The high-tech age has encouraged a sedentary lifestyle, which renders us physically weaker than generations before us. We’re weaker morally, I think, because we’ve mainstreamed permissiveness, sexual and otherwise.

Are we wiser? Under the definition “having knowledge or information as to facts, circumstances,” perhaps. Thanks to the microchip, we know (or can know) a little about everything. If we’re using the definition “having the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right,” then a resounding no.

What’s sad is that America as a whole is losing touch with the meaning of biblical references (the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon, the return of the Prodigal Son, Judas’ kiss, doubting Thomas, etc.). On a related note, we’ve heard and read about how poorly young people do on historical literacy tests. A new study from the American Enterprise Institute reports more of the same.

Half the nation’s 17-year-olds can’t identify history references, such as pinpointing the decade in which the Civil War was fought, knowing the main theme of 1984 or what Senator Joseph McCarthy had been trying to do. (But, if they’re taught, they will learn. What do government schools teach these days? I don’t know.) From USA Today:

In all, students earned a C in history and an F in literature, though the survey suggests students do well on topics schools cover. For instance, 88% knew the bombing of Pearl Harbor led the USA into World War II, and 97% could identify Martin Luther King Jr. as author of the “I Have a Dream” speech.

Fewer (77%) knew Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped end slavery a century earlier.

“School has emphasized Martin Luther King, and everybody teaches it, and people are learning it,” says Chester Finn of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank. “What a better thing it would be if people also had the Civil War part and the civil rights part, and the Harriet Tubman part and the Uncle Tom’s Cabin part.”

Better, indeed. More nerds, please!

Speaking of eggheads, check out my review of Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them:

One of the funniest characters in the 1984 movie, Revenge of the Nerds, was the uncoordinated and absent-minded Arnold Poindexter. He wore thick glasses, but still couldn’t see well.

We’ve had plenty of laughs at the expense of the Poindexters of the world, studious fellows with Coke-bottle glasses, wearing pants that are too tight and too short, a pocket protector, and an ever-present social awkwardness. As we mature, we move beyond crude stereotypes and realize we all have a bit of nerdiness, geekishness, or jockishness in us.

Such nerd humor, while harmless for adults, isn’t so harmless for children. In Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them, David Anderegg, a child and family psychologist, declares that the nerd/geek stereotype negatively affects children and contributes to anti-intellectualism in America.

Read the rest.

“[V]irtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

On December 5, 2002, Republican senator Trent Lott toasted 100-year-old Republican senator Strom Thurmond, a former segregationist, at a private birthday party, saying that if the rest of the country had voted for Thurmond for president as he had (Thurmond ran in 1948 as a Dixiecrat), “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years.”

About a year and a half later, on the Senate floor (and on taxpayers’ time), Democrat Chris Dodd said that Democrat Robert Byrd (who said on cable TV a few years earlier that he’d seen a lot of “white niggers” in his time), a former segregationist and KKK recruiter, would have been “a great senator” during America’s founding, crafting of the Constitution, and the Civil War.

The backlash against Lott was fierce. He apologized and groveled on Black Entertainment Television (BET) but was eventually drummed out of his leadership post. The backlash against Dodd? Non-existent. He neither prostrated himself before the PC gods nor played the fool on BET.

This double standard was the result of a long distorted history of both parties. The Democrats, seen as the civil rights party, supported slavery, opposed civil rights legislation, instituted the “Black Codes,” and created the Jim Crow system. The Republican Party, in contrast, was founded in opposition to slavery, and supported post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement-era legislation.

“All of the racism that we associate with [the southern] region of the country originated with and was enforced by elected Democrats,” writes Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. In Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, Bartlett goes deep into the history of the Democratic Party and attempts to set the record straight.

Bartlett discusses the motivations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to maintain slavery and how Andrew Johnson (whom the author says was “a Democrat his whole life”) tried to block post-Civil War legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves. He includes obscure figures like Senator Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina, whose “consistent theme…was that black men had some sort of compulsion to mate with white women,” and Senator Theodore Bilbo from Mississippi, whose “permanent resolution of the race problem” in 1938 was to send blacks back to Africa and/or create a 49th state for them “somewhere in the West.”

Woodrow Wilson, a liberal who implemented progressive reforms while in office, also instituted racial segregation throughout the federal government. And Bartlett notes that Wilson’s attorney general “did far more to repress free speech and political freedom” than Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican, ever attempted. But when was the last time Hollywood made a movie about A. Mitchell Palmer?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a “reputation for being a progressive on the race issue,” wasn’t much better on civil rights. He appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. Republican Dwight Eisenhower, “conventionally portrayed as having done nothing for blacks during his eight years,” passed civil rights bills in 1957 (the first since Reconstruction) and 1960. Eisenhower also sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Bartlett praises Democrat Harry Truman for signing an executive order establishing a presidential committee on civil rights, an unpopular move in the party, but spares none for President John F. Kennedy, who receives far more credit on civil rights than he deserves. Kennedy did nothing substantive on civil rights, contends Bartlett, and what he did do was largely symbolic as he tried to avoid antagonizing Southern Democrats. He credits President Lyndon B. Johnson for “finally repudiating both his own segregationist past and the Democratic Party’s” in the wake of Kennedy’s assassination.

And what about President Richard M. Nixon’s so-called Southern strategy? Bartlett calls it a myth. There was no strategy “to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged.” During his campaign in 1968, Nixon emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and picked Spiro Agnew as his vice president, a man reputed to be strong on civil rights.

The shift in Southern voting patterns from Democratic to Republican had to have been about race, right? According to Bartlett, economic changes in the South were the primary factor. During the Democrats’ political reign, the South had been the poorest region. As the South’s wealth increased, southerners became receptive to Republican messages of low taxes and small government.

People tend to forget that Nixon pushed to desegregate schools, denying federal aid to segregated school districts. “Just one month into his presidency,” Bartlett writes, “any idea that Nixon was pursuing a Southern strategy had been thoroughly discredited.”

Unfortunately, Nixon also implemented government race preferences.

Bartlett’s meticulously researched Wrong on Race concludes with suggestions on how Republicans can reach out to black voters, including connecting through immigration policy and this stunner: getting behind the idea of slavery reparations. Bartlett tries to make the case on legal, public policy, and political grounds.

If reaching out to black voters has to involve reparations race pandering, don’t bother. (Besides, it wouldn’t work, anyway.) Despite that shocker at the end, Wrong on Race provides ammunition for Republicans fed up with being called racists.

Ken Bazyn, editorial director of the Religious Book Club, offers an insightful look at history in The Seven Perennial Sins and Their Offspring. In this readable, yet intricate work, he gives us a literary, religious and philosophical perspective on the seven “perennial” or “root-sins”: pride, envy, anger, avarice (greed), lust, gluttony and sloth (apathy). While the very idea of sin has fallen out of fashion — as pointed out to me by a colleague who once remarked that “sin is a Western concept” — we see it in action every day.

Bazyn masterfully examines how writers, theologians, and philosophers viewed each perennial sin and its “offspring” or variation. Each of the seven is at the root of all others. For example, murder is not listed as one of the seven because it is not a root-sin; it may arise from anger or avarice or envy or all seven.

As an English major, I appreciated Bazyn’s liberal use of literary examples to illustrate the recurring theme. He states at the outset that literature “has a pleasing indirectness that catches us unawares” and that stories help us to “flesh out abstract principles and imprint them on our memories.” Just as Jesus Christ’s parables reflected what was in men’s hearts, stories can hold up a mirror that reflects our own nature.

From such literary characters as Jay Gatsby, Bartleby the Scrivener, Dr. Jekyll, and a host of Biblical figures, Bazyn shows how each perennial sin manifests itself in their tortured lives. He quotes such men as Nietzsche, Kant, St. Augustine, and C.S. Lewis, and refers to historical events such as the French Revolution and the Vietnam War, to build an overarching theme of how human fallacies plague us all. While Bazyn’s book is an excellent study of history and literature, I found myself relishing passages of his own original thoughts and wished he’d used more of a balance in technique.

The Seven Perennial Sins and Their Offspring makes reference to many forgotten stories once read in high school and college, ones that gave us metaphors to “help us cope with life’s complexities and contradictions,” Bazyn writes. Public school educators in America would be wise to return to the study of great literature and Western culture. In the twenty-first century, moral relativism has all but eroded the concept of sin. Some redefine it; others deny it. Ken Bazyn reiterates throughout his book that sin is a deep-rooted, unchanging, universal, and permanent condition of man. We would do well to call it what it is.

King Solomon tells us that no one on earth is free from sin. What, then, is our hope? “Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”

A perennial solution to a perennial problem.

Originally published at Townhall.com in July 2003

Update (9/21): Wow. Even posting a book review, I can’t get away from controversy. There’s supposedly some dispute about who actually authored Ecclesiastes, a reader tells me. Traditionally, people believed it was Solomon, king of Israel, son of the great King David. Some modern biblical scholars doubt Solomon was the author. My MacArthur Study Bible reads: “The autobiographical profile of the book’s writer unmistakably points to Solomon.” For purposes of this book review, I’ll stick with the traditional view.

I need a vacation…

J.K. Rowling’s epic tale about an orphan boy who discovers he’s a wizard at age 11 comes to an end in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

The seventh and final book in the series sold a reported 11 million copies in the first 24 hours on sale, which broke the record for fastest-selling book. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince held the previous record at nine million.

The seven-book series has sold more than 325 million copies worldwide. The first five books have been made into top-grossing movies, and Rowling has been named one of the richest people in the world.

Not bad for a former divorced welfare mother who nursed cold cups of coffee in a café while writing the first book.

Read the rest at Townhall.com.

Update (7/31): When a religion reporter called Deathly Hallows “unambiguously Christian,” he was referring to the “Christian” concept of substitutionary sacrifice. I’m going to take a semi-educated guess and say that Christianity is unique in this regard: a sinless Savior who sacrifices himself to pay for the sins of others.

Is substitutionary sacrifice a major (or minor) feature of other religions? Discuss here.

The qualities that draw people from all over the world – religious and political freedom, the rule of law, due process, a vibrant economy, and a high standard of living – are the same qualities bad eggs use against us.

There are an estimated 10 million illegal aliens in the United States. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the net cost of illegal immigration is about $70 billion per year, which doesn’t include unemployment compensation for legal citizens who lost jobs to illegal aliens.

While men and women are dying in Iraq to “make the world safe for democracy,” illegal aliens flout the rule of law at home, freely crossing our borders with a miniscule chance of being caught and deported. If Al Qaeda wanted to smuggle in a nuclear weapon, America’s southern border is a very inviting place to start.

In the age of terrorism, the federal government still won’t enforce immigration law. We can only guess why: addiction to cheap labor, fear of being called racists, blackmail by Mexican president Vicente Fox. I’m only half-kidding about Fox, but it makes me wonder why the government refuses to enforce the law.

[Now former] Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona wonders, too. In his new book, Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security, And the War on Terror, he explains how America is complicit in illegal immigration, a fact that would-be terrorists (who he calls “Islamofascists”) use to their advantage. Excluding the notes and index, the book is a quick read at just under 200 pages with 11 chapters. Hayworth uses plain language, devoid of politically correct jargon. He offers persuasive arguments against the nation-destroying insanity that is allowing millions of illegal aliens to infiltrate, overburden, and ultimately destroy our way of life.

Hayworth points out the absurdity of our current policies and wonders why illegal aliens are fearful of getting caught when the chances of being deported are low:

You will find no better example of political correctness mixed with political cowardice than “sanctuary” policies. These policies forbid police officers from arresting criminals based only on their immigration status and prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

In Whatever It Takes , Hayworth makes a connection between illegal immigration and crime, and contrasts immigration of the past with the present. “Assimilation is the key to any successful immigration policy, and no country in the history of the world has succeeded in assimilating immigrants as well as the United States,” he writes.

Our country succeeded because of the “Americanization” movement of the early 1900s, which Hayworth briefly discusses. All levels of government and society contributed to the effort, unlike today. These days politicians help push bilingual education, in-state tuition, and multilingual government transactions. Businesses openly hire illegal aliens and banks give them loans to buy houses.

Americanization, Hayworth contends, was replaced by multiculturalism, a “noxious idea that all cultures are equally valid and equally worthy.” One only has to look to the Middle East to see that all cultures are not equally worthy.

Contrary to popular opinion, not all Hispanics support illegal immigration. Some are opposed to non-assimilating immigrants:

Ironically, among the biggest supporters of acculturation and learning English are Hispanic immigrants who have successfully assimilated…They embrace their Americanism while still holding on to their roots. They understand that English is the language of success. They are appalled at Spanish-language advocates who believe that speaking English somehow insults or dismisses their Hispanic ethnic identity.

One barrier to fighting illegal immigration is political correctness. Hayworth writes:

The abuse of language by the pro-illegal immigration crowd is just as duplicitous and just as absurd…Another example comes from the Arizona Republic, which in a profile of two illegal aliens wrote, ‘Like most undocumented workers, Javier and Janet work aboveboard. They used fake Social Security numbers to land their jobs.’

Using fake Social Security numbers — a felony — is what passes for ‘aboveboard’ at the politically correct Arizona Republic. It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Hayworth is a Republican, but he blames both sides of the aisle for our current crises. In a chapter called “The Left and Right Are Wrong,” he chastises the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page for its “open borders” stance, as well as “lettuce liberals” who support illegal immigration because the price of lettuce might go up if aliens were deported, as prescribed by law.

We know all about the problems, but we don’t hear or read often enough about solutions to the problems. The most informative part of the book is the final chapter, “What to Do about Illegal Immigration.” Some of Hayworth’s suggestions:

• Put troops on the border
• Improve interior enforcement (tamper-proof Social Security cards, 10,000 new agents solely responsible for enforcing employer compliance, 200 additional immigration judges, 500 new Department of Homeland Security trial attorneys, severe penalties for hiring illegal aliens)
• Allow local and state law enforcement to assist outmanned federal agents
• End birthright citizenship
• Impose a three-year ban on Mexican immigration

Hayworth’s ideas are common sense and workable. The question is: When will the government put a plan into action?

Whatever It Takes made me angry. If you care about America’s safety and sovereignty, it will make you angry, too. I write about illegal immigration frequently on my blog. It may be strange that a black woman, a “minority,” would be so outspoken on this issue. It’s partly because I am a member of a group once treated as second-class citizens. In 2006, we’ve all become second-class citizens.

A citizen, in case you forgot, is a “native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection.” I’m appalled by the government’s refusal to protect law-abiding citizens from the burden of illegal immigration. We have a right to be here and should not be treated this way.

Criminal aliens are coddled by the system, and they exploit what makes America great: a system of fairness and opportunity. If you’re opposed to illegal immigration, Whatever It Takes will help you articulate the reasons and encourage you to get off the sidelines and do something about it.

Originally published at Townhall.com on February 21, 2006

Chastity is a misunderstood virtue.

It is more than simply refraining from premarital sex. It’s an attitude, a way of life, and open rebellion against a debauched culture. Contrary to popular opinion, Christians don’t think sex is dirty or evil. Christians believe sex outside marriage is wrong.

The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On is part memoir and part how-to guide on giving up casual sex, embracing chastity, and experiencing “a life more hope-filled, more vibrant, and more real” by putting sex in its proper place. That kind of life, says author Dawn Eden, is the thrill of the chaste.

The thirty-something [now former] New York Daily News editor, blogger, and Christian convert has written a nakedly honest book for a specific audience: single women ready to admit that premarital sex is not making them happy or helping them find the husband they desperately seek.

In The Thrill of the Chaste, Eden contends that our casual sex culture encourages singles to view one another as commodities. Like many young single women, she was caught up in the hype that sex is the way to a man’s heart. Eden began to understand that premarital sex and its attendant baggage actually made it less likely that she’d get married. For example, to protect oneself from the eventual let-down of casual encounters, one must develop a toughness. In Eden’s case, she sabotaged relationships before she got dumped so she could remain in control.

“[T]he same armor that enabled me to tolerate casual sex made me less attractive to the kind of man I most desired.”

Eden says dissolving the hard shell and allowing herself to be open and vulnerable have helped her be more capable of sustaining a long lasting relationship like marriage. Yes, Eden readily admits she wants to get married and believes God has called her to marriage. She also recognizes that some women reading the book want to get married and provides practical advice on how to meet marriage-minded men who share their faith.

Whether religious or not, women reading The Thrill of the Chaste will be able to relate to Eden’s descriptions of awkward morning-after scenarios. No matter what feminists claim, it is futile to deny that women become attached. “Women are built for bonding,” writes Eden. Sex detached from love leads to a feeling of emptiness.

Being chaste has a strong spiritual component, and to practice it requires a purpose beyond mere abstention from sex until marriage. God created us as relational beings to experience his love and show that love to others. The sexual part of the martial relationship bears more than physical fruit (children). Spiritual fruit borne by two uniting together as one is the “gift of self that they give to each other,” writes Eden, which “becomes a gift to the Lord.”

Bucking the culture and remaining obedient to God present the same problems they always have. As Eden writes, “The most challenging part of chastity isn’t overcoming temptation. It’s gaining the spiritual resources to joyfully face day-to-day life as a cultural outsider.” And Christians know that kind of joy is found only in Christ.

The Thrill of the Chaste encourages single women to focus on sharing God’s love with others and growing in grace rather than putting “the goal of meeting a husband at the center of “thoughts, actions, and dreams.” Eden has found fulfillment in chastity, and she’s using her God-given gifts to help others find fulfillment, too.

Originally published at Townhall.com on April 3, 2007

Related post:

• Rebelliously Chaste!

Phillips had committed the “sin” of publicly expressing gratitude for being an American, despite America’s history of slavery and subjugation. His new book, He Talk Like A White Boy, is a semi-autobiographical collection of essays about his love for this country and his respect for the “old school” values that make America strong. Recurring themes are family, faith, and freedom.

Best known for his roles as Lt. Martin Kendall on “The Cosby Show” and Justus Ward on the soap opera “General Hospital,” Phillips is a rarity in Hollywood. He writes candidly about growing up speaking proper English (”talking white”), being different from the mainstream, and having his “blackness” questioned.

The opening anecdote of the 232-page book sets the tone and reveals what eventually becomes a lifelong frustration. After he made a comment in his junior high school accelerated English class, another black student said, “He talk like a white boy!” What does that mean? Phillips thought. Instead of chastising the girl or dealing with the substance of the remark, the teacher merely corrected her grammar.

“No, LaQueesha. Joseph speaks like a white boy!” The teacher had the entire class repeat the correct sentence. “[T]hat moment,” writes Phillips, “was not only the beginning of junior high school, it was the beginning of my life.”

Phillips began to recognize what he calls the “tyranny of opinion” — the idea that a self-anointed group stood at the doors of culture and determined who was or wasn’t black enough. As a conservative columnist and speaker, Phillips receives his share of letters and e-mail from members of this group who sling ad hominem attacks (usually anonymously) but rarely deal with the substance of his work. “In their minds,” he writes, “I no longer speak like a white boy, I now think like a white boy.”

He Talk Like A White Boy is replete with examples of this tyranny in action. Phillips recounts a nasty experience on a TV talk show called “America’s Black Forum.” Between segments, a black liberal journalist let loose with a profanity-laced, personal rant against him. “Imagine if I had cursed at Deborah Mathis in front of a studio audience,” Phillips writes. “My inappropriate behavior would have signaled the bankruptcy of my arguments. To the guardians however, Deborah’s inappropriate and unprofessional behavior is seen as a righteous defense of the race.”

Such a defense is considered righteous to many blacks. Criticizing negative elements of black subculture is “airing dirty laundry,” and holding opinions different from mainstream blacks is traitorous.

Airing more dirty laundry, Phillips decries the emphasis on sports in the black community over academics. “Doing well in school and reading books become anti-black, joining the debate club instead of the basketball team is anti-black as well.” But Phillips doesn’t criticize others just for the sake of it. His book is textured with honest details and examples of his own faults, and he doesn’t rationalize his wrong-headed decisions.

Phillips stays focused on the book’s themes while writing honestly about his anxiety over auditioning, his mother’s suicide, and his efforts to be a faithful Christian, a good husband, and a good father. In a poignant essay about his late father, Phillips laments the diminished role of fathers in the culture in general:

It is a shame that as social currency, fatherhood has been so drastically devalued. A man’s honor is cheap—Boys must see the pride in their father’s smile, feel the firm hand of a father’s discipline, and hear the bite of correction in his voice. Boys will not grow into men unless men lead them—Boys do not need male role models and they don’t need father figures; they need fathers in the home.

Despite the “race traitor,” “Uncle Tom,” and “self-hater” name-calling, many black conservatives understand and share the desire to identify with our racial group. “[N]o matter how successful, educated, or integrated we become, we still seek out images and stories that reflect some sense of who we see when we look in the mirror,” Phillips writes. But that doesn’t preclude telling the truth.

Phillips injects humor into serious subject matter with laugh-out-loud tales about his attempts to be “cool” while conceding that he’s “corny.” For readers interested in a black actor’s perspective on Hollywood, He Talk Like A White Boy will definitely satisfy. Phillips has met and formed strong friendships with many well-known actors. However, the name-dropping is not boastful; it’s instructive. He shares his struggle to be a working actor who doesn’t compromise his values or accept demeaning roles.

He Talk Like A White Boy is one man’s story of love of family and country. Readers looking for a forthright — and sometimes painful — account of being a black conservative won’t be disappointed.

Originally published at National Review Online on June 2, 2006

Check out “Rebelliously Chaste.”

As a chaste woman myself, her book resonated deeply and reminded me why I have trouble talking and writing about sexual abstinence without mentioning Christ.

The reasons for abstaining from sex until marriage are larger than avoiding pregnancy or disease. Abstinence should be elevated above mere self-control and delayed gratification. In order for chastity to be meaningful, one has to believe that he/she is being obedient to God, that the sexual act itself has a spiritual purpose ordained by God and intended for two people united in marriage.

Old-fashioned, I know. I should start a new blog called Retro Woman.

If you’ve read the book, I’d love to read your mini reviews. What are your views about sexual abstinence until marriage in general?

No off-topic comments, please.

Update (4/4): Just in case anyone is thinking this, let me clear the air. I am not a virgin. Wish I was, but that’s spilled milk under the bridge. After I became a Christian, I decided to abstain until marriage (some Christians don’t), though I began to abstain before becoming a Christian. It’s strange to think that if I don’t get married, I’ll never again…anyway, it is only by God’s grace that I can remain chaste.

And broadcast it on a public blog.

Jim Cannon, a blogging pal from way back, interviews a national guard soldier serving in Iraq.
——————————————————————————–
I’ve got it, alright. I’m such a geek.

One of my dreams was to review books for a living. That’s it. No movie or music reviews. Just book reviews. Nothing seemed as cool as receiving free books every week and reviewing them for a living.

Then reality hit. Reviewing books doesn’t pay the bills. But I do it anyway because I love reading and writing and telling people what I learned from reading the book. (See Writings for samples) [4:23 p.m.: The following sentence appeared in an earlier draft of this post. It disappeared, so I'm adding it again: "I don't even know if I'm doing it 'correctly.' I don't care. I just like reviewing."]

Anyway, check out my latest at National Review Online, a review of Liberty & Learning: Milton Friedman’s Voucher Idea at Fifty. Ten education writers and researchers examine the late Milton Friedman’s “radical” 1950s-era school choice idea to determine whether it has stood the test of time.

Cato sent me the book after I blogged on school vouchers in “I’m A Libertarian On Education.” I was inspired to write the post in the first place after reading an op-ed by Andrew Coulson (director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom) about a bone-headed statement Seattle Public Schools posted on its web site. In “Planning ahead is considered racist?” Coulson noted that the school district was saying, in essence, that only whites could be racist and that long-term planning was “white,” and therefore, racist.

Yep. That’s how the statement read.

Coulson’s point, as a school choice advocate, was that government schools get away such tripe all the time because kids whose parents can’t afford private schools or to homeschool are force-fed hare-brained, “multicultural” mess. Only after a critical mass of people complained about the statement did the school district remove the PC junk. Why did Seattle post it in the first place? No idea.

Next up for review: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and The Blog of War: Front-Line Dispatches from Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, written by blogger Matt Burden of Blackfive. Along with sharing his experiences as a military blogger, Matt compiled posts written by other “milbloggers” blogging and serving their country.

See “Live-Blogging the Milblog Conference.”

Questions for readers:

- What are you currently reading?

- What are your views on school choice?

Related posts and articles:

• What’s so liberal about keeping children in dreadful schools?
• Book Wishes
• Christmas Gift Ideas: Books!
• What Are You Reading?
• Blog for Books!

Unrelated Addendum: Shout-out from Hugh Hewitt, where he recounts a GodBlogCon discussion about military service and public office. As a recall, my “I love a man in uniform!” comment received lots of applause.

• A story in the Baltimore Sun about blogging — World wide gab — and a podcast link in the sidebar.
• Download (MP3) an interview with Stacy Harp (It was on a Friday and I was in a silly mood – the most unusual interview I’ve done in awhile).

I’m pleased to announce that I have an incentive to return to regular column writing. Blogger and journalist Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor at the Washington Examiner, has put together a blogger “Board of Contributors” for the paper, and I’ve been asked to join. So long, procrastination blues!

There’s one contingency. Mark made me promise to write with the “usual fire and flair.” Not a problem.

The Washington Examiner is a daily commuter paper distributed throughout the city and a few Maryland and Virginia suburbs. If you live in the city, you’ll know all about it. You’ll see sections of the paper scattered everywhere, especially on the Metro right after rush hour. Employees pass them out at Metro entrances. The tabloid size makes them more convenient than broadsheets. (PDF copy of print edition)

This is a great opportunity professionally. My biweekly column will appear in the D.C. and Baltimore print editions, as well as online. Not only do I get to tell a wider range of people what I think, but I’ll be paid to do it. Being published online is great, especially if you want to create buzz in the blogosphere, but there’s something thrilling about seeing your byline in “old-fashioned” print.

A big “Thank you!” to regular readers. Without this blog and your interest, such opportunities would not come my way.

If you’ve read Joseph’s book, give us your assessment. If something else is on your mind, discuss it here. I’m going offline for the weekend. Rest easy, everybody.

Addendum: The Calvinist Gadfly says:

This may sound strange but I am glad that La Shawn does not blog frequently on The Language Artist. I have too many blogs as it is to keep up.

Thanks for the shout-out, Alan! Your post makes me feel a little less guilty about neglecting the business blog.

Update (6/3): I just saw X-Men: The Last Stand. In a word…awesome. If you’ve seen it, review it here. No spoilers, please.

Reynolds provides a wide range of examples how new technologies empower individuals, from helping amateur musicians distribute their online music to the masses without record companies to allowing private citizens to respond to terrorist attacks and disasters better and more efficiently than the government.

New technologies can and are used for nefarious purposes, too. An Army of Davids covers such abuses as terrorists engaging in cyber warfare and the possibility that nanotechnology, (“manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular level”), a topic Reynolds blogs about frequently, could be used as “disease” agents or that nanobots could “hide out in people’s brains.” (hat tip to Michael Crichton!). The positive aspect of nanotechnology is its potential to repair cells damaged by radiation or destroy cancer cells or deliver oxygen to the brain to protect from drowning. The possibilities – and abuses – are endless.

————————————————————————————————————————–

I’m out the door and will be on the Treo for most of the day. While I’m gone, turn your attention to these book reviews:

• Review of An Army of Davids in the context of “Rathergate” at the CBS PublicEye blog.
• Review of Raising Boys Without Men at Townhall.com (housemaker will be changed to read homemaker – minor nitpick)
• Next week I’ll have a different version of the Davids review at Townhall. The book is filled with so many great ideas and potential article spin-offs.

Update (3:08 p.m.): So you guys aren’t interested in discussing my fabulous book reviews, huh? OK. Fine. Have a good weekend anyway.

Later…One more thing. I’ll have something to say about blogger and writer Ben Domenech (whom I’ve “known” and liked for a while – still do), who resigned as the Washington Post’s conservative blogger after he was accused of plagiarism. I’ve been out of the loop today. Everyone is blogging about. For more info, visit Decision ‘08, Obsidian Wings, Daily Pundit…

Even later…Ben responds.

(Update 3/25): Good grief. This thing is in the NYT.

Contrition.

Congressman J.D. Hayworth, a Republican from Arizona who once voted against immigration legislation, decided to write a book that exposes the dangers we face from lax immigration enforcement. Legal, law-abiding citizens are at risk, and the government turns a blind eye. Read the review.

Speaking of blind government, American patriots are doing what our federal government refuses to do: deter border jumping. Beginning in April, 6,500 volunteers will guard and patrol the Mexican and Canadian borders. These are volunteers of the Minuteman Project, a subject I’ve written about a lot. I was so glad to learn that some people are doing instead of just talking. (I forgot to mention that I met Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, at CPAC.)

Contrary to popular opinion, the Minuteman volunteers are not “rednecks” or “white supremacists” threatening Mexicans trying to cross the border. They peacefully stand watch at the border, breaking no laws. Just the sight of them seems to deter would-be illegal aliens. In fact, it’s so simple, even a government can do it.

Needless to say, Mexicans weren’t too thrilled when they found out what these Americans were up to. When George Bush called the peaceful, law-abiding volunteers vigilantes, I realized more keenly than ever why the president is surrounded by so much security.

The Minuteman have to fight Mexico’s president (our “co-president”), thug gangs, and even their own president, but they’re still volunteering and risking their lives to protect our country from invaders:

Minuteman founder Chris Simcox yesterday announced plans for a new nationwide “Secure Our Borders” campaign in April, saying 6,500 civilian volunteers will man observation posts and conduct patrols along 800 miles of U.S. border with Mexico and Canada.
…

“Last year, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps revolutionized the national debate about border security and illegal immigration by focusing the nation’s attention on the dangers of America’s wide-open borders in a post-September 11 world,” Mr. Simcox said. “The Minutemen have demonstrated that the borders can be secured with sufficient political will and dedication.”

In April, more than 800 civilian volunteers shut down a 23-mile section of the Arizona border near Naco with day and night border vigils. In October, similar operations were conducted along the U.S.-Mexico border and in seven states along the Canadian border.

Mr. Simcox said the volunteers this year will again observe and report suspected illegal border crossings to the proper authorities and maintain a “no contact” policy with the aliens except to provide water or medical assistance when needed.

He said that since the operations last year, interest in joining and supporting the Minutemen has “exploded nationwide.”

To date, he said, 6,500 men and women have passed the required background check and interviews to qualify to become volunteers — with more waiting for approval. (Source)

They will always be in my prayers.

Related:

• A Nation of Outlaws I
• A Nation of Outlaws II
• AgJobs Debate
• 36,000 Troops

Update: Perhaps more dangerous than our open borders is the United Arab Emirates, rumored to have connections with Al Qaeda, controlling six U.S. ports. Isn’t there something in the Declaration of Independence or other document about creating a new government when the old one isn’t working anymore?

Michelle Malkin has links and news here and here.

Joe Gandelman notes bipartisan opposition to the deal.

Bill Frist is blogging?

Pet peeve: A single blog entry is not called a blog. It’s a post. A blog is the entire collection of posts.

Sources:

• Dubai Company’s Control of Six Ports ‘Boggles the Mind’
• Chertoff Defends Dubai Port Deal (For this and other reasons, Chertoff should be fired.)

Another Update: King George says get a life!

What do you think?

A Biased List of Related Sites:

• Blogs Against Hillary
• Blogs for Condi
• Americans for Rice
• Condi for President 2008

Friday, November 18, 2005: Have you seen The Goblet of Fire? Tell us what you think!

Update IV (11/1): Continue discussing Harry Potter theories here.

Update III (10/28): More evidence for my Dumbledore-was-already-dead theory: As Draco prepares to kill his headmaster at the end of Book 6, Dumbledore tries to convince Draco that he can protect him and his family from Voldemort if he refused to carry out the Dark Lord’s mission. Draco doesn’t believe him, but Dumbledore says, “He cannot kill you if you’re already dead.” (Book 6, p. 591)

This has a double meaning: 1) It implies that Dumbledore must have faked people’s deaths before to protect them from Voldemort (Regulus Black?); and 2) Major hint from JKR: Snape didn’t kill Dumbledore because he was “already dead.”

——————————————————————————————

Update (10/27): STOP! This post contains spoilers of Book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Townhall.com has published my article/review, Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians. (The typo in “HogwartsProfessor.com” will be fixed.) I didn’t know it would be up so soon (last night), so I’ll spend the next hour or so this morning filling this post with my theories about the series, and links to articles and other resources.

If you’re a Christian and object to reading Harry Potter, please refrain from commenting. This thread is for Christians and non-Christians who have read the books. If you’re compelled to preach and just can’t hold it in, please e-mail me.

I’ll briefly discuss some of my views on Book 6. They could fill this whole blog, but I’ll try to contain them. Those who haven’t read the series, including Book 6, or haven’t seen the movies will have no idea what I’m talking about. The post is written mainly to fans, so I won’t go into detail explaining certain things.

First, the title of the book should tip you off as to who/what is most important now that we’re nearing the end of the series. We know the Half-Blood Prince is Professor Severus Snape. So through most of the book, Harry was emulating a man he despised, a man who helped him excel (indirectly) in potions class, a class normally unpleasant for Harry. Snape is important in this book for so many reasons, and one of them is the fact that he killed the beloved headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore.

Although Snape seemed to play a more prominent role in Order of the Phoenix, his role in Book 6, though less prominent, is much more important. We learn that he’s a half-blood; that is, his pure-blood mother married a Muggle (non-magical person). He finally became the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, his dream. I can write about the implications of these two things all day, but I won’t.

The most important Snape-related event was the Unbreakable Vow he made with Narcissa Malfoy. Many theorize that the vow was to kill Dumbledore if her son wasn’t able to, so that Lord Voldemort wouldn’t kill the 16-year-old Draco if he failed. I buy that, as most readers probably do. But let’s skip ahead.

It seems clear to me that Snape was a spy for Dumbledore, and he killed his trusting friend as part of his continuing role as a spy. That’s the most common belief among fans.

Second, Snape’s act brings us to a point where many disagree. I am firmly in the Dumbledore-is-dead-and-not-coming-back camp. But here’s a theory that’s probably not too common: Dumbledore didn’t “die” at the end of Book 6. He was dead before Book 6 began.

It’s here that we come full circle with Snape and why I think he holds an important key to the whole mystery. In Book 1, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, J.K. Rowling dedicated a chapter to “The Potions Master.” She did an excellent job establishing his character as rude, mean, and generally nasty. One of the intriguing things about these books is that Rowling mapped out the whole series, roughly, from the start, so everything is important, no matter how seemingly trivial.

The scene where Snape asks Harry questions about obscure potion ingredients that he can’t answer appears, on its face, to be a sadistic exercise in humiliation, but I think the scene means much more than that. I believe Snape is trying to find out whether Harry is as talented in potion making as his mother was. That may not seem important, but at this point we still don’t the nature of Snape’s relationship with the late Lily Potter (Was he in love with her?) or whether he was present when she was killed protecting her son.

I could spend all day talking about that, too, but I’ll let you theorize in the comment section. The most important part of the scene is Snape’s monologue about the power of potion making. He seemed enthralled by his own words. Before I get to those, let’s skip ahead a bit. He asks Harry what you’d get if you added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood, where you’d find a bezoar (a stone from the stomach of a goat), and the difference between monkshood and wolfsbane. While each question is important, I will focus on the bezoar.

As readers know, a bezoar was featured prominently in Book 6. Earlier that year in potions class after he saw a reference to bezoars in the HBP’s old book, Harry remembered what Snape said about bezoars several years before: they will save you from most poisons. Harry remembered this information in class and when his best friend Ron was poisoned. That should’ve tipped us off that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince and, therefore, very important in Book 6. Rowling referred back to that conversation in Book 1 for a reason.

Let’s back up to Snape’s monologue just before he focuses on Harry. Snape says:

You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potion making. As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don’t expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses… I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death — if you aren’t as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach. – Book 1, pages 136-137

At first reading, it sounds interesting but unimportant, but it leads us back to Dumbledore. As I stated earlier, I believe Dumbledore was already dead at the beginning of Book 6 because of this:

I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death.

Rowling’s books are filled to the brim with subtle clues. At the beginning of Book 6, we learn that Dumbledore was injured dealing with a cursed ring, a horcrux (an object where a person conceals part of his soul), which blackened his hand. His hand looked dead because it was. In fact, so was he. I believe Dumbledore was fatally injured but somehow managed to live long enough to get to Snape. In order to continue guiding and training Harry in his ultimate task — to hunt down the rest of the horcruxes and battle Voldemort — he needed more time. So Snape, “The Potions Master,” mixed a concoction that would “stopper” Dumbledore’s death. I repeat: Rowling referred back to that conversation in Book 1 for a reason (several, actually).

In other words, Dumbledore was a walking dead man. I’d read this theory on one of the many fan sites, and it made perfect sense to me, so much so, that I was creeped out by it. We all knew a major character would die in Book 6, but look what Rowling has done: the character was already dead at the beginning of the book! The tragic scene at the end was all part of an act set up by Snape and Dumbledore, which brings us to the end of the book.

We know with 99.9 percent certainty that Dumbledore wasn’t afraid of death, so when he said “please” to Snape as he stood defenseless, I knew instinctively he wasn’t begging Snape to spare him. Let’s finish Dumbledore’s sentence: “Severus…Severus…please…do what you promised. Kill me.”

So, what does it all mean? That Snape had to do something he hated: “kill” Dumbledore, although Dumbledore was already dead/dying. The point is that no one else knew about his putting a stopper on the headmaster’s death. Snape had to do what he did in front of the Death Eaters (and Harry) in order to continue “spying” for the Order of the Phoenix (although the members don’t know it) and because he’d promised Dumbledore that when the time came, he would.

I believe Snape will be the sacrificial lamb in Book 7. It will be revealed that he is indeed a “good guy” and will prove crucial in defeating Voldemort.

On a side note, I don’t think R.A.B. is Regulus Black. Rowling wouldn’t make it that easy. I think R.A.B. are three individuals or Snape himself.

Those are my theories. There are many, many other clues to dissect and points to discuss, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll stop. I look forward to reading your theories.

Christians, how do you handle objections to Christians reading the books?

Update II: My thoughts on R.A.B. from the comment section:

Regulus Black as R.A.B.? In Order of the Phoenix we learned he was only 19 when he died and wasn’t a talented wizard. How could someone so young and mediocre mastermind his way into that cave, make it pass the traps, and steal the horcrux? What about that potion in the basin? Who else but a great wizard/witch and potions master could figure out how to get around it without getting himself killed?

Nope, J.K.R. is trying to get us to look in the wrong direction.

Regarding certain references I made in the comment section, here are links to interviews with JKR verifying the notebooks filled with backstory and series being plotted out from the beginning claims.

—————————————————————————————————-

• For the hard-core Harry Potter fan, check out the Harry Potter Lexicon and The Quick Quotes Quill, a collection of J.K. Rowling’s media interviews.
• For Christian fans, I recommend every article on John Granger’s site.
• Harry Potter criticism
• Harry Potter: Can A Wizard Teach Moral Lessons?
• Hoodwinked by Harry? (I met Mark D. Roberts at GodBlogCon.)
• Is “Harry Potter” Harmless?
• Harry Potter and the Existence of God
• J.K. Rowling, Inkling?
• Severus Snape: The Unlikely Hero of Harry Potter book 7
• Deconstructing Rowling
• David Wayne: 1) Are “Harry Potter” and “Left Behind” Pretty Much the Same Thing?, 2) The Subtly Christian Worldview of J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter, 3) Shadowmancer – Hotter than Potter!, 4) Harry Potter is Heating Up Again, 5) The limits of metaphor