Elton John has given an interview that the BBC is reporting on in which he speaks of the reluctance of celebrities to speak out against the Iraq War to the situation of McCarthyism in the 1950s. According to the story:

Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of “bullying tactics” used by the US government to hinder free speech.

“There’s an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious,” he told New York magazine, Interview.

Sir Elton said performers could be “frightened by the current administration’s bullying tactics”.

The singer likened the current “fear factor” to McCarthyism in the 1950s.

“As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts – or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter,” he said.

“[T]he Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticising the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he’s freely elected, and therefore accountable.”

Assuming that the BBC is being accurate in its reporting of what John said, what the heck’s going on here?

I don’t know how much Elton John knows about U. S. history, but the McCarthy Era (1950-1953) was a period in which the U.S. Congress was conducting hearing (led by Sen. Joe McCarthy) into alleged Communist infiltration into the U.S. government and military. McCarthy went too far and destroyed his own reputation (hence his name is now a by-word for government-led bullying). He was censured by the Senate and retired in disgrace. Ironically, McCarthy was right that there were Soviet infiltrators (Duh! You don’t think the KGB had anybody working for them in the U.S.?), and recently declassified intelligence indicates that McCarthy actually underestimated the number of Soviet agents there were. We now know that there were at least 349 such agents, only half of whom were ever identified.

Several years before the McCarthy Era, in 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee investigated the Communist subversion in Hollywood and ended up citing the Hollywood Ten for contempt of Congress for refusal to cooperate with the investigation. So there was a case in which the government could be perceived as “bullying” entertainment inductry figures.

However, as far as I am aware, nothing remotely like that is happening now. The celebrities who have spoken out against the administration’s prosecution of the War on Terror, including the Iraq War, have been entirely unmolested by the government as far as I can tell, and Elton John’s reference to government “bullying tactics” is remarkably short on specifics as to what those tactics are–at least as it is reported by the BBC.

The fact that “as of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts – or anti-war songs that catch on” is due to three factors: (1) major hostilities are already over in the Iraq War and the clean-up phase, as difficult as it has been, has not turned into the kind of morass that Vietnam did, (2) unlike the Vietnam war, the Iraq War was prosecuted as part of self-defense campaign to ensure national security in the wake of a devastating sneak attack that galvanized the American public, and thus (3) the American public supported and largely continues to support the war–at least to the extent of not being interested in organized protests or buying anti-war songs.

The problem Elton John has is not with the government, it is with the public.

Those celebrities who have encountered problems with their careers have done so not because the government hauled them up before a congressional committee and cited them for contempt of Congress but because the public decided it didn’t want to buy their records or watch their shows.

I happen to be one of the people who stopped listening to the Dixie Chicks after their comments last year. For those who may not be aware, while on tour in England the Chicks’ lead singer made comments about the Chicks, as Texans, being ashamed of President Bush. My initial impulse was to be dismayed at their remarks but not to stop listening to them. I figured the Chicks would quickly be brought to their senses and apologize and there would be few long-lasting repercussions.

They had to apologize. The comments that they made displayed no grasp whatsoever of who their core audience is (i.e., country-music fans). Managers and record company officials would quickly sober the group up to the potential career implications of directly mocking the sensibilities of one’s core audience, and an apology would be forthcoming.

However, instead of apologizing, the Chicks issued a series of smouldering, defiant non-apologies that made a pretense of being apologetic. I mean, they couldn’t even muster up the wherewithal to give an acceptable phony showbiz apology to their fans. Every time they opened their mouths to “apologize,” they only made it worse. While this string of non-apologies was happening the Chicks did the absolutely bizarre thing of responding to the controversy by appearing on the cover of Entertainment Weekly stark nekkid with politically-charged words written all over their bodies (e.g., Traitors, Hero, Boycott, Brave, Dixie Sluts, Free Speech, Saddam’s Angels, Peace).

It was at that point that I decided–all on my own, without anybody from the government telling me what to think–“Okay, these people are too bizarre for me. Whatever skills they may have as singers, I’m not going to be able to listen to them sing for the foreseeable future without having to think about all this unpleasantness, and as I don’t want to do that, the simple solution is to stop listening to their music and stop buying their CDs. Perhaps increasing age, maturity, or business-savvy will prompt the Chicks to rethink their position and at some point in the future issue at least a passingly sincere apology and I can rethink my decision, but for now, that’s it.”

So the Dixie Chicks weren’t shot down in flames. They shot themselves down by mocking the sensibilities of their core audience at a nationally sensitive moment and then–like defiant children–repeatedly refusing to apologize to their fans and then doing the over-the-top bizarro stunt with the Entertainment Weekly cover.

There’s no government bullying here. People decided all on their own that the Dixie Chicks’ behavior was sufficiently unacceptable that they didn’t want to support them anymore.

Elton John, your problem isn’t with the American government but the American public. I wonder why it is that you don’t say so?

This story–Terror In The Skies, Again?–has been making the rounds on the blogosphere, but in case you haven’t read it yet, go ahead and read it now. It will chill you to the bone.

It is by a woman who took a plane flight with her husband and child and who may have witnessed a dry run for a future terrorist attack.

We know that the terrorists make such practice runs. Actor James Woods witnessed a dry run preparing for 9/11.

The article describes not only what happened on the flight but also the woman’s efforts afterwards to determine what it was she witnessed and also her efforts to determine what the authorities are doing to prevent attacks based on the apparent method she saw in use on the flight.

It is not certain that the author did witness a dry run, but then again, she may have.

As you can see from the end of the story, the author does not feel that the authorities have done enough to stop this kind of attack, but if there is a ray of hope here it is this: The terrorists may have been scared off by what happened after the flight. They may have concluded that they were too exposed and decided they need to go to ground and call off their plans.

Maybe.

Let’s hope so.

Don’t you just hate it, when every year more and more stores, businesses, TV and radio stations that used to say “Merry Christmas” start saying things like “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays”?

It burns me up when they do that.

I don’t mind if they add “Happy Hanukkah” or similar wishes to folks of other religions (though “Happy Kwanzaa” tests my limits, as being black isn’t–or shouldn’t be–a religion).

One of the local country music stations even runs public service announcements that say “Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukkah! Happy Kwanzaa! And to everyone else . . . Have a nice day!”

But it really irks me when businesses suppress Christmas entirely and try to get by with a politically correct “Seasons Greetings” or “Happy Holidays.”

I’m sorry, but–as they say–Christ is the reason for the season. Hanukkah isn’t even a major holiday on the Jewish calendar. The only reason it gets prominence in advertising is because it’s close to Christmas (advertisers don’t want Jewish folks to feel left out). I don’t like it when people try to entirely suppress Christ and the boost he gives businesses’ sales at that time of year.

Makes me not want to support businesses who desire reap the benefits of the season without acknowledging its reason.

Turns out some other folks feel the same way. This story tells the tale of a man who is organizing a boycott of such businesses. Exerpts:

Manuel Zammarano has formed the Committee to Save Merry Christmas to protest the fact that big retailers profit from Christmas shopping dollars but refuse to mention the holiday by name.

His group has boycotted Federated Department Stores Inc., which owns Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, for collecting Christmas cash without giving Christmas credit for all the end-of-year gift buying.

May God prosper his cause.

I don’t like the commercialization of Christmas. In the words of Joel Robinson, Christmas is too often “a Christian holiday ruined by commercialism.” But I don’t like commercialists trying to reap its financial benefits while entirely remove Christ from Christmas.

I may wish you “Merry Christmas!” but I’d mean something entirely different if I said “Merry -Mass!”

ATTENTION OTHER BLOGGERS! IF YOU AGREE WITH THESE SENTIMENTS, CONSIDER BLOGGING THIS STORY! LET’S HELP MR. ZAMMARANO SAVE CHRISTMAS FOR THE CHRISTIANS

All the more reason we need to vote pro-family this election.

Today’s vote is by no means the end of a constitutional amendment (which is really what is needed in this case). If the Senate does not address matters successfully there is also recourse to the state legislatures to get the matter addressed.

It’s likely to be a long, hard slog either way, though.

All the more reason we need to vote pro-family this election.

Today’s vote is by no means the end of a constitutional amendment (which is really what is needed in this case). If the Senate does not address matters successfully there is also recourse to the state legislatures to get the matter addressed.

It’s likely to be a long, hard slog either way, though.

Here’s another for the I-am-not-making-this-up file.

I’m sure that you’ve all heard of feral children, or children raised by wild animals, usually by fairly social animals like wolves. Well, there’s this guy named Sunjit Kumar, who lives in Fiji, who isn’t one of those. He was raised by animals, but not wild (feral) ones. Instead, he was raised by domesticated animals: chickens.

It turns out that after his parents died he was sent to live with his grandfather, who locked him in a chicken coop for several years. As a result:

“He had imitated or imprinted with the chicken,” [Elizabeth] Clayton said. “He was perching, he was picking at his food, he was hopping around like a chicken. He’d keep his hands in a chickenlike fashion, and he’d make a noise, which was like the calling of a chicken, which he still has.”

Clayton took over Kumar’s care and he has reportedly made “remarkable progress,” learning to walk and speak like a human. [Source]

You’ll note that the story says Clayton “took over Kumar’s care.” That’s because

Kumar escaped from the chicken coop and was taken to a local hospital. But the staff did not know how to treat him, so they confined him. He spent 20 years there, often tied to his bed.

Poor guy!

Was surfing the web site of a newspaper in Japan and found the following notice:

Congratulating

the people of the United States of America as they celebrate

their National Day

It was in reference to the recent July 4th holiday and was accompanied by a pro-America editorial by Ambassador Howard Baker (former Senator from Tennessee and Watergate Commission-member; y’know, the guy who asked John Dean “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”). The editorial also thanked the Japanese people for their friendship and partnership “in our fight for peace, prosperity and democracy.”

The piece is part of a series the paper is doing congratulating different countries on their national days (Venesuela was the next country to be congratulated, on July 5th).

I thought it was just dandy that this Japanese newspaper would take the time to congratulate the U.S. on Independence Day, and so in the same spirit, on behalf of the American people, I’d like to congratulate the people of Japan as they celebrate their national day (whenever that may be).

Was surfing the web site of a newspaper in Japan and found the following notice:

Congratulating
the people of the United States of America as they celebrate
their National Day

It was in reference to the recent July 4th holiday and was accompanied by a pro-America editorial by Ambassador Howard Baker (former Senator from Tennessee and Watergate Commission-member; y’know, the guy who asked John Dean “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”). The editorial also thanked the Japanese people for their friendship and partnership “in our fight for peace, prosperity and democracy.”

The piece is part of a series the paper is doing congratulating different countries on their national days (Venesuela was the next country to be congratulated, on July 5th).

I thought it was just dandy that this Japanese newspaper would take the time to congratulate the U.S. on Independence Day, and so in the same spirit, on behalf of the American people, I’d like to congratulate the people of Japan as they celebrate their national day (whenever that may be).

By the Senate, that is.

J. Leon Holmes was one of President Bush’s nominees to the federal judiciary whose nomination had been languishing for eighteen months due to Democratic Party stonewalling. But it ain’t languishing any more, because the nomination finally came up for a vote, and he was confirmed!

Woo-hoo!

I’m unusually excited about this because Leon happens to be a friend of mine. In fact, he played a role in my conversion to the Catholic Church, as you can read about in my conversion story (search on his name).

Leon wasn’t (unfortunately) nominated to the Supreme Court but to a minor federal judgeship. He will be one of five judges adjudicating matters in half of the state of Arkansas. Normally such appointees are passed with only a couple of minutes’ debate and often with a voice vote. Their confirmations are about as non-controversial as it gets in the Senate.

But not in Leon’s case.

His nomination received a full day of debate and a squeaker, roll-call vote (that barely passed, in part due to the absence of several senators who would have voted the other way, including Kerry and his new . . . uh . . . running-mate, Edwards).

The reason is that Leon is a conservative Catholic and–consequently–he is committedly pro-life. In fact, he was president of Arkansas Right to Life for two years in the 1980s. As a result, pro-abortion forces seized on his nomination and raised a huge hullabaloo. You can read attacks on him by the National Organization for Women, NARAL, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and oodles of others if you do a Google search on him.

Some openly announced that they were deliberately using his nomination to send a message to President Bush that pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court would not be tolerated.

And they lost.

On the significance of that for the forthcoming election, you might want to read this analysis.

If you look at some of the attacks on Leon on various web pages, you may note how brief the quotations from his writings (often from pro-life writings from the early 1980s) are. This is deliberate quotation out of context, because to read them in a larger context would result in a much different impression being conveyed. I have confidence in my readers’ intelligence to see how the same quote could come across very differently. I will, however, mention the most widely-used statement, because there are facts regarding this statement that are often not disclosed.

The charge that was most widely used against Leon was a statement taken from an article he wrote in his local diocesan newspaper on “inclusive” language. The article summarized what St. Paul said regarding how husbands and wives should relate to each other as Christ and the Church and what this means for the roles of spouses in marriage. Consequently the quote was used to portray him as a troglodytic oppressor of women.

What was widely not reported was the fact that Leon didn’t write this article alone. It was co-authored with his wife, Susan. In fact, it was based on Susan’s Bible study. He was her co-author.

The way the article was used to portray Leon is especially ironic since Susan is most definitely not a shy, retiring woman “dominated by” her husband. She is a sharp, intelligent, plainspoken woman who has no difficulty at all making her views known. I know she was quite irked at the way her views and her writing were used to defame her husband.

Ultimately, though, the effort was not enough. People from every political and social viewpoint who actually know Leon recognize him as a man of supreme integrity and came forward to support his nomination. This included both Arkansas senators (both Democrats) and many who would sharply disagree with his views on abortion. Multiple senators, including especially Sen. Rick Santorum (a Catholic senator from Pennsylvania) argued that to oppose Leon for his adherence to biblical and Catholic teaching would amount to saying that being a Catholic or taking the Bible at face value was of itself reason to be disqualified from the judiciary. (How’s that for freedom of religion!?)

A special irony of the situation is that, in the course of processing the nomination, Leon was required to submit copies of his writings going back years. One of these was a paper he wrote about Mary which played a role in my conversion. As I mention in my conversion story, it was reading that paper that helped turn me around on some Catholic issues and thus contributed to my conversion. The irony is that the opponents of Leon’s nomination–in search of material to use against it–had to read through that very same paper.

So who knows . . . perhaps it will lead to their conversions as well.

For a long time we’ve been hearing scare stories about overpopulation. Well, it MIGHT be true that certain (very small) areas of the globe are overpopulated, though even that is in doubt. There are certainly areas of the globe where people are jammed in cheek-by-jowl (like Hong Kong or Tokyo or Singapore), but what constitutes overpopulation isn’t just the population density: It’s the outstripping by the population of the ability of the available resources to sustain them. Since the cities I just mentioned have a high level of development, overpopulation even there is going to be disputable.

But all of that is elsewhere.

It’s not in the U.S.

Surprisingly, the 2000 Presidential election provides an illustration of this. As we all know, the nation was closely divided between the “blue” or “Gore” areas and the “red” or “Bush” areas. Recently I printed a map of these when calibrated by state, but the division can also be calibrated based on county, as in the first map accompanying this entry. (Thanks to one of the folks in the comments box for recalling such county maps to my memory!)

Here’s the deal: Gore apparently slightly won the popular vote, though he didn’t win the election because the way the electoral college works, since Bush slightly won that. That means that the blue areas of the map have a population approximately equal to that of the red areas. (In reality, there’s more to the story than this since there are “blue voters” in the red areas and “red voters” in the blue areas, but it’s not enough to void the point I’m about to make.)

The point is: The blue areas are a tiny portion of the country, while the red areas are huge. This means that–unless the red areas are far more resource-poor than they actually are–we could have many, MANY more people in the U.S. than we do without hitting true overpopulation.

Since overpopulation is one of the key reasons offered for contracepting and aborting our progeny, this means that this “reason” does not exist in our country. The 2000 election proved it.

Now, as I indicated, there are more dimensions to the story than I indicated. To see some of these dimensions, read this page from a “Bush perspective” and this page from a “Gore perspective.” The latter, in particular, contains a number of cool maps. The former, in particular, contains some cool analysis.

None of the other dimensions challenge the basic point I am making. In fact, there are more sophisticated maps making the same point–like the second one associated with this entry, which is a straight population map of the U.S.

The basic point remains the same: The U.S. is not overpopulated. In fact, the world is not overpopulated. Our real problem is not lack of resources but barriers to food and resource distribution that are put in place on the local level (like the north, Muslim area of Ethiopia deliberately trying to starve the south, Christian area of Ethiopia). If the distribution avenues commonly available in the U.S. were available worldwide, the earth could sustain many times the people it currently houses.

In fact, you may have read accounts noting that the entire world population could comfortably fit in my home state of Texas, leaving the rest of the planet empty.

That’d be juss fine with me! Then ev’ryone would be Texan!

Resistance is futahl.

Y’all will be assimilated.

(BTW, Rodeo is now the national pasttime.)