… throw the cook out of the kitchen. It’s the “liberal” (and Elfling) way….
Pat and I have both been too busy working on the new issue of Parma Eldalamberon to write blog posts, so I’m just going to put up some links to some good reading to tide this blog over.
First, a cogent and adult view of the reasons we’ll almost certainly be going to war with Iran soon:
“Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?” by Victor Davis Hanson
Second, some clear-eyed evaluations of the so-called “Gospel” of Judas (which I’ve read, BTW, and hope to comment on myself later — suffice to say for now that it is entirely of a piece with the Nag Hammadi texts, and just like those texts 1) fascinating and invaluable for the history of Gnosticism, and b) entirely worthless as evidence for early Christianity, save for what little can be deduced from its polemic against an already established Catholic Church — which of course the leftist media adores and accepts uncritically.
“The Gospel of Judas” by Jimmy Akin
“More on the Gospel of Judas” by Jimmy Akin
Oh, and the best book I’ve read on Gnosticism is The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas. Do not trust anything that Elaine Pagels or Bart Ehrman say on the matter without checking it against Jonas’s explication of Gnosticism and the texts themselves: they are both essentially leftist controversialists who have aligned themselves with the polemical nature of the Gnostic texts to denounce Christian orthodoxy — which in their mouths is always a pejorative — and (oh so selectively) present so-called Gnostic Christianity as coeval and equally “valid” forms of Christianity (i.e., equally grounded in the life and teachings of Christ).
Discuss amongst yourselves.
I have long felt that there can be no substantial improvement in professional journalism until and unless the editors of news publications lay and enforce a strict ban on puns in headlines. Truly, I think that some reporters love punny headlines so much that they pick them first and then write their “reporting” to fit the headline, and are quite Procrustean in carving off whatever parts of the full truth of the matter are needed to make it fit.
Case in point: Time magazine, reporting on the Cheney hunting accident, chose the title “Sticking to His Guns” to emblazon the cover. CNN, not wanting to miss out on the fun, reports on the Time story in an article titled “Readjusting their sights”. Ha ha! Funny! And yet I rather doubt that Harry Whittington finds the wordplay quite so humorous. What’s more, somehow I sincerely doubt that we’ll ever see in Time or CNN an article called “Water Under the Bridge” about Ted Kennedy’s fatal driving accident at Chappaquiddick (even if the sentiment it expresses has been exactly that of the MSM ever since that incident).
Just to show that this blog will not exhibit the same knee-jerk, quasi-religious partisan bias that it means to shine a baleful gaze upon, I thought I’d go on the record in stating that it is perfectly in bounds for the MSM to ask why it took so long for them to learn that the Vice President of the United States was involved in an accidental shooting. It’s a fair question, and with all due respect to the fine folks at Ankle Biting Pundits, the repeated, mechanical appeal by Whitehouse Press Secretary McClellan to the need to see to Whittington’s medical care, and to an agreement between Cheney and Katherine Armstrong to let her, as an eyewitness, inform the media of the mishap, was transparently a dodge that only chummed the water for the Press Corps sharks. The best and most truthful response would have been for McClellan to ask just why the Whitehouse Press Corps felt itself entitled to be alerted instantly or even quickly of this or any other event, or to otherwise have its job done for it by the Whitehouse: especially in light of the foaming animosity it has directed at the Bush administration since (at least) the end of 2003.
The headlines trumpet, “Actor Richard Dreyfuss Calls For Bush Impeachment”.
Er, isn’t the real news in fact, “Actor Richard Dreyfuss Still Alive”?
Such “brave” Bush-bashing statements are certainly effective for turning the approving gaze of the MSM towards actors whose moribund careers certainly aren’t getting them mentioned — or paid. Why anyone should care to know, or pay particular attention to, what an actor — any actor, let alone one whom most people couldn’t pick out of a lineup — has to say about foreign policy, the law, or government — that is, any more than they do what their next-door neighbor or the mailman has to say — is a perennial mystery. But neither does it reflect well on the MSM’s estimation of the intelligence of its audience that they consider such transparently self-serving, publicity-seeking pronouncements newsworthy (so long, of course, as they dutifully echo and support the agenda of the MSM).