God… Science… Klavan… Whittle… Can you spot the difference?
We had a good time over at my Facebook page and on my twitter feed (@andrewklavan) this week, running a caption contest on this picture:
Much hilarity ensued, much of it involving pudding pops and Jeffrey Epstein.
But I have to admit, the whole Cosby business saddens me.
When I was a little boy, Cos was the great hero of my life. I had all his comedy records. I had his picture on my wall. I made plans to become a stand-up comedian and made up routines in his style. I got to see him perform live several times. My father even took me to California and arranged for me to shake my idol’s hand: Cosby was on a break from filming the hopscotch opening to his first television special. That same trip, I got to watch him filming an episode of I Spy. It was my favorite show, of course. I never missed an episode.
Cosby became my hero again in my adulthood, when he stood up against the race hustlers and thug excusers and called on black Americans to take responsibility for their own children and their own lives. It’s sad that it requires courage for a black man to do that simple, sensible and helpful thing, but it does. The left — which includes the media — has built its power by dividing us, holding up white men especially as the Emmanuel Goldstein of their four-decade-long Two Minute Hate. If blacks — and women — and gays — ever figure out who the friends of their freedom really are, the left is finished. So Cosby was viciously attacked for his honesty.
Did he drug women and rape them while they were unconscious? God, I hope not. I hope the accusations are part of some kind of leftist conspiracy meant to silence him or punish him for speaking the truth. But we’ll see. If he did it, it was a pretty sick thing to do. Hard for a sane man even to see the pleasure in it. But easy enough to see the pathological cruelty. One can only imagine the mental damage it would do to the victim.
I hope it’s all baloney. But if it is true, I won’t make excuses even for my childhood hero, not as the left did for Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. If it is true, there can be no excuse.
I was in New York for the weekend on personal business and was planning to fly out Monday afternoon. Then I heard the CNN newscasters on the TV in the hotel lobby start shrieking with high-pitched hysterical girly voices about the weather. And that was just the men. I double-checked with a reliable news source and found that even CNN is right sometimes. So I took an earlier flight out of town; I felt like a character in a Saturday Morning Cartoon, hurrying down the runway with the Giant Snow Monster chasing after me.
It got me to thinking. Didn’t some global warming idiot once predict there wouldn’t be any snow anymore? What do you know? Yes! Not just one global warming idiot but a lot of them, repeatedly. Here’s Alex Newman in the New American:
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent.
The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab…
After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.
The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.
That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.”
Check here, here and here for some other amusing apocalyptic predictions from environmentalists. The fact that leftists keep signing on to each new scenario — the fact that you really can fool all of them all of the time — would be enough to make one despair but for our faith that a greater hand than man’s holds the tiller of our destiny.
Still, the bottomless gullibility of the opposition can be dispiriting. Will they ever learn, I wonder. Maybe the very fact that we ask the question is an answer in itself.
Related: Ed Driscoll on CNN’s wildly overblown snow reporting, and tweets from Bill “Bane” de Blasio’s New York that resemble “Scenes from The Dark Knight Rises.”
I’m a sucker for magic and especially for sleight-of-hand magic and it just so happens I’m friends with one of the greatest sleight-of-hand practitioners on the planet (no idle boast: they actually test these things and he keeps coming in at or near the top): Gregory Wilson. One of my very fond memories is of a dinner he and I once had during which he absolutely amazed me with nothing but a deck of cards. As we parted ways, he ended by correctly guessing the contents of my pockets (two tarantulas, a rocket launcher and thirty-seven cents). The guy really is brilliant and if you ever have a chance to catch his act, grab it.
Greg is part of a very cool SyFy show fronted by Penn and Teller (themselves no slouches in the magic department). It’s called Wizard Wars. It’s sort of American Idol for magicians. Its second season begins January 29th. If you love this stuff anywhere near as much as I do, set the DVR. Here’s the first season trailer:
Here’s more from the website.
And here’s more from Greg’s website.
Here’s the thing. The last two heads of the Catholic Church — Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI — were two of the greatest men to live in my lifetime. The death-defying heroism of the former and the incisive theological genius of the latter will be remembered long after the critics who ceaselessly sniped and jeered at them have been relegated to the Ash Heap of Well-Deserved Obscurity. The fact that these two giants once occupied the Vatican at the same time is an argument for providential history along the lines of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin turning up all at once in the colonies.
And here’s another thing. Non-Catholics tend to criticize the statements of popes according to whether they violate their own political opinions, left or right. But strange as it is to tell, confirming your political opinions is not actually in the pope’s job description. This is why I tend to shrug it off when the pope says things I disagree with about economics, say. It may well be that a two thousand year old perspective helps him to see things I occasionally miss, who knows. In any case, I’m not Catholic so a lot of times it’s not my problem.
And here’s just one more thing. Pope Francis seems like a terrific guy, he really does. Kissing lepers and what-not. Finding a way to reiterate church doctrine toward gays and divorcees so as to emphasize the love rather than the judgement. You gotta love that. I do anyway.
But all those things said, I really am beginning to wonder what is going on beneath that yarmulke of his. He is a world leader, after all. He ought to think about what he says about world events. And these recent comments he made about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. What? I mean: What?
“There is a limit,” to free speech the pope told reporters on the papal plane the other day. Throwing a joke punch at his travel organizer Alberto Gaspari, he said, ”If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
He added that he was not justifying violence in God’s name, which he called an “aberration.”
The problem with all this… Well, for one thing, it’s not right. For another, it’s not true. And for yet another, I can’t even see my way to understanding it as Christian.
You can’t provoke? You can’t insult the faith of others? Really? Let’s listen in on the chief rabbi of Jerusalem circa the year Zero as he reacts to Jesus’s comments on his religion:
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.”
The rabbi sounds pretty provoked to me. Pretty insulted too. And after that — for those of you who attended public schools — he handed Jesus over to the Romans to be crucified!
So Jesus was not afraid to provoke and insult the faith of others, even when those others were willing to kill him for it.
On the other hand, Jesus himself took a much different approach toward being offended. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also.” That’s not a call to pacifism — Jesus didn’t say, “If someone attacks your village, rapes your women and kills your men, just stand around and watch!” But it is a powerful demand for radical tolerance in the face of offense. He came, after all, to free us for freedom, as the book says. That’s how that trick is done.
Which is why responding to blasphemy with violence is an aberration — in modern Christian countries. In militant Islam, murder for blasphemy is actually a requirement! In fact, most forms of Islamic jurisprudence call for death to blasphemers if they fail to repent. Which is pure retrograde savagery. Monstrous. And to stand up before these murdered dead are cold and lend credence to the motives of their mad dog killers is just morally absurd.
So what the hell was the pope thinking? Really — I’d like to know.
“President Barack Obama regrets his decision not to send a top White House official to represent the U.S. at a march in Paris that drew dozens of world leaders in a show of solidarity against terrorism, press secretary Josh Earnest said.” The Wall Street Journal.
With apologies to Cole Porter:
Obama regrets he’s unable to march today, Madam.
Obama regrets he’s unable to march today.
He really hopes France won’t mind.
But he’s leading the free world from behind, Madam.
Obama regrets he’s unable to march today.
He sent three reps to bury the St. Louis thug Michael Brown, Madam.
But when Free Speech is being interred, he has golf to play.
Sure, satirists were shot dead.
But the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Mohamm Ed… Madam.
So Obama regrets he’s unable to march today.
Though it’s quite impolite to answer a joke with guns, Madam.
We really must all be careful of what we say.
So when Liberty’s shot to death,
She will whisper to the world with her final breath, Madam:
“Obama regrets he’s unable to march today.”
The west is in a holy war with militant Islam, our God against their God. The trouble is, we don’t believe in our God, so we can’t see the situation truly.
When I say “we” don’t believe in our God, I’m not, of course, talking about those who have thought the matter through to its core, those who have gone beyond straw-man smack-downs in which Biblical Literalism takes on Scientific Materialism, those who understand that there can be no rational claim to objective good without the existence of a Supreme Good, and who know that evil is evil everywhere, no matter what the culture, what the time. I’m talking instead about those who have been swept away by the prejudices of the age, who wallow in the vague sense that “science” has somehow disproved “religion,” that we’re beyond all that faith stuff now. I’m talking about those who are still in some kind of adolescent-versus-Daddy argument with a medieval authority that no longer exists, or are rebelling against some doctrine they don’t like and haven’t taken the time to understand. I’m talking about our political, journalistic, academic and entertainment elites. Who are fools, as most of us know.
These — our thought-leaders — are walking blind across the holy war’s battlefield, unable to comprehend the motives of our enemies, and unable to defend the values the rest of us hold dear.
When Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan shrieked “Allahu Akbar” as he slaughtered thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November of 2009, the media scratched their collective head wondering at his reasons. For days afterward — days! — these clowns ran stories offering fantastic theories that Hasan had suffered post-traumatic stress from listening to the war stories of his patients! Our government finally decided it was a case of “workplace violence.” What else could it be?
When Islamic terrorists executed a sadistic massacre at our diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, to mark the 2012 anniversary of 9/11, our leaders blamed it on an obscure YouTube video. Because, you know, Islamic terrorists never act unkindly unless we do something naughty to stir them up. So dedicated was our president to this lie that he stood before the United Nations in the aftermath and declared over the bodies of the American dead, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”