Check out this story– some kids at a school promoted one of their friends for the “African-American of the Year” award, and were disciplined for it. The reason? The friend was white.

But he was from South Africa, immigrating 6 years ago.

So we can’t say black, we have to say African American, but they don’t mean African American, they mean black.

Weird.

Kudos to the Volokh Conspiracy for the link.

Instapundit has a roundup of reactions in the blogopshere to the Iowa caucuses.

Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost is quarrelling with The National Review about their conservative credentials. This is kind of a family fight for me, because I’ve got a lot of respect for Joe and for the National Review.

Joe’s argument is that the National Review isn’t socially conservative enough, that it essentially has become libertarian. I’ve heard a number of times, not only from Joe but also from other sources that NR (especially National Review Online) is insufficiently hardline against gay marriage.

I’ve been reading National Review for quite some time, and I have to say my sympathies lie with them. In the article linked above, Joe responds to responses by NR in The Corner, NRO’s blog. I think Ramesh Ponnuru nails it, though. The National Review has been, and continues to be, the best ally that the conservative community has. The Weekly Standard has its great points too, but there’s really no substitute for NR.

It seems to me that one thing that weakens the social conservatives’ viewpoint to a considerable degree (and I am one, BTW), is that religion is just too involved in their presentation of issues. Now before anyone blows a gasket, note that I said it’s too involved in the presentation of issues, not the formulation of issues. Religion has a great deal to do with the source of everyone’s viewpoints, but if the religious language is the only way one knows how to communicate that viewpoint, then one will be relegated to preaching to the choir, and nobody else will care what one has to say.

NR has studiously avoided this pitfall, even though many (most? all?) of its writers are strongly religious in one way or another. NR seeks to communicate with the world at large, and that means communicating positions in terms of practical consequences, natural law values and the like, not in terms of religion. This means that they’re going to be a little bit bigger Big Tent on some issues like gay marriage than some folks like Joe (and I) would like, but before we criticize, I think we have to (a) recognize that despite this tendency, the vast majority of NR messaging on these issues has been just what we’d look for, and (b), just as Ramesh Ponnuru said, we need to learn who our friends are and who our enemies are.

Joe’s response really strikes me as perfectionism. In order for someone to wear the badge ‘conservative’, there’s an ever-widening list of criteria that one has to follow, and only those who perfectly match up will earn the title, which will necessarily be a smaller and smaller list of people.

Joe says:

Joe:This reminds me of the Democratic party’s attitude toward minority voters, “You don’t like what we stand for? Fine. Where else are you gonna go?” I can’t speak for all social cons but you’ll find me over at The Weekly Standard.

Ramesh:But leaving those things aside, there is no denying that the critics have a real difference of opinion with the magazine. That difference concerns the magazine’s editorial line less than its editorial policy. Should we refuse to publish articles that dissent from aspects of social conservatism? I don’t think that is a question that conservative principles can by themselves answer.

Joe:If “dissenting from aspects of social conservatism” means promoting p*rnography, then yes, I think that question can be answered by conservative principles. And the answer is that p*rn is incompatible with conservatism.

Ramesh:Nor can I say I have any great answer to the question. In general, I would say that we should not devote scarce space to articles that make arguments against our own positions positions when those arguments are made well and often elsewhere.

Joe:Oh? Has there been a dearth of articles supporting p*rn lately?

I think Joe’s kind of missing the point here. In the first case, Ramesh is not saying that you either have to agree with NR or go away. He’s saying that even when we disagree in some areas, that doesn’t mean we become enemies, which is basically what Joe is saying when he says that because NR doesn’t toe Joe’s line, they no longer qualify as conservatives. And in the second case, Ramesh is actually _agreeing_ with Joe that maybe running the objectionable piece (the one apparently supporting pornography) wasn’t a great idea, and Joe still goes after him.

Then there’s this:

Round III — Kathryn Jean Lopez

KJL:But it also, I think, challenges us a to take into account diverse opinion on the right more than scarce space might allow in Dead Tree, and, even, at times, to print something like that Siepp piece, which I don’t agree with—Playboy has contributed to a whole host of evils—because it does attract some new readers.

Joe:Finally, someone has the audacity to admit the truth. NRO didn’t run the piece because it was a worthy article deserving of attention; they didn’t run it because it added to the cultural conversation; they didn’t run it because it was thought-provoking. They published it because it would “attract some new readers.”

I don’t mean to toot my own horn but…did I call it or what?*

KJL:I don’t think that’s necessarily selling out.

Joe:Yes, Ms. Lopez, it is. But, heh, whatever helps you sleep at night.

KJL:Presumably—and, again, I’ve read e-mails to support this—those folks come back and get to hear our arguments on cloning and abortion and the family, the Iraq war, the idiocy of Howard Dean, the holes in the Clark record, etc. And sometimes they’ll hate our arguments, but often they’ll let us know. And, in the end, we’re all often better for it.

Joe:I get it. Defending p*rn is just the gateway drug to get them in the door. Then NRO can hook them on some hardcore conservatism! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

KJL:I wanna make sure we educate the choir, but I also want to evangelize. We might have to show a little leg sometimes to do that.

Joe:If “showing some leg” will help the evangelization efforts why not just go all the way. Why not have a full-spread layout of Ann Coulter? Or maybe show some topless shots of the girls at Hillsdale College?

Now you’re just being cute, Joe. “Show a little leg” is a metaphor. It’s the diverse opinions Lopez is referring to- surely you know that? How many things have you done, Joe, just to build readership? More than one, I’m pretty sure. One might even suspect that this discussion itself is ‘showing some leg’ since they’re agreeing with you about more than they’re disagreeing with you.

There’s a difference between a blog that is written by one guy and a site that hosts lots of different articles. By definition, the one will have uniformity of opinion (unless you’re a schizophrenic) and the other willl have diversity. Who decides how much diversity? Who decides when a site has sold out?

There is also a difference between a free blog like the Evangelical Outpost and a for-profit business like The National Review. Joe, you’re free to be as perfectionistic and idealistic as you like, but in the profit-making world, attracting readers is business, not selling out.

I disagree with NR, and NRO, frequently. But I disagree with virtually everyone at some time or another, as I suspect Joe does as well. But we have to be really careful about defining our “acceptable viewpoint” box so small that it only holds ourselves.

16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Ecclesiastes 7:16

You know, at a certain point, one starts to suspect that those of certain political alignment deliberately engage in perfidy connected with some minority of record, in order that any criticism of said perfidy can be labeled politically incorrect or just plain racist.

See this story for evidence of my wild-eyed conspiratorial hunch- we’re interested here in the third item down titled Disallowed Criticism. Many have charged that there was rampant fraud in the 2002 elections in South Dakota, especially connected with an Indian Reservation. Of course, those who even raise the possibility obviously just hate Indians, or they’d never charge an Indian (sorry, Native American) with any wrongdoing whatsoever, being the noble earth-loving gentle savages that they are and all, and utterly immune to the corruptions that plague the rest of mankind &lt/sarcasm&gt.

I tend to watch newer movies. I tend to especially like movies from the 1990s, for some reason. I don’t know why, really, except to say that I am, like all others, a child of my times, I suppose.

Now I like to think of myself as someone with transcendent values, who can see the universal truths in the art of mankind, but the fact that I prefer art forms developed when I was between the ages of 16-~now, sort of puts the lie to my fantasy about myself, and that’s a little disturbing. But honesty with oneself is a good thing, I know. Still, all that being said, I try to step outside of the world I know best and see how others have reacted to the fundamental problems.

I think there is a consistent percentage of examples of whatever art form, in whatever medium, from any given period of time, that truly examine the transcendental issues of humanity in a way that people can really get behind. Shakespeare, Homer, Jeremiah, Dostoevsky, and so forth- the geniuses come every now and then and blow the curve, but in general, society looks at the same issues, over and over, and also produces in any period of time a great deal of throwaway material. Perhaps given increases in wealth and technology, the percentage of quality goes down some, but this is a highly debatable point. Does the ease of producing and selling cultural forms that people will forget in a week increase the percentage of dreck, or does the widened accessibility of the media give more people the opportunity to participate, and thus increase the kinds and varieties of voices that will be heard, thus increasing the percentage of memorable messages?

I don’t know.

Anyway, I saw 12 Angry Men the other night. It’s a good movie. It takes a stab at aforementioned transcendental issues, particularly the issue of the difficulty that surrounds any effort at human justice that involves humans in the process of arriving at that justice, which is to say, all such attempts on a temporal level. Personal prejudices, backgrounds, simple inconvenience, vanity and avarice get in the way very frequently.

“12 Angry Men” is the story of a jury in what appears to be an open-and-shut murder case, when from the very start 11 of the jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty, and are ready to hang him immediately so as to not disrupt their day too much. But one juror feels the need to think and talk about the case more, if for no other reason than to give the defendant a fair shake. Many of the jurors are angry at him for this disturbance, but they have to hear him out, and doubts begin to arise.

One comes away from the film with a sort of despair about the process. In this particular case, one juror is willing to bear the wrath of his fellow men in order to try to get to the bottom, but frequently as the day goes on in the film, people say that they should just tell the judge that the jury is hung, and therefore they should retry the defendant, because everybody knows that any other jury will hang him. There happens to be this one troublemaker, one do-gooder on this jury who will ask questions, but how many of them are there around?

The process of arriving at justice in the affairs of men is plagued with this dilemma. If you involve people who are concerned with the matter to be judged, then you have the problem of self-interest corrupting the process. But if you involve people who are not concerned or interested in the matter, then disinterest and inconvenience become your problem. How do you motivate people to take a look at the issue in front of them in an impartial and yet interested way, and do justice? How many “do-gooders” are there around, who will pursue a matter just because it’s right to do so?

The movie asks these questions, but does not answer them. And frequently, when dealing with these eternal universal issues, that’s the best that can be done, because there aren’t easy simple answers. But one takes the best stab at them that one can, and hopes for the best, I suppose.

It’s when faced with issues like that, that I am thankful for a God who is sovereign, who rules all. I know that justice will always be done, despite the selfishness and ignorance of men. And so, faced with such difficulties, the man of God can simply attempt the best that he can do given the circumstances, and know that God is in control of the outcome.

The movie itself is excellent, gripping, edge of your seat kind of thing, in a way that only a few movies produce. The whole thing takes place in one room and is all dialogue, between a limited number of characters, all of whom you get to know well by the end of the thing. There’s a moment or two that are slightly awkward, when a character starts to kind of preach a little- there’s one time in particular when one character goes off on a diatribe that is very racist and classist- “you know what _those_ people are like, they’re born liars”- that sort of thing, and as he goes on, everyone else becomes increasingly uncomfortable and the man engaged in the rant realizes it and becomes humiliated. So the point is made, but still another character feels the need to engage in a short speech about prejudice, when the narrative already made the point very effectively. But really, this is a minor gripe, that only even stands out in my mind for how subtle and effective the rest of the movie is. It’s kind of amazing to me that a movie could develop 12 characters effectively and memorably in just one movie, when so many movies have trouble even developing one character in a way that makes us care about them.

Highly recommended- 4/5 stars.

Rent the DVD free from Netflix!

It’s a start- Bush has appointed Pickering to the federal bench in a recess appointment, short-circuiting the filibuster-deadlocked Senate nomination process. It’s a little late in my mind, and I hope it doesn’t stop with Pickering, but with the other filibustered nominees as well.

Larry Solum has thoughts here (Link from the Volokh Conspiracy.)

IMAO’s random quote of the day was:

The Palestinians seem to be in a never ending war with any feelings of sympathy I may have for them.

Then I read this:

The bombing was carried out by Reem Raiyshi, 22, a mother with two young children. Raiyshi was escorted into a room for a security search and then blew herself up in an attack jointly claimed by Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a group linked to Yasser Arafat (news – web sites)’s Fatah (news – web sites) movement.

Thousands marched through Gaza City during her funeral. Masked gunmen from Hamas and Al Aqsa carried her coffin, draped in the Hamas green flag.

“It is not enough to call her a hero. Calling her hero does not give the whole truth. This woman abandoned her husband and children to win paradise,” Zahar said in the eulogy.

Eery. Frank J read my mind.

Rusty at New Covenant has some thoughts (quite a few thoughts, actually) on an ongoing discussion about postmodernism in the Christian world, and the Emergent Church movement. I have to confess that I am ignorant of this movement, although postmodernism is something I am only too familiar with. Anyway, check it out.

There is NO JUSTICE in the world. We are being run by a bunch of OLD LADIES who want us all to act like OLD LADIES too.

I was looking forward to a nice evening of Scotch and Vicadin (sort of the ‘Betty Ford special’), and I WAS ROBBED! DENIED! SHUT DOWN! The one nice thing about a major toothache, and it has to be spoiled. Apparently you’re not supposed to mix hard liquor and prescription painkillers. It’s frowned upon, I understand.

Well, maybe this one isn’t too extreme. I’m willing to consider the possibility, just to consider it mind you, that my plans for chemical Nirvana were perhaps not founded on wisdom. I tried to explain- I’ll be at home, not going anywhere, and livers grow back, I hear. But no dice.

Oh well. Vicadin rocks, even just by itself.

Click on the sidebar link for the new sermon. It’s Genesis 18, on God’s discussion with Abraham about His plans for Sodom.