The Pendragon's Hall

All right, the news you've all been waiting for: Adam's review of "The Passion of the Christ." I saw it in a packed out Sayre Theatre last night and must say rumors of it's being powerful are extremely underrated. From the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane where Christ crushes the head of Satan's serpent to the final cut where the risen Lord strides out of the empty tomb the story of the Gospels comes shining through. Good thing my father wasn't going anywhere quickly afterwards or I would have been left behind. It was very quiet in the movie theatre except for snuffling on the way out. Is it bloody? Yes, indeed. Definitely not recommended for children under the age of 12.

As for the charges of anti-Semitism, tell these people to stop pretending they care anything about the Jews. I make no claim to understand why Mel Gibson of all people has suddenly become a fundamentalist Christian, at least in media land, but the people who claim he is trying to raise anti-Jewish sentiment are grasping at straws. As for the claim that Satan personified appears only among the Jews, he/she actually does appear while the Romans are beating Jesus. And while Pontious Pilate is something of a sympathetic character, the Romans who actually crucify Jesus are crude and cruel as well. By the way, the Jews did kill Jesus. This is coming from a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish individual. The Romans weren't going to crucify Him for blasphemy, you may be sure of that. Is this a justification of anti-Semitism? By no means! Anti-semitism, like all prejudice, is not a rational, reasonable position. It is simply blind hatred. Anyone who would go out of this movie with prejudice against the Jews had it when he came in. He would not get it from the movie.

My guess? The mainstream media was able to dismiss Ron Maxwell's pro-Christian "Gods and Generals" last summer and neutralize comments about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings". Mel Gibson they cannot ignore. He's just too big a name. So they must ridicule and slander him somehow. He's certainly never done this before. But the media is at last beginning to lose the momentum in this culture war and it's driving them crazy. So they hysterically denounce this movie and so raise the ire of the Christian community that the film is en route to $100 million in its first week. I would have cheered it for no other reason.

My rating of this film (out of 10): 9.5. Don't take young children to see it but I strongly recommend parents and older children viewing this movie. It is an accurate depiction of Jesus' death and resurrection that will give you a new appreciation of what He has done for you.

I'm still laughing over the caller from Brooklyn who told Rush Limbaugh, "I think the Democrats are running the wrong man. They should run Putin...didn't he run the KGB for awhile?" Rush's response was the right one: Putin is too consistent with his beliefs to be a Democrat. Kerry is the right man--he confuses everyone for being liberal while claiming not to be.

Today's trivia question: What can a Republican president do to get the media to have faith in his good intentions if nothing else? Answer: Die! That's about all there is to it. (Since today is the debut day for Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion" I might have been expected to write about that. But I shall reserve that for when I have actually seen the movie.) George Bush's announced backing for the Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution fits in well with the principles he publicly espouses. But mainstream media outlets are declaiming that in reality he is simply trying to coalesce "his base"--apparently meaning a good portion of mainstream America. Good grief, and why not? When he gave in to the liberals and offered an extremely liberal immigration bill, they claimed he was trying to reach out to liberals and Hispanics. Meanwhile, John Kerry's pussyfooting on the gay marriage issue is considered simply his take on politics. Yeah, right. Why not say he is appealing to his base of lawbreakers and homosexuals? That being said, Senator Clinton's new bill allowing more aid to grandparents acting as foster parents was receiving some news attention today. I can tell you right now I oppose the bill...because Senator Clinton has a D after her name on the roster. (These D-strings always include a catch.) After all, that's what politics is anymore: you look for the party and decide your support or opposition based on that. Works for the media. Why not for me? Answer: I'm a Republican. We're expected to have some kind of elaborate reason. Democrats are not. Good thing too. Do you really think the likes of John Kerry has the brains to come up with something original and well thought out?

But back to the President. As conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said on his show this morning, Bush is doing well to appeal to his base. And this base just happens to be the majority of the American people. Why wouldn't/shouldn't he appeal to them and why can't it be assumed that he actually believes marriage is between a man and a woman? The law says that it is. Gays and lesbians and their cronies in the courts are breaking the law they are sworn to respect and uphold. As the executive of the American government, President Bush is well within his rights, and in fact his duties, to uphold the law and punish the lawbreakers. Be thankful conservatives obey the law. The consequences for gays and their cronies would be more dire otherwise.

You've got to be kidding me. I knew it was coming, but I was rather hoping the NEA and our supposedly mature public school teachers would take it better than that. Rod Paige's unguarded comment about the NEA being "a terrorist organization" have gotten him and possibly the entire administration into hot water. People in the Bush presidency are rushing to disassociate themselves from the little "joke." Paige has apologized, of sorts. The big question is, should he have to?

Answer: No, he should not. A few years ago, Jesse Jackson compared conservative Christians to Nazis and apartheid in an article in the NYT. Has Jackson ever apologized? No, never. Has anyone made him apologize or demanded that he do so. No. Because conservative Christians are the Jews of the 21st-century and if anyone deserves the comparison to Nazis it would be people like Mr. Jackson who stir up hateful propaganda against Christians, all while claiming to be one. Nor did Mr. Jackson ever say it was "a joke." If there was ever a "joke in bad taste" that nobody should have laughed at" it would have to be Jackson's comments. It's time to call a horse a horse (no, I am not joking and no, that is not a racial slur). Rod Paige, in case all you have on your computer is black and white photos, is black. Why will no one defend him? Answer: He's conservative. The NAACP is a misnomer; it should be called the NAALCP: National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People (why isn't "colored people" considered a racial slur?). They're not really interested in helping out black people--they're interested in pushing a radical left-wing agenda. Christians are acceptable targets for prejudice. But don't touch the teacher's union! Good grief. Somebody tell these people to grow up!

According to the NewsMax.com newsletter, Arab-Americans are leaping to the defense of the President's re-election campaign. While poll numbers appear to be dropping the money donated by Arabs is going up. No doubt this will give Kerry another "special interest" group to lash out at. But he won't do that. "Hands off Muslims" has become the watch cry of the new world. But this should end the stupidity of saying that Bush is anti-Arab or that Arabs perceive him that way. There is a "special interest" among Arabs and that is peace and freedom in the Middle East. President Bush is actively trying to pursue those things.

In other news, Ralph Nader is running again. I think my prayers are answered. He claims Bush should be "impeached" for "misleading" the country into war. "If this doesn't count as 'high crimes and misdemeanors', I don't know what does," Nader declaimed. Does anybody listen to this lunatic? Fortunately, yes. The Green Party (who is really only green when it comes to money) won't even touch him this time around...and that's pretty pathetic. Nader will not hurt Bush because lunacy does not hurt reason. The President's re-election campaign should ignore him completely. He can talk till he's blue in the face. Arguing with the insane accomplishes nothing.

This is for all those, mostly college people, who think I am the Republican to end all Republicans and support George Bush merely because he is the Republican candidate. Eight years ago, in 1996, both my parents voted for Howard Phillips, the Right to Life candidate, and I agreed with their decision. In July of 2000, I remember telling a young Taiwanese boy who asked me very seriously if I thought Bush or Gore were the better candidate: "Bush is better than Gore, but even Bush is not very good." Up until October of that year, my parents were not yet decided on who they would vote for. I am not a supporter of Bush because he is the Republican candidate (although I oppose John Kerry because he is the Democratic candidate). I support the President because of the impression he has made on me as President. Although I was happy in 2000 when Gore, somewhat like the man he endorsed this time around, finally conceded and Bush was elected. But I wasn't convinced I necessarily wanted him re-elected in 2004. Now I am. The war on terror and the way he has led it, his stand for pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, his ability push through tax cuts have all convinced me. This country needs George W. Bush--unlikely as he may seem. The sage Merlin said of Arthur, "Was ever a King thus made for his kingdom?" Elrond said of Aragorn, "This is your test. Every path you have trod through wilderness and war has led to this road." The Lord said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance for I have rejected him." He is unlikely, he is not infallible, but it seems that so much of what he has experienced in his life has brought him into the kingdom, so to speak, for such a time as this. If nothing else, life has taught him he must rely on God and this, in the end, is what makes a great speaker. There is a Rudyard Kipling poem I would like to dedicate to the President and his re-election effort:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowances for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired of waiting
Or being lied about don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating
And yet don't look too good nor talk too wise;
If you can dream and not make dreams your master,
If you can think and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same,
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken,
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
And watch the things you gave your life to broken
And stoop and build them up with wornout tools,
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch and toss
And lose and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone
And so press on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to you, "Go on,"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings nor lose the common touch;
If neither foe nor loving friend can hurt you;
If all men count with you but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds worth of distance run,
Yours is the earth and everything that is in it
And what is more, you'll be a man, my son.

The news is out: for the remainder of the Democratic primary season it will be a tale of two Johns (which strikes me as quite amusing). With Howard Dean's long-overdue withdrawal, John Kerry can get down to mopping up. Truth be told, I had rather hoped Edwards would win Wisconsin, forcing Dean out but keeping Kerry on his toes. Still, my predictions are bearing out--despite some close scrapes, the frontrunner rolls on, crushing everyone in his path. It was never this easy for the Republicans in either '96 or 2000. I guess when you have no real convictions it is very easy to fall in line, as Howard Dean appears to be doing, behind whoever seems likely to win. Republicans generally have convictions they actually believe in, thus making it harder for them to admit defeat even when the voters demand otherwise. Hence, John McCain and Pat Buchanan. I had rather hoped Dean would choose Buchanan's road and run as an independent, thus splitting the loony vote three ways--if Ralph Nader decides to run as well. It could be quite fun. Ah well. I am still amused by Kerry's delusion that running strong among Democratic voters in various states means he's going to run well among all voters in the national election. Hard to believe someone could be in politics for this long and still be this naive.

Today is President's Day in case you weren't watching the calendar and didn't know why you may have got today off from school or work. Here, I was rather confused for awhile, but then remembered it was a national holiday.

Interestingly enough, a few days ago, the Boston Globe released an article, detailing a new book coming out next month by "the dean of Cold War historians"--John Lewis Gaddis--in which the eminent historian argues that only three presidents in American History have excelled at adapting their foreign policy to successfully meet the demands of the age--James Monroe (under the tutelage of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams), FDR and George W. Bush. You can bet it was choking the liberal writers to say that. Who are you going to believe in this? The college-level historian (not a conservative, by the way) or the college dropout (such as Michael Moore)? History has a strange way of vindicating those who do right...which is why the leftists are falling all over each other to provide historians with plenty of anti-Bush material through which to view the President. Hopefully this non-conservative but very real historian will be the first of many to let the facts speak for themselves about the Bush presidency. Happy Presidents Day, Mr. Bush!

No one not in my position this Valentines Day can appreciate my feelings of joy at reading the headline, "Feds Destroy Valentines Roses" on AIM.com. Now, of course, the real story is, these flowers were imported illegally...but I think it may begin a healthy trend in our government towards useless holidays like Valentines Day. Perhaps Congress should create a new task force on The Elimination of Unnecessary Civilian Spending and urge people to actually put money into their relationships on a regular basis instead of just once a year.

If this sounds like the bitter rantings of a young single...you'd better believe it! Nevertheless, I have often commented on the stupidity of the holiday. Here at my Christian College, the only two non-religious holidays that get played up are also the two most worthless: MLK, Jr. Day and Valentines Day. President's Day is this Monday...it will probably go by unnoticed. Saint Patrick's Day might be noticed in the cafeteria but will be ignored otherwise. Veterans Day, Labor Day, Hannukah...all these get lost in the shuffle.

Writing in The National Review, Jennifer Graham suggests that the Catholic Church should reclaim the holiday and make it a holy day again...which, she bitterly but probably correctly, predicts, will compel American Catholics to ignore it. That's a pretty good idea really. As far as I can tell, Saint Valentine had nothing to do with romantic love and everything to do with self-sacrifical love of God. Read about the three men named Valentine. Thanks, Chaucer!

The Real John Kerry.

At last, some action! After months of enduring Kerry's attacks on the President as motivated "solely" by special interest groups--without whom, by the way, the Democratic Party as we know it, would cease to exist, leaving only those Americans who are Democrat because their parents were--the Bush administration is fighting back. It is one disadvantage incumbents have--besides having to actually run the country while running for re-election--that they have to wait for a nominee to be named before getting down to the dirty work. The nominees can attack all they want because they have one target. Kerry's blatant hypocrisy has gone far enough. I suspect he will find, come November, that the American people are not quite as stupid as he apparently thinks.

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

--Abraham Lincoln

Today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday. The above quote from the Great Emancipator certainly illustrates the danger America has always faced, now as then. Even the most deadly of terrorist attacks could not destroy the fabric of this nation...but our own decadence and corruption may well do so. It is a sobering lesson and one not to be ignored by the wiseacres of the day.

Can anything stop John Kerry? Nothing save a miracle, it would appear. I get a kick out the fact that Kerry, fresh from victories in Democrat-Only Primaries, says his victories prove he "can win in the South." Key words being "Democrat-only". My best friend is a registered Democrat but the only time he actually votes Democrat is in the primaries. The South is full of people like that. A certain Vice President recently boasted winning southern primaries as well. When it came to the whole state, he couldn't even win his own. Kerry at least should win his own in November, but he shouldn't delude himself into thinking the wishes of registered Democrats reflect the wishes of the state at large or even their own wish when faced with an actual alternative, not shades of gray.

High schoolers may now enter the NFL draft.

A court has now decreed that high school seniors may enter the NFL draft. The rule demanding that players be at least three years out of high school has been struck down. A lot of mediocre talent will be flooding our professional activities, I suspect. This is ridiculous--the courts are clearly intruding into private life (something that worryies them greatly when talking about radical Islamists) by demanding control even over sports.

In her 71-page opinion, Scheindlin declared the rule violated antitrust laws and proposed alternatives.

"Age is obviously a poor proxy for NFL-readiness, as is a restriction based solely on height and weight," she wrote. "Medical examinations and tests are available to measure an individual player's maturity. The league could easily use those tests to screen out players who are not prepared to play in the NFL. ...

"By requiring draft prospects to submit to these examinations, the league could provide valuable information about player maturity to its teams and allow them to decide whether a prospect is worth selecting."

I don't know, Scheindlin. Age sounds like a pretty good factor to me. With all the ranting left-wing activists and others do about wealth in America as opposed to the rest of the world, this would seem to be a good place to start. Lebron James, who started this whole affair, is making money hand over fist. Others will soon do the same. Deprived of having to run up college bills, which are minimal for athletes anyway, they opt to go right for privilege. When talking about the injustice of wealth and the gap between rich and poor, let's not talk about people who work their entire lives to build up a business empire for themselves and their children. Let's talk about pampered athletes who make way more than any one person is worth, no matter how good they are, and can now start earlier to make the money to live a wasted life without the education to make them useful.

I see headlines everywhere about the Grammy's say, "Can Justin Win?" I am still waiting for the inevitable, "Can Dean Win?" It seems pretty evident he cannot. He has apparently said he will withdraw from the race if he loses in Wisconsin next week. But although he finished stronger than he has before, he still shows an unbelievable inability to win. The famous "Dean machine" has broken down.

This world is certainly an evil place. On apparently no provocation, a Florida man kidnapped and murdered an 11-year-old girl. In times like these the "proverbs" we quote that supposedly explain the ways of the world are finally revealed to have no meaning. It is a fallen world and in this alone is there any meaning. The one thing we can know for certain is that it does not make sense. Murderous madmen run wild; innocent children die. We can only hope the man responsible will get the full judgment of the law. And that the peace of God, the only thing that can help in times like these, will descend upon the family of this little girl.

"It's like in those old stories, Mr. Frodo: the ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, until sometimes you didn't want to know the end, because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing. A new day will come, and the sun, when it shines, will shine the brighter. Those were the stories that stayed with you, that meant something, even if you were too small to understand what it was. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand: Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept on, because they were holding on to something."

"What are we holding to, Sam?"

"That there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."

--from "The Two Towers."

Howard Dean's misguided optimism should be framed. Watching his speech the other night, I was mildly amused to hear him say, "It's all about who wins the most delegates in Boston...and that will be us." Sure, Howie. Keep telling yourself that. With Kerry picking up endorsements left and right and a possible surge by Edwards (the one sane candidate running) and Clark (the dumb soldiers' general), I don't give you much chance. You've proven yourself good at spending other people's money but the flow of cash will begin to trickle if you can't rack up some points soon. You haven't even finished well in any of the primaries.

But don't take this as an encouragement to drop out. On the contrary, stay in and stir things up. Make people mad. Maybe even consider running as an independent. If you and Ralph Nader run, it would be even better. It would split the loony vote three ways. So, just keep on doing what you're doing, I just wanted to advise you that it's not going to help you at all.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can say that John Kerry is a fiscal conservative who would help get our country out of the deficit we're in with a straight face. George Bush himself is no fiscal conservative. This is one Republican who wishes he would forget about spending more money on a bankrupt education system and throwing our hard earned dollars at the useless Medicare system. There are others. And it's not doing him any favors. The liberals hate him because of the "R" after his name on a ballot (and because he's pro-life and pro-defense), regardless of what he does for them.

Anyway...back to John Kerry. Fiscal conservatives believe in keeping government spending down and giving taxpayers back their money. Kerry believes in neither. His voting record proves he is as committed as his counterpart Ted Kennedy to government pork spending. His own speeches prove he doesn't believe the people should have their own money. He has vowed to roll back most of the Bush tax cuts, except those "that benefit the middle class." They all benefit the middle class, John. And, incidentally, you're not a member. Will a Bush re-election get us less government spending? Probably not if the last three years are any indication. Democrats in Congress will continue to push for spending on everything except defense of the homeland and Bush will probably continue to appease them. (Although, of course, if re-elected, perhaps Bush will see he has no need to placate them anymore, not having to be re-elected.) How about a Kerry presidency? The only cutbacks we'll see then will be your wallet and our military. Clinton created a surplus by cutting military spending and increasing taxes. Useless government organizations still exist and at the very beginning of the Bush administration our military intelligence was caught off guard in a sneak attack that left three thousand dead. Can we afford another Democratic debacle of spending? We can barely afford the Republican administration.

Well, there was trouble in Boston this morning over the New England Patriots 32-29 victory in the Super Bowl last night. What was the trouble? Rioting. Well, duh. It's Boston. These people put the -atics in fanatics when it comes to sports...politicians too come to think of it, I mean, what other state could continue to elect both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy?

Having said that, however, I do not wish to detract from the football the Patriots played last night. Although I was forced, by circumstances beyond my control, to miss the last five minutes, I have to say that both teams played well beyond belief. Being one of the last surviving few who still watch the Super Bowl for the game, not the ads and halftime show, I was hoping to see a good game. I certainly did. I also hoped to see Carolina win. That I, unfortunately, did not see, but they played well anyway. They have nothing to be ashamed of. Jake Delhomme came out against the best pass defense in the league and racked up the points. It wasn't enough but he did better than Peyton Manning did two weeks ago. 3 TD passes, 300+ yards and no interceptions against the New England defense is impressive. If the running game hadn't been shut down, the Panthers would have won. There is an ironic breakdown in which most of my classmates who cheered for New England were liberals, while the conservatives tended to root for the Panthers (not every one, I'm sure, but an significant portion). Why a liberal would root for a team called the Patriots remains a mystery to me, but I guess in this instance their hatred of patriotism was outweighed by their hatred of the south. Ah well. As one of my conservative friends commented, "We'd rather lose the Super Bowl than the presidency."

Congratulations, however, to Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, who played an excellent game. And condolences to Jake Delhomme and the Carolina Panthers who also played well. There's always next year.