The Hound Of Ulster

Already, you ask? Well, I’m heading Washington-ward, remember? Blogging will be utterly random for the next several days/entire week.

Dean Barnett FIGHTS the good (and never-ending) fight against the MSM’s “coverage” of Iraq.

Captain Ed THINKS Richard Armitage is out to do more damage. (Highly likely)

Hugh links to an INTERVIEW he did with an Army officer:

HH: When you hear people talk about withdrawing and let the chips fall, does that strike you…

Chris: It infuriates me.

HH: Tell me why.

Chris: Because just as in America, Iraq has their bad seeds, their bad eggs, whatever you want to call them. But it’s a minority. It’s a very small percentage, but just like anywhere else, that very small percentage makes the most noise, and therefore, they’re the most noticeable. Most of the Iraqi people that I’ve dealt with would give you the shirt off their back if you ask for it, not even needed it, not wanted it. If you just ask for it, it’s yours. You show interest in something of theirs, it’s yours. They’re very giving, they’re very kind, they’re very smart, and they just, just like us, they want a chance. I’m biased, because I have spent one heck of a lot of time with the Iraqi people. And by and large, they are one heck of a good group of people.

HH: Warrant Officer Chris, we’ve got about a minute left. Can we win there?

Chris: We can, but it’s going to take some resolve, and we know…like I said from the beginning, we know it’s a dangerous job, but we accept it. There’s going to be deaths. We know that. Everyone in the military, just about, knows someone that’s been killed over there. But it’s a volunteer army. We can do it, we can…it won’t be easy, it won’t be quick. But with support from the American people, we can do it.

As a special bonus, HERE’S another “Brave Bishop” story. Two in two days. (Though this is less about Olmstead’s bravery and more about the pleasing consequences of his bravery.)

And just BECAUSE:

He uses statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than for illumination.

Bye, now.

THIS article - (from Gilbert Magazine, fittingly enough) - is about Scott Derrickson, the director of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, a real “up-and-comer,” and an avowed lover of Chesterton.

He is to writing what Akira Kurosawa is to directing—that rare combination of peak artistry and peak meaning blended with peak entertainment value. Nobody digs deeper or presents more profound ideas than Chesterton and, unbelievably, nobody writes with more wit or style.

I think that last part it particularly true - though perhaps not quite as true of his fiction, which tends to run away with him a bit. But his apologetics and his essays are as funny, as clever and as insightful as anything I have ever read. Nice to see Derrickson admitting his influence so readily.

And I’ll try to ignore this little segment:

I love everything by Akira Kurosawa—he’s my favorite. I love Taxi Driver by Martin Scorsese and a lot of classic European cinema. Recently, I saw The New World, which really knocked me out. The best film of the year, I think.

My hatred for The New World is only surpassed by my hatred for Marty’s Taxi Driver. (Well, that’s not quite right. But maybe Derrickson just has better taste in books than in film.)

I’m not exactly sure what “meme” even means, though I’ve seen it thrown about a good deal. It’s probably not being used to mean “a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes” in the blogosphere, though. That wouldn’t make very much sense.

Chesterton CAME back from the dead to respond to one, so they must be powerful things indeed. Here’s a little taste, courtesy of The WINE-DARK SEA:

5. One book that made you cry.

Now I opened the other day a book which I believe to deserve the praises it has received; a book somewhat in the manner of “Lux Mundi,” written by a group of the younger academic writers, some of whom I have met and all of whom I admire. Yet here again my tragic fate pursued me. I opened on the very first sentence of the introduction, which began something like this: “To-day the world is asking questions”: and I stopped dead. The
world has always been asking questions; and the only difference between us and our more orthodox ancestors is that they occasionally got some answers. However, I went on to the next clause.

The writer then said, I think: “Christianity arose in a world very different from that in which we live.” That is true enough; and I felt encouraged. I hoped I had cleared the first fence for the first time; and perhaps I might be able to read a whole book properly after all. I went on to find out what, in the author’s opinion, were the great differences between living under Augustus Caesar and living under George V. And the sentence began something like: “For them the stars circled round a stationary earth and — ” Then did I cast the book to the vultures and the jackals and the eagles of my garden; then did I beat my bosom and wail aloud, so that the clamour of my weeping was heard from the Chilterns to the Thames.

The man is funny even from the grave. (And yes, I believe they are all his own words. The contexts have been changed to protect the innocent, of course.)

I’ve created a new category just for this occasion - though I blame myself heavily for having waited this long to give the great one his own special digital realm. What could I have been thinking? And I call myself a Chesterton fan.

Absurd!