At a site praising a local journalist of the former Seattle Post Intelligencer, presently on online life support:
At a Washington Independent story faulting the FBI's supposedly discriminatory stance toward Muslims:
"...the case stoked apprehensions that the government sees Arab-Americans and Muslims as a people apart." Cf. the BIble, Gen 12:16: " ...thou shalt call his name Ishmael... And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him..." The inescapable fact remains that the Western democracies, with their presumption of legal sovereignty over sectarian interests, were never designed with the sons of Ishmael in mind. As for "developing with consistency" the "crucial relationship" with Muslims, is not this institutional deference the very stance that fostered the Fort Hood disaster?
At a Macleans article on the recent VSO- VANOC controversy:
"The visible part of the job is something a ten-year-old could do..." Right! And when the kid is finished "doing" Mahler's 9th she can take over for Colby Cash at the word processor. Certainly anyone can beat time to pop songs, but just try letting an orchestra attempt to perform any standard work of "classical" proportions without the firm hand of a trained conductor on deck and watch what happens: bloody chaos. Mr. Cash should confine his aesthetic apercus to the football and hockey venues he hails from where a little chaos always offers a welcome bit of divertimenti.
[This little comment generated a number of REPIES from the usual canuck brigade and from Cosh himself, more entertaining, let me add, than the original column. Interestingly, there is one sport with an affinity to the art of orchestral conducting, an affinity once evoked by none other than the late Herbert van Karajan. It is the sport of horse-jumping, a sport as dangerous and demanding for both man and mount as it is exciting and graceful to the spectator. Steeplechase and conducting, each in its own way, bring out the crucial difference between merely riding something that's been tamed into acquiescence, and actually guiding a thoroughbred with a will of its own over the most formidable terrain, be it terrestrial or artistic. Neither is an undertaking for ten year-olds.]
At a NYT predictably effusive review of Clint Eastwood's Invictus:
Dirty Harry Mole
"The defining theme of his career" has actually been Eastwood's ongoing charade as some kind of "conservative," making violent movies that draw in the mass red state audiences but invariably larding each cliched effort with all the standard liberal platitudes. Show me a politically correct theme this guy hasn't pushed down our throats in film after moralizing film. How else does a "tough guy" get Hollywood's effete elite eating out of his hand every two to three years? Artist he never will be, but when has that ever held up an Academy Award nomination? He's the left's ultimate cultural mole.