Wanting to be well rested for my first day of classes, I went to bed promptly at 6 am Sunday night and woke up bright and early three hours later on Monday morning. I never know quite what to expect at UNT. My professors never seem to be quite what I expect. As I sat in my first class this morning, a political science course on the Middle East Conflict, my professor walked in. He wasn't on time. I had begun to think no one was coming. Finally, someone appeared in the classroom leading a blind Jewish man by the hand. The latter was Dr. Sahliyeh. The extent of his blindness was not clear. Obviously, he is able to read somehow. But it appears it won't be a real issue. Dr. Sahliyeh was friendly and gregarious. As the TA called role, he asked that each student tell about themselves: their major, year, past courses taken on the Middle East, etc. Most professors don't do this. Others do it as a formality. But Dr. Sahliyeh seemed genuinely interested in the many students that he could not see, and talked about his the syllabus and plans for the course as if teaching were his hobby, not his job. He was on familiar terms with some of my classmates. That's usually the sign of a good teacher: that he has students who sign up for more than one of his courses. I think I'll enjoy the class. The assignments look like nothing I haven't handled before, but reasonably challenging.

The next class is on the 4000 level -- a senior level course. I expected a fair challenge here. I don't think I'll get one. But that doesn't really disappoint me. Colonial Latin America. It's a survey course covering the period from Columbus to the present. I've a full schedule this semester. It's nice to have a blowoff class. This one basically involves two midterms and a final. The professor, Dr. Navarro, seems like an fairly quirky person. He specializes in colonial Mexico. His mannerisms are normal, but he dresses nicely. He speaks English without the slightest trace of an accent. He's probably American, but it's a fair bet his parents or grandparents might were immigrants. His black hair is combed back, colonial style. But take away the hair and the Latin complexion, and he would blend right in in Oklahoma City. He didn't have much to say. He handed out his syllabus, briefly explained a few policies, and let us go.

The Study of Politics. I need this course for my major. Originally, it was slated to be taught by Patrick Brandt. Bluntly, Brandt is a real ass. I'm glad he's not teaching. Instead, this course will be taught by someone whose name I don't recall offhand. He's fresh from College Station. His accent, mannerisms, and straight shootin' approach all scream Texas. He didn't give us his e-mail address or phone number. He doesn't know them yet. He arrived from College Station literally over the weekend. He asked our pardon for not being able to comment on the course textbook, as he hadn't yet found time to get one. But he said that he guessed that it was probably a good book and would work well for the course. He appeared to be thoroughly familiar with the course content. He must have taught a similar or identical course in Aggieland.

Stability: What For?

Alas, if only more of our leaders had the naïve optimism of the former vice-president. But Washington today is full of dull old men who cling to the solutions of yesterday in a world that has passed them by.

Wes Clark argued in a recent Washington Post article that the United States should become a catalyst for cooperation and stability in the Middle East.

Cooperation? Stability? Good grief, what for? These are tired refrains from Cold War days that have long outlived their usefulness.

"Stability" has become a happy-sounding buzzword for politicians who feel the political squeeze of rising gas prices and war casualties. For those who share those concerns: get used to it. This is just the beginning.

In 1944, Americans spent nearly 39% of GDP on the military alone, and that statistic hardly begins to do justice to the all the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation. We would do well to emulate their example. Sacrifices will be required of this generation as well. Ballooning gas prices and war casualties will become the norm as Middle East instability increases.

Instability will indeed become the norm because the present order in the Middle East is a rotten edifice that is slowly crumbling. The events of 9/11 highlighted its coming demise, demonstrating the inability of Arab autocrats to maintain order, to control their own populations and to keep their own extremists in a box. The national boundaries of the Middle East were drawn up in European capitals by European imperialists to reflect a European balance of power in a long gone European century. Inevitably, it will have to yield to a new order more reflective of Arab national and political dynamics, Arab values, and Arab aspirations. Terrorism and the present instability are only the latest symptoms of the impending death of the current status quo.

But it is not only dying; it is also broken. It has long ceased to serve any real U.S. strategic interests. Indeed, it accomplishes nothing except to keep the moderate law-abiding citizens of the Arab world in an authoritarian straitjacket, silenced and frustrated. It ensures that the radicals and extremists who operate outside the control of Arab autocratic governments are the best organized politically and ideologically.

In short, the status quo in the Middle East does not work. It is broken and it is dying. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men will not be able to put it back together again.

High-minded notions of stability are therefore both counter-productive and futile. Why keep Humpty Dumpty on life support? Let us help to kill him gently and do our best to cultivate his successor, the Middle East of tomorrow.

Walking Griffey can be a difficult business. It's tempting to let him off the leash to chase the animals that he evidently wants to chase, but it's dangerous to do so too close to our neighborhood. Often, he sees "bunnies" that I don't see, and there's often no telling whether or not the target is Joanna's rat terrier. Twice he spotted a rabbit in our neighborhood as we jogged along recently. I did not let him go. As we got further along, nearly to the end of the jog, he spied something else -- I did not see what. I felt guilty about not letting him chase the bunnies earlier, so I let him go. This was a mistake.

I ran after him and saw that the subject of interest was black, small, and slow. A skunk. But to Griffey, it was just a black kitty cat, so he ran right up to it and tried to make friends. I heard what sounded like a hissing noise, and could not doubt that it had opened fire on Griffey, who paused briefly as though confused by what had just happened, but then proceeded as before running alongside his fascinating new playmate. I began calling him, but since I'm never stern with him, he ignores me at his convenience. If I'm not mistaken, Griffey was actually sprayed twice.

Stinky puppy.

I knew it was too much to ask for. I was right. But I loved Sith. No, Lucas didn't do much of anything like I would have done it. Obi-Wan's duel with General Grievous was lame as was the entire subsequent battle sequence. The script-writing was -- well, let's face it -- atrocious. You can't help but wonder how such talented actors as Jackson, Christiansen, and Portman can come across so lame. Lucas has no eye for detail. We waited more than 20 years for Sith. I wouldn't mind waiting a few more if Lucas would polish his work up a bit.

But item #1 on the wishlist was definitely there. Sith had an element of what was never really seen in the first trilogy: moral ambiguity. Lucas made sure his audience sympathized with Anakin. They were rooting for him like they were rooting for Luke, and even if we all knew how it was going to end, we kept hoping -- as Luke always did -- that Anakin would turn around and come back. We kept waiting for Obi Wan to reason with him and bring him to his senses.

And that was what made the final duel between Anakin and Obi Wan so compelling -- the sense of tragedy. Lucas had managed to make his audience grow so attached to this most evil villain. And when Obi Wan looked down at a broken Anakin and cried out, "You were the chosen one!", he pretty well verbalized what the audience felt.

The critics are right. This is the third best Star Wars. It's even better than Episode IV. But it has enough faults to make you want to cringe throughout.

Fault #1
"A young Jedi named Darth Vader helped the Emperor hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights," so said Obi Wan in Episode IV. We wanted to see this in Episode III. We didn't get to!! I remember watching in the trailer Anakin lead an army of stormtroopers up to the Jedi temple as the Emperor commanded him to "do what must be done! Do not hesitate; show no mercy!" Nothing made me more giddy: the prospect of a Jedi blood bath.

But we never got to see it!! I will curse George Lucas all of my days for this glaring omission. I can forgive Jar-Jar. I can forgive the cheesy love scenes of Episode II. Not this.

All we got to see was Anakin preparing to kill some Jedi kids. Throughout the movie, we were given hints of Anakin's great power, of how he had become a truly great Jedi. Obi Wan said that Anakin had become a far greater Jedi than he, himself, could ever hope to be. General Grievous knows Anakin by reputation. Why didn't we ever get to see Anakin destroy the Jedi? I wanted to see Anakin slice up some 10-20 Jedi in the temple similar to how Palapatine quickly dispatched of Mace Windu's escort. There's a scene in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon when a number of renowned warriors gather in a restaurant to confront a young girl about whom they've heard odd rumors. She tears the restaurant apart, leaving all of her enemies dead or wounded. You know the scene. I wanted to see Anakin achieve much the same feat in the Jedi temple. Yes, Anakin did "take care" of the separatist leaders, but so what?! They were escorted by a security detail of three droids. Big deal.

Fault #2
The "high ground"?! That's how Obi Wan defeated Anakin?! Give me a break!! Of course, I suppose Obi Wan would know what a huge advantage it is to have the high ground, considering how much it helped out Darth Maul right before he was sliced in half.

Fault #3
Why is Anakin mad at Obi Wan shortly before their final duel? Initially, he rages that, "You turned her against me!!" This was wholly believable. Rather inexplicably, Anakin forgets all about Padame as the script-writers decided to have Anakin run off on some ridiculously cheesy rant about his "new empire." The worst lines in the movie came from this scene.

"Don't lecture me, Obi Wan! I see through the lies of the Jedi!"
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"
"Don't make me kill you."

Come on. We already know what Anakin thinks. He was convincing enough when he told Padame, "I have brought peace to the Republic... And together, you and I can rule the galaxy!" These were Christensen's best lines. Anakin shouldn't be waiting for Obi Wan to declare his allegiance. He should be raging at Obi Wan for turning Padame against him. Padame seemed to slip his mind quickly though.

Fault #4
More bad script-writing:

*Virtually every line Yoda had. What happened to the old, goofy Yoda, the one we saw on Dagobah?! In this episode, his comebacks are lame. Other times, he seems so unsure of himself, not at all like a Jedi Master should be. Instead we got:
*"Not if anything to say about it, I have!"
*"Faith in your new apprentice, misplaced, may be. As is your faith in the Dark Side of the Force."

*"NOOOOOO!!!"
--Darth Vader

*"I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over."
--Anakin

*"Don't.... listen to him, Anakin, aahhh!!"
--Mace Windu, while holding off force-lightning electrocution. This scene constitutes Samuel Jackson's weakest performance in any movie ever.

*"This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
--Padame. This one would have fit nicely were Padame say... 60 years old. Or perhaps it would have worked if we had come to know Padame as a more philosophically inclined character. Perhaps it would have had more of a place here if "liberty" and "democracy" were more than just empty terms to signify "good" in the Star Wars universe. When 20-year-old airheads try to sound so profound, it comes off badly. Always. As it is, this one easily ranks as one of the worst lines in Star Wars history.

Fault #5
Why were the wookies in the movie? How was this anything more than a lousy excuse to get Chewbacca in the movie?

Fault #6
The Powa of the Dark Side. I kept waiting to be blown away by it. It never came. I so wanted to see Anakin force lightning Obi Wan. And I really wasn't so impressed with the Yoda-Palpatine duel. Lucas puts too much emphasis on the lightsabers. Not enough on knowledge of the force. Watching Yoda duel Dooku was fun in Episode II. Now it's lame. Yoda should never have to pick up a lightsaber. He's just too small. He doesn't have the reach. Yoda should be a character who's untouchable by virtue of his knowledge of the force. And I expected more out of Palpatine too. We've seen the force lightning. I wanted more. More!! I loved it when Yoda and Palpatine hurled those Senate chamber seats at each other. We didn't get enough of that though.