Jonah Goldberg–“The Genocide Loophole”

The climate of anti-Semitism made the Holocaust possible, but so did Enlightenment bias, which holds that almost anything can be justified in the name of progress.

*****

Octopia–An online gallery of old comic and pulp fiction covers featuring overly aggressive octopi.

*****

Some Charlton Heston links to honor a good man’s homegoing.

• A look at his career at Reel Classics.
• Some of the letters to the editor Heston sent to the L.A. Times.
• The classy George Clooney mocks Heston’s Alzheimer’s and says “he deserves it.” (Yet another good reason to avoid Clooney films like the Eboloa Virus. I know I do.)
• A clip from the film “Omega Man,” the 70s original upon which the recent Will Smith movie “I Am Legend” was based:

I missed it the first time, but the Discovery Channel re-aired the 2006, James Cameron-produced special called “Exodus Decoded” the other night. It was impressively presented, though it contains a lot of dubious conjecture, unfounded leaps, and unwarranted dot connecting. The film goes to great lengths to try to explain the plagues, wonders and miracles of the Exodus story as natural phenomena associated with the eruption of the super-volcano Santorini off the coast of Greece.

What struck me as enormously significant was something that the presentation only mentions in passing. It seems the Egyptian government may, for political and ideological reasons, be deliberately supressing archaeological evidence that supports the biblical accounts of Genesis (Joseph) and the Exodus. A couple of key sites in Egypt were closed to the producers of the program.

It’s not hard to understand why. Evidence that testifies of a Jewish presence in Egypt, the Sinai, and Canaan going back 3500 years would be darned inconvenient for Islamists who contend the State of Israel is illegitimate.

My already high esteem for Jonah Goldberg jumped a few more notches today.

An essay Jonah wrote sparked an interesting and cordial discussion over on the National Review group blog, The Corner, this morning. The piece he wrote mentioned the increasingly ubiquitous “Darwin Fish” magnets on cars. Jonah, who is Jewish, put his finger directly on the thing I find most obnoxious about them.

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims. . . But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.

In “The Corner”, John Derbyshire, the self-styled curmudgeon-agnostic-scientific-skeptic with a heart of gold took issue with a couple of Jonah’s points, though also admitted finding the Darwin fish “ill-mannered.” Among several points in a long post, Derbyshire wrote:

So is the Darwin fish ill-mannered? I think it is, but only because it equates Christianity with Creationism. Most Christians aren’t Creationists, and to imply that they are is wrong-headed, tarring the many with the foolishness of the few. I can’t truthfully say, as Jonah does, that I find the Darwin fish offensive, but I do think it’s ignorant (i.e. of the fact that most Christians aren’t Creationists) and ill-mannered (i.e. towards non-Creationist Christians).

Of course, Derbyshire doesn’t get it. Being self-described “lapsed Episcopalian” as well as a British ex-pat living on Long Island–John simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he isn’t exposed to many real Christians.

Thus, when he declares that “most Christians aren’t Creationists,’ he’s using the term Christian in the broadest most generic way imaginable. The fact is virtually all Christians are creationists at some level in that they believe God is pre-existent to the universe and is the agent (or cause) of its formation.

In the same vein, it is also true that Christians are, by definition, not Materialists, i.e., people who believe as Carl Sagan proclaimed that “the Cosmos is all there is, all there ever has been, and all there ever will be.”

Jonah’s rebuttal to Derbyshire is here. It’s good but doesn’t go far enough.

Derb has no problem with appropriating the symbol of the Icthus (Jesus fish) for the purpose of mocking and sneering at “Creationists.” He finds it out of bounds only because the use also tweaks these supposedly-abundant “Christians” who have no “Creator.”

But as Jonah rightly suggests in his original essay, the appropriation of the Ichthus is uniquely obnoxious and snide.

The displayer isn’t just affirming his belief in Darwinism in the same way a displayer of the Icthus affirms his belief in Jesus. He’s proclaiming his disdain for a different view. It’s one thing to declare, “I think I’m smart.” It’s another to shout, “I think you’re stupid.”

But, in spite of what Derb contends, it goes beyond just boorish manners.

The symbol of the fish came into use in the early centuries of the Christian movement when believers found themselves living in societies that weren’t prepared to tolerate their belief system. The dominant state-approved religions (some of them secular-religions) were militant and intolerant.

Today there is a rising spirit of militancy among the atheists/materialists in the U.S. and U.K.. From respectable academics like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris to entertainers like Bill Maher and Penn Gillette–popular and influential voices are suggesting that “civilized” societies shouldn’t have to tolerate people like the Creationists Derb clearly thinks are a fair game for public mockery.

That’s why I no longer find those Darwin Fish merely insulting. I find them chilling.

When I see the word “Evolve” inside that sacred fish on the car in front of me, I wonder. . . is that a statement? Or a demand?

The need to feel superior to Americans is on the verge of surpassing football as Britain’s national obsession.

On any given evening, a significant portion of UK television programming is given over to reassuring the typical Brit that, though his/her nation may be a dysfunctional mess, it’s still better in every way than the United States. (“Americans are fat.” “Americans are tacky and tasteless.” “Americans are illiterate.” “Americans are religious fanatics.” etc., etc.)

Of course, newspapers are savvy to the British public’s appetite for validation, too. For the last day-and-a-half, Drudge’s main headline has been a link to this front page story in The Independent about our new “Great Depression” here.

The supposed proof of this new dark age is a rise in the number of individuals receiving food stamps assistance–a rise from 26.5 million in 2007 to 28 million now. Not exactly a stratospheric climb off the charts. And the article also mentions another reason for the increase:

The increase – from 26.5 million in 2007 – is due partly to recent efforts to increase public awareness of the programme and also a switch from paper coupons to electronic debit cards.

So actually, the modest increase is due to effective advertising and marketing of the program (much of it in Spanish, I’ll wager). By the way, that 1.5 million increase is also equivalent to the estimated number of illegal immigrants who have entered the United States in the last year and a half.

Finally, if I had the time to research and run the numbers, it would be interesting to compare the percentages of the U.S. and U.K. populations currently on government assistance. I suspect the numbers of Brits receiving monthly payouts from the government and subsidized/free housing as a percentage of the population is several multiples greater in the UK than the U.S..

But hey, readers of The Independent–if that headline makes you feel better about yourself–off you go.

Update: Jim Geraghty over at The Campaign Spot notices that the photo The Independent used on its front page was taken back in 2005.

A few days ago the big news out of Cuba was that Raul Castro–brother of Fidel and the new benevolent dictator in town–had taken the magnanimous step of decreeing that ordinary Cubans were now free to own and use cell phones. Up until then, only Cuba’s communist party elite were granted that privilege.

Today we hear that Raul will be allowing Cuba’s long-suffering citizens to actually set foot on Havana’s luxury hotel properties that have long been a favorite vacation spot of Canadians and Europeans with no qualms about having their tourist monies prop up a repressive dictator. They can now even stay in those hotels if they want, not that one regular Cuban in ten thousand could afford to do so.

These truly are hopeful and positive signs of change in Cuba. The next thing you know we’ll be hearing that evangelical pastors are no longer having their houses bulldozed by the government just for preaching the Gospel. We can certainly hope and pray.

As encouraging as these signs are, it’s important to note this truth: Freedoms granted on one man’s whim can be withdrawn on one as well. 

But the fact that it’s big news that Cubans now have the freedom to make a mobile phone call should be at least a little embarrassing for all the Castro-philes from Hollywood that have made the pilgramage to Havana for an audience with Fidel over the last decade or so. And they are legion.

Steven Spielberg visited Cuba in 2002, dining and hanging out with Castro into the wee hours of the morning. In the cigar-smoke tinged afterglow, Spielberg proclaimed his dinner with Castro to be “the eight most important hours of my life.”  After a 1998 meeting with the Bearded One, Jack Nicholson told a Hollywood newspaper that “He [Castro] is a genius. We spoke about everything.”

Part-time rocket scientist Naomi Campbell proclaimed Castro “a source of inspiration to the world.”

After a 1999 pilgrimage to Cuba with fellow intellectual Kate Moss, Campbell said, “I’m so nervous and flustered because I can’t believe I have met him. He said that seeing us in person was very spiritual,”  Right. I’m guessing Castro is not the first fellow to try the old “spiritual connection” line on a couple of super-models. But he may be the first creepy 80-year-old to actually pull it off.

Other Hollywood celebrities who have private-jetted to Havana to hang with El Presidente are Woody Harrelson, Oliver Stone, Robert Redford, Sidney Pollack, Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Shirley MacLaine, Alanis Morissette, Spike Lee, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Kevin Costner.

I betting that not a single one of them has read Armando Valladares’ memoir of his life as a prisoner of conscience in Castro’s gulag. They won’t. But you should. . . if only to truly understand how truly deep the darkness was that now displays some glimmers of freedom’s light.

I got a kick out of this picture over on Shorpy.com. It’s someone’s radiator cap back in 1938. Even in the 30s, some people apparently enjoyed pimping out their rides with aftermarket parts.Larger image here.

*****

Here is an online collection of cereal box fronts and backs. Remember the days when a breakfast cereal could proudly display the word “Sugar” in its name? Though I’m not sure what enhancement or breakthrough propelled “Sugar Crisp” to “Super” Sugar Crisp status.

We didn’t see much in the way of sugar-y cereals around our house when I was growing up. My Mom ran a no-nonesense Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, Grape Nuts kind of operation. When me and my friends all went away to college, some exercised their new-found freedom from accountiblity by drinking heavily and taking drugs. I went wild with Captain Crunch and Cocoa Puffs. (And gained 15 pounds my first year.)

By the way, I remember that cut-out Archies single offered on that second image. A friend had hacked it out of a box. Shockingly, we found it exceedingly difficult to play a record pressed onto thin cardboard.

*****

The Ten Most Prophetic Science Fiction Movies Ever, courtesy of the awesome folks at Popular Mechanics.

I know I promised to get off of this theme (and by the grace of God I will soon!), but commenter Darren expressed some mild vexation about my post which pointed out the Obama’s charitable giving trends, and I think a few words of clarification might be in order.

First, I think I understand why a fair-minded reader might view a post such as that as petty or holier-then-thou. But those readers who know what I do for a day job, are aware that charitable giving trends and behavior are of particular interest to me. I help non-profit organizations connect with donors to raise the scarce funds they need to do the great work they do. Now that this blog is reaching a readership wider than just friends, family and colleagues, I need to be more diligent to present context and orientation.

I actually engaged in a brief wrestling match with myself before I published that post. “Log in your own eye first. . .”; “judge not lest ye be judged. . .” and all that.

In all honesty, over 20 years of marriage, the reality of our charitable giving hasn’t always lived up to our values and intentions. But the fact is, the wife and I strove to make 10% the starting point of our giving back in the day when our combined income was $25k/yr and we had to save for months just to purchase a vacuum cleaner. And it remains our baseline minimum goal now. We’re not special in that regard–it’s the value of almost every Christian I know. Their giving starts at 10% an climbs upward from there.

Thus, I don’t think it’s out of bounds to take note of the giving behavior of a presidential candidate that has made his faith a central focus in two autobiographical books and throughout the campaign on the stump.

Furthermore, liberals (or Democrats) who frequently castigate conservatives (or Republicans) for greed, heartlessness and a lack of compassion for the poor shouldn’t be exempt from evaluation of how their walk matches up with their talk (just as politicians who advocate traditional family values and decency are routinely and rightly scorned if they are caught dealing in porn or hanging out with hookers.)

Finally, I think there is fundamental value in asking American voters (particularly voters of faith) to think through the difference between actively helping the poor and oppressed and outsourcing our compassion to the government on (mostly) someone else’s dime.

Nevertheless, I’m grateful for Darren’s feedback and hope to hear more from him and many of the other regular readers who never or rarely comment. My blog stats show a much higher readership than the number of comments suggests. I attribute that to the fact that most of my blog posts leave people dazed, stunned, or mortified.

Self-indulgence alert! This happy little corner of the blogosphere was launched one year ago today. In the middle of a typically frenetic day, I launched this venture by dashing off a quick post titled, “The Blather Begins,” and wrote:

A day is coming in which this will be a place characterized by incisive cultural commentary, startling wit, and gratifying prose. This is not that day.

Hopefully there have been a few days since that one that have come close to living up to that brassy promise. Though blogging by definition and by nature results mostly in what James Lileks calls “dashed off tripe,” there have been a few posts over the last solar orbit of which I am fond. I now see they are the ones that I typed with gritted teeth, moistening eyes or as I laughed at my own oddball sense of humor.These, such as they are, are my favorites Blather moments so far. Maybe you missed one or more:

Honor, Gratitude & Remembrance

Leaked—John McCain’s Monday “To Do” List

Before He Slips Away

UncleRoss Passed Away Today

Leaked—Rosie O’Donnell’s Monday “To Do” List

Different Car. Same Girl.

She Said Yes

Of Dads and Baby Girls

Life on Mars? The Theological Implications

Milestones

The Future That Never Happened

The Future That Never Happened, Pt. 2

The Future That Never Happened; Part 3

Books That Changed My Life, Pt. 1

Some Thoughts on Gratitude

Post-Christmas Thoughts and Blather

Our New Age of Slavery

Altared States: Give Me Some of What He Was Having

Finally, on this auspicious anniversary, it would be bad form if I didn’t point out how consistently amazed I that friends like you stop by here on a regular basis to see what I’m going on about.

Amazed… and deeply grateful.

The Obama’s released their tax returns yesterday.  (FYI: 2005 was the year the Obama’s income jumped significantly due to book advances and royalties.)

 Either Rev. Wright didn’t teach tithing at TUCC or Senator Obama can actually make a credible case that he really didn’t listen to anything his pastor said over the last 20 years.I am reminded though, of the numerous studies which have shown that we hard-hearted extremist of the Religious Right tend to give much more of our our income to charitable causes than do compassionate liberals.

 

I’m going to get off the Obama topic for a while unless something truly remarkable develops. But first, here are a few items of interest from around the Internets:

Obama a freeloading credit and glory glommer?

Obama’s new pastor, pretty much like the old one.

Was Rev. Wright’s Upbringing Really That Tough?

Is Obama Stealthing an Anti-Israel Bias?