Dagger in hand |
|
|
A man of prodigious fortune, coming to add his opinion to some light discussion that was going on casually at his table, began precisely thus: "It can only be a liar or an ignoramus who will say otherwise than," and so on. Pursue that philosophical point, dagger in hand. --Michel de Montaigne, Of the art of discussion. Stab back: cmnewman99-at-yahoo.com Home
Archives
Oriana: la sibilla eremita The Sage of Baltimore: Browbeating the booboisie. Reason: As in voice of. Lileks: Il miglior fabbro Volokh: Dean of Kozinski clerks Olympia: I read her only for her literary qualities. Really. Say it isn't so!: Do you think it's the lumpy oatmeal? Our girl Jane: Keep em flying, Miss U.S.A. My man Baruch: Amor dei intellectualis. Hubba hubba. Scrofula: With a name like Scrofula, it has to be good. The Idler: No frills. IJ: Fighting the good fight. ACLU: Good when they remember what the L stands for. Yourish: Meryl smash. Heidi's letters: I think she does reprisals, too. Her pinkness: Each time she falls she shall rise again! And woe to the wicked! In Context: Lynn provides it. Andrea: One spleen to rule them all. Still Waiting: Don't believe the hype. The Droll Weevil: Posts, pedantry, and pie(?) Perugia: Second home. Craven Road n.7: His name is Dog. Dylan Dog. Tom Bell: Internet law, online where it should be. Just the place for a snark: I've told you but once, but it's true. Greed is Good: And doesn't look too shabby in a T-shirt, either. Translator's Buddy: Didn't have "gliridi" though. CGFA: Favorite source of desktop material. Fallacies: Check yourself. Cosmo for men.: Implementing our equal right to feelings of inadequacy. Caplan: Visit the Museum. There's just one hitch: But it's a good one. Samizdata: Libertarian lexicographers. Unqualified Offerings: But quality assured. She is Wendy: Hear her roar. The Divine Blogroll: Entrate, che troverete speranza. Like the corners of my mind: Read it and weep. Aziz: Providing perspective. IJTIHAD: The future of Islam. I hope. Himishi: Where I acquired that raw fish addiction. My generous sponsors Alan Moore: Quis custodiet? Spoonerism: A blushing crow to tyranny. The Onion: Scary thing is, they're not far off. ScrappleFace: More important news. Day by day: Trudeau Schmudeau. Fumento: Brockovich Crockovich My alma mater: Not basketball. Croquet. The Capitol Steps: providing their fodder is the government's only indispensible function Randy Andy: Get used to it. Vasco Rossi: When they're in Italy, the Stones open for him. The Shadow: Useful counterpoint. Italiani liberi: Dr. D. Vider's Italian minions. Friendly Neighborhood Sinners: Swim the warm waters. Yuppies of Zion: The blog with two backs. Hobbit's repast: I'm partial to onesies, myself. The Friesian School: going Diderot one better Head spinning?: They can help. Looking sinister: Brian is watching. Murray's ghost: Stalking the state. Hell, no.: So anti it's not always clear what they're pro. Bureaucrash: takin' it to the streets Joe Cartoon: Indulge your inner 12 year old boy. There's a light: Rand sans droid. The Fake Detective: Rescuing damsels in dis-dress. Stromata: Amazing how much good stuff some people leave just lying around. The VRWC: Conspiring at a law school near you. The VLWC: Practicing the sincerest form of flattery. Corriere della Sera: Haven't sued me yet. Who am I?: Che ti frega? 
|
Monday, April 26, 2004
But you will not believe a 13 year old can redesign a fashion magazine. Oh, yeah. We also went to see 13 going on 30. (Not my idea, but I didn't resist, so I can't avoid all responsibility.) Jenny's cute, no denyin' it. She manages to make this--barely--palatable. And you know, in 1983 I probably knew the Thriller choreography by heart too--not that I ever would have tried to reproduce it. But apart from the rueful humor in seeing how hackneyed and retro is the pop culture of one's own youth, there wasn't a lot to chew on or laugh at. For the under-13 crowd we took with us, there was a worthwhile message: having real friends is better than being in with the cool crowd. But even that got taken a bit absurdly far. They could have had her go back and remain loyal to her friendship with the boy (literally) next door, and we'd know she was on the way to happiness and good character. But did she necessarily have to marry him? I mean, I know I may not be one to talk, but choosing your spouse at 13 does seem a tad early. (I met Paola at 15, but we had several years apart and other relationships before deciding to get hitched.) Lucas is such a sensitive lad, he was glad that the triangle was resolved by Jenna's altering the time-line so that Matty never met Wendy. She was a nice girl, and he would have been sad to see her get jilted just before her wedding day for no fault of her own, just so the protagonist could have a happy ending. He's been rather preoccupied with the conundra of time travel lately, having also seen T3 and read that Harry Potter essay. Now that John Connor has been warned that he's going to be killed by Arnold in the future, will it still happen? Is it as inevitable as Judgment Day? Heinlein always said that paradoxes are impossible. If you exist now, it means that you won't go back in time and kill your grandfather. Or to be more precise, you didn't. You can't change the outcome of events by going back, because whatever you will do when you go back has already been done, and has led to this result. Of course, your trying to change events may be part of the chain of causality. It'll be interesting to see how Rowling addresses this.
Comments:
Post a Comment
|