It didn't suck. It was okay. Parts were clever. They tried to do an aweful lot so I wouldn't be surprised if quite a bit got cut for time in the end. Complaints: The actress who played Jean Gray seemed thin to the point of unattractiveness. I suppose she wasn't exactly *supposed* to look healthy. I wish they'd have shown the danger room. They showed the classrooms at the school but I always liked the idea that the X-Men actually *trained* to fight as a team. My only *real* complaint: Magneto "What have I done?" LAME! Nothing that happened was sufficient to support his repentance. Good points? The girl who could walk through walls taking on Jaggernaut... it was classic and fabulous. And while I've heard a lot of complaints about Rogue, and I generally disapprove of teen sex, I hope that girl got some while she could. I also rather appreciate that we seem to be getting past the "if we do that we'll be just like them" th
For some reason I can't get pictures up. It worked before. I'd hit the little picture icon and the little window would pop up and I'd click "browse" and it would pop me into the right place. Now it doesn't. I'll have to get one of the kids to help me figure out what happened. I've got some pictures of flowering cactus and baby birds I wanted to post. Other than that... I think I figured out which order and which event has to be the critical turning point in the script I've been (mostly not) working on. Yay! I still don't know if it will involve a huge battle or... maybe a huge battle and then the event. It might have even more emotional impact without the physical conflict... killing someone in a fight isn't quite the the same as simply deciding it's necessary that he die and doing it. Now I just have to figure out how to make it *necessary*.
I will never think of the Anchoress the same way again. Though to be honest, I should have known better. :-) We're grown up ladies, after all. My favorite bit didn't even have any puns... We’ll have to endure the usual suspects basically acting like 5 year-olds sitting around the table saying “poopyhead” and imagining that they’re terribly funny, while they laugh and drip and dribble, and we roll our eyes and wipe up their wee juice spills. It wasn't *quite* as naughty as Vodkapundit' s Will Collier's take on the Democratic "New Direction" (Which took me several long moments of perplexed musing to "get".... nude what?) But that's probably a *good* thing.
Today I read comments on Cathy Young's blog saying that Condi's popularity didn't mean that people would actually vote for a black person. Of course, the people with whom Condi is particularly popular who wouldn't vote for a black person are on the right, right? Because we all *know* that the right is racist and liberals and progressives believe in equality. I suggested that this person was going by what he *believed* other people would not do instead of what he'd be willing to do himself. I said he was wrong. I explained that even the biggest chauvinist bigot can and will make an exception for an individual. (There are other reasons I don't think that Condi would win a presidential race, even if she agreed to run. A VP slot might work though.) But maybe I was being too kind. Maybe this person said people wouldn' t vote for a black candidate because *he* wouldn't vote for a black candidate. Today, via Vikingpundit , I read this. (Scrol
It's really tempting to look at the deaths by torture of two American soldiers and, through the anger, contribute it to the *nature* of the terrorists. It's what they *do*. They are evil. We've always known that the chances of getting back, alive, any of our people was next to zip. We've always known that anyone captured would be tortured and probably would end up beheaded on video. If we had any secret hopes it was that, somehow, it would be quick. Yes, somewhere there is a video. The terrorists videotape *everything*. I want to point something out, though. The terrorists did not do this because they are evil. They are , but that's not why . They hoped to accomplish something. And we shouldn't think they had only one reason, one goal. Most likely they had a whole list. The excessive brutality, desecration, booby-trapping the bodies and the place where they were found were not spur-of-the-moment exercises of opportunity or expressions of
Hey, it sounds good ya know, officers doing their duty to evaluate the situation and refuse to serve if they don't agree that the cause is a just cause. It might make running the military a bit difficult but is that really a *bad* thing? If politicians can't count on blind obedience from the military they might not involve us in unpopular wars, or any wars at all, for that matter. So what is this guy complaining about? Believe it or not, Lieutenant, were you to be upheld in your assertions, it would set exactly the wrong precedent. The one where the soldiers (worse - the Officers) decide what is right and good in their employment. Exactly one of the things the Founders feared, regarding a large standing Army. If an officer can make up his or her own mind about who's lawful orders to obey (and folks, lets be clear here, calling the war in Iraq illegal does not make it illegal, strong feelings and profoundly held beliefs do not create legal precident,) then why obey t
More on this later... I have to run to town ASAP. In the comment threads on GayPatriot someone brought up Amnesty several days ago and expressed outraged offense that we'd accept that kind of grievous insult to our troops. It was a betrayal of them, obviously. I argued otherwise. I said that a limited amnesty for those (few!) insurgents who did not target Iraqis, did not target civilians, was probably a good idea. You have to make it possible for people to lay down arms. And at the least, I said, those who attacked our military were attacking what was arguably a legitimate military target. Maybe they weren't in uniform but at least it was a start and it *was* an important difference from those who execute fishermen and blow up children. Today Instapundit linked this story. Read it. Notice who is the most offended by the idea. It's as though, anytime the left (at least the vocal leadership) gets offended on behalf of the troops they get it ever so slight
Do you know the difference? People who are uncomfortable with the idea of patriotism should think about this. They aren't the same thing. The things that make American worth loving are things that ought to move all citizens to cheer for this country. Freedom and liberty. Equality and tolerance. Individual responsibility and an ethos of mutual purpose. It shouldn't be even a little bit difficult to love what this country stands for. (Props to paco.)
I've been looking around for some links to what I mentioned in the "third world experience" post. Here's one. In essence: Patricia Madrid has definitely thrown federal government efforts to cleanup Democrat corruption in New Mexico into disarray for her own personal gain. It includes an Abuquerque Journal article by Mike Gallagher who reports: Madrid spokeswoman Sam Thompson said, "We treated their testimony as confessions to these crimes." Sandoval's attorney, Tom Esquibel, also was critical of Madrid. "As a former prosecutor, I believe this indictment is a big sign that says don't cooperate with the federal government in public corruption investigations. Here's another. The article is pretty straightforward. The comments are interesting.
A comment I left on Blackfive.net in relation to the USMC caving to CAIR concerning Hadji Girl. I think that it's time that we find a solution to the confusion between formal and informal speech caused by new technologies. Well, not so new but we still haven't adjusted. Everything can be recorded with riddiculous ease and kept forever and distributed world wide. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Those of us who have participated on usenet news have a written history that goes back for years and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has set things to electrons that would make it difficult to win public office... in fact, I remember writing once "well, here goes my chances of ever getting elected to anything." (Though I forget what I said afterward) And while some of us were early adopters of the evils of the internets (*who* decided that was plural?) my children's generation practically lives in the electrons. MySpace anyone? Blogs? The dif
I got a phone call this evening. I'm a bad person to poll, I think, because I spend the entire time analyzing the poll. What was the purpose of this question or that question, what will they use the poll data for? At one point I was wondering if by answering the questions I was giving someone I didn't want to support vital information about how to campaign more effectively. I guess I could have asked but I decided not to. The most interesting bits, though, were a series of questions about the Dem and Republican candidates for the US congress in my district. Or rather it was a series of statements and then I was supposed to answer if that statement made me more likely or less likely to vote for that person or if it made no difference at all. The incumbent is Heather Wilson. The person running against her is "who? sounds like a name I've heard but I'm not sure." Later it was "Oh, her." So at the very least I am now a better informed
Here's a link to LGF that has a link to the video. Yes. It's a little bit naughty. Mostly, though, this guy is artistically brilliant. Watch the song first, and then I'll tell you why. . . . . . . . . Okay, you watched it, right?... his choice of music contrasts with the narrative, to start. It's funny because he's singing Durka durka like it's a love song. It pokes fun at the clueless Marine who doesn't catch on to what she's saying. The Marine is almost a babe in the woods, innocent of the evil intentions of the world. This is necessary for the reversal and payoff at the end to work. And then, to resolve, he sings durka durka back again, even more lovingly. Brilliant. And he's got the voice to do it too. Bravo!
It's nothing new or shocking, particularly. Grim posts about this cartoon on Blackfive. Ho-hum and la-di-da. Oh, they're going to get angry mail. No doubt about that. Angry mail won't do anything other than convince the cartoonist or publisher that they are brave persons upholding freedom... because the Marines they villify won't *do* what we all know works. Kill people. Burn embassies. And the brave, noble, truth-tellers (snort) melt like facial tissue in a tsunami. Keep on searching for relevance guys. I doubt you'll find it but we can always hope that someday it finds you.
A commenter over on Wizbang claimed that he/she was supportive of the effort in Iraq but that, just like the Soviet Union, it would have all worked out on it's own if people had just left well enough alone. Same results. No expense. This is my reply (slightly edited) that I left at Wizbang. It is not supportive of the effort in Iraq, even allowing room for different ideas of what would have been best to do, to say that *nothing* should have been done because Saddam would eventually tire of being a tyrant and his sons would eventually tire of... what his sons tended to enjoy. *Suportive* of the effort in Iraq requires... support. Not agreement, just support. As an example, consider a woman I once knew... she *always* knew the best way to do anything. No matter what her husband did he could have done it a better way. For her to have been *supportive* of him would not require that she decide that his way was best after all but it would require that she help him with his plans