So the Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal is suddenly a racist issue. Give me a break. No, really. Please. Let me and everyone else have a break from the steady flow of racism charges that are flung around the media. Racism is real, yes, and it is wrong, but it’s not an ever-present, all-pervasive thing. Yet every time a black person is involved in an incident of any sort – particularly if there’s also a white person involved – we have to put up with fake reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson turning it into a race issue: “This is another case of the white man oppressing the black man!”

No, Your Eminences, this is simply another case. Period. If racism is ever a real part of any given story, then let’s address it. But if, as is often the case, the cry of “Racism!” is simply a shameless reproduction of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” a self-gratifying photo-op for the fake reverends, let’s call them on it. As for the Vick case, apparently most of the people who were at the courthouse supporting his due-process rights were black, and most of the people protesting his alleged actions were white. Each side has a valid point: Vick should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but if he’s found guilty, he deserves to be punished under the law (though certainly not killed, as a few nuts were demanding). Concerning racism, if blacks truly want to help their cause, they should avoid immediately lining up in support of people simply because those people are black – just as feminists should not support Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy simply because she’s a woman. After all, I have to wonder: If Mr. Vick were a white man, would all those blacks still be standing outside the courthouse supporting his due-process rights?

One of today’s Associated Press headlines: “NASA reports sabotage of space computer.” Turns out it really was sabotage, but to be honest, my first thought upon reading the headline was, “What you really mean is, ‘Yet another piece of NASA junk kicked the bucket.'”

That organization is such a waste of taxpayer money. Complain all you want about how much money is being spent on Iraq, but at least that money is going to a cause that most everyone agrees on (at a basic level): fighting terrorists. Public funds sent to NASA, on the other hand, enable American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts to play chess and drink vodka on a perpetually-broken space station.
Space exploration is great, a fascinating venture, but it should be funded privately, except in those cases where we can use NASA's expertise to improve our national defense.

So the Democrats are taking a new tack on the abortion issue: They still want to be Planned Parenthood’s sugar daddy, but they’d like them to offer some token counseling before doing the deed.

The lead to today’s L.A. Times story about the Dems’ “big change” says it all: “Sensing an opportunity to impress religious voters – and tip elections – Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail have begun to adopt some of the language and policy goals of the antiabortion movement.”

This is nothing more than unadulterated political pandering. As the article notes, Liberals’ promotion of “more accessible and affordable birth control as well as detailed sex education in public schools” still forms the foundation of Democratic policies on the issue; the only difference is that now Democrats are supporting a few programs “to encourage women who do conceive to carry to term” in order to show that “‘pro-choice’ doesn’t mean ‘pro-abortion.’” Times reporter Stephanie Simon calls this “a striking shift.” Well, I suppose it’s striking in the sense that Liberals have often viewed unborn babies as a cancer to be eradicated: “Carry babies to full term, then deliver them without sucking their brains out?!? What a novel concept!” Yes. Carrying to term. Shocking.

Furthermore, Democrats continue to reject other ideas that have already proven effective in deterring abortions – in particular, requiring women to view ultrasound images of their unborn children. Democrats base their opposition, of course, on that bedrock constitutional freedom that our Founders died for yet wasn’t discovered in the Constitution until three decades ago: the right to an abortion. As Sen. Barack Obama said – at a recent forum sponsored by … you guessed it, Planned Parenthood – a woman’s right to an abortion is “one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country.” Yeeaah. Right up there with the right to fart in public and eat Cheez Whiz straight from the can.

Listen, I admit that counseling, the encouragement of adoption instead of abortion, and expanded educational and medical assistance for would-be parents are good things, but these are hardly the core policy goal of the anti-abortion movement. That movement’s chief policy goal is the eradication of abortion. Period. If Democrats were reaching across the aisle in good faith, with pure motives based on love and genuine moral concern, I could accept this gesture, without reservation, as a step in the right direction. But it’s being done only to gain votes.

So good luck impressing this religious voter; a mere change in semantics and a few feel-good measures still leaves you light-years away from getting my vote. And keep on hacking Scripture in your speeches; that impresses me a lot too.

Twenty-three members of a South Korean church group were kidnapped in Afghanistan last week, and one of them was killed yesterday. The Taliban are the perpetrators, but their insane philosophy isn’t the subject of this post. Of greatest concern to me in this instance is the public outcry – against the church group.

Sure, there was plenty of outrage in South Korea against the Taliban, plenty of grief about what they’ve done to these innocent people, but as the L.A. Times says in today’s edition: “Public anger in Korea was muted by a widespread sense that the church group should not have been in Afghanistan in the first place. Internet chat forums abounded with criticism of the kidnapping victims. And the unsympathetic mood was stoked by the release of a photo to the Korean media showing three of the victims on their departure from Inchon airport flashing smiles and peace signs in front of a government poster at the airport warning against all travel to Afghanistan.”

Before I rant, let me first grant a couple concessions: Afghanistan is a dangerous place right now. Common sense says to stay away from there.

Those things being said, the group’s harsher critics should be ashamed of themselves. First, it’s still unclear why they were there. I’m certain that it wasn’t for some frivolous reason, like a vacation (“Hey, guys! Let’s go to Afghanistan this summer; I hear downtown Kabul is a blast!”). Both their church and the Korean government have said that it was not for any religious motives, which means they could have been there for humanitarian reasons. If this is true, then their critics need to start hammering all the other foreign-aid workers in Afghanistan as well. If, on the other hand, it turns out that they were there for religious reasons …

And there’s the rub: I have a strong suspicion that this issue revolves around Christian evangelism – namely that the many secularists in the world, including Liberals here in America, think it’s wrong for Christians to enter Muslim countries for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. As I read the Times story today, I was immediately reminded of the hubbub surrounding the arrival of evangelical Christians in Iraq after the fall of Saddam: “You can’t go in there! It’s a Muslim country! It would be wrong to try and convert them!” So I take it, then, that you are also opposed to the spreading of Liberal Secularism in historically-Christian America? Didn’t think so.

In addition to being further evidence of Liberals’ quiet acquiescence to the violent doctrine of Islam, these religion-related incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate their Christophobia. In the name of “respect for the beliefs of other cultures and preserving diversity,” they condemn our efforts at Christian evangelizing in Muslim countries – while at the same time working, as they have done for half a century now, to turn America’s Christian foundation on its head. This belies their true motive: the destruction of Christianity because they simply can’t stand the Biblical Jesus.

It was encouraging – exciting, even – to read that Rudy Giuliani is approaching many issues from a federalist perspective. Federalism – the idea that the federal government is to be small in scope and largely unintrusive, and that people should get to decide most issues for themselves at the state level – was the intention of the Founders, as anyone should be able to see from a reading of our Constitution; that great document ascribes a rather short list of duties to the federal government, and declares (in Amendment X) that the states have the right to decide everything else – even if it means each of the states deciding the same issue a different way. Such an approach allows for local and regional preferences to prevail, and prevents the foisting of overarching laws onto the nation when they’re unnecessary.

Federalist belief, as L.A. Times columnist Robert Brownstein notes, “leads Giuliani toward positions uncomfortable for both left and right.” This consequence is only logical: The moral decline that America has experienced in the last 50 years has led to a populace sharply-divided on weighty social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, with each side grinding it out for the upper hand. Of course, in any legitimate contest, at any point in history, everyone wants to win, and no one wants to lose. What many forget, however, is that democracy, by definition, means that in every situation there are going to be some people who don’t get their way. In the end, one position must win out over all others.

Modern America, on the other hand, has chosen a different course: gridlock. Each side would rather sweat it out for interminable periods of time rather than simply call for a vote and then grant kudos to the side chosen by the most people. The chief culprit in the rise of such a system, however, is not the rank-and-file, but activist judges and the unscrupulous lawyers who take advantage of them.

Consider abortion: Wherever you stand on the issue, I hope that you are rational enough to see that it was wrong for a mere nine justices to declare a “permanent” answer to the question and thus rob every American of having a full voice in the matter. The federalist approach – the approach that the Supreme Court should have taken – says, “Let’s throw the issue back to the people of this country, all the average and not-so-average joes – since the Constitution says nothing about abortion – and let them decide the issue for themselves.” This may mean that California would allow abortion and Maine would ban it, but that’s what democracy is all about: You and I can have different opinions on an issue, but whichever position has the most support is the one that wins out, fair and square – and by “support,” I don’t mean “whichever side can get an activist judge to rule in its favor,” but “whichever position has the most ‘yea’ votes among the general population.”

Operating in federalist fashion, I believe, is more likely to lead to a society that reflects the true will of its citizens, a society in which reasoned arguments – and not lobbyists – win out more often than not. The genuineness of Giuliani’s federalism, and whether he would indeed appoint “strict constructionist” judges, are different questions. But if he is sincere in his old-school (i.e., “Founder-like”) approach, then he is one of the few who truly understand democracy.

Funny, in a sad way, how some people blame our presence in Iraq for much of the terrorism now taking place (and also funny – again, in a sad way – how these same people don’t attribute any terrorism to our presence in Afghanistan – because, of course, even liberals find it hard to argue against that war). Here’s a much better theory: Terrorist tendencies and hatred for the West (particularly America) already existed before we entered Iraq or Afghanistan; our presence in these places was the heat that brought some of this hatred boiling to the surface, but it would’ve come out sooner or later, anyway. In fact, much of it already had: The first World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the bombing of American embassies, and, of course, 9/11 – these things all happened before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I ask liberals: Were those terrorist actions our fault, as well?

God forbid we should ever fight back, especially against a people that have practiced violence for millennia. For those of you not in the know, Islamic violence is nothing new – it wasn’t a twentieth-century phenomenon, and it certainly wasn’t inspired by our invasion of Iraq. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was himself bent towards violence. Now to be fair, everyone in his corner of the world was warlike, their various tribes and clans constantly battling one another. Arabia was a dog-eat-dog world. Yet it’s interesting to note – and let me be clear that this is a rather large note – that Mohammed, after “finding” his religion, did not become a practitioner of peace, or preach a faith of love and compassion. Sure, he acted subdued for a while … until he had enough followers to form an army, at which point he resumed pursuit of his bloodlust. There’s a reason that Islam has historically been called “the religion of the sword”: because that’s what it’s always been. Mohammed’s personal motto was not “Come unto me, all ye who labor, and I will give you rest,” but “Convert to Islam or die!” If anyone tells you that Islam is a “religion of peace,” then they’re practicing a watered-down version of the original.

Oddly enough, this real threat that Muslims present is confirmed by liberals’ reaction to them … or should I say, inaction. Because Liberals are petrified to “offend” Muslims, they spend a lot more time criticizing America for “inciting” the poor terrorists than they do condemning the actions of terrorists. All the liberal groupies in the media run story after story berating peaceful Christians for supporting something as harmless as public postings of the Ten Commandments, but say nary a word to help stem the flow of blood coming from terrorist actions. You guys could help out, you know, by doing something such as, oh, I don’t know, encouraging so-called “moderate” Muslims (including those here in America) to police their own people. It’s a crazy idea, I know, but hey, it might help. It’s just lucky for Liberals that Christians aren’t bomb-happy.

So can anyone give me a good reason why Liberals aren’t taking Muslims to task (besides the obvious “they’re scared”)? Why aren’t Liberal politicians, such as Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy, railing against radical Muslims (and the “moderate” Muslims who lend them de facto support by their conspicuous silence)? Why aren’t “the reverends” Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the leadership of the NAACP excoriating all the “moderate” black Muslims in this country for not putting pressure on their extreme brothers? And why are Liberal celebs, such as Madonna and Brad and Angelina, working so hard to get more aid for Africa instead of flexing their muscles against the extremists (most of them Muslim) who are causing so many of the problems in Africa? As always, it seems, Liberals love to attack the symptoms, not the cause.

Earlier this week I ventured out to see the new Harry Potter flick. For those looking for a traditional movie review, you’ve come to the wrong place: The only thing I’ll say in that regard is that the movie was, unfortunately, average, mainly due to the Herculean task of trying to cram an 870-page book into a two-and-a-half-hour film (I’m reminded here of Jesus’ “camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle” story).

No, what I’m concerned with here is something else. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth installment in the famous series, introduces multiple new characters, one of whom is a teacher named Dolores Umbridge, a Ministry of Magic crony who is sent to Hogwarts school essentially to be a thorn in Headmaster Dumbledore’s behind. Umbridge is the typical yes-man, toeing the party line to a T with unquestioning loyalty, and her disdain for dissent from the official position is most evident in her interaction with Harry.

At the end of the previous book, Harry encountered the Dark Lord, Voldemort, who had come back from near-annihilation and was returned again to full strength. Problem was, out of the two “good guys” who were there to see it, Harry was the only one who survived, which meant that he was the only witness, and since the Minister of Magic didn’t want to deal with a possible return by Voldemort (who would, right?), he simply branded Harry a liar and tried to pretend that there was no problem. And new teacher Dolores Umbridge, being a good soldier for her Fuhrer, was consequently in the anti-Harry camp, so when Harry insisted – in the middle of her class, no less (the nerve!) – that Voldemort really had returned, she insisted to all the students that this was a lie.

And it was then that it struck me: There I was, watching a seated Harry being unable to deny what he had clearly experienced, and a standing Dolores Umbridge glaring down at him, speaking in a sicky-sweet voice that somehow failed to hide a cutting disdain for the truth: “The rumor that a certain dark lord has returned is a lie” (my paraphrase) – and I realized that I was watching Mr. Secular Liberal (of the Ultra-Fem variety, at that) talking down to the God-Fearing Proclaimer of Truth. Shouting over him is more like it – seems that’s the only defense Mr. SLUF has against the God-inspired truth, as Ann Coulter brilliantly illustrates in her most recent book, Godless, with the typical secular-liberal/religious-conservative conversation going something like this:

God-lover: “God is real.”

SLUF: “That’s a lie.”

God-lover: “God is good.”

SLUF: “That’s a lie.”

God-lover: “Church-state separation has been skewed to hurt Christians.”

SLUF: “That’s a lie!”

God-lover: “Scientific research is showing more and more that there really is something to this 'creator God' thing.”

SLUF: “THAT’S A LIE!”

I think you get my point. Liberals are so incensed at the truth – whether it concerns the First Amendment, the Bible, the Founders, or science – and so at a loss for a logical defense of their own positions, that they try to drown out opposition arguments with shouting (and with the help of liberal media and liberal judges).

Shouting (and twisted soundbites and awful jurisprudence). From the people who claim to be guided by logic and reason. Now why didn’t I think of that? … Oh. Right. Because I’m a “religious” person, and we don’t think.

(Read C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity!).

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco just signed legislation penalizing doctors who perform partial-birth abortions (except to save the life of the mother), making the state the first to restrict the surgery since the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal ban earlier this year.

As I read the news, I heard voices in my head – the same hysterical, ultra-feminist voices that howled as the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. And as I heard these voices again today, one thought lodged in my mind: It seems as though ultra-fems believe that the process of pregnancy and birth should be a seamless, convenient one, and that they have the right to do anything to avoid the least little inconvenience, even at the expense of the child’s life. Which makes me wonder: What will it take to get ultra-fems to see that the avoidance of all difficulty is an impossible, impractical and immoral approach to life, particularly as it relates to the issue of life itself?

The Saturday, July 14, Los Angeles Times includes a story about a resolution passed in Virginia that would bar illegal immigrants from many government benefits and expand enforcement. The law, if it withstands legal challenges, would be the toughest in the nation, making it illegal for illegals to even use municipal swimming pools or check out books from the library. Said Kathleen Walker, national president of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.: “They are seeking to root out any possible benefit they might be able to cut off from someone, no matter what their age, because they are not here on a documented status. The cruelty of this is just astounding.”

Her ignorance is what’s astounding. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp the concept of “legal residence,” and that being here illegally disqualifies you from benefits? If someone sneaks into a movie theater without paying and gets caught, should they be allowed to stay?

And the battle rages on. This time in the form of the confirmation hearing for Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general.

Once again, as has happened so many other times when Bush has nominated someone for a government post, the decision on Holsinger is boiling down to one question: Will the nominee be “unbiased,” or will he be beholden to “ideology”? But this question is merely a political ploy. Everyone has an ideology, and though a person may be able to be relatively unbiased when it comes to what they consider to be lesser issues, ideologies nearly always come to the fore when a person is dealing with emotionally-charged issues, such as abortion, homosexuality and stem-cell research. A favorite tactic of liberals, however, is to make it appear as though they’re not ideological while conservatives are.

Take the Holsinger case, for example. Back in 1991 he wrote a paper in which he argued that sex between men was contrary to nature’s design and was associated with infectious diseases and cancer. Now, anyone who spends much time following American politics knows that conservatives, by and large, are against the homosexual lifestyle, and that liberals, for the most part, are fine with it. Which means that in Holsinger’s case – presuming that his opinion about homosexuality remains unchanged since 1991 – liberals don’t want him anywhere near the position of America’s highest-ranking doctor.

And here’s where the liberal trick comes in: If Holsinger personally approved of the homosexual lifestyle, liberals would describe him as one who “puts science first,” and would certainly not brand him with the scarlet letter “I” … but since he presumably is against that lifestyle, he is then, of course, an ideologue, putting his personal convictions ahead of “scientific facts” – which, as all good liberals proclaim, include the “facts” that homosexuality is genetic, outside the bounds of personal choice, and therefore perfectly acceptable (does this mean that kleptomaniacs can’t be held responsible for stealing?). Nevermind the real fact that homosexuality has proven adverse effects on the human body, and that it should therefore be any surgeon general’s duty to encourage people away from such harmful behavior.

In the end, my advice is to never engage in a coin toss with a liberal – they’re the type who say, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

Wow. Impressive.

That was my reaction to Evan Almighty. In that lovely little land we call Hollywood, finding an accurate depiction of God is as rare as a blizzard here in Southern California. Guess I’d better get my snow shovel ready.

In contrast to Bruce Almighty – a decent, though edgy, movie – and in contrast to my initial expectations (another sequel?), Evan Almighty proved to be a worthy movie in every respect. It’s funny, clever, has great plot points and great acting (especially Steve Carell), and in an age of sometimes-non-family-friendly family-friendly movies, this movie truly is one for the whole clan (a single use of the word “pissed” was the only verbal faux pas I spotted).

Containing no other swearing, no sex, and no violence, Evan also gives a favorable portrayal of the traditional nuclear family, of prayer, and of faith. Most shockingly, but most thankfully as well, Evan displays a rather spot-on theology: Faith is shown for what it truly is – an unshakeable trust in God in spite of all naysayers and all appearances to the contrary – and the overriding message of the movie is that God loves us a hundred percent and only wants what’s best for us – and does do what’s best for us, even though it sometimes doesn’t appear that way.

Granted, this movie never mentions Jesus and therefore doesn’t present the full gospel message, but Evan Almighty is a solid step in that direction. Add this movie to the list of recent Christian-themed box-office successes (The Chronicles of Narnia, The Passion of the Christ), and we are witnessing, perhaps, the beginning of something good in Hollywood.

Somebody please tell me what sportsdom has against the color yellow.

Well, not so much the color yellow, but the word yellow.

Yellow, though far from the most common color in sports, is seen in a fair number of places – the L.A. Lakers, the Boston Bruins, the Oakland A’s, for example. But is it ever called yellow? No.

On the contrary, it’s almost universally called “gold.” Gold? Yes, gold. The Lakers – purple and gold. The Bruins – black and gold. The A’s – green and gold.

I’ve never seen so much ungold gold in my life.

Anyone this side of colorblindness should be able to know yellow when they see it. The Lakers, Bruins, A’s – along with the Green Bay Packers – they wear yellow, my friends. Yellow that’s as yellow as a goldfinch. Dang it! Yellow as a canary.

If you want gold, look at the uniforms that the Denver Nuggets used from 1994-2003. That’s gold.

You may remember that I previously said “almost universally called ‘gold.’” One exception that I know of is the University of Michigan – the maize and blue. Yes, maize. Not a common word, and certainly not the word “yellow,” but at least it’s derived from a yellow object – corn. So I give them a good score – not perfect, but close.

So let’s not be cowardly, folks; dare to call it what it is: yellow.

A while back the L.A. Times ran a story describing the new Fantastic Four and Nancy Drew movies as square, in response to which I wrote a blog post stating my hope that their claim was true. Young Miss Drew is still on my to-see list, but I made it to Fantastic Four Land and came away from it – though pleased overall – wishing that the movie’s edges had been just a bit more pointy.

Maybe I’m just being picky, or expecting too much from Hollywood – a place that generally views anything cleaner than "Something About Mary" as Cleaverish. To be fair, Fantastic Four 2 is one of the squarer movies I’ve seen in a while – no sex scenes, no f-bombs, no using the Lord’s name in vain (as the first movie does once). But there were still, by my count, three minor cuss words and a bit of sexual innuendo, and I find myself asking: “Why? Why bother? Why include any of that stuff?” If you’re going to make a square movie, why not be all-the-way square? If you think you can successfully leave 99% of the movie free of cussing and sexual innuendo, why not 100%? It would be one thing to include cussing and innuendo if you weren’t using the “wholesome” factor in advertising the movie, but if you’re marketing it as family-friendly, why not truly make it so?

I mentioned in my other FF post that America could use more square movies. Some people these days view Andy Griffith and the Beave as so passé, what with all those silly conservative notions such as the nuclear family, traditional gender roles and slapstick humor. But Fantastic Four 2 did well at the box office – and I strongly doubt that the few cuss words and innuendos contributed to that success, or that their removal would have diminished it.