Emily's Corner

Leftist Lunacy V: a "clump of cells" sure is causing a lot of trouble

2005-06-04T12:55:00.000-04:00

For those interested in reading the article I reference, the link is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id180/7171/site/newsweek

“And the hits just keep comin’,” as Kevin Bacon said in Mystic River. No sooner do I write a column asking about the limits of selfishness, but I read that there are no limits, as gloriously expounded in Jonathan Alter’s stem-cell column in this week’s edition of Newsweek.

Now I know that if I send the man e-mail, he’ll probably just ignore it, so I’m going to take him to task in this space, instead.

Alter starts off by saying that he is a “cancer survivor with an adult-stem cell transplant under [his] belt,” which makes me immediately question why he’s pushing so hard for embryonic research, but, as we know, the Left has said far more disjointed things. Let’s skip ahead.

The crux of Alter’s piece is that the new dividing lines are “pro-cure” and “anti-cure”, and that politicians who are “anti-cure” (i.e., against embryonic stem-cell research) will begin to pay a heavy political price, and that the issue has already “swung some votes to the Democrats.” He goes onto the say that President Bush has been “conned” into seeing this issue as “morally complex”, but to everyone else “it’s simple enough—reproductive cloning (to create Frankensteins)—no; embryonic stem-cell research (to cure diseases)—yes.” The only ones who don’t get this are,

Bush bitter-enders and the pope [who] are in the perverse position of valuing the life of an ailing human being less than that of a tiny clump of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

But this marks the end of real rhetoric, because then Alter dives into these gems:

--That, to be really consistent, the President should shut down IVF clinics—“fat chance.”
--That “publicity from this [a potential filibuster by Senator Brownback R-KA] drama will drive support for federal research higher.”
--And, that we on the “anti-cure” side are “extreme.” (Oh there’s a new one; call someone on the right extreme!)

All of this will “inevitably lead to backpedaling and compromise and the victory of a broad-based ‘pro-cure’ movement.”

In the words of Love Story, “where do I begin?”

Let’s start at the beginning. He freely admits that adult stem cells are what saved his life, not ill-gotten embryonic ones. Adult and cord-blood cells have yielded results; embryonic ones have not. You may yell, “that’s because we’re not funding it!” But we are, and so is the rest of the world—where are the miraculous cures?

It really begs the question—why are we arguing the point at all? Why not send embryonic stem-cell research money to the research that has proven to work? Doesn’t that make sense? Cures without the ethical dilemma, which segues beautifully into my next, and biggest, beef with Alter’s piece—his crass handling of the ethical dimensions. Oh, that we were all as intelligent as the great Mr. Alter so we could see these manifestly clear distinctions!

The problem with Alter and his ilk lies in his telling remark about “a clump of cells.” In Alter’s world, the cells and the ailing human are pitted against each other, much as in the abortion debate. “Neither can live while the other survives,” to quote Harry Potter. The “pro-cure” movement is so bent on saving people, no matter what, that they will destroy this nascent life.

But we on the “pro-life” or “anti-cure” side see it differently. We want to save them both, to give them both the chance for life. There is a reason the Catholic Church is against IVF, and it is vividly seen in Alter’s flagitious writing—the Church respects life so greatly that it does not condone any actions that lead to it being devalued, as Alter has so crassly done. IVF, birth control, abortion—all of these are connected. Life is so precious, so wonderful, that it must be guarded and protected and cherished, not used as a scientific plaything. The very Pope that Alter mocks is the Pope that calls for both the embryo and the cancer patient to “have life, and have it more abundantly.” He will not pit one against the other, for to him, as to God, they are equal. There is an inherent dignity in them both.

Yet Alter and the “pro-cure” side would have us engage in a horrific Hobson’s choice, where the most vulnerable are used to save the ailing. It is to pit two vulnerable sides against each other, to enter into Hobbes’ state of nature. Alter’s side forgets the peril and leaps headlong into the pit without a thought.

We must not buy into the seductive amorality Alter argues. For the Left, who is so deliciously “nuanced” on every other issue, here they claim moral clarity is a given. It’s amazing. But Alter’s position only more chillingly crystallizes the Left’s views of human life: “it’s only a clump of cells”, infanticide on demand, doing anything to save our bodies and protect our “choice.” It’s only the “anti-cure” side that even gives a thought to saving our souls.

We all have to die, and when we do, “there will be a reckoning.” What, I wonder, will Alter argue then?

Questions, comments? emilyscolumn@yahoo.com.

Review of "Mystic River"

2005-05-26T19:02:00.000-04:00

I realize that I usually review movies after they’ve been run in the theaters, not when they’ve gone to the DVD market, but this movie is an exception. “Mystic River”, Clint Eastwood’s 2003 offering to the Oscar race, is a poignant, searing emotional drama of Shakesperean proportions that deserves some sort of review/reaction after seeing it for the first time.

I’m sure many of my readers will be familiar with the movie, its plot, and the acclaim, but for those who are not, a brief summary is order. The movie won two Oscars—a Best Actor nod for Sean Penn, and a Best Supporting Actor trophy for Tim Robbins. Mr. Eastwood does work that is matched (or surpassed) by his peerless Million Dollar Baby, which I have reviewed elsewhere on this site. But Mystic River is, in a sense, a “sibling” film to the 2004 Best Picture winner; they deal with many of the same themes—the depth of love and family, loss, and how tragedy can transform a person, or, in the case of Mystic River, a family and a community.

The movie tells the story of three friends, growing up in working-class Boston: Jimmy (Sean Penn), Sean (Kevin Bacon), and Dave (Tim Robbins). One watershed day when they were children, Dave was abducted by two men posing as police officers and was sexually assaulted and abused for four days before he found a way to escape. The experience changed him, and the boys’ friendship, indelibly. Only some thirty years later, when Jimmy’s beautiful 19-year old daughter, Katie (Emmy Rossum, who does lovely work in her brief scenes), is murdered, do the men reunite: Sean as the Boston police officer assigned to the case, and Dave as one of the suspects in her brutal murder.

I’ve read many amateur reviews that say this movie is nothing more than a glorified Law and Order episode. Those people have, sadly, missed the searing power of this drama. Sean Penn does the best work of his career in this role as a driven-to-the-brink father who is mourning the loss of his favorite daughter. This role pushes him further and further into the dark side of human nature, and to watch Mr. Penn devour this role is incredible. He totally becomes Jimmy Markum, in all his rich complexities. It is one of the best roles in any movie, ever, by an actor. His performance will leave you stunned and shaken. He is matched by Tim Robbins, who gives the character of Dave an interesting duality; he is immature, yet threatening, guileless yet calculating. His scenes with his wife Celeste (played to perfection by Marcia Gay Harden) are chilling in the sense of tension and fear between them. Kevin Bacon, along with his police detective partner, Whitey (Lawrence Fishburne) also turn in solid performances, as does Laura Linney, playing Annabeth Markum, and who has a rather startling Lady MacBeth moment in the last act of the film, which she attacks with relish and focus.

Eastwood, as usual, directs his actors with sensitivity and style, and the cinematography is stark and incredibly realistic and raw, as befits the working-class setting and people of the film. The dialogue is well-written and tightly scripted, as is the story, and all of the characters exude a realistic sense of the grittiness and hardscrabble quality of their lives. The tender relationship between Katie and Jimmy is remarkably well-done for only one short scene, and will make anyone who has the inestimable experience of a close father-daughter relationship cry as Jimmy so poignantly and actively mourns the death of the daughter he credits with saving his life when he was released from prison.

Mystic River is an incredibly vivid, emotional ride through the life of one community that is violently rocked with tragedy and seethes with passionate undercurrents. It really is hard to describe exactly how powerful this drama is; all I really have to say is that this movie sticks with you and makes you appreciate your family, if you are lucky enough to have a close family.

*** 1/2

Questions, comments? emilyscolumn@yahoo.com.

The Limits of Selfishness--the unheard voices of the stem cell debate

2005-05-26T19:01:00.000-04:00

“In all this discussion, something has gotten lost. That something is the truth.”
--A Time To Kill

I’m pretty sure all of us, by now, have seen Nancy Reagan, or Michael J. Fox, or even Boomer Esiason, on the TV screen or newspaper page advocating for stem cell research. Not just any stem cell research, but embryonic stem cell research. This, they tell us, is the only type of research that can save themselves or their loved ones from a highly undesirable and painful fate. They are certain that their cure lies in the mysteries of these cells. And, since their lives have been so touched, so irrevocably shifted, by trauma, that we believe them. We are compassionate people, at heart. We want to ease their pain, stop their suffering, prevent their decline. And to do it, all they—all we—have to do is consent to destroy these nascent nubs of life, these “clumps of cells” that have been abandones from IVF tries. If we “destroy” them, then all of the scientific world will open for us, and we will have “no more death or mourning, wailing or pain” (Rev. 21:4).

This is the subtle trap. This is where the “truth gets lost”. It gets lost in the teary-eeyes rhetoric of those TV spokesmen and they dare us to deny them the life-saving treatments. We cannot judge them, the suffering. We would do the same, in their place.

And yet. And yet…

No. Not all. I am sure of this, because I would not. There is a limit to my selfishness. I will not kill another to save myself. It’s a Faustian bargain I will not make. I will not sacrifice these tiny buds of life to save my own. It is an abomination.

I need new organs; some of you reading this know I am listed for a transplant. My ‘need’ is great. But I will not kill another to save myself. My mother and I share the same blood type, but I will not commit matricide to save myself. It would only condemn me. I wouldn’t save myself at all. Is what the stem-cell advocates hawk so different? “It’s just a clump of cells”, we hear. Yes—aren’t we all? Isn’t that the essential composition of the human self? Yet we do not kill children and adults for their parts. It’s an abhorrent notion. But we would do it to the least of these? To the most defenseless? It simply does not wash. Man, in all his glorious forms, is made in the image of God. We are beholden to protect it always. We must always err on the side of life!

But we must not pit lives against others. We must not say that the need of Michael J. Fox, or others, is so great that we must kill the most guileless among us. It is a crime against ourselves, and against God. My selfishness does not extend that far. I will not kill another to save myself.

Do not allow misguided compassion to sway you; do not believe that Nancy Reagan and Company is the single voice of the afflicted. For there is another voice that says, “my selfishness has limits—and this is it. I will not kill another to have myself.” Don’t forget that voice. For it holds much truth in its position.

There are other ways, life-preserving ways. Cord blood, adult stem cells—these have already shown much progress and much hope, something the embryonic lines have never yielded. We must follow the ways that are moral, that are right, that could yield answers without such a destructive toll. We are judged on how we treat the weak. We are supposed to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, not just the ones on TV.

I will not allow others to die to save myself. It is self-preservation gone perverse, selfishness magnified 100 fold.

Remember this, when you hear this debate. Remember the limits of selfishness, and think of what it means for us as a society. Don’t but into the media hype blindly. Consider the other side. And then weigh them carefully. It is hard to tell people, “no, we will not do this, even to save you.” But we must, for there must be a limit to science—and our misguided compassion.

Comments, questions? emilyscolumn@yahoo.com.

The Passion of the Judiciary--Compromise? More like delaying the inevitable...

2005-05-26T18:59:00.000-04:00

I know I’m not the only one upset about the judicial “kumbaya compromise.” The internet and blogosphere is crawling with dissent. But I feel more frustrated than anything else, because even after 11 years, Republicans still don’t know how to run a majority.

This should have been simple. If the Dems filibuster, you pull the trigger. It’s not that hard. Whose vote do you lose? Certainly not the base, who is, if nothing else, vociferous in their support of the ‘nuclear option’. Maybe you lose a few moderates here and there, but I think you’d gain a few more. It’s fifty-fifty at best. But it’s so frustrating to those of us who full-throatedly support the party, thinking that it’s going to support certain things, and then it just dissipates as soon as the election is over. Obstructionism won John Thune his seat, and we’re afraid to do what we’re constitutionally allowed to do? Give me a break. Can we please have a real, up or down vote on these nominees? Forget Democrat and Republican—it’s what you do. If a nominee survives committee, you vote on them. I don’t care who’s in the Oval Office, it’s courtesy. And all this hogwash about how G.W. had better “consult with the Senate” about future nominees is just that—hogwash. The President doesn’t have to vet his nominees before he nominates them, and he certainly doesn’t have to get Mr. Reid’s approval. We have a 10 seat margin; for the love of God, can we please use it??? Please?? Where’s the leadership? Get the ducks in a row and have the vote. This shouldn’t be this hard.

I’m sorry that this is a bit of a rant, but I’m frustrated. All this does is delay the option until we’ve got a Supreme Court vacancy, which we know will happen about the end of June. Knowing that the Court is taking a very ideologically heavy docket for the Fall session, G.W. would be well-advised to nominate a conservative for associate and either Scalia or Thomas to the Chief Justice post. Do we honestly think that Reid and Co. will take the nomination of Scalia or Thomas lightly? I think not. And all we’ll have to do is bust open the filibuster like we should’ve done today or last night. And we will have to do it—if we don’t stop this nonsense for a Supreme Court vacancy, then I’m going to lose it. And I think a good portion of the base would, too. If it doesn’t happen, then I’m not quite sure where our party leadership is, and that’s a scary thing.

I will say I’m glad that Brown, Owens, and Pryor (a good Catholic, as well) are going to receive votes and be appointed to the benches. That’s great—they deserve it. But I think they deserved it regardless, and the other nominees did too. This isn’t fair to them; what explanation will Frist and Co. give? But I do give Sen. Frist props for saying that this deal isn’t making him totally happy, and I certainly am glad to hear Senators DeWine and Graham say they reserve the right to support the ‘nuclear option.’

I guess we shall have to see. But I’m not happy with the “kumbaya compromise.” And a lot of the base ain’t, either.

Questions, comments? emilyscolumn@yahoo.com.

Review of "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith"

2005-05-19T21:06:00.000-04:00

WARNING! This review will contain spoilers. Please refrain from reading it until you have seen the movie if you want a ‘pure’ viewing experience.

The Force is back in action—and in balance.

I won’t say that I was as harsh a critic of the other prequels as some, but they did lack some of the luster of the original trilogy, even with souped-up special effects. But I digress. Episode III is a worthy successor to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi.

Episode III completes the six part cycle, and reminds me of a line from the musical Jekyll and Hyde: “There’s such a fine line / between a good man / and a bad.” In this film, we truly see how thin and permeable that line is, and how tempting it can be to sacrifice principle, duty, honor, and even love in pursuit of something greater—power.

Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) are fighting in the last battles of the Clone Wars against Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and General Grievous (part-droid, part-man….some strange hybrid with a spray-nozzle face and a hacking cough, like he was a chain smoker in a former life), who have captured the Supreme Chancellor (a seductive, poisonous Ian MacDirmid). Anakin rescues the Chancellor after killing Dooku, bemoaning, “it is not the Jedi way” to kill an unarmed prisoner. The Chancellor, however, says that Dooku was “too dangerous to live” and that Anakin did the right thing.

Anakin returns to Courusant with the Chancellor and meets his secret wife, Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman), who tells him that she is pregnant. His facial expression in this moment perfectly captures the sense of joy and fear, as he and his wife both know that this will be their undoing. Padme plans to go to Naboo to have the child, and together the couple can hide there and raise their family.

Alas, things do not follow Padme’s idyllic, dreamy path. Anakin begins to have dreams of Padme dying in childbirth. Tormented, he goes to Yoda, who tells him that he must “train himself to let go of everything he fears to lose.” He finds this answer unacceptable, and when the Chancellor suggests that he might have a solution, Anakin is all ears. So the stage is set for his final downfall, in turns of Shakespearean proportions.

The film is simply astounding to look at—it is alive with color, rich in texture and energy. The effects do not overwhelm the actors, but complement them and turn the world Lucas has imagined for them into a vibrant reality. It is said that 80% of the film is CGI generated—I would believe it. But it’s very difficult to see, a testament to the fine work done at Industrial Light and Magic. The fiery, lava-gushing volcano planet of Mustafar (an allegory to Hell, perhaps) is the crowning set achievement of the piece.

The actors do a better job, this time out, as if they have finally adjusted to their characters and the stilted speech Lucas gives his actors. Portman and MacGregor do remarkably better work; Portman elegantly and painfully portraying a woman who is in love with a man bent on his own destruction, and MacGregor as a teacher and pseudo-father who must destroy the person closest to him on earth in order to save him. “You were the chosen one!” Obi-Wan screams as he and Anakin finish their battle on Mustafar, among the hellish landscape, the lava oozing around them, the entire galaxy falling apart. MacGregor’s anguish is clearly demonstrated, and he does a fine job in his role.

McDirmid, as the Emperor, has some of the most speakable lines in the movie; I think Lucas pulled out the stops here and actually wrote good lines. His seduction of Anakin is intelligent, discreet, and total. “I am the only one who can help you save Padme,” he tells the young Jedi, and Anakin is so seduced that he will do anything, even kill younglings in the Jedi Temple, to learn the secrets of the Dark Side that could save his wife. But in the end, it is his transformation to the Sith that kills her. Christensen does a good job playing a young man tormented by thoughts of losing the only thing he loves and his desire to be taken seriously as a Jedi; therefore, it is no surprise that when the Emperor offers him that respect and power, he takes it, kneeling before him in half-light of the Chancellor’s office and taking the name Darth Vader.

I only had two problems with the film (other than the dialogue, which always drives me mad!). The first is that Lucas doesn’t seem to know when to hold a moment for his audience. This movie is, by far, the most poignant and tragic of all the Star Wars films. There are plenty of opportunities for emotion. For example, when Padme’s funeral procession is winding through the streets of Naboo, we see a close-up of her face, which pans down into a close-up of the necklace Anakin gave Padme so long ago on Tatooine, when they first met. It’s a heartbreaking shot, and if Lucas would have stayed on it for just a few more seconds, I’m sure the whole audience would’ve been a puddle. But Lucas jerks us away before we can really give ourselves over to the emotional power of the scene. This happens several times in the movie, especially in the second act; another good example is when Obi-Wan and Yoda are watching the security hologram of Anakin killing the younglings. After about two seconds, Obi-Wan says “I can’t watch anymore.” That’s all well and good, but a few more seconds and Lucas would’ve really snagged the audience. It’s almost as if he’s purposely eschewing the pathos the movie could elicit, and I’m not sure why he does that.

The second thing is the use of James Earl Jones’s voice once Anakin is inside the Vader suit (and I will say that, technically, this scene, juxtaposed beautifully with a tormented Padme in childbirth, is excellent). We know that inside the suit is Hayden Christensen, a.k.a. twenty-four year old Anakin. We’re not expecting Jones’s deep baritone and it’s a bit of a disconnect. The other thing is that Anakin goes a bit berserk upon hearing he killed his wife, and lets out a “Nooooooo!” It’s probably just me, but I found that moment to be very odd in Jones’s voice—I almost wish a hybrid of Jones and Christensen could’ve been reached. But to me, the voice was jarring whenever the lines referred to Padme, or to his grief upon hearing of her death. This is not what we’re used to hearing from Vader.

The film is well-paced, beautifully shot, and has good character development and a streamlined plot, which is not something I could say for I and II. Here, you are never sitting in the theater thinking, “Where in the world is this going?” The story really moves, and moves well.

The plot questions I raised in my previous post (see below) weren’t really rectified. Yoda says “until the time is right, disappear we will.” And it’s said in the movie that Obi-Wan is sent to Tatooine to watch out for Luke until “the time is right.” But there are still a lot of unresolved plot holes, which I won’t cover again here.

Overall, Episode III is a romp, a wild ride through classic Star Wars (light saber battles) and Shakesperean tragedy. It is a fitting end to the ground-breaking series and completes the circle back to the original trilogy in thrilling and tragic fashion.

***
Questions/comments? emilyscolumn@yahoo.com

***

Some of you have asked where I found my Episode III script; the link’s below, and it’s pretty accurate. Some of the lines have been removed in the final cut, but that’s to be expected.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/newsboard.cgi?action

Lefist Lunacy IV--the abortion debate, part 3,000,000

2005-05-13T18:13:00.000-04:00

I’m going to go through a recent editorial I read in the Dispatch by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jane Eisner, who is a definite chip off the liberal block. The editorial revolved around the recent case of a 13 year old girl in the custody of the State of Florida since 1998 wanting an abortion. Eisner’s remarks are first—I’ll follow.

**The governor, remember, is Jeb Bush, brother of the president and relentless champion of what he calls “the sanctity of life.” He argues that state law prevents his administration from consenting to the abortion, no matter what the circumstance.

The court rules that state law does no such thing, and Bush backs down, an uncharacteristic move for a politician who led the fight to intervene in the case of poor Teri Schiavo and has, on another occasion, sought to appoint a guardian for the fetus of a severely retarded rape victim.**

I’ll leave you to make your own comments about the current state of the Floridian judiciary. I’m sure when Ms. Eisner talks about “poor Terri Schiavo” she’s not referring to the fact that that “poor” woman was brutally starved to death by court order, while her parents and family tried desperately to save her life, a life that still had value and worth. I’m pretty sure that’s not her point, but I’ll let it go at this. And can you imagine! Appointing a guardian for a child! The outrage!

**This sorrowful tale raises a basic question for those who, like Jeb Bush, believe that government should intervene to prevent the termination of pregnancy: will there ever be a time or circumstance when an abortion is permitted?**

Um, short answer? No. Mr. Bush is Catholic; last time I checked, the Church was pretty clear on this.

**If not for a 13-year-old girl with no family and no home, then when? If not for a severely retarded rape victim, then when?**

Answer’s still never---life is life, Ms. Eisner.

**If the answer is never (me: and it is!), end of discussion, then the fetus’ right to be born always supersedes the mother’s right to determine her fate, and the search for common ground on this vexing issue will always be frustrated.**

Um, damn right, lady. Because, see, one side thinks that the fetus is a child, who has rights just like the mother. And in most cases, the mother’s “right to determine her fate” was given up when she had sex. I know, I know, I can hear the screaming now—that’s not fair! Yeah, well life ain’t fair. Too bad. If a woman doesn’t want a child, then she can take appropriate measures to make sure that doesn’t happen before the child shows up. Once the child’s there, you can’t kill him! I’m sorry, but we’re civilized human beings; we just don’t kill a child because his presence is inconvenient (at least not in America; in Holland and Britain, there are horrific tales of this very thing occurring—‘wrongful birth’ suits are becoming increasingly more common). Oh wait—that’s what happened to “poor Terri Schiavo”, isn’t it?

**I write from the perspective of someone who has long contended that both sides in the abortion debate share blame for the polarization. The pro-choice movement’s stubborn reluctance to acknowledge the humanity of the fetus and to argue exclusively for a woman’s reproductive rights have been just as damaging as pro-lifers’ insistence that tampering with biology amounts to murder.**

OK, let’s see here. If the pro-choice movement has been wrong to acknowledge the “humanity of the fetus”, then what’s the argument? The reason it’s not acknowledged by that side is because anyone with half a brain knows that if the fetus is really a person (WHICH IT IS), then you can’t kill it, because you’re killing a person, and in America, that’s a crime. So it’s not “reluctance”, Ms. Eisner—it’s a conscious rhetorical decision on the part of the Left! If they say that the fetus is a child, then their case is gone. Pure and simple. There’s no way that any logical person will say that the innocent child’s life should be ended because a woman ‘chooses’ it to be so. I’m sorry. And, Ms. Eisner, biology creates life—that’s part of it. So when you tamper with reproduction, guess what? You’re killing the child. You are denying that child life. You are taking it from him. I think that’s called murder, in some parts of this country.

**Truth is, most Americans recognize that abortion resides in that difficult space where dueling moralities compete. I’ve spoken with people who are personally opposed to abortion but reluctant to legislate away the rights of others. I’ve spoken to others who are instinctively or politically pro-choice—until they land in a situation in which they could choose abortion, and find they just can’t.**

People who are “personally opposed to abortion but reluctant to legislate away the rights of others” are called sissies, or RINOs. And those people who “just can’t” choose abortion when faced with it are finally having their inner Jiminy Cricket come knocking on their hearts. Government is about making the tough calls. No one seems to think that legislating against murder is somehow “legislating away the rights of others”—it’s good public policy. And yet, within the womb, which should be the safest, most protective place on Earth, it’s OK.

**This ambivalence, reflect in poll after poll, isn’t the result of moral relativism or a “culture of death,” as some have implied. It’s an outgrowth of those supreme American traits of pragmatism and tolerance that have always been in contest with a more fundamentalist mentality and, happily, very often have prevailed.**

Oh, let us bow before the god of polls! You know, I bet in the 1850s, a poll of the Southern states would have revealed a strong pro-slavery bias. And, Ms. Eisner, I don’t think you are in the least bit qualified to take on JPII and Benedict XVI, or Mother Teresa (a woman, no less!), all three of whom who vehemently disagree with your assertions about moral relativism. But who are they? Oh, they’re Catholics, and we Catholics sure are nuts when it comes to protecting babies. It’s just crazy!

**Pragmatism requires judgment; tolerance calls for compassion. If the state of Florida—or any other government—can order a 13-year-old in its care to carry a fetus to term against her wishes, utilizing the absurd argument that she is too young to decide on her own but not too young to become a mother, then why talk about compassion and judgment in public discourse and government policy?

And I thought those values were common features of all our faith traditions.**

Oh, here we are: the twin gods of polls and tolerance—the Creed of the secular Left! Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The State tells us all sorts of things we can’t do—smoke, drink and drive, not wear a seatbelt in a car, kill someone for the hell of it. I think it’s well within the State’s right to tell a child in its care that it cannot have an abortion. And who said she had to be the mother? I would think they would give the child up for adoption. And compassion and judgment are two things SORELY missing from the abortion debate—no compassion for the tiny, innocent life that did NOTHING wrong, and no sound judgment that perhaps the on-demand massacre of our most vulnerable citizens is wrong. Judgment and compassion are missing, indeed.

**…We are once again reminded of why a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy must have some protection in the laws of this land. It should not be a right without a commensurate responsibility. It should not be abused.

But it cannot be relinquished. Not if that means a homeless girl’s future will be dictated by a bunch of men who fashion themselves as protectors of life but never, ever have to bear the consequences.**

Wow, you can just feel the venom flowing off that type, can’t you? Would this be different if Gov. Bush was a woman? Somehow I doubt it.

The facts are that this ‘right’ is the way out of responsibility. It takes away a woman’s responsibility to her child. It takes away the fact that if a woman CHOOSES to have sex (and that is, after all, the penultimate choice) she does not have to bear the responsibility of that act. She can just ‘get rid of it’. She can kill her child. As Mother Teresa said, “it is a pity that a child must die so you may live as you wish.”

A great pity, indeed. And one that will not be resolved whilst Leftist Lunacy such as this is allowed to prevail.

Disturbances In the Force--Questions and plot holes in the Star Wars saga

2005-05-13T18:08:00.000-04:00

NOTE: I have read the script for Episode III and will be sharing plot points in this piece. If you’d rather not know, read this later.

There is a disturbance in the Force. And it’s not a minor one. (NOTE: If you don’t care for Star Wars, this would be a good time to move on to one of my other posts. J )

OK, so maybe I’m being a little dramatic. I didn’t used to be a big Star Wars fan, but Episode III has me all excited—I even bought the complete first trilogy on DVD in the nifty boxed set (a great buy, by the way), and I’ve had Episodes I and II for awhile now. So, in order to properly prepare for the onslaught of III, I’ve watched the last five movies, in sequence (I, II, IV, V, and VI). I’ve noticed some discrepancies, both large and small, and if anyone can shed some light on them, send answers to emilyscolumn@yahoo.com.

In no particular order, here are my beefs:

1. In Episode VI, Luke and Leia have a lovely exchange about Padme while on Endor, Luke asking his sister, “Do you remember your mother?” Leia answers that she doesn’t really remember her, but she remembers “feelings”, mainly that her mother was “beautiful and kind, but sad.”

OK. I’ve read the Episode III script, and Padme dies within minutes of giving birth to the twins. There’s no way Leia could remember her mother, especially what she looked like. BIG plot hole, Mr. Lucas. I think this would’ve been easy to fix, too: have Leia and Padme escape to Alderaan, and have Padme die there when Leia’s a few months older. At least then there’d be some sense that this was plausible. But as it is, there’s no way that the dialogue in VI matches the reality of III. I read on the web today that the reason Leia remembers is because ‘The Force’ is so strong with her. Uh, no. I don’t think so.

2. In Epsiode V, Obi-Wan makes references to himself that lead you to believe (or assume) that he was Yoda’s padawan learner. Fair enough, and plausible, within the context of the first trilogy. Then Episode I shows up, and we’ve got Qui-Gon! What’s with that? And we know that Yoda’s padawan learner was Count Dooku (Episode II), and that Dooku taught Qui-Gon. So what’s the deal? Why did Lucas create a character that is so obviously in conflict with established plot? I suppose it’s possible that Yoda became Obi-Wan’s teacher after Qui-Gon died, but even that doesn’t work because in Episode II, Obi-Wan is a Jedi Master and has his own padawan, Anakin. So I’m not sure exactly what Qui-Gon’s function is, because he could have just as easily been a fellow Jedi with Obi-Wan, and not necessarily his teacher, but then I guess that would mess up the whole deathbed promise Qui-Gon extracted from Obi-wan re: Anakin’s training. I don’t know. All I know is that this plot point bothers me.
3. THE DROIDS!! This is something that really gets me going. In Episode IV, we see the droids bought by Uncle Owen, who has never seen them before. C3PO makes comments to the effect that he’s never been on such a strange planet. Obi-Wan has never seen them, commenting “I’ve never owned a droid” upon hearing of R2’s declaration that he has a message for him. And, again, in the context of the first trilogy, that works. Then we see Episode I, where C3PO is created by Anakin to live with them on Tatooine! And R2 ends up there, as well, as Padme’s droid. Obviously, the droids have not only been to Tatooine, but spent a significant amount of time there, and C3PO even ended up living on Lars’ farm, with Beru and Owen (so, Owen should know him, twenty-odd years later).

Now, upon reading the Episode III script, we see that C3PO’s memory is wiped, but not R2’s. The assumption I’ve read from online sites is that R2 would know to be quiet better than C3PO. But still! That’s a pretty shoddy way out, if you ask me, and I don’t think it’s entirely plausible. C3PO was much too smart, and R2 was enough of a smartass that he would have ‘beeped’ something to 3PO upon his comment that this was an odd planet and he’d never been there. Also, Uncle Owen doesn’t even recognize him in IV! Neither does Kenobi! While I suppose they could be lying to protect Luke, I find that a weak point. The droids are one thing that really, really bugs me.

4. Vader is supposed to be very ‘strong’ with the Force, and yet is unable to feel the presence of his own daughter, or his son, at least in Episode IV and Episode V, when he’s standing right next to Leia while Han is encased in carbonite. That’s very odd. If he’s so strong with the Force, shouldn’t he know where his kids are, at least when he’s torturing one of them (Leia in IV)? That seems rather odd, but then again, we’re never exactly sure as to what the Force really is, or what it entails, so I guess it could be anything. I suppose the Dark Side could have clouded his vision—but still, wouldn’t he have known he was torturing his own daughter?!

5. What about the prophecy that Anakin is supposed to defeat the Dark Side and bring balance to the Force? Does he do that at the end of VI? Is the prophecy really only fulfilled in Luke? Sort of unclear.

6. And why does Luke need to face Vader anyway?

7. Why does Obi-Wan end up with Luke on Tatooine? Shouldn’t Vader or the Emperor sense that? And how come they can’t sense Yoda on Dagobah? I read on the Internet today that the reason Yoda chose Dagobah is because it has a strong “Dark Side” presence, but still….that’s kind of a cop-out, isn’t it?

8. And how come Obi-Wan doesn’t remember Leia? In Episode V, he says that Luke is “their last hope”, and Yoda says, “No, there is another” (Leia). Now, again, in the context of the first trilogy, that works. But Obi-Wan is with Padme as she gives birth to the twins. He sees them both. There’s no way to reconcile these points.

9. And why does Luke still have the Skywalker name, anyway? Shouldn’t they have changed it? That’s a pretty distinctive last name, if you ask me.

10. What’s the deal with Palpatine—why does he go over to the Sith, anyway? What’s his whole story?

11. And finally—what exactly is the philosophy of Star Wars? It can’t be “war is bad”, because the first trilogy is all about a war fought to restore the Republic. It’s not really ‘pro’ Democracy, because in the first trilogy Lucas is very clearly showing us how Democracy can be manipulated. But it’s not pro-Dictatorship, either (see II). And it’s not really pro-monarchy, even though Naboo is one. Yet the Queen is elected, while Naboo’s Senator is appointed…strange. Lucas clearly doesn’t love capitalism (hence the evil ‘Trade Federation’) or Republicans (Nate Gunray? Anyone?). Any thoughts on this last point would be good.

Review of "The Interpreter"

2005-04-23T13:51:00.000-04:00

“The Interpreter” is a smart, witty, and well-crafted political thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat and engaged at all times. It is, along with “Million Dollar Baby”, one of the few adult dramas to be produced in recent years, and I, for one, am glad of it.

The plot revolves around an African-born U.N. interpreter, Sylvia Broome, (Nicole Kidman) who overhears an assassination plot of an African ‘president’ while retrieving some of her belongings from her booth after hours. She reports the threat to security, who in turn give it to the Secret Service, led by Agent Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) and his partner (Catherine Keener). Keller doubts Sylvia’s story from the beginning—she was born in Matobo, the country that the murdureous President leads, and is one of only a few people with an understanding of Ku, the dialect the threat was given in-- and with this premise in place, the story begins to unfold.

The African President who is being threatened is the head of a fictional nation, but I thought he closely resembled Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and the situation is similar. A President who led a rebellion for democracy has turned into a tyrant, using genocidal tactics against his own people. Sylvia’s family was killed by a landmine in Matobo, so she, as she says in the movie, “wouldn’t mind if [the President] was gone.” Her motives are not exactly pure. But the movie constantly keeps you guessing, with a full contingent of suspects and plot twists that keep things interesting.

The movie was shot on location at the U.N., a first for any movie, and it adds a feel of authority and prestige to the film, which helps heighten the drama. The cast is wonderful; Kidman and Penn are at the top of their games, and they bring passion and energy to their roles, aided by the incredibly well written dialogue. Kidman has had a great streak of work lately, and she gets better with each role she plays. The nice thing about this movie is that both of the main characters are fully-realized adults with dark pasts, and that is clearly expressed—Sylvia has lost her family, and Keller has lost his wife in a freak car accident. They develop a relationship, but not the way you think—they’re too busy trying to be killed for them to flirt with each other. But by the end of the film, there is no dobut that they have feelings for each other, and if things had been different, something might have happened between them; as Keller says, “We didn’t have time for a lot of things.” Their chemistry is very real and poignant, especially in one scene in Sylvia’s apartment. It’s nice to see a movie with such solid acting in the lead roles.

The supporting players, especially Catherine Keener, help round out the film and provide occasional wisecracks. The movie is tightly plotted, and moves along at a good pace. Director Sydney Pollack knows how to keep an audience engaged and alert, even during some of the ‘slower’ scenes in the middle. An exciting chase sequence on a city bus is beautifully executed, as is the sequence when President Zuwanie enters the U.N. and prepares to address the General Assembly. This is a great political thriller that addresses questions of globalization, international politics, the virtues of diplomacy versus action (Sylvia says at one point that she believes in quiet diplomacy, as opposed to standing by the side of the road with a machine gun) and other political topics. This is one of those movies that makes government work glamorous and exciting—well, at least on screen. Definitely not to be missed.

*** 1/2 PG-13 due to scenes of violence and occasional languagae

Comments? Send them to emilyscolumn@yahoo.com

Viva il Papa!

2005-04-23T13:48:00.000-04:00

Two words: Ratzinger rocks.

I was not one of the media darlings who paraded on the TV this week, saying that the new Pope would bring about destruction and havoc upon the Church. I firmly believe that Benedict XVI will bring the Truth of Catholic teaching to the world and proclaim it boldly.

I do not think there will be any major changes to Church doctrine. Benedict is a great believer in the Truth as it exists, and so I don’t think he’ll look at contraception, or other topics, and suddenly say, “Well the truth has changed.” Not so. Because Benedict, I think, like a lot of us, believe that Truth is Truth. Truth does not change; it always is. I’ve been reading a lot of news stories this week saying that what the Church teaches “isn’t in step with modern times.” Well, perhaps the modern world isn’t in step with The Church. Benedict will show us that Truth can be known, and is known, through Christ and His Church, and that we will proclaim it boldly, as Catholics. It is an extension of John Paul The Great’s “Be Not Afraid!” Be Not Afraid to preach the Truth, to live the Truth, to love the Truth, lest we become like Pontius Pilate, unable to discern that Truth for ourselves. “What is Truth?” he famously asked Christ. Christ has presented us with truth; what we must do it follow it.

Will Benedict XVI preside over a smaller Church, due to his bold proclamations? Perhaps. But I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I, personally, would much rather have a smaller Church where everyone is on the same page, as opposed to the one we have now—1.1 billion strong, but having to ask “are you a blue state Catholic or a red state Catholic?” I wouldn’t be too sad to lose the Christmas and Easter people. But that’s just me. As Maureen Dowd wrote in a recent New York Times editorial, for moderates and liberals in the Church, “the cafeteria line is now closed.” For once, I agree with her. Benedict XVI will not take kindly to the “cafeteria Catholicism” practiced in so much of the West. And it’s one of the things that needs to change. Revival of Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, in the West will be brought about by devotion to the Truth. I know this. Benedict does, too. People need someone who is going to stand up and tell them what is right and what is wrong. Do they agree? Not always. But the world needs a Benedict XVI, a John Paul the Great, to proclaim the Truth.

I am very interested to see what Benedict’s reign will bring forth. He is a brilliant theologian, and already has a great body of work assembled for us to begin to study. But I am sure he will be a good shepard and will guide the Church faithfully throughout his reign. Viva il Papa!

Comments? Send them to emilyscolumn@yahoo.com

Politics of the Papacy

2005-04-12T17:41:00.000-04:00

OK, so having posted my tribute to John Paul The Great (see below) I shall now delve into the messier political issues surrounding the conclave and iminent elections of the new Pope.

If you've watched CNN (and if you're reading this blog, I'm guessing you're not, unless it's for the entertainment value), you've already heard Christiane Amanpour talk about how the next Pope needs to be more "progressive", which means (in no particular order) married priests, women priests, releasing the contraceptive ban, etc., etc., etc. If you've read my previous post, you know that in dioceses around the world that faithfully practice what the Church professes, vocations are skyrocketing and the numbers of faithful are increasing with tremendous rapidity. Coversly, in dioceses with more "progressive" ideas, vocations and converts are sinking like anvils on Looney Toons. So, I'm not sure how the FACTS bear out the liberal interpreation of the Church's problems.

My old friend (hah!) Nick Kristof was in fine form today, being so bold as to predict that the next pope "will allow married men to become priests." (a variation on the married priests theme) Kristof 'supports' his claim by quoting a priest who says that "celibacy goes against the culture."

Hm. Well, if anyone can tell me exactly when Christianity became a religion that wholeheartedly embraced modern culture, of any times, I'll concede the point. That's sort of the point of the Christian gospel--I seem to remember a line somewhere that says Christians are to be "in the world, but not of the world." And if you want to be a priest, you'd better be willing to go against the culture on a lot of things. It's part of the job description.

Other than Kristof's laughable attempts at support for this, I'd just say that having celibate clergy has allowed the Catholic Church to sideswipe the major issue of our times in regards to clergy: openly gay clergy. In the Catholic faith, it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, you're required to be celibate. It's the same deal. Whereas Protestant Churchs are aruging this out quite publicly, with the Anglicans going so far as to stop the ordination of any new bishops until they get it straight, and that church is threatened by schism over the issue. Why would the Catholic church, which already has enough problems, want to get involved with that bag of worms? No, thank you.

Now, I know, some of you are saying, "buy gay priests are there, and they can be pedophiles!" Oh please. Let's just all admit that the seminaries of the 60s and 70s were not the best. Some unsavory candidates got through. We learned our lesson, thankfully, and we're going about correcting the issue. And I don't think that pedophilia is a uniquely Catholic problem, thank you very much. It happens to Protestants and Jews, too.

So I think that priestly celibacy will remain, but it can change-- priests used to be allowed to get married, until we realized that there were some nepotism issues with that back in the Middle Ages. But if you wanted to be a bishop, you would have to remain celibate, like the Eastern Rite Catholics. The decision to remain celibate or not would be made in the seminary, and if you had Churchly ambition, you would have to remain celibate. That would not change.

Kristof's article also touches on the 'let's ordain women!' theme. One problem: the Catholic Church has these things called 'sacraments', and their form and matter were ordained by Jesus Christ--a.k.a., God. So that can't be changed by a Pope--sorry, Nick. The 12 apostles were all--guess what!--men! Even Mary, who was pretty darn special, wasn't one of the twelve. The Pope taught about the dignity of the human person, male and female, with all their uniqueness. Women, obviously, are not men, and vice versa. Men cannot be mothers, they cannot bear children. Women cannot be priests. That's just the way it is. Besides the fact that the Church is inherently feminine in Christian thought, often called "the Bride" of Christ, and the priest always acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ, when he celebrates Mass. So the priest is married to the Church, so goes the thought. Women and women--not so much. Not in Catholic thought. So while I will say that there may (although I pray fervently hope not) be married priests, there WILL NOT BE women priests. Ever. End of story. Sorry, progressives.

As Pope John Paul The Great often said, Truth is Truth. It is unchangable. So all those who think that the Church will change drastically, it will not happen. The Truth is Truth, and the job of the Pope is to proclaim the Truth. Even when it doesn't jibe with what the Left would like.

John Paul The Great

2005-04-12T17:39:00.000-04:00

“The way Jesus shows you is not easy. Rather, it is like a path winding up a mountain. Do not lose heart! The steeper the road, the faster it rises toward ever wider horizons.”
--John Paul the Great
Message for World Youth Day, 1996

When I think of Pope John Paul the Great, the first thing I think of is “Be Not Afraid!” And I think of this in a lot of different contexts, some funny, some not so funny, but the first immediate one is in a political context (of course!).

Last March I was attending a forum at the University of Steubenville that had been followed by a video-feed speech by then Chairman Ed Gillespie about the importance of Catholic values in the 2004 election. Afterwards, in the University’s student center conference room, there was a roundtable discussion featuring prominent Catholic leaders, campaign leaders, and members of the extremely Catholic faculty (including the wife of one of my theological heroes, Dr. Scott Hahn). I felt very privileged to be attending the roundtable at all, beside two of my (non-Catholic, somewhat decidedly so, as a matter of fact) friends who were also attending. We were representing the ‘youth vote’ that was so critical in this election, and the conversation centered on how to attract the youth segment of the Catholic vote towards the President.

A lot of ideas were tossed around, some better than others, some put forth by my friends. I was a little nervous to speak up at such an event, but finally I raised my hand and was permitted to add my comments to the discussion.

“I think the thing that the other campaign is missing,” I said, “is the sense of hope that drives Catholic young people. It’s everywhere, in Catholic thought, in our books, in our prayers. The Pope himself speaks of this hope often. His very first words to us were ‘be not afraid!’ The Kerry campaign is a campaign of fear. Our campaign must be a campaign of hope, of the idea that our best days are ahead of us, and that this President is the man that can get us there. Hope and idealism are what appeal to our very highest instincts, as young people, that what we do can change the world. And I think that’s how you win the youth vote. You give us a message that empowers—that doesn’t make us afraid. Catholic youth don’t know how to be afraid.”

I received more applause from that one statement than I have for anything I’ve ever said in my entire life, which surprised me (and surprised one of the girls I was with; I don’t think she thought there was anything very politically wise in that speech). But it was true. If there was one legacy this Pope could give us, especially the young, it was that: “Be Not Afraid!”

How often that statement has been the only thing I’ve had. I even taped it to my desk in my office, to remind me that there is nothing in this world to fear, if we are for God. And that is the wonderful legacy of this Pope, that will live on in all his sons and daughters that are scattered throughout the globe, one billion strong: that we have nothing to fear, if we live in the Life and Love of God, if we trust in His Son and in His Word and His Church, and if we live in His love. That trust, that hope is, on occasion, all I am sure of. But it is a mighty promise, all the same.

He was a beacon for Truth, because “the Truth will set you free.” He would not bow to the mighty forces of secularism, of modernity, of the waves of liberalism that cried for women priests, contraception, abortion rights, anything that demeaned the dignity of the human person. This pope loved humanity more than can possibly be imagined; he loved us so much that he desired the best for us, that we would live to be true sons and daughters of God, and that we would live according to His laws and the laws of His Church, which the Pope so faithfully safeguarded, to the end, saying, “Did Christ come down from the cross?” He believed that keeping the Church’s faith strong and alive and true would be its salvation, for Truth does not change. It is eternal, like the Church. And in the places where orthodoxy is strongest, the Church is strongest: vocations are rising like a tide, surging to a new day in the Church; the people are joining in huge numbers, hungry for Truth spoken plainly and joyfully. This can also be seen in America; the diocese with orthodox bishops have problems finding enough beds for the seminarians who want to become priests of God. The dioceses that have bishops who have bowed to the forces of secularism have seen their flocks diminish, their seminaries empty. And yet, we hear the cry, “the Church must change to survive!” How can this be so? Christ said, “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” The Church cannot change the Truth. It is impossible.

And, in the end, that may be John Paul’s greatest achievement—shining the Light of Christ’s Truth to the whole world. There was not an inhabited continent on Earth that he did not touch. Millions were converted due to him. He was our brightest light, save the One Light. How he will be missed! But I am not afraid for my church; how can I be, when I know that he would not wish it? He would tell us to “be not afraid” of the new conclave, that God’s Spirit will select a just and upright man to fill the See of Peter. I have faith—and I am not afraid. His legacy will be one of hope, of joy, of helping humanity aspire to our highest calling—to be authentic Sons and Daughters of Our Father, and not allowing us to revel in the Dionysian temptations of secularism. As Mother Teresa said, “we have been made for better things. Why do things that will spoil the beauty of our hearts?” And so this Pope called us to do.

“The Gospel is certainly demanding. We know that Christ never permitted His disciples and those who listened to Him to entertain any illusions about this. On the contrary, He spared no effort in preparing them for every type of internal or external difficulty, always aware of the fact that they might well decide to abandon Him. Therefore, if he says, ‘Be Not Afraid!’ He certainly does not say it in order to nullify in some way that which He was required. Rather, by these words He confirms the entire truth of the Gospels and all the demands it contains. At the same time, however, He reveals that His demands never exceed man’s abilities. If man accepts these demands with an attitude of faith, he will also find in the grace that God never fails to give him the necessary strength to meet those demands.”

--Pope John Paul the Great
Crossing the Threshold of Hope

Requiem for John Paul

2005-04-02T16:40:00.000-05:00

I'll be following this with a column in the next few days, but right now I just want to say how much I am going to miss John Paul the Great. He has truly been a light to the worldand a Giant of the Church. I will miss him indescribably. But right now, all I can think of is how happy he must surely be in Heaven, and that we must try to not be afraid-- the great theme of his papacy.
Anyway, that's all for now. But more coming...

Notes from All Over I

2005-03-16T17:22:00.000-05:00

All right, kats and kittens, gather ‘round for the latest installment of Notes from All Over (OK, so I’m working on the title…give me a break). And I'm sorry it's been so long...things have been hectic over here, what can I say. But I promise that I will have a weekly batch of goodies for you, from now on. Don't worry. :)

** Does anyone else think it’s great that after interminable amounts of delay and hemming and hawing about the caribou and wildlife, we are finally going to drill in ANWR? Kudos, U.S. Senate, for getting it done, even if we did have to sneak it in a budget bill. Ha ha! In the words of Alaska’s Senator, it’s a “fragile” environment, but for pete’s sake. Let’s get real. Who wants to keep paying $2.19 for gas if you don’t have to? And what harm can be done, in seeing what’s there? There’s something—we can all agree on that. How much can be decided later, but something’s better than nothing, and we might as well get it out and onto the market and into Americans’ cars! For a really great analysis of the ANWR delay tactics used by the left, see Ann Coulter’s essay in her book How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) (which is a great book, by the way). Essentially, we’re talking about frozen tundra that’s uninhabitable 10 months out of year, there’s hardly any flowers, even the wildlife is scarce, and it’s impossible to get to, even if you did want to visit and see for yourself what frozen tundra is really like. Bravo, Senators, for finally getting this done. It’s a good day.

** Also in the news, Scott Peterson is getting the death penalty for killing his wife and son. Now, normally, I’m not a death penalty kind of girl (I know, I know, I’m departing from the party line…I can be flexible), but in this case, it seems just. He’s shown no remorse—nada—and I just can’t stomach the idea that he’d get to live while his child never had the chance. I know, I know, he could just rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life…but right now, the verdict has a satisfying feeling for me. I think we need to send a message that if you kill a pregnant woman and her unborn child, you will be severely punished. Hopefully this will help.

**Apparently, though, the rule of law only carries weight in the Peterson courtroom, because elsewhere in California, a judge is making hay of the California voters’ 2000 resolve to ban gay marriage in the state. Apparently, it’s—gasp!—unconstitutional. The magic word has been spoken. Now, of course, we must fix it!

Let’s talk straight about gay marriage for one minute. Living in a free society does not mean that one is free to do whatever one wants. If I wanted to have five husbands, or sleep with my dog, or murder my neighbors, I would be told, “no, see, we have this thing called law and it prevents you from just acting on any urge you may have.” Just because we value freedom does not mean that freedom is the trump card that can always be played. Freedom is only valuable if it is used responsibly. Freedom is dependent on people being able to use it wisely, or else we’d have chaos. Laws are there to make sure that we don’t do things that are to our detriment, either as a person or as a society as a whole.

Being against gay marriage is not about being anti-gay. I am Catholic, as we know. I am forbidden, by Church doctrine and basic human decency, to show bigotry or hatred or discrimination toward gays, or people of different races or sexes. I am called to love everyone in a spirit of Christian charity. However—that does not mean that you get a carte blanche to live high on the hog. Marriage, from its inception, has been between one man and one woman, for their mutual affections and for the procreation of children and the perpetuation of society. That’s what it is. Plain and simple. Gay marriage is not marriage. It doesn’t meet the criteria. It’s like an apple is an apple—it’s not an orange. It’s chemically, physically, aesthetically different. One cannot confuse the two. The apple cannot be the orange, no matter how much it would like to be. That does not mean that I’m discriminating against the apple—I am simply stating the way things are. Gay marriage cannot work in our society. The very fabric of it would be torn irrevocably. Once we do this, we cannot go back. Why do we want to mess with the first human institution? Man, woman. That’s the way it is. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, or wrong, or “bigoted”. I just happen to believe that is the way we are intended to live. If gay people want to date, or shack up, or whatever—fine. Go ahead. I don’t care. But I do think that marriage, allowing equal status, is not right. It is messing with something that does not need to be messed with. Never in the entire history of humanity have we changed this arrangement. Some things are still sacred cows and we should leave them alone. Marriage is one of them.

As much as I am loath to change the U.S. Constitution, it is quickly appearing that we have no choice but to do so. I hate to mess with it. I don’t think this is the best way to go, but y’know, desperate times call for desperate measures. And these crazy judges need to be stopped from overturning the will of the people as expressed in the ballot box. Here in Ohio, we had a ballot initiative last November (see my post “lunch with the Left” from November of ’04 for more than that) that banned gay marriage. I do not want to see my will overturned by some judges. Fortunately, we have a reasonable court in Ohio. But still. As much as I hate to do it, I think a constitutional amendment is the only way. But I am open to any and all suggestions that would protect marriage short of an amendment. Show them to me. Please….

** Continuing our judicial kick, Senator Reid has said that he is going to implement his own ‘nuclear’ option if Majority Leader Frist changes the filibuster rule—he’s going to totally shut down the Senate, except for matters of national defense and emergencies. Well, ain’t that just grand. Can the Left please grow up and get real? You are in the minority. If you would like to express your distaste with judges, you can vote ‘no’ on them. But at least give them the vote! Let the nominees reach the floor. This obstructionism is ridiculous, and it must be stopped, and 80% of Americans agree with me, according to new polling out today. And I seem to remember a Senator by the name of Daschle who met his political death due in no small part to these judicial high-jinks. Hmmmm…..

**Please pray for Teri Schiavo (spelling’s a guess) and her family down in Florida—the judge’s order to remove her feeding tube and essentially starve her to death is still in place for Friday at 1 p.m. National Review Online has an excellent piece today on her situation and how it could be drastically improved (www.nationalreview.com). Go check it out, and remember to pray for this woman. It gives me chills to think that a judge has the power to starve someone to death.

**Something lighter? I would recommend buying The Incredibles DVD, because it is…well…incredible. It’s a beautifully done 2 disc set, and the movie looks great, with wonderful commentary tracks and extras (especially the “Jack-Jack Attack” short on disc 2). Go get it! It’s good!

**In Rome, the Pope is back at the Vatican, out of the hospital. I think this is a good thing. I love JPII, as do many Catholics I know, and even though I can sort of see the end of an era when I watch him, I would love nothing more than for him to be Pope forever. He has such a sense of gravity and safety and moral rightness that is missing from so many things in the world. But he is showing the world the redemptive value of suffering through everything he is enduring. He is a fighter, and will be to the end. He will not retire—that much is certain. It is a decision I happen to agree with. And who will take his place? We will see. But he is a great man—a living saint. And even though he isn’t as physically powerful as he used to be, his spiritual power increases exponentially. He is an amazing man.

**Also from the Vatican, sharp words from a cardinal about The DaVinci Code, which I loudly applaud! Kudos! I don’t care if the book is fiction, there are things in there that are not factually correct and continue to make Catholicism look awful. The Church does not need more bad press, thank you very much. The cardinal, whose name I’m forgetting, is right when he says that this could not be a book about the Holocaust, or Buddha, or Islam, because there would be too much of an outrage. Fiction about these things that makes untruths play as fact? It would never fly! But since we’re Catholic, it’s OK, because you can make fun of the Catholic church and spread all sorts of lies about it without fear of repercussion. It’s enough to make me seethe. But those of you who know me have heard this spiel before, so I will end here.

**The Passion is back in theaters. If you didn’t catch it last year, go now. I’m serious. It is one of the best movies ever made (catch my review of it in the archieves here—February of 2004). It will change your life, your religious feelings, your view of Jesus, everything. It will make you want to be a better person. If you have seen it, go rent a copy (or, better still, buy one) and watch it again, as Lent winds down. It will make you appreciate your faith and what Jesus did for us. And even then, you should still go see it in the theaters, because there is nothing like watching it in a dark theater when it’s totally quiet, the only sounds being the soundtrack and the crying in the audience. It takes you to a place that is deeply spiritual that isn’t quite achieved at home, with lights on and phones ringing and dogs barking. But wherever you see it, the point is that you should see it. It’s phenomenal. I can’t say enough good things about it.

OK, well I think that’s enough Notes for now. Enjoy your week, kids…I’m going to try to run this column every Wednesday from now on, so check back, and of course, I’ll post movie reviews when I get them. Later…

Chariman? Of What?

2005-02-13T11:59:00.000-05:00

Well, my friends, I think it is safe to say that, as of yesterday morning, the oppositional party in American politics has ceased to function as an actual, serious entity. I mean, I'm sorry, but I just have a hard time taking a party run by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as a serious political force.

Here's the problem with the Democratic party--after their losses last November, they have consistently (the only thing they've done consistently) ceased looking for the actual reasons why their party lost, and instead are concentrating on spinning it. They have made no effort to actually change their party into a party that might actually survive the decade in one piece. They have decided, instead, to spin.

The best example of this? I was reading a Washington Post story on Friday where Harold Ickes (Clinton's former Chief of Staff) says that the party is on "the right side" of the abortion, gay rights, guns, and defense debates. They just can't sell it! This from a man who used to be in the running for chair of the DNC, and his best answer is, "well, we're right, but we just can't sell it, by God! Let's spin!" I think, Harold, if Americans though you were on the "right side" of those issues, they would *vote* for you. But see, they're not doing that. And you're losing ground. President Bush won the Catholic vote, he increased his gains among Jewish voters and blacks, and is maintaing control of the Hispanic vote. The party is in free-fall, and the only suggestion that Ickes has is "well, we need to sell it better." Oh-kaaay. But when the only thing holding your party together is a rabid support of abortion, then that's what's going to happen.

The party needs a radical reimagination. It needs something other than abortion to hold it together. I say this because the Republican party, of which I am a member, needs a decent opponent in order to function itself. We need a Democratic party that has vision, that offers Americans something better than "anyone other than the Republican candidate." It needs radical leadership, leadership that will not alienate the American moderates. The Democratic party base is much too radical, and it is in danger of making itself extreme. We don't want that. It's not good for American politics, at all. The party needs to hold itself together. And with Chairman Dean, I don't know if it can happen. They refuse to admit they might be wrong on some of these issues. They refuse to do the hard work. And that is unacceptable.

These are serious times. The President has an ambitious agenda that requires the work of both parties. We cannot just have an oppositional party that is radical, extreme, and off-kilter. They need to settle down and focus on the work that needs to be done here.

But with Chairman Dean, I don't know if it's going to happen. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong, because a stronger Democratic party will help my own party, and will help the country. I would challenge them to step up to the plate and take an honest swing. Maybe if they're honest, they can begin to fix what needs fixed with the party. I hope so.

Oscar predictions

2005-02-05T11:52:00.000-05:00

Never fear, my political readers, I will resume political blogging after this post...but right now, I'm going to indulge my love for film and give you my 2004 Oscar predictions (drum roll, please....).

Best Picture: Let's start with the big guns....and I predict Million Dollar Baby will capture the title. It has everything that The Aviator lacks, minus the Scorcese back story; that is, it has character development, plot, and even politically-charged issues, and it's these issues that I think will ultimately cause the Academy to give the prize to this movie, in what has been a very politically-charged year. I just don't think Scorcese's picture, even with its grand scope, can overcome the emotion and power of Million Dollar Baby.

Best Director: Again, Clint Eastwood. He's racking up all the other Best Director nods, so why not this one?

Best Actor: What a tough category. All of the performances are exceptional, including Johnny Depp's turn as J.M. Barrie in "Finding Neverland", which is probably my favorite performance. But Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio also give powerful turns...it's a great year for Actors. But I think that public sentiment will throw this award to Jaime Foxx for "Ray", even though any of the others, should they win, would have well-deserved it, too. It's such a strong field, and even though I didn't really like "The Aviator", Leonardo DiCaprio's performance elevates the picture.

Best Actress: A tough one to call, as well. Hilary Swank does a great job in "Baby", and I think that she'll take the day, mostly because it's a tough role to play, and she plays it convincingly, without descent into saccharine sentiment, and the other movies were all, essentially, "art house" movies that no one saw. But Swank, if she would win, would have more Oscar hardware than Meryl Streep, so I don't know, but I'm going to guess Swank for this one. But I'm shaky on it. Oscar sentiment can be hard to guess.

Best Supporting Actor: Alan Alda, "The Aviator". Done deal.

Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, "The Aviator". Another done deal.

Some others? I'd like to see "The Passion" win for best score, but "The Village" is good, too. I'll predict that "The Incredibles" will win Best Animated Feature, because it was so clever and smart, and smart in an adult way, not because, a la "Shrek 2" and "Shark Tale", it had a lot of pop culture references.

So those are my 2004 predictions. And I do encourage all of you to go out and watch these films, because it is a good crop this year, and I had my doubts about it initially. Especially see "Finding Neverland".

Review of "Finding Neverland'

2005-02-05T11:50:00.000-05:00

“Finding Neverland” is an old-fashioned valentine of a film, the kind of movie that everyone, no matter what their taste in film, will appreciate. I was pleasantly surprised to to see a movie of this caliber in this year’s Oscar race, given the recent propensity for dark dramas, heavy epics, and intense, twisted characters and plots bent on showing the worst of human nature (think “Closer”). Even though I don’t think it will win Best Picture, this is definitely a wonderfully done movie that embraces the best of human nature and demonstrates the power and complexity of human relationships.

Johnny Depp heads up an all-star cast as J.M. Barrie, the Scottish playwright, on opening night of his newest play, “Little Mary”, which is not well-received by critics, much to the dismay of his manager (Dustin Hoffman, in a solid supporting turn). His wife, Mary (Radha Mitchell), is emotionally distant from him, and does not understand her husband’s inability to talk to her about his writer’s block. Trying to find inspiration, Barrie heads for the local London park, where he meets his muse—or, rather, five of them; Sylvia Llyweyn-Davies (a luminous Kate Winslet, in a beautifully textured performance) and her four boys: George, John, Peter, and Michael. Barrie and his dog demonstrate to the boys the magic of imagination and make-believe, which all of the boys, except Peter, seem to embody perfectly.

Sylvia is a recent widow, and the loss of her husband seems to have hit Peter the hardest. So Barrie reaches out especially to him, in many adventures, involving dancing with bears, flying kites, playing pirates, and so on. He teaches Peter to tap his inner writer, and by exploring imagination with the boys, he begins to create what will be his masterpiece, “Peter Pan”. As he spends more and more time with the boys, he draws the ire of his wife, and Sylvia’s mother, Mrs. DuMaurier (Julia Christie). Sylvia’s mother makes it quite clear that she doesn’t want James to toy with her daughter’s emotions, and Barrie tries to distance himself as much as he can to avoid slanderous talk (this is 1903, remember). But he cannot bring himself to do it, and eventually the family needs him more than ever, as it becomes apparent that Sylvia’s health is also in jeopardy. Throughout the drama, Barrie continues “Peter Pan”, and we see the play’s evolution from the page to the anxiety-filled opening night, when Barrie sends in 25 orphans to help warm the audience reception to the play.

The thing that saves this movie from saccharine sweetness is the earnestness of the characters and the deep, believable bond between Sylvia and James Barrie. Their relationship is not romantic, although you get the feeling that there could have been something, had circumstances been different; instead, it is the deepest kind of friendship, the friendship that has evolved into love for the other person. Barrie and Sylvia care for each other very, very deeply, and their friendship is tender and true. Depp does a marvelous job portraying the fun-loving man that Barrie was, but also reveals great tenderness, affection, and depth as the role progresses. His relationships with both women—his wife and Sylvia—are well done and richly textured. He deserved the Best Actor nod this year, and I’ll say again—it’s been a hell of a year for actors. Kate Winslet’s turn as Sylvia is lovely, and shows her maturity and depth as an actress, while incorporating her unique pluck and spirit that she manages to incorporate into every role she’s given. She deserves a Best Actress trophy; it’s a shame it’ll be so long in coming (she is nominated this year, for “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, though I don’t predict she’ll win.). Even though the “dying mother” thing can be, and is done, a lot, she gives it a life and grit that I know is realistic. Her intense desire to shield not only her children, but also James, from the reality of her condition is totally accurate, and something I could totally relate to. She did a great job not overplaying her hand.

The other roles, especially those of the boys, and Freddie Hightower, who plays Peter, are well done and brilliant. All of them are active, wonderful boys who have the utmost concern for their mother and each other. Their scenes with Barrie are a lot of fun.

These sequences of imagination are wonderfully done, with cuts back and forth between what they are imagining (the pirate ship in the midst of a tempest, with Peter about to walk the plank) and the reality (the sunny meadow in a park). The costumes are rich with detail, and the cinematography is excellently done. I also enjoyed the score, which added nicely to the film without being overbearing, the way a good score can be.

Like I said at the beginning of the review, this is an old-fashioned Hollywood film that celebrates the best of us. It shows the deepest bonds of friendship and devotion via Sylvia and James’ short, but ultimately life-changing relationship. This is a movie that you watch with your closest friends and at the end say, “that is what I would do for you.” This movie is a great paean to friendship and the bonds that tie people together, as well as the formative and changing power of imagination, and the transitive nature of life. “Incredible,” Barrie says at one point, when George discovers the truth about his mother’s illness, “in the space of a few seconds, you stopped being a boy. You became a man.” This is a beautiful film that should be enjoyed by families, best friends, old friends, and theater buffs around the world. Enjoy, ‘cause they don’t make ‘em like this anymore.

***1/2

Predictions: No Best Picture trophy, and no Best Actor nod for Depp, either, though he does a marvelous job as the playwright Barrie, with all his complexities. Possibly some wins in other categories, though. Even without the nod, it’s still a fantastic film that everyone will love. Trust me.

Review of "Million Dollar Baby"

2005-01-29T12:39:00.000-05:00

NOTE: This review will contain detailed plot analysis and many spoilers. If you want a truly virginal movie experience, DO NOT read this. Wait. I cannot think of a way to review this movie without including the whole plot. For the record: it is a good movie, and surpasses “The Aviator” in my estimation.

In my quest to see all of this year’s Best Picture nominees, I was taken to see Clint Eastwood’s “Million Dollar Baby”. I have been anxiously looking forward to this movie since it was first released, and am happy to say that it, unlike “The Aviator”, is a well-crafted movie that enjoys the benefits of a compelling script, fully-realized characters, and sensitive, focused directing. This is truly a Best Picture contender.

The script is based on the short story collection of F.X. Toole, Rope Burns. (for more on this, see this week’s “Sports Illustrated” cover story). It tells the story of three characters: Frankie (Clint Eastwood), an aged gym owner and boxing manager who devours Yeats, attends daily Mass in order to pepper the young priest with theology quandaries, and writes to a daughter that doesn’t speak to him (or read his letters); “Scrap” (Morgan Freeman), a former boxer of Frankie’s, and his best friend who helps him run the gym; and Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), the 30 year old boxer who doggedly trains at the gym when she can get away from her job as a waitress. The scene is present-day L.A., as evidenced by the “Apprentice” ads on the side of the buses Maggie takes to and from the gym.

All three of the characters are missing something. Frankie is missing family; Scrap is missing his vision (he’s blind in one eye, from a fight); and Maggie is also missing family, her family being in Missouri, living off whatever money Maggie sends them from waitressing. But Maggie’s family is missing in other, more important ways; they are rapacious and ugly-soulled, and only value Maggie for what income she can provide. Eastwood, being a Republican (praise God!), uses these moments to slip in his feelings about welfare; when Maggie buys her mother a real house with her boxing winnings, her mother cries that when “they see this house, they’re gonna take me off welfare!” She says that Maggie should have “just sent money.” Maggie lacks the self-respect her family and upbringing has denied her; the narration (done superbly by Freeman) tells us that “Maggie knew one thing: she was trash.” Boxing is Maggie’s pipe dream, the thing that gives her life meaning.

Eventually, Frankie, who “doesn’t train girlies”, takes up Maggie as a protégé, and begins to teach her the ins and outs of boxing. Not surprisingly, she does well—too well, and it starts to make Frankie nervous. He knows that eventually she’ll want a Title fight, and he’s afraid he’ll lose her, because that’s where he lost his last boxer; he likes to wait until the fighter’s ready, and that can be a long time, because “you only get one shot” at the Title. But Maggie sticks with him, through domestic and foreign boxing matches. And she begins to win big, in sequences beautifully played by Swank, who gained 19 pounds of muscle for the role of Maggie, and learned to box. Her strengths as an actress are most evident when she is required to immerse herself in a role, like she has here.

So, here’s the twist…and if you ignored the spoiler warning, you better stop now. STOP.

Maggie gets into the title fight with a German boxer, who fights dirty. We see this in the first few rounds they box. Eventually, when the ref’s back is turned, she lands a sucker punch on Maggie that knocks her flat out, and is painful to hear in the theater. It’s really quite gruesome (this is NOT a movie for kids, no matter how many parents I saw with their children at this showing. It is not a “Rocky” movie!). Maggie, we discover, is now a quadriplegic. She is confined to the hospital, and then a rehab center, for months, and possibly forever.

Frankie visits her every day; he doesn’t do anything else. He reads her Yeats, he gives her sponge baths, and he is like a father to her. Eventually Maggie has a leg removed due to gangrene. It is at this point that Maggie asks Frankie to help her die.

I knew this, going into the movie, unlike most people, I think. The press has done an excellent job keeping this bit quiet. I was very, very, VERY anxious to see how this was covered, since the movie portrays Frankie as a very devout Catholic. The Church, as you might imagine, feels rather strongly about this issue. I was relieved to find that, instead of ducking it, Eastwood handled it head-on by having the priest and Frankie discuss it, with the priest stating the Church’s position, and saying, “if you do this thing, you’ll be lost.” It is very clear what the Church’s position is, and I’m glad. I’m tired of sitting through movies where it isn’t clear, or it’s not right. This is handled well, which I why I could endure it. Frankie knows the moral dilemma he is in, and Eastwood handles it with magnificent pathos.

I will not, however, tell you what ends up happening. But you see how I could not fully give you my evaluation of this movie without telling you about the euthanasia debate that emerges. I will say that Maggie’s situation is portrayed in the most dark, depressing terms. The leg is removed, she can’t move, she has horrible skin lesions and loss of skin. It’s not pretty. But it is also for cinema, and it’s more dramatic this way. I know that. As a person with an illness, I don’t appreciate it when cinema or TV does this, because I think it hurts the cause of trying to feel accepted and normal, but I also understand it. You understand Maggie’s perspective; you understand Frankie’s; you understand everything. You see the anguish he goes through when she asks him to do this thing. It is a dark movie, once this twist is taken. There’s no going back to the “Rocky” vibes, and the twist is what elevates this movie to Oscar contender.

The performances are ethereal in their perfection. Everyone is beautifully cast, everyone is played well, and all the characters are fully realized, developed, arced. They are beautiful. The plot is well crafted and elegantly told, and is peppered with humor and wit throughout. The music, composed by Eastwood, adds the necessary touches without being overbearing.

So, what do I think of the Oscar race now? I think that this is the Best Picture winner. But I also think that the Academy doesn’t just judge based on what’s best. They judge on emotion, too. So while I think this should win, I can see “The Aviator” winning very easily, because of the public sentiment toward Scorcese this year, provided he doesn’t overplay his hand. What I can say, with certainty, is that whatever director wins best director will not have his picture win Best Picture. The awards will be split. Swank should win for her work here; it’s not easy to portray a boxer convincingly, much less a quadriplegic. She is radiant, and you love her as Maggie. You love all these characters. They feel like part of your family by the end. All of the acting nods are well deserved, and Eastwood’s direction skillfully avoids the maudlin and sappy, while giving us a textured portrait of three people and how they handle the wild curves fate hurls at them. Even if you, like me, do not agree with Frankie and Maggie’s dilemma, you can still appreciate the total agony that it is for them to consider it. You understand what has driven them there. Not that understanding makes what she’s suggesting right. It’s interesting that in the Oscar race this year, instead of “The Passion” and “Fareneheit 9/11” , so obviously charged, we have “Million Dollar Baby” and “Vera Drake” (a film about abortion), which are subtly charged. “Million Dollar Baby”, however, stays well clear of policy and moral highground, and you get the sense that no matter what Eastwood does, his character is damned, either by the Church’s position on the matter, or by his own conscience, if he doesn’t do what Maggie asks. This is what makes the movie palatable to people like me, who have strong opinions on the matter. You get the sense that it’s not preaching at us, saying “what we have chosen is right, and of course you would do it.” Preaching is anathema here. There are just these people, and their choices.

This film is a fully realized, adult drama, with characters that are gritty and true. It is one of the most thought-provoking movies I have ever seen, and even though I do not agree with euthanasia, and am morally opposed to it, this is the only movie I have ever seen where the dilemma is treated in a way that both sides are given equal weight. It is a luminous slice of life, and I recommend it highly.

*** 1/2

Predictions: I think this movie will win Best Picture, with Scorsese winning Best Director for “The Aviator”. Hillary Swank deserves a second Oscar for this intense portrayal; whether or not she’ll get it is anyone’s guess, but I say she will. Oscar can’t resist a role like this—it’s too “girl power”! Annette Bening will have to keep waiting, and if Swank doesn’t win, then it will be a travesty. Eastwood and Freeman also give excellent performances, but I think their categories will be won by Jaime Foxx and Alan Alda, respectively. It has been a hell of a year for actors.

Review of "The Aviator"

2005-01-26T12:37:00.000-05:00

(NOTE: I am in the process of seeing the Best Picture nominees. When this was written, it was the first I had seen.)

The Aviator is a movie about a visionary man, Howard Hughes, and his accomplishments in the world of aviation. For a movie about a visionary, however, the movie lacks a cohesive vision that would elevate the film from just “good” to “Best Picture Winner”.

Based on “The Aviator” alone, I don’t think it will win, and more to the point, I don’t think it should win. It wasn’t the year’s Best Picture.

Before you start to think that I hated the whole movie, let me start over. I really enjoyed certain aspects of the picture. But the whole thing suffers from a lack of cohesive theme, arc, and general plot and character development. This is probably the most episodic movie I have ever seen. The movie begins in a vague place—the Hughes’ Houston mansion, with a naked boy standing in a tub of water as his mother bathes him—and ends in a vague place, with the adult Howard Hughes beginning the descent into madness and eccentricity that marked his later life, his mind still on the childhood scene from the beginning. There’s no clear reason to start or end the film in either place; in fact, one senses that Scorsese could have gone on and on and on (and this is a long movie, folks) telling the story of Mr. Hughes. Indeed, there are times where the movie goes on and on and on. A good editor would have made this movie better, and a better script would have helped indelibly.

Leonard DiCaprio gives what is probably his best performance ever in this movie (I didn’t think too much of “Gangs of New York”—it’s the only movie I’ve ever walked out of), and it’s a shame the script wasn’t better, because Mr. DiCaprio’s performance is that of a mature, solid actor who does his best to breathe life into what is essentially a flat character. The script never develops Mr. Hughes. We don’t understand his motivations for wanting to film the most expensive movie ever, or why he auditions starlets for what amounts to a private harem, where he picks the girls at random for social occasions, or why he builds bigger and better airplanes. The movie does give us motivation and grounding for why Mr. Hughes is obsessive-compulsive, and gives insight into his descent into madness, if such a thing can be explained. The opening scene, with his mother bathing him and telling him he is “never safe” from germs and disease, makes sense when understood in context. But it is a jarring and uncomfortable way to begin the picture, and, like I said, is odd.

Mr. DiCaprio is at his best when playing opposite Cate Blanchett, who gives a luminous, fully realized portrayal of Katherine Hepburn. She is wonderful in this role, and I can safely predict that she will win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and it will be richly deserved. She is a fun, outgoing character that makes the movie better for her presence; one of the best scenes in the film takes place at the Hepburn estate in Connecticut, when Howard is introduced to the Socialist Hepburn clan. (And I will say, I relished the portrayals of Democrats and Socialists as impolite evil people!) If she doesn’t win the Oscar for this role, it will be a travesty, like when Halle Berry won in 2001 instead of Nicole Kidman (though Nicole Kidman did her best work, in my opinion, the next year, in The Hours, which finally brought her the statue).

The ‘plot’ of the movie takes you from the 1920s, when Hughes is a young man filming “Hell’s Angels” in California, to the 1950s, when he has triumphed over Senator Brewster from Maine (played with evil perfection by Alan Alda, in another Oscar-worthy role—he’ll win, too) and created TWA as a rival airline to Juan Tripp’s (Alec Baldwin) Pan-Am. We see his women—Katherine Hepburn, Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale, in a lovely turn)—and his descent into madness. There is a spectacular plane crash sequence (wonderfully done in CGI) that almost kills Hughes, and his loyal friends, including his right-hand man Noah Dietrich (the wonderful John C. Reilly, in another incredibly textured supporting role), are left to pick up the pieces of his shattered empire and attempt to protect his boss’s mental state from public knowledge. The movie does not encompass all of Hughes’ life, and as it ends we see the madness beginning to overtake him, and draw him deeper into solitude.

It is very difficult to avoid comparisons to “A Beautiful Mind”. Both have three things in common: 1) they are biographies, 2) they are about a man consumed by a passion (airplanes or math) and 3) mental illness, to some extent, although Hughes’ is never diagnosed clinically. This is where the similarities end. “A Beautiful Mind” managed to meld these three elements gloriously into a wonderful picture that is worthy of Best Picture. There is plot, crafted development of all the characters, and the story begins in one place and takes you somewhere else by the end. It functions as a linear story. “The Aviator” would have done well to imitate Ron Howard’s approach.

What really is the main failing of “The Aviator” is a lack of vision on behalf of Scorsese and the screenwriters. There is no cohesive vision as to where they want this film to go, what they want to demonstrate, or show, or explain, by the existence of this movie. For example, the emotional high point of the movie is the Senate Hearing. Yet it takes almost two and a half hours to get there, and once we’re there, we’re done, and the movie still has time left. It’s very vague and episodic, which makes for a disjointed viewing experience, made all the more uncomfortable by faulty editing and a propensity on Scorsese’s part to linger on the scenes of madness to the point of moderate discomfort. There’s only so much of Leonardo nude in his viewing room that an audience can take before feeling….well, wrong. It’s raw and in your face, a trademark of Scorsese’s, which inflicts discomfort and tension on the viewer, or, at least, on this viewer.

The fact that the movie doesn’t show progression of Hughes’ character and life isn’t helped by other minor factors. The cinematography is OK, not spectacular, and is not helped by the tricks that Scorsese plays with Technicolor, in trying to imitate the processes of the periods in question. It is distracting, and until I realized it was intentional, I thought something was wrong with the reels. The costumes are lovely, but easily surpassed by other films this year, including “Phantom”. The music, especially, is very overbearing and oppressive. For some bizarre reason, Scorsese plays Bach’s “Toccata and Fugue in D-Minor” over and over and over. Whenever there’s a flying sequence, Bach’s back! I can’t explain this choice; did Hughes like this song? Did Scorsese think it was conducive to flying sequences? Did the composer drop out halfway through and left us with Bach? (And I even like Bach!) I don’t know, and it started to bother me. That’s what I mean—if this was a movie that engrossed me, that showed progression, then things like the music, etc., would not bother me. I’d be too busy watching the movie.

Cate Blanchett does a great job in this movie, and I recommend it just for her, because she truly gives the best performance of her career. Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, and Alan Alda make a wonderful supporting cast for DiCaprio, who did indeed earn his best actor nod in this role. Scorsese knows how to get good, juicy performances from his actors. One wishes he knew how to get it out of editors, screenwriters, and composers; then, perhaps, I would have thought this movie worthy of Best Picture.

** 1/2

Predictions: Until I see Million Dollar Baby, I will withhold judgment on Best Picture. I think Cate Blanchett will win for Best Supporting Actress, and Alan Alda will win Best Supporting Actor. I think the technical awards will go to other films, except effects, perhaps, because the plane crash sequence is really well done. I do not think Leonardo DiCaprio will win Best Actor—I think that honor belongs to Jaime Foxx.

The Inauguration

2005-01-20T19:07:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts, on this day of transition and happiness:

--The speech was beautiful, truly lovely. Some lines? “After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical—and then there came a day of fire.” (a dig at Clinton? Methinks perhaps) “America’s vital interests and its deepest beliefs are now one.” “…no one is fit to be master, and no one deserves to be a slave.” “My most solemn duty is to protect this nation.” “The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.” “We have lit a fire as well—a fire in the minds of men.” (from Doestoevsky’s The Possessed) “We must always remember that even the unwanted have worth” (there you are, pro-lifers!) “Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills.” (simply poetry) And, finally, “we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

Someday, when I write an Inaugural address, I want to write like that. Poetry. Simply magnificent. The delivery? Solemn, which may be appropriate and right. But if I had written the speech, I would have wanted more, and indeed, the text gives us more. There are opportunities for magnificence. Not that there weren’t; but it could have been more. But, all in all, a fine performance of a glorious speech. It was sublime.

--I saw Rick Santorum (R-PA) standing behind the President as he took the oath, and the Senator’s face was a tabula rasa. I wondered if he was thinking, ‘in four years, that could be me and my wife.’” And here, a side note, as we must, on this day, think of the next race (there’s always the next campaign)--he is a good candidate that would appeal to both wings of the party—the conservative fiscally, and the conservative socially. Watch this man, if you aren’t already. He’s a rising star. To the pro-life wing of the party, he is something of a hero. His impassioned speeches against partial-birth abortion are eloquent pieces of oratory that have the added bonus of being true, and conveying what he really feels. Watch him, and Majority Leader Frist. There’s potential there….maybe a ticket? (If they do become a ticket, you heard it here first.)

--Chief Justice Rhenquist’s (sp?) appearance was a fine statement of character and courage. Good for him to be there. But, I could not help think, “he will not be with us much longer”, at least as Chief, and there will be a confirmation battle of the Thomas/Hill level; indeed, we may have a reprise, if Thomas is the nominee, which he should be. He is a brilliant jurist and deserves it. He’s a wonderful example for young people. Read Ken Starr’s *First Among Equals* for a portrait of the current court, and his biographical sketch of Thomas is inspiring to read. The Senate will have to learn that childish behavior on these matters will *not* be tolerated. At All. Obstructionism was one of the poison darts in Daschle’s campaign, and Senator Reid would be wise to learn from it. As would the other Senatorial Ds.

--This is related to the above—Ds in Congress would be smart to not be obstructionists. They would also be wise, the DNC as a whole, not to select Howard Dean as DNC chairman. He is not appropriate. The selection of him as DNC chair will show louder than anything the fact that the Democrats learned and absorbed *nothing* from the 2004 electoral cycle if they think the answer is to move farther left. Ha. Ha. See my other posts for more on this topic.

--Didn’t Laura look lovely? I love looking at her, and she’s truly a class act. Imagine, for a moment, if Teresa was First Lady.

Good. Glad I’m done with that.

--Barbara and Jenna looked great, as always. I wish I could dress like that. And the rest of the clan looked great—I wish Jeb would run in ’08, even though he won’t. He should run, at some point. He’d be great. Magnifique.

I’ll tell you who would not be great—Rudy, or Pataki, or Ah-nold. They’re too moderate/liberal on the social issues. Now, a Jeb or a Santorum… “that’s what I’m talkin’ about!” Or a Frist.

--And the Cabinet that was there; Condi, after a confirmation battle with Boxer (bleh!) and Kerry (who decided to come back to the Senate!), looking elegant and chic; Rummy, whom I love, and I’m so glad he’s staying—aren’t you? And the Cheneys, and their daughters (including the much-discussed Mary—remember the campaign!?).

The subject of cost has come up time and again in the MSM. I think it is appropriate to celebrate the health and vigor of the democratic process, and I would say the same thing even if Kerry had taken the office. But can you imagine this fuss if it was a democratic President? Of course not. Put it in the “can you imagine if it was the other way” file (like when Senator Kennedy called Barack Obama “Osama”. Let’s get real.).

And I think that’s it for now, kats and kittens. Stay tuned for more, and remember “we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” I love it!

See you later!

Red State V. Blue State--send comments

2005-01-10T20:19:00.000-05:00

Since the election (well, even before, really) there has been a sense of a divide between Red State and Blue State America that's bigger than the Marianna Trench (forgive my spelling there). Who a person voted for is just the outer manifestation of the Great Divide--I don't even think you can get us together on what kind of coffee we drink in the morning.

So here's where I need the help of the readers. I've been thinking about this a bit and have come up with some ideas that are vague and general, but I would like specific example of the Red/Blue divide--the way we watch TV, what movies we like, what sports teams we root for, how we spend our weekends, even what kind of cars we drive and coffee we drink. For example:

I have noticed, at least here in Central Ohio, that people who drive Volvos tend to be Kerry people (as are SUV drivers, at least around here...can someone explain that to me?), but people who drive vans and Hondas tend to be Bush people. Anecdotal evidence is what I'm looking for here.

So if you have any examples or stories that illustrate the Red/Blue divide, email them to emilyscolumn@yahoo.com,where I'll read them and put the examples in a future column. If you would like me to use your name here, include it at the end of the email; if not, just put name withheld, or whatever.

Thanks in advance for all the help you can send--hopefully I can compile a nice list for your viewing pleasure soon on this site.

"Why Can't Dems Behave?"

2005-01-09T21:04:00.000-05:00

With the inauguration of G.W. (O Happy Day!) about two weeks away, and the electoral totals finally certified, this might be a good time to talk about what the Democratic party could do to regroup from the harrows of the election season; hence, the title of this piece.

Now, I know not a lot of Dems read this column, and even if they do, they don�t take it seriously. But here are my thoughts, and I�m joining a long line of conservative pundits, including the wonderful Peggy Noonan (www.opinionjournal.com, for her latest piece on this topic), in offering advice. Whatever these thoughts are worth, here they are.

You�re got to purge your party of the radical left strain, headed by Monsieur Moore and Co. Bill Clinton was a great modern member of the Democratic party (as much as it pains me to praise Mr. Clinton) who managed to keep the historical aspects of the party (working man, government programs, etc.) while adapting Republican ideas for these areas, such as welfare reform. Actually, if Bill Clinton hasn�t been such a winner, he might have done better for the party by dragging it, like Tony Blair did, to the center of the political mainstream. It needs to happen, but with Mr. Clinton�s victories in the Presidential elections, the party didn�t see the need for change, even with the Republican Revolution of 1994. (side note: can you believe it�s been 11 years? I can�t.) The American people are obviously not responding to the anti-war, anti-U.S. strain of your party. You might say it doesn�t exist. You might ignore it. But it is there.

�Now wait a minute,� the Dems out there might protest, �the Republican party has its fringe element too.� Sure. Ruby Ridge, fringe cults, camps in Montana; some might even argue that the Christian Right is fringe, although I am not one of that ilk. Yes. Every political party has its fringe element. The thing the Republican Party has done is neutralized these people, as much as they can be neutralized. They do not control the party or dictate policy. The party has also managed to present its political positions in a way that is palatable to the American people. The Dems can scream all day that we�re crazy, Bible-thumping, backwoods, NASCAR-loving, gun-toting nutcases, here�s the thing�over 50% of the American people agree with our platform and values. Huge gains in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 election has to show the opposing party the writing on the wall, to use a clich�. Gay-marriage amendments passed in all 11 states that had them on the ballot, even in Oregon, which shows how morality and God are entering our political discourse in a strong and powerful way. As long as the Democrats decry all ideas of God, morality, right and wrong, as �extreme� and �fringe� and �nutty�, they�re going to keep losing voters.

The above is also a warning to Republicans, too. There was a state rep here in Ohio, a Republican, who lost her seat to a socially conservative Democrat because the Republican incumbent�s position on gay marriage was no palatable to her constituents. (Just because you have an �R� next to your name doesn�t ensure you�ll get elected on the party�s coattails.) Democrats should take note of this. They need to allow pro-life, religious members into their party again, like former Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who was not even allowed to speak at the 1992 DNC convention because he was pro-life. That needs to change. As long as militant feminists and anti-war forces hold the Democratic Party hostage, and as long as they scorn the idea of God and morality in the public square, they�re not going to win elections. It�s that simple. And Republicans who decry these values will find themselves in difficult electoral slots, too.

Quite simply, you cannot continue your march toward the Left side. You must embrace as many policies of this President as you can, without sacrificing your core values, if you wish to appeal to voters. Judicial obstructionism will not be tolerated, for one. The American people are smarter than that. If you would like to be out of a job, a la Tom Daschle, then sure, be obstructionist. I�m not saying just rubber-stamp everything the President sends you�I�m saying don�t purposely be a pain in the butt because you think it will win you votes. It�s not. Don�t block judges who are pro-life because you don�t like them. Don�t block judges because they�re devout Catholics and conservative Protestants, who actually have faith, but can separate their faith from their jurisprudence. Look at them as lawyers, as judges, as officers of the law. This is one major area where you can try to become more moderate, and surrender the grip that the feminist left has on your party. It�s strangling you to death.

Until the Democrats realize that the vast majority of Americans believe in God, believe morality has a place in public life, and that Americans love their country and will defend it. There are plenty of Democrats who, I�m sure, embrace these principles, too. You�ve got to find them, embrace them, and form a new party that will appeal to more voters than just the radical left. You can cry all day that Republicans are radicals, but, when you look at the election results, I�m not sure you want to call 50% of your electorate radical. That�s not exactly the way to win their affections.

The 109th Congress did not get off to the best start, with the ridiculous vote challenge and the blatant overtures of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) about Supreme Court nominees during the Gonzales hearings. Hopefully things will get better. If not, Senate Leader Frist has promised to �get nuclear.� I hope he delivers on his promise, because this President has an important agenda, and, despite Democrat cries, has a mandate, �the will of the people at his back� as he said at his first press conference. It would behoove the Democrats to listen�and behave.

Review for "Phantom of the Opera"

2004-12-31T13:14:00.000-05:00

OK, at the beginning, I’ve gotta state the obvious. I love Phantom of the Opera as a musical. It is my all-time favorite show, I’ve seen it twice, and I have it engraved in my brain. I have the libretto memorized. I am, in every way, a “phan.”

I had reservations about this movie—about Joel Schumacher, about the casting of relative unknowns, etc. I was worried that my beloved Phantom would be gutted a la Chicago of 2002. In short, I had a lot of worries.

All of them vanished partially about a month ago, when I saw the first trailer, and they have disappeared completely after seeing the final result last night. It is a magical, enthralling, stupendous adaptation, which is faithful to the original without being too Masterpiece Theater-ey.

Some warnings for the fans who love this show, like I do (which is rather obsessive): some things are changed. Dialogue is switched, the chandelier falls in a different place, some lyrics are different (which you’ll notice if you mouth along, like I did). But there are places where the movie improves on the show, and I’ll get to those in a minute.

First, some background for those of us who have been living under a rock and do not know the plot of Phantom. Christine Daae (a luminous Emmy Rossum) is a ballet chorus girl with the fictional Opera Populaire in Paris, in 1870. When the diva Carlotta (played superbly by Minnie Driver) quits the latest production, Christine is pushed forward and fills her role beautifully. Her former childhood sweetheart, Raoul, the Vicomte de Chagny (Patrick Wilson), is the Opera’s new patron, and after seeing Christine sing at the premiere, his passion for her is reignited.

One problem: Christine has been taking lessons from the “Angel of Music”, and the lessons happen in her dreams. Come to find out, the Angel is the Phantom (Gerald Butler), who is, besides being a musical genius, a very possessive teacher. He wants Christine all for himself, and he’ll stop anyone who gets in his way. You can see that the story is essentially a romance wrapped in a Beauty and the Beast covering.

The critics, it must be said, were quite wrong about this movie. And I’m not just saying that to be contrary. I’m saying it because there is simply no way they and I watched the same movie. I think how much you like this movie will depend on how much you like the source material, because, at its essence, this is a movie that is the stage musical, morphed into a movie. If you don’t like Andrew Lloyd Webber, or don’t like musicals, this is not for you. I think that’s a problem with a lot of the critics, and some of them blatantly acknowledge that. So keep that in mind.

I loved it. Emmy Rossum as Christine is a luminous, fantastic presence. Her singing is phenomenal, and she deserves every award she’s up for. It’s a shame her chances for the Golden Globe are a long shot. She is the perfect embodiment of Christine, with wide-eyed innocence and wonder that gradually changes into horror and intense fear as she realizes exactly what the Phantom wants and what he is capable of doing to her and those she loves. The fact that she was only 16 when she made this movie, and her voice was that developed, makes one wonder what she could do if she went to Broadway or the Opera world. She is amazing.

The two male leads have also been a source of contention. I thought they were great, and as anyone who knows me will say, I am very critical of singers. If they don’t cut it, I don’t like them. Period. Patrick Wilson, of Angels in America fame and Broadway shows, is a wonderful Raoul. He makes the character into a strong, protective, swashbuckling hero (the scene in the graveyard definitely helps that image), as opposed to a rather stock character in the show. His duet with Christine, “All I Ask Of You”, is, without a doubt, the best duet in cinema. It is timelessly lovely, and his tenor voice is strong and clear. He was an excellent casting choice.

Now, the Phantom. Gerald Butler gets my sympathy immediately for taking a role that was guaranteed to give him media headaches. Yes, he is not a Michael Crawford tenor. The role was substantially re-written into a baritone/tenor mix, which I think was effective—it was certainly better than trying to torture his voice in the original keys. In “Music of the Night”, his big number, he sings it in the correct, higher key, and his high notes are fine. He does a wonderful job making the Phantom into a believable villain whom you also have some sympathy for (although, in my opinion, less than in the show). He interacts wonderfully with the other two leads. These three, but especially Rossum, carry the film and make it what it is.

The rest of the cast is well chosen and play their parts with vigor. Minnie Driver, especially, gives her Carlotta a sense of over-the-top that is lacking in the musical, which brings humor to a character that I’ve never really thought of as funny before. She is a treat, even if the singing isn’t hers. Miranda Richardson was a perfect choice for the enigmatic ballet mistress, Madame Giry, and her daughter, Meg, played by Jennifer Ellison, is a great “everyman” stand-in and observer to all the mystery that surrounds her best friend and her “new tutor”.

From a production standpoint, this is probably the most beautiful film I have ever seen. Every scene looks like a sumptuous painting, and the costumes are so lovely I would love to wear them myself. The cinematography is gripping, and the set design is fantastically evocative of gothic time and place that dominated the 1870s. The black-and-white sequences that take place in 1919 are well done, and don’t detract from the film.

If you enjoy a well-crafted, old-fashioned romance, this movie is for you. There are surprising new talents to be discovered, like Rossum and Wilson, and the songs and score are technically demanding but rife with romance and tension. This takes the stage show one better in some places, by providing camera angels that give us insight on characters’ thoughts and feelings while action is taking place, such as the close-up of Raoul’s face during the Phantom and Christine’s steamy duet “The Point of No Return”, and the Phantom’s eavesdropping of Christine and Raoul’s “All I Ask Of You”. It also adds more movement to the drama. In the stage show, numbers like “Prima Donna” and “Angel of Music” are in one room, with character standing and singing for six or eight minutes. This is fine in the theater. In the movie, there is movement, from one locale to another, which helps the pacing and keeps the drama moving effectively.

This is a highly well crafted, well-directed, and well-acted film that should not be missed. Like my friend said last night after a screening, “They don’t make movies like this anymore.” Maybe if this film does well, they will make movies like this again—unabashedly romantic, beautifully filmed, and filled with conflict and mystery that doesn’t engage in sex and lots of swearing. I can’t wait to see it again. ****/****

Predictions: This film will be nominated for some Oscars, especially in the realm of costumes and production. I will hope (probably vainly) that there will be some acting nods, especially for Rossum and Wilson. My long shot prediction? A Best Picture nod, just because it’s a movie musical, and the field is notably weak this year. We’ll see…

Review of "Spanglish"

2004-12-31T13:11:00.000-05:00

**SPOILER WARNING: Usually I am able to write movie reviews without spoilers. This is not the case with Spanglish, so if you want a truly fresh experience, wait until after you’ve watched the movie. For the record: I enjoyed it.

I really like James L. Brooks’ movies, in general. I greatly enjoyed As Good As It Gets, and enjoyed, to a lesser extent (probably due to the lesser amounts of humor) Terms of Endearment (I tend to like Debra Winger in anything, though). Spanglish, Brooks’ latest offering, contains many trademarks of the director/writer, including some of his flaws that I wish someone would tell him to fix.

One of Brooks’ specialties is writing about a group of people (friends, a family, etc.) who are all, to some degree, neurotic or insecure. He’s very good at this, and Spanglish is no exception. The story centers around the trials and tribulations of the Clasky family and their Mexican maid, Flor, and her daughter, Cristina. The story is a “frame story”, which means that it is told in flashback and begins a few years after the story we’re about to watch has taken place. In this case, Cristina is writing about her mother’s work at the Clasky home as her college admissions essay to Princeton; hence, she becomes our narrator. It’s a good conceit, and it works fairly well, except there are obviously things that Cristina, being only 11 or 12 when the story takes place, is missing, due to her limited perspective. It also, however, gives us a choppy, somewhat unsatisfying ending.

Flor and Cristina arrived in the United States seeking a better life, and Flor, after living for several years in the Mexican section of L.A., decides to venture outside the barrio and get a job as a housekeeper. She ends up working for the Clasky family, which consists of father John (Adam Sandler); extremely neurotic and controlling wife Deborah (Tea Leoni); Deb’s mom, an aging alcoholic Jazz singer; teenage daughter Bernice—“Bernie”—;and a boy, Johnny (who is chronically underused and really serves no purpose in the story, other than filler for the “perfect family” image). The family is extremely wealthy, as John is a top chef; in fact, the New York Times, at the beginning of the story, has just ranked him the top chef in America. The real conflict in the story comes when Deb rents a house in Malibu for the summer and tells Flor that she and her daughter will be moving in with them.

The title comes from the odd mixture of language and pantomime that results when the family realizes Flor speaks no English, and they speak no Spanish. This movie is a comedy about misunderstandings, not just in language, but in expectations, relationships, and what we want from life.

This is an ensemble piece, and the real strength of the movie rests in the acting, which is wonderfully nuanced and right on target. A lot of reviews I’ve read have had a problem with Deb, saying she’s a little over the top. I have personally met a few Debs in my life (I even lived with one, for awhile), and trust me; there are people like that. Tea Leoni does a great job portraying what happens to a woman who feels insecure about her life, her worth, and just about everything else, but is unable to connect with her daughter and husband due to her insatiable drive for control. Her arc as a character is particularly satisfying (although you’re going to have to wait for it…this is a long movie, partially due to pacing problems…more below).

Adam Sandler is note-perfect as the long-suffering husband/chef John (by the way, he does a pretty good job with the cooking stuff, too). This is far and away his best role, and he does a great job giving credibility and believability to the role of the man who is suddenly hit with everything he’s supposed to want, materially, and is totally unhappy with his life. If I’ve met Deborahs, I’ve certainly met Johns, and his portrayal is on-the-money. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a realistic couple portrayed in a movie. That doesn’t mean John is a saint—his growing attraction to Flor helps show the true conflict he feels about his life and family and what happiness should be. His relationship with Bernie is also very touching and real; as I watched it, I thought of my own relationship with my father, which is somewhat similar, and it made me smile. While Deborah is completely oblivious to Bernie’s insecurities about her slight weight problems (demonstrated by buying clothes a size too small to encourage her daughter to lose the weight necessary to fit into the clothes), John is supportive and gives her the love and attention that she craves. Sarah Steele, who plays Bernie, is a talented young actress who I hope to see more of. She gives the character life and depth and grace.

The other good character is the mother, played by Cloris Leachman, who is funny and off-beat, but has a sharp eye for what’s really going on with her daughter. She and John have a nice relationship, and the mother also has a good relationship with Flor. For all her faults as a mother to Deb, she’s a good grandmother, and she’s a delight. Her scenes with Deb near the end of the movie are comedic and touching, something that Brooks has perfected in his movies.

OK, now for the criticism. This is not a perfect movie. Brooks has one major problem as a filmmaker, that I can see, and that problem is his pacing. In every single one of his movies, you always hit a part when you think, “oh, can we please move it!” That happens in Spanglish—SPOILER HERE—STOP READING!—especially in the scene with John and Flor in the restaurant. While we know what’s going to happen, because it must, given the make-up of these characters, it goes on too long and doesn’t establish anything. Valuable storytelling time is wasted here.

Also, I disliked the character of Flor once her daughter moved into the house with her. Spanglish is, to some extent, about assimilation and identity, and I knew that. Flor is a sympathetic character in the beginning, as she puts up with Deb’s craziness and controlling nature. And, to a certain extent, I understand her frustration when Deb sort of “takes over” Cristina’s affections by giving her treats and trinkets, especially when she is neglecting Bernie to do so. But the part that killed it for me was when Deb wants to enroll Cristina in Bernie’s private school, by having a scholarship be given to her. Cristina is exceedingly bright, and would do well here, but her mother has lots of reservations. There are a few scenes between here and the end that I think are supposed to show how Cristina is being “corrupted” by the new school, but I didn’t think that at all, and so the mother’s motivation at the end --SPOILER AGAIN—when she pulls Cristina out of the school was lost for me because I didn’t see the problem. I think that Brooks was asking his audience to do too much legwork to get this motivation out, and as such, the character of Flor suffered. The actress (Paz Vega) did a great job with the role, but at the end she didn’t have much motivation. That was disappointing to me.

The last disappointment I had, as I said, was the ending. It was abrupt, too quick, too jarring, and very unsatisfying. I had to sort of convince myself that yes, the movie really was over as the credits began to role (unlike The Return of the King, which had a million pseudo-endings, this had one big jarring ending and could have used some pseudo stuff).

Overall, I liked it. Some acting Oscars, especially for Sandler, would be well-deserved. The script is witty and tart, and the cinematography is grat. Hans Zimmer’s score, always a treat, is light here, gently accompanying the action without ever drawing attention to itself. The lighting is gorgeous and subtly done. But the second act loses some momentum, and at the end Brooks requires a lot of his audience to make the dénouement work. Overall, it gets *** because I do love James L. Brooks and the acting was fabulous. The story, however, could have used some tweaking.

Leftist Lunancy III

2004-11-19T12:59:00.000-05:00

Hello, dear readers. We’re back in action with this week’s installment of “Leftist Lunacy”. Did you have a doubt that it would continue? Of course not! So your faithful correspondent has taken to, again, documenting it for you and systematically debunking it (as usual).

But this week’s edition has a little twist, because it involves religion. And you know, if there’s one thing the Left hates more than GW, it’s religion. Especially the European Left, who are the prime example of lunacy today.

I was perusing the London Times website and reading the Books section, as I am a prolific reader and always drawn to anything with ‘books’ in the title. The particular review I read was about The Pope In Winter by John Cornwell, which I had seen in bookstores but had been exceedingly wary of, given the fact that it was not a) published by a nice, apologetic Catholic publishing house, and b) that it was on the ‘featured’ table, because nothing nice about JPII is ever nice when it’s ‘featured’ because that’s not sexy enough!

So I go to read this review, knowing it is, in all probability, a Leftist book, and a book full of wrong things, in a leftist European paper, in a country that doesn’t, shall we say, have a great love for Catholics or Catholicism (I seem to remember something about beheadings and divorce and priests being martyred…but I digress). Anyway.

As I read it, I realize I am not quite aware of which assessments are the author’s, and thus on his head, or the reviewer’s, because, by golly, they seemed very similar. So here are the main points, with systematic debunking.

1) The Pope’s mother died when he was very young, and the author/reviewer seem to think that this leads to his nutty obsession with Mary (but, they point out, all of Poland is obsessed with her, during the Old Days, so y’know). The author takes this into the realm of lunacy by saying that ‘you don’t need Freud’ to tell you that the death of his mother and the fanatical devotion to Mary did something to his head. The review/book also mocks the belief the Pope (and many Catholics) hold that it was the Virgin who spared his life during the 1981 assassination attempt.

Um….well, let’s see. Yes, Emilia did die when he was young. Yes, the Pope has a great devotion to Mary, which is not new, nor surprising, given his Polish roots and the fact that his mother died when he was very small. Yet that does not equate with some sort of crazed lunacy on behalf of the Pontiff. But this is only the first point…it gets better.

2) The Pope has an “apparent contempt for women”! This isn’t new, as any faithful Catholic who has followed this Papacy will tell you. But let’s just lay this ridiculous charge to rest once and for all. The Pope really, really likes women. There. He has no problems with them, he doesn’t think we’re evil, he doesn’t think we’re nuts or inherently bad, or wants to suppress us. In many of the Pope’s encyclicals, you find inherent respect for women. When he talks about abortion, he says that fault is also with the men who leave these women after getting them pregnant. Men are not blameless in his scenario. Women, to John Paul, if you read his writing and look at his life, are wonderful. They are holy beings. He talks about Women in the most glowing terms, especially when it comes to motherhood, especially when it comes to the Virgin. But devotion to the Virgin is a weird thing, according to this crowd. Hmm. Perhaps the “contempt for women” is seen in his policy! After all, women can’t be priests, they can’t have abortions, they can’t even use contraception! How backwards! How non-progressive! How non-Left!

Let us deal with these charges. First—Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church. The form of sacraments cannot be changed, by anyone. They are instituted by God. That’s why Communion must be bread and wine of certain composition. It cannot be changed. Holy Orders only ordains men. That’s just the way it is. Nobody can change it. Look it up, if you don’t believe me, in the excellent book Catholicism For Dummies, written by two priests who are Red-state priests (i.e., actually believe what the Church teaches!). If women feel the call for religious life, they can become nuns. That’s their path to vocation. Sorry, girls, get over it. Not even Mary was one of the Twelve Apostles, and she was pretty dang special.

Abortion—do we really even need to? The Church believes all human life is sacred, ad this Pope especially has been an unswerving champion of the unborn. Catholicism is not a religion of “well, it’s technically wrong, but there are times when it’s okay” like so many other religions these days. It’s either right or wrong. And this is wrong. Women know that. They know that sex outside of marriage is also wrong, and sinful. Men know that. Everyone knows. No Catholic can claim ignorance of this matter. To make his point, The Pope recently canonized an Italian Doctor (Saint Gianna…forgetting her last name) who refused to have an abortion even though she knew she’d die if she didn’t. She did die, and the daughter that was born to her was at the canonization ceremony. She is a beautiful young woman who had a very brave mother. The Pope does not think that this is disrespecting women. He thinks that women can do better than abortion, and society should help them do better. Contraception is here, too. Did you know that until 1930, all Christian Churches believed that the use of contraception was sinful. All of them. Maybe there’s something to this point. Like I said above, Catholicism is not a religion of the wishy-washy. It is not a religion of the timid. It is a religion that dares to tell the Truth and preach it. But of course, with a bunch of “aging, reactionary Cardinals” around, we’re not really telling the Truth. We’re suppressing people!

3) JPII is not listening to his “embattled grass roots.” Huh? Let’s see. That could be translated into vernacular (non-lib speak) as: JPII does not listen enough to the U.S. and western Europe, who know infinitely better what is best for the eternal Church, rather than the head of the Eternal Church. Hmm. Sorry if JPII isn’t wishy-washy enough for you guys. If you don’t like it, leave. I’m sure the rest of world’s religions would take you. Truth is Truth, whether you like it or not. And that’s one thing that The Pope widely spreads.

4) “His production line of dodgy saints”. Well, I just think that’s insulting. A Pope no more makes a saint than he makes flowers. God creates saints, and I think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume God’s saints are “dodgy”. And there’s the ridiculous angle to this: “what are we doing, actually providing the Catholic faithful with good role models!?” Also, there is a rigorous proving time for sainthood—one cannot just die and become canonized (although everyone in Heaven is a saint, technically). There’s a process. But this point is so ridiculous that I’m just going to move on.

5) “his stubborn opposition to contraception”. See above, but a few more points. One, the Church teaches that sex before marriage is wrong. If you have sex before marriage, let alone with multiple people, you will probably get an STD. However, if you remain chaste, and marry a chaste person, STDs should not exist, and indeed, cannot exist if you really are chaste. Contraception is inherently sinful and selfish because it blocks God’s creative power and it takes away from one of the main aspects of marital relations, which is that marriage is about self-giving and sacrifice. Being open to life is the ultimate in self-giving.

But what about the Africans? Yes, AIDS is skyrocketing; yes, children are being left without parents. But the solution isn’t let’s give everyone contraception. The solution is to change the timbre of the discussion, to make people see the Truth of the position. Contraception is a band-aid on a fatal wound. It won’t help unless we change the society. Christian have been known to do that, y’know.

6) The sexual abuse scandal. Well, what can really be said? It’s up to the local bishops. The Pope is not going to usurp their authority, besides the fact he’s in charge of one billion people—he can’t do everything. That’s why we have bishops. And if seminaries were training the seminarians right, documentation (Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose) demonstrates that this scandal, if it had happened at all, would’ve been much, much smaller. The case for Orthodoxy is right in front of us. Teach the seminarians right, and we don’t have these problems. Again, it’s treating the source of the problem. Having priests get married won’t change things if the source of the problem isn’t addressed.

Of course, the rest of the article bumbles about calling the Pope old and crazy (yes, he really does—he mentions paranoia and psychosis) and how the Church needs a “progressive pope” to change things. Here’s one thing the Church’s enemies (and yes, I mean to use that term) should know—the Church is eternal. It does not change the Truth. It will grow and adapt and become closer to what God wants, not closer to what Progressives want. Jesus said that “the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:13—also a great passage on Papal and priestly authority) That includes the whisperings and slander of the Progressive Left. The Church shall endure, forever, and the Holy Spirit guides it. This Pope is a man of God, chosen to lead His people through a turbulent time, and he has done it with grace, strength, purpose, and tremendous leadership. He should not be belittled, but again I am reminded of Matthew 10:22, “You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.” And those words must be the consolation to all of us Catholics who cringe when the Pope is attacked by slander and viciousness.

For those readers interested in reading on the Pope, I would recommend Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II by George Weigel (who had access to the Vatican and Vatican sources). It is an inspiring portrait of faith and action. I would also recommend the Pope’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope, which is written in an interview format and covers many of these topics.

The Incredibles

2004-11-09T20:29:00.000-05:00

Due to popular demand, I'm going to post a review of Disney/Pixar's new movie, The Incredibles, which, I have to say, was pretty, well....incredible.

Let me count the ways. First, Pixar has *finally* achieved realism in their animation of people. That's one thing that has always bothered me about Pixar movies is that the people always look computer generated-y. Toy Story, Monsters' Inc., etc. even in Finding Nemo, which is one of my favorites movies, the people just don't look like people. But in this movie, the people really look real, and the hair is the best part, because it has texture and movement and looks like hair. But enough about the hair.

Second, the story is a good, solid story, which is not new for Pixar. That's one of their trademarks--a good, solidly told story that appeals to both adults and kids, and does it without a lot of pop-culture wink, wink, nudge, nudge a la Shark Tale. But this movie has--gasp!--conservative values in it!! (More on that in a minute)

Here's the basic story. Once upon a time (in a world that looks futuristically retro, all at the same time), when superheroes were around to save people, there were lots of superheros everywhere, and they acted like normal citizens. Notable among them are Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) and his wife, Elastigirl (Holly Hunter). They run around the city, saving people (and the random kitty cat), until Mr. Incredible saves a man from a suicide attempt and is sued ("the man didn't want to be saved!" his lawyer sqwaks). As such, the government puts all of the "Supers" into the Superhero Relocation Program and they are gone from the crime-fighting scene. But old habits die hard. Even after fifteen years, Mr. Incredible (now renamed Bob Parr) can't stop the urge to fight crime, even though his wife, Helen (Elastigirl), wants him to stop, especially since they now have three children: shy teenager Violet (who can disappear at will and create bubble-like forcefields), precoccious, energetic Dash (whose power is what his name suggests--he can run really, really fast), and baby Jack-Jack, whom they say manifests no powers (tell that to the baby-sitter...).

As you can probably guess, Mr. Incredible gives in to the crime fighting urge and has to go kick butt, and gets in trouble, which his wife (and his kids) have to rescue him from. I won't give away the good plot points, but that's the basic outline.

Now back to the conservative values. First, the idea of a right to die is refuted in the very beginning, which is not the way to start a kid's movie, but it'snot a blatant message. Second, Mr. Incredible refutes the idea that his son, Dash, should not be allowed to go out for the track team, because his wife thinks it would give them away, and then they would have to be relocated. When explaining this to her son, her son says, "but Dad says the powers make us special." Helen says, "everyone is special." "That means no one is," her son grumbles. Mr. Incredible says at one point, "let's keep finding more ways to celebrate mediocrity!" The movie is very big on emphaszing the exceptional things and not suppressing our talents to "fit in" (very reminiscent of "Harrison Bergeron", but I digress).

Also, the movie shows a fully-functional, traditional family. Sure they fight, but one of the kids' biggest fears is that their parents might get divorced. When Violet and Dash are alone at one point in the movie, Violet says. "Mom and Dad's life might be in danger--or worse, their marriage!" While I laughed at that line, originally, it's a deeper thing than that. There is an acute awareness of family and togetherness that really makes this film a joy to watch.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. It is beautifully animated, with a touching, fun story, and great characters. Go see it. Right now. Why are you still reading this?? Goo!!!! You don't even need to have kids to go!

Leftist Lunancy II

2004-11-09T20:16:00.000-05:00

At the risk of sounding conventional and repetitive….

Nick Kristof doesn’t get it. And neither does most of the Left.

If you read my post “Lunch With The Left” (below),you will find my anecdotal evidence of how the Left is befuddled by the idea or morals and values. They seem to think that this sort of voter turnout based on “moral values” is a Jedi mind trick, or that we’re all racist, homophobic bigots. Neither of which is true. But I digress. Read that post if you want more.

But back to Nick. Not that he will really care if some twenty-something in Ohio thinks he’s wrong, but I’ll tell you why he’s wrong anyway. He’s wrong because he doesn’t want to really engage voters about these core issues—he wants to do some Jedi mind tricks of his own.

If you read today’s column from his “illustrious” pen, you’ll see what I mean. Most of it is hogwash, pure rambling, but his first suggestion for the Democratic party is “don’t be afraid of religion”, and he advises Dems to “argue theology” with Republicans, because “there’s much more biblical ammunition to support liberals than conservatives.”

Well. Methinks Mr. Kristof ought to pick up his Bible (he does have one, right?). If I remember correctly, I seem to recall some verses about “I do not come to bring peace, but the sword” (Matthew 13) or “the poor will be with us always”. I also do not remember Jesus endorsing universal health care or gun control (In fact, Kristof cites the Old Testament as a case in point. If I'm remember the Old Testament correctly, God spend a lot of time telling the Israelites to wage war against infidels...hmmm). And besides the fact, Mr. Kristof, do you really want to argue the Bible and how it relates to policy with Republicans? Because no matter how many supposed pieces of “ammunition” you may find, there’s this big, humongous thing called “abortion”, which your party wholeheartedly supports. I don’t have a Bible in front of me, but I seem to remember “let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to these”, “Before I formed you in your mother’s womb, I knew you” (that’s in there a lot), and of course, the perennial “thou shalt not kill” (or murder, if you’re a Hebrew purist). Hmmmm…I don’t think the Almighty would approve of the infanticide that the Left in America so vigorously protects and disguises as a “choice” issue. So I think that arguing Biblical theology won’t get you far, Nick.

Besides abortion, the Bible isn’t Communist. Sorry. Remember the parable about the man with the talents, who didn’t use them and was fired by his employer? God expects us to use what we’re given, not just be afraid to use it and worry about how it’ll turn out. “The Lord helps those who help themselves” is an oft-repeated maxim, and it’s true. Yes, the Bible does say that we must help our fellow man. We must be servants of God, as Jesus demonstrates in John 14 (I think it’s John 14,anyway). But that doesn’t mean that we must unjustly take from one another. For an act to have merit, it must be motivated by the will. We, as a society, should make it easier to promote virtue (which the President has done, through faith-based initiatives) but we shouldn’t make it a Communist state and unjustly take from those who have used their talents to earn prosperity for themselves. Jesus was not Robin Hood. Jesus, as I often say, did not come to Earth for all of us to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”, as much as the left would like that to be true.

So I would warn Mr. Kristof and his fellow Dems, be careful where you trod. You don’t want to look like hypocrites, now, do you? And, just a point of debate etiquette--never try to argue with your opponent on his turf. It never works, and it won't work here, buddy. How about you go read that Bible, and then get back to us. 'Cause you ain't gonna see any "Kumbaya", that's for sure.

Lunch with the Left

2004-11-06T16:23:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, friends, I voluntarily ventured into the Lion’s Den: I had lunch with some avowed, uber-feminist leftists yesterday. I felt like an anthropologist, and a natural anomaly all at the same time. But I did garner many interesting observations, which I will share with you (see what extents I go to obtain information?).

I don’t know many of my fellow work colleagues, who are part of a government internship with me (and thus are my age or near it), very well. So after a meeting yesterday, a few of us (six or so) went out to lunch, and I joined them, with the hope of “bonding.” Ha. Ha.

Things began well, with the usual meaningless chatter about what to order, what we were doing this weekend, what jobs we were looking for after the internship was over, and such. Not anything acrimonious. But things changed after our food arrived.

Before I go any further, I should give you a few background notes (I told you I felt like an anthropologist). There were three of us who worked for Republicans, three of us who worked for Democrats, one woman whose political affiliation I didn’t know at the beginning of lunch, and one boy about my age, who also worked with us, although I didn’t know what party he worked for. Also keep in mind that the Left had been soundly defeated in a victory worth savoring on Tuesday, and I was going to be a good sport and not rub it in. As my mom says, “I don’t need to rub it in. My man’s in the White House.” Besides, I didn’t want to rude.

Oh, how quickly propriety vanished. I suppose, in hindsight, I could say that I led us down that road (me, have a nose for controversy? Never!). I remarked that I couldn’t believe that the smoking ban in Columbus had just passed—I had thought that the anti-ban group was well-organized, well-funded, and would sweep to victory.

Feminist #1 looked at me incredulously. “What do you mean you didn’t think it would pass? It was so totally easy to call,” she said, condescension cascading off her voice.

I shrugged. I guess I’m a bigger political novice than I thought, then, which is pretty rich, considering the company I was in. But I was willing to let it go and enjoy my burger.

Feminist #1 continues, “I, for one, could not believe that Issue 1 ( the constitutional marriage amendment) passed. I thought we lived in a much more progressive society.”

Feminist #2 concurrs. “I was so amazed to see how backwoodsy and conservative (said with a great deal of malice) we are. I thought that we were more Progressive.”

Feminist #3: “Yeah, but I’m moving to a Blue State!” This lead to some discussion (minus the conservatives) about how they were so interested in the foreign press’s reaction to what had happened Tuesday, which just continued to fortify these women’s version of events of Tuesday: that “morality” voters (read: anyone who voted and actually has real faith in God) were led to the polls in droves by Karl Rove’s Jedi mind-tricks, and they didn’t actually care about these things! They were a smokescreen by the right to trick us into ignoring the horrific economy and bloody, unplanned war that was so uncalled for, anyway!

I was uncharacteristically silent, only to say, with a great deal of irony, “yes, well the Blue States aren’t quite so blue. They’re only blue around the cities. Oregon, a Blue state, also passed the marriage amendment. The only part of the state that’s blue is Portland.”

Feminist #2: “What county by county map?” (I look at her a bit askance and continue to eat)

But my favorite moment of the lunch, and when I really got my dander up, was when one of the Republicans with us said, “well, I think family values is just another word for hate.”

My mouth fell open whilst the feminists—and the other Republican!—applauded her “bravery” in saying the truth! Of course! We conservative just hate homosexuals—that what this whole marriage business has to do with, of course!

I had had enough. “Excuse me,” I said, putting my hand flat on the table, “but that’s not true.”

Feminist #1: (after the table looks at me like I’ve grown another head, and am incredibly dumb at the same time) “Of course it’s true.”

“No, it’s not. I know a lot of people who voted for Issue 1, and it didn’t have anything to do with hate. It has to do with what they see as facts of nature and right and wrong.”

Feminist #4, whose political viewpoint I had not previously known, then launched into a profanity-laced tirade about “those d*** middle-class people, those *expletive* people, who just have so much hate. They need to die, and then we’ll see some changes. But they probably breed and pass this along to their children.”

That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. My parents were being covered in this profane and uncalled for description, and so was I, for that matter. I was fed up.

“Look,” I said sharply, “It has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with nature. It’s like saying the grass is green. It’s not a commentary on hating the grass. It has to do with what the grass is, in fact. That’s the way a lot of people felt. And it wasn’t generational, either. I know lots of people our age who voted for Issue 1 and are glad it passed.”

Feminist #1: “Well, those people don’t think the grass should be allowed to marry other grass.” (That, my friends, was the real rhetorical high point of this discussion) This led off into more of a tirade about how Republicans are hypocritical:
Feminist #3: “Republicans think that we should have smaller government, but they’re the ones who want to regulate the bedroom!” (applause)

I find it most telling to note that not a single person agreed with me, or at least wasn’t saying anything. One of the boys looked at me throughout the whole “discussion” with a look of great sympathy, so maybe I had one silent ally.

What is the point of recounting this lunch to you? First, to tell you never to have lunch with crazy Leftists who now call themselves “Progressive” (ah. So abortion is “progressive”—that’s what we’re calling it now?). Second, to demonstrate the big, huge, gigantic failure of the Left this election cycle, and that is that they do not, and can not, understand the values that drive the majority of Americans. Family, faith—these are not Rovian mind tricks or smokescreens. They are the very foundation of society to those of us who vote socially conservative in the States. They are the cornerstones of everything we do. We want leaders and political parties who embrace, or, at the very least, do not demean these values. And that’s just what the Left does. It demeans us as “backwoodsy”, “uneducated, hapless hicks” who “breed” this on to their kids. Or we’re just dumb and being sucked in by Jedi mind games!

In the Dispatch yesterday there was an interesting letter from a Democrat, who said at the very end that IF the Dems learned the mistakes of this election cycle, they would be victorious in ’08. That’s a huge IF—it’s like the Great Wall of Ifs. It’ll never happen, at least not in time for ’08, because the Left can’t get its collective mind around the idea that people actually care about morality and values. That they are the things worth bequeathing to future generations, and without them, it doesn’t really matter what the tax code looks like or what’s happening with social security. What kind of world would be left for future generations to inherit?

To the left, the above paragraphs are sappy, uneducated, foggy ramblings of Southerns and Midwesterners. To me, they are the bedrock of a nation. And I think that 57 million of us agree. This country isn’t divided—the Left just can’t see past the huge road block known as values to see it. Look at a county-by-county map, and it spells trouble for them. They just can’t see it. It’s like they’re blind to it. At least they could try to appeal to this segment of the population, but that, I think, would be beneath them. Why would they want to appeal to people who hate gays and women, and who want war and destruction of the environment, and lower taxes? (gasp!) That is why John Kerry lost this election. Because God only showed up in his campaign as a prop. And the faster the Left realizes it, the better off they’ll be.

But you might want to settle in, ‘cause it ain’t gonna happen for awhile. So savor the victory, and wait and see if the Left self-destructs, or gets real religion. For my money, it won’t happen anytime soon.

Kerry, a gentleman?

2004-11-03T04:05:00.000-05:00

I'm thinking that when Bush does win, that Kerry might actually be a gentleman and not do the Gore thing. Wouldn't that be lovely? It would certainly increase my opinions of Dems, I tell ya that.

Oh, how sweet it is

2004-11-03T04:03:00.000-05:00

That is really all I have to say. Oh, God is smiling on us here....and if they reverse this, we will all cry for years. But, oh, how sweet it is, especially to hear it from the lips of James Carville. :) All we need now is one.....

OH, BOO YA!!

(OK, I had to do that....sorry)

Election Night Vol. 1

2004-11-02T21:31:00.000-05:00

OK, everyone deeeeep breath. IGNORE THE EXIT POLLS. While my dad says that only losers say ignore the exit polls, we are NOT losers, and it's true! Exit polling in 2000 said that Gore would win AZ by 3, and Bush won by 9. They had Elizabeth Dole down by 3 in '02 and she won by 6 or 9. I mean, let's get real. The only poll that matters today are when the precincts report, and I tell ya, even the good exit polls, like the one that says NH is +7 for Bush. That's just unreal. And even if you WANT and MUST believe the exit polls, then look at the trend. For example, here's what Ohio has done: +10 Bush, + 4 Kerry, +1 Kerry, and now tied. So if we MUST look at the polls, then the trend is toward Bush...and it's that way with all the states. So let's all RELAX........deep breaths. We'll be fine. Go mix a pina colada or something and relax.

I still think Bush will win Ohio. The campaign is also confident that Bush will win OH and FLA. I think we'll win MN, WI, and NM. Iowa is also looking very good. I am still excited and will not get all down about the exit polls. We need to relax. Things will be fine.

Two more tidbits: Lancaster Co., PA has had record turnout (yeah, Amish and conservative voters!!) and the Catholic vote, in general, is very good for Bush, especially in WI. So two happy thoughts to leave you with.

RELAX. It will be OK. :) :) :)

FYI

2004-10-29T23:00:00.000-04:00

I've been writing some columns before I got this blog....a reflection on 9-11, one when we caught Saddam, when Reagan died, etc. So I'm going to post them below, hopefully with the right dates, so they'll show up at the bottom of my blog. Check 'em out....some of them are pretty funny, if I do say so myself. :) So that's what I'm going to post today.

Um....where are the Cardinals?

2004-10-28T02:07:00.000-04:00

OK, I know it's the 7th inning and the game still has awhile to go, but could the Cardinals show ANY signs of life? Anywhere? At all? I want the Sox to win, but I do have a soft spot for the Cards (I was a Cardinal during my little league stint in elementary school...anyway), and I would like to see them put up some semblance of a fight. But go Sox, for GW! (read my other post tonight--ha ha, a plug!--if you want to know more)

Some election funnies

2004-10-28T01:15:00.000-04:00

To counteract the "serious" political stuff I put on here, here are some election funnies...

--Jay Leno: "Besides being Columbus Day, today is also Indigenous Peoples Day, celebrating Native Americans. Today, John Kerry told the Native Americans he has a plan for withdrawing all the troops from America, but it's a secret plan."

--From my dad: a car with a JK bumper sticker and a corresponding anti-GOP sticker (isn't that always the way?) "Republicans for Voldemort". If that is not the height of ridiculous, I don't know what is. (If you don't know who Voldemort is, go pick up Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and start reading. It'll come to you. If it doesn't.....)

Sorry that this list is short.....we're kind of short on election funnies this time around. But I will put in a plug (man, the people at NR should pay me for this) If you are a disgruntled conservative who doesn't want to vote for Bush because he isn't "conservative enough"--are you listening my college buddies??? I hope so--you need to pick up the new NR with the snappy cover of GW looking very Presidential and the line "....George W. Bush deserves the support of conservatives." THIS IS TRUE. Although I know one lone person who will be voting Libertarian (and I feel sorry for him), conservatives need to support GW. It is imperative. PLEASE pick up the magazine and read it (you don't even have to buy it, although K-Lo at the Corner would reallllly like it if you did). Vote for W. He will do much, much, much, *much* more for the conservative agenda than JK *ever* will.

The State of the Race

2004-10-28T01:00:00.000-04:00

OK, boys and girls, I'm back...I didn't vanish off the face of the earth, just so ya know. Things are busy here in battleground state land, as I'm sure you are aware.

Here's my take on the state of the race (a B.A. in Poli Sci should be worth something, right? I hope so, anyway). I think that Hawaii will probably end up in the Kerry column, although I do think it's pretty amusing that this race could come down to Hawaii. NJ, who knows. I think 9-11 had a much bigger impact than the Kerry campaign is guessing, especially since the Senator said in the NY Times that 9-11 "didn't change [him] much at all." (that's from the latest NR, page 4) I think that's pretty shocking. PA will probably go for Kerry, as much as that fact will depress the majority of my family that live in that state (which should soooo be Republican...maybe by '08). I also think WI and MN will go for Bush, for two reasons: strong, strong, STRONG grassroots (especially in Minnesota, which was energized by Senator Norm Coleman's win there in '02--remember the Mondale/Coleman upset?) and midwestern values. Yes, I know that Minnesota was the only state to go for Mondale in '84. Yes I know it hasn't gone for a Republican in almost 24 years. But I think it's a win for W. The College Republicans there are incredible, and as a former CR (yes, you capitalize College Republicans) I know that absolutely no one on the planet is more motivated for a candidate on a grass-roots level than CRs. (If you don't believe me, as Senator Coleman, who gives them a lot of credit for his '02 win).

Now, for Ohio, which, of course, one would presume I would have more to say, considering I live here. I think it will be extremely close. I do not think it will be called early in the evening...I wouldn't be surprised if we had a Florida-esque 3 a.m. call. But I do not think there will be 36 days of recounts. Maybe a week or so, but I doubt it. We've got a good Secretary of State and a good Supreme Court, so I think we'll be able to keep control of the madness. But...here's my prediction. I think that, regardless of the manufacturing losses and Cleveland being the poorest city in the country, that Bush will still eek out a win. I think this for two reasons: one, the VAST majority of Ohio state offices are held by Republicans, but the even more compelling reason is that Ohio is very socially-conservative. The same-sex marriage statute here (Issue 1) is not being opposed very strenuously, except by newspapers, OSU, and some public officials. Ohio is very Protestant (yes, there are a lot of Catholics in Cleveland--but they're old-school union Catholics who always vote democrat; and there are a lot of Catholics in Cincinnati, which is conservative anyway, and Columbus Catholics, who knows? We're a varied bunch), very socially conservative. We just passed concealed-carry legislation, we have a vastly conservative statehouse, and I think that bodes well for the President. We have a lot of pro-life support here, and I think that bodes well for GW.

So my prediction is that George will win, but it'll be awfully close and the Election Night par-tay I will be at that night will be extremely tense, with a lot of short conversation and cell phone usage trying to get the latest exit polling, etc. Hopefully I will be able to post that night when I get back, and it will either be jubilant or a "well, we did our best", because I'll tell ya, we're working awfully hard here and have been since January of 2003. If we lose, it won't be for want of trying. But I don't think we're going to lose. I think Bush will win here....and "as goes Ohio, so goes the nation."

As always, if you think I'm wrong, let me know. I don't claim to corner the market on this stuff. :) (BTW, if the Sox win tonight, things are good for the President....if an American League team wins the World Series, an incumbent wins re-election, except for twice. I heard it on Fox this afternoon. So go Sox!!!, even though I would root for them anyway...I love an underdog.)

Let's clear something up

2004-10-14T22:42:00.000-04:00

OK, gather 'round, kats and kittens, it's Theology 101 time--also titled "The Most Important Issues to Consider When Voting (And you're Catholic)". Obviously, if you are NOT Catholic, then feel free to stop reading a move on. But for those of you who are, and are having some problems determining which candidate in this election is the most "morally correct", so to speak, listen up!

Now I am not a theologian, I don't have training in it, but I am fairly well-versed in Church history, theology, and Catholic views on the political life. Therefore, I am going to clear up something that's been bothering me this entire election season.

Here are the five non-negotiable issues for Catholics whenever they vote. There are only five (I've pulled this from Gospa Missions October 04 newsletter, but it's also on catholicexchange.com, and Cardinal Ratzinger has spoken on this topic, as well). All of them are backed up by the Catechism's teachings. The issues are:

1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual Marriage

Take a good long look at that list. Then continue reading.

OK. Now, let's play a little Sesame Street. What is not on that list? Social justice poverty, just war theory, a just wage...none of those things are there. Let us pay special attention to the fact that Just War theory is not here. At All. Nor is Capital Punishment. If I'm being ridiculously clear about this, it's because I think I have to be. Some people just ain't getting it.

These five issues are the top issues. They are non-negotiable. They are always wrong and always morally impermissable. To quote the Catechism (this is from the Gospa Missions article) "it is never licit to obey [law permitting abortions], or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, **or to vote for it**." (emphasis mine) That means never. Never means NEVER. Are we quite clear?

An observant and sharp person will notice that the Church does have a Just War Theory, which means, implicity, that they are cases where war is justified. Whether or not the Iraq War fits this criteria is a different discussion than the one we're having here. But it doesn't matter, really, because War is not one of the non-negotiable issues. Nor is Capital Punishment. The church allows instances when Capital Punishment may be the only way to ensure order of society and protection of the society. Society must be allowed to protect itself, and the Church provides for this.

But these five issues are ALWAYS wrong. Always. Forever. Until the end of time. Are we clear? I hope so, because I'm tired of hearing people say that the President isn't the "pro-life" candidate because he went to war and supports Capital Punishment. Let's review the list again:

1. abortion--Bush is opposed. Yes, he does allow for exceptions for the life of the mother. But, in this election, he is the most pro-life candidate in the abortion realm. And he has certainly worked very hard to eradicate abortion in America. If you want to dispute that, then you aren't paying attention.

2. euthanasia--Bush is opposed ( at least as far as I know...he hasn't come out in favor of it)

3. Fetal Stem Cell Research--Bush is opposed, even if Michael J. Fox and co. are for it. Just because it may be scientifically possible doesn't mean it's ethical permissible.

4. Human cloning--Bush is opposed.

5. Homosexual marriage--Bush is opposed.

I see a pattern to the above. Now the Church is not endorsing a particular candidate--that is not its job, to screen candidates and dictate to us what we must do. The Church is saying that whatever candidate fulfills these requirements is the one that should have the Catholic vote. It's very simple. We don't even have to run through the whole list with John Kerry, because of his heavily pro-choice voting record and impassioned support of stem-cell research.

Here's the bottom line--there are five criteria to consider for a serious Catholic when voting. They are listed above. Our duty is to make sure that we vote for candidates that fulfill these criteria and do not hide behind "separation of church and state". The first amendment does not forbid candidates from having religious beliefs or from having those beliefs affect the way they govern. All the first amendment says is that the government cannot institute a state religion. There is not conflict with the Constitution here.

This is a matter for lots of prayer and reflection. I hope that I've cleared this up for at least one person, because I'm tired of hearing that good Catholics can vote, in good conscience, for John Kerry. It simply is not true. Capital Punishment and War are **not** on the same moral footing as these five issues.

And with that, I will step off my soap box. Thank you.

Round III thoughts

2004-10-14T02:15:00.000-04:00

Well, there are a lot of places I could start, so I guess I'll go off the cuff (In the tradition of NR's "Impromptus")....

--First, loved the red tie GW was wearing. Definitely his lucky color. :)
--What was wrong with John Kerry? He looked like he was Frankenstein or something..totally washed out. Looks more like "Lurch" every time.
--Most of my favorite moments were religious moments, like when John Kerry managed to alienate both Catholics (faithful ones, anway) and Protestants by saying that he's a dedicated Catholic and quoting James 2--Faith and Works. Wow. If you want to alinate the Bible belt, throw the epistle Luther called "the epistle of straw" at them. Woo hoo. Not good political or religious manuevering, but I know that probably only a few people who are that interested in the Reformation and its' political/religios underpinnings. But I enjoyed that delicious moment of "d'oh!" from the Senator.
--Does J.K. think he's cool by referencing Tony Soprano? How 'bout...not.
--G.W. hit answers out of the park, esp. when it came to the "global test" and "real alliance" (so, do we have an imaginary alliance? Does it only exist theoretically? I don't think so)--my dad was also very proud of the 1991 Gulf War mention (to put it mildly). I liked the answer to abortion, to prayer and religion, about guns (which tested very favorably with CNN's test market here in Columbus), and about gay marriage, which I will admit, makes me cringe whenever the question comes up because it's so touchy.
--Kerry's mention of Cheney's daughter was wrong and gratuitous. I know that a lot is fair game here, but wives and children are not. EVER. That's ridiculous.
--Michael J. Fox sitting next to Teresa....gag me. Alex P. Keaton is rolling over in his TV Land grave (in the words of my father, G.W. should say, "Kerry may be endorsed by Michael J Fox, but I'm endorsed by Alex P. Keaton!"). As the Vatican (and many other smart people) say, "just because something is scientifically possible does not by that measure mean it is ethically permissible."
--I LOVED G.W.'s answer to the last question--"listen to 'em!" Woohoo! I love Laura. :)

That's all of my ideas right now, at least off the top. I think that G.W. definitely won (although feel free to post to this and let me know if I'm wrong) and did a great job tonight--jovial, warm, convivial, smart, funny, self-depricating. Lovely. Just the way he is on the stump and how I think he is at home in Crawford.

More later...probably some post-debate reaction tomorrow after the pundits have their say. But I'm getting a winning vibe, at least from where I sit in Battleground State Land.

Round 2 thoughts

2004-10-09T14:45:00.000-04:00

Well, I watched the debate last night over at my alma mater at a par-tay, and it was a lot of fun, especially with the added bonus of GW doing really well. I will say, I don't like John Kerry, as we know, but what really made me mad was how he was so condescending and arrogant! And as a Catholic, I was insulted when he said "I'm a practicing Catholic"....ooooh my gosh. I really wish that I could've jumped through the TV and slapped him! What an idiot! If that's Catholic, then I must be going to the wrong Church Sunday mornings, let me tell ya. Anyway, I thought GW did well with his responses , in both domestic and foreign policy. He seemed energized, ready to go, and was on the offensive. And I thought it was preposterous when John says that we don't have a "grant coalition" because France and Germany didn't want to come and join us!!! Oh my gosh. So many preposterous things from the mouth of John F. Kerry. What an idiot. I can't believe how condscending and arrogant one man could be in the span on 90 minutes. Hope that the polls begin to reflect my confidence in GW....

BTW, six months till my birthday!

I love the VP

2004-10-06T01:31:00.000-04:00

Well we're in the final stages here, and I must say that I think it's pretty clear that Cheney cleaned the floor with Edwards. He really shone in the section about foreign policy, which is a Bush strength anyway. But it was great. My two favorite moments were "and I believe you voted against that, Senator" and "I'm President of the Senate, and the first time I met you, Senator, was on this stage." (those are paraphrases) That was awesome!!! Yay, VP Cheney!

Did anyone else get sick of Edwards saying "The reality is..."? Would've made a great drinking game thing. And besides that, his arguments were disjointed and not on point. That seems to be a big failing from a trial lawyer. I mean, aren't you supposed to be logical and on-point as a lawyer?

Also, I'm tired of the Edwards "I grew up in poverty" blah blah. Oh my gosh. Get over it. We all know it. And the party of promise in America is something that Republicans support, not the Dems who are constantly about gloom and doom and "the reality is". I'm also tired of the whole condescending attitude, and how they blame everything on the administration--Mount St. Helens is probably Bush and Cheney's fault!!! It's so illogical! They have a plan for everything...where's the plan? Give me details, not just words.

Cheney did a lovely job tonight, he was eloquent and forceful and also witty and sharp. I loved it. This was an intellectually stimulating debate, and I think it's one that's going to energize the base for the GOP and put us in a good place for Friday's round two.

(BTW, Cheney is collected, cool and calm as we wind up here. His experience is so helpful. And he's being a good, strong, optimistic leader, not the "light is dimming" crap we got from Edwards. Who's the real party of optimists in America?)

I'll post again tomorrow.. Night, y'all!

Political Question

2004-10-05T20:38:00.000-04:00

How can the President's Job Approval rating be over 53% and yet have some polls only have him with 40 some percent voting for him? It baffles me. As we say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. But this debate tonight will be important--and I think Cheney is gonna win.

First Art review--Swan Lake

2004-10-05T20:31:00.000-04:00

I went to see Swan Lake, performed by Columbus' BalletMet and accompanied by the Columbus Symphony Orchestra, last Thursday (yes, I know I missed the debate! Sometimes art is the higher calling). Here is a brief collection of what I thought.

First of all, anyone who lives near Columbus needs to go see BalletMet at some point. They are a really fabulous company, and watching them is inspiring and awesome. Swan Lake was definetely well-performed and polished. The night I saw it, Jamie Dee was Odette and Carrie West was Odile, and both of them were wonderful (they switched on and off, throughout the run). They did a fabulous job, Ms Dee conveying vulnerability and naivete, and Ms Westlongconveying power and wordliness, which is what they are supposed to display in these roles. The men (whose names I am forgetting) also did a wonderful job, conveying power and authority as Siegfried (the Prince) and Rothbart (the sorcerer who coerces the Prince to marry his daughter, Odile, instead of the Swan Queen, Odette, whom he really loves). Even the supporting players who made up the corps and other minor roles did a wonderful job. I will say that Tchaiovsky's (ok, I know I spelled it wrong) music did run a little long, and some of the divertissments went on a little long and did, really, "divert" the attention from the story. But I digress, and these were still beautifully danced. The scenery (especially the use of dry ice for the lake's fog) and the costumes (the ball gowns! The swans!) were intricately detailed but still allowed the dancers the freedom of movement and expression, which is what great dance costumes should do.

So those are my impressions. I loved it, and I'm looking forward to seeing this company dance the Nutcracker, later this year.

Hello!

2004-10-05T20:12:00.000-04:00

Welcome to my blog! I hope that you can find some interesting, thought-provoking, and occassionally (I hope!) witty comments.

I am a political junkie, which is something you should know right away. Therefore, a lot of my posts (especially until 11/2/04), will be political in nature...starting with tonight's debate! I am a Political Science major (or was, in college..I graduated in May) and I work in politics, and I am a Republican, so these are the things you need to know whenever you read my posts. I am also a music lover, having taken voice and music lessons since I was a kid, I love theater, and I read voraciously. So sometimes you will see posts on books I've read recently, shows/ballets/orchestra concerts I've seen, etc. If you're not artistically minded, then you can skip these. :) But I hope that you will find something that you enjoy reading here.

As for tonight's debate...I think it will be very interesting, and I think it will be a bit of a fireshow. Having seen The Vice President speak on numerous occassion, I have a feeling that his dry wit and sarcasm will be in high evidence tonight. I think that the VP will be able to do well. Yes, Edwards has youth and charm and skill with words (he's a trial lawyer, for pete's sake), but I still think that he's not going to do as well when compared to a man who was the Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff before he took this gig. But that's just me. So my predicition is that Cheney will do a good job arguing for the Iraq War, and will do a good job defending administration domestic policy, too. Sure, Halliburton will come up (this from the party that invented the idea of talking points!), but I think that Mr. Cheney will be able to deflect it well. After all, Edwards is a trial lawyer...and if there's anything Americans might distrust more than corporate leaders, it would be trial lawyers. So we'll see. Hopefully I'll be able to get back on tonight and post some post-debate comments. Also, if you would like ongoing debate prep and reaction, head over to my FAVORITE political blog, The Corner, at www.nationalreview.com/thecorner (if that doesn't work, go to www.nationalreview.com and click on "the corner" tab, which is in the left-most corner). The Corner is awesome, and as I devoted Corner-ite, I had to give it a plug. Also check out "The Kerry Spot" while you're there!

Anyway, that's enough prognosticating for now....I'll have another post later (hopefully!) and I'll put in some other posts on books I'm reading, movies/shows/ballets I've seen lately, etc., so there's some variety.

Enjoy!! Talk to you later.

Test Blog

2004-09-24T18:04:00.000-04:00

This is a test of Em's Blogsphere

What Ronald Reagan Meant To Me

2004-06-05T19:59:00.000-04:00

Ronald Reagan to me was always sort of a mythic figure. He was the President for the first six years of my life, and I always heard that he was protecting us from Communism, and that “he brought the wall down.” I remember watching the wall fall that November night on the television. I always, in the back of mind, thought that my childhood was fairly idyllic because President Reagan was protecting us. I never had to worry about the Soviet threat, or the Communist threat, or missiles blowing up my neighborhood. I was safe, because Ronald Reagan was my President, and his job was to protect us. And he did.

As I grew, I learned that all of these things were true—he did bring the wall down, etc.—and I admired him, not just for these things, but because he did what he had to do to make America better, and to protect Americans. Even when people didn’t believe in his ideas, or thought he was crazy, he didn’t back down. Not if he knew, in his gut, that what he wanted was best for Americans. Who thought that “trickle-down” economics would actually trickle down, and produce the Great Abundance ? He did. Who else thought that saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” would actually make it happen? He did. Who else thought that “Star Wars” would actually become a viable defense program? He did. And cost didn’t deter him, or the seemingly pie-in-the-sky qualities of his initiatives. He made it happen.

I think the word I would use to describe him is a visionary, even though I don’t think he’d use it for himself. He would say that everything he did was just common sense, the best thing to do to protect America and her citizenry. But it was so much more than that. He gave America more than security, more than wealth, although these things are wonderful and vital and important. He gave America her soul back, her heart back, after the turmoil of the sixties and seventies. He gave us hope again.

I have never known an America before Ronald Reagan. I didn’t live through the seventies, or Vietnam, so I don’t really know what those days were like, but I cam surmise that they were dark times that tried our nation’s character. And what Ronald Reagan did for us is so much more than an economic program, or national security, or a military initiative, although these are important. He gave us hope and confidence in ourselves. He gave us back the uniquely American heritage that is ours—the heritage of optimism, of hope, of belief in tomorrow and belief in the individual, and the belief in what individuals can do together to make our nation and our world a better place. This, to me, is what really made Reagan great. Not just the economics or détente or “Star Wars”. His overwhelming buoyancy and belief in us; that as a nation, we could accomplish anything.

He was not what I would call a “career politician”. He didn’t say things because they would make his poll numbers go up. He said things because he believed them, because they were important, because they were right. It seemed like the Presidency was a great tool that could be used to reshape our nation into a nation of hopeful, willing, able, and excited citizens, who rose eagerly to the challenges he put before us. He had such faith in us, as a people. He made us want to be better.

And he helped make us better. I was only a child, far too young to really enjoy and appreciate what he did for us. But now, I am a young member of the party of Reagan, and I can see what he did for us, and what he means to us now, not just to Republicans, but to the nation. I don’t want to paint him as a “cock-eyed optimist”, in the words of Rodgers and Hammerstein. But when I read the writings and speeches and memoirs of Reagan, and the people who knew him, that is the overriding quality. The quality of hope. As a Catholic, hope is vital to me. It is all we have—the hope of salvation, the hope of eternal life. Hope is one of the great virtues, and it was perfectly embodied in Reagan, and in his writings this is what I see. I see this virtue perfectly embodied.

I know he was human. We have a tendency to put our leaders, especially those we deeply loved, on a pedestal, or enshrine them in marble, making them seem cold, remote, perfect, and sterile. Men made of brass or copper or marble entombed in great monuments in D.C. I know he was human. He was not always perfect, I am sure. But he was a unique human being, who had such a love for this country and her people. I’ve heard it said that he would send checks to ordinary citizens when he was President, and would answer letters from people every week. This is what I mean when I say he believed in Americans, and he loved America’s people. He wasn’t perfect—who is?—but his love of country, of people, and his firm belief in America’s promise and the inherent promise in each of us is a quality that I will long remember. Mother Teresa said it best: “In him, greatness and simplicity are one.”

Ronald Reagan was a great man, and a great President, a visionary who had big ideas and big plans and made them work, and made our country work. His thoughts and ideals still shape my party, and I am proud of that. But I am prouder still of the fact that he was my President, the first President I knew, and he was a great man. The country will be dimmer without him. But as a member of his party, and a political activist, all I can say to President Reagan as he looks down on his “shining city” from the Great City above, is that I, and all my fellow young conservatives, will always try to carry your spirit and ideals within us. To me, the best of America is embodied in your speeches and your optimism, and your hope in us.

We’ll try, those of us in America who loved him, not to let him down. But you know, I think he’ll be proud of us. We’ve done him proud…and his ideals and example will always continue to inspire us, as we continue the long work of leading the “city on the hill”, so that all may be free—wherever they are, whatever the cost.

“And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm—
“And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home…
“And so, good-bye.”
--Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

Review of "The Passion of the Christ"

2004-02-26T19:58:00.000-05:00

February 26, 2004

OK, I am just going to write whatever comes to mind…but here are some of the impressions I have, fresh out of seeing this incredible work by Mr. Gibson and crew:

1) The violence is not, as you may have been led to believe, insurmountable and over-the-top. The violence is there, to be sure, but it doesn’t really hit you until you see it through the eyes of Mary, or John, or the apostles. The violence serves to show us how much He loved us. The scourging is not twenty minutes of constant pain…there are flashbacks to happier times, and the focus switches from Jesus to Mary, and back again. Whenever the pain seems to be too much, Gibson gives us a flashback to better times. There is even humor in the movie…though very little. (Jesus is building a table, and Mary says it’s too high. Jesus says that there’ll be tall chairs to go with it. To this, Mary says “it’ll never catch on.” The other “funny” part is when Barabbas is released to the crowd, and you see that he’s a few marbles short of a bag. That’s kind of funny…but not really.)
2) The message is superb. It should be required viewing for the entire human race. It is just superb. Jesus’ love overflows every scene, and the message of love and forgiveness permeates the entire film. You cannot leave this film without being staggered by the sheer weight and enormity of God’s love for us, His children. It is overwhelming. You want to run to a church and thank God for sending His Son to us. You are overcome with gratitude.
3) It brings the entire Passion and Jesus’ message to life. You see everything in vivid detail—not gory detail, but vivid detail. You really understand the sacrifice of Jesus. I have never seen the Stations of the Cross as vividly as I did tonight. You feel like you are there, with Jesus and His Mother, watching everything unfold. It is a tremendous feeling.
4) You want to be a better person after watching this film. You want to pray, and live better, and be better, just to thank God for doing this for us. It is an amazing thing. I left the theater feeling lightheaded and like I was going to faint. The weight of God’s goodness and glory is overwhelming.
5) As for the finer points of cinema, it is a wonderfully done movie in its own right. The music is so powerful and fits perfectly, a mixture of orchestral strings and a full adult chorus, with strong voices that heighten the emotion to an unimaginable pitch. The acting is stupendous. Maia Morgenstern as Mary is masterful in every scene, but especially when she runs to Jesus as He falls under the weight of the cross and says, “I’m here.” She is the perfect Mother of God. James Caviezel, as Jesus, is nothing short of amazing. He is just beyond words. He is the perfect Jesus. While you’re watching it, you’re thinking, that’s Him. The actors who play Pilate, his wife, Claudia, Mary Magadelene, and the apostles are also so tuned-in to their roles that you hardly notice they are acting. The scene between John, Mary, Mary Magadalene, and Claudia during Jesus’ flogging is so well-balanced and so highly charged with energy that it will make you weep. Wonderful acting, just wonderful. The scenery is beautiful, the costumes are accurate, the characterizations and screenplay are beyond wonderful. All of this, as well as Gibson’s magnificent directing, make this a truly wonderful film that is well worth the viewing and moments of discomfort, just for the true beauty and luminous qualities of the film.
6) No one can come out of this movie hating anyone. The idea of anti-semitism is ridiculous. If anything, this movie makes you want to stand up and say, “I love every single person in this theater as my brother or sister in Christ, and I will pray for all of you every day for the rest of my life.” This movie makes you realize how much Christ loved us, that he was willing to undergo that horrible death that you just watched for us. To save us—all of us.
7) As a Catholic, I watched this movie somewhat differently. I noticed that each of the stations of the Cross was done in loving detail, bringing them gloriously to life. I saw saints and a Pope of the church brought to life, including Veronica and Simon of Cyrene. The movie, I think, presents Catholic Marian doctrine in clearly enunciated terms: this is what true holiness is. Mary always leads us to her Son, and the movie shows how she does, indeed, bring all believers to His feet. All of the apostles in the film call her “Mother”, as we all should do. She is the mother of all believers. The movie is also intensely biblical, even beginning with one of my favorite Bible quotes, from Isaiah 53, the text that is read on Good Friday.
8) Watching the film makes you see the real humanity of Jesus and His mother. You see Jesus as a man who has gone through everything a human can go through: abandonment, pain, betrayal, anguish, total desolation, even close to despair in the garden. He is tempted by Satan, who is always present. He wants to get out, but He knows that God’s will is the greater goal. He is the perfect model for us. Mary is seen as a woman who has lost her husband, who watches her innocent son be beaten, tortured, reviled, and eventually killed, all for the sake of others. Her pain is tangible and so painful. She has endured everything a person can endure…they both have. The film brings out their humanity and their pain so beautifully. This is what makes you weep. Mary is a mother, first and last. Jesus is her son, and she watches Him die so that others may live. The scenes between Mary and Jesus, especially while Jesus is carrying the cross, and He says, “see, I make all things new,” is especially wrenching...it was here that I really cried, tears running down my face. You can’t help but cry. It is such a powerful moment.
9) The languages and subtitles add to the reality, and you actually learn something…I learned that the word “gubernatorial” (as in, the election of a governor, or the office of a governor) is actually derived from Latin, which I didn’t know before. Who says Latin is a dead language?

Overall, this is a tremendous film. The violence is not as bad as you imagine. It can’t be. Everyone has it so built up in their heads that it can’t possibly be as bad as you imagine. Run and see it. You will feel so overwhelmed with the love of God, and His mercy and justice, and you will love everyone you meet. The movie is intensely powerful. What a wonderful tool for conversion. This, my friends, is what Christianity is all about.

Go watch it. Seep in its message. I hope that it makes you a better person, and I hope, if you are not religious, that it makes you be so. It is a profound message it is sending…a message of forgiveness, love, and mercy. It is a film of hope…the movie ends with the Resurrection, Jesus sitting, alive, clean, free of blood, in the tomb, and then He rises and you see the nail mark that goes through his hand, and the film ends. It ends with hope and redemption. That alone is a thrilling moment. This is a film about love and mercy. May its message reach you, and I hope that you find its message as comforting and profound as I did.

Merry Christmas, America!

2003-12-19T20:01:00.000-05:00

December 19, 2003

I’m sure we all remember the times when we were kids and, in the ways of children, created corrupted lyrics to many popular Christmas songs. One of my favorites was our adaptation of “Joy to the World”, which fits very well here:

Joy to the World! Saddam is dead
We barbequed his head!
Don’t worry about the body
We’ve flushed it down the potty,
And ‘round and ‘round it goes!
And ‘round and ‘round it goes!
And ‘round and ‘round and ‘round it goes!

OK, so the words are juvenile, but they do fit. What elation—“What a lark! What a plunge!” We found him! There will be a trial, and justice, and many of the horrors of his regime will finally come out and be revealed to the world. Perhaps then France and Germany will finally realize the truth, although I highly doubt it—the French didn’t realize the truth about Hitler until he was goose-stepping through Paris. So they’re traditionally a little slow on the uptake.

So, as I was writing my “Christmas list for America”, I find that the first gift already been given—Saddam is in our grasp. Huzzah!

Now, for the rest of the list:
2) That we may stabilize Iraq well and efficiently so that our troops can come home with the knowledge of a job well done.
3) That we may catch Osama, now that we can train all our intelligence work on him (since this is what caught Saddam)
4) That the trial of Saddam will be timely and will reveal to the world the horrible injustices that Europe so steadfastly refused to believe
5) That the Democrats will actually select one candidate
6) That the President, who has led us through such a tumultuous time, will be re-elected in a landslide that evokes memories of 1984.
7) That the Dow will stay above 10,000 and bring widespread prosperity to many Americans
8) That the Blue Jackets might be a respectable team in the near future (OK, so that’s more an Ohio wish)
9) That my graduating class will bring great leadership and ambition to our nation and world as we become the leaders of our democracy.
10) That America remembers the ideals of Christmas and the value of religion and faith.

So that’s my Christmas list. How many of these will come true in the next year? We’ll see. But right now, I’m full of eager anticipation of many of these pleasures—especially the ones that involve the Presidential election cycle of ’04. Hopefully America will be able to open many of these hoped-for gifts during the next year, so we can remember the childlike joy and excitement that Christmas brings to all of us.

But I still say the best gift would be Saddam gift-wrapped under the Camp David tree. I’m sure Spot and Barney would love to have a bite of him.

The Feeling That Lingers--a 9/11 reflection, two years later

2003-09-11T20:02:00.000-04:00

All comments that precede a discussion of 9-11 seem to begin in one way: “It was a beautiful day.” And it was…it really was. Blue, blue sky, the color of lapis lazuli. The purest, deepest, most beautiful blue you’d ever seen. But it was sad, too.

Blue skies…so much like today, two years later. The weather seems to always be beautiful since that day. As if God is once again sending a rainbow, to make up for the flood. But we know God didn’t send the towers crashing. Madmen did.

It’s strange, how embedded it’s become in my mind. Every beautiful day, “fresh as if issued to children on a beach,” as Virginia Woolf would say, makes me melancholy and sad inside. Because even in this small reminder, I see the visions of terror, the visceral fear that gripped us all that morning.

I was nineteen. It was a sunny Tuesday morning. I woke up at 8:35 that morning, early, well before my 12:30 p.m. advance writing class. It was a beautiful morning in Bexley. My window faced out onto College Avenue, facing west, and the sun was coming in my window. The long rows of trees that lined College like sentinels were vivid with lush green foliage, but I knew that in a matter of weeks their vibrant gowns of leaves would turn the street below into an autumnal quilt. Change was in the air, and I was ready for it. This was an important day. It was the day of my first Student Government meeting, it was my brother’s sixteenth birthday. I woke up happy, mindful of my full day and the pleasures that awaited me in it.

I turned on the TV by rote, and heard Katie Couric asking Speaker Hastert about the budget battle that Congress was embroiled in currently. I sleepily put on my robe, slipped into my pink-and-mint Old Navy sandals that served as shower shoes, grabbed my shower caddy, and walked down the hall to the long, sterile row of showers in the narrow shower room on the third floor of Schaaf Hall.

I showered quickly and returned to my room, where I turned the TV back on. As I was combing out my hair, I noticed that the picture had changed, and that it was a picture of the World Trade Center with smoke and flames pouring out of it. The small print on the screen said that a plane had crashed into it. Al Roker was on TV, saying what a horrible accident it was, that it was probably an out-of-control airbus or commuter place. How sad.

The flames continued for awhile, and Katie began to interview a woman who had seen the plane hit. Suddenly, in the middle of her comments, she let out a theatrical scream, like you hear in horror movies. “Oh my God! The second building!”

My head snapped back. I had seen the plane hit the second tower. Matt and Katie gasped and said “Oh My God.” TV anchors do not say ‘Oh My God’ on the air. They simply do not. This had to be big.

I immediately reached for the manila phone that sat on the corner of my desk and dialed home, where Mom was on the line with Dad. She told me that Dad thought it was terrorism. I couldn’t believe it. Terrorism happened in Israel, in Indonesia, in other countries. It didn’t happen here.

Things began to fly by with dizzying speed. It was breaking news ontop of breaking news. I was flabbergasted. The buildings. The Pentagon. The plane in Pennsylvania, which I thought could hit Pittsburgh, with my family, my godson, my friend’s family. Nightmarish scenarios raced through my head.

I started getting phone calls from friends. Elaine, whose family lived in Pittsburgh, was in a panic because she couldn’t get through. I had, by now, finished dressing in a shirt my boyfriend had bought me, jeans. I stuffed my knapsack full of granola bars and water. No one knew what to expect, so I frantically stuffed things into the bag. Once I was satisfied, I ran down the hallway, where I saw every TV on the hall was on, and went outside, into the brilliant morning.

I ran into Aaron, a friend from high school, as he was headed toward C parking. It was a beautiful sky above us, emerald seas of grass around us…and silence. Total silence. There were no planes. The sky was as clear as it could be. Aaron and I walked and talked, trying to be rational in a world that, indeed, no longer held rational characteristics.

I reached S.S., and called Elaine, who buzzed me in. We sat in her room and watched as both Towers fell, like great deposed giants of civilization. That must have been the way Atlantis sank as it fell into the Aegean. It must be the way worlds look, the way gods look, the way people look as they’re falling off the cliffs of time, knowing they can’t get back, knowing the rug had been pulled out. The towers just…fell.

The paper survived. I found that incredible, watching the paper fly like pieces of deranged confetti. People died, paper survived…inexplicable.

We heard that there was a Noon chapel service. I went, headed to Mees, back into the warm, gorgeous, extravagant sunlight. I found Melissa and some other friends, and we huddled in Mees’ cavernous depths, where people shoved prayer books and hymnals into our hands. We sang. We cried. Dr. Wallace read a poem he’d written. We sang “Amazing Grace” and when I got to the third verse, I cried…really cried. I cried because I was nineteen and my entire world was falling around me. I cried because so many good men, women, husbands, wives, friends, and brave souls had died. I cried because…because the depth of tragedy, the overwhelming sorrow, was too much for me to hold.

“Through many dangers, toils and snares / I have already come / His grace has brought me safe thus far / And grace will lead me home.” Chapel Choir sang. “City Called Heaven” and “Come to the Water”. “And let all the poor…let them come to the water. Bring the ones who are laden, bring them all to the Lord. Bring the children, without might. Easy the load, and light. Come to the Lord…” It was amazing to watch them. Their faces revealed the mighty struggle. They were singing so beautifully, so effortlessly, but I could see the titanic struggle to remain in check on their faces. When “Come to the Water” was over, they wept, but silently, the tears forming silent rivers on their faces.

The service ended…classes were technically cancelled, but were still meeting anyway. In the American Presidency, we watched MSNBC and saw news and news and news. In Religion…I don’t even remember. All I wanted to do was go watch TV and make sure that the world wasn’t imploding. Columbus was blocked off…no one could leave, no one could get in. I didn’t have a car to go home, anyway.

There was a candlelight vigil that night. The lazuli sky had changed to sapphire, rich and plush as a velvet curtain on a stage. Stars and candles. Prayers and hugs and tears. The whole event seems locked into these impressions.

Now, two years later, I am two years older. I am twenty-one, and I’m a senior. I understand what terrorism is now. I understand what it means to be American. I have more patience with my compatriots, but less patient for those who are not “as ardent patriots as I” (to quote Anne from The Patriot). I am beginning to loathe those who do not want to defend our country the way it needs, those who didn’t think war was justified. Those who thought that America deserved the attack.

I love America. I love Americans even more than before. Terrorism in America has affected all of us. I think it’s made me more grateful for every beautiful day, for every time I see a baby, for every new beginning. I give thanks every day for my faith in God, and how benevolent and good He is to all his creatures. I give thanks that I have another chance, every second, to make someone’s life better. I feel as if I am living in times of religious rebirth.

So on this, the second anniversary, I wanted to commemorate what I saw, felt, thought. I would like to invite others to do the same. Because someday, some of us will forget. Our children will never know a NYC with the towers. We are the keepers of America’s historical flame. By writing these stories down, we are the historians. We are the keepers of the flame. Never let that sadness, that ache, that undying love and thanks for those brave men and women die. Never let it be forgotten that Americans may be cocky, and we may be arrogant, but deep down we are strong, loving, selfless sons and daughters of a great tradition. We, the next generation, must always seek to fulfill our promise to this great nation, and never forget this tragic, heart-rending day.