The Politico has an item about people who were offended by Karl Rove’s rap, um, performance at the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner last week. Was it racist? Was it a “modern-day minstrel show”? Was it asdfkjadgvhioudmmmmmmmmmmmm

Sorry, I fell asleep and my face hit the keyboard while trying to take this seriously. People who can even feign outrage about Rove’s innocent bit of dorky white-guy buffoonery — his dancing looked more hula than hip-hop — occupy a different universe than the rest of us.

If you want to be offended by Karl Rove, try this instead.

What the hell is the point of this article about Sean Lennon?

Here’s some apparent teacher-student respect I overheard in the nation’s capital this afternoon.

Adult: How could the girls just leave the group and not tell us where there were going?

Child: Because they don’t like you.

Kids today.

Religious right leader steps in it again: You may have heard about the latest flap where James Dobson, the guy who doesn’t tend to say the kinds of things that land Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in trouble, said he didn’t think presidential hopeful Fred Thompson was a Christian.

In Dobson’s limited defense, I think he was speaking in evangelicalese. In those circles, “Christian” is often shorthand for “evangelical.” Especially in light of his later clarification, my reading is that Dobson was probably saying, “I’m not sure he’s one of us.”

Now, that’s a limited defense for a couple of reasons. First, for many evangelicals the “one of us” comment does have the theological (and judgmental) implications that Dobson’s critics detect: It’s a way of saying, “That guy is not right with God.” Secondly, evangelicals have a tendency to get caught in a subcultural mindset, using their own lingo even when talking to the broader world. At their worst, they also have a tendency toward self-righteousness.

Public evangelicals should be mindful of all this. If they choose not to be, the liberal media certainly won’t help but neither will it be entirely responsible for the inevitable controversies that follow.

Today at the Spectator, John Tabin lays out the case for Bush worrying about Iraq more and Alberto Gonzales less. I inveighed against the pork-laden emergency supplemental for Iraq (and Afghanistan) in that space last week. Gonzales is beyond saving, but the notion of war spending being devoted to, well, wars rather than peanut storage seems like something the White House should devote a little political capital to.

But aside from the irresonsible spending, here’s the thing: I didn’t think the Iraq invasion was in our national interest yet I also oppose unconstitutional encroachments on the commander in chief’s power. I think the timetable requirement in the supplemental falls into that unconstitutional category. So who should I believe? My man Walter Jones is pro-timetable; my man Ron Paul voted against the bill. I am inclined to agree with Paul. Am I right?

UPDATE: John Tabin replies.

There is nothing Irish about a Philly cheesesteak. Tasty perhaps. Satisfying even. At least until it becomes indigestion-inducing.

But Irish? About as much as a Chevrolet. So let’s stop the faux Irish spin.

Your faithful customer, W. James Antle III.

Well, I’ll try to live up to my apparent reputation for boozing and promiscuity during these next two weeks. I thank Jeremy for the introduction.

But I’ve come here to bury Mr. Lott, not to praise him. Or at least to bury his need to provide content for this fine website. So I figure I should start by making readers aware of the next great threat to human freedom in our time: Lego communism.

The problem first reared its ugly head in an article for something called Rethinking Schools. The authors decided to ban Legos and then reintroduce them with restrictions as a way of teaching children about equality, power sharing, and a whole lot of other subversive nonsense. Think I’m kidding? From the article:

• Collectivity is a good thing:

“You get to build and you have a lot of fun and people get to build onto your structure with you, and it doesn’t have to be the same way as when you left it…. A house is good because it is a community house.”

• Personal expression matters:

“It’s important that the little Lego plastic person has some identity. Lego houses might be all the same except for the people. A kid should have their own Lego character to live in the house so it makes the house different.”

• Shared power is a valued goal:

“It’s important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building. And it’s important to have the same priorities.”

“Before, it was the older kids who had the power because they used Legos most. Little kids have more rights now than they used to and older kids have half the rights.”

• Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for:

“We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes…. We should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces.”

 

Here’s what I got out of this little exercise: I am definitely, according to the magazine title, rethinking schools.

Well those last few posts were exhausting, so it’s time for another blog break. Starting tomorrow, W. James “Jim” Antle III will be guest blogging for two weeks.

Jim is currently associate editor of the American Spectator and before that he was the senior writer for the American Conservative. We met face-to-face for the first time when he was considering moving to D.C., but we’d corresponded for a few years before that. We came out of the same anti-Clinton webzine boom.

Jim is a great writer, promiscuous freelancer, and fine debater who can drink you under the floorboards. This blog will be in good hands.

As Thomas Pearson noted, the Catholic World Report put up a copy of my long interview with Philip Jenkins. What he didn’t note is that it was the cover story. My first cover story. If you haven’t had the chance to read it yet, here it is.

“We’re just going to have to disagree to agree.”