Year: 2004

Saddest Songs Ever

There’s a bit in the final episode of Babylon 5 where Vir recounts a time when he and Londo (who is dead now) once heard the Pak’ma’ra singing.

The Pak’ma’ra are a vile, disgusting, Cthuloid race that nobody likes, and nobody knew they could sing, but they do–rarely and for religious reasons. Vir says that it was the most beautiful sound he had ever heard,
full of sadness, and hope, wonder, and a terrible sense of loss. Londo was moved to tears.

He concludes:

When it
was over, Londo turned to me and said "There are
forty-nine gods in our pantheon, Vir; to tell you the truth I never
believed in any of them. But if only one of them exists, then God
sings with that voice." It’s funny. After everything we have been
through, all he did… I miss him.

I recently ran across a song that I hadn’t heard in ages: "Ashokan Farewell."

This song became famous in 1990 when Ken Burns used it as the main theme of his series The Civil War. It is a staggeringly beautiful theme, filled with sadness and hope and wonder and a terrible sense of loss.

Together with "Some Day Never Comes" by Creedence Clearwater Revival and "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, et al., it’s one of the three saddest, most beautiful songs I know. (Though some of Mark Herd’s stuff comes close.)

Unlike the rest of the music Burns used in The Civil War, "Ashokan Farewell" is not a period piece. In fact, it was written in 1982 by a gentleman named Jay Ungar, who conducted a series of summer fiddle and dance workshops in Ashokan, New York. He describes how the song came about:

I composed Ashokan Farewell in 1982 shortly after the summer
programs had come to an end. I was experiencing a great feeling of loss
and longing for the lifestyle and the community of people that had
developed at Ashokan that summer. The transition from living in the
woods with a small group of people who needed little excuse to
celebrate the joy of living through music and dancing, back to life as
usual, with traffic, disturbing newscasts, "important" telephone calls
and impersonal relationships had been difficult. I was in tears when I
wrote Ashokan Farewell . I kept the tune to myself for months, slightly
embarrassed by the emotions that welled up whenever I played it.

Ungar’s tears have been mirrored in the eyes of thousands of others who have heard the song. Softer-edged than "Someday Never Comes" and "Will the Circle Be Unbroken," whose lyrics sharpen the sense of loss these songs convey, "Ashokan Farewell"’s lyricless-melody perfectly captures the bittersweet of nostalgia–the sense of beauty and loss, the desire to go back and experience things again–to see old friends and loved ones–as a rush of memories comes flooding back. Since the song in its original form has no lyrics, it is not bound to any particular plot. Your memories fill in the detail as the song moves you to contemplate what was . . . and no longer is.

But which may be again.

When Christ makes all things new.

LISTEN TO THE SONG (midi version, not fully orchestrated).

READ ABOUT THE SONG.

LYRICS TO THE SONG.

DOWNLOAD THE SONG.

Crichton on Overpopulation

Continuing excerpts from Crichton’s important speech:

In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In
the 1970s the world will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of
people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted
four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million
Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and
it now seems it isn’t ever going to happen. Nor is the population
explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In
1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by
2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and
falling. But nobody knows for sure.

MORE TOMORROW.

READ THE WHOLE SPEECH.

That Dream!

You know that dream where you’re back in college and it’s the end of the term is almost over and you suddenly realize that there’s this class you haven’t been to all semester? (Or, alternately, that you showed up in class one days and there’s a test that you haven’t studied for?)

I HATE that dream!

And I still get it–years after college.

So do my friends.

This leads me to wonder: What is it about college that produces this dream? Sure, college is an intense experience at a crucial, transitional time of life. But why do people have this dream so many years after college is over?

(BTW, sorry for spoiling future nightmares for any college-folk who are reading this but . . . this is what you have to look forward to–sometimes, anyway).

Human psychology is fundamentally the same in every age, though culture and circumstance do have their impacts. This leads me to think that people in other ages–before it was standard to go to college–likely had an equivalent dream. But what was it?

Perhaps in tribal societies, people who had long been made men had nightmares about being unprepared for the rites of manhood or something (and some of those could indeed be disturbing–like adult circumcision). Perhaps in societies where there are arranged marriages, people have anxiety dreams long after the fact about meeting their predestined spouse for the first time.

But such a predictable equivalent doesn’t appear in all cultures.

So that leaves me with a question.

No answers, just a question.

Collective brainpower, anyone?

Clueless Lefty Defends Hollywood Elite

USA Today recently carried an editorial by culture-poisoner Steven Levitan (responsible for writing such atrocities as Greg the Bunny, which combined cute puppets and raunchy humor in prime time) under the title Hollywood "Elite": We’re Not Villains.

As if!

Here’s some excerpt with responses:

Even though I’ve been a member of the "Liberal Hollywood Elite" for 15 years, I have never been invited to an orgy.

Presumably because you’re married.

Instead, I get invited to roughly three dozen charity events a year.

And how many of these involve abortion, homosexual "rights," and the Democratic Party?

Why, then, do so many conservatives hold us in the same esteem as the
proprietor of the local porn shop?

Porn? On the Hollywood view, what’s wrong with porn? Sure, out in the red states we disapprove of it, but what on earth do you in the snakepit see as wrong with it? Articulate a rational, Hollywood case against porn for me, please. (N.B., "It in some way diminishes boxoffice proceeds" doesn’t count.)

Are our morals and values so
different from the rest of America?

Yep. See former point.

I believe "Hollywood" is more like
middle America than many people imagine.

If by that you mean that people in Hollywood don’t have horns, I’m prepared to concede the point.

This was a typical weekend for us: Saturday, we went to our kids’
soccer games (one loss, one tie). Saturday night we took the kids to
see a movie (The Incredibles). Sunday, we went to a child’s birthday party. Sunday night, we had dinner at home.

You may have noticed there was no mention of church or Temple.

Now that you mention it . . . There’s one point of difference from Middle America.

I was raised Jewish, my wife was raised Catholic. Though we respect
each other’s heritage, and while many of our friends are deeply
religious, we have chosen to focus on our similarities, not our
differences.

In other words, by ceasing to practice any faith, you’re both a couple of sell-outs on the most single important subject in life and are trying to mask that fact to yourselves with pious-sounding pleasantries.

We teach our children compassion, charity,
honesty and the benefits of hard work. We teach them to help those who
aren’t as lucky as they are. I am confident that they will go into the
world with good morals and strong family values.

Not if you’re also filling their heads with family-undermining values on abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. Let’s see how you feel about those values when you’re on your deathbed and your kids are itching to pull the plug lest you consume more of their inheritance with medical bills.

Friends in the Midwest often ask me what it’s
like to raise a family in Los Angeles. I say it’s just like where they
are, but warmer and with more traffic. I also tell them people here
seem a bit more tolerant of those who are different.

So . . . you’re showing your superior tolerance of others by making an unflattering remark about Midwesterners?

My wife and I are friends with several gay
couples, many of whom have been together for 20-plus years.

And this is supposed to convince me that you’re not morally warped and that you’re setting a good example for your children?

I have no problem befriending individuals who struggle with homosexual temptations. In fact, that’s praiseworthy. They lead a hard life, and they need support. But to befriend with no note of disappoval openly gay "couples" is to affirm them in an objectively disordered lifestyle.

While I can
joke that that’s a rare accomplishment even for heterosexual couples
here, in fact, many people have been together that long.

About fifty or sixty.

What puzzles
me, though, is why Britney Spears can get drunk and then married for 55
hours in Vegas and have more rights than a successful, loving gay
couple who have been together for a quarter century.

As if this snark-ument is supposed to convince anybody! One, Britney Spears’ "marriage" has ANNULMENT written all over it. Two, Vegas marriage laws are atrocious anyway (hardly representative of "family values"). Three, one can’t judge the legal status of a marriage at the time it is contracted by a fact that isn’t known at the time (i.e., how long it will last). And four, at least Britney wasn’t (to our knowledge) grossly violating the laws of biology.

Expecting universal agreement at a dinner party
just before the election, I voiced this view [i.e., that Kerry was to be voted for] rather passionately, only
to learn that half of the room was voting for President Bush. Huh? In
liberal Hollywood?

So . . . you’re acknowledging that you did expect Hollywood to be out of step with where the election showed most Americans to be?

Also, with a sampling size this small, I’d put more faith in the exit polls that showed Kerry winning on election day. Just how blue was your county on November 2?

But what about the accusation that Hollywood is
trying to advance its liberal agenda? Well, the fact is, while the
creative community admittedly leans left,

A notable admission!

Hollywood has become a
corporate town. Middle America may only see celebrities, but the real
power here lies with the heads of studios and networks. In the old
days, studio and network presidents answered to no one. Today, they
report to corporate boards and shareholders — not exactly a bunch of
lefties.

Which is why y’all don’t try to foist on America a constant diet of Fahrenheit 9/11s and Last Temptations of Christ.

Sorry, Medved has already ably documented the fact that Hollywood sinks huge amounts of money in unprofitable loser movies that can be explained only by cultural bias.

The point is, this town can’t be summed up with
one ideology. To label and dismiss us, to vilify us, is to wrongly
assume that politically there exists an "us." In fact, we are just a
group of very different people, most of us trying to raise our
families, joined by the desire to grab an audience.

You’ve already admitted that there are several "us"es in Hollywood. While one can dispute the leanings of the boardmembers and the studio heads who approve the filth with which you–and by that I mean you personally–have filled screens, you have already admitted that "the creative community admittedly leans left." Since it is the creative community (not the studio heads) that rush out into the press to advocate evil causes and candidates, you have little cause to complain about the impression of Hollywood that they generate for Midwesterners. If it helps you, parse criticisms of the "Hollywood elite" as criticisms of "the creative community."

It pains me that our nation is so divided.

Somewhere, I hear violins playing.

So,
during the next four years, I’m going to try to better understand the
so-called Christian Right that views Hollywood as the enemy.

Good! Try taking this blog entry as a starting point!

Much like
in my marriage, I’m going to focus on our similarities, because I
believe, from the bottom of my heart, that if we try, we can find
common ground.

No. This is precisely wrong. The problem is not failure to appreciate our similarities; it is the reality of our differences. You (presumably) believe that baby-killing via abortion should be allowed. I do not. As long as you hold the opinion that you do, our differences are irreconcilable, and no amount of "focusing on our similarities" will smooth things over.

Either you switch on the subject of baby-killing . . . or you’re the enemy.

The fact that we are similar in that we both lack horns counts for precisely nothing as long as you support the legalized murder of more than a million kids a year.

As far as I’m concerned, you’re not just from a different planet. You’re from a different universe–where the murder of the most defenseless members of society is wrapped in a cloak of false compassion.

God, I sound like such a liberal.

Yes.

Yes, you do.

Crichton On "Second-Hand Smoke"

Continuing excerpts from Crichton’s important speech:

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible

for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking

adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of

thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven

studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and

that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of

1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action

by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine,

for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association

at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They

then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans

on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned

public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the

Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the

nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer

Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand

smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had

"committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had

"disregarded information and made findings on selective information."

The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our

science….there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly

recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of

health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps

science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that

Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A

large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have

well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read,

for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At

this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand

smoke.

MORE TOMORROW.

READ THE WHOLE SPEECH.

Crichton On “Second-Hand Smoke”

Continuing excerpts from Crichton’s important speech:

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible
for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking
adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of
thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven
studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and
that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of
1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action
by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine,
for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association
at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They
then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans
on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned
public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the
Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the
nation’s third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer
Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand
smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had
"committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had
"disregarded information and made findings on selective information."
The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our
science….there’s wide agreement. The American people certainly
recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of
health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps
science. In this case, it isn’t even a consensus of scientists that
Browner evokes! It’s the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A
large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have
well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read,
for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At
this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand
smoke.

MORE TOMORROW.

READ THE WHOLE SPEECH.

This Week's Second Q & A Show

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • DA RULZ!
  • Update from yesterday’s show about child being taught to make the sign of the cross.
  • Co-Redemptrix: Doctrine or Dogma?
  • Has Russia been consecrated to Mary?
  • Why do Jews need to become Christian?
  • Woman prayed the Rosary for a long time without realizing mysteries are attached to the decades. What effects does this have?
  • A Jewish caller asks why the Sadducees aren’t more prominent in the Gospels?
  • Is Jesus the head of "the Protestant church as a whole"?
  • Gen. 3:15: "He will crush" or "she will crush"–What’s the deal?
  • Who are "the pre-Vatican II Christians"? (The ones who allegedly live today, that is.)
  • Can laity give the homily?
  • Which is more important: Liturgy of the Hours or the Rosary?
  • How do we know who St. Anne and Salome were?
  • A Protestant caller wants to know why Hail Marys are used as penances and who decides how many to do.
  • What are Jimmy’s views on James White’s arguments?

This Week’s Second Q & A Show

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • DA RULZ!
  • Update from yesterday’s show about child being taught to make the sign of the cross.
  • Co-Redemptrix: Doctrine or Dogma?
  • Has Russia been consecrated to Mary?
  • Why do Jews need to become Christian?
  • Woman prayed the Rosary for a long time without realizing mysteries are attached to the decades. What effects does this have?
  • A Jewish caller asks why the Sadducees aren’t more prominent in the Gospels?
  • Is Jesus the head of "the Protestant church as a whole"?
  • Gen. 3:15: "He will crush" or "she will crush"–What’s the deal?
  • Who are "the pre-Vatican II Christians"? (The ones who allegedly live today, that is.)
  • Can laity give the homily?
  • Which is more important: Liturgy of the Hours or the Rosary?
  • How do we know who St. Anne and Salome were?
  • A Protestant caller wants to know why Hail Marys are used as penances and who decides how many to do.
  • What are Jimmy’s views on James White’s arguments?

Why The World Needs U.S.

It’s fun and scary to speculate on the future and "what if" scenarios.

HERE’S A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO THAT DEPENDS ON ONE THING: THE U.S. DECIDING NOT TO BE GLOBAL COP ANY MORE.

I’d love to see this scenario played out in a movie. Hate to see it played out in real-life.

The author concludes that the (unnamed) intelligence insiders who spun out the scenario "also say there is no more important objective for the Bush administration than repairing transatlantic relations."

Seems to me that if the scenario shows anything, it shows just how much the world needs the U.S. and how urgent the need is for the Axis of Weasels to suck it up and get with the program. Things fare badly for the U.S. in the scenario, but not as badly as for the rest of the world.

Of course, the scenario won’t happen. Some elements of it are manifestly implausible (particularly where the scenario mentions bin Laden, who is dead the moment he emerges from his spider hole). But even "what if" scenarios can be informative.

Speculating On The Next Supremes

No, Diana Ross ain’t getting together a new group. (Rats!)

I’m talking about who the next nominees to the Supreme Court will be.

HERE’S AN ARTICLE THAT GOES INTO THE SUBJECT IN-DEPTH.

As well as surveying the recent selection of Court members, which presidents did well in getting what they wanted, which did poorly, and how Bush seems to be imitating the habits of the former presidents rather than the latter.

There’s still cause for worry here. It’s not yet clear that Bush will pick folks willing to overturn The Most Horiffic Decision In Supreme Court History.

But the signs are much, much better than they would have been otherwise.

The story is particularly interesting for those who aren’t familiar with Supreme Court history, but even for veteran Court-watchers, it’s got an intriguing look at how recent presidents (including Bush) are going about the process of picking nominees.

GET THE STORY.