Here come the right-wingers to proclaim this story as the kind of dystopian scenario that results from legalized abortion. Actually, the only problem that I see with 'abortion as birth control' is that it's far more inefficent and harmful to women's health than normal birth control. Apart from that it's interesting to see the complete reverse of our country's attitude regarding abortion - it's like some kind of Bizarro-world. Yet another example of the huge influence religion has over government.

I used to think Coheed and Cambria's vocals were disturbingly high, but then I heard these guys. Good stuff.

Both Tracy and Stepp are conflating issues. As one of the few Salon readers who actually belongs to the generation being discussed, I thought Stepp was right on in this paragraph:

"The young man who desires a particular young woman has always had to work for her affection, but years ago he knew what he was supposed to do: Ask her out, pick her up and take her home, times 10," writes Stepp. "Today, as likely as not, there is no date. She will drive herself, meet up with him and either offer to pay for herself or insist on paying. She may bolt later, or they may land in bed the same night, but chances are he won't have a clue why either happened."

...but trying to tie that to women having more high-paying positions becomes like the chicken or the egg question: did women change their sexual behavior because of their growing equality in the career field, or did the latter happen because women could no longer expect men to court and pay for them? The most you could say with any accuracy is that both are related to the cultural shifts of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, it is sad and somewhat sexist indeed that Stepp simply assumes that 'what it means to be a man' has everything to do with sex and the pursuit of women, and that without the latter, men are left in utter confusion. There was in fact a time when that constituted a very small portion of what it meant to be a man, but unfortunately in our sex-obsessed society, this formulation might be true for both genders.

Tracy, on the other hand, is over-reacting by dismissing the entire piece as some sort of call for a return to patriarchy. I think Stepp's piece was more descriptive than prescriptive in tone. Some of those descriptions were flat out wrong. What she got right, however, was the need for SOME sort of new guidelines for inter-gender relations that are applicable to our new era.

How is it that a whole article detailing the rise of Wolfowitz fails to mention his role as a charter member of the Project for a New American Century (along with Cheney), which was pretty much responsible for cooking up the Iraq War (and, some would say, 9/11 as well) back in 1998, when they submitted a report to Clinton calling for 'regime change' and lamenting that it would not have public support unless some 'catalyzing event' of domestic terror were to occur. It should not surprise anyone that people turn to conspiracy theories, true or not, when you have cabals like this openly running the country.

A lot of people have voiced the same sentiment that I feel: the first 'Pirates' was a good movie, the other two are not. But the reason the first film was good was not because it was 'mindless fun' or because of 'low expectations'. Rather, I thought it was a thoroughly solid movie throughout: a classic adventure story patterned after the best examples from Romanticism. I saw echoes of Scaramouche, In Search of the Castaways, Kidnapped, Treasure Island, and even The Picture of Dorian Gray. The plot was solid and coherent, with just enough humor to keep it from being campy, and followed the classic staples of Romanticism: the poor orphan who discovers an exciting heritage, the roving anti-hero, the villainous nobleman, the over-pampered princess with an adventurous spirit, and the well-meaning but bumbling fop who competes with the hero for the lady's attention. Unless you simply have not developed an appreciation for the genre and think all Romanticism is 'melodramatic' and corny in itself, there were some genuine and emotionally powerful moments, such as the part where Norrington returns Will's sword to him. In short, I liked it for many of the same reasons I liked Lord of the Rings, which for both films were neither the action nor the special effects.

If I had to guess, I would say that the Disney execs were fairly hands-off regarding the initial project, because it was simply one of many, and honestly, no one expected a movie based on a theme park ride to do that well. Then, after its success, it was unavoidable that the magical aura of the first film would be grabbed by the horns and gutted, any scraps that could be fashioned into some semblance of the charm of the first movie dragged out for 3+ hours, twice. I made the mistake of seeing the second movie, and now I suppose I'll see the third one. But I plan to put them out of my mind immediately after, and see the first one again. I suggest everyone do the same.