“Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals.”

- Edmund Wilson

This bit of informal American, as well as its variant fofarraw (FOH fuh raw), has two distinct meanings; a big fuss about very little, i.e., much ado about nothing; or flashy finery, too many frills. Literary policeman’s question: “What’s going on here? What’s all the foofaraw about?” Or, in the second sense, from a lady wearing a lorgnette (if you can find one): “She could certainly dispense with all the foofaraw!” A lovely-sounding word and, say the authorities, origin unknown; but in the first sense, could it be a corruption of free-for-all (in baby-talk)? The British appear not to use this word, but, in the to-do sense, have a nice equivalent: gefuffle, also spelt kerfuffle and cufuffle, all loosely used as synonyms for their word shemozzle, which is also spelt shemozzl, chimozzle, and at least half-a-dozen other ways — you takes your choice.

This selection is taken from the book, “1000 Most Challenging Words” by Norman W. Schur, ©1987 by the Ballantine Reference Library, Random House.

Update:

1. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.

2. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

3. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

The 1960 epic Spartacus is long and in it’s production and pacing doesn’t fare well when compared to modern films that tell similar stories such as Gladiator or Braveheart, so it might be difficult for younger viewers to appreciate. (Really, when was the last time you saw a movie that took itself so seriously as to have an overture and an intermission?). The movie does explore some key themes, however, that can make for interesting starting points for discussion on the nature of love, power, freedom, hate, sexuality, political intrigue, loyalty, and friendship. The central theme, however, is man’s desire to live free and with dignity and the willingness to sacrifice all to achieve it. This is shown well in several scenes and with dialog that is powerful and not too preachy or long-winded. While the movie is based on a book by Howard Fast and the screen play was by Dalton Trumbo (both Communists), the movie is not as political as you might expect. While the story is about gladiators and slaves (the proletariat) trying to throw off their masters, I thought the presentation and scenes explaining what Spartacus hoped to achieve were more closely related to the Declaration of Independence than to The Communist Manifesto. Indeed, part of the irony is to consider how much of what Spartacus said and did would have resulted in the same treatment from a Communist government as what he received from the Romans. In addition, the film’s illustration of the dehumanizing aspect of slavery without a racial element may be eye-opening for those who think of slavery as being a black and white issue only.

1. On two occasions Spartacus draws distinctions between being man and being an animal. What were these occasions, and how did they relate to each other?



2. One difference between Crassus and Gracchus is that one saw the people as something to be exploited and the other saw them as something to be controlled. Which was which, and how did they go about trying to achieve their ends? What differences, if any, were there between their objectives?



3. At the end of the rebellion, why did the gladiators all claim to be Spartacus, even though it meant death? Was their decision similar to, or different from, Gracchus’ action at the end of the movie? How and why?

Cowboy Song
The cowboy’s found his way
to the high plateau,
where there’s blue sky above
and gold clouds below;
where the grass waves to him,
and he rides like the wind,
with a smile on his face
as if he’s never known sin.

His horse is named Mercy,
his saddle is Grace,
and he knows that there can be
no better place;
and the sound of his hoofbeats
will come now and again,
faint but familiar
like a heartbeat within.

“I know you, sweet rider,”
you’ll say in those times,
and pause in his presence,
and feel for the signs,
that there’s pain in the journey,
but peace in the end,
when the strays are all gathered
with no fences to mend.

“Cowboy, ride on,
ride free and ride wide,
gallop forever,
my heart by your side.
Though I don’t know the words
to the song that you’ll sing,
I’ll listen when it’s quiet
to the peace that it brings.

When comes the sunset,
may my faith be whole,
ride ‘cross the river
and comfort my soul.
Push back your hat,
let me see your face,
reach down your hand,
and pull me up into space.
Meanwhile from a branch
in the highest tree
a dove sings the song
that you’ve sung to me.”

- JS

Defenestration is the act of throwing someone (yes, someone!) or something out of a window. To defenestrate a person or a thing is to engage in that activity — a strange one indeed, since these words are more commonly applied to situations where what is thrown out of the window is a person, rather than a thing. It is surprising, in view of what must be the infrequency of this type of activity, that there exists a word for it, but then, there exists a word for just about everything. There is a famous incident in history when an act of defenestration of people was committed: the Defenestration of Prague. It seems that, just before the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1618, the two principal Roman Catholic members of the Bohemian National Council were thrown out of a window of the castle at Prague by the Protestant members — one way to settle an argument. They weren't killed. The castle had a moat in which the defenestrated twain were lucky enough to land, with only minor injuries. Strangely enough, it is once more to Prague that we have to travel to find a more recent (and this time fatal) instance of what might been defenestration. Jan Masaryk (1886-1948, son of Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, first president of Czechoslovakia) was foreign minister of the Czech government-in-exile in London during World War II. He returned to Prague, retaining that post, when that war ended. A short time after the communist coup in 1948, he fell to his death from a window. Despite the official explanation of suicide, the circumstances have never eliminated the possibility of dastardly defenestration. In A Time of Gifts (John Murray, London, 1977), the English writer Patrick Leigh Fermor (b. 1915) tells us of the martyrdom of St. Johannes Nepomuk in 1393 by the henchman of King Wenceslas IV. They hurled Johannes into the River Vltava (also known as the Moldau) from a bridge in Prague. Mr. Fermor adds in a footnote: “there are several instances of defenestration in Czech history, and it has continued into modern times [referring, no doubt, to poor Masaryk]. The martyrdom of St. Johannes is the only case of depontification, but it must be part of the same Tarpeian tendency.” Mr. Fermor is referring to the Tarpeian Rock — the Mons Tarpeius — on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome, from which criminals and traitors were hurled to their death.

Wired’s January 2006 issue contains a brief piece about a “planned metropolis” on the outskirts of Shanghai that features a 130,000-square-foot, $26 million dollar complex for skateboarders. It sounds impressive. The only question it raises is who is actually going to use it? As Transworld Skateboarding Magazine casually observed in one of their recent travel pieces: “There aren't hundreds of skaters in Shanghai. In fact we probably only came across a handful at most...”

Peter Mark Roget, born in London (1779). His name is attached to the Thesaurus, but he had a long career as a physician and a scientist before he compiled it. As a younger man, he experimented with laughing gas, figured out how to improve the public water supply, invented the log-log slide rule, and wrote a paper which was the first to describe the persistence of images on the retina, thought to have been the first step toward the development of the movie camera. In Roget's Thesaurus you can find all sorts of suggestions for words that you want synonyms for. For "talk," he suggests: "chatter, chat, prate, prattle, patter, babble, gab, gabble, gibble-gabble, jabber, blab, blabber, blather, blether, clatter, run on, rattle on, ramble on, run on like a mill race, talk till one is blue in the face."

A. A. (Alan Alexander) Milne, born in St. John's Wood, London (1882). He wrote for the humor magazine Punch, and he was the author of a successful play called Mr. Pim Passes By. But once he published Winnie the Pooh, nobody ever remembered anything else he had written. In a little verse, he lamented: When I wrote them, little thinking/All my years of pen - and - inking/Would be almost lost among/Those four trifles for the young.

Not content to wait until children enter public school to begin their political slandering and unsubtle brainwashing, those kindly Democrats have come up with an enchanting children’s book to explain what otherwise seems incomprehensible: why someone would be a Democrat. At least, I think it’s a children’s book; it might be a field manual for Howard Dean’s ground forces. (HT: Gordon at Dog Snot Diaries.) The web-site for the book describes its purpose: Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others. It’s a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.

Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children’s book, but it definitely isn’t just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party (in plain and non-judgmental language, of course), Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!

Finally, a portion of the profits (such language!) will be donated to Democratic candidates and party organizations, so your purchase will help make an immediate difference!

“Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of friendly squirrels playing and sharing while well-dressed people walk by and turn their noses up at someone begging.)

“Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of Mommy directing children away from an elephant going by).

“Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does.” (Illustration of mommy packing backpacks for her children while rich people in the background stand with their daughter in front of a building that says ‘Admission $160,000’).

• Democrats think Mommy had the right to kill you before you were born, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats say name-calling is all right, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats don’t want you to make decisions for yourself, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats think it’s more important to make sure the teacher’s union is protected than to make sure you get a good education, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats think you don’t need a Daddy, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats make sure that bullies are encouraged, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats want you to do as they say, not as they do, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats think people from other places have just as much right to play in your backyard as you do, just like Mommy does.


• Democrats think you will always need a nanny, no matter how old you are, just like Mommy does.

Update:

A strange word, fustian, in the diversity and apparent dissociation of its several meanings. First of all, fustian is the name of a thick twilled cotton fabric, or a blend of cotton and flax or low grade wool with a short nap, usually dyed a dark color, and as an adjective, fustian describes cloth so made. But fustian is now used chiefly in a wholly different sense, miles from cloth or fabric: It means “bombast,” written or spoken, “turgid, inflated language, purple prose,” and finally, “claptrap, rant, hogwash, palaver, prattle, drivel”; and, as an adjective, “pompous, bombastic, nonsensical, worthless.” Fustian is a Middle English word, from Old French fustaigne, derived from Middle Latin fustaneus , referring to cloth made in El-Fustat, a suburb of Cairo. This peculiar dichotomy of meanings suggests that the material from El-Fustat was of pretty poor value. Shall we complicate matters further? Fustian is also the name of a drink made of white wine, egg yolk, lemon, spices and other miscellaneous ingredients – a concoction with possibilities. To fustianize (FUS chun ize) is to write in a bombastic manner, and a writer who descends to that level is a fustianist (FUS chun ist). From the pen of the English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744), in the Epistle to Dr. Arbuthnot, out of his Prologue to Imitations of Horace, flow these words: “Means not, but blunders round about meaning; and he whose fustian’s so bad, it is not poetry, but prose run mad.”

Shakespeare used fustian in Othello (Act II, Scene 3) when Cassio, in despair after Othello cashiers him, cries: “I will rather sue to be despised rather than deceive so good a commander…Drunk!...and squabble, swagger, swear and discourse fustian with one’s own shadow!” In Henry IV, Part 2 (Act II, Scene 4), Doll Tearsheet tells Bardolph: “For God’s sake, thrust him (Pistol) down stairs! I cannot endure such a fustian rascal!” And in Twelfth Night (Act II, Scene 5), after hearing Malvolio’s doggerel, Fabian exclaims, “A fustian riddle!” All these uses refer to bombast, prattle and drivel.

SEN. BIDEN PRODUCING DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Talkative Lawmaker Creating Environmental Threat, Scientists Fear
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who has dominated this week’s confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito with his seemingly nonstop talking, is producing dangerously high level of carbon dioxide that could pose a serious environmental threat, leading scientists said today.

While many observers have found Sen. Biden’s interminable orating tedious and wearisome, few suspected that the lawmaker was producing gases that could threaten the ecological balance of the planet.

But at a conference in Oslo, Norway devoted to the environmental challenges posed by Sen. Biden’s endless nattering, scientists today said that the Delaware Democrat was producing levels of carbon dioxide that could prove harmful to many of the earth’s species.

“Carbon dioxide is a necessary part of the photosynthetic process that allows plants to grow,” said the University of Tokyo’s Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke. “But the massive amounts of carbon dioxide produced by Joe Biden could prove to be too much for even the hardiest vegetation to process.”

New source of global warming gas found: plants
LONDON (Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.

“Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field,” Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.

Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.

The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.


Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

This is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary that Judge Alito's colleagues have turned out to defend him against the Democrats' smears; extraordinary that the Democrats themselves couldn't be bothered to stick around to hear what this distinguished group of judges had to say. After all, if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito's judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears. But the Democrats apparently knew that wasn't going to happen. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats knew they were smearing a fine man and a fine judge. But the fact that they didn't even have the decency or respect to stay and listen to Alito's colleagues is disgusting.

Call me paranoid, but I'm struck by the fact that none of the news services seem to have taken a picture of the Senate panel, denuded of Democrats during the judges' testimony. When Alito was testifying, there were countless shots of Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, et al.; now, mysteriously, there are no pictures of the Senators.

The point of the Fundamentals in Film class was to help a group of young men see examples of “manly” behavior beyond just pro wrestlers or Homer Simpson. The World War II submarine movie U-571 fit the bill, having the requisite non-stop action and examples of strong character under stress (true of most films in the series). The special lesson from this film, however, also dealt with being able to control your face and emotions when things don't go your way.

• The qualities of leadership.


• The meaning of sacrifice (“Greater love has no man but that he lay down his life for his brother”).


• Having a perspective of the greater good, beyond yourself.


• Showing respect and being obedient even if you are upset or feel wronged (controlling your face and your emotions).


• The necessity at times of having to make hard decisions, using imperfect information, that have significant consequences in other peoples’ lives.

1. Why did the captain think Andy was not prepared to be the captain of his own sub?


2. Did Andy’s disappointment affect his obedience and discipline? Contrast Andy’s behavior with Mazzola’s.


3. What are the burdens of authority?


4. What was the over-riding principle Andy had to use in making his decisions?


5. Would it have done any good for Andy (or anyone in the crew, to protest being in an unfair situation?