Lost in Translation is, quite simply, a masterpiece, so it’s sad to see that its Oscar hopes may be scuppered by the 'activists' over at Asian Mediawatch, who claim that it ‘mocks the Japanese people.’ This is so dumb that it’s difficult to know where to begin. The movie is a comedy, and like many comedies it satirizes, mocks and emphasizes the absurd, and when that film is set in Japan and, at least partly, is about the failure of different cultures to understand each other, it’s no surprise that here and there, ‘Japaneseness’ (yes, yes, I know that’s not a word) is at the receiving end of a few jokes (as are blonde starlets, middle-aged white guys and numerous others). That anyone could find that humor somehow racist is yet another reminder that we live in a culture of complaint and victimhood run amok.

Message to ‘Asian Mediawatch’: Get a life, guys.

[W]e defend Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” which portrays Jesus as a human who slowly learns he’s divine, and Kevin Smith’s “Dogma,” a raw comedy about an abortion-clinic worker who is a lineal descendant of Jesus. Anyway, I defended these films in TIME, and I took at face value the testimony of Scorsese, who once contemplated entering the priesthood, and Smith, who describes himself as a devout Catholic, that their films were acts of faith.

The latest film of faith, by the movie industry’s other Church-going Catholic, Mel Gibson, has received a frostier, more fulminating response.

One man convicted of child molestation has directed films for Disney and New Line. Gibson’s criminal rap sheet is clean; he is guilty only of standing by his deluded old man and expressing opinions that are less popular in Hollywood than they are in the rest of the country. For some of the industry’s moguls to deny him employment because they don’t like what he said, or because he made a controversial film, would send a creepy message to the public: that a liberal is someone who will defend to the death your right to agree with him.

BURBANK, Calif. – February 27, 2004– In an interview with "Access Hollywood," actor Kevin Costner says that people "shouldn't be attacking" Mel Gibson for his film "The Passion of the Christ." The interview airs on "Access Hollywood," Friday, February 27, 2004 (check local listings for time and station).

Costner says that Gibson doesn't deserve all the criticism that he is receiving for his film "The Passion of the Christ," which depicts Jesus' last hours. "We shouldn't be attacking a filmmaker like Mel Gibson who, number one, is an honorable filmmaker...and probably questioned himself more than anybody even knows. So, like leave him alone."

The Iraqi Governing Council repealed decree 137 today (the controversial decree bringing in Sharia law passed in December. A group of women came in to lobby against decree 137. They presented their case to the Governing Council as to why Sharia discriminates against women.

The council vote to repeal decree 137 was passed by 15 in favor and 10 against (the full council of 25 was there). The women who had lobbied against decree 137 ululated and shouted for joy at the end of the vote.

In protest at their behavior, the following 8 IGC members walked out:

Ibrahim al-Ja'fari (Dawa Party, Shi’a Islamist)
'Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim (Scriri, Shi’a Islamist funded by Iran)
Muhammad Bahr al-'Ulum (Shi’a Islamist)
'Abd al-Karim Mahmud al-Muhammadawi (Shi’a, Hizbullah, aka Abu Hatem the Lord of the Marshes)
Ahmed Chalabi (INC)
'Izz al-Din Salim (Shi’a, Islamic Dawa of Basra
Ahmad Shya'a al-Barak al-Bu Sultan (Shi’a, Iraqi Lawyers union)
Salam al-Khafaji (Shi’a woman, ex-Ba’athist, replaced the late Aqila al-Hashemi)

Bremer then called off the meeting as there was no longer a quorum. To ease the tensions he invited the IGC to his residence for this evening’s meal.

The 17 IGC members who had stayed in the room after the vote was taken went to Bremer’s.

At present, the 8 named above who walked out in protest at the repeal of decree 137 are at Ahmed Chalabi’s residence and are boycotting dinner with Bremer.

After the rally, Edwards went behind closed doors at the home of John O'Quinn, one of the state's most prominent trial lawyers, for the fund-raising portion of his Texas swing....O'Quinn is among the nation's top Democratic donors. His law firm was one of five sharing $3.3 billion in fees for representing the state in the tobacco litigation that produced a $17.3-billion settlement for Texas.

Trial lawyers, including many in Texas, have been the most dependable source of campaign cash for Edwards' bid for the Democratic nomination, providing almost $4 million of the $14 million he has raised. Fred Baron of Dallas, also one of Texas' most prominent trial lawyers, is Edwards' national finance chairman.

I would disagree with you re: Mel will never be Mad Max again...A Mad Max 4 has been "in the works" for a while, and Gibson has the perfect vehicle in the Max character to express spiritual (and not even necessarily Christian) suffering and redemption. Max's character was driven "mad" by the brutal murder of his family, and he now roams a post-apocalyptic wasteland living an amoral life of survival. This could be a perfect opportunity to bring a moral conclusion to this tale...along with healthy doses of high performance V-8s.

The afternoon of a workweek is a poor measure of interest in any movie outside of "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings." Had the reporter of that story joined me at the 7:00 PM showing of The Passion in Springfield, VA, she would have seen a rarity: the manager decided to open up a second theater because the first one was packed full.

All attendees, including elderly people, had to climb the steep steps of a broken escalator to simply reach the box office window. The elderly folks I saw may have been out of breath but they remained determined to confirm Ralph Winter and Mark Joseph's prediction in NRO on Tuesday.

Remarks delivered 2/26/03 by Mrs. Sharon Rocha, Mother of Laci Peterson

RE: Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, “Laci and Conner’s Law”

Hello. I am Sharon Rocha. I am the mother of Laci Peterson and the grandmother of Conner Peterson. I want to thank the House of Representatives for bringing Laci and Connor’s law to a vote today, and for giving me this opportunity to speak about an issue that’s very important to me and my family.

As you know, Laci and Conner were cruelly murdered. In this difficult time, my family is grateful that under California law, the murders of Laci and Conner can both be prosecuted. But for the families of many other murder victims across the country, there can be no such comfort. Federal law does not recognize that these crimes have two victims.

When I became aware that Congresswoman Melissa Hart was working on a bill to correct this problem, I contacted her to express my support. I asked her to name it “Laci and Conner’s Law” in memory of my daughter and grandson. I am grateful to Congresswoman Hart, the House leadership, and the many congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, who have agreed to support this common-sense legislation. I thank President Bush for his willingness to sign it into law.

The House of Representatives has shown their support for this law by approving it twice thus far, but the senate has consistently failed to act. I call on every senator to vote for this bill, so that the law will do justice for families of murder victims-families like mine. It is time for the Senate to stand up for innocent victims like Conner.

In the summer of 2003, I wrote Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle a letter urging him to support the bill. Shortly after that, Senator Daschle said publicly that the Senate should consider this issue quickly. Since then, members of his party have been holding up a vote. I ask Senator Daschle, as their leader, to urge them to enact Laci and Conner’s Law as soon as possible.

I am dismayed that my own senators from California, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are standing in the way. Senator Feinstein has a bill that says that crimes like the murder of Laci and Conner have only one victim. But Laci knew that Conner was her son, and I know it too. Two people, Laci and Conner, would be here with us today if they had not been murdered. There were two victims in this crime, not one. I call upon Senators Feinstein and Boxer to recognize that reality, and support Laci and Conner’s law.

I fear that some senators have opposed Laci and Conner’s law because of misunderstandings. Laci and Conner’s Law has nothing to do with abortion. So I also call on Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards, and every other senator who has refused to support it to reconsider. I call on them to look at how the laws in California and many other states have worked, and to vote yes.

I believe the vast majority of Americans are in agreement that when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered a double homicide has been committed. It is time for those who make the law to listen to us.

Before politicians say that Conner was not really a victim of a crime, they need to think long and hard about whether they really want to say that. If Laci and Conner’s law is not enacted this year, I will keep fighting for it. I will not hesitate to explain this issue to their voters. To vote against Laci and Conner’s Law, or to obstruct it, is indefensible.

As several readers have reminded me, the reason I had to look up whether "Mau-Mau" is racist came in the aftermath of a spat I had with Julianne Malveaux in December of 2002 on CNN. To be diplomatic, there was always "friction" between myself and Ms. Malveaux and myself -- she had a habit of inssinuating that I am racist (like every other conservative). One Sunday, during the brouhaha over Trent Lott and after Ms. Malveaux had already insisted Lott was a "Klansman" Jonathan Karl asked me what I thought about Senator McConnell's defense of Lott. The transcript of what followed is below thought it doesn't really capture the tension (or my rage):

GOLDBERG: Well, you know, first of all, I do think you're right, that McConnell has gotten himself into a position of basically arguing that this is a high-tech lynching of an uppity segregationist.

(LAUGHTER)

And I think it's an indefensible position.

MALVEAUX: Jonah...

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: Jonah, why would you even use the term, "lynching," in this context?

GOLDBERG: I don't think you understood the sarcasm of the context.

GEORGE: It was a joke.

MALVEAUX: Well, this is something I just don't joke about, I guess.

GOLDBERG: Yes, you can call people Klansman, but I can't -- whatever, that's silly, Julianne.

Regardless, I think...

MALVEAUX: It's not silly, Jonah, it's principled. It's not silly. There is nothing silly about this at all. And it's not silly to use words like "lynching" and to use words that hark back to 1948. There is nothing silly about this.

GOLDBERG: Julianne, you're not going to get me into some corner where I'm going to get mau-maued on this. That's just silly.

MALVEAUX: Mau-maued?

GOLDBERG: Yes.

GEORGE: When Jonah used that phrase...

MALVEAUX: You're using racial language yourself here. You are two steps away from Trent Lott.

GOLDBERG: Oh, that's absurd.

ROBERT GEORGE: Julianne, that's unacceptable. I'm sorry, that's just unacceptable. The phrase that Jonah just used there, the high-tech lynching, you may remember, was used by Clarence Thomas when he was talking about being assaulted...

MALVEAUX: Why are you...

GEORGE: ... on a personal level. And what Jonah was making the point was that the McConnell was almost doing that.

Harold Meyerson's column is always refreshing because it distills so perfectly what "progressives" say to each other when they don't have the benefit of anybody in the room who thinks differently than them. Today's is particularly revealing. But I'll focus on just one point.

He says that the FMA would create a permanent "secondary caste" within the constitution: "Not untouchables, certainly; we're beyond that. Just unmarriageables. " He continues: That's a tricky distinction, though, and it's one that Bush and all but the most benighted opponents of gay marriage have to make all the time."

Um, how is this is a tricky distinction? Who's saying that gays should be denied schooling and forced to clean our sewers like untouchables are? Not even the most "benighted" opponents of gay marriage are saying anything like that. Mr. Meyerson, this may be a "tricky" distinction for you, but it isn't for most people.

Moreover, I'll point out that there's already a "secondary caste" enshrined in the constitution: Young people. The constitution sets all sorts of rules based on age, including barring young people from voting and serving in public office -- again not something anyone advocates for gays. Indeed, young people, variously defined, are barred by various laws from getting married, serving in the military, driving cars, etc. The age barrier is inherently arbitrary too (arbitrariness being another Meyerson bugaboo). After all, I've met fifteen-year-olds far more qualified to vote or marry than many thirty year olds. But we all see the social utility of this arbitrariness and so it stands. Meyerson & Co. no longer see the utility of the "arbitrary" man-woman definition of marriage. Fine, but that doesn't suddenly make everyone who still sees that utility a bigot.

And that's the point: whether you think it's good policy or not, opponents of gay marriage do not buy the assumptions of people like Meyerson. He may see a whole class of people dispatched to second class status, but that's because "progressives" instintually like to see such distinctions even when they're not there. Only minds which could seriously worry about the "digital divide," for example, could come up with this untouchables analogy. Again, regardless of whether it is good policy, an amendment would permit single men -- gay or straight -- to marry single women -- gay or straight -- and vice versa. That may be wrong, but let's not get hysterical about it.

From a reader:

Jonah,

Maybe that mafia suggestion from yesterday wasn't so far off:

From an article on Rosie O'Donnell's decision to wed her long-time girlfriend:

O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.

"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

I'm not on Passion patrol here. I didn't mind that negative New York Times review so much. I thought it was wrongheaded in a few respects, but also was a matter of registering some subjective reactions that differed from my own. But there's another class of negative review, and Gregg Easterbrook gives an example of it today.

He says that Gibson's decision to emphasize gore is a way to maximize profits, not just a different artistic choice than Easterbrook would prefer. It was a "cynical" choice, he says, but he provides no evidence for this claim. He writes that the movie departs from Christian orthodoxy on the question of the universal responsibility of sinful human beings for Christ's suffering and death. It "seems to urge its audience to turn away from the universal spiritual message of Jesus and toward base political anger." More cynicism, says Easterbrook. He provides no evidence for this claim either, and there is some fairly strong counter-evidence: notably, the opening scene in which Satan talks to Jesus about his taking on the burden of all the sins of mankind, and Gibson's pounding of the first nail. More to the point, who is this "base political anger" supposed to be against? If Easterbrook wants to accuse the movie of being anti-Semitic, he should just come out and say so. Enough other people have.

The Washington Times headline:

Hastert eases on 9/11 panel's deadline

While pretty much everyone else has something similar to The Boston Globe's headline:

Hastert firm on Sept. 11 inquiry
Says he'll prevent deadline extension

Now the Brits too seem to be looking at a ban on smoking in bars and workplaces. The random ‘statistic’ pulled out of an ashtray to justify such a loutish, intrusive policy? The one thousand lives allegedly lost to ‘passive smoking’ in the UK each year.

Why be so modest? Back in December, 2002, Nurse Bloomberg claimed that his smoking ban in New York City would save one thousand lives annually in the Big Apple alone.

Both ‘statistics’ can be wrong, but they can’t both be right. So which is it?

Noam Scheiber has an interesting take (as does Nick Confessore, to whom he links). His argument is that the social Right never just takes half a loaf, so it will be constantly pressing Bush to do more than is prudent. He also says that Bush had to be dragged by the social Right to endorse the amendment--witness the complaints from its activists about the delay--which shows the White House knows this is a loser but is tied down by its base.

Maybe the underlying point, that this is a political loser, is correct. But I'm not convinced by these arguments for three reasons. 1) While it is true that social-conservative activists often take an all-or-nothing approach, it's not always true. Social conservatives have been willing to fight on partial-birth abortion rather than demanding immediate action on a Human Life Amendment, for example--although it took a while to get them on board for that strategy. 2) Maybe the president's public delay in coming out for the amendment stemmed from an perception that he is better off looking as though he were reluctant to amend the Constitution and forced to do so by events (Mass., S.F., etc.) have forced him. (I believe this perception to be accurate, and also believe the president does feel forced by events.) 3) It's not clear to me that the demands for the president to discuss the issue more constitute bad advice, for reasons I've already discussed.

Mark, yes, that David Brooks piece made strange reading indeed. Most striking of all, perhaps, was his penultimate sentence:

“But if we close our borders to new immigration, you can kiss goodbye the new energy, new tastes and new strivers who want to lunge into the future.”

Talk about creating a straw man. I doubt if many ‘restrictionists’ (if we must use that term) are talking about closing the border altogether: far from it. What they are asking for is more effective policing, a more carefully considered look at what contribution a potential immigrant can make to the prosperity of Americans (as opposed, say, to the ability of Wal-Mart to hire workers on the cheap) and, finally, a narrower definition of those entitled to immigrate on ‘family’ grounds. Sadly, the President does not seem prepared to listen.

here in DC and the first thing you need to know about it is that it's a very good movie. Forget the politics and the controversy: You cannot take your eyes off the screen, except for those the scenes that are so graphic you can't bear to watch them.

In many ways, it reminded me of Schindler's Li