The Onion's Up.

Lone Wolf Ashcroft Given Rookie Partner [Language Alert].

And just because I think Heineken is the most overrated brew on the planet: Hungover Heineken Promoter Can't Remember What He Said About Heineken Last Night.

And finally (squib story, no link):

Mass Grave Blasted For Lack Of Diversity

SARAJEVO, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA—Members of the International Coalition for Equality criticized a newly unearthed mass grave Monday, saying it lacked religious and racial diversity. "The funereal pit is brimming with Croats, nearly 300 of them, without a single representative Serb," ICE spokesman Jacques Marchand said. "Exclusionary burial practices like this send a negative message to the world. Corpses of all races and creeds should be tossed together to decay in harmony." Marchand acknowledged that the grave did, at least, have a sprinkling of women and children.

The sad thing is--I can almost picture someone saying this.

Yes, I'm a Lileks acolyte.

The Master gets Donald Rumsfeld in one:

He also handles the press well, which irritates the inner party of the Beltway media but amuses the red states. And he grins. He has that flinty-dad vibe. He’s the guy flipping burgers at the grill who overhears something you say and makes an interesting remark that might be a compliment, and might be an insult – might be both. That grin doesn’t tell you much. It’s the sort of persona that would make you gulp hard if you were picking up his daughter for a date, but if you passed the test you’d feel as though you’d earned some rare respect.

"Flinty-dad vibe."

One day, if I work really hard, after a long period measurable in years....


....I still won't be able to write like James Lileks.

Lileks Diagnoses the Pathology of Ted Rall.

Read:

I have no idea if Mr. Rall is personally happy, although the one time I met him he didn’t strike me as a jolly old soul. But it has to be hard to be happy when one carries around so much bile and rage. It’s tiring. Anger wears you down, especially when your anger doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Ted Rall’s cartoons could have run in every paper every day since 9/11 and there will still be kids who saw Tillman’s choice as a remarkable act. (Tillman’s Choice: there’s a phrase that sums up quite a lot, doesn’t it?) People like Rall are sitting on the curb, feet in the gutter, watching the parade go past, smirking at the guy with the baton, sneering at the cheerleaders. Everyone else watching the parade thinks I wonder if there will be elephants! And when they do appear, he rolls his eyes. Elephants. How obvious.

You want to live like that? I don’t want to live like that.

The Person Beneath the Label.

Conservative activist and Melkite Deacon Paul Weyrich offers a useful reminder of the mostly-forgotten fact that the people on the opposite side of the barricades remain human beings. He does so via a touching remembrance of liberal opinion columnist Mary McGrory, who just died this week at age 85.

The one day I called Ms. McGrory. I told her that while we disagreed on nearly everything, I thought she was correct in her views on Northern Ireland. She advocated that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland be re-united, a view I have long held.

"Well, bless you sweetheart," she said. We had a fairly lengthy conversation on the subject. I had visited Northern Ireland in 1982 and gave her my observations. She said, "This is so unexpected. I didn't think anyone on your side of the aisle held such views." I admitted that mine was a minority view on the right. I told her of others such as Connie and Bill Marshner who were likeminded and passionate in their views on the subject.

Thereafter, whenever Ms. McGrory referred to yours truly, it was never again with pejorative terms. Moreover, she called me many times to get background information on people and events on the right and was never as sharp-edged in her writing when addressing those subjects. Not that she ever lost her liberalism. It simply proves that, as is with the rest of us, she had a human side. When she learned that I agreed with her on an issue about which she cared deeply, she found it difficult to be as sharp edged as she had been in the past.

INDEED, I TELL MY fellow conservatives that in dealing with the media to always remember that they are real people. Of course, most of them are liberals. But they are also husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, and they have varied interests.

RTWT.

Catholic politicians, redux.

Up front--I don't know what the proper response to straying Catholic politicians is. Though, at a minimum, it has to involve an effort to personally correct them, starting in private. Denial of communion is a trickier issue, fraught with more perils than those of us who support the idea in principle (including me) are willing to admit. Especially when you have priests at places like the Paulist Center who will give the host to literally anyone who asks.

But let's not pretend that there isn't a severe precedent from the recent past, involving desegregation in the South. Indeed, this ground was covered a little over forty years ago, when the Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated (not denied communion--the whole shebang) three segregationists.

I somehow doubt the Anna Quindlens, Eileen McNamaras, Andrew Greeleys, etc. would refer to Archbishop Rummel as some kind of ecclesial tyrant for his actions. So what is the distinction, then?

"Nail gun mishap."

So read the initial title of the AP story.

I suppose that's one way of putting it.

Pro-what?

Let's imagine for a moment that I claim it should be legal to toss puppies into a wood-chipper. But in the same breath I also deny that I support puppy shredding--in fact, my back gets up at the very suggestion that I am pro-pulping.

"No, sir--I am merely pro-choice on Rover-rendering--and I resent any implication otherwise."

Would my disclaimer, however passionately stated, be at its core--true?

At a bare minimum, it would be schizoid--I am willing to support the continued availability of a practice I claim to find abhorrent. Indeed, the very effort to distance myself from it would indicate at least discomfort with the practice of Fido-fileting. Perhaps more on the level of finding brussels sprouts repugnant, but...

Ultimately, though, my disclaimer would be incorrect at this level--in supporting the right to engage in this practice, I am saying that the practice is, in some real sense, better than its prohibition.

Making my huffiness a semantic attempt to mask a distinction without a difference.

Or am I missing something here (see comments)?

My Chattel.

Here's one for the baby's photo album.

You realize, Ms. Slogan is probably feeling her baby move.

Inexplicably, that doesn't matter.

I do not understand, and I do not want to understand.

In 40-50 years, the adult offspring will be making the woman's medical decisions for her.

Perhaps cooing "my choice" as he or she signs off on not having dear ol' mom treated for her expensive, estate-draining medical condition.

Happy Birthday, Doug!

My little brother turns 32 today.

He's celebrating it near the front lines (so to speak), but what can you do?

Post your regards below, and I'll mail them to him in my next letter.

Thanks!

Looks like I'll be prepaying for the prom now.

Apparently, Heather was watching Oprah yesterday, and it was a promotion piece for the Brad Pitt epic, Troy. This is probably garbled--especially Heather's dialogue--but everyone's napping right this minute, so I'll have to confirm/change the details later.

A still-bearded Eric Bana (he of Blackhawk Down and The Hulk) came on near the end, and Maddie asked:

"Who's he, Mama?"

Reply: "He's Eric Bana. He's an actor and a handsome man."

Maddie: "Handsome like my daddy?"

Boo-yeah!

I'll be continuing the victory dance for the next few weeks, if you don't mind.

Guest Blogger Alert!

Because of blogger trouble (quelle suprise!), we haven't been able to post squat at the joint blog, which will be officially closed as of this weekend, and replaced with something that might work on occasion.

Anyway.

My nearest and dearest had a couple of thoughts germinating for which she seeks feedback. Without further ado, here they are:

I still haven't read the Da Vinci Code book, but I've given the plot some thought.

I've got some questions for anyone that thinks it could really be true. In no particular order:
1. When did Jesus and Magdalene get married? Before or after he began his ministry? If after, why isn't it covered in the Gospels? If before, how could she have been the woman he cured of the seven demons? Or the adulteress he saved from stoning?

2. Let's assume that they met during his three year ministry. If they met on his way back from the desert where he went after his baptism, realistically, how many kids could they have had? There would have to be a period of courtship--say just for the sake of argument six months. 30 months to go, give or take, before crucifixion.
Say she got pregnant on their hypothetical wedding night. Nine months down, 21 to go. She would have nursed the child, which I for one can vouch delays the return of fertility. The earliest I've heard of fertility returning in a nursing mom is four months (honest--all three times for her). And they sure wouldn't have been able to afford a wet nurse with him preaching instead of woodworking, not that they would have been rich anyway.
So, just to give the silliness some air of credibility, say she got pregnant again at four months postpartum. Four postpartum and nine pregnancy, thirteen. Thirteen from 21 is... eight.
Repeat procedure, the most they could have had is three kids, and probably not that many.
I'm still not won over.

3. If, after the crucifixion, Magdalene was running around as a Peter, uh, without the, um, peter: where were these children? Did she take them with her? Were they with their grandmother? John certainly would have had something to say about that, and since he lived longer than the other apostles and had her with him, he probably would have mentioned it somewhere along the way. He would have had the opportunity to amend anything removed by Peter, that's for sure.

Those are my thoughts on the silliness of the idea. I think the whole book cheapens motherhood in a subtle and sly way, besides. It's like our society: lots of lip service to motherhood, but when it comes down for it very little actual support. "'Working Mother' Is Redundant" bumper stickers, but no recognition in ways that matter.
Brown's proponents say, "Magdalene's real job was as head of the church. She was the one Jesus wanted in charge, not Peter. Jesus wanted the 'sacred feminine'. Oh yeah, and by the way, she was the mother of Jesus' child(ren)." Like it was a side job for her. Talk about adding insult to injury...

What they don't consider is the Church already has a wonderful, beautiful, marvelous example of the sacred feminine: Mother Mary. Women have proven over and over again that we can do anything men can do, both good and bad. We can be lawyers, doctors, architects, teachers...just like the men. But--we can be murderers, thieves, liars, and sociopaths...just like the men.

What makes women special? What is the sacred thing women can do that men cannot? It's not preaching, writing, or ministry. It is to create another human being within our body. And even that, God wisely decided, would require a man's help to start.