when the Yankees got back up against the Rangers the way champions are supposed to get up in moments like this, the Stadium didn't ask Sabathia to win the series here, or even the game. Just make them believe the Yankees were going to win the night.

Really the cheer said this:

Not here.

Sabathia hadn't shown you the best he had in Game 5. Just all he had. He had given the Rangers 11 hits, thrown 111 pitches already. There had been at least one baserunner in every inning, sometimes more than that. But in all the big moments of Game 5, the one the Yankees had to win to keep playing, Sabathia had found the pitch he needed.

"One thing about CC," Joe Girardi would say. "He's good at limiting damage."

Now he needed to do it again. He had gotten Josh Hamilton to end the Rangers' fifth by hitting into a double play. Get Moreland now. One run in, Ian Kinsler on third, Jeff Francoeur on second, Wood warmed up. Get Moreland, get to the dugout with the lead. The count was 2-2. Moreland had fouled off good pitches, hard stuff and breaking balls.

"Couldn't put him away," Sabathia said.

Moreland already had one hit in the game. If he got another, it was 6-4 and here came the Rangers again, maybe all the way back to win the pennant.

After all of the quiet moments of the past two nights, two endings when the Stadium looked as if there had been some kind of emergency evacuation by the ninth inning, this was the place rising up again to beg for the season to at least not end here. Maybe in Arlington Friday night, or on Saturday night against Cliff Lee if the Yankees could find a way to make the Rangers go the distance after being up three games to one.

Just not tonight and not here.

Somehow Moreland working the at-bat through seven pitches already just made them louder at the Stadium. Then Sabathia dropped a cutter on the inside corner and Moreland took it the way you take a good left hook. Inning over. Sabathia was done. So were the Rangers on this night. Sometimes you know.

"Threw him a cutter that ended up backing up enough that he didn't swing at it," CC Sabathia said.

"We had Sabathia bended," Texas manager Ron Washington said. "He didn't break."

So the Yankees do not lose the last four games of the American League Championship Series. So the Yankees finally played the game with a big lead and Sabathia showed he knows how to pitch with that kind of lead. They all go to Arlington and try to find a way to come all the way back from 3-1 down the way only one Yankee team ever had, the '58 Yankees in the World Series against the Braves. And the Braves didn't beat up the '58 Yankees the way the Rangers beat them up over the first four games of this series.

"They're the champs," Washington said in the interview room. "We didn't expect them to lay down."

If they somehow get out of this, if they push it to Game 7 and then find a way to get a game off Lee the way he is pitching, has pitched in the playoffs, it will be the greatest comeback in the history of the Yankees, even if they did have to beat Warren Spahn and Lew Burdette in the last two games in '58.

This time the Yankees made their big hits pay off. This time Sabathia got Hamilton before he got the Yankees. The Yankees got three in the second and two in the third and it was the first time since the eighth inning of Game 1 that they got more than one run in an inning off the Rangers.

The season may not make it back to the Stadium for the World Series, may not make it past Lee if the Yankees make it that far. The Yankees still got up Wednesday. One knee. But they got up. They didn't let the Rangers win the pennant at the Stadium.

They are not in the clear, not by a long shot, still trying to climb out of the hole they dug for themselves over the first four games of the series. But the Yankees showed up after being outscored 25-5 in the last three games, after losing 8-0 to Lee, after watching the Rangers score the last eight runs of Game 4.

"We had not played particularly well in this series to say the least," Joe Girardi said.

They need two more games. One more to get to Lee. But Robinson Cano hit another one in Game 5, Jorge Posada showed why you never sit him down at this time of year, Nick Swisher finally made a swing. Four home runs for Cano in this series, four for Hamilton. It's like watching Kobe play LeBron.

The Yankees saved their season Wednesday. They try to save it again Friday night. CC Sabathia stood up Wednesday the way an ace is supposed to. The Yankees got up. Champs don't lay down. The Rangers may still win the pennant. Not here.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

'Apocalypse Now' lands on Blu-Ray, in all of its beautiful, horrifying glory

By Mike Scott, The Times-Picayune
http://www.nola.com/movies/
October 19, 2010

As I see it, there are two kinds of people in the world: There are those who recognize Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 war drama "Apocalypse Now" as a masterpiece of American cinema, and there are those whose opinions I don't quite trust.

For both types, I would recommend "Apocalypse Now: Full Disclosure Edition, " a three-disc Blu-ray set that is expected to land on store shelves Tuesday, loaded down with extras that cover everything you could possibly want to know about the making of the film -- and then some.

This isn't the first time Coppola's film has been released on home video. It's the first time, however, that it's been released in high-definition. And, frankly, that alone makes it worth the collection's $59.99 list price. (For the budget-conscious connoisseur, a scaled-down, two-disc Blu-ray version, for $39.95, also lands Tuesday.)

When I popped in my review copy, it was a case of not knowing where to start and -- once I did -- not knowing how to stop.

In addition to the original 1979 theatrical version, both sets also come with the lesser, but still interesting, 2001 recut, "Apocalypse Now Redux." Another reason to upgrade to the pricier "Full Disclosure" edition: It also includes the full-length 1991 documentary "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, " chronicling the making of the famously troubled production.

(A sign of the thoroughness of this release: Even "Hearts of Darkness" has a commentary track from Coppola. I didn't listen to it -- there was just too much here to consume in one sitting -- but I can't wait until I can.)

All the expected elements are here (fresh interviews, new featurettes), as well as a few shrug-worthy ones (a 48-page booklet and featurettes repurposed from earlier releases). Then there are the unexpected gems, such as a full-length 2001 Coppola interview with film critic Roger Ebert, and a 1938 radio reading of the inspiration for the film, Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness, " by Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre (both irresistible).

For real film geeks, there's the added bonus of having "Apocalypse Now" released for the first time in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio. If you know what that means, chances are you're excited. If you don't, suffice to say that this will be the first time since the film's theatrical release 31 years ago that you'll be able to see it as Coppola intended.

In this age of hyperbole and gross overstatements from DVD marketers, this really, truly is the definitive "Apocalypse Now" release. And until they figure out a way for us to smell the morning napalm along with Robert Duvall, I can't imagine that will change any time soon.

______________

APOCALYPSE NOW: FULL DISCLOSURE EDITION

4 stars, out of 4

Snapshot: The first-ever Blu-ray release of Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 Vietnam War masterpiece, packaged with the 2001 "Apocalypse Now Redux" recut, and the 1991 full-length, behind-the-scenes documentary "Hearts of Darkness."

What works: Everything. The stunning high-def images will get the true film buff almost as excited as the wealth of bonus features.

What doesn't: Nothing of note.

Starring: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Laurence Fishburne, Frederic Forrest, Albert Hall, Sam Bottoms, Dennis Hopper, Harrison Ford. Director: Coppola. Rating: R, for disturbing violent images, language, sexual content and some drug use. Bonus features: Too numerous to list, from commentary tracks to interviews to featurettes repurposed from earlier home-video releases.


A Second Look: 'Apocalypse Now'

The war movie arrives on Blu-ray, flaws and all, in the original and longer versions as well as a behind-the-scenes documentary and other featurettes.


By Dennis Lim, Special to the Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/
October 17, 2010

An art movie made on a blockbuster scale, Francis Ford Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" is a cult film for the ages, an imperfect classic whose force and stature have only grown with time. Released in summer 1979, having premiered a few months earlier in an unfinished version at the Cannes Film Festival, it was a monumental work of momentous import: Hollywood's much-trumpeted attempt to close the book on the national nightmare of the Vietnam War and in retrospect, a tombstone that marked the end of American cinema's 1970s golden age.

"Apocalypse Now" arrives in the Blu-ray, high-definition DVD format this week in fittingly expansive two-disc and three-disc editions. Both include the 153-minute 1979 cut and "Apocalypse Now Redux," the 2001 re-edit that added about 50 minutes to the running time, and the film is being presented in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio for the first time on home video. There are also hours' worth of supplemental material, a mix of previously available featurettes and new interviews with Coppola and others, and the three-disc "Full Disclosure" version also includes "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse," Eleanor Coppola's valuable behind-the-scenes documentary.

The epic back story has long been inseparable from the film itself. The project originated, all the way back in 1970, with a simple concept — Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" in a Vietnam War context — and a John Milius script that George Lucas was to direct; by the mid '70s, Coppola had rewritten the screenplay and Lucas had his sights set on " Star Wars." Once production was finally underway in the Philippines, Coppola fired the original lead, Harvey Keitel. His replacement, Martin Sheen, suffered a heart attack. Marlon Brando showed up out of shape. A typhoon destroyed the set. Amid a steady drip of negative publicity — reports of ballooning costs, rumors of rampant excess — Coppola insisted on finding the story as he went, dragging a huge production and a fatigued cast and crew with him.

The drawn-out process meant that "Apocalypse Now," touted as the first major Vietnam War movie, was beaten to theaters by such films as "The Deer Hunter" and "Coming Home." If Coppola's phantasmagoric reverie has aged better than the Vietnam chronicles of the period, that is in large part because it was not really about Vietnam. As history, "Apocalypse Now" could be accused of any number of omissions. As a literary adaptation, it is not particularly imaginative, and as a metaphysical rumination on good and evil, it is not especially profound.

But where it excels is as a sensory experience, from editor Walter Murch's detailed sound work to the cinematography of Vittorio Storaro, which conjures an incandescent delirium of orange flames and yellow napalm clouds against an emerald jungle. But more than a druggy fever dream, "Apocalypse Now" is also a visceral evocation of the confusion and madness of war — albeit one that is unafraid to take a flamboyant aesthetic approach, as is evident right from its immortal opening shot, the jungle inferno scored to the Doors.

The most common complaints about "Apocalypse Now" have to do with the ending. Charged with finding — and killing — Brando's gone-native renegade Col. Kurtz, Sheen's Capt. Willard murmurs, early on, "I really didn't know what I'd do when I found him." Nor does the film, really. Brando's Kurtz all but sinks the temple-of-doom finale in a swamp of philosophical musings and poetic citations.

The problem remains in "Redux," which Coppola considers the definitive cut. The longer version has its fans, and there is a sense in which more is more: "Redux" does, after all, prolong the ritualistic trance that is Willard's journey upriver and the film's reason for being. The main addition is a long sequence at a French plantation that allows for an opiated love scene and the blunt observation that the Americans were fighting for "the biggest nothing in all of history." But some of the original's effective absurdist interludes — the encounter with the surf-obsessed Robert Duvall and the Playboy playmates' U.S.O. tour — are pointlessly distended.

Still this is a film so potent it can survive just about anything, even the needless meddling of its creator. It has always worn its flaws and incongruities well, from the atonal ending to the almost film noir-ish narration (written by war correspondent Michael Herr). Put another way: "Apocalypse Now" would likely feel off-kilter and misshapen in any form, but it would remain a masterpiece all the same.

calendar@latimes.coM

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times


Francis Ford Coppola's vision of 'Apocalypse'

The psychedelic 1979 war movie returns in a three-disc edition with improved aspect ratio and voluminous background material. It is, the director says, 'a strange, surreal movie.'


By Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/
October 17, 2010

What's it like for Francis Ford Coppola to go back into the jungle?

"In some ways," the 71-year-old filmmaker said with a warm laugh, "it feels like we never left."

This week, a massive three-disc edition of "Apocalypse Now" arrives on Blu-ray with more than nine hours of bonus features and, more than simple cinematic celebration, Coppola's intense participation in the project was a mission of legacy repair on several fronts.

For "Apocalypse Now: Full Disclosure Edition," Coppola not only went back to dig out photos and documents from the production of the 1979 fever-dream film, he also sat down with star Martin Sheen and screenwriter John Milius and interviewed them about their signature contributions to the Vietnam War epic. Coppola's clear goal — especially in case of Milius — was to share a spotlight that is often aimed only at the director.

"I hoped for people to learn more about John Milius and his true place in all of this," Coppola said by phone last week. "The big moments of dialogue in 'Apocalypse Now,' those lines people still remember, all those were hatched in the mind of John Milius long before I got hold of the script. … I wanted to give him his day in court, give him his due."

The new edition also delivers a widescreen version of the film on home video that Coppola says should quiet the howls of protest from "the aficionados and the purists" about the screen aspect ratio of past releases. The filmmaker directly supervised the transfers for the edition, and with pride he predicted a long life for this burnished version of his dark classic.

"This movie is the one that people want when they test out their new Blu-ray and home theaters, and this is the version they're going to want; it's technically perfect."

Coppola, of course, didn't have anything close to that kind of clarity during the making of the movie. The film was notorious even before its release for the assorted on-set calamities and excess of every sort that resulted in a mountain of material — "a million feet of film," famously — and predictions of total creative derailment for a movie that starred Sheen, Marlon Brando, Laurence Fishburne and Robert Duvall.

Coppola had sunk much of his own personal wealth into the movie, and his spasms of anxiety are clear in "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse," the documentary assembled from behind-the-scenes footage shot by his wife, Eleanor Coppola, during some of the darkest days of the production.

"What you see is a director who believes he is going to lose everything," Coppola said. "I was looking to my wife for encouragement, and her reaction was, 'Let's get the camera.'"

The documentary, represented in the new package with audio commentary by the Coppolas, was originally intended for a one-time airing on Showtime but ended up reaching theaters in 1991. It's taken on a life of its own, and Coppola concedes there are scenes in it that he still finds himself regretting or explaining, such as the point where he responds to rumors that Sheen's heart attack during filming was a fatal one.

"In the movie you see me say, 'Martin Sheen isn't dead unless I say he's dead,' and that sounds pretty bad, especially if you don't know the context of the moment," the filmmaker said. "And maybe it still doesn't sound so good...."

Coppola said he set out to make a movie like "The Longest Day" or "The Guns of Navarone," but in the end he delivered "a strange, surreal movie that was like our involvement as a country in the Vietnam War — there was over-wattage, too much of being in a situation, a sort of madness with equipment and technology and confusion in an age of psychedelia."

At the time, the director was uncertain what he had achieved, but the strange central quest of the movie — a mission by Sheen's commando character to assassinate the off-the-grid colonel played by Brando — became a pivot point in American cinema.

"After 'Apocalypse,' you couldn't make a movie like 'Longest Day' anymore, it would have felt hopelessly dated," the director said. "I didn't know that when I was in the middle of it. I had no idea. I couldn't see then what we all see now."

geoff.boucher@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Interview: Philip Yancey on U.S. Christianity, Faith That Matters

By Lillian Kwon, Christian Post Reporter
http://www.christianpost.com/
Sat, Oct. 02, 2010 Posted: 02:10 PM EDT

Philip Yancey grew up in a strict, fundamentalist church in the Deep South.

He spent most of his early life in a bubble, attending a Bible college that in hindsight seems like "an island fortress against the outside world, one with its own private culture." Even the Sixties' sexual revolution did not penetrate the college's sealed environment, he says.

The school's list of forbidden activities included dancing, playing cards, skating at public rinks and movies, among others. Students could only play music "consistent with a Christian testimony;" women's skirts were measured; and men could not grow a beard or moustache.

He went through a period of reacting against everything he was taught and later realized that "God had been misrepresented" to him.

Since then Yancey has explored some of the most basic questions of the Christian faith with a worldwide audience. His popular books include Disappointment with God and Where is God When it Hurts. His newest book explores the question "What good is God?"

The bestselling author spoke to The Christian Post this week on his new book and about the less than vibrant Christianity we find in the United States today.

CP: You just took a trip to South America where you basically saw a vibrant and growing Christianity. Can you tell me about that and did that create a grim picture for you of U.S. Christianity?

Yancey: We travel … about four international trips a year and it’s funny, when I go around the world I kind of divide the church up into three stages: the honeymoon, the divorce stage, and the 25-year marriage stage. So you go to Europe and they’re pretty much in the divorce stage. Now there’s still the shell of churches but tourists, not worshippers. You go to a place like Brazil, where we were, or the Philippines, China and you see the church in the honeymoon stage – It’s all new, they’re excited, it’s thrilling, it sounds like good news.

The United States I put more in the 25-year anniversary stage where we’ve been here, few people get all that excited about going to church. It operates more like a corporation, an institution than a live vibrant movement. Lots of exceptions of course to each of those, but that’s kind of the general feeling that I get. It’s fun for me, actually, to go into places like Brazil and Argentina and in this case where there’s a lot of evident life and partly because of the Latin personality you get strong feedback. It’s a joyous place to visit.

CP: So you wouldn’t say the U.S. is in the divorce stage?

Yancey: No, not at all. In fact, the rest of the world still looks to the U.S. for leadership and … like in publishing, media, I’m sure Internet, relief and development mission work and all those things they still look to the U.S. And when I visit countries …

But if I just think of the churches in my little town here because I’ve been to every one of them, there are 27, there aren’t that many where you walk in and say wow, people are excited about their faith. A lot of them, it’s just what you do on Sunday at 10:00 or 11:00 and that’s not true in other countries. In some other countries, it’s still a very lively, vibrant experience.

CP: So people are keeping their faith but it’s just become more stale?

Yancey: (pause) Yeah, I think that’s probably accurate, with a lot of exceptions of course.

CP: You have said that you write books about questions skeptics raise and ones you don’t know the answer to. Usually Christians and authors in general write to educate us on what they know. Do you do this for the sake of your own personal search, spiritual journey, or to empathize with the public who have so many questions themselves?

Yancey: I think the difference in approach is that I approach any topic as a journalist. Whereas a lot of the Christian books you would see in a bookstore are written by authority figures of some sort, like maybe a pastor like a Rick Warren, or a personality like Chuck Colson or a theologian like a John Stott – people who do have a platform of authority and they are educating the rest of us. I have some theological training but whenever I approach any topic, I approach it as a journalist. What a journalist does, as you well know, is you put yourself in the stance of the reader – where is the reader in terms of their understanding of this issue and how can we explore this issue together. So for instance, if I was writing an article about nuclear power stations, I don’t know anything about nuclear power stations. So I’m very much like my readers, most of them don’t know anything about it either. I keep them in mind and say how does this work … I interview the experts, then gradually, hopefully I come away with some helpful picture.

And that is frankly how I approach issues of faith too. For instance, one of the last books I did was a book on prayer and I did go to the library, I went to the experts, then I interviewed a lot of ordinary people about their experience with prayer and then I went to the Bible and sorted all of that out for myself. But that’s my stance. But this book is a little bit different because I do play the journalist role in each of these 10 places I talk about but then I have to stand up in front of these people and kind of declare myself. So I go to Virginia Tech, and I can tell the story of all the questions and everything going on but at a certain point I have to step out of that, stand in front of them and say this is what I believe, this is the message that may give you hope in these hard times. So it’s a different kind of book for me because it does combine those two different roles – the journalist, which is the seeker and that’s who I am and that’s who I try to protect my identity for the sake of my readers, but a little bit different in this case, I do have to stand in front of them and declare here are the conclusions that I come up with.

CP: So how long does it take to write a book, addressing a question that you don’t know the answer to?

Yancey: If I did nothing but write it would take about a year, but because I do travel and I’ve got a lot of books out there, it usually takes between a year and half and two years.

CP: So it took you that amount of time to write this book?

Yancey: Yeah, it did. Of course, part of that is because the experiences themselves were spread out over a long period of time. I think the oldest experience in there was from 2004. So you’ve got five or six years of encounters going on and some of those trips took three weeks to a month. But often it’s the last day of the trip, like in Mumbai, India, …that the thing happens that you end up writing about.

CP: You mention the origin of this book is your search for a faith that matters. Can you elaborate on that phrase – a faith that matters – and can you measure that in the context of U.S. Christianity?

Yancey: Early in the book I talk about a friend of mine who is a strong Christian but was going through a lot of hard times. He said my trouble is not that I don’t believe in God, but my question is “what is God good for? What can we count on God for?” And I think that’s probably what … root of that phrase a faith that matters. It doesn’t mean, for sure that your faith will make sure that you don’t run into problems. Jesus was quite clear about that. Look at Paul, he had one problem after another. So what difference does it make whether you believe or not? What difference does it make to your life and especially what difference does it make at a time of testing and challenge? In the book I talk about the tabletop test of faith … will your faith survive something like Mumbai, or your struggle with addiction, or in the case of the prostitutes, this whole lifelong shaming and abuse, how does faith really affect that? Can we expect God to really transform us when we’re put into those kind of tests?

And so I’m aware that the average reader hasn’t had the kind of experiences that I describe in the book, thankfully, but those really show principles that I hope the average reader can apply to their lives, whether it’s a teenager who’s in trouble with the law or someone who made a mistake … smaller challenges to face that we all go through. And I think by looking at the big challenges we can learn some things that can encourage us and give us some principles to hang on to when we face our own challenges.

CP: You said you wish skeptics like Dawkins and Hitchens could hear stories of transformation from social outcasts like sex slaves. At first, you’d think it’s harder to find an answer to “what good is God?” in places like southeast Asia where there’s so much suffering and persecution but what I got from your book is that it’s actually harder to find the answer in the west where there’s a higher level of comfort and prosperity.

Yancey: Yes. Go back to the beatitudes where Jesus says blessed are the poor, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are those who are persecuted. And I have found that lived out, the hardest place to be a Christian is to be in a nice prosperous country with a lot of entertainment options because there’s so many distractions and there’s not that sense of need. I wrote a book on grace and grace is a free gift but to receive the gift you have to have your hands open. And a lot of people don’t have their hands open, there’s something they’re grasping because there’s a lot of things to grasp in a prosperous country.

For sure, the people who inspire my faith most are those who are put in places like India and China, who live under real danger and with the true human needs around them. They have no problem crying out for help because they need help for sure. I think I mention in there, there’s a chapter on C.S. Lewis, and his environment of the sophisticated University of Cambridge is probably the hardest place to live out your faith of any of … harder than communist China, harder than multi-faith India, just because there’s such an inbuilt agnosticism – “I can’t believe you believe these old fairy tales” – it’s very hard to stand up in the midst of that.

CP: This question you pose in your book seems timely for Christopher Hitchens who has cancer. He’s holding fast to his atheism. If you were addressing Hitchens, how would you answer the question?

Yancey: I saw an interview with Christopher Hitchens after his diagnosis and he talked about various Christians who say they pray for him and some say we pray that you will be punished for the troubling things that you’ve done and others say we pray for your healing, we pray for comfort, we pray that somehow you will find peace in the midst of this time. I think that’s what I would want for Christopher Hitchens. Let me add one more thing, I would say you get a lot of attack and abuse from Christians that frankly you wouldn’t get that from the Bible and one of the things that impresses me most about the Bible I can’t find a single argument in Christopher Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris that isn’t already included somewhere in the Bible – arguments against God – in the book of Job, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, …there’s nothing new under the sun, Ecclesiastes.

You are free to reject God. Make sure that you’re really rejecting God not some caricature of God that the church has shown you. But I, one, respect a God who not only allows us to reject Him but includes the arguments we can use against Him in the Bible. I respect that. A lot of people are jumping on Christopher Hitchens ... "how dare you question." I would just say, these are valid questions. they’re already included in the Bible. You certainly have a right to ask them. I hope that you follow your own beliefs all the way to their logical conclusions, which he seems to do. And I also hope that when you make your choice against God you make your choice against the true God and not just some caricature that the church has presented to you.

CP: You suggest that the answer to what good is God can be found in Christ’s followers, Christians. So how are we doing on that?

Yancey: It’s really hard to generalize. I do throughout the book tell stories for instance in South Africa, I talk about three ministries – one to AIDS victims, one to prisoners, and several other. In those places, in a lot of the world, if you say what is a Christian, they would say well, I’m not sure but there’s this hospital van that comes here once a month and has a cross on it and they treat our wounds. Well, I’m not sure but there are these folks called World Vision; they dug a well for my village and now we have something to drink. And then others will tell about churches that come in and help transform a society by speaking against drunkenness and corruption and some of these things. International Justice Mission moves in and releases people involved in sexual trafficking.

As a journalist, I like to find those stories and shine light on them just because you don’t see those on CNN and even Fox News. But I also know that in the United States, that if you say what is an evangelical Christian, most people think in political terms. Well they’re the people who are anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion. That is also a caricature. There are many good things being done by the church. They’re the ones who went to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and they’re still there building houses and working. They’re the ones who are staffing the homeless shelters in the cities and the food banks. So I don’t spend a lot of time on the bad face of the church because I think the news media does a fine job of that. I try to find the other side, the less obvious side of people who are indeed living out according to what Christ asked us to.

CP: The Pew Forum just released a survey about how knowledgeable Americans are when it comes to religion. You talk about going to school in the south and bible college and how strict they were with rules and how they created bubble environments while the inner life wasn’t being cultivated. With that, would you say biblical literacy is your main concern in America or should Christian leaders be paying attention to a deeper problem?

Yancey: I’m not sure how to answer that. We need to be fully engaged with the world. In that chapter on the Bible college, I make the comment that best I can tell, you can collect Jesus’ complaints about the Pharisees and say that their real problem was that they were hanging around other Pharisees all day. And I think in a country like the United States where maybe half of the people will identify themselves as Christians, you can have a subculture. There are cities where you can get Christian yellowpages so you can have a Christian plumber and a Christian electrician and a Christian carpenter and never run into a non-Christian.

But that’s the opposite of what Jesus meant to say … because he talked about small things like salt, like yeast that affect the broader culture. You don’t affect the broader culture by being shut up in a little container. You can only preserve meat if the salt is sprinkled on the meat, not in the salt shaker. So I think that’s part of our obligation to go beyond our own little culture and encounter the broader culture. The apostle Paul was a great example of that because he would flip from one culture to another whether it was the sophisticated Greeks in Athens or the … orthodox Jews, the Romans. He would present the message of the gospel in words that they could understand and comprehend and I believe that’s what we’re required to do and the only way to do that is to know about the culture you’re speaking to and to address issues that it’s already concerned about. The broader culture doesn’t care about my issues, they care about their issues. So I have to somehow find out what those issues … and interact with them.

CP: You mentioned that after writing this book, you’ve found that faith really does matter and make a difference. Can you tell me more about how your perspective has changed or how your faith as evolved as you were trying to answer this question when you were writing the book?

Yancey: I would say I am aware of how counter the American culture authentic faith is. We’re in a celebrity culture and when I turn on the news today I hear about Lindsay Lohan, Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton and the Kardashian sisters and Dancing with the Stars, one thing after another, Kate Gosselin’s new body. When I travel overseas and I’m with these people who live much closer to the edge where their concern is how do I feed my family, how do I love, and how do I care for those around me? That’s essentially what life is mostly about. I tell of having this automobile accident and when I talked to the students at Virginia Tech, I said, I’m laying there, could be my last day on earth because the doctor said it could. It boiled down to three things: who do I love, how have I spent my life and am I ready for what’s next. I truly believe that.

But I’m also aware that everyday the broader culture is tempting me to think about, am I driving the right car, do I have the right haircut, do I have enough money, am I wearing the right clothes, how am I coming across? Really, we should be asking ourselves how are we coming across to God? And so when I travel, in the process of writing this book, I find my faith encouraged because I find that if you get out of that barrage of the celebrity culture and the media, what it constantly throws at us, you can see that on the ground, Christian faith is …basically about love and being loved and reconciliation. These things are so important, they’re foundational and they can transform individuals, families. So I hear these stories of the prostitutes, for example, and the incredible abuse and degradation that they go through and yet some of them I met were these shining examples of redeemed people. It makes our normal culture look so shallow, … so irrelevant and yet you turn on television and gradually it kind of sucks you in and start thinking that’s important again.

CP: Do you have questions brewing in your mind right now for a future book?

Yancey: I hope to do something quite different and that’s a form of memoir. I collected a lot of memories and data already. I would like to go back and kind of put together my life. That’s a different kind of book than I’ve done, it’s not really about an issue. But it’s going to take a long time. I’ll have to figure how to do it and get to work.

Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter

For NFL, stopping concussions means changing the game's culture

By Michael Wilbon
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 11:59 PM


A league that for most of its existence has celebrated violence, sold it, marketed it, even set it to music is continuing its abrupt U-turn. The NFL, slow as a tortoise when it comes to altering the way it goes about business, is moving with red-alert urgency by announcing midseason that violent hits to the head, starting now, will be punishable by suspension.

A Sunday full of violent collisions that NFL executives viewed as extreme clearly became the tipping point for a league that is becoming increasingly and painfully aware that its workforce is increasingly at risk. While football zealots, including a great many players, will initially ignore or dismiss this new accountability as a knee-jerk overreaction, resorting to suspensions as remedies signals the dawn of a new day in professional football. In fact, if the NFL actually follows through on its promise, the entire industry of football - from Pop Warner through college and the professional ranks - will have been put on notice.


In this photo taken Sunday, Oct. 17, 2010, New England Patriots safety Brandon Meriweather (31) hits helmet-to-helmet with Baltimore Ravens tight end Todd Heap (86) in the second quarter of an NFL football game, in Foxborough, Mass. Meriweather was fined $50,000 by the NFL on Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010, for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Heap. (AP)

The culture of the most violent game in America is about to necessarily change.

One person who seems to get that more than most is Steve Young, the Hall of Fame quarterback-turned-analyst, who late Monday night cut to the chase in a passionate and stark conversation with former linebacker and club executive Matt Millen on ESPN.

When Millen objected to the vagueness of the NFL's definition of what hits will be worthy of suspension, Young answered: "What they're worried about is that Darryl Stingley hit [Stingley was paralyzed in an on-field hit in 1978]. . . . They want to legislate the danger out, things that make you cringe. It can be legal or illegal. They're asking guys to not play as ferocious. It's dangerous, but there's always been danger in football. . . . They want to legislate the danger out. Like it or not, they want it not to be in the game."

While Millen was incredulous that a game so rooted in violence would try to reduce it after all these decades, Young reacted like he had clearly seen the future. It was obvious he wasn't necessarily in favor of a softer game, if you will, but Young said of the NFL's powers-that-be: "They don't want to see it. They don't want the cringe-factor. They don't want a death on the field."

The cynic in me sees this partly as the NFL trying to pre-empt criticism over the proposed lengthening of the season to 18 games in the face of such risk. The NFL knows it has to appear to be legitimately concerned about the physical welfare of its workforce.

But even if the league's motives are more sincere, the larger point is that head injuries and violent collisions have the NFL's attention as never before, and league/club executives are at a crossroads.

Something dramatic has to be done; former standout and big hitter Rodney Harrison said on NBC Sunday night that fines never deterred him. Harrison said if the NFL was serious about reducing and ultimately eliminating violent hits to the head, it would have to start handing out suspensions. And to those who nonetheless think the whole thing is much ado over nothing, the league is saying, even if reluctantly, "It's a new day."

"We understand that this is not just about the NFL," Ray Anderson, the league's vice president in charge of football operations, said in a radio interview Tuesday morning. "This is about safety at our level, at the college level, at the high school level . . . because we are the standard bearer and we are committed to safety at the highest level . . . so we will take all the criticism and all the backlash against those that say we are acting too aggressively in this regard. We are not going to be apologetic; we are not going to be defensive about it. We're going to protect our players and hopefully players at the lower levels by example."

Whether the public would love and support a sanitized game is another matter. Former quarterback Trent Dilfer observed quite accurately that it's the gladiatorial element of professional football that makes it so attractive.

Yes, people love passing and scoring, but some of the most celebrated players in the history of the game made their reputations with violent hitting. The Fearsome Foursome, Doomsday Defense and the Steel Curtain were revered because they hurt people. The most dominating team in the modern history of the game is probably the 1985 Chicago Bears, whose signature was knocking out opposing quarterbacks.

When I heard of the league's new remedy, I immediately thought of Dick Butkus and Ronnie Lott, men who would have to be atop any career leader board for delivering violent hits, many to the head. Pro football is richer for their works of devastation. So what is the NFL going to do now, pull their bronzed busts from the Hall of Fame?

I'm not going to chastise the NFL, whatever its motives, for trying to move toward a more civilized game in which health is a consideration, especially because we know exponentially more about head injuries now than we did five years ago and because we'll know so much more in 10 years than we know now. The league would be irresponsible not to take this new information under advisement.

But if the game evolves into something similar to the Arena league, where tackling is an afterthought, will it retain its current allure? Or is our interest in football more basic and barbaric than we want to admit?

How are players who have been taught the same violent tactics since age eight going to suddenly rein in every aggressive impulse during the mayhem of a war-like competition?

What some see as an unwanted tinkering with the product, others of us see as a watershed event in the NFL. And even as the league's intentions should be applauded, the result might leave the country's most popular sport forever tempered.

It's Come to This

The Nation's Pulse

By Aaron Goldstein on 10.20.10 @ 6:07AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/

When Bill O'Reilly told the ladies of The View last Thursday morning that he opposed the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque because "Muslims killed us on 9/11" they reacted as if he had committed an act of blasphemy.

Now anyone with a scintilla of common sense knows that O'Reilly didn't claim every Muslim on the planet was responsible for the September 11 attacks. But alas common sense and liberalism seldom meet. Indeed, when most liberals see common sense coming towards them they cross the street to avoid it. How else to explain the sight of Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walking off the set of their own show?

Given the rancor that had ensued, it was only natural that much of that evening's edition of The O'Reilly Factor was devoted to what had occurred a few hours earlier. Fortunately, there was none of the hysterical histrionics that were on display on The View.

One of O'Reilly's guests that evening was Alicia Menendez, a senior advisor at the New Democratic Network (NDN), a liberal think tank. Menendez, who is also the daughter of New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, was considerably more mature when conversing with O'Reilly than either Behar or Goldberg. Yet despite Menendez's even tempered disposition I found this particular observation to be rather question begging:

I feel like you and I could get into the semantics of this when really this is a much bigger question. You and I both know it's a much bigger question about how we talk about September 11th. How much politics we want involved in September 11th? I don't want any. I think this is supposed to be a day of remembrance and resolve for America and should have nothing to do with politics.

September 11, of course, must be a day of remembrance for those who were killed in the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon and those who were aboard American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93. Yet how can September 11 be a day of remembrance if we are unwilling to remember who was responsible for killing nearly 3,000 people? How can September 11th be a day of resolve if we are unwilling to come to the resolution that nearly 3,000 people were killed in the name of Islamic fundamentalism? How can September 11 be either a day of remembrance or resolve if we are unable to recall the words of Osama bin Laden in his 1998 fatwa ordering Muslims to murder Americans and our allies?

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

All of which brings me back to Menendez. After stating that September 11 should be "a day of remembrance and resolve for America," she went on to observe:

Furthermore, it concerns me when religion is used as a wedge issue between people and that's why we need to be careful here because when religion is used to drive people apart; that's an abuse of religion.

Once again this begs more questions. Are we using religion as a "wedge" if we ask ourselves if nearly 3,000 people would still be alive if bin Laden did not tell his Muslim brethren it was their duty to kill Americans? Is it an "abuse of religion" if we accurately document the statements and actions of Muslim clerics and their followers who want to visit grievous harm upon America? Are we to throw away our tradition of free speech and freedom of thought because a small minority of Muslims might not like what they hear? If reasonable American liberals like Menendez object to this line of inquiry, then how can we properly remember September 11, 2001, much less resolve that it never happen again?

Well, at least Menendez did not accuse O'Reilly of bigotry. The same could not be said of Joy Behar. In Behar's eyes, it is O'Reilly, not Osama, who is engaging in "hate speech." Well, I suppose it could be worse. At least O'Reilly isn't in the shoes of Geert Wilders and Behar isn't a member of the Dutch judiciary bent on putting him in jail for making "illegal observations." But when one considers the Obama Administration's support of the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to make criticism of Islam a violation of international law at the UN, one then must wonder if in a few short years O'Reilly's observations, however accurate, could become illegal.

No wonder then that Nidal Malik Hasan could walk into a room on an American military base shouting "Allahu Akbar" while carrying a business card which read "Soldier of Allah" before proceeding to kill a dozen U.S. soldiers and a civilian in cold blood. After all, when the Pentagon released its report on the terrorist attack at Fort Hood last January there was no mention made of either Hasan or how his religion motivated his actions. If our own military cannot bring itself to publicly state that a Muslim soldier killed his fellow soldiers in the name of Islam should it really come as any surprise that Behar and Goldberg would have such a visceral reaction when O'Reilly said "Muslims killed us on 9/11"?

Remembering September 11, 2001 is not only about those who perished. It is also about why they perished. And how can we remember why they perished if we stand up and walk out of the room?

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

CC Takes Yanks Fate in His Hands

Bengie Molina and Rangers put Yankees in 3-1 ALCS hole, and it's up to CC Sabathia to dig them out

By Mike Lupica
The Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com
Wednesday, October 20th 2010, 4:00 AM

So it has come to this for the Yankees, after the Texas Rangers threw them down another flight of stairs, trying to throw them all the way out to 161st St., all the way into next season. It has come to CC Sabathia trying to keep them away from next season this afternoon. It was 10-3 for the Rangers in Game 4, after 8-0 in Game 3, after 7-2 in Game 2. That makes it 25-5 over the last three games, Yankees down 1-3 now, trying to somehow find the character to begin the greatest comeback in the history of the team Wednesday. Big guy pitching Wednesday. Go big or go home.

"Just win a game," Joe Girardi said when it was over.

Another Molina - Bengie this time - made a big swing against a New York team in a league championship series. Josh Hamilton continues to look like the best player in the world. The Yankee pitching was a horror. Stop me if you've heard this one.

And when they had one last chance in the eighth - a chance to make it the kind of eighth inning they had in Game 1 in Arlington - they couldn't get a run home after bases loaded and one out. Nick Swisher popped to Hamilton. Lance Berkman grounded to third. The Yankees could have gone home then. With their fans.

The Yankees had a chance to put this game away in the middle innings. Didn't. Then the Rangers put them away, helped mightily by a lefthanded reliever named Derek Holland, who pitched 3-2/3 innings of brilliant one-hit ball when his team needed that from him.

The Yankees try not to lose the last four games of their season Wednesday. Try not to lose their season. Try not to watch the Rangers celebrate a pennant at this Stadium the way the Red Sox did at the old one six years ago. The way the Marlins, another young team, celebrated at the old Stadium after Game 6 of the World Series the year before that.

The Yankees have not just been beaten three straight, they have been embarrassed. A rich-slapping in their case. They have looked nothing at all like the champions of the world. The Twins put up a better fight in the three games of the division series than the Yankees have put up against the Rangers over these last three games.

Do the math again. The Yankees got beat, 8-0, on Monday night. After the Rangers got behind 3-2 Tuesday night, they went 8-0 again on the Yankees. Did that again to them again at Yankee Stadium.

Oh man, did Josh Hamilton continue to take batting practice against the Yankees, all the way to poor Sergio Mitre in the ninth. But even with that, even with the swings Hamilton makes against anybody the Yankees throw at him, the swing that changed everything for the Rangers was Bengie Molina's three-run shot off A.J. Burnett in the top of the sixth.

Another Molina, another October.

It was 3-2 for the Yankees, even though it seemed like it should have been so much more than that. Way more than that. Somehow in a nearly 26-minute bottom of the fourth, the Yankees came away with only one run. The Yankees would have first and second, nobody out, in the bottom of the fifth and come away with nothing. In between, Molina took Burnett around the left-field foul pole and now Yankee Stadium was as quiet as Shea was the night four years ago to the day that his brother did it to the Mets in Game 7 of '06.

"We liked the way A.J. was throwing the ball," Girardi would say in the interview room.

Girardi was asked about walking David Murphy to pitch to Bengie Molina, two on, two out.

"We liked the matchup," Girardi said. "Unfortunately it didn't work out."

Nothing has worked out for him in this series. The only thing that has worked out for him is the top of the eighth in Arlington last Friday night or the Yankee season is over already. Sabathia got hit, Phil Hughes got hit, Burnett was scratching out a decent start until Molina hit him. David Robertson gets hit, Joba Chamberlain gets hit, Boone Logan gets hit, Mitre got hit hard - real hard - by Hamilton and Nelson Cruz in the ninth.

By then, before the game even went past four hours during the Yankees' last ups early this morning, the Stadium looked as empty as it could ever be in the ninth inning of a postseason game. It was almost as empty this way at the end of Game 3. The Rangers try to win the pennant Wednesday. The Yankees? The $200 million, defending world champion Yankees? They try to get their 100th win of this season and make it back to Texas.

Afterward Molina talked about what it is like, brothers hitting home runs like this at this time of year in New York.

"Very happy for both of us," he said.

They asked him about Murphy being walked so that Burnett could face him. Molina smiled, said, "I don't think it was a bad move."

But a Yankee pitcher threw one more bad pitch, this time to somebody not named Hamilton. Molina knew what to do with it. For all the doubts about the Texas bullpen, after the way the Yankees dropped a safe on that bullpen last Friday night, Derek Holland was as much a star of this night as Molina and Hamilton.

"I was definitely a little nervous coming into Yankee Stadium," Holland said. "But you've gotta have fun with it."

The Rangers are having all the fun in the world. Still have one more game to win. The game the Yankees never got off the Red Sox after being up 3-0 in '04. Yankees down 3-1 now. Trying to start the greatest comeback in Yankee history. Go big or go home.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Killing terrorists: Is there a real Mitch Rapp?

By Ed Ross
http://dailycaller.com/
10:11 AM 10/18/2010

In Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars, he reveals highly classified and sensitive information about lethal CIA clandestine counterterrorism operations, including drone attacks and secret CIA-run “counterterrorism pursuit teams” to kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Woodward does not reveal the identities of CIA covert operatives, but his and other revelations, including that President Barack Obama has authorized the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, suggest that one or more “assassins” not unlike Vince Flynn’s fictional Mitch Rapp are out there.

For those of you who haven’t read any of the 11 popular Mitch Rapp novels, Rapp is the terrorist’s worst nightmare. They can’t hide from him, they can’t kill him, and they can’t outwit him; and when he catches up to them, their fate is sealed.

The most recent novel, American Assassin, is a prequel that tells the story of Rapp’s recruitment, training, and first missions. A former all-American captain of the Syracuse University lacrosse team, Rapp seeks retribution for the death of his first love on Pan Am 103 over Lockerby, Scotland. CIA covert operative and future CIA director Irene Kennedy recruits Rapp into the CIA’s Orion Team. It’s so secret that only a handful of people in the agency know about it; and it’s outside the CIA’s official structure and Congressional oversight. Its purpose is to kill the most dangerous terrorists and make the others live in fear for their lives.

As you might expect, over the first 10 books, Congress and the media learn Rapp’s identity and about his exploits, forcing him to battle the terrorists and those in Washington, D.C., who disapprove of his methods. The first three books in the series predated 9/11, President George W. Bush’s aggressive approach to the war on terror, and the covert operations revealed in Woodward’s book. They gave readers a glimpse, however, into what the terrorist threat was to become and the controversy it would cause. The books before and after 9/11 explore the political, moral, and practical dilemmas America must confront as it defends itself against Islamic terrorists.

Mitch Rapp, the protagonist Flynn uses to delve into these issues, is compelling and realistic; and the political conflict over interrogating and killing terrorists that Rapp confronts is hardly fiction. Flynn captures precisely the debate between those who believe CIA covert operatives were or are out of control and don’t reflect American values and those who are willing to push the envelope to protect American lives. He portrays through Rapp the frustration Americans in the covert counterterrorism world feel when they are attacked for putting their lives on the line for their country.

Flynn also nails the internal conflicts among presidential advisors, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and Congress that we watch play out in the media and that Woodward talks about in his book. As Rapp stalks terrorists, he and Kennedy must contend with self-aggrandizing politicians, political appointees bent on garnering power, and liberals concerned about terrorists’ rights and ridding the CIA of its covert operations capabilities. Only the support of a grateful president protects them.

When we read books like Flynn’s or movies based on them — a Mitch Rapp film is in the works — we tell ourselves it’s only fiction; there is no real Mitch Rapp. His exploits are too far fetched, and real assassins aren’t patriotic characters like Rapp.

As for what’s far fetched, recall that covert assassination by the CIA was precisely what the Church Committee revealed in the 1970s. “Among the matters investigated were attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Diem brothers of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile, and President John F. Kennedy’s plan to use the Mafia to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba.”

Of course, that was then and this is now. The rules for the CIA and the White House have changed, at least when it comes to killing foreign leaders, and, under President Barack Obama, how we interrogate terrorist detainees. President Obama certainly would not approve of Rapp’s harsh interrogation techniques. The rules for killing enemy combatants are another matter; and those rules have not fundamentally changed. Rules of engagement, notwithstanding, the principal objective is still to kill them.

To do that, President Obama has dramatically escalated the use of drones and Special Forces to kill terrorists on the Afghanistan-Pakistan battlefield, and he authorized the killing of al-Awlaki in Yemen. And there is little difference, in time of war, between killing a terrorist with a missile fired from a drone or a covert operative putting a bullet in a terrorist at close range.

We are more likely to kill terrorists with a drone these days because we have the technology to do so and doing so doesn’t risk American lives. There are, nonetheless, terrorist targets that are better eliminated by people on the ground than by missiles fired from drones. It’s where the battlefield begins and ends and how you define it that determines where we draw the line between what’s acceptable and what’s not.

As for the difference between Mitch Rapp and real American covert operatives, like all fictional heroes based on people, Rapp is a composite character. He reflects the best of today’s real-life covert operatives and those throughout American history that have taken on the most dangerous and important missions in defense of our way of life. We can differ over what they should or should not do in defending us against terrorists, but we should sleep better at night knowing they are out there.

Ed Ross is the President and Chief Executive Officer of EWRoss International LLC, a company that provides global consulting services to clients in the international defense marketplace. He publishes commentary at EWRoss.com.

Who Says Islam Is Totalitarian?

Not long ago, Bernard Lewis sounded almost like Geert Wilders.

By Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/
October 19, 2010 4:00 A.M.


Who says Islam is a totalitarian doctrine? Well, Geert Wilders does, of course. As the editors point out in Monday’s superb National Review Online editorial, the Dutch parliamentarian has even had the temerity to compare Islam with Nazism. Strong stuff indeed, and for speaking it, Wilders has earned the disdain not just of the usual Muslim Brotherhood satellite organizations but even of many on the political right.

Though they support free-speech rights, and thus grudgingly concede that Wilders (pictured at right) should be permitted to say such things, they want you to understand they find his sentiments deplorable. Taking the politically correct view, they assure you that Islam is not a problem at all — it’s just those bad extremists and Islamists who have, as the Bush-era refrain went, “hijacked one of the world’s great religions.”

Emblematic is the estimable Charles Krauthammer, who has described Wilders’s views as “extreme, radical, and wrong.” Dr. K.’s complaint, expressed on Fox News back in March (and published on the Corner), was that Wilders conflates “Islam and Islamism.” The latter, Krauthammer insists, is “an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].”[1]

As I take a backseat to no one in my admiration of Dr. K., I wonder what he’d make of Bernard Lewis’s take on this subject. Professor Lewis is the distinguished scholar widely and aptly admired, including by Wilders’s detractors, as the West’s preeminent authority on Islam. At Pajamas Media, Andrew Bostom has unearthed a 1954 International Affairs essay in which Professor Lewis quite matter-of-factly compared Islam with Communism. The essay, in fact, was called, “Communism and Islam.”[2]

In it, Lewis considered “the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought,” and concluded that its principal defining characteristic is the “authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.” Expanding on this, he wrote:

There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law.#…#For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy,” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”

But what about the conceit that undergirds current American foreign policy, the notion that Islam and Western democracy are perfectly compatible? Lewis dismissed the idea as so much elite wishful thinking:

Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical — attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument expresses a need of the uprooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who tries to justify, or rather, restate, his inherited faith in terms of the fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim thought to the impact of the West.

Clearly, the ensuing half-century has found Western intellectuals — regardless of political bent — joining romantic forces with their uprooted Muslim counterparts. Thus the accusation by Dr. Krauthammer, to take a prominent but by no means singular example, that Wilders fails to perceive the distinction — I’d call it a hoped-for distinction — between Islam and Islamism. Yet this accusation itself conflates Islam with Muslims, as well as Islamists with violent jihadists. This confusion leads Krauthammer to surmise both (a) that only a small minority of Muslims believe jihad is “the essence of Islam,” and (b) that because most Muslims in the West are not terrorists, it should be “obvious” that they are not Islamists.

This is wrong on several levels. First, as Robert Spencer explains, “Jihad#…#is a key element of the Islamic faith according to every single Islamic authority on the planet.” [3] To deny that it is the “essence of Islam” — which is how the prophet Mohammed regarded it — is to deny a basic fact. And though, as Spencer acknowledges, jihad is subject to varying interpretations, Lewis is clear on the preponderant construction. As he has recounted several times, most recently in The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years, “The overwhelming majority of early authorities#…#citing relevant passages in the Qur’an and in the tradition, discuss jihad in military terms.” This jibes, to quote Ibn Warraq, with “the celebrated Dictionary of Islam,” which describes jihad as an “incumbent religious duty,” and defines it as “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.”

Spencer echoes Lewis when he elaborates that “all the mainstream sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach as a matter of faith that Islam is intrinsically political and that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law.” The fact that most Muslims do not engage in violent jihad, whether out of practicality, indifference, or what have you, does not change what Islamic doctrine says. Nor does it mean these Muslims are “rejecting” that mandate. They are ignoring it.

Moreover, as I’ve noted on several occasions, the point of jihad is to spread sharia, the Islamic legal system whose installation is the necessary precondition to creating an Islamic society. That need not be done by violent means. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization, maintains that America and Europe will be “conquered” not by violence but by dawa­ – the proselytism of Islam by non-violent (or, more accurate, pre-violent) means, such as infiltration of our institutions. Spencer calls this phenomenon “stealth jihad.”

Consequently, one can be an Islamist without engaging in violent jihad, which is precisely the case with the vast majority of Islamists. The fact that they are not terrorists does not mean — as we wish it would mean — that they are not extremists. While they abstain from the use of force (particularly against other Muslims), staggering majorities of Muslims throughout the world favor the implementation and strict application of sharia. Andrew Bostom’s essay demonstrates this, citing polling done in 2009 by World Public Opinion in conjunction with the University of Maryland.

Back in 1954, Lewis (pictured at right) recalled “the political history of Islam” as “one of almost unrelieved autocracy” that was “authoritarian, often arbitrary, [and] sometimes tyrannical.” Besides this, the most interesting part of his essay is its focus on “certain uncomfortable resemblances” between “the Ulama of Islam” and “the Communist Party.” Though “very different” in some ways, the two, he stated, “profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth.”

Those answers, of course, are worlds apart in their particulars. Nonetheless, Lewis saw them as strikingly similar in

their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet” was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith — a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.

In light of this scholarly comparison of Islam to Soviet totalitarianism, is it really so outrageous for Geert Wilders to compare Islam to Nazi totalitarianism? One needn’t agree with the analogy — and, agree or not, one needn’t think it a useful analogy — in order to understand why someone who is not intimidated by political correctness might employ it.

In thinking about how to argue the depth of terrorist depravity to the jury while prosecuting a 1995 terrorism trial, I must confess it crossed my mind that jihad literally means “struggle,” the same word found in the title of Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”). I quickly dismissed any thought of mentioning this as too explosive — nothing provokes a mistrial motion faster than a prosecutor’s comparison of defendants to Nazis, and when your evidence is damning, it’s always better to let it, rather than your rhetoric, do the talking. But I certainly didn’t think the point was beyond the pale. As noted by Daniel Pipes (who does not agree with Wilders’s analogy), no less a figure than Winston Churchill described Mein Kampf as “the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”[4]

In the middle of the 20th century, before suffocating political correctness took hold, it was not all that controversial to say such things. Note that in 1954, Bernard Lewis obviously felt no need to resort to such devices as “Islamism” — a device I adopt myself in The Grand Jihad — to conform to today’s obligatory but unproved assumption that there exists a moderate, tolerant Islam, scripturally based and doctrinally distinguishable from the Islam of the “extremists.”

In those bygone days, the term “Islamist” was usually used to identify a scholar of Islam — akin to a Sinologist or an Arabist. There was another usage, dating back to the 1920s. It was the one coined by Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna to denote a person who urged Islam as a complete way of life and favored installation of the sharia system. For Banna, there was no difference between Islam and Islamism.

That, by the way, is not only the Brotherhood’s view. It is the adamant opinion of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist prime minister of Turkey who continues to be regarded by the U.S. government as a great moderate, just as he was during the Bush administration. “Very ugly” was his take on the term “moderate Islam” in a 2007 interview. As Erdogan fumed at the time, “It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”[5]

Islam is Islam. That is Erdogan’s position, it seems to have been the position of Bernard Lewis a half century ago, and it is Geert Wilders’s position today. Not that Muslims are bad, but that Islam is a dangerous ideology. Wilders summed up his views in a 2009 interview with Jeff Jacoby (also quoted in Andrew Bostom’s piece):

I have nothing against the people. I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life — economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book — but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state.

These claims are materially indistinguishable from points Professor Lewis’s made in 1954 — other than, perhaps, Wilders’s assertion that Islam “is not a religion,” although by that, I take him to mean Islam is not merely a religion or a set of spiritual principles but a comprehensive system controlling all of life.

From those premises, Wilders concluded that “Islam is totally contrary to our values.” That is a bracing conclusion. I think the problem people have with Wilders is that he is bracing. He says out loud what they fear is the case, or what they refuse to examine for fear of discovering that it is the case. That makes him inconvenient. It doesn’t make him wrong.

– Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Links:

[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/195969/krauthammers-take/nro-staff

[2] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/geert-wilders-western-sages-and-totalitarian-islam/

[3] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/krauthammer-on-wilders-ignorant-naive-and-wrong.html

[4] http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/02/winston-churchill-compares-mein-kampf-to-the

[5] http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/2595.htm

What's truly broken

By RICH LOWRY
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com
October 19, 2010

In the midterm of its discontent, the Obama administration has become a long catalog of ex cuses.

It seems everything would be going swimmingly if Washington weren't so irredeemably broken. In a revelatory interview with President Obama and his aides about what went wrong, Peter Baker of The New York Times reports that this White House constantly complains that Washington is not "on the level," that "the whole Washington culture is not serious about solving problems."

If your party has the White House, 59 Senate seats and 255 House seats, though, for all intents and purposes it is Washington. The Obama Democrats have completed a period of surpassing legislative mastery.

They got a 1,073-page stimulus bill, a 2,409-page health-care bill and a 2,319-page financial-reform bill. That's 5,801 pages in just three pieces of legislation, at a very conservative cumulative estimated cost of $1.9 trillion over 10 years. If this is what Obama's broken Washington produces in three bills, what would a functioning one do?

For all their reputation as obstructionists, Republicans weren't able to stop any of this. Unlike in the early Clinton years, Republicans aren't benefiting from obstructionism so much as from failing to block a president's deeply unpopular priorities. Washington worked for Obama -- and now he's paying the price.

Much of Washington's alleged brokenness is the fractiousness inherent to a democratic system, not to mention to human nature. We had poisonous dissension in the nation's capital before we had political parties and before the capital even moved to Washington. In that sense, Washington was "broken" before it was Washington.

At bottom, Obama's problem is with the American public: If his approval rating were 10 points higher, no one would be complaining about the political process. On his unpopularity, Obama has two excuses that make for a noxious combination of self-regard and condescension.

In the Times interview, Obama modestly gave himself low marks for "marketing and PR," since he's so much more focused on "trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right." This from the man who made himself into a global brand in 2008, and who not too long ago was touted as a genius at the art of political persuasion -- Daniel Webster meets FDR.

If his salesmanship isn't working its magic now, it must be the fault of his froward subjects. Over the weekend, Obama told a Democratic fund-raiser that "part of the reason that . . . facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Is that really what he thinks of us? We're driven into the arms of his opponents as a matter of socio-biology? Obama can't bring himself to take the American people on their own terms. He has now explained religiosity, gun ownership and opposition to his policies (or as he puts it, "facts and science") all as the products of economic deprivation and fear.

At one point in the Times interview, Obama tiptoes to the edge of the truth. He says that all his spending reinforced the narrative that "he's the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." This is a genuine insight wrapped in self-denial. In a major concession, he acknowledges that forthright, tax-and-spend liberals can't thrive in America, without admitting that he's one of them.

People think Washington is broken because it spends too much, it's instituting massive changes without knowing how or if they'll work, it's creating new entitlements when we can't afford the old ones and it's inevitably going to ask for wide-ranging tax hikes to pay for the overhang of deficits. Obama used all the Washington muscle and marketing acumen he could muster to push the policies that have created these entirely rational -- nay, common-sensical -- concerns.

All excuses aside, Obama could have avoided the full force of the reaction against his tax-and-spend liberalism with less liberalism.

comments.lowry@ nationalreview.com

Yanks Living Perilous-Lee

Cliff Lee delivers an all-time dominant performance to put Yankees on heels entering Game 4 of ALCS

By Mike Lupica
The Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/
Tuesday, October 19th 2010, 4:00 AM

The Texas Rangers have played three games against the biggest and baddest baseball team in this world, and now the Rangers are one nightmare inning away from having won all three. They jumped on the Yankees early in Game 1, jumped them early in Game 2, jumped them bad in the ninth inning Monday night. Cliff Lee dominated the Yankees for eight innings Monday night, he sure did, threw a Koufax game at the Yankees in Yankee Stadium. It just means Lee did to the Yankees what the Rangers have done an awful lot since Friday night.

For most of three games, the sides haven't looked even in the American League Championship Series. By the time the Rangers stopped circling the bases against David Robertson in the top of the ninth, the Rangers were ahead of the Yankees, 8-0, on their way to being ahead of them 2-1 in the ALCS. It was 5-1 Rangers before the sky fell Friday night, it ended up 7-2 Saturday, it ended ugly Monday night in Game 3.

So now, after all the winning during the regular season that Joe Girardi talked about in a testy postgame interview session, after starting the postseason with four straight wins and maybe thinking the Rangers were going to be the kind of pushovers that the Twins are, the New York Yankees need to win a game Tuesday night against the Rangers.

Or they show up at the Stadium Wednesday afternoon playing for their season.

In the end, even with the Yankees being the ones looking at a nightmare ending this time, six runs for the Rangers in the ninth, the night was about Lee, throwing as great an October game as anybody has ever thrown against the Yankees, certainly as great as we have seen since the beginning of the Joe Torre era. He struck out 13 Monday night, gave the Yankees just two hits in eight innings, dominated them from start to finish, became the first pitcher in history to strike out 10 or more batters in three straight games in the same postseason.

He twice dominated the Rays in the division series, dominated the Yankees Monday night, is scheduled to pitch Game 7. It means that if the Yankees want to go back to the World Series, maybe they need to win three games in a row now.

"I've felt good for a while," Lee said. "I've felt good every time."

The Yankees did not get a baserunner until Mark Teixeira walked in the fourth. They did not get their first hit until Jorge Posada blooped a single in the fifth. The only time they threatened against him, if you can call it that, is when Brett Gardner singled in the sixth, stole second, ended up on third with two outs. Teixeira grounded to short. Inning over. And maybe game over.

And maybe this game was over from the time Josh Hamilton flicked his wrists and hit a two-run homer off Andy Pettitte in the top of the first. Pettitte stayed in there against Lee and the Rangers like a champion after that, gave up just five hits on this night, three of them to Michael Young. Pettitte stayed in there for seven innings and 110 pitches and would have given his team a chance against anybody, even Roy Halladay. Just not Cliff Lee. Not now. Before this game Lee called Pettitte the best postseason pitcher of all time.

Just not this time. Not now.

Listen to Pettitte, who knows all about nights like this, who has gone up against John Smoltz at his best in October, who saw Josh Beckett close out the Yankees at the old Stadium with one of the spectacular Series performances of all time. Listen to what Pettitte said about the other guy when it was over.

"I haven't seen many games thrown like that," he said.

He meant at this time of year. He meant against the Yankees. He meant against the great Yankee teams he has played for, the one he won another World Series with a year ago. He compared it to the Beckett game. High praise indeed.

"This ballpark," Pettitte said. "To be able to do what he did ... Pretty impressive."

Then he talked about how he felt that if he could keep the game close, keep it at 2-0, that the Yankees would come back. "You keep thinking, if we can get a guy on, somebody can pop one out." Against anybody else, against somebody not pitching the way Lee is pitching this October, maybe. Just not against Lee, not Monday night. Maybe not this season.

When Ron Washington, the Rangers' manager, got to the interview room, the first question, of course, was about his starting pitcher. The guy asking the question wanting to know if he'd ever seen Lee better than he was Monday night at Yankee Stadium.

"What we saw tonight," Washington said, "is what we've been seeing."

It is what everybody has been seeing. He threw 122 pitches Monday night, and you know that if he had to throw more at the Yankees he could have done it and would have done it. And then it all became irrelevant against Boone Logan, David Robertson, Sergio Mitre in the top of the ninth, which suddenly turned into a jailbreak for the Rangers. Suddenly Hamilton's home run no longer looked as big as the monument to George Steinbrenner in the outfield.

Suddenly you didn't have to worry about what the kid closer for the Rangers, Neftali Feliz, might have to do in a 2-0 game. It wasn't 2-0 anymore. Now the Yankees are down 2-1 to the Rangers in the ALCS. Suddenly, the Yankees need to win a game Tuesday night. At the worst possible time, the middle of October, the Yankees are playing baseball the way they did in September.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Matthew Weiner Closes the Books on Season 4 of ‘Mad Men’

By DAVE ITZKOFF
Arts Beat
The New York Times
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/
October 17, 2010, 11:02 pm

Michael Yarish/AMC

Jon Hamm as Don Draper in a scene from the “Mad Men” Season 4 finale, “Tomorrrowland.”


One of the pleasures of being a dedicated “Mad Men” fan – and what are you doing here if you aren’t? – is connecting with other viewers whose knowledge of the show is as encyclopedic and as obsessive as your own. And no one fills that role better than Matthew Weiner, who created the show, oversees its production and would probably cater it if he had the time, and who is kind of like a walking Wikipedia of “Mad Men” (with a much higher rate of accuracy).

On a visit to New York to cheer on Jon Hamm in Thursday’s live episode of “30 Rock,” Mr. Weiner welcomed ArtsBeat to his hotel room to talk about the “Mad Men” season. Though he was tight-lipped about Sunday’s finale – even on the Friday evening before it was broadcast – Mr. Weiner spoke at length about the ideas that were in play during Season 4, his vision for the show’s characters and what the future might hold for the series.

A version of this interview appears in Monday’s print edition of The New York Times. These are extended excerpts from that conversation.

Q.Is it fair to say that one of the themes of this season was about major new undertakings, whether it’s Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce or Betty’s marriage to Henry Francis, coming perilously close to failure?

A.There’s definitely some of that. I always talk about how the show is about consequences, but also how the drama is derived from following things to the next step. Their marriage failed, and we did something people don’t usually do on TV shows – we actually ended the marriage. We actually changed the business.
I wanted to show that Don had lost his coordinates, was not married anymore, is getting older and is not good on his own. Who is? These big events: sleeping with that secretary and realizing that was a mistake; drinking until he blacked out, losing the only person in the world who could call him Dick, and you would see a different person there, that’s gone.

Q.Are these low moments meant to remind us that for all of his charm, he’s a guy we shouldn’t be seduced by? Is that the Tony Soprano in him?

A.I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I don’t want you to ever think that. I don’t feel like it is Tony Soprano – this is not a story about, crime doesn’t pay. This is a story about how hard it is for him. He has a lot of admirable qualities and is basically a moral person, and he makes mistakes. His morality is conflicting. It’s situational, which is the disease of the 20th century. I want you to put yourself in his shoes. I started off the season with those three holidays – Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s – to show, this is what it is to be divorced. Him coming back [from California] after finding out Anna was sick and corrupting Lane, that’s Don saying, “I can’t fix that, but I can fix this. I can make Lane feel better.”

What the audience is not used to, I think, is seeing him being rejected or make mistakes. I know people identify with this slick, super-confident, whatever it is. O.K., we have a feeling he’s an alcoholic, and if push comes to shove, he could become a problem drinker. That was not a surprise, people weren’t happy about it. We know he’s going to get older – people don’t want to think about that. The work part of it was where people got nervous, and I saw them projecting onto the story that his work was not going well. I think his work’s been going great. He’s been trying to do it on his own terms.

Q.As of last week, though, it certainly seemed like the agency had hit rock bottom.

A.I think the company was at rock bottom the week before, and there were consequences to the move he made. But in terms of what I’m trying to say – and I don’t own it, once it’s out there – I thought that that letter was a tremendous success. It’s the ultimate P.R. move to me. That episode was all about people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Don’s making an announcement against tobacco but all he’s trying to do is get back at that company [American Tobacco] and change the brand of his company. Midge wants him to buy a painting, but she doesn’t. Betty finally decides to move – that’s the right thing. Why does she do it? Because she’s jealous of her daughter. That’s what’s in there.

Q.Was Don’s newspaper advertisement a deliberate nod to Emerson Foote?

A.There’s a bunch of people who did this move. I didn’t want anyone to think that I thought I’d invented this. On the other hand, when we talked to certain people in advertising about it, they were like, “Why would you do that?” Everything that Pete says in that scene, and Lane, that’s what they said. “You’re committing suicide. You’re euthanizing the company. You can’t do that, it’s tobacco.” Jay Chiat, actually, published a letter similar to this. It’s not an unusual move. For the audience out there, there was some question about whether or not Don could get an ad in the night before. [laughs] I don’t know why people thought it was unbelievable.

Q.There might have been some question as to whether he could afford to buy the ad and also pay for Pete Campbell’s stake to keep the company afloat.

A.He made half a million dollars selling that company. He’s been making between 40, 60, maybe $100,000 a year then. He has a lot of money. It’s part of the story. An ad back then, it was probably $3,500. It costs the same as a car, like it does now.

Q.Was it by design that the home life of Betty Francis – and, in effect, the domestic lives of nearly all the characters – played less of a role in this season?

A.No. It was about was a guy who has no family, so he’s at work all the time. I hear people weigh in on this – one year there’s too much Betty, this year there’s not enough Betty. I always feel like, whose story do I want to tell? What’s the most interesting way to say it? Betty’s story, the home-life story, has as much screen time probably, and weight, as Joan’s story had last year. That’s a lot.

Q.I think people get concerned because, in the past, you’ve shown no hesitation about dispensing with characters when it would be most dramatic to do so.

A.It’s a totally organic experience. All the actors want to work, and they want to work every week. Everyone’s always worried they’re not going to be in it enough, and Jon Hamm’s always worried he’s going to be in it too much. The idea that people thought Betty wouldn’t be in the show was amusing to me.

Q.When we did see Betty this season, it was often in connection to Sally, and Sally seemed more like the adult in that relationship.

A.She’s childish, but I think there was also a twist that Henry has been good for her. When she tells Henry that she’s talked to the F.B.I., she doesn’t want to have secrets with him. There’s an attempt to have an intimacy. She’s had a hard time, Betty. I don’t hate her. I know it’s hard for people. I think they see a lot of themselves in her, and it’s very hard for them to look at it. They love the pleasure of thinking, I would never be like that. Hopefully they won’t. I’ve got to tell you, just as a parent, and imagining being divorced, if your ex-husband takes your daughter for the week and she comes back having cut her own hair, there’s going to be a lot of anger.

Q.You got some amazing performances this season from Kiernan Shipka, who plays Sally. Could you have known when you first hired her that she would blossom like this?

A.You don’t. But I can tell you she’s always been more than a cute kid. In addition to her talents, she has a mom, Erin, who is not a stage mom. Her parents are very supportive of her desire to do this. And what that means is we can be more and more adventurous in the stories we tell. I’ll bring Erin Shipka in at the beginning of the season and tell her what’s going to go on. It started off with, she’s going to be making drinks and doing ballet, and she’s going to smoke a cigarette and she’s going to get her hair pulled, and then she’s going to drive a car. Her grandpa’s going to die and she’s going to get slapped in the face. She’s going to cut her hair and then she’s going to get caught masturbating. It just got more and more and more, and they’ve never said anything other than, this is a real person. Kiernan can do it, Kiernan wants to do it, and we will shield her as much as possible but have her be an actor.

Q.Back at the office, we got to see Peggy Olson spend a memorable night with Don.

A.At gunpoint. Don didn’t want to be alone, and wouldn’t admit it. But we see the closeness between them and it’s very satisfying.

Q.She’s probably become much more of Don’s disciple than she would want to admit to herself.

A.That’s probably true. I think she loves Don and he’s an important part of her life, and yeah, she wants to spend time alone with him. But she turns on you sometimes, because she’s so self-righteous and full of herself, and it embarrasses us. I look at the episode where Pete found out [Trudy was] pregnant. To me, that story was basically, Pete is getting older and Peggy’s getting younger. She’s going to go out with the kids in the Village and kiss that guy in the closet. And Pete is having a child and going to lunch with the men. Look at the scene between the two of them, when she does the right thing and congratulates him on this pregnancy: he’s in denial about it and so is she. I look at that and think, here’s Peggy making the decision to move on with her life.

Q.I don’t suppose you’ll want to answer this, but there’s been a lot of speculation about whether Joan Harris, Christina Hendricks’s character, actually went through with the abortion.

A.You have to watch the show. I’ll have this conversation with you again in a week, but you have to watch the show. Christina’s a great actress, that’s all I can say. Whether you read that she did do it or didn’t do it, you feel the strength of someone who’s made a decision.

Q.Whether it was the hotel nude scene with Peggy and Stan Rizzo, or Don drunkenly pitching slogans for Life cereal or even the way the death of Miss Blankenship was handled, this felt like a more comedic season, with the humor coming from more unusual or dangerous situations.

A.I’ve heard that. I have to say, I think we always do it. I was a professional comedy writer for a very long time, so I’m not insecure about that. But there are so many things I laugh at that maybe other people don’t think are funny. When Roger has just lost Lucky Strike, they come in and he says, “David Montgomery died? There’s your silver lining.” Or what I think is the funniest line in that episode, when Megan says to Don, “How was the funeral?” and he says, “We’ll see.” There’s not one person on the show who is not a really sharp, gifted comedian. Every time Trudy and Pete are in a scene, it’s immediately funny, no matter what else is going on.

Q.The scene when she was first shown fully pregnant was hilarious.

A.I put in the script: Trudy is eight months pregnant but still in a shorty nightgown. And Janie Bryant goes to town when there’s something that specific. I saw that thing and I was like, what is that, a wedding cake she’s wearing?

Q.Even though Alison Brie is already playing a comic character on “Community,” you’ve been able to get a performance out of her that is very funny in a very different way.

A.She’s super-gifted. There is a very deft controlled, complete character, and she brought that with her. There is this parenthetical above her lines that’s like, Well, of course! Pete says, “I’m already drunk,” and she’s like, “Good for you.” And they have the strongest marriage in the show.

Q.She has a certain Lady MacBeth-like power over him.

A.I think that they’re a team, and she gives him good advice. When he was passed over last season, she asked him the questions that only a very sophisticated businessperson would ask. They’ve both grown up, honestly, and that season where they were trying to have their baby and he threw the chicken out the window – I’ve heard from other people, not just my own experience – that is a lot of people’s first year of marriage, especially if they haven’t lived together.

Q.We even got to see more of Glen Bishop this season. What does it say that you cast your son Marten as this creepy, off-kilter character?

A.I know people use the word creepy, I don’t understand it. I don’t find him to be off-kilter. I’m very proud of their conversations, because anyone who has seriously eavesdropped on children, that is the way they talk to each other. Glen’s always going to be defined by the fact that he asked [Betty] for a lock of hair and he walked in on her in the bathroom, and I know that. But we have a delusion, I will say, in this country, that children are not people. People forget the thoughts they had when they were 6 and 7 years old, and how much of them was in there already. As a dad, the anxiety I have is that he’s going to get some public retribution for being a peculiar person, and he’s not like that at all. He’s got very big eyes and very thick black hair and that may be part of why people think he’s so intense. But he’s a doll and he loves doing it. My worst fear is that he’ll read some of the [things] that people write about him on the Internet, which he never will. That’s all I care about.

Q.We’re now well into 1965 on the show, and there are no major black characters, no characters who are any kind of racial minority -

A.Do Jews count as racial minorities? Because there have been a lot of Jews on the show.

Q.I don’t think so. But is that its own commentary on the reality of the world these characters occupy?

A.That is the world they move in. It’s like saying, well, you’re telling a story about baseball, where’s Jackie Robinson? I’m like, Jackie Robinson is Jackie Robinson because he was one person, and this story is not taking place in that other universe. I’ve tried to show, obviously, as time goes on, this is going to change. By the way, it changes socially. It does not change in advertising. It still has not changed. And I will go to the mat on this thing. I defy any of these companies outside of their corporate retreat photos to show me people of color in positions of power. And those people who are out there, who have positions of power, who are of color, I have been in contact with and none of them think there should be more black faces in that office.

Q.I don’t mean it in an accusatory way.

A.I don’t mean it defensively. To me, I’m telling a story about segregation and assimilation, and who’s coming along at what time. I hope people can tell Faye Miller is Jewish. I hope people know at some level that Jane Siegel, Roger’s wife, is Jewish. They are assimilated. Not everyone can be an heiress like Rachel Menken, who feels absolutely bulletproof. Bobbie Barrett and Jimmy Barrett certainly were transparently Jewish.

Q.I gathered as much.

A.Well, she said his name was Brownstein. “Grin and Brownstein would be the name of the show if it wasn’t for me.” I’m not doing a Whit Stillman movie, and by the way those are contemporary, right? So that has not gone away.

Q.There was an interesting debate about “The Social Network,” which some people have criticized for having so few female characters who are anything other than sex objects, and Aaron Sorkin’s response was that that depiction was true to the world of those characters.

A.That was a fascinating thing to me, a sense that the world of the women in that movie – and this is not a criticism – felt very similar to “Entourage.” It was really about a frat-house perspective. Whenever people are like, we’ve come so far, thank God we’re not like that any more, you’re like, Really? One of the stories we did on the show this year, I got from a creative director here in New York a few years ago. I think she started here in the mid-80s, and told me the story about the lipstick on her teeth. She had an all-male staff, and she gave her presentation with lipstick all over her teeth, and no one said a word. That’s where I got that from.

Q.At what point do you start thinking about Season 5 for “Mad Men”?

A.It’s not really scheduled at this point. There are so many business things that have to go on, that are operating at a level far beyond me. We have not officially been renewed, I’m assuming we will be. For me, these weeks afterward, I have to reacclimatize myself to my life, because I work long hours. I have to try and force myself back into the hole that I’ve left in my life, which sometimes closes up a little bit. My family, my kids. I start thinking about it as soon as I have a signed contract and I know what it is. Other than that, I put everything I have into every season. And when it’s over, it’s over. And I want the audience to feel that way too. I want them to feel like, it’s gone. And hopefully they’ll be so excited when it comes.

Q.Do AMC and Lionsgate seem to understand that the best way to end the series would be on your terms and not somebody else’s?

A.I think everyone has suggested that that’s the way it would be. And I also feel like there’s a way to end the show, to leave the taste in people’s mouths. That artistic decision, to complete it, is very strong for me. We have a gigantic audience – a gigantic audience, no matter what is said about it. It has a tremendous life on the Internet, and DVD and all these other things, and it’s been so good for both of these companies, as good as it’s been for me. So I assume that everything will work out.

Q.Are you able to enjoy the culture of 2010, or are you always on the lookout for stories for your show?

A.No, no, no. First of all, half the stuff I tell you comes from right now. And one of the great things about the show is that people share their stories with me, and I just say, “That’s mine.” [laughs] My job as an artist is to channel the feelings I have about society right now, these are the things I’m feeling about our isolation, about our ambiguous relationship with materialism, about failure, about our declining self-esteem. About our attitude towards change and technology. These are things I’m feeling every day, that I put into the show.

The other aspects of things that are going on in entertainment right now are frustrating to me. I’ve been very disappointed with whatever has happened to the business model that has made the movies so incredibly unattractive to me. I’m so starved for things, for any kind of entertainment. The Oscar things are coming out right now – maybe they saved everything good for right then and there. But it’s been a bummer. It’s a bummer to see movie after movie where so many talented people get together and so much money is spent, and they’re just bland, lifeless, familiar, fake. I’m not a superhero, it’s not one of my interests. It’s O.K. for it to be a fraction of the entertainment that’s out there, but it can’t be everything. And I have four little boys so I’m seeing everything. And they’re tired of going to the movies.

Q.That’s a sad commentary.

A.It’s a bummer. But we have things we watch together. We still watch “The Simpsons.” We watch “30 Rock.” We love that cartoon “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” We watch “Sym-Bionic Titan.” And we watch a lot of old movies. I probably sound like an old person. But it’s not a great moment for someone who just got out of working 24 hours a day and wants to be entertained. And I don’t blame the artistic community. I really don’t. Something happened that nobody can make a movie between $500,000 and $80 million. That can’t be possible.

.