… wasn’t in the US Senate.

It was in a 6th grade classroom.

Take that, Al.

What do we have here!?

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

Juxtaposed:

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

The Contracting Parties, having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world;

Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and

Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required;

Hereby agree as hereinafter provided. […]

So… an “internationalist” Democrat is going to order our military forces to stand down and watch a genocide occur, from the sidelines?

Not only is it a ridiculous proposition, wouldn’t that be against the entire spirit of being a signatory to the UN Conventions on Genocide?

Not, granted, that the UN really cares about genocide - just ask any Rwandan or Sudanese you happen to come across. But you’d think, given the strong push among the liberal Hollywood crowd to intervene in Darfur (ultra-liberals always support whatever military intervention we’re not actually engaged in) that Mrs. Clinton would be a bit less candid about her true feelings and, at least, pretend to give a shit.

Now the Iranians are jumping on the bandwagon:

An Iranian official on Sunday lashed out at the Hollywood movie “300″ for insulting the Persian civilization, local Fars News Agency reported.

Javad Shamqadri, an art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accused the new movie of being “part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture”, said the report.

Shamqadri was quoted as saying “following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S. initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture,” adding “certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies.”

The movie’s effort wound be fruitless, because “values in Iranian culture and the Islamic Revolution are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans”, said the Iranin official.

Again, I hate to break it to you Iranian dudes, but the movie was based on a Frank Miller graphic novel, which pre-dated our current president, about a historic military engagement that took place some 1000 years before Mohammed inflicted Islam on the world. So it has little to do with any attack on “Islamic values” by our “bellicose Bush administration”, as you guys are panting to infer.

You guys are descended from Persians, I get that. But facts are facts: you did blow 50-1 odds, you did made a mockery of Persian military might, you did lose in the invasion of Greece, only to eventually be invaded and conquered by Alexander. I mean, you have every right to be as embarrassed about that as we are to be proud of the Greeks, I guess (Western groupthink, as it were). But blaming it on America is a bit of a stretch, as the history on which the film is based obviously has nothing to do with us, or Islam.

Besides, you’re making the assumption that the average “300″ audience member even understands that Iranians are the modern-day Persians. In fact, until “300″ hit the theater, most of them probably thought of “Persians” only as a particularly hairy breed of cat. This sort of over-estimation of American intellect will surely prove your undoing.

In the annals of Western warfare, many names play on the tip of the tongue: Alexander. Hannibal. Napoleon. Wellington. Lee. Patton.

One that certainly deserves to be among them is that of Leonidas, one-time king of ancient Sparta. His is a tale that needs little romanticizing; under invasion by the mighty Persian empire, Leonidas and a force of 300 picked Spartan Hoplites, along with a few thousand other brave Greeks from various of her city-states, marched north to the coast and a narrow mountain pass referred to in local vernacular as “The Hot Gates”. There, they met a Persian host estimated by modern historians at somewhere between 250,000 to 400,000 men - and held them for three days, until the treachery of a fellow Greek proved their undoing.

Three days. Outnumbered at least 50 to 1.

While many of the Greek forces chose retreat when scouts informed them of Persian encroachment around and to the rear of their forces via a hidden “goat path”, the Spartans, along with a handful of Thespians, chose to remain, likely to cover the retreat of the remainder of the Greek forces. To a man, the Spartans and their king died, yet not in vain: The Persian war machine was ground to a stop, giving the main Greek land forces time to assemble and march. Persia, ultimately defeated at land and sea, was forced to retreat, abandoning its conquest of Greece. Greece would go on to lend many elements of art and philosophy to the Roman empire which, of course, would begin the evolution of what we know today as “Western Culture”.

(You can find a good Wikipedia page on the battle here.)

This epic moment in time is handled reverently by Frank Miller and the rest of the cast and crew of “300″.

The tale is, of course, classically Miller. It is outsized, yet boiled down to simpler elements that a modern moviegoing audience can easily relate to. He creates a toweringly heroic hero in Leonidas, a decadent and nearly androgynous villain in Xerxes (the “God-King” of Persia), and then washes the movie in blood.

Certainly, many elements of fable are injected into the plot, not the least of which are a giant rhinocerous-as-siege-weapon, a grotesquely deformed hunchback (Ephialtes, the historical betrayer of the Greek forces), and Immortals who appear to be something other than human underneath their cold bronze masks. As I said, the movie is outsized and classically Miller-esque. Historical purists are bound, perhaps, for disappointment.

For the rest of us, the film is gorgeous, compelling and inspiring: Gerard Butler, as Leonidas, gives us a hero we can love, who reminds us that life is not all Blackberries, lattes and TiVo. The themes at play in the movie would have, at a time in civilization, pass for the norm: Freedom is not free; sacrifice of one’s life is the highest form of nobility; decadence is defeated by discipline. Freedom is the forte of good, tyranny the embodiment of evil. Glory in war, for those who fight in a just cause. Fighting not the fights you can win, but the fights that need fighting.

They are old values, and I daresay that it’s not a bad thing that each generation of young men in this country be reminded of them from time to time.

These messages are not subtly rendered; on the contrary, they’ll be in your face from the moment the screen begins rolling the the end credits, and any viewer with the comprehension of a particularly dense child can’t help but miss them. Yet, if you’re so inclined, all of Miller’s artistic license with particulars won’t take away form the song the film will sing to your soul, as it calls to something older inside each of us - that part of us that drove Leonidas and 300 Spartans to their death and glory 2,500 years ago, and which drove America’s “Greatest Generation” into suffering, death and ultimate victory against Nazism a mere 66 years ago. You will, truly, find yourself moved.

Unless, of course, you’re inclined to look at any war as unjustified, and a militarist philosophy as barbaric, illogical and unbefitting the modern, rational age. If this describes you, 300 will just be another hokey war story meant to rile teenage boys into the nationalist militarism that you detest. Casual cuts at homosexuality probably don’t help, either.

You can find a longer review at Protein Wisdom which is definetely worth the read. Predictably, much of the extrme-left of the blogosphere is in a lather to ridicule or denounce the film - some pundits even going so far as to openly wonder if the Bush Administration is somehow behind the funding for the film. While I will admit that, as a propaganda piece, this would rank as Goebbels-esque (particulary given the timing, when support for the War on Terror is flagging badly), the fact that Miller’s “300″ graphic novel (upon which the film is based nearly frame-for-frame) was released during the Clinton Administration should (but won’t) put this sort of nonsensical speculation to rest.

And by the way, go see the goddamned movie. I have half a mind to go back tonight, myself.

Like most “traditionalists” or “conservatives”, I spend a lot of time bashing the “MSM”, or mainstream media, for their institutionalized bias in favor of demonstrably “progressive” or “leftist” causes. One of these is, of course, the pet issue to many socialists and anticapitalists - Global Warming.

What I’d come to expect in the last few years from the MSM was essentially non-stop coverage of this (non)issue from the “pro-warming”, or alarmist perspective. Being capable of remembering (if barely) the “global cooling” alarmism the MSM attempted to sell in the 70’s - 80’s helped keep me sceptical of warming, and to date, I’ve yet to see anything convincing me that this latest crisis amounts to much more than sheet-clad Christians, standing on a hilltop, awaiting the Apocalypse.

However, I didn’t really write this to rail against global warming hysteria.

Why I’m writing is that I continue to be (pleasantly) surprised by the amount of media attention being paid, by major outlets, to warming sceptics. While, assuredly, the anti-capitalists in the “environmental movement” keep the global crisis meme circulating in the haziness of modern public consciousness, most reputable media outlets seem to be attempting to ensure that the “other side” has its fair say, in some sort of ethical attempt to actually provide balanced coverage of the issue and allow the public to make up its own mind (a standard, I should note, that most elected governments and the UN fail to meet).

Imagine that. If you consider yourself an independent thinker, you should be happy about this development. I certainly am.

To close, I’ll link you to an excellent essay from ABCnews.com:

From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.

In the 1970s, the fear was “global cooling.” The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, “Warning: Earth’s climate is changing faster than even experts expect,” while The New York Times announced, “A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.” Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden “crisis,” one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.

But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.

Read the whole thing.

Update: More here.

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.

As always, follow the money.

More:

NY TIMES PLANS HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: ‘Scientists argue that Gore’s warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors’… Reporter William Broad filing the story… Developing…

If you’ve lost the New York Times, Al, you’re well and truly fucked.

From the BBC today:

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, on a tour of Latin America, has launched a stinging attack on the US.

Visiting Bolivia, the firebrand leftist leader said that capitalism was “the road to hell”.

Well, I hate to quibble with as highly esteemed a statesman as Hugo Chavez, but I suspect many tens of millions of dead Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Ugandans, Rwandans, Zimbabweans, Sudanese, Poles and Romanians would disagree with him.

You know, if they were, like, alive.

It interests me that most of the real hue and cry over “the global warming scam” is coming from countries we see as very socialist / liberal, such as England and France. Observe, from the UK Daily Mail:

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists.

 

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a “sham” given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

 

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

 

“That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said. “It’s not true.”

 

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

And then this, from Canada.com, speaking about a prominent French scientist:

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,” Dr. Allegre especially despairs at “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these “denouncers” became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see “ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.”

Much like one of my great blogger heroes, Glenn Reynolds, I think that reducing emissions of carbon should be the defacto goal of any nation - but it has to be done smartly, in ways that ensure that the huge western economies can still flourish. All of this alarmism is foolish.

Ain’t socialism grand?

We’ve just learnt that some hospitals are removing every third light bulb to save money, and that nurses are being paid half the minimum wage — or being asked to work for nothing — at others.

That’s how bad the financial crisis has become. Meanwhile, the National Health Service is employing shaman fairy enthusiasts as psychological counsellors, enthusiastically providing treatments invented by “an ordained minister and a personal performance coach” who thinks tapping your body can cure diabetes, promoting dowsers and crystal healers and spending vast amounts on therapies that can’t be scientifically supported.

Honestly, it’s hard not to laugh, until I come to the sobering realization that this is what’s coming, slowly but surely, to the United States.

Courtesy of Don Surber:

The fundamental difference between McCain 2000 and McCain 2008 is that he put his name on a law that forbids people from speaking out against their congressman within 60 days of an election.Wrong on abortion? That has not stopped Rudy or Mitt.

Wrong on gay marriage? Rudy lived with a gay couple after his second wife kicked him out of the house.

Gun control? It has not stopped Rudy or Mitt.

McCain-Feingold.

Of course, I’ve beaten this drum before:

McCain is hated by the base for the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act which is seen as a direct congressional assault on free speech rights by purist conservatives.

How people are just beginning to catch onto this, I have no idea. I’m glad it’s starting to pick up some traction at the “centrist” sites like Instapundit, who agrees that this is an enormous black eye for McCain among self-identified “conservatives”.

Now this sounds like real “Must See TV”:

The cave in which Jesus Christ was buried has been found in Jerusalem, claim the makers of a new documentary film.If it proves true, the discovery, which will be revealed at a press conference in New York Monday, could shake up the Christian world as one of the most significant archeological finds in history.

[…]

The story starts in 1980 in Jerusalem’s Talpiyot neighborhood, with the discovery of a 2,000 year old cave containing ten coffins. Six of the ten coffins were carved with inscriptions reading the names: Jesua son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Matthew, Jofa (Joseph, identified as Jesus’ brother), Judah son of Jesua (Jesus’ son - the filmmakers claim).

I don’t think I need to elaborate on the stunning implication, here. Normally, you might blow this off as just more extension of the DaVinci Code hype, but there’re some pretty big names here, and it really sounds like they put the work in.

Explosive? I certainly hope so.