how to dismantle an atomic bear

30 June 2004

Reading Lists; Thoughts on President Bush

I am now reading through Crime and Punishment in addition to the Wheel of Time series. Being only 18 when I read it, it has occurred to me that the major themes of the book probably escaped me at the time, and so I decided to read it again (this logic will probably compel me to reread The Brothers Karamazov and Devils before long).

J.K. Rowling has confirmed the title of Book #6 as Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. She has not made my life any easier by vaguely alluding to connections between Chamber of Secrets and Half Blood Prince. I now find myself forcibly resisting the urge to neglect my current reading in order to reread Chamber of Secrets in order to work out just what those connections might be.

I have begun carefully making a list of everything I would want to have in a work of fiction that I would write. I still doubt if I will have the discipline to write it even if I do manage to come up with a complete blueprint. So far my outline includes a couple of themes that I would want to highlight and one or two very rough character sketches.

The usually sober David Ignatius has come out claiming that Iraq was ultimately a catastrophic defeat in the war on terror.

The all-but-invisible ceremony couldn't disguise the fact that Iraq has confounded the grand strategy of transformation that led the Bush administration to invade the country 15 months ago...

Bush will have to make clear that his conduct of foreign policy over the next four years would be better and wiser. That shouldn't be impossible: Over the past three months, Bush has quietly revamped his Iraq policy from the old "Field of Dreams" hope of transformation to a pragmatic and sometimes cold-blooded art of the possible. Bush should own up to this new realism on Iraq, and the change of course it represents, rather than continue with his moralizing rhetoric.

This is nothing new. This is the predominant view in liberal foreign policy circles that the Bush administration was too optimistic, idealistic, even naive about its goals for post-war Iraq and the Middle East, and that the Bush doctrine gradually fell apart under the crushing weight of its own idealism and the harsh realities of post-war Iraq.

And yet, even Ignatius concedes that Iraq cannot yet be called a failure. It may yet succeed; and this is why I think it premature to call the Bush doctrine a failure. Of course, Baghdad is not the capital of a blooming democracy just yet, and so it can't be called a smashing success. But policies must be evaluated in view of the available alternatives. For though the Bush administration has largely abandoned unilateralism, it may yet be forced to return to it if the multilateral alternative it is pursuing proves to be as ineffective as he originally feared.

And thus far with Iran, multilateral diplomacy does not look especially promising. And I can't help but wonder if maybe unilateralism failed because President Bush wasn't idealistic enough. He did not follow through with his idealism. When it came time to stand firm, he buckled.

America would have followed him, but he was not willing to lead us. He feared the political costs of rolling back some of his tax cuts, of calling for Manhattan Project to develop an alternative energy source, of slapping a tax on gasoline to help pay for Iraq reconstruction, of exploring the possibility of a military draft, of dramatically increasing the size of the army, and of investigating the possibility of invading Iran or Syria.

None of these tasks would have concerned FDR. America's greatest leaders were not afraid to call for radical changes. They led the nation with only their principles as their guiding light, and consequently, were not afraid to make hard decisions.

Doubtless, political observers see this in President Bush as well and view it as perhaps his greatest strength in the coming presidential election.

That is the general consensus: President Bush is principled, idealistic, optimistic, and naive. He's a strong leader unafraid to make the hard decisions.

And perhaps this is so. But only in comparison to John Kerry. Bush looks like a jelly-spined, cynical weaver of political intrigue when compared with FDR and Lincoln.

01:47

28 June 2004

Latest Interests

For the first time since 2000, I am finding myself living neither on a college campus, nor in Washington. I am finding it difficult to make myself read the Washington Post every day and to make myself care about what used to be an obsession for me -- politics and ideology. And as many idle weeks pass, I'm finding it more and more difficult to maintain my previously very rigorous level of politically-oriented reading. I've laid out some rough plans to delve back into it (though I rarely have the discipline to implement such plans). And I may regain my interest before long, especially if I follow through with my plans to write a column when I get to UNT.

I find myself more interested in fantasy fiction and my fantasy baseball team right now. But I am so far ahead now in fantasy baseball that I could make no further moves for the rest of the year and still win. I will have to find a new obsession soon to last the rest of the summer.

I've toyed with the thought of writing some fiction of my own. It's something I've never tried before. And my first pieces probably wouldn't be very ambitious. But I may give it a try sometime. Karlminion and his well-written fan fics have been something of an inspiration for me lately. And as I read through Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, I find myself disagreeing with the author -- questioning his prose, the depiction of his characters, or the direction of his plot.

Maybe sometime.

The Washington Post has an article arguing that the fundamental tenets of the Bush Doctrine have been greatly undermined by the results of the Iraq War.

They note that President Bush has turned to the U.N. and NATO for help with Iraq, is relying on diplomacy in nuclear weapons crises in Iran and North Korea, etc.

It is not very clear to me if events in Iraq have discredited neo-conservatism or if President Bush simply lost his stomach for it.

02:42

27 June 2004

Writing and Personalities

There are a few select writers who are especially good at injecting their personality into their words. You can almost hear their voices, see the expressions on their faces as if they were saying exactly what they've written. Ann Coulter is one of those. Speaking of whom, I noticed she has a new book coming out in October. It doesn't look terribly compelling. But then again, I doubt many people read Coulter because for that reason. They read her because she's fun to read.

But I digress. Other authors that succeed at plastering their personality all over the page include Jonah Goldberg and someone else who is quickly becoming a favorite of mine: David Brooks. Brooks doesn't always write with his personality. Sometimes however, he does, and when he does, it is always worth a read. Brooks is one of those rare writers who can simultaneously engage his readers in a compelling argument and at the same time make them laugh. His latest does just this. I'm going to post it in full below. Not everyone has a NY Times ID and password.

It's about Michael Moore (the second recent article about Moore that I've referenced). Michael Moore isn't someone I take terribly seriously. But this is an article that deserves a read because it is enjoyable regardless of whether or not you think Fahrenheit 9/11 is a serious documentary with a serious argument that needs to be seriously confronted.

All Hail Moore
By DAVID BROOKS

In years past, American liberals have had to settle for intellectual and moral leadership from the likes of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. But now, a grander beacon has appeared on the mountaintop, and from sea to shining sea, tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.

So it is worth taking a moment to study the metaphysics of Michael Moore. For Moore is not only a filmmaker; he is a man of ideas, and his work is based on an actual worldview.

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

In the days after Sept. 11, while others were disoriented, Moore was able to see clearly: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

This leads to Michael Moore's global plan of action. "Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.

So we have our Sartre. And the liberal grandees Arthur Schlesinger, Ted Sorenson, Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer flock to his openings. In Washington, a Senate vote was delayed because so many Democrats wanted to see his movie.

The standards of socially acceptable liberal opinion have shifted. We're a long way from John Dewey.

03:24

26 June 2004

Themes of the Trilogy: An Essay on Star Wars

Kids love Star Wars. They love it for the adventure. They love the battle scenes, which are never found lacking. The atmosphere and story elements are rich in imagination and futuristic sci-fi flavor. But these are not the greatest strengths of the trilogy. The Star Wars movies are masterpieces of movie making because they very deeply capture the essence of good and evil. The trilogy does not tell the story of a one-dimensional war, but rather of a complex struggle that revolves around various themes. The following essay will discuss those themes. Note that the primary focus is on Episodes V and VI.

The Empire Strikes Back introduces compelling new characters and adds much depth to the existing ones. Luke Skywalker, a Jedi-in-training exhibits a brasher side, a willingness to disregard the prudent warnings of his masters if it means saving his friends. It was this foolish and ever idealistic loyalty that made Luke so endearing to the audience, and it was with these characteristics that Luke came to epitomize the ultimate good guy in popular culture.

And yet, Empire's greatest strength is perhaps the ruthless dynamism of its villains and the complex roles they play in the grand struggle of good against evil. Vader, presented throughout the movie as a ruthless tyrant, appears at first glance to have little in his character to suggest a good side. He stops at nothing to find Luke. Asteroid fields do not concern him. He employs bounty hunters, issues cruel dictates to the leaders of free cities, and does not hesitate to torture Luke's friends to lure him into his clutches. He lacks faith in his inferiors, is often disgusted with their incompetence, and angrily executes them for their failures without as much as a second thought.

It is Vader who introduces the audience to the true nature of the dark side. By its nature, the power of the force flows from the intensity of the feelings of those who use it. For the dark side, these feelings are anger, fear, and hatred. Thus, it is essential for Vader and the Emperor to cultivate these feelings in Luke if he is to be converted. And when Luke confronts Vader in Cloud City, Vader encourages him accordingly: "Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me!"

Later in the episode, Vader, depicted throughout the film as the living embodiment of anger and hatred, decided that he was through playing with Luke, and proceeded to discharge all his anger onto him, showing just how powerful those feelings could make him. This is thematic strength of Empire -- this intense display of the power of evil.

And yet, the picture is incomplete. For Vader, ruthless as he was, seemed to lose heart, and in the end, could not bring himself to destroy Luke. All his threats to do so turned out to be empty bluff. "Don't let yourself be destroyed as Obi Wan did," he warns Luke. And yet, Luke fought on, stating with so many actions that he was quite willing to be destroyed rather than surrender himself to the dark side. When he cried out to Vader, "I'll never join you!", it was readily apparent that he meant what he said. And it was here that Vader's seemingly inexhaustible reserve of anger and hatred seemed to suddenly dry up. The man who executed his inferiors for the most trivial of blunders was reduced to begging and pleading with Luke. The merciless tyrant of the story came off looking rather pathetic right at the climactic moment.

He then dramatically disclosed their family connection. This piece of information was a sort of Pandora's Box to the entire trilogy. The revelation radically altered Luke's outlook of the situation, though not at all as Vader hoped. Initially, Luke's shock only left him more entrenched in his resolve to die rather than join the dark side. He threw himself into a large chasm (the kind that seem to exist all over the galaxy in every kind of building primarily for the purpose of providing dramatic conclusions for Jedi duels) to what might have been his death rather than join Vader. When Luke had been rescued and had gathered himself, he apparently dwelt not on the awesome power of the dark side or the possibility that he might be treading in his father's footsteps to the side of the Emperor, but rather on Vader's apparent unwillingness to kill him and the possibility that his father might really be alive. As he concluded that the good man who was his father might not actually be dead as Obi Wan had told him, he was then filled not with anger and hate as Vader had planned, but rather with compassion at the thought that there was still good in his father.

Vader badly bungled everything. It was not out of incompetence, but rather because of the element of good that still dwelt in him -- an element that Luke was quick to notice. And so while Empire offers a compelling picture of the power of evil, the portrait is ultimately incomplete. This evil had never fully developed; it was forceful and dominant, but in the end did not show us how deeply it could run.

Return of the Jedi offers a far grander episode of the struggle between good and evil. While in many ways, Empire is a dramatic display of the power of the dark side, the strength that can be drawn from intense feelings of anger and hate, Jedi is altogether different. It is a story of the final triumph of good in spite of the awesome power of evil.

In this chapter, Luke Skywalker cuts a more formidable, more deeply seasoned figure, now widely known throughout the galaxy. And yet, in some ways, he is the same as ever.

To the cause of the Rebel Alliance, Han Solo was not at all essential. Indeed, in the greater struggle between good and evil, he has very little real significance except for this: that he is Luke Skywalker's friend. And the opening of Episode VI is a dramatic demonstration that, though more seasoned, Luke's priorities have not changed. There is still nothing more important to him than his friends. Luke rescued Han not from any greater concern for the Rebel Alliance, but because Han Solo was his friend.

It is his greatest strength and still a serious vulnerability that his enemies will seek to exploit. Still, there is another element of Luke's character that plays a significant, indeed a decisive role in the struggle: his compassion for Vader.

All the events leading up to this point have revolved around a struggle between the forces of good and evil for the destiny of Luke. Vader and the Emperor have plotted actively to convert Luke, to make him into a powerful ally. But now, Luke has confronted Vader for himself and felt the element of good in him. And so now Luke will turn the tables on the Emperor entirely, and transform the struggle from a battle over his own destiny into a battle for Vader's.

Throughout the episode, Vader is not at all himself. The ruthless warlord who will send his fleets through perilous asteroid fields to find a single ship, who executes officers for the smallest errors has given way to a quiet, cautious, and somewhat sullen figure. Traces of the inner conflict within Vader are subtly reflected in his behavior. He is no longer as ruthlessly decisive as he was in the previous episode. When given the opportunity to stop Solo's Rebel strike force team, Vader ordered him commander to allow them to penetrate the shield. He then proceeded to helplessly ask his Emperor how to proceed -- not exactly the same man who sent a fleet into an asteroid field to find Luke's friends, took over Cloud City, and tortured Han Solo only to get at Luke. Additionally, a somewhat interesting conversation takes place when Vader asks for instructions.

Vader: A small Rebel force has penetrated the shield and landed on Endor.

Emperor: Yes, I know.

Vader: My son is with them.

Emperor: Are you sure?

Vader: I have felt him.

Emperor: Strange that I have not. I wonder if your feelings on this matter are clear, Lord Vader?

And this is just the point. There is more to this conversation than what is on the surface. Vader's feelings on the matter were far from clear. An intense struggle was raging within him, a struggle he attempted to deny throughout the movie. Vader continued to insist, both to Luke and to his Emperor, that his feelings were clear, but it was a lie; and in the end, he would be forced to acknowledge it. In any case, it is abundantly clear that the duel in Cloud City left Vader badly shaken. His encounter with Luke awoke in him the good that the Emperor had long suppressed, but never vanquished.

For now, Vader is rarely found actively attempting to arouse Luke to anger or hatred. Instead, he is more often found to be on the defensive as Luke forcefully charges him with doubt and intense inner conflict. And when Luke pleads with him to come with him, Vader can only insist that the power of the dark side is too great to allow any good in him to triumph. Indeed, this is where the trilogy's great struggle of good and evil actually takes place -- within Vader.

For now, Vader has not made up his mind. The conflict is unresolved, and so he goes about his business as usual, though with significantly reduced resolve. He brings Luke before the Emperor. Here, in the Emperor's chamber, we find a true incarnation of evil. In Vader, it was incomplete, but within the Emperor himself, there is not a trace of compassion. He sets about cultivating the feelings of anger and hatred within Luke with the same vigor and ruthlessness that Vader displayed at the beginning of his initial confrontation with Luke. He attempts to do this by instilling in Luke feelings of hopelessness and loss. He does this not only by giving Luke a firsthand look at the Rebel fleet trapped between the Death Star and a fleet of star destroyers, but also by revealing the extent of his knowledge of Rebel designs on Endor. He means to make Luke believe that his friends, whom he so cherishes, will die on the Endor moon at the hands of Imperial troops. But during all this time, his thoughts and focus are entirely on Luke, apparently blind to the conflict taking place within Vader.

It is notable that up to this point, Luke has tested his theory about Vader -- that his goodness will not allow him to kill Luke -- in a number of ways. First, he never really believed that Vader would bring him before the Emperor. "I know there is good in you. The Emperor hadn't drive in from you fully. That was why you couldn't destroy me. That's why you won't bring me to your Emperor now." And on this, he was wrong. Again, shortly after the duel with Vader began, Luke kicked Vader down a staircase and promptly lowered his lightsaber, insisting that he would not fight him. And again, Luke did not find what he was looking for in Vader, who quickly showed Luke how unwise it was to lower his defenses. Had Luke not raised his lightsaber, he might have been killed.

Instead, Luke flips onto an upper platform where Vader cannot reach him and again unleashes another verbal offensive, insisting to Vader that his thoughts are betraying him and his inner conflict all too apparent. The duel proceeded in this staggered fashion, much of it periodically interrupted by intervals of dialogue. And this was Luke's primary strategy. The duel was of no use to him. Indeed, Luke had not anticipated needing his lightsaber, and still preferred not to use it when possible. Instead, he much preferred to linger in hiding or in other places where Vader could not reach him where he would be free to speak to Vader, to prod his feelings, and to escalate the conflict raging within him.

Initially, Luke's prodding appears to have been counter-productive. Vader seems to take heart and exhibit his darker side more commonly seen in Empire, and for the first (and only) time in the movie, he resumes cultivating within Luke feelings of anger and hatred. He examines Luke's feelings and concludes that they are strongest for his friends. But then he takes it a step further. As he probed Luke's mind, he detected something else. He found Luke's feelings to be strongest for someone in particular, and this someone was his sister. His strong feelings for her betrayed the fact of her existence to Vader.

Up to this point, Luke has forcefully resisted all overtures made to him from the dark side. We have seen the strength of Luke's resolution in his determination not to be seduced by the dark side. But Vader's knowledge of Leia would now radically alter everything. It would mean that even if he resisted the dark side, it still might triumph in the end by seducing Leia. It meant that all the trials Luke had endured would have to be endured again by his sister, for whom he cared very deeply.

And so Luke's anger poured out of him -- anger at himself for betraying his sister; anger at Vader for threatening her. No longer is Luke's focus on the inner conflict within Vader. No longer is he guided by compassion for his father. All of this has been swept away in a furious and frantic rush of impulse to protect his sister.

Vader was apparently quite unprepared for Luke's furious onslaught. Throughout their second encounter, his son had never ceased to insist that he would not fight his father, and Vader had believed him. As the power of the dark side raged in Luke and unleashed itself on him, Vader's divided feelings and inner struggle left him in no condition to repel it. This was a different Vader than we saw in Episode V. This one was emotionally weakened by Luke's presence and by the rhetorical onslaught he had maintained throughout the encounter. And so Vader offered no spirited defense.

And now the audience can see the look of glee on the Emperor’s face as Luke stands over a defeated Vader. Finally, he supposed, he had succeeded. Luke had experienced the power of the dark side. Anger and hatred had triumphed in him, and they had made him powerful. Naturally, he expected Luke to embrace this power.

But Luke never felt any genuine hatred toward his father. The source of his rage was a deep-rooted urge to protect his sister. His anger had been unleashed, but his compassion for his father remained strong, and all of Vader's efforts to defeat it had failed. Luke cared nothing for the power of the dark side that he had just experienced. He had no need of it. He tasted it and rejected it.

Enraged, the Emperor set about destroying Luke with bolts of electricity. And while doing so, he tells him, "Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the dark side." But this raises questions.

For all his goodness, is Luke unable to defeat evil? Is the power of evil inherently greater because it rejects all moral restraint? Are anger and hatred inherently greater and more powerful than compassion?

These are the questions we are faced with as Luke throws away his lightsaber. The Emperor has already answered these questions. Earlier in the movie, he explains to Vader that, "[Luke's] compassion for you will be his undoing." To the Emperor, compassion is weakness. It is a hindrance, a burden to be cast off, a feeling that brings defeat. But to Luke, compassion is his greatest asset, the weapon he will use to win the conflict raging within his father.

In Empire, Vader represented a strong and dynamic evil, but ultimately an incomplete one. Here in the Death Star, we find the true essence of evil in the Emperor. The one task that Vader could not bring himself to perform in Cloud City, the Emperor will execute without any qualms. The task that reduced Vader to passionate begging and pleading will be carried out by the Emperor with only hateful and scornful mocking.

What we notice about Vader is that he is indecisive. The conflict within him has not yet been settled. But when the Emperor begins to kill Luke, he no longer has the luxury of waiting for his demons to work themselves out. He must act to settle the conflict within him or the Emperor will decide the outcome for him. He must either remain passive with his hatred or act on his compassion.

And this is how the question is answered. Vader picked up the Emperor and tossed him into a Death Star chasm. Compassion won the day. It is not a weakness. It is a powerful force for good unto itself that can overcome anger and hatred.

It is this answer that makes the Star Wars trilogy so special.

Bravery, the size of armies, the strength of weaponry -- all this had little to do with the ultimate outcome in the Star Wars trilogy.

Good triumphed over evil not only despite its goodness, but precisely because of it.

03:44

23 June 2004

Trade Talks; Interesting Articles; Harry Potter; Fan Fic

Local sports fans have probably been going blind the last few days with fantasies of Tracey McGrady and Shaq both joining the Mavericks next year. It's a nice thought, but McGrady now looks to be headed to Houston (or maybe Indiana), and the Lakers are asking for no less than Dirk Nowitzki in exchange for Shaq.

Would the acquisition of Shaq justify giving up Dirk?

I'm inclined to think it would. But I can't see Mark Cuban pulling the trigger on that deal. The Mavericks have a rather large supply of talent that didn't jive last year as a team. But let's face it: Dirk Nowitzki wasn't the problem. Antoine Walker was the problem. If the Lakers are willing to give up Shaq, Cuban would do well to offer all up all the unneeded parts they have available to get him -- perhaps a package that includes Michael Finley, Josh Howard or Marquis Daniels, Antoine Walker, and perhaps Antawn Jamison.

Cuban should move on this. But he should do what he can to keep Nash and Nowitzki in town. The rest are expendable.

I've run across some fine articles recently that deserve a read.

*Samuel Huntington has written a fascinating, but incisive article on religion in America.

*Christopher Hitches, a writer for Slate, details why Michael Moore's new film just isn't serious.

*Mike Adams discusses myths about gay activism on college campuses.

Myth #1. Campus gay rights activism is motivated by a desire to protect students from imminent harm. It is not an effort to indoctrinate students. Nor is it in an effort to use tax dollars to win votes for candidates supporting the gay agenda.

Myth #2. Campus gay activists actually respect the views of people who have religious objections to homosexuality. In fact, some of them think that such people have a right to voice their objections to homosexuality at a public university.

Myth #3. Some diversity centers hold real debates exposing students to different opinions on the issue of gay marriage, rather than inviting multiple speakers who share exactly the same opinion.

Myth #4. College administrators believe that it is easier to advance the gay agenda by violating the United States Constitution. But, despite this, they respect the constitution at all times.

Myth #5. The people running campus diversity centers understand that political activism is supposed to be directed at governments by the people, not by governments at the people.

Myth #6. College administrators understand that constitutional rights belong to individuals. They also understand that "centers" run by the government do not have constitutional standing.

Myth # 7. Campus gay activists always tell the truth about the percentage of the population that is actually gay.

Myth #8. Because they are all very rational intellectuals, campus gay activists fully understand the problems associated with espousing a belief in a) the "gay" gene, b) a growing gay population, and c) the Darwinian notion of "survival of the fittest."

Myth # 9. Gay activists always tell the truth about the relationship between homosexual sodomy and AIDS. That is because they care more about the public health than the blind pursuit of sexual gratification.

It's been a while since I've written any politically or ideologically-oriented posts. I plan to write more of those, especially as the school year approaches and I begin to think about what I want to write if I am able to get a weekly column for the university newspaper. At the moment, I seem to hav developed an interest in fantasy fiction, and my focus is there for the moment. I saw Harry Potter again tonight. I showed up in my pajams for the 10:30 pm showing. I was the only one in the theater, and so I was able to put up several arm rests and actually lie down across a row of seats as I watched. It was fun.

It occurred to me why the new Potter is regarded so much more highly than the previous two. It's a better movie. That may sound pretty simple, but it's more than that, and it's really taken me a long time to figure out. Harry Potter fans know the story already, and so they will usually look for the movie that will best tell the story that they already know.

But the critics and the casual movie-goer won't know what they're missing if they just see the movie without reading the book. They're looking for a good movie as opposed to Harry Potter fanatics who are looking for a good Harry Potter movie.

All the slow, solemn conversations between Harry and Lupin -- that's what the critics like so much that the first two movies didn't have. What made this movie so appealing was the conversations between an adult -- either Black or Lupin -- and Harry discussing Harry's parents and helping him to sort out his feelings about not having them. Movie critics eat this up.

Harry Potter fans have all read the book though. They understand Harry's emotional dillema just fine, and would rather watch Harry firing a patronus at Malfoy during a Quidditch match than a bonding scene between Harry and Lupin or Black.

During a defense against the dark arts class, Malfoy "passed" Harry an animated note. This did not happen in the book. And even after watching it in the movie, I have no idea what the note meant or what Malfoy meant to imply. It was easily the most bizarre scene in the movie.

The innocent romance between Ron and Hermione was cute, but dumb. There are hints of a mutual attraction between the two in the books (book four at least), albeit very very mild hints. Also, in the book, Ron was not an idiot who boasted about his broken leg and the possibility of amputation. That part should have been cut. Cuaron doesn't seem to like Ron Weasley much. I'm glad he's not directing the fourth movie.

Karlminion, also known as Darth Maul on a nearby tag board, has written a Zelda fan fic entitled, Link in the Valley. Very well written and detailed. Have a look if you like Zelda and fiction.