Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 289 Editor's Choice: 20
You left out Robert Zemeckis' greatest cinematic achievement: the incredibly funny "Used Cars". Far better to remember great moments like that, rather than the cinematic abortions which crowd the latter half of his resume.
And I have to agree with you: "The Polar Express" was creepy, creepy, creepy. Although I thought I was the only person who noticed that. All those damned little animated elves saluting Santa in that giant, windy, icy-sounding echoing central square...it was like some hellish cross-breeding of Hallmark Santa schmaltz with "Triumph of the Will".
Heil Santa!
(Damn it, I still say that the original BOOK of "The Polar Express" was nothing more than a cynical, deliberate attempt to manufacture an instant Christmas "classic" - the author just forgot to put in any heart. And the movie SUCKED. It didn't even succeed in making its basic point! All that repeating over and over again, "Believe, believe, believe!!!" could only make any moderately intelligent six-year-old perk up their ears and wonder why they were pushing the whole point so baldly - there must be some doubt on the subject. It was pretty much a dead giveaway that Santa didn't exist.)
AND the Polar movie was much too loud and scary. My little boy burst out crying within the first ten minutes - I had to take him out of the theater.
DAMN YOU, ROBERT ZEMECKIS!!! :D
(Hey, if Angelina Jolie was naked, how the hell did the movie get a PG-13 rating?)
Just what additional clue is needed to get the message through to all parties involved that this marriage is OVER?
She's cheating, repeatedly, and lying about it every time. He's cheated more than once - for "revenge" or not, it's still cheating. As Dan Perkins would say, DTMFA! To both of them.
Yes, it's going to hurt the kids - possibly, quite a lot. But that's something they're both going to have to live with, and probably spend the rest of their lives (apart) trying to make up for. She fucked up, and then he fucked up, and their poor innocent kids will pay the biggest price. It's the oldest story in the book, and it stinks every time.
What a sad, ugly mess. The sooner these two separate, the sooner their kids can start bandaging their emotional wounds, get the therapy they need, and try to keep from heading down the same path themselves as adults. I hope they make it.
Show some decency, the two of you. Get a divorce, and act like responsible adults throughout the process.
And before either of you marry or even date anyone else, you'd be smart to put in a LOT of hours of therapy to make sure that you won't do the same thing all over again.
You both just got an "F" in marriage.
"We're sorry, this video is no longer available."
I wonder why?
I'm no genius, but when the original Iraq authorization bill came around it seemed totally obvious to me that it was handing George W. Bush a blank check to do exactly what he desperately wanted and needed to do: get this country into a war that would give the Republicans the whip hand over the Dems.
So, what - am I smarter than Hillary? If so, maybe I should run for President.
Alternatively, if she made the calculation that a "no" vote would cause political damage to her future Presidential campaign, then she cynically sold the lives and health of our soldiers - as well as that of untold Iraqis, our national economy, and the Democratic Party itself - for her own personal gain. In which case she belongs in jail, not the White House.
Much like the current residents, come to think of it.
She wants to be our President.
Our weepy, whiny President.
It's "Widow's mite", i.e. a coin of very small value - not "might". That basically reverses the meaning of the reference.
So here's what's puzzling me.
If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?
If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.
And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
Heck, I'm an atheist, and I know the Bible - better than most Christians!
They seem to find that very confusing. :D
The Widow's Mite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite
The point of the parable of the Widow's Mite is relatively straightforward. A poor widow gives only two mites to a temple, while wealthier people give far more. But Jesus points out that the mites were all the widow had, while the larger gifts of the wealthy represented a relatively tiny portion of their wealth.
In other words, the gift of the poor woman was worth more than the gift of the rich.
This is an interesting point in many ways, and is relevant to a number of fields; economics, for instance. It's also a good illustration of why the Bible is a useful reference tool, well worth reading even for non-Christians. I found it to be an extremely useful source of quotations and concepts when I was writing papers in college, in writing of all sorts since I graduated, and while debating Christians online.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
