Why So Serious?

I'm not really a big fan of the caped crusader. As a teenager, I was a big fan of ultraviolent movies, like many my age, and my "comic book vigilante" tastes ran more toward the antics of Frank Castle, better known as The Punisher, a deeply disturbed Vietnam Vet who saw his entire family slaughtered by mobsters and embarked upon an almost suicidal one-man-war on crime that continues to this day. In those days, the anti-hero Punisher seemed grounded in a certain gritty 1980s "war-on-drugs" era reality, and there was a grimness and sense of despair in Frank Castle that appealed to my adolescent self, I suppose.



That is not to say that the more fanciful Batman mythos was not without some appeal, but not being a big D.C. comics reader, the film and TV interpretations were my only real exposure to Bob Kane's iconic creation in my youth.

As a 14-year old,for instance, I found little charm in the campy 1960s incarnation in reruns on the TV, and was greatly disappointed by the grotesquely overhyped Tim Burton take on the character. The ludicrousness of Bruce Wayne's modus operandi, i.e. dressing up like a giant bat in a stiff, rubbery suit to "scare criminals" had an air of the ludicrous, which was not helped at all by the stilted action depicted in the Tim Burton-helmed movies. Throw a punch? Please! Michael Keaton could barely raise his arms in that getup.

Frank Castle's persona and methods, on the other hand, manifested more realism. The Punisher had no real gimmick or mask or secret identity: his imposing physique, perpetually grim expression and Kevlar armour emblazoned with a giant skull were all he needed to intimidate criminals... and besides, I think killing the criminals was higher on his priority list then intimidating them.

The further 90s iterations of the Batman franchise only served to renforce my antipathy toward the character: I was completely uninterested in the animated versions, and found the ridiculous Joel Shumacher films annoying. I was first introduced to Harry Knowles's site, as many others were, when I caught wind of his now-legendary obliteration of the third sequel, Batman and Robin, an event that some say simultaneously ushered in a new era in the internet (the era of the uber-powerful online movie geek?) and put the moribund franchise on ice for almost a decade. Good riddance!

But then, three years ago, Chris Nolan made Batman Begins. Was it the perfect superhero movie? No, of course not. There were some false notes: Katie Holmes in over her head as the love interest, some bad fight-scene editing, and some groan-worthy expository dialogue during the runaway-L-train climax immediately spring to mind. But you could feel that Nolan was on to something with his "re-boot" approach. Instead of simply swallowing the Batman's 1930s origin story holus-bolus and proceeding as if it were a given, Nolan chose to re-interpret and update it, grounding the Batman's origin story in a reality that today's filmgoer could swallow.



I remember thinking that it was almost as if all the comics and films that had come before had been legends, that is to say, embellished retellings of a story that had actually taken place; tales about a mysterious man who really had existed, but whose exploits were now lost in the mists of time, like those of the heroes of Troy, or the knights of the round table. Batman Begins seems to be offering us a more reality-based take on the mythical character known as "the Bat-Man", showing us the "facts" that form the basis of that myth. Batman, this version shows us, is not some supernatural being, but rather a man who has harnessed extraordinary wealth and physical gifts, and trained himself rigourously in order to put them in the service of good, all the while cultivating an aura of mystery so as to strike fear into the criminals he stalks. Batman, we learn, is really just a ninjitsu-trained billionaire masquerading as a playboy in order to pursue his virtuous vigilanteism.

Perhaps it was purely coincidence that Batman Begins came into being in an era where films like Troy and King Arthur were offering stripped-down versions of two of the legendary stories most central to Western society, removing the centuries of accretions and interpretations to get back to, if not the historical basis of each myth, at least more plausible versions grounded to some degree in "reality" --which did not prevent mostly justifiable accusations of historical innaccuracy and fabrication in each case, incidentally.

With Troy, this re-interpretation meant excising "the gods" from the story almost entirely, and offering compelling explanations for iconic references like Achilles' famous heel and the Greek gift of a wooden horse. In King Arthur, it meant losing the supernatural elements and questing beasts, turning Merlin into a loincloth clad druid, and stripping off the late medieval period plate armour common in so many depictions in favour of late roman chain-mail more appropriate to the post-roman Britain in which the historical Artorius likely lived (By the way, another film that adopts this approach is 2007's Last Legion, which starred Colin Firth, and which would not otherwise merit a mention, given that it was mostly crap and anachronistic in the extreme).

The relatively unspectacular box-office take of these films illustrates that re-envisioning beloved legends and mythical archetypes is an endeavour fraught with peril, not to be taken lightly, but Chris Nolan's deft handling of the problematic areas of the Batman mythos also shows that it can be pulled off.

Batman Begins offers alot of explanations to questions that have never been satisfactorily answered before. i.e. Why Bruce Wayne really picked the bat as his symbol; How he was trained to do what he does; Where he got the equipment to begin his mission; What his ultimate goal is. And at every step, we find that the explanation is plausible... far-fetched, certainly, but definitely not supernatural.

Now, with his very dark follow-up, The Dark Knight, Nolan takes us one step further into this plausible world he has created, and in its disconcerting realism, we find it more nightmarish than we could have imagined. In this sequel that surpasses the first film in every way, Nolan has created a surprisingly moving tragedy and a really effective crime drama featuring horrifying moral dilemmas and very effective action set-pieces.



I'm not going to parrot everything the critics have already stated about the "Godfather II of superhero movies", but I will say that the comparisons to Michael Mann's Heat strike me as quite appropriate. Tonally, and in terms of their style, ensemble cast and scope, the movies are indeed comparable. The performances in the Dark Knight are everything you have heard they are too, and a startling turn by the late Heath Ledger as a nihilistic psychopathic Joker is every bit as haunting and disturbing as reported --it will stay with you. If there is a weak link in the chain, it is Ms. Gyllenhaal, whose status as a sex symbol and "it girl" continue to baffle me and countless others.

Regardless, this movie is grim, brutal, unforgiving. Characters are forced to compromise their integrity, characters we want to see succeed fail and some we care about die. The film will punish you, but it will also reward you.



Maybe the Dark Knight will be the movie that finally manages to transcend the "superhero movie" genre, and be recognized for the masterpiece it is.

Go see this movie, and see it in IMAX.

Thanks

"We never know the love of our parents for us till we have become parents."
-- Henry Ward Beecher

Ain't that the truth!



I learned so much in these past few weeks:

I learned that you can become so incredibly attached to someone you have never even laid eyes on.

I learned that a 3-D ultrasound does give you a pretty good idea of what a baby will look like, so much so, that when William finally arrived, I exclaimed "that's the kid from the picture!"

I learned that my wife really is as tough as I suspected.

I learned, or rather confirmed, that my mother really is as generous as everyone always said she was.

I learned that family is not only the most important thing, it is really the only thing.

Now comes the really hard part...

William Timothy Charbel Ellard

Born July 11, 2008 at 14:42

Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam

What an eventful week, both in the news and on the home front! The folks came up to spend some time with my wife and I, now that Nesrine is in the final days of her pregnancy. That meant that I got to watch La Selección's moment of glory with my dad last Sunday. Though the scoreboard may have said the score was 1-0, the truth of the matter is that the Germans looked thoroughly outclassed by the Spanish side, and that it could of easily been 3 or 4 nil. Sure, grim-and-bloodied German captain Michael Ballack and his squad gave Spain's fans a couple of frightening moments but the result was never in any real doubt.

I basically missed Canada Day altogether, as Nesrine and I had a little hospital stay which turned out to be a false alarm --the stork got diverted by bad weather, I gather, but I did catch wind of the controversial appointment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada on our nation's birthday some time after the fact. Perhaps I found this news so very dispiriting because my wife is in her final days as the vessel for what is most manifestly a little human being who has for some months now displayed his own personality, individuality and even habits.

There are so many reasons that this appointment, a manifestation of what John Paul II called the culture of death, should be considered offensive, but I think David Warren's column says it best, so I am attaching it in its entirety:

How Morgentaler exposed the chasm between elites and the rest of Canada

David Warren
The Ottawa Citizen


Sunday, July 06, 2008


Let me tell my reader about an "epiphany" I once had -- a long time ago, yet seemingly yesterday. Some things, especially memories of love, remain vivid for the duration of one's life. The experience occurred when I was 17, travelling through India by third-class rail.

I had left Howrah Station in Calcutta the day before, bound for Raxaul on the frontier with Nepal. I rode 25 hours continuously on an unbelievably hot and crowded train (often thinking I might die of suffocation), to some obscure distant junction. There I changed trains, as instructed, boarding a flatbed, to my relief -- with crudely built railings and grid of low benches to hold the passengers in place -- wonderfully open to the sky. Another 20 hours, making every stop across the state of Bihar.

An atheist at the time, I almost prayed for rain.

In such a carriage, one does not choose a seat. It chooses you. I found myself physically merged with an extended family, consisting of two sisters, their frail-looking husbands, a sprightly grandma, and about 15 small children. The elder sister, sitting high in the middle of the mob, was also quite pregnant. And beaming with joy.

When I say these people were poor, I am describing a phenomenon beyond the comprehension of most North Americans. They had the rags they were wearing, a bedroll or two, a tiffin stack of simple food. (If they had any valuables, they were effectively concealed.) But what they also had was a treasure beyond postmodern understanding. They had each other.

I was passed a little baby soon after the train moved (so slowly, I thought I could outrun it). A little boy was also set on my left knee; there being nowhere else to put him. Rags were stretched against the scorching sun; a cool breeze puffed them. The magnificent scenery of the Gangetic Plain rolled by in splendour -- the little farmer's fields, the galaxy of villages. Chaos at every stop.

Eye contact was made with each member of this family in turn, and I was now fully adopted. Language was unnecessary: I followed the conversation in their eyes. There was some singing; there were some prayers. When mealtime came, I was passed my share -- a chapati, with a spoonful of lentils on it.

After a few hours of this, the profound happiness of this extended family had communicated itself to me. I felt an inner exhilaration of belonging, such as I had never felt; a profound joy in being alive. For these people knew: that life is holy.

"I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life."

Yes, this is a sermon. That would be Moses speaking, in the Book of Deuteronomy. I don't think I began to grasp this idea until I was 17, riding those rails through Bihar: that we choose life, or we choose death; for ourselves, for others. The rags you wear are of no great importance. It is important to live; and living, to rise, towards the Love that made us. "Rise, let us be on our way," in the words of the last Pope.

Like many, many, many Canadians, I took the appointment of Henry Morgentaler to membership in the Order of Canada -- proclaimed on "Canada Day" -- as a stick in the eye for everything we believe in. As a gratuitous insult to the memory of three million aborted babies.

It was intended as that. The perpetrators of this hateful deed -- presenting an abortionist as a model for "humanism" and champion of women -- knew perfectly well what they were doing. As I had learned even before the event, protocol had been breached in making the appointment. There was no consensus on the appointment committee; the chair, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, had failed to recuse herself. It was done deceitfully, after the Governor General's office had assured outraged callers last February that Morgentaler would not be on the list this year. And last weekend, as the rumour spread, a fresh round of outraged callers were being mocked -- given the phone number of Campaign Life Coalition by the Rideau Hall switchboard.

The announcement was then delayed -- another irregularity -- until after the Parliament Hill celebrations, to prevent a large pro-life demonstration from coalescing there. And, instead of denouncing the appointment, our cynical prime minister had "talking points" distributed to his caucus before the fact.

A very dark thing was done, as such things are always done -- in a very dark way.

Yet I think it may be for the best, in a longer view of things. We might often grumble that the "ruling class" in Canada -- the smug, self-serving, "progressive" political, legal, academic, and media elites, including the prime example at Rideau Hall -- belong to some other world than the one from which they suck taxes. But seldom is there an event so stark, that we see them as they are. The Morgentaler award revealed that to so many Canadians.

Gaudent magni viri rebus adversis non aliter, quam fortes milites bellis

Seneca wrote that. It means great men rejoice in adversity just as brave soldiers triumph in war.

Now that we know that Conrad Black will stay in jail, we will see whether or not he rejoices in his adversity.

Black steadfastly refuses to fade away quietly in disgrace. During his incarceration, he has taken to teaching as well as writing. It is said that his jailhouse history seminars are standing room only.

Here he is in fine form, still writing in the NP:

No one knows if there are more people who would vote for an African-American president to prove that they and their country are tolerant than would vote against him because of intolerance. I suspect there are, but no prudent person would predict the outcome of this election. Accordingly, I reaffirm my prediction that McCain will win.

Whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit that Lord Black seems to have made some premium lemonade out of the lemons life has handed him.

Politicians Flee Category Five McCain

The Republican nominee for POTUS was big news round these here parts last week when he came to town. He waded through the tumbleweeds and past the creaking saloon doors of the ghost-town that was end-of-parliamentary-season Ottawa to give an address at the local speakeasy.

Paul Martin was in the news recently too. Why? Who cares?

Nobody appears to have any time for him anymore. He is the rare electoral loser leader among the pantheon of Liberal winners --He and John Turner rate a shared alcove next to the restrooms. When it comes to Martin, PMPM loyalists could drive themselves crazy with tantalizing “if onlys”. For example: if only he had waited for the fall of 2004 or later to have the writ dropped for his first election as PM, the sponsorship stuff might (might, I said) have blown over somewhat and he would not have lost his majority in the 2004 election, right? Who knows what Martin could have achieved if only he had built on, or at least kept, the majority that the Little Guy from Shawinigan handed him when he left…

But hey, isn't it funny how some Canadians who claim that seventy-year-old John McCain is “too old” to be President are the same Canadians who would have gladly followed Paul Martin had he won that imaginary majority back in late 2004 and then decided to take the Liberals into the next election this fall as
a seventy-year-old PM and party leader?

Pulled from the Fishwrapper

Eddie On the Socks:

The thing is, I understand how the complainants feel. They probably feel the same way I and other Jews feel when we go to the Canadian Islamic Congress website and read "editorials" with headlines such as: "Zionist Israel at 60 -- A History Built on Ethnic Cleansing" and "Israel: An Armed Ghetto by Choice."

***

Afghanistan: It's a mess.

Sarah Chayes, one of the few Westerners living "outside the wire" in Kandahar, decries rampant corruption in a pretty good Scott Taylor piece:

"If the Afghan government is a criminal enterprise and Canada’s stated mission is to support the government of Afghanistan, then what the hell are you achieving?" she said. "Is NATO here to make five people happy or to make the whole province happy?"

***

NYT sez Mrs. Obama will be a target

Ya Think?

E.D. Speculates on the secret gang signs that Obama and wife are using:



Shortly after this, Ms. Hill received a "terrorist fist jab" right out of her slot in favour of someone slightly less retardulous.

***

Apres Lucien, Gerard

Andre Pratte on two brothers well acquainted with the canibalistic tendencies of the sovereignty movement

Then in the comments, sovereigntists wine, snivel, spout conspiracy theories, and denounce as they usually do whenever someone confronts them with reality.

Scott Thompson and Kurt Cobain



Stuff like this is the reason I love The Kids In The Hall. Who else besides boy-faced Dave Foley could take a somber topic like the death of a rock icon and say something in such poor taste to bring down the house? As is the case with Monty Python, another troupe that defined comedy in an earlier era, most of the stuff the members of KITH did after the end of their show does not hold a candle to their groundbreaking early work, but occasionally they can blow you away with something daring, like Foley did here.

Here is a favourite from their TV show:

More Campus Fascism... now Fascism comes clad in ersatz religious headdress!

Colby Cosh introduces us to Gilary Massa, who wants to choke off and suffocate the insolent pro-lifers on her campus:

It is certainly wrong to take money from some students and use it in a lopsided fashion to promote the opposite side in a legitimate, ongoing public debate. And what else is the executive of the York Federation of Students doing by meeting during the summer to sneak through a ban on funding and access to SU resources for pro-life groups? Properly understood, the YFS's actions are not so much a free-speech issue as a simple instance of theft.

This analysis depends upon the status of the debate over therapeutic abortion as a "legitimate" one. YFS vice-president Gilary Massa, reportedly the chief engineer of the YFS ban, hopes to win this point by denouncing pro-life groups as "sexist" and "demoralizing" to women who have had abortions, or who may wish to have them. This constitutes an obvious attempt to raise the poorly defined crime of "sexism" to the same level of social intolerability as racial prejudice or political extremism

Gilary is both a practicing muslim (presumably, given the pictures I have seen with her sporting a hijab), and apparently a hard-core feminist too!
Cognitive dissonance... head swimming... must sit down...

Ah that's better! Now where was I? Oh yeah, the devout member of the umma who happens to favour abortion-on-demand, and thinks pro-lifers are "sexist"... yeah, that's actually the position she appears to have staked out. The mote in thy neighbour's eye, the plank in thine own...

What about mainstream Islamic scholarship's rejection of unrestricted abortion, deriving from this sura of the Quran:

Kill not your offspring for fear of poverty; it is We who provide for them and for you. Surely, killing them is a great sin.
Qur'an 17:32

Yeah, I also know about the Shiite Zaidiva and their dissenting position, but I'm willing to bet Gilary ain't Shi'a --not too many of them originate in Africa. So suffice it to say Gilary and islamic scholarship do not appear to be on the same page on this issue. Is the evidently pious Ms. Massa actually advocating something that goes against what her religion teaches?

Ah heck, you know what? Screw it.

It is obvious that my association of islamic orthodoxy and the hijab is nonsense, because given her rather un-islamic position regarding abortion on demand, clearly this woman's hijab is not so much a religious garment signaling her adherence to the tenets of islam, as it is a political statement, so my whole point is moot.

Political statement you say?

Do go on...

Well, it just so happens that Percy Grainger provides an intriguing tidbit on the National Post Full Comment page for this article:

Here's the text of a letter that Ms. Massa wrote to the York University administration, dated February 21, 2008, which as of today is posted on the YFS website:

"The York Federation of Students (YFS), representing 45000 undergraduate students and the Graduate Students

(GSA) at York University representing 5,700 students, are shocked and dismayed to hear that your administration along with the McMaster Students Union has banned the use of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” on campus. This strange and unprecedented ban is a blatant violation of democratic freedoms of speech and dissent, and an

attack on students’ right to organize. It is the position of the YFS and GSA that universities are sites where discussions and debates about difficult geo-political questions should be promoted, not stifled. International controversy about use of the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” cannot be resolved through repression, but through ongoing intellectual exchange.

The YFS and GSA strongly support the United for Students’ Rights (U4SR) coalition at McMaster in their demand that the disgraceful ban on the phrase “Israeli Apartheid” be rescinded in accordance with a basic commitment to freedom of expression and organization in the democratic context of the public university."

It is obvious - Ms. Massa only believes in "democratic freedoms of speech and dissent" where she agrees with the point of view being expressed. The level of inconsistency is astounding!

So, to sum up:

The abortion debate is settled.
Gotcha.

The Israel-Palestine debate is not settled?
OK.

So my inevitable question:

Says who?

Oh yeah, right: the growing ranks of the new campus Fascists. They are legion.

***

Other Things Worth Checking Out:

What if we lived in Facebook?



***

A Toronto Star profile of an Afghan Policewoman

"For men, it is particularly insulting to be arrested by a female officer. Too bad."

***

Ten Countries Islamic Terrorists Avoid

Interesting as much for what countries are not on the list, as for which ones are.

"Dad, how come those old dudes call themselves New Kids On The Block?"



Hey, what do you know... it's a catchy tune!

Some Comedic Cruelty courtesy of the New York Daily News

Topic: Sex And the City Premiere --Sara Jessica Parker has a horse-face.

Discuss!


SJP ugly? Perhaps

The comments in the forum… now those are definitely ugly.

***

Marvel vs DC

The Great Human Rights Punch-up

Ezra Levant and Andrew Coyne liveblog the Human Rights Tribunal circus from Vancouver.

Good for a couple of laughs... or tears, if you consider the implications of the fact that this farce is actually taking place in Canada.

As far as I'm concerned, the most disconcerting thing by far to come out of this tribunal is the revelation that Awan, a lawyer-in-training, had never heard of the Library of Alexandria until he read about it in a Barbara Amiel article(?!?!)

The barbarians are truly at the gates.

My reply to Ian's Obama's Media Groupies

Notwithstanding my smarmy comments, my real problem in this case is specifically with the content of Olbermann's hyperbolic rant, not his general disposition toward Hillary or Obama. Olbermann is just one of the more egregious examples of media people who have declared a verdict and now want to proceed to the sentencing, but I won't get into that.

Simply put --I don't like his attitude. I have a real problem with Olbermann declaring from on high that certain things "cannot" be said. So now that his diktat has been promulgated, we should all move on? The media (our betters) are the arbiter of what speech is within the bounds of acceptability for politicians now?

If you have been reading any of my nonsense lately, you may be aware that we have a bit of a free speech issue in Canada at the moment (google human rights commission, macleans, and levant for more details). The idea that "certain things are not to be said" really gets under the skin. As far as I am concerned, Hillary can claim Obama is a crypto-muslim black radical who will lead the U.S. into WWIII and therefore she has to stay in the race, but it isn't up to Olbermann to anathemize her speech. Sure, he can denounce her for what she says (or even for what she "seems to be saying"), and let the good citizens of the U.S. do their duty by exercising their option to consign her to oblivion, but he should not get to tell her and the American people what is and is not acceptable rhetoric. That path leads nowhere good.

As far as the Clinton "gaffe" being the invention of Obama's "media groupies" and/or the Obama campaign itself... I'm no Hillary partisan, and therefore am not prone to lying or dissembling to stick up for her. For the record, I don't give a rats ass about her or what she meant. I'm mad on principle: My problem is with Olbermann adopting the imperative and saying she cannot say something (as opposed to saying "she should not have said it").

Now, if you were to argue that this was simply a rhetorical device of his own, or that he was playing a role --that of grand media inquisitor, perhaps?-- I would still be annoyed, because I've become a free-speech nut, I'm afraid, and I don't like media, government, church, whatever, telling me or anyone else (even Hillary) what we can or cannot say!

And if you were to say that, unlike the state, Olbermann cannot exercise coercive power and that therefore my point is irrelevant I would simply revert to sophomoric namecalling: Olbermann is a douchebag, and I don't like his pompous windbaggery and the idea that what he says might influence the way people think about speech: "Oh, we simply can't say that! What would Keith Olbermann say?"

As far as all the contextual stuff goes (i.e. first time in history there is a black candidate for president, Michelle Obama's fears), once again, not the point. There are plenty of well meaning people up here in Canada trying to shut down debate and free discussion of issues for all the right reasons: combatting "hate" and "anti-semitism" and "islamophobia", but that does not make what they are doing any more justified.

BTW, did somebody say free speech absolutist? In Canada, like in the U.S., we actually have rules that govern free-speech, and the fact is that incitement to violence is illegal. You worry that some nutcase might feel "empowered" by her remarks. I maintain that regardless of whether or not it was in good taste (and since when has good taste been a criterion for political discourse?), what Hillary said was not incitement, and therefore fair comment... "hurt feelings" or not. This is a point we could argue.

You and I both know that Clinton is done. Why the hell do people need to stiffle her now? At this point, one would think they should just stand back and let her bury herself with increasingly outrageous and "catastrophically inappropriate" comments as she grasps at straws. Like your fellow holding the sign there, who is doing such a brilliant job of persuading people not to vote for his candidate.

Frankly, reckless and innapropriate rhetoric is what makes American politics so damn interesting to me! Maybe I just have more faith in the wisdom of the American people (or the effectiveness of the Secret Service) than you do.

I think your Johnson/King point is bang-on...but I would not let Clinton off the hook by saying she is just doing what so many whites do with black rivals. The Clintons have a unique brand of parochialism and condescension all their own!

Oh incidentally, Michelle Obama is going to drag her huband down as this campaign wears on. Somebody get that woman some talking points! She is bad news.

By the way, you really must listen to a Rex Murphy monologue in the original Newfie dialect:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rex+murphy&search_type=

Peace out, buddy!

Chest Pain

So much ink spilled lately on Ms. Couillard's chestal region, and yet only Rondi Adamson made me snicker:

After all, Couillard can't help the size of her breasts. From the looks of them, they are real. The idea that she should keep them covered because they may, er, distract, is foolish and parochial. But she did choose her boyfriend and husband, one presumes. And she chose to date a politician. One thing lost in the salacious headlines is Bernier designated Couillard as "a spouse" for travel purposes. This means Canadians paid for her (and her breasts) to fly to goodness-knows where with Bernier on his budget. We should be grateful the price of airline tickets aren't decided by an individual's weight.

har har har!

****

Olbermann: the lickspittle, the pontificator:



Outrage much, Keith?
Uh, what? Hillary "cannot say this"? As history has shown, the Clintons can and will say anything, when they need to. Besides, this is the frigging nomination race, and in spite of the most fervent wishes of Obama's media groupies, Senator Clinton is not yet ready to concede that prize and prostrate herself before the annointed one. And so, she is being immolated for a simple statement of an inconvenient historic fact.

Rex Murphy, as usual, said it best in this weekend's Globe and Mail:

There are nights when watching Keith Olbermann of MSNBC - who is to Obama as Igor was to Dr. Frankenstein, a slavish servant and a groupie - pound away at Hillary Clinton, when I've been tempted to call The Hague. Specifically the war crimes tribunal headquartered there.

Death Spiral

Appeasement!
Appeasement!
Appeasement!
Appeasement!
Say it enough times and understanding what the word actually means won't really matter, right?




Kevin James should be ashamed of himself. He makes Dana Perino look like a Rhodes scholar. I think it was Jon Kay that said that this type of "pundit" gives conservatism a bad name. Amen to that!

Is this what the Republicans have been reduced to? God help them if that's the case.

*****
Zohan: Zionist Propaganda or feel-good movie of the summer?

Adam Sandler's latest flick, opening June 6th, is called You Don't Mess With the Zohan. The official site provides the following synopsis:

In You Don't Mess With the Zohan, a comedy from screenwriters Adam Sandler, Robert Smigel (Triumph the Insult Comic Dog), and Judd Apatow (Knocked Up), Sandler stars as Zohan, an Israeli commando who fakes his own death in order to pursue his dream: becoming a hairstylist in New York. Dennis Dugan directs.

What they don't tell you: The Zohan's love interest is, gasp, a Palestinian!!!

Will Sandler forgo his usual insipid nonsense in favour of a nuanced comedic portrait of a Romeo and Juliet-style romance against the backdrop of modern cultural and religious conflict? A thoughtful and sensitive commentary that will inspire a desire for peace among two troubled peoples, and succeed in bridging the most intractable geo-political divide of the past sixty years?

Nah, probably not, but it might be good for a couple of laughs (maybe...)

FAIR WARNING: Mariah Carey will appear in it. Rob Schneider too, obviously

Things I am Pretty Sure About

Hillary Clinton does not know how to lose . Whenzitover?

When they drag her twitching bloodied carcass across the convention floor of the Pepsi Centre in Denver and pry the crown from her stiffening fingers.



She's not going away! Mwah hah hah hah haaaah!

***

If the hallmark of a compelling TV show is that it makes you want to learn more about its central character, then HBO's John Adams was great TV.

What a history dork like me can particularly appreciate is that such great attention was paid to historical detail throughout the production without sacrificing the narrative. While being "true to history" is important in these types of dramatizations, you can't be slavishly devoted to replicating history in every detail, for one because nobody can say with 100% certainty how things really occured, and also because it would make for tedious viewing -a point made very convincingly in this article.

What also struck me is that the producers also refused to pander to the lowest common denominator by "modernizing" the dialogue or the interactions of characters. It really is striking to hear eighteenth century Americans speaking to each other in the elegant vernacular of the period. The manners are strikingly not our own. Gentlemen, even the closest of friends, seem to address each other formally, while managing to convey their emotions and humanity. When men speak publicly, their words are deliberately and carefully chosen to convey true meaning (and not to baffle and confound like the politicians of our day).

The characters in this miniseries also communicate in an English that sounds somewhat alien to the 21st century ear, and even a bit "British", although it is unmistakeably not the King's English that people are speaking, even at this early point in the evolution of America.

I already knew that Paul Giamatti was a fine actor, but this role proved that he really can carry a serious big-budget project. I thought the the cast was superb as well, with standout performances by Laura Linney as Abigail Adams, Tom Wilkinson as Ben Franklin, and an almost unrecognizable David Morse as George Washington.



Oh yeah... and the opening theme is pretty rousing too...The kind of music that promises you are about to witness something monumental.



The show more than lives up to the promise.

And incidentally, who would have thought that Tom Hanks would become one of the pre-eminent producers of quality history miniseries?

I already own The Band of Brothers boxed set, also co-produced by Playtone, and I plan on buying John Adams as well as the upcoming miniseries The Pacific, which will tell the story of Marines in the Pacific Theatre during the Second World War, and which I can only assume will be of the same high quality as Band of Brothers.

You Do Him No Credit

Is it just me, or is Mark Steyn also a bit irritated by the closed mindedness and dismissiveness of some of his fans?

I mean, don't get me wrong... I think Steyn is bang-on 90% of the time, but I have noticed that any time someone does not appear to bow down and unquestioningly accept the Gospel of Mark, some Steynies feel that that is their cue to immediately begin leaping to conclusions, bashing and/or tossing around the labels dismissively, e.g.:Well, this person is obviously a liberal/ leftist/ trudeaupian/ hippy scumbag… so therefore I despise them and dismiss them summarily.

I know that is just the nature of the blogosphere, the greatest echo chamber yet devised, but one needs to remember that Steyn is a journalist and political commentator as well as a conservative hero (to some), and that broader debate and discussion of the kind we have seen recently in the “mainstream media” (i.e. outside the right-wing echo chamber) is Steyn’s bread and butter. He ain't always preaching to the converted.

Snarling pitbulls who emerge every couple of weeks from the basement to bite and tear at his critics and drones who mindlessly absorb and regurgitate every notion and sometimes parrot Steyn ad nauseum are not much use to him or anyone else in the larger marketplace of ideas. In fact, I suspect they may be a hindrance: Oh no, not another one of those Steyn wingnuts!

I don’t think Mark Steyn has much use for unthinking, reflex denouncers and “hyperpartisan halfwits”, to use his own term… and apparently he does not approve of those who would automatically and unfairly blast people like Heather Reisman and Strombo, who were quite reasonable with him, in a misguided effort to support their hero. Ezra Levant chides some of these more zealous folks on his site, albeit in an elegant and gentle fashion.

I wrote the following to my sister in exasperation the other day:

Frankly, sometimes I find it hard to hold conservative opinions when I see the collection of close-minded reactionaries and bigots that share my political views.

Unthinking and slavish obedience to the Gospel of Mark should be anathema to a true believer in enlightenment and modernity. Hey if you agree with him all the time, good for you!... but leave the enforcement of orthodoxy to the ayatollahs, will ya?

My Head Hurts

Ezra Levant writes on his blog that Mohamed Elmasry, the Canadian Islam Congress Grand Vizier who dispatched the Sock Puppet Three to take on Macleans and Mark Steyn, once faced him in a debate…

Now the pugnacious Mr. Levant wants to debate Warren Kinsella, but the usually scrappy Kinsella doesn’t want to debate Levant ...he wants to debate Steyn, and Macleans and Steyn want to debate...you guessed it: Mohamed Elmasry!

Can’t we just get all four of these cats into the ring and let them go at it WWE tag-team style? Steyn/Levant vs. Kinsella/Elmasri. Now, THAT would be a battle worth witnessing! A real "slobberknocker", as good ol' J.R. would say.

Catch that TVO debate cooked up on the fly between Steyn and Elmasry's kids? Steyn basically goaded and taunted them on live TV to come out and start the debate they claimed they had been looking for all along. Although initially reticent, to their credit, they eventually agreed. Here is part 1 of 5, featuring Khurrum and company:



You gotta love it when instead of suing each other and taking each other to human rights commissions people actually, you know, discuss and debate issues they cannot and likely will not ever agree on. Ain't free speech grand? Beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!

***

Update:
Levant must be very pleased with the success of his campaign to delegitimize the entire Human Rights Commission apparatus in this country. I mean, would anyone have imagined they would ever read anything like this account of an editorial board meeting with the Canadian Jewish Congress in the National Post? This kind of rough handling of reps of the entrenched Jewish establishment puts paid to the idea that the "islamophobes" are simply using attacks on the HRC as a way to persecute Muslims. Clearly, true free speech believers are being consistent, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the aggrieved and embattled CJC are now finding out, much to their chagrin.

***
Updatier:
I have been informed that my association of the "SP3" (as I have now taken to referring to The "sockpuppet three" and which makes them sound like a cool 90s rap group, no?) to the lawiscool blog is completely haram, verboten, and totally not kosher, since there is apparently no link between SP3 and law is cool since Daniel Simard recused himself from the proceedings. Furthermore, I am told that I am a total douche for using the nickname "sockpuppet three" (I'm paraphrasing), hence my rechristening of the law students as "SP3", pending the creation of a new, more righteous and totally awesome nickname.

Various Amusing items:

The 110 Best Books
How many have you read? (Sadly, I only read comic books)

***

Dorktastic!
The 10 best Internet Fads. I can has cheezburger?

***

The Moxargon Group

Xran the Fleshrender does some particularly hard-hitting pieces, but my favourite will always be Remulak Moxargon himself, mostly because he has displayed such baffling magnanimity as Overlord of the Ultra-Galactic Empire in consistently declining to disintegrate the earth.

***

Your old picture of the day
Some are over 150 years old. Definitely worth a look, if only to behold the improbable facial hair of 19th century dandies.

***

Wikipedia reveals the disgrace that is Kwame Kilpatrick. Yeah, well it does look pretty bad when you lay all those scandals out, end-to-end all the way down the page!

***
Youtube Gold: Ayaan Hirsi Ali blows Jazeera-bound Lewis' mind



"They shoot abortion doctors in the United States!" sputters Avi, reeling from the brain-melting pro-American juju that this crazy lady is laying on him.

"Your faith in American democracy is just delightful" he smirks. But Ali just smiles and keeps putting out the good vibe. Avi is so upset he loses his cards.

Ali's closer: "You grew up in freedom, so you can spit on freedom, because you don't what it is not to have freedom"

You said it, sister

***
Also found, a quote by P.J. O'Rourke: "Very little is known of the Canadian country since it is rarely visited by anyone but the Queen and illiterate sport fishermen."

Linda Crosses the Line, And more same-old, same-old

There’s stupid

There’s real stupid

There's offensively stupid

Then there is Linda McQuaig:

Did these men somehow feel their military affiliation entitled them to behave like thugs?

This raises the disturbing possibility that these young reservists considered the Rambo-like posture of Canada's top general, Rick Hillier, gave them a licence to behave aggressively.

Certainly Hillier – who announced his retirement last week to much fawning in the media – set a very different tone for the Canadian Forces, referring to the enemy in Afghanistan as "detestable murderers and scumbags" and suggesting the role of the Canadian military is to "be able to kill people."

Damn you Hillier! Damn you and your fascist kill-bots!

***

Tarek Fatah is pissed!

And he doesn't pull his punches in this NP piece:

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, however, said that for the Commission "to refer to Maclean's magazine and journalists as contributing to racism is bullshit, if you can use that word."

He said the Commission has unfairly taken sides against freedom of speech in a dispute within the Canadian Muslim community between moderates and fundamentalists.

"There are within the staff [of the Ontario Human Rights Commission], and among the commissioners, hardline Islamic supporters of Islamic extremism, and this [handling of the Maclean's case] reflects their presence over there," Mr. Fatah said, identifying two people by name.

"In the eyes of the Ontario human rights commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim," he said. "As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside."

Melanie Philips wrote about just this kind of thing, in the context of the British Government's acquiescence to islamist assertiveness in the public forum, in the conclusion to her book Londonistan:

The key issue is the inability to grasp that just because a problem has a religious character, this does not mean that all members of that religion suffer from that problem. There is a distinction to be drawn between Muslims and Islamists. Islamism is the politicized interpretation of the religion that aims to Islamize societies. Many Muslims in Britain and elsewhere would not subscribe to this ideology(....) the most bitter criticism of the government's subsequent appeasement of the Brotherhood has come from liberal British Muslims, who understandably feel betrayed as the ground is cut from under their feet.

As in the UK, in Canada, the well-meaning, the self-righteous and the stupid reinforce all the old victimhood pathologies with bunk about "racism" and "islamophobia". In doing so, they are making common cause with fundamentally illiberal islamists, and making life difficult for those muslims who rather than showing up with a list of demands, would work to bridge whatever supposed gap exists between the muslim worldview and that of Western democracies. The Phillips book is definitely worth a read, by the way.


***

Theo Caldwell on why Obama will never be president.

God help us if they don't elect the guy! It seems that many people think America somehow owes the world Obama. It's quite certain that his supporters think that America owes itself Obama, but what is also becoming increasingly clear, if it wasn't already evident in the mentality exhibited by certain "advisors" and "mentors", is that racism will be among the many bugbears that will be dragooned into service to explain to angry people why America rejected Obama if McCain wins in November. It could get ugly, folks.

***

Zawahiri: People! Listen, it was us... no foolin'! SHEESH Just what the hell does a jihadi gotta do to get credit for sticking it to the Great Satan?

Related:


9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Brought to you by The Onion

***

AQI: Endorsed by OBL

This post reminded me of the egregious Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) omission in the film No End In Sight. Just as one had to question the reasons behind the film's conspicuous exclusion of AQI -- after all they were active in Iraq since at least 2003-- one also has to ask why some journalists, when they are not attempting to deny its existence altogether, continue to represent AQI as an Iraqi-led movement. This is demonstrably not the case. AQI's leadership has come from outside the country: Zarqawi was a Jordanian, al-Masri, an Egyptian.

I think the problem with AQI is that its existence goes against the grain of the now-dominant narrative that “the insurgency” was and remains a spontaneous uprising by disaffected Baathists and Iraqi nationalists caused by ham-handed mismanagement by L. Paul Bremer and his cronies, a narrative that was so excellently laid out in NEOS.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, it is posited, is basically an opportunistic "islamist cloak" worn by one of the multitude of militant groups which really just want to see the Americans leave Iraq so that Iraqis can get on with re-building their country.

But AQI continues to refuse to play its part in this neat little story, no doubt exasperating the media and experts with its apocalyptic ravings on jihad, its mosque bombings, its videotaped executions, its continued allegiance to OBL, and its gleeful, indescriminate butchery of innocent Iraqis, Sunni and Shi'a alike--the people they are ostensibly trying to "liberate" from the Yankee agressors.

Seriously, though... when you can't even keep the Sunni tribes onside for some good old fashioned Shi'a persecutin' --historically, a very popular pastime-- and its gotten to the point where the Sheikhs in Anbar are so fed up with your atrocities that they are actually teaming up with the Zionist Crusaders to kick your ass out of Iraq, it may just be time to revise your strategy!

***
Some amusing stuff:

From across the millenia the Neanderthals speak. Spooky!

Company! To the foetus... Pre-sent ARMS!

Laughing Baby: Laughing for us sinners