Quick point: Terrorists are "Cowards"?

Kathleen Parker writes today in "Capitalism, terrorism strange bedfellows" that terrorists are cowards. It's a side comment, not directly related to her column's primary (and correct) observation that increased terrorism funds increased capital investment which can have the effect of creating an industry addicted to lots of terrorism. It's an important point to make, because one would hope that both government and industry have the self restraint at some point to turn the funding faucet down or off if (when!) security improves and things stabilize. But the perjorative of "coward," while a favorite among those who may want to do what little they can to taunt terrorists from a safe distance, can have the effect of helping our people understand the nature of the threat we face.
Dictionary.com defines coward "as a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person." Now, one could make the case that a terrorist is exercise some forms of cowardice because he's choosing instant death instead of continuing down the road of a Gaza refugee camp, trying to eek out an existence for himself and a future family.

But that is a rather academic definition. The fact is that his worldview, Islamofascism, calls him to zealously throw himself at the enemy (me, and you) and take upon himself some pretty impressive risks, which include dying pretty violently or living to tell about it at the mercy of somebody who doesn't give a rip about all the fuzzy views that the New York Times deems fit to print. This guy knows he's going to die or get tortured for understanding who was helping him to die.

To dismiss terrorists as coward seems to help perpetuate confusion about the nature of our enemy. To regard them as "brave, innovative, smart" and other accolades is not to admire their moral compass or their telos. It's just part of soberly assessing the enemy.

Cheers to Becky Skillman, Esther of our Day?

Curt Smith writes a tribute piece in today’s Veritax Rex blog on Indiana Lt. Gov Becky Skillman. Writing a tribute is an interesting and unusual use for a blog, but if anybody deserves a tribute, Becky sure fits the bill. As a veteran representative in the Indiana General Assembly, the elegant Hoosierette earned her reputation as a rock-ribbed conservative who both campaigned and voted the Right way.

Curiously missing from the tribute was a mention of My Man Mitch, who has courted the gay, lesbian, bisexual, trisexual, asexual, etalsexual, transgendered, reversed gendered, ungendered, omnigendered, and etalgendered ever since beating My Man Miller in the May 2004 GOP primary. To revisit: MMMitch wooed a sufficient number of conservatives with the, "I'm every bit as conservative as Eric Miller and I can win" gospel. That gospel saved MMMitch's candidacy, and to be fair, while history did not afford an opportunity to Eric Miller to prove his electoral heft, MMMitch was ultimate proven quite electable and his win did, in fact, contribute to the saving of babies through passage of a number of very important pro-life victories that social conservatives would not have otherwise realized under a Kernan administration.

But that gospel did seem to lack a sense of inerrancy. Now, coming up on four years and multiple overtures to the GLBTETAL community that offered zero help to the (failed! By a tied committee vote, even!) Marriage Amendment, Indiana’s pro-family advocacy community is fed up with feeling like MMMitch’s jilted political lovers. Some pro-family groups have cut him more slack than others, but I can’t help but wonder if they are preparing to sharpen their hermeneutical moxie as they more carefully review the Governor’s 2008 gospel.

The question becomes whether Becky really has any say or control in how Mitch Daniels governs on these issues important to social conservatives. If Romans 1 and 70%+ of Hoosier Republicans and Democrats (who agree with Romans 1) can’t convince MMMitch that traditional marriage is worth his support, who can? If she has any such sway, I hope she’ll use it soon, for if she waits for her own gubernatorial run in 2012, the courts will likely have rendered the matter moot.

Movie Review: Ratatouille is Brilliant

Ratatouille is brilliant. The movie, that is. Prior to the film, I’d never heard of the dish (recipe) but I was enlightened not only to a higher culinary appreciation but a higher cinematic appreciation. The problem with CGI movies has often been a high budget “wow” on special effects and “woe” on script and plot line. But Director Brad Bird has proven some incredible moxie to balance both in The Incredibles and now Ratatouille. Will I let my children, ages 9 through 2, see the movie? Yes, but I will coach them in advance on a few scenes involving a brief scene of drunkenness, a few references of implied profanity (we don’t allow “oh my gosh” in the family because of it serving something of an introductory drug for more hard core stuff down the road), and kissing scenes between Gasteau, Jr. (the young chef pictured here) and his crush. I’ll then follow up with some post-movie reflection and I’m confident that we’ll have delivered a good inoculation.