I'm goin' down to Blogspot, the blog's a friend to me,
Lives beneath the ocean, that's where I will be
Beneath the waves, the waves, and that's where I will be
I'm gonna watch the blogs beneath the sea...

Blogwatch regulars Ted Barlow and Charles Murtaugh are on the same wavelength with these posts on what Dubya didn't say about human rights.

Don't Be A Shamed: History lesson.

Peter Maass has a blog! Lots of really interesting international news. I'm a jerk and can't remember where I got the link though.

There's a lot of good stuff at Unqualified Offerings today (and I don't just say that because of the bizarrely nice things he said about this site!).

Amy Welborn: Vast round-up of emails about LifeTeen Masses--the good, the bad, and the fluffy.

Matthew Yglesias: Harvard's Commencement speaker calls students to "American Jihad." I am not making that up. Read this now. Any Cantab alumni who read this site may want to think about writing the old "Henceforth I shall donate no longer" letters... (As for Yglesias's take on abortion, I think Frederica Mathewes-Greene has written better responses than I could--here, here, and here.)

St. Blog's Parish has not one but two seminarians. Good stuff.

"Me? I didn't do nothin'. I didn't kill anyone. I just drove away with the body."
--Zero Mostel to Humphrey Bogart, "Murder Inc."

DC COP HARASSES MAN WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT POLICE RESPONSE. From the Old Oligarch. How surprising. Not.

And from Zorak, his wife, a link to this interesting little item. I'd heard about this class before, but I managed to miss the hilarious requirement that "Students must assume 'that people—both the people we study and the members of the class—always do the best they can.'" I dunno, maybe this course is being misrepresented, but I doubt it. Would that mean that every student absolutely must get an A?

Real posting will resume tomorrow. I hope to bring you Sex Pistols exegesis, among other things.

WHILE YOU'RE WAITING FOR BLOGSPOT TO REVEAL ITSELF... here're some links.

Very very interesting (uh, if you're very very interested in this sort of thing) reviews of Catholic churches. A guy hoofs it from church to church throughout his diocese and reports back to you, the viewer. I was again reminded to be grateful for the excellent preaching, architecture, and liturgy I've found. Start at the bottom of his links and move up; apparently the later pages are missing. (Link via Amy Welborn, who is blogspotty today.)

And in other news, here are some uber-creepy taxidermied (?) squirrels. Click and feel the chill. (Link via Shamed.)

"I don't like crooks. And if I did like them, I wouldn't like crooks who are stool pigeons. And if I did like crooks who are stool pigeons, I still wouldn't like you!"
--Bar Girl, "The Thin Man"

NOTE: If you use Blogspot, check your site. If you get a "Page not found" message, you may need to publish a new post or re-publish an old one. Click here for more info.

UPDATE! You may need to do that more than once. Ask me how I know!

ON THE BRINK OF THE SLOPE: (Sorry! Sorry!)
Brink Lindsey sends a helpful and sensible reply to my item in the blogwatch below.
"Two quick comments. First, I said that the 'life begins at conception' position is justified in part by slippery-slope arguments – I certainly recognize that there are other reasons as well. Also, note that the pro-choicers have their own slippery-slope problem – which drives them to defend atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Which produces a convoluted and tragic dynamic: pro-choice slippery-slope misconceptions drive pro-life slippery-slope misconceptions, and vice versa, the end result of which is to make both sides' slippery-slope prophecies have some self-fulfilling validity and thus to inhibit the achievement of a sensible if arbitrary resolution of the matter."

It's good to watch your blog, you know it's been so long
If I don't watch your blog then everything goes wrong...

The Edge of England's Sword: Worrying round-up of bad news from Italy.

Amy Langfield: Why do people think they're entitled to have sex on my stoop? Via Matt Welch.

Brink Lindsey: Interesting posts on slippery-slope arguments; a tragic and terrible euthanasia case; and more on the slippery slope. In general I agree with Lindsey's position on the use and abuse of slippery-slope arguments (summary: the slope only works if there are good "analytical and empirical," i.e. what I'd call philosophical and historical, reasons to think we'll slide). I think he's misconstruing the pro-life position, though. The claim is not "it's OK to destroy a very young embryo, but if you let people destroy that embryo they'll eventually be sucking babies' brains out." As it turns out, that prediction would have been vindicated (and so it seems like an example of a good slippery-slope argument by Lindsey's own criteria, no?--at least as far as "empirical" evidence goes...), but it's not, in fact, the sole source of the pro-life position. The claim is that there's no valid distinction between destroying an embryo and performing a partial-birth abortion. ("It doesn't look like a baby" or "I don't feel bad about it" aren't good enough, for reasons that I hope are obvious--one being that so many of our moral advances as a civilization have involved extending our empathy to humans we once despised or neglected.) I also wonder whether Lindsey considers the slippery-slope claims made in Humanae Vitae to have been vindicated. ...As for euthanasia, I wrote a Register article on a related case, but it doesn't seem to be online; sorry.

Sursum Corda: Recent martyrs; lady priests (and responses); and being sent out into the world. My only comment on the lady priest thing is that if you reject Church teachings you don't fully understand (and I know "reject" is much too strong a word for what Nixon's doing; sorry; not sure what the right word would be), how can you ask others to adhere to teachings they don't fully understand? If someone just doesn't buy the arguments for the Church's position on, say, the death penalty, or papal infallibility, or the Real Presence, or extramarital sex--can Nixon ask that person to accept the Church's teaching because Church authority backs it?

Volokh-Mania: Interesting debate about an environmentalist campaign against ExxonMobil. Here's the pro-Green (sorta) side; here's the anti-Green (sorta) side. And eminent domain, the boring face of socialism; and an Israeli peace proposal that is getting no press attention.

Amy Welborn: A nifty list of pro-life orgs; and "Six Feet Under"'s post-abortion storyline.

And the obligatory (almost typed "oblogatory") new Catholic blogs: Heart, Mind and Strength, a group blog featuring scads of Papist worthies; and In Formation, a blog by a seminarian. The latter looks esp. cool.

And much of the awesome Eutopia issue on contraception is online now. Yay! This magazine, combined with Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility, helped convince me that the Church's position was rational. Despite some patches of philosophy-major prose, the articles are richly rewarding.

"When I have nothing to do at night and can't think, I always iron my money."
"What do you press when you're broke?"
"When I'm broke, I press my pants."
--Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell, "His Kind of Woman"

NEW CONTEST!!! Actually, it's two, two, two contests in one. Send me entries for either of the contests; best ones will be published in approximately two weeks. (Note how cagey I've become about making promises....) Send all entries to eve_tushnet@yahoo.com .

1) When capitalism gives you lemons... This was inspired by this post over at The Volokh Conspiracy. You know those lists of different political systems and what they'd do with two cows? I want similar ideas--but fresh, funny, tart 'n' tangy, like a splash of lemon juice in the face...--that take off on the old adage, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." When Communism gives you lemons, what happens? When anarcho-syndicalism gives you lemons? When George W. Bush gives you lemons? Etc.

2) I joked about making the next contest, "Write a post about the farm bill as if you were Ivan Karamazov." Then I thought, It's so crazy, it just might work! So yeah. Write a post about the farm bill as if you were any major literary character--Winnie the Pooh, Raskolnikov, Madame Bovary, Molly Bloom, Romeo, Napoleon and/or Snowball, Scarlett O'Hara... the possibilities are endless. Go to town. No spoilers!

I am afroth with anticipation. Send me entries!!!

With a clockwork jerk
pluck cogs from blogwatches
for dinner on Friday
then recoiling say excuse me...

This post from The American Prospect's blog, about the "what did Bush know?" questions, gets most things right. I have a few nits to pick but I won't bother. Link via Barlow. The Professor has also been keeping an eagle eye on this stuff, of course.

Michael Dubruiel: Lousy scandal-news about Archbishop Elden Curtiss; and how to meet God.

Mickey Kaus, Enemy of the Good (=Permalinks): Segregation forever--in Chicago construction. This is really gross; scroll down to the first post from Wednesday.

Brink Lindsey (a fellow Kirk-and-crew fan!!): Good summary of trade policy/why we won't enter a major trade war.

Charles Murtaugh: The Incredible Expanding Lifespan (important post); "In Pakistan, Rape Victims Are the Criminals" (oh, shock, surprise); and a typically excellent post on sci-fi and bioethics (although Brave New World does not deserve the dissin' it's getting).

The Old Oligarch: I'm wrong about "Braveheart." All I can say is, I never disputed (most of) the movie's message, just its artistic quality; and I still think Edward II was a nasty frat-party caricature. But the O.O. makes a good case.

Amy Welborn: Depressing scandal-news about Cardinal Mahony--but then, how is this day different from other days? She's also got a very few good-bishop nominations (and scroll down from here).

Speaking of feminism, go check out Frederica Mathewes-Green's excellent site. Her pro-life essays are fantastic; the essays on Disney's women and her trip to a used-book barn are hilarious; and "My Cab Ride with Gloria" tells the story of how she left feminism.

And the dude who does "A Catholic Page for Lovers" now has a blog, too. Making the word "heart" appear in red is a bit cutesy for my taste, but the Page for Lovers is a great clearinghouse for Catholic/saint-related stuff, and the blog's already got some good prayers from John XXIII on it. I look forward to more from this guy.

CAN THERE BE A DECENT FEMINISM?: (Inspired, of course, by Michael Walzer's "Can There Be a Decent Left?") This was initially going to be installment #2 of The Politics of Dancing--my ramblings about rock lyrics--but it outgrew its limitations.

Over the weekend, a friend of mine mentioned the idea that feminism is primarily "an unsuccessful attempt to tame male lust." That rings really true to me, and I'm going to blog a bit about what feminism has accomplished and why it ultimately fails.

First, the accomplishments. There are some obvious good works of feminism, mostly to do with rape and battering: Rape crisis centers, marital rape laws, police rape training, battered women's shelters, and so on.

Feminism has also taught many women to a) reject some of the truly poisonous self-hate they grew up with, and b) forgive. It's especially helped many women forgive their mothers. Our ties to our mothers are so close, so intimate--for women the mother is often like another self--and so betrayal, abuse, abandonment by one's mother causes some of the greatest damage to the psyche. Forgiving a mother who has betrayed you takes immense strength and mortification of the desires for revenge, separation, or hate. Feminists are often allergic to the word forgiveness, because so often women have been told to forgive their abusers while the abusers were not challenged to stop the abuse--for example, women were told that God loves the abuser but not that He hates the abuse. (This doesn't just happen to women, of course--I don't suppose I really need to cite the priesthood scandals as an example.) This allergy to the word "forgiveness" has some good consequences and some awful ones. The good part is that "forgiveness" has become something of a cheap-grace word anyway; the image has been rubbed off the coin, the edges have been sanded down. "Forgiveness" has been used too often as an easy out. Avoiding the word "forgiveness" can actually prepare the way for the act of forgiveness. The problem is that we must forgive; to obscure or deny that is misleading. And avoiding the word simply surrenders it to the Hallmark-writers of the world. We should demand a more challenging, rough-edged, compassionate ("suffering with" the one who forgives), hardcore forgiveness. (This does not mean that it's always best to continue attempting a relationship with a deeply abusive mother. Sometimes--very rarely, but sometimes--the shock of separation is best for mother and child alike. Sorry for digression but I didn't want to give the impression that abusers who refuse to change should be rewarded.)

So yeah, feminism (by which I mean 1970s-and-later feminism, not Susan B. Anthony) has done some important good in the world. I don't want to reel off the list of awfulnesses it's promoted or made easier--abortion, the divorce rate, add your own suggestions--but I do want to point out a few reasons feminism has not succeeded at taming men or truly empowering women.

Probably the most important, underlying problem is the fact that the main disjunction in feminism is between those who value sexual equality most and those who value sexual liberty most. The problem is not solely that one of these schools of thought is wrong--the problem is that neither can really address the causes of the harm done to women.

By "equality feminists" I mean women who believe that the power relationships between men and women should be as equal as possible, and that this is best done by focusing on "equality of outcome" rather than formal equity. I know this may be confusing, since there's a group of people (think Wendy McElroy) who refer to themselves as "equity feminists"--but what they actually mean is formal equity, equality before the law, not actual equal outcomes. The equality feminists I'll be talking about, in general, recognize that both biology and culture mean that formal equity will not lead to equal outcomes for men and women. Andrea Dworkin would be a good example of an equality feminist. Sexual-liberation feminism is, frankly, easier to dismiss--it's the sunny Susie Bright stuff, the "erotica" brigade.

Here are some reasons that neither faction effectively tames male lust. First, both kinds of feminism deal with some of the most personal relationships there are. And people don't want freedom or equality in their personal relationships. Someone in love is subordinate; someone in love is not free. (For defenses of that position, click here and here.)

And biology keeps getting in the way. Only women get pregnant; only women can be absolutely certain that their children are their own; only women miscarry; only women need to recuperate from pregnancy; only women suffer postpartum depression. Those facts shape all heterosexual relationships. They cannot be gotten around. (Even women who learn that they are infertile have grown up without that knowledge. Their stories are different, for sure, but the more commonplace stories of womanhood still affected them.) No matter how much latex you use, no matter how many hormones you jerk your body around with, still these facts remain. Anatomy isn't destiny, but it ain't chopped liver either. Even Dworkin, who is often eloquent in her furious recognition of women's difference from men, has found it virtually impossible to articulate what a truly equal sexuality would look like. She has resorted to metaphors of fluidity, for example; but in the end neither Swedish social-welfare programs nor consciousness-raising can actually make heterosexual relationships equal. Women just risk more. Sex-lib feminists deny this fact, and thereby encourage naivete and terribly wrong choices in young women; equality feminists resort to utopian scenarios of the World Without Patriarchy, or else they become solely negative in their approach, knowing only what they're fighting against and not what they're fighting for.

And an emphasis on liberation and equality often leads us to devalue, or simply ignore, those who are dependent and unequal. Awe, which is an experience of submission, can barely be discussed in this framework. Love, as I said earlier, becomes equally hard to talk about; or else it is redefined as a negotiation between competing egos. And childhood--the time when all of us are dependent and unequal--becomes especially hard to value. (Both Martha Nussbaum and Alisdair MacIntyre have apparently done interesting philosophical work about humans as "dependent rational animals"--I'd tell you more about that, but I've just told you all I know....) This is not a rational consequence of feminism, but it is, I think, a temptation due to both feminist factions' inability to value dependence or submission.

Finally, feminism--especially, but not only, equality feminism--has major problems with men. ("Well, duh...") There's a strong and theoretically-justified (that is, justified by theory) overlay of "us vs. them." Within feminism, women's narratives are privileged and men's discounted. (And if anything is judged too "male," like logic, science, or analysis, it too is discarded.) Feminism aims at "patriarchy" but it hits men. And often the men it hits are its closest allies--precisely because they're closest, expectations are higher for them, and they actually care what feminists think. (The "learned weakness" I mentioned in the DC punk post comes into play here, too, sometimes.)

Feminists might reply, "Why should we care what men think? They caused the problem!" But the solution can't be found without them. You can't just ask men to "shut up for a few centuries" to make up for all the women who were silenced in the past--you can't practice affirmative action in whom you believe, whom you listen to, and whom you love--without hurting your friends and family (either men or those who love them) and warping your own analytical and empathetic abilities.

The concept of "patriarchy" causes a score of problems. First, it encourages the retreat into utopianism and rage: Since there's never been a society that equality feminists would consider non-patriarchal, there's not a lot of hope there, except in those pockets of Dianic moon-crap where people claim that the "matriarchy" was displaced in some far-off prehistoric time. (As far as I know, all of these theories are utter bull.)

And finally, patriarchy theory tempts feminists to deny women's responsibility for our actions. Feminism can often help women take responsibility for their lives; it can free them from the fatalistic sense that their abuse is inevitable and deserved. It can shatter conformity and force profound self-examination. But it also gives the Patriarchy total power. If a woman screws up, Blame Patriarchy. If a woman disagrees with you, Blame Patriarchy. Your abusive mother: Victim of Patriarchy. Your alcoholic best friend: VOP. There's often a shard of truth here (people's problems don't often spring out of nowhere...), but much more falsehood and danger--the danger of emphasizing conditioning to the point that both free will and grace disappear.

So that's my take. I doubt that many feminists read my site, but I imagine I have some readers who at least sympathize with some aspects of feminism (as do I, it should be clear). And if this is helpful in discussions with feminist friends, I'll consider my time well spent.

So can there be a decent feminism? Not really, in my opinion--the word "feminism" has been taken by the two factions described above. A feminist friend (who accepted elements of both equality and sex-lib feminism) read my copy of Maggie Gallagher's Enemies of Eros, and returned it with the comment, "Wow--she's a true feminist." I think enough feminists would choke at that statement that it's not worth trying to reclaim the word; but if there were a decent feminism, yeah, Maggie would be it.

WE'LL NAME HER MINNIE PEARL, JUST YOU AND ME...: I finally sat down last night and pulled together some random thoughts about the DC punk scene when I was in it--about 1993-1996. This particular part of the scene was bounded on one side by Positive Force/Fugazi (whose music I never liked), on the other by Riot Grrrl/Bikini Kill/Bratmobile/etc. I haven't tried to organize these thoughts because, well, I didn't have time; but I thought someone out there might want to know what it was like. So here's what I noticed. I still like this a lot.

The good stuff about that slice of the DC punk scene: DIY. There is no better preparation for life than the knowledge that you can Do It Yourself. Zines, records, t-shirts, clothes, music, instruments (anybody got a length of plastic tubing?), news, food, charities (not that that word was ever used), festivals, posters--you could make 'most anything. The DIY attitude fosters a sense of responsibility--instead of carping about the people who make things in the world, you become the people who make things. You have to take the criticism for what you make; you do the work; your reward is that there's something out there that looks the way you made it look. Robert Bork's phrase (which you'd never hear in this scene!) for this was, "Wreak yourself upon the world."

Riot Grrrl did an incredible service by helping young women talk about and heal after sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. I learned a lot about the horrible things people do to one another. RG helped a lot of people take back their lives. "Break the silence" is not a cliche--it's what happened. On a related note, I met some incredibly strong people through the punk scene--people who had come through terrible experiences with toughness and grace. (I later met some similar people in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy... things change.)

There was a lot of openness to non-punk kids, music, etc. There wasn't (much of) the cliqueishness and self-righteous superior attitude a lot of people associate with punk. Not that it was never there, just that it was really not a big part of my experience.

Now, the other stuff...: Asceticism. The whole "straight edge" thing (no sex no drugs no alcohol; usually no meat) gave me an allergy to the word "purity" that it took me a while to shake. sXe (=straight edge) was good insofar as it helped kids (mostly but by no means exclusively boys) reject the sex-and-consumption mentality fed to them by TV and mainstream society--especially the hothouse society of high school. The downsides included: an inaccurate understanding of why sexual purity was despised and selfishness exalted in our society--everything was blamed on Capitalism, the personification of evil; and a lack of any sense of moderation--you were impure if you drank a beer for crying out loud. Pleasures weren't really given up for anything; sXe was primarily against things rather than in favor of things. (You could see this super-clearly in the anarchowhateverist politics of sXe.)

Riot Grrrl: sex-abuse survivors + sexual tension + sexual "liberation" = sometimes a really bad scene.

"Look at me, don't look at me--look at me, how dare you look at me?!--look at me..." Punks would dress in really out-there ways (and chicks, especially outside the sXe scene, would dress in really provocative ways--I had this tiger-print skirt that was more safety-pins and hope than fabric...) but would get indignant if anyone reacted to their clothes. I mean, what? If you wear a cheerleading skirt and a baby-doll tee, I don't care what it says on it--"MAN-HATER" or "STOP LOOKING AT MY CHEST" are exactly as provocative as "BABY" or "PRINCESS." There was a lot of naivete, especially among the women, about how people would react to us. Women played up our vulnerability in order to make a feminist point; we assumed other people correctly interpreted our deliberately ambiguous gestures--and then flipped out if people misread our signals. This happened in more areas than just clothing.

An attempt to acknowledge the harm done to people because of their race, ethnicity, class, etc. became an exercise in learned weakness. Instead of taking the attitude that, look, there's racism/sexism/whatever out there and it sucks, so you'd better be ready to deal with it, punk-types instead obsessively cultivated their oppressions. Every insensitive remark was an indication of the huge crushing heteropatriarchy, and so, I think, small annoyances became much more hurtful than they needed to be. Cultivating one's sensitivity to being dissed (as opposed to cultivating a sensitivity about when you might be dissing others) makes it almost impossible to function in the workaday world. You can't get much done if you thin your own skin.

Oh, and the political and religious views were the essence of conformity.

So you can see how all this was great preparation for college--much better than my guidance counselor....

ST. BLOG'S PARISH: Apparently I'm the "parish philosopher to defend us from the Randians when they come a-callin'." Heh! I'm reminded of that scene from "History of the World Part I," with the philosophers in the unemployment line... "Did you bull$#@! last week?" "...No." "Did you try to bull$#@!?"

So anyway, just wanted to get that off my chest. Here, have some random links. I've got a lot more stuff for you in a bit.

It's Zorak's birthday!

If life gives you lemons... make capitalism. (More on this soon!)

There's a multi-blog discussion of salvation and reprobation (are some born to endless night?) going on. Good stuff, very meaty. I recommend starting here and working back and forward as desired.

Here's a "Catholic Page for Lovers" that's just bursting at the seams with good stuff.

On a different note, here are some good, reader-friendly thoughts about the wishful-thinking proposal to make DC a federal tax-free zone. (Link via Tepper.)

CONTEST WINNERS!!!: So you all rock. The fake blogs were fantastic. I can only hope that the next contest (which is really weird) will fire you up half as much. Creators' names/blogs are in parentheses. I should note, too, that I was surprised that pretty much everyone actually set up new blogs on Blogspot--I only got two submissions (see below) in email form.

Now the winners. THIRD PLACE: William Hague. (Peter Briffa)

SECOND PLACE: P. Parker. (Jim Treacher)

GRAND PRIZE WINNER: PoohPundit. (A. Beam) I'm sorry, this was the coolest thing I've seen in a long time.

HON. MENTIONS (in more-or-less alphabetical order--"less" because it made copying and pasting easier...):
Yasser Arafat. (Michael Levy)

William F. Buckley, Jr. (D. Connaughton, one of only two contestants not to set up a Blogspot site!): From William F. Buckley's blog:

Professor Galbraith upbraided me yesterday for my suggestion that our sojourns to Geneva be shortened to six weeks. He chided thusly: 'Oh it's to be Denmark on Tuesday, Belgium on Wednesday, eh?'"
Posted by WFB 2:35pm May 6, 2002

Survived 'Frontier House' on PBS, the premise of which was to see how three modern families might fare in the Montana wilds, circa 1880. A thought: Mrs. Glenn could travel the summer Shakespeare circuit as the Bard's 'Katherina' and be eminently believeable...
Posted by WFB 10:48pm May 5, 2002

Rich and the kids seem to be doing well at NRO. Rich informs me that he Mr. Dreher have to shave now and no longer get carded regularly when purchasing alcohol. Jonah, like the Beatles, appears to be in his 'dark phase', probably due to his recent marriage to Yoko. I've been told that even 'serious' adults are compulsively reading 'The Corner'. Would it be uncharitable to suggest that they could find a better use for their time?
Posted by WFB 6:28pm May 5, 2002

Many of the weblogs that have come to my attention display a disdain for civil discourse and, to the extent they say anything at all, say it rather coarsely. This ensilage of words in great quantities suggests a 'quantity over quality' milieu which lends itself to imprecisions such as the use of the word 'blue' when 'cerulean' is obviously meant. I intend to ensile my thoughts here as the spirit moves...
Posted by WFB 10:32am May 4, 2002

John Kerry. (A friend who wishes to remain anonymous)

Margaret Thatcher. (Emily Jones)

Bill O'Reilly:
Oh, wait, his whole TV show is a blog. Nevermind.

Sandra Day O'Connor:
To retire or not to retire, that is the question. Being the swing vote on the Court is not all it's cracked up to be. I could be riding horses and playing golf and shopping in Scottsdale. But there is that power thing. Anyone who thinks Karen Hughes was the most powerful woman in America needs to have their blog examined. Or Condi Rice for that matter. I determine what is lawful or not, and a girl can change her mind. It's a woman's prerogative.

(Both from Ralph Johnson.)

"Joe couldn't find a prayer in the Bible."
--Kirk Douglas, "Out of the Past"

WHOA. Ted Barlow links to this Scottish news story that details Pim Fortuyn's advocacy of pedophilia. What???

TOTAL DEPRAVITY: WOOHOO! More reader emails, very informative, from Lauren Coats. Email #1: "The doctrine of total depravity was badly named - it doesn't state that we are as bad as we could possibly be.

"The so-called "5 points of Calvinism" were formulated as answers to Jacobus Arminius, Dutch theologian. To my mind, they suffer accordingly. Designed to answer specific things, they are rather fragmentary in nature. Arminius argued that not all of our faculties were affected by the Fall. Specifically, he exempted Reason and Will. Total Depravity stated that all parts of our being were influenced by the Fall and consequently, none were completely trustworthy.

"Indeed, the Dutch Calvinists regarded themselves as defending Augustinianism from Pelagianism. Rightly or wrongly, they considered Arminius to be the spiritual descendant of Pelagius. Broadly speaking, that disagreement, in one form or another, has continued in both Catholic and Protestant churches right up to the present day. At best, there has been an uneasy truce.

"My own feelings are mixed. Both sides have Scriptural arguments in their favor."

Later Coats added, "The Calvinist positions were further revised and extended of course, most famously by the Dutch theologian Ursinus(No, I don't know how he got the nickname 'Bear,' but he's rarely called anything else.) in the Heidelburg Catechism, and by the Scots Presbyterians in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. If you got your data from U.S. Presbyterians, they were probably thinking of the Westminster Standards, which are much more detailed(and harsher), as they attempt a systematic exposition where the Five Points did not."

SMACKDOWN BY THE LORD MAGE OF GOOD: Christopher Badeaux gets on my case (he's in bold, I'm in plain text): You're sorta wrong. I mean that with all due respect.

Specifically, you're wrong about Star Wars, although I have to admit, the "prequels" are killing me. You've had a university education, so I don't need to throw all of the Joseph Campbell stuff at you, and anyway, I've always found that the weakest reason to enjoy the
Star Wars films.

First, they're some of the most Christian/conservative pop culture out there - there is an absolute Good, there is an absolute Evil, they're in conflict, Evil isn't misunderstood, it just bombs at midnight, and, most importantly, there's always the potential for
redemption. Redemption only comes with a massive sacrifice; it doesn't appear just because Vader feels like it. Obi-Wan's obfuscation ("everything is true, from a certain point of view") brings the hero to the edge of disaster. The moral certitudes are worth
fighting for. And so on, without dangling prepositions.

Second, the acting may bite sometimes, the script could use the odd chainsaw, and so on, but even so, people watched those movies, and still watch them. There's a primal attraction (I know, Campbell territory here, bear with me) in identifying with the
Everyman who becomes the Superman - and those films catalyze it, and make you feel for the characters, to the point where you feel like you know them personally. A more visceral reason than the first, I grant you, but still worth thinking about.

Next: You're really, really wrong about Braveheart.

If the point of art is to inspire - and Auden's depression and postmodernism notwithstanding, I say it is - Braveheart is art, and powerful art at that. It has the power to make Marines cry (yes, I've seen it happen) in the scene where Wallace's wife is murdered at the stake. It has the sheer force to grab an audience and make them want revenge, and to revel in justice done.

Yes, the film's Wallace was hardly perfect, and it kinda irked me that he played around with Sophie Marceau (mostly because it wasn't I who was playing with Ms. Marceau). But, first, for pathos, full-throated adrenaline, antique honor, truth, bravery, and all around throat-choking passion (of every sort), that movie can't be beat (and if it can, it's only by Excalibur or maybe Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan). Second, the "silly, nasty screaming-queen caricature of the prince" has, in fact, some basis in history. Eddie II and his
absolutely flaming displays were tolerated by the nobles until they, and his policies, became an excess. It's not that he wasn't, in fact, a member of the Mustache Parade; that's not historically really up for grabs. Let's be honest: It was pretty well understood,
especially in light of how much of a dropoff from his father he was (the scene where Longshanks berates his son for letting things fall apart while he, Ed I, is off securing French holdings, has a lot of historical foreshadowing going for it), that he was the drum major for the Parade, and he was letting it affect his rule. And his wife made no bones about why she ran off to France with their (and the paternity is up for debate here) son, Eddie Trois. So the film played it up a bit; the historical nuggets at work are more historical boulders, really. (Most of the foregoing remains open to a mea culpa if my English history isn't as good as I think it is.) If your problem is the Eddie II was portrayed as a stereotype, I'd argue, at least from what I remember, that his reign was the realization of that stereotype.

My reply: Thanks--here's my take. First, I'll partly concede the Edward II stuff (I need to re-watch Derek Jarman's weird take on the Marlowe play about him--I recall DJ's movie as being startlingly good), but it was presented in such a frat-boy manner that it just
seemed like an opportunity to laugh at the silly faggot. But you're right, it is based on history. And I also defer to your judgment on the moral character of Star Wars--I've got no beef with its "message," just w/presentation.

In general, I think our disagreements may boil down to one word: sentiment. I find both Star Wars and Braveheart sentimental to the point of nausea--emotionally manipulative, brutal (Braveheart, not SW--there's an excellent George Orwell essay, maybe "England Your England," that links sentimentality and brutality in a way that I think is 100% appropriate for modern-day America), and cheap.

It's totally possible, of course, that millions of Americans are right and I'm wrong, for the reasons you state. For the moment though, all I can say is that 20 years is not long enough for me to take the "its popularity shows that it appeals to something vital in our natures!" line.

His reply: Two small points:
First, in all honesty (and some humility) Edward II's presentation never struck me as "laugh at the silly faggot," because, well, geek that I am, I never liked him in the first place (as a king, he was a heck of a letdown from ol' Da'; more importantly, the girl I'd been seeing for a little while, a while before the movie came out, once said something nice about him - nuff said). As a rule of thumb, if he's an English King named Edward, I didn't like him. Same goes for half of the Henrys. (Interesting side note: Is it ok to laugh at Nathan Lane's presentation in The Bird Cage, but not this?) I, um, didn't laugh at him, until the very end, and that was because he was having
comeuppance. Now that you mention it, though, I'm a little ashamed, for not seeing it at the very least (and for laughing, a little).

Second, I never bought into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, for a whole host of, well, reasons, so take this with a grain of salt: I don't see what's so terribly wrong with sentiment. Should art - high or low - only inspire the animus, not the anima? Should you never have your feelings brutally attacked by film or literature, but instead live in a comfortable insulation of pure reason? If I'm going overboard -
and I may very well be - let me tone it back a bit and ask: How much is too much sentiment? How much is enough? Does it depend on the situation? Does art lose its value once it invokes too much sentiment?

(To that, all I can say is that I was using a more rough-and-ready definition of sentiment--less Kant, more Hallmark--which may clear things up. Or not....)

ROCKET TO PLANET SHANK. THE INFLIGHT MOVIE IS...: There's a (strong) possibility that I won't post all the stuff I promised. Stuff over here is crazy. So instead here's my 10 Favorite Movies list, as promised; plus I'll post some reader email on "Braveheart," "Star Wars," and Calvinism (separate emails, sorry). Click here for Ben Domenech's list. Note that this is a "favorites" list, not a "best movies ever" list. I excluded guilty pleasures ("Lair of the White Worm" and "Labyrinth"...), but basically this is a list of the movies I like best. Because 10 is too few, I did give some movies points for diversity--there would be too many screwball comedies otherwise, so I tried to pick films that were in some way representative of my tastes. I know ties are cheating; I cheated. Twice.

10. "Grosse Pointe Blank." I love this movie. So many great lines ("I sell couch insurance"); man's search for meaning; '80s music. Poignant, fresh, and very funny. I especially appreciate the way this movie respects its audience: It doesn't explain every nuance, every aspect of Martin Blank's crisis, every joke. "You're a handsome devil--what's your name?"

9. Tie: "Sabrina," original Audrey Hepburn version/"Night of the Hunter." "Sabrina" is a sweet, funny, big-hearted movie that manages to work in both a stirring defense of capitalism and a reactionary with a slew of great lines. ("The 20th century? I could pick a better century out of a hat!") There's a recurring theme of maturity and the need to take responsibility, but it's all presented in a light souffle. Oh, and Bogart plays a Yale man; that had to affect my reaction!

"Night of the Hunter" is a dark fable of a murderous preacher (played by the inevitable, terrific Robert Mitchum). It gets on my list for the stunning sequence showing two children's trip down a river (fleeing the preacher), for the beautiful use of the hymn "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms," for the sheer horror of Mitchum's character, and for the tough woman who takes the children in.

8. Tie: "Farewell My Concubine"/"Memento" The first is an epic take on the Cultural Revolution, following two Chinese opera performers and their love/hate interest, Gong Li. A very, very difficult movie to watch, with many scenes of brutality both physical and psychological, but the acting is great and the twists of political and romantic betrayal are ferocious.

"Memento" you've probably read about already. Suffice it to say that if Richard Rorty stopped being such a sunshine boy and started writing jagged, experimental film noir, this is what would happen. The woman's character is not at all well developed, but leave that aside; "Memento" is an extraordinary movie.

7. "Sweet Smell of Success." A rancid noir. The script is overripe, but give it time--I disliked this movie right after I turned off the TV, but since then I haven't been able to get it out of my mind. Tony Curtis is fantastic.

6. "The Philadelphia Story." The dream cast: Cary Grant, K. Hepburn, and Jimmy Stewart. Great script. A paean to drinking, vulnerability, promises, and honor. And it is beyond funny. Oh, and it's got tabloid reporters. And did I mention that Jimmy Stewart is really funny when he's sloshed?

5. "Gone With the Wind." I know. I know. It's racist (and strongly influenced white American attitudes about race and slavery). It's not as good as the book (some of Scarlett's edges have been sanded down). But it's still a hell of a show--a true epic. Scarlett's character also changes more (and more believably) than almost any other character in movies.

4. "The Lion in Winter." Another dream cast: K. Hepburn, Timothy Dalton, Anthony Hopkins, Peter O'Toole (playing Henry II for the second time). Brilliant script, soundtrack, photography. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine spend Christmas feasting on one another's vitals as they scheme for the throne of England. A family that has long ago lost the ability to drag itself away from disaster--yet still keeps rolling on. Only sour note: The anti-war speech, which is cliched and too easy (and perhaps influenced by Vietnam). Anyway, this movie is so good it hurts.

3. "The Godfather, Part I": I don't really think I need to justify this choice....

2. "The Last Unicorn": This has been my favorite movie since as far back as I can remember. It's based on a fantastic novel by Peter S. Beagle. The animation is much more fluid and more distinctive than Disney's; the drawings express and provoke fear and empathy really well. The story is very dark, and even the ending is not unmitigated happiness--it's about love, and it's honest about what that requires. This is a movie for children, but it doesn't pull any punches or talk down to its audience. Any movie that includes the lines, "Men don't always know when they're happy," and, "Of all unicorns, she is the only one who knows what regret is--and love," is not a children's movie to be taken lightly. It's also got a lot of very funny lines ("I am Schmendrick, the Last of the Red-Hot Swamis!"). Go rent it.

1. "Vertigo." This is the best movie ever made. It's too painful to watch repeatedly, so it's a little strange to call it a "favorite"; but click here for an excellent summary of why this movie is #1.

Let the carping begin! (I guess it would be even more controversial if I explained why certain movies aren't on this list--like "Casablanca" or "Star Wars." Of which more presently....)

"Hey, I like this. Early nothing."
--Gloria Grahame, "The Big Heat"