Brokeback Mountain

There are very few movies that I have ever seen that, as soon as the credits rolled, I wanted to watch all over again, immediately. Brokeback Mountain is such a movie.

I would not call Brokeback the best film of the year—Gegen Die Wand belongs in that spot, I think—nor even the best American film—A History of Violence takes that position. Brokeback drags occasionally, but I think that's because it is paced more like an Asian film—there is a certain similarity to Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love, or more so, to Happy Together—rather than something like The Notebook or some other Hollywood tragedy/melodrama.

Honestly, I was expecting a very, very good melodrama when I walked in the theater. So when I walked out, I was a little puzzled, a little thrown off-balance. But I knew one thing for sure. I wish I knew the characters better—all of them, but particularly Ennis Del Mar, Heath Ledger's character. Heath Ledger gives the best performance of the decade, if not more. Ledger creates a Marlboro Man with an infinite depth; every twitch of his mouth, every narrowing of his eyes has an entire world of emotions, thoughts, associations behind it. This is the most complete character work I have ever seen. And I do not think it is too hyperbolic to say that not since Brando has a male actor been this quietly powerful. Ledger is a marvel, and if he were the only good part of the film, I would still count it one of the best of the year.

But there is a lot more to appreciate. Jake Gyllenhaal gives a great performance, but is unavoidably overshadowed by Ledger. Anne Hathaway plays deliciously against type, a Texan rodeo star who can't keep her shirt on, her mouth off a cigarette, or her hair from ridiculousness. Michelle Williams is not called on for much, but two moments in particular—in bed with Ledger and immediately after observing Ledger and Gyllenhaal kissing—are among the more moving seconds in the film. Then there is the cinematography. I think it is Montana that is called the Big Sky State, but Wyoming's expansiveness is nonpareil. This film is shot gorgeously.

But it is really the characters that made me want to watch it over again. I simply did not want to leave Ennis, but I also wanted to observe all the characters more, try to figure out more, learn more about them, simply watch them interact. Brokeback Mountain is over two hours long, but, like a really good novel, there will never be enough pages or minutes of film to contain the complexities you can observe in a single paragraph or a single close-up in just one character's face. I wish I knew the characters in Brokeback, or at the very least, I wish I could just watch them some more.

Good News for Ethanol, Bad News for the Environment

In their perpetual quest to catch up to the Europeans and Japanese in automotive technology, Detroit has decided to aggressively market “flex fuel” vehicles—those that can run on either gasoline or E85, a special 85% ethanol and 15% gas blend. The motive for doing so is clear: consumers have pegged Ford and GM as laggards in creating fuel-efficient technology. Both companies have been late to hybrid technology, which is now dominated by Honda and Toyota (Ford did introduce the first hybrid SUV, but still pays royalties to Toyota for its hybrid patents). The Americans have even been beat at their own hydrogen-car initiative—Honda produced working prototypes of a fuel-cell hydrogen car over two years ago.

The flex-fuel vehicles aim to take advantage of consumer ignorance over the true cost of ethanol. Ethanol is a grain alcohol that is created from the fermentation of sugars, which in the U.S., comes namely from the heavily subsidized Midwestern states. Proponents proclaim that adding it to gasoline blends will make it burn cleaner on a per-gallon basis; this is true. However, the claim that ethanol is energy efficient is questionable at best. While it is nature’s way of channeling solar energy for tangible use, the method by which the corn is transformed into ethanol uses gargantuan amounts of energy itself.

In U.S. agriculture, we use fossil fuels on the farm—the plow, for fertilization, irrigation, pesticide application, and harvesting. After air-conditioned tractors gather the corn, we then transport it via fossil-fuel semis to processing plants. More energy is used to process it, refrigerate it (condense ethanol into liquid) and then transport it yet again. What is the true impact?

David Pimentel of Cornell University has published controversial papers expounding ethanol’s net cost. That is, for every joule of non-solar energy (the sun is essentially free energy) inputted, the end-user is outputted only a fraction of that joule. While additional studies conclude that there might be a tiny net benefit, we can only conclude that E85’s efficiency highly uncertain. Physics tells that energy is lost as heat (friction and the like) over longer transmission distances, which begs the question: if we use fossil fuel to grow an “alternative fuel” to provide energy, why not just use the fossil fuel directly?

Moreover, what is absolutely certain is that when E85 is added to any car, E85 engines have around 25% lower fuel-efficiency. For example, a Ford Taurus using E85 is much less efficient than the same Ford Taurus using regular gasoline (Hwy mileage: Gas, 27; E85, 20).

Given Ford and GM’s financial problems, pursuing technology with very little demand doesn’t make sense. Their R&D dollars would be better spent on creating the fuel-efficient vehicles that Americans now want (hybrid growth is astronomical). Few people have access to rare E85 stations, which won’t change in number unless the government creates lavish subsidies. Midwest politicians are sure to love bringing in the pork under the guise of “increasing energy security” when in fact they do nothing but exacerbate the situation—increased ethanol use only drives up demand for even more fossil fuels. There are no real winners here, except perhaps Archer-Daniels-Midland, who will be rolling in liquid gold.

The North Stars

No, not the defunct Minnesotan NHL franchise—Hubble has now revealed that the North Star is actually three stars.



Edit: In the interest of journalistic integrity, I must inform you that the Minnesota North Stars technically aren't defunct. They moved to Dallas in 1993 and became the Dallas Stars. Hat tip to Varun Jain for the reminder.

Are you packing?

Colombian town requires all males to carry a condom at all times.

Certainly a novel approach to fighting AIDS.

The local priest is protesting. I wonder if he's exempt from this law?

Hearing Check

I was watching Fox News today (well, my dad was, and I was doing the dishes) and the big news story was how evil, malevolent, and brutal those Dems are who are questioning Alito. Now, I think nearly all Dem Senators on that committee have made total asses of themselves (and for the record, I find absolutely no reason why Alito does not deserve confirmation), but I find it a bit rich that conservatives are calling out liberals for attempted character assassination.

I mean, the Republican Party was the one that did that swift-boating thing, right? And the one that waged total war on Richard Clarke, yeah? And the one who launched an abortive attack on Jack Murtha? And the one that annihilated one of their own—Harriet Miers—rightly, yes, but nevertheless relentlessly, mercilessly, and even gleefully. I mean, Harriet Miers was supposedly a nice lady. And conservatives didn't feel too bad about raking her over the coals.

I really think the Dem Senators in that room suck balls. Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer should be put out to pasture someplace or given a teaching job at Cornell. And I think they're flogging a bunch of dead horses—none of their objections amount to something that should sink a judicial appointment. But Brit Hume whining about those mean, mean Dems asking mean, mean questions of Judge Alito? Please, the man's from New Jersey. I seriously doubt today was the worst day in his life.

Edit: For the record, this was really fucking dumb of me.

"The hill-winds in their breath"

Looks to me that, along with the Lorax Line, January is seeing the start-up of another Dartmouth blog, The Hill Wind Journal.

Their first post is an intriguing little report on and critique of Joe Asch's failing writing program. The author finds it ironic that Joe Asch, a huge critic of administrative waste, has been running a separate writing program from the already present and successful RWIT, but at a much greater cost per student. Not only that, but it has now failed, as the D reports.

Anyway, keep an eye on this blog and look for more to come.

Oh Fuck, More About Hipsters Again?/This Letter Some Guy Wrote

At the risk of falling into a rut (Seal addresses Dartmouth review thoughtfully, I follow up with some vitriolic bullshit) a coupla things in this last one got the ol' vitriol flowin' pretty good. I've been buying that shit by the gallon jug at Trader Joe's and it's coming through reeeal nice.

!) Nick Desai Doesn't Know What Vice is. If you're starting to write some smarmy article about hipsters, and you want to shit out some extremely predictable judgments at the end of it, and somehow you need to fill like seventeen pages with text, the least you could do is your fucking homework. Writing an article about hipsters without mentioning Vice is like writing an article about William F. Buckley without mentioning that he's decomposing.


See?

!!) Everett P. Strong (of the Bradenton, Florida Strongs) wrote a stupid fucking letter about how conservatives are so cool because they, unlike us joyless lefties, demonstrate an "appealing joie de vivre." As evidence he gives us this delightful anecdote:
------------------------------
George Will did a piece on Bill Buckley, part of which says it all—He: "Patricia, would you consider marriage with me?" She: "Bill, I’ve been asked this question many times. To others I have said no. To you I say yes. Now may I please get back and finishmy hand?" A liberal would never understand this.
------------------------------

Number one, he's right. I don't get that shit at all, and the only comment I can make on it is that I personally rate the probability that this exchange never, ever took place anywhere at around 99%.

Number two, if they're going to try to make a soul singer look dumb by adding little [sic]s after every word little typo and capitalization error they could at least copy-edit their own shit. I would cite something but you know what? I don't have to. Pick a page and read about six lines.

Number three, fuck that. I'm a liberal and there's a lot of things I take joy in. For instance, consensual sex between homosexuals. And rap music. All the things they consider "good and fun"- which is what? Poker games? Obnoxious banter? Polo? Gay-bashing? Lynching black people (whoops, cheap shot. They used to think that was fun, but now they all agree that it is bad, bad, bad)? You know what, Everett? You're right again, honky! I don't get that shit at all!

!!!) G. Emily Ghods-Esfahani. Oh hello, Shakespeare article. You know, I think I'd like to read you now. Perhaps you contain some sort of insight as to BBBAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRFFFFFFF Oh God I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to vomit just then but your BBBAAAAAAAARRFFFFFFFFfff cough cough prose style is so BBBAAAARRRRRRRRFFFFFF BBBAAAARRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFf BBBAAAAAAAAAAaaaaAaaaaaAAARRrrrRRRRRRFFFFFFFFF.

Father Abramoff

Two articles to highlight on the Abramoff scandal (kindly sent to me by a friend):

Doug Bandow, the payola op-ed writer, speaks out. He has some really interesting things to say not only about his particular situation, but also about the general state of lobbying and journalism. I hope some people listen to him.

A bit of history and some reflections on the changes in Congress that have led to not only the Abramoff scandal, but the conditions that have allowed it. One great line: "Being a lobbyist to them (Congressmen and their aides) was like being a prostitute -- it was something you did only when desperate."

Review Reviewed

You know, if there is one thing I would have thought the Review could do well, it would be ridiculing hipsters. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Nick Desai's little essay is a lesson in what sentences look like when they are brutally forced and lack any point whatsoever. I have made fun of the Review's ostentatious prose before, but honestly, I enjoy reading a sentence that contains words that I thought only I (and George Will) knew. But only if those sentences are smooth, albeit in a Thomas Carlyle-throw-the-kitchen-sink-into-every-clause manner. Desai can write well; I have enjoyed many of his previous reviews, and his review of Zadie Smith's On Beauty isn't half-bad (though I find mine a bit more complete). But this hipster article reads like walking across the Green in spring, alone and drunk—boggy, meandering, and dull. Describing hipsterism (much less pillorying it) is a tough assignment, true. But good writers nail the tough assignments.

Skipping over to the editor's corner, I find an essay that is lucidly written, interesting, and well-argued, though a lot is left unstated that I find rather bigoted, to be honest. The point of the editorial is that Jews work harder and are more driven than Latinos, Native Americans and blacks, but because the admission office's focus is on ethnic diversity, Jews get screwed and Latinos, Native Americans and blacks benefit. The writer (still not putting names online, I see) also defends legacies and athletes courageously, but rather ineffectually. Their justification for why some legacies get a helping hand is that such a boost is "a testament to the child-rearing ability of Dartmouth graduates." Amusing, fellas.

Book reviews galore. Many of the books, bores.

Kale Bonger's review of Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family (And State Intervention) is not only good, but it represents the kind of conservative thinking that this country needs. Yeah, you heard me.

Kale skewers Santorum when he says, "The justification for his ideas seems to be that, since Santorum is a self-proclaimed conservative, Americans can trust him with their tax monies: his Great Society-like programs will succeed where Johnson’s did not solely because Santorum is on an opposing ideological side." America needs anti-statist conservatives, and it needs them keeping an eye on morons like Santorum.

However, Kale agrees with Santorum that the family is essentially the best proving ground and factory for morality. I think this is wrong. The most reliable source of morality (or virtue, if you prefer) is the fear of other families, the possibility of shame, and the terror of humiliation. Advertising preys on these things, and so does morality, which is just another kind of advertising. A better, more socially beneficial form, but you're still selling an image—to yourself or to others, it's still a sale.

This is nation-building? This is teaching democracy?

This is disturbing.

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.

Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

My only word on Alito

Just read this.

Well, and this—what Alito's opening statement says about him.

More on Early Action

I was thinking a bit more about the benefits prospective students might receive if Dartmouth switched from early decision (a binding agreement) to early action (a non-binding agreement). Basically, early action is better than early decision because it gives the student some leverage in negotiating for more financial aid. And it is better than regular decision because there may be a slight edge for getting in in applying early and because it will give the student a longer bargaining period than regular decision does.

But what if the student didn't need leverage, and didn't need a longer bargaining period? (The edge in getting in is a different matter.) What if Dartmouth pledged—and fulfilled that pledge—to not just "meet demonstrated need" but to actually make it possible for every kid accepted under early decision to come to Dartmouth.

Now that may not be totally economically realistic, but I'm just being hypothetical here. What if Dartmouth made it known that if you apply early and get in, Dartmouth will make sure you have the money you need to enroll the next fall? I think there would be a variety of effects, and most would be positive.

First, more students would apply. Secondly, more highly qualified students would apply, eager just to get the whole circus over with. This means, therefore, that the early decision pool would be more selective. Thirdly, our regular decision pool would be better because it would catch all the wait-listed kids from the better early decision pool. Fourthly, this would likely diversify our applicant pool. Removing the fear of cost as a factor means that more people with more and different reasons to apply to Dartmouth early will all see no reason why not to do so.

Of course, there is the possibility that if we devote a large portion of our endowment (or the profits from the endowment) to making sure all early decision acceptances can enroll in the fall, we may not have as much money for the regular decision applicants. This punishes the indecisive, mainly.

Anyway, just a thought.

Early Action, Afternoon Delight

Friday, the Dartmouth editorial board published a Verbum Ultimum expressing distaste for the early decision program Dartmouth still practices, even though Harvard and Yale have switched to non-binding early action.

Today, an alum retorts that "Dartmouth cannot afford to institute early action unless she is prepared for a significant drop in yield." A drop in yield will lead to a drop in rankings, which will lead to a drop in applications from gifted students in the future. Harvard and Yale won't really suffer a drop in yield regardless of whether they have binding early decision or non-binding early action.

The Dartmouth ed board tries to look at the problem from the perspective of the applying student—those freaking out kids have enough to worry about without stressing over binding contracts and the possibility that they won't be able to find enough financial aid once they're in a binding contract. Those are legitimate concerns, certainly.

But what I think is the real problem here is not that we have a binding early decision program, but that we are need-blind, at least in name. I think a college of Dartmouth's caliber and endowment level should not be need-blind, but rather need-sensitive. I think we should actively recruit kids who will be needing significant aid, and although I think we do to some extent, the proof is in the pudding—throw a frisbee across the Green and you'll hit at least five trust fund babies, it seems.

Early decision does seem to make the idea of being need-sensitive problematic—what if we admit too many "needy" students early and don't have enough money for the regular applicants? What if a student is admitted early (and therefore bound) but can't come up with the money required? These are legitimate and real problems, and I don't have any facile solutions. But I genuinely think being need-sensitive is something we should pursue.

Crash into Me

Finally saw Crash this evening. After some mediocre reviews from critics whom I normally trust (Slate, mostly), I was a little wary of the film. I had read that the film simply couldn't overcome artistically the fact that its levels of nuance and probability are about the same as porn—utterly lacking in both.

Well, the film is roughly as little nuanced and as improbable as advertised, but I feel it certainly did overcome whatever limitations that dearth may present. I'm not exactly sure what kind of message director/writer Paul Haggis intends by rewriting Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia as a morality tale about racism, but he did it well.

The cast is almost universally well-chosen (though Brendan Fraser is a little stiff, even for a California wannabe politician and Sandra Bullock's scenes could have taken a bit more pruning or at least a touch of levity—Parker Posey would have been a dream cast in this spot). But the really powerful performances are by actors I had to look up on IMDb. Michael Peña is devastating as a Hispanic locksmith with the cutest little daughter of any film of the decade so far. The entire Iranian family—Bahar Soomekh, Dato Bakhtadze, and Shaun Toub—also grabbed my attention forcefully and poignantly.

A lot has been made of the way Haggis places the language of racism front and center, and shows viscerally how that type of language is connected directly to our actions and our reactions. I think this is certainly the most valuable part of the movie, though if you want an even better examination of this idea, watch Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing.

Will Crash make you a better person? I almost instinctively say no, but I have a strong inclination to say yes. I feel Crash is the answer to people like Joe Malchow who want to all of a sudden put color-blinders on without addressing the inequalities actually present in America and why those inequalities are often tied to racial differences.

Crash, I think, makes it impossible to look at the problems of race without looking at the problems of racism. Conservatives who focus on racial check-boxes and reverse discrimination via affirmative action never like to talk about the racist conditions that have made some people think that those measures are necessary. If I had a dollar for every time someone followed up a statement like "as every living, breathing, hearing, seeing person who has gone through the college admissions process in the past half-century knows, possessing a certain skin tint is a de facto help or hindrance in being accepted, though the process purportedly seeks only merit" with an appeal for more money for inner-city schools, well, I wouldn't have very much money. Those who get all caught up on skin tints miss the point. The questions we should be asking aren't about race. They're about racism.

Many of the problems of racism are distinct from problems about race. Do questions about the genetic nature of race really apply to the actions of a police officer who pulls someone over for driving while black? That action is about power in the same way a jock shoving a nerd into a locker is about power. Or the way a woman gets paid much less than a man for doing the same damn thing. Racism is definitely about race, but it also is simply when we use racial differences as a cover for an abuse of power.

The problems of racism, then, are the problems of how our systems and society allow these abuses of power. How we've used race as a cover for creating imbalances, inequalities, and injustices that perpetuate themselves—that is what needs to be addressed, and it can't be addressed by pretending to be colorblind.

I think that's what is truly great about Crash; it treats racism as something we must all confront, even if we aren't confronted with race. In Indiana, where I haven't seen a person of Middle Eastern descent literally in days, or an Indian since I left Glasgow, I think this message is even more valuable, immediate, and necessary.

Jesus for Jews?

Excellent article here in the WaPo examining the phenomenon of what they call philo-Semitism, the extreme love of Judaism, usually by evangelical Christians, and the usually attendant political support for the state of Israel.

I blogged below about Pat Robertson's own philo-Semitism and expressed some reservations similar to those voiced in the WaPo article.

many Jews suspect that evangelicals' support for Israel is rooted in a belief that the return of Jews to the promised land will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus, the battle of Armageddon and mass conversion.

"That hope is felt and expressed by Christians as a kind, benevolent hope," said [Julie] Galambush, author of "The Reluctant Parting," a new book on the Jewish roots of Christianity. "But believing that someday Jews will stop being Jews and become Christians is still a form of hoping that someday there will be no more Jews."

However, there are unambiguously benign signs out there that, theologically at least, evangelical Christians are beginning to see Jews as more than just future Christians (or past rejectors/murderers of Christ). "[E]vangelicals are beginning to move away from supersessionism -- the centuries-old belief that with the coming of Jesus, God ended his covenant with the Jews and transferred it to the Christian church."

I'd like to think that evangelicals are learning the meaning of pluralistic harmony, but there is just something about Christians obsessing about Jews that worries me a little.

I suppose it is impossible to tell at this point whether this is an apt comparison, but evangelicals have also recently warmed to Catholicism. But as Franklin Foer points out, evangelicals have more or less drafted Catholic brainpower to articulate their own agenda. I may be a bit sensitive on this issue as a liberal Catholic, but it seems to me that such a relationship is more like a viral infection in the Catholic community than true fellowship. I have my suspicions that evangelicals may intend a similar set-up with Judaism.

(Metafilter has more.)

Top 10 Most Disappointing Films of 2005

As a contrarian, instead of posting a top 10 list of films from 2005, I'll post the 10 films I was most disappointed in. I liked many of them, I enjoyed almost all of them, but many just didn't live up to my personal hyping of them. Oldboy would outdistance all of them, but I consider it technically a 2004 release. Okay, the plot twist was cool, but shouldn't a revenge flick be a little bit more badass? Anyway, here you go.

Howl's Moving Castle: Why the rush, Hayao? The plot doesn't even follow a fairy-tale brand of logic.

2046: Wong Kar-Wai will just never equal In the Mood for Love, sorry. Zhang Ziyi, however, shows off some dazzlingly intense acting chops, though.

The Libertine: All the acting is beyond award-worthy; it is downright heroic. The sets are the most majestically lurid depictions of Restoration England ever. Unfortunately, in all the research and acting brio, someone forgot to tell the scriptwriter(/playwright) Stephen Jeffreys that John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester, played more than memorably by Johnny Depp, was wickedly funny. That the audience misses out on a display of true, ribald brilliance is a tragedy.

Batman Begins: Katie Holmes. 'Nuff said.

Seriously, although this was the best popcorn film of the year by a longshot, there was a slackness in the directing that made the film seem just a bit languid. I think Chris Nolan focused a little too much on making this "dark" and forgot superhero films are supposed to be fun too.

Saraband: Ingmar Bergman's triumphant return to the screen was actually barely a footnote to an unparalleled career.

Wedding Crashers: Did the film-makers forget they casted Christopher Walken? How can you avoid making Christopher Walken funny? Apparently, the film-makers also were under the impression that comedies can be over 2 hours long. Bastards.

Kung Fu Hustle: Stephen Chow, you're just not that cool. Sorry. Maybe I just have something against cartoonish violence in a non-cartoon setting, but I yawned my way through this one.

Broken Flowers: I haven't seen Dead Man yet, but I don't like Jim Jarmusch. The plot and casting of this film is tailor-made for a wise but hilarious romp, but it feels more like a slog through a series of fuzzily conceived trailer quotes. Seriously, watch the trailer, all the best parts are in there. I don't think there was a single other film this year with more wasted potential.

March of the Penguins:
Cute

is

so

fucking

overrated.

A Great Day for Dartmouth

ROTC cadets to begin receiving full tuition scholarships.

New Dartmouth blog

Travis Mushett '08 has recently started Lorax Line, a new liberal blog. Travis is a really perceptive, intelligent guy who writes very well, as one can tell from his articles for the DFP.

Anyway, give him a look. He's already got a few entries up so far, and I'm sure he'll have more coming soon.

"I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys"

(Song of Solomon 2:1, in case you were wondering)


Pat Robertson: God kicked Ariel Sharon's ass for being nice to Palestinians

Well, he didn't say so in so many words, but... Actually, what he said was:

"He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America'... God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone'...In the book of Joel, the prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has ‘enmity against those who divide My land.’ God considers this land to be His. When you read the Bible, He said this is my land. For any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he will carve it up and give it away, God said, 'No, this is Mine.'"

In an encyclical on the Christian Broadcasting Network website, Robertson tells us that Evangelical Christians "are with you [Israel] in your struggle. We are with you as a wave of anti-Semitism is engulfing the earth." (Robertson, it should be noted, is unafraid of irony.)

However, he says, "It is very hard for your friends to support you, if you make a conscious decision to destroy yourselves." The reason? As Dr. J. Rodman (also of CBN) warns: "the end will not occur without Israel's coming to salvation...there will finally be such a fullness of Israel when their hardness and blindness to the gospel is overcome as to vastly enrich the whole world. For the almost unbelievable truth is that all Israel will be saved. The fullness of Gentiles will climax with the fullness of Israel." Jews in Israel apparently have to hang around long enough for us Christians to convert them at the end of time before Jesus comes back and wastes the homosexuals and Democrats among us.

So basically, evangelical Christians think they're in a 'friends with benefits' relationship with Israel—'We'll call you when we want a fuck. Until then, stay unattached and disease-free.' Except most friends with benefits relationships don't also have a wrath of God component as well. Huh.

P.S. Check out Robertson's answer to the question "What does it mean that the United States is not mentioned in "end of the world " prophetic scenarios?" If that doesn't destroy the notion of literal Biblical hermeneutics, I don't know what does. Robertson twists the Bible into a pretzel shoehorning the States into the end-times: "In Ezekiel, there is a reference to the "young lions of Tarshish looking on" while there seems to be an invasion of Israel by Gog and Magog, the people to the north of Israel. Tarshish was a seaport town along the Atlantic Ocean, not far from what is now Cadiz, Spain. Settlers from Tarshish went to England and to Ireland, and it is believed that some of them eventually made their way to the United States. As such, "the young lions of Tarshish" could apply to America."

Wish away, wish away

Morgan Freeman recently had some advice for us all regarding racism. He said,

The only way to defeat racism is to stop talking about it. I am going to stop calling you a white man and I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man.

Joe Malchow waxes (and waxes and waxes) grandiloquent about this quote, but I won't pause to sigh over his lead-heavy metaphors. The content of Joe's post is sigh-worthy enough.

When I was a young boy, I didn’t know there was racism. Then I learned that there was racism, and it occured to me rather speedily that the best way to end racism would be to stop practicing racism. Unfortunately, the more misguided elements in our society have decided to take a different tack.

What Joe's soliloquy amounts to is irritation—irritation that race confronts him when applying to college or in the professional world. Irritation, in other words, specifically at "reverse discrimination." (I personally feel that those who complain the most about reverse discrimination secretly believe that whites are the only race that simply should never be discriminated against.) He seeks to remove that irritation by removing it from those worlds—academic, professional, and in the all-too-odd world of alumni relations. What he is utterly blind to is that those worlds are not all-encompassing.

We don't have racial self-identification check-boxes or official "historically marginalized group" status in our personal lives in any non-figurative sense. We live without personal waivers stating that we are a disadvantaged minority or cards like country club memberships proclaiming our whiteness. We don't need to—names, check-boxes, waivers are all hardly necessary to articulate between private persons. And because the professional, academic, and alumni worlds rest on personal interactions and because the personal world intrudes, obtrudes, and often obscures those other worlds, we cannot just concentrate real hard altogether and let racism just evaporate. It won't.

Take a look at the institution that is supposed to be the most fair, colorblind, and impartial in America—the court of law. Do I even need to find some statistics to illustrate the blatant racism of our "colorblind" policies at work? Can I send you a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird? It's oh-so-middle-school, but it depicts a real problem in America, and not just in the South, or in the past, but here and now, in New Jersey, in California, in Indiana, in New York, all over.

Seriously, if all it took was Joe's method—"the best way to end racism would be to stop practicing racism"—then you don't think men and women much smarter than Joe or I would have figured out a way to get that done? Joe suggests that it is liberals who are standing in the way of his beautiful plan to route racism and establish a world of peace and harmony. I find that to be a politically-driven evasion of anything meaningful about the question of race, but I just want to say one thing about this "solution."

I don't think Joe, or many other people who echo his solution, would be quite so eager to adapt that solution to war, for instance. "The best way to end war would be to stop practicing war." If Joe said that, he'd be the kind of soft liberal he derides. If he said that, he'd be soft on defense, soft on terrorism, soft on rogue nations and cagey superpower-wannabes. He'd be soft on Ahminedijad, on Kim Jong-Il, on Saddam, on Qaddafi.

My point is not that we should extend the Bush Doctrine into the problem of racism, because I don't think there are two opposing camps in the effort to end racism—those who want to end racism and those who don't. That white-black kind of thinking is exactly the kind that creates racism.

My point is instead that wishing a problem—like war, famine, genocide, poverty, racism, disease, a nuclear arms race—away is about as reasonable as believing as a fifth-grader that if your entire class refused to do homework forever, the teacher would just stop giving it.