The Real Pat Blair

Intro - 39,000,000
Part I - Truth and Values
Part II - The Question of Life
Part III - Objectionable Objections

Perhaps the most compelling arguments in favor of keeping abortion legal are those regarding rape and situations where the life of the mother is in danger. I may surprise you, but I feel that in circumstances where the mother will die if she carries the baby to term, I believe that abortion is justified. The reason for this is the same as the reasons for the rest of my beliefs: human life is the most important value. In circumstances where a choice must be made between the life of the child and the life of the mother, a strong case can be made that the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child, simply because the mother is already functioning in the world and has established relationships with others. It is a harsh way of viewing things, but, I feel, an accurate one.
The problem with this scenario is that it leaves a lot of room for human judgment and human error: medical diagnoses are not always correct. However, in this circumstance, which, I might add, is incredibly rare, the decision should be up to the mother. This does NOT mean that this is a legitimate reason for the continued legality of abortion on demand. It is, as we discussed yesterday, an exception to the rule that abortion is immoral.
No scenario is more emotionally charged than that of rape. There are a lot of statistics out there, many of them completely inaccurate, but reasonable estimates are that 1 in every 16 women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. As a son, a brother, and a friend, this makes me angry to a degree that words cannot describe, so I won’t even begin to try. Rape is an evil, hateful, disgusting, despicable crime, and should be treated as such. I don’t think I can be much clearer on this point. However, it is not a justification for legalized abortion.
First, if examined sheerly on the basis of numbers, the cases of rape related pregnancies are, statistically, very few. Laws should not be based on exceptions. The amount of abortions that take place in the United States as a result of a rape-related pregnancy is far below 1% of total abortions. Even beyond this point, though, I believe that abortions should not be legal in cases of rape. I realize that I am going way out on a limb here, and that this is a very, very sensitive subject, but please allow me to explain my position before closing this window and/or sending a nasty email.
Rape is a horrific event, and the idea of having a child as a memorial of sorts is disturbing. However, if we still agree that human life is the most important value, there is no moral justification for ending the life of the child. A child, who, I might add, is completely innocent of all wrong-doing. Sentencing the child to death is the moral equivalent of killing your spouse to punish the dog for soiling the carpet. An innocent party should not be punished for the crime of rape; if somebody wants to kill the assailant, I will probably look the other way, and odds are good that I will shed not a single tear.
But what about the emotional turmoil of the mother? What about the constant reminder of the horrific crime? I would guess that, child or not, no one will ever forget the crime. But I know for a fact that cases of Rape-Related Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome are actually higher in women who abort than in women who choose to carry the child. Though it is taboo to discuss in our culture, having an abortion is not a minor medical procedure: there are very real, consistent, and documented side effects, both mental and physical. Though it may seem counter-intuitive at first glance, it is actually more therapeutic for a rape victim NOT to abort the child. Empirical medical evidence, combined with the knowledge that two wrongs don’t make a right, makes a clear cut case against abortion being ethical in cases of rape.
A final argument that is put forward is that de-legalization of abortion will cause women to flood to “underground clinics,” and will result in the deaths of millions (absurd - lets just say dozens or hundreds for the sake of realism). This is, frankly, nonsense. People get killed in botched car-jacking attempts, but that doesn’t mean that we should decriminalize stealing autos. This argument also assumes that the same number of women would get abortions whether or not the procedure was legal. This is also silly. Fewer women would consider it a legitimate choice if it were illegal. It is also like saying that making murder illegal is going to cause people to commit murders that are dangerous and unsafe, so we should legalize murder. Lastly, using human life as our most important value, I find it hard to believe that the 30 year death total of women and children would equal 39,000,000.
Tomorrow, I’ll wrap this up, and open it up for discussion.

Intro - 39,000,000
Part I - Truth and Values
Part II - The Question of Life

It is an unfortunate fact that those who are in favor of abortion-on-demand often have several knee-jerk arguments that are thrown out whenever they meet someone who disagrees. The first response is generally one based on ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem arguments are personal attacks. An example, in the most base form, would be you, the reader, making a case for why you feel the Patriots are going to win the Super Bowl, and me responding by saying, “Yeah? Well, you’re stupid!” This is a personal attack on you which, whether true or not, has nothing to do with the case you presented. Even if you are, in fact, stupid (highly unlikely if you are a regular reader of my columns), your argument for the Patriots is still valid, and my response has done nothing to make it less so.
In the case of abortion, there is a large variety of ad hominem attacks: you’re a man, you’re a conservative trying to force your views on others, you’re a Christian, you have no idea what it’s like to be pregnant, you’re a tyrant, you’re reifying patriarchy, you’re pond-scum, etc. Regardless of the truth of any of these statements, my arguments stating that abortion is immoral are still valid, and, in fact, may be more so, because they have weathered no legitimate criticism. Please consider, before using pro-choice “arguments” like this, that to do so makes you the equivalent of a pro-lifer standing outside a Planned Parenthood, yelling, “Whore!” at the women who come through the door. It is uncivilized, inappropriate, and it serves no productive purpose. I am a man, and I have absolutely no idea what it is like to be pregnant - points conceded. But abortion is still the ending of a human life, and thus wrong.
The second common argument is the absurd hypothetical situation. In response to my arguments that abortion is morally wrong, a pro-choicer might respond something like this: “What about in the case of an 8-year-old who is assaulted by a Martian and is pregnant with alien octuplets and who can’t carry them to term because her parents are both crippled and depend on her to work 120 hours a week to provide income for the family?” OK, this might be a slight exaggeration, but you get the picture. While I do not disagree that hypothetical situations can be used to test a belief or policy, the situations presented must bear some resemblance to reality. Rape, for example, is the most common argument, and this, to some extent, bears discussion, because it is a legitimate scenario (more on that tomorrow), as is a situation where the life of the mother is in danger.
Even these valid hypotheticals are situations that are the exception, not the norm. If we based laws and decisions on exceptions, there would be no speed limits. After all, what if I have accidentally sawed my arm off while working in the garage, and then received 3rd degree burns to the rest of my body when I tried to cauterize the wound in my fireplace? Perhaps this is an absurd situation. But what if my neighbor’s wife has gone into labor? He would most likely drive over the speed limit to get to the hospital, and possibly run some red lights. No one would argue that he should be prosecuted for this, nor would anyone argue that this circumstance is cause to have traffic laws removed from the books. The vast, VAST majority of abortions that take place in this country are cases that are, by definition, not exceptions. Laws should be made with these cases in mind.
The common thread of many pro-choice arguments is that they are based on achieving a gut response. They favor emotion over logic. This is why people will nod their heads when they hear, “We need to keep the government out of the doctor’s office.” The initial response is, “Absolutely!” before even considering things like Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, most people saying this would degenerate into hysterics if the government announced plans to stop funding Planned Parenthood (or AIDS research, or cancer research, or stem cell research, or… you get the point).
As you consider this topic, I challenge you, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, to place yourself above the fray. Do not make or accept arguments based strictly on emotion. We’ll all be better off, and better informed, because of it.

Intro: 39,000,000
Part I: Truth and Values

The question of abortion really hinges on the question of when life begins - at what point a child becomes a living human being and is no longer a clump of cells. Before life begins, termination of a pregnancy could be equated with the removal of a mole. However, once life has begun, to end that life must be considered murder.
There is a myriad of scientific evidence out there, most of which most normal people can’t possible wade through. It will suffice to say, though, that there is a large and credible portion of the scientific community that believes that life begins at conception. I assert, in fact, that there is no other possible choice, philosophically speaking.
Another option to consider would be that life begins only when the child has been birthed, and is no longer in the mother’s body. To argue that position, though, would be to argue that a magical change takes place once the child leaves the womb - that the child is, in some way, fundamentally different. This is not true. Other than environment, nothing has changed. When you are done reading this, and leave the room that you are currently in, there is no fundamental change in your being. Only external environments have changed.
Along those lines, one could also take the position that life begins once a child is able to survive outside of the womb. This presents more questions than answers, though. Must the child be able to survive on its own, with no assistance? If so, it follows that it is perfectly acceptable to drown a 4-year-old, who is most certainly not capable of providing his/her own food, shelter, and safety. This is, to me, preposterous. So, then, does life begin when the child is able to survive outside of the womb with the assistance of other people? This is a slightly better position, but it is flawed as well. As medical technology progresses, children are able to survive at much younger ages. Does this mean that the beginning of life is fluid? Did, 50 years ago, life begin at 7 months after conception, while now it begins at 4 or 5 months? From a purely scientific standpoint, the idea of a variable beginning to life is not legitimate. The same is true of a philosophical standpoint: the exact end of life is ascertainable and definable, so it only makes sense that the beginning should be as well.
The most defensible position is that life begins at the moment of conception. There is a definite beginning, and a definite biological change. Furthermore, this position is consistent with itself - the beginning of life is at a fixed moment: it never changes based on circumstances or human intervention. The belief that life began at conception was long held to be true, until it became clear this would make abortion a morally reprehensible practice. The reason for this? If life begins at conception, it follows that a fetus is a living child. The result of an abortion is that there is no longer a living child. A life has been ended. This is why abortion is not an ethically sound practice.

Intro - 39,000,000

There is such a thing as right and wrong, and there is absolute truth. In some ways, it seems ridiculous for me to have to make this statement, but this is a necessary common ground when discussing the legality of abortion. The days of post-modern moral relativism seem to be waning, and secular humanism is instead becoming the trendy worldview of the moment, but there still many who live relativistic lives.
I could write a dissertation on why this worldview is flawed, but I think it can be handled briefly enough, at least for the purposes of a discussion on abortion. First, a relativist must defend the statement: I absolutely believe that there are no absolute truths. Second, if I concede, for the sake of argument, that there is no truth, then a relativist must concede that MY truth - the immorality of abortion - is at least equally valid with everyone else’s truth, which provides legitimacy to my claims. Finally, relativism generally maintains that there are legitimate morals, but they are set by societal standards, as opposed to an absolute, such as God. This is why murder is still morally wrong to a relativist. If a relativist must concede that murder, or the ending of a human life, is wrong, as defined by our culture, then my arguments hold legitimacy. If a relativist wishes to take the position that murder may be acceptable, I am willing to let them try to make that case, and, in the process, undermine all of their authority.
For this discussion, I am advocating that the supreme value, that which is most important, is human life. For example, if faced with the choice of saving a dog or a human, the human would be more valuable. Likewise, a human life is more valuable than any material things. I work for an insurance company, and, for purposes of the legal system, there is a value assigned to a human life. If someone is killed in an accident, their beneficiaries are reimbursed for their loss. However, it is absurd to argue that any amount of money, possessions, time, or comforts are a fair exchange for the loss of a loved one.
As human beings, we have the ability to take away life. We also have the ability to provide material goods. However, we do not have the ability to give life, or to restore it once it has been taken away. This is why murder is considered the most heinous of crimes. This is why I assert that concern for human life should be the most important value when engaging in ethical discussions.
The final thing to note is that, following this logic, the value of life is also, to an extent, quantifiable. 2 lives are more valuable than 1, a dozen are more valuable than 6, and so forth. In the incredibly rare 1-for-1 situation, the value system of utilitarianism - achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people - can be used to determine the correct moral decision.
It is based on these values that I will discussion when abortion is morally and ethically right and wrong.

Today marks the 31st anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which, in essence created completely new Constitutional rights, and also legalized the termination of what was defined as, by all previous scientific and philosophical definitions, a living human being: murder.
Since 1973, 39,000,000 abortions have taken place in the United States. Thirty-nine million. Let’s put that number into perspective. 39 million seconds ago, we were getting ready for Halloween, and Iowa State quarterback Seneca Wallace was in the process of ruining his Heisman bid. 39 million minutes ago, the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression. 39 million hours ago, Jesus Christ was 25 CENTURIES away from being born. Depending on whom you’re arguing with, Moses may not have even received the 10 Commandments.
I fully anticipate a bunch of comments about right to choose, right to privacy, government in the bedroom, and so forth. I plan to address this next week over a span of several days. You can comment, but be forewarned that I’ll ignore them. If you have the patience to read through my views, I think you will find them to be well thought through and very clearly defined. Once I lay that out, I am open to discussion with anyone, via any communication channel.
But until then, just take some time to try and get your mind around that number: 39,000,000. Thirty-nine million.

Have you ever just had one of those days? It’s been like that, except for a week or two. When I got to work today, I realized that I forgot to wear a belt. Fortunately, I have my super-fly, fashionable elastic pants (not to be confused with Mechanical Pants, the excellent name for a rock band). I’m pretty sure that it’s symbolic of something, I’m just not sure what. Maybe my forgetfulness.
Anyway, I think I may have discovered my ideal job: A&R guy. For those not familiar with the music business, A&R (Artists and Repertoire) people are the ones who do the dirty work: they listen to bands to figure out who will be successful, they listen to the songs to decides which ones should go on an album, and, more importantly, which ones should be the singles - the songs that they push the radio stations to play. Think Tom Petty: “Their A&R man said, ‘I don’t hear a single.’” A&R guys can also encourage a label to not promote a project if they don’t think it will be successful.
Why would I be good in this position? Track record. I have a unique knack for listening to an album and spotting which songs would be great singles. I had been saying for at least 6 months that Incubus should release “I Miss You” before they actually did (almost as an afterthought, I think). Sure enough, it was wildly successful. I also predicted “Escape” and “Don’t Turn Out the Lights” from Enrique Iglesias (they should have pushed “World Crashes Down,” too), and two Dave Matthews hits from two different albums: “Space Between” and “Grey Street.” I predict success for both “So Damn Lucky” and especially “Stay or Leave,” provided the label gets behind them. But I am constantly accurate with one band, in particular: Blink 182.
I called “Adam’s Song” as a single the first time I listened to that album. Not only was I right, I was so right that I got sick of it courtesy of radio overplay. Same with “All the Small Things” (though the video was a large part of that songs success). I also predicted massive failure for Take Off Your Pants & Jacket. While that wasn’t quite the truth, it didn’t do as well as the predecessor, simply because the songs were sub par rehashes: “Stay Together For the Kids,” a.k.a. “Adam’s Song, Part Deux.” I have long been a Blink fan, mainly because they write great pop songs, but also because they had showed amazing growth from album to album. Pants & Jacket provided neither.
So it was with much surprise and happiness that I finally listened to their most recent self-titled record. It felt kind of like the scene in High Fidelity when the guys are standing in the store listening to the tape of the annoying skater kids: “This is really good.” “I know.” Track number 3, “I Miss You,” is an absolute standout (it seems like I’ve heard that title somewhere before). It’s beautifully written and produced, and I can’t get it out of my head. I found myself repeatedly saying, “THIS would be a great single.”
Driving home from work yesterday, I turned on the radio, and, much to my chagrin, that was the song being played. Apparently my A&R skills worked again. Now I’m just mad because it’s going to get overplayed and I’m going to get sick of the song. We live in a strange, cruel world.

Today we’ll be discussing the major event that occurred last night with the entire country watching. The State of the Union address? No, silly, American Idol! I was booted from the TV room before the speech started last night, and it would have gone past my bedtime anyway, so I’ll just read it (and the silly response) today, and comment tomorrow. This allows me condense 90 minutes of speeches into about 15. But back to the Idol thing…
I guess it premiered on Monday. I don’t know, I’d never actually seen the show before last night, but I figured I was due. I also figured that the early episodes would be the best to watch, because they are the ones that feature the ridiculously stomach-churningly bad singers (in hindsight, watching while eating dinner was not such a great idea).
First things first: Simon Cowell makes me look like a sweetheart. I had assumed that he was being clever while he insulted people, but it turns out that he’s just a jerk. I don’t understand why people are fascinated with him; it’s not like it takes much to be unoriginal, arrogant, and mean - millions of New Yorkers have been doing that for decades, but none of them have their own TV show. Randy (I think that’s the guys name) wasn’t much better, but I did see him offer up some constructive criticism at least twice (stop doing runs and just sing the notes; work on maintaining consistent pitch), which was more than Simon did. I understand why they put Paula Abdul between the two of them. She seemed to legitimately care about people’s feelings, which, I must say, is even more impressive given the fact that she had to listen to thousands of really terrible auditions. The irony of Paula Abdul criticizing anyone’s vocal talent seemed to be lost on all of the show’s participants, but at least I got a good laugh out of it.
The self-esteem and ego issues displayed on this show are also amazing. Everyone who did an audition firmly believed that they would win the whole show, even if they had not a shred of personality, charisma, or talent. There were two basic forms of response to rejection: utter devastation and utter denial. Or sometimes both. The prime example of this came from a girl who did a song from Flashdance. She was pretty bad, and when Simon tried (sort of) to let her down easy, she just came unglued. According to this girl, she had lost 80 pounds in order to get on the show, and she was just as talented as anyone, especially if Simon and co. would get behind her with vocal lessons, dance lessons, and lots of synthesizers covering up her dreadful voice. In the post-pink slip interview, she was defiant, saying that she was going to make a lot of money someday and be a huge success, and, boy howdy, those punks really screwed up. As she left the room in tears, her friend comforted her, shielding her from the camera and telling her, “They don’t know true talent when they see it.” That’s a true friend.
Sort of. On the other hand, you kind of have to wonder why no one told many of these contestants that they weren’t cut out for the music business. It would have saved a lot of time, hard feelings, and on-camera embarrassment. Maybe encourage them to get better, or keep trying, or start on a smaller scale, or anything. Also, if you’re going to audition for something this big, at least practice. I am fairly sure some of these people showed up without first even thinking about what they would sing, or even how they would dress. Yikes. I realize that I’m a huge critic, especially of all things musical, but when it’s crystal clear that someone is just truly no good, a friend has an obligation to tell them. To the girl who lost 80 pounds (and will probably never read this): don’t place your entire value in success in the music industry. Read this. Also, if you really lost 80 pounds, you probably have the drive and determination to be very successful in this world, even if it’s not in the music business. If you’re serious about succeeding in music, take voice lessons, and take stage-presence lessons, which will be helpful in real life, also. Finally, learn to take criticism. Life will go on.
On the other end of the self-absorbed egoist spectrum, we have many of the winners: arrogant, shallow, self-centered, and constantly talking… about themselves, of course. The perfect example of this was a girl with hair colored bright red (like a crayon). She sat and talked to the camera before her audition, she talked all the way through her audition, she talked after her audition, always about herself. She never said anything of substance, she never said anything interesting, and she never, ever shut up. Even worse, she advanced to the next round. It was at this point that I told my roommate that I would sacrifice a chance to be an American Idol, as well as possibly end my own life, if I had to spend a half-hour in a room with her. It’s good to be a conversationalist (at least that’s what people keep telling me, but I just sort of shrug and walk away), but babbling incessantly is annoying. Especially if a person has a voice that resonates well because their skull is empty. It’s the Courtney Love phenomenon. Why does it seem like everyone who is on TV is like this? I think I’d hate LA.
Speaking of LA, it was also slightly disconcerting that, at times, image seemed to trump talent. At least Simon has started calling it a “singing competition,” because I don’t think it used to be that. What was reassuring is that I think I might stand a chance if I ever auditioned. I can carry a tune (especially if I practice, for crying out loud), and my personality is absolutely charming. I think I’d fit right in. In fact, let me tell you a little more about myself…

Well, the Hawkeye Cauci have come to an end, and Iowa will, presumably, be back to normal (if you can call it that) by tomorrow. Everyone must have been getting ready to hit the road this morning, because my building was surrounded by news vehicles: satellite trucks from FoxNews, Freebird Communications (???), and other cable networks, and even a giant ABC News tour bus. Peter Jennings must be living like a rock star, except without the groupies. I would venture, however, that there may be a fair amount of pharmaceuticals on board.
John Frenchman Kerry comfortably walked away with a victory (38% of the vote) in a race that the news media had trumpeting as a dead-heat and virtual 4-way tie. It’s nice to know that we learned nothing in 2000. Pretty-boy John Edwards came in a strong second (32%), followed by Howard Dean, who, just a week ago, was the man to beat. Dean received just 18% of the vote, and responded by, in my estimation, freaking out. “We have not begun to fight,” he yelled at his rally. This begs a couple questions: what do you call what you’ve been doing for the past 6 months (ranting?), and isn’t now a little late to be beginning?
Little Richard bit the big one, finishing with only 11% of the vote - this in the state that he carried in 1988 and was expected to excel in this year. Gephardt, who resigned the House seat he had held since 1976 in order to run, said “My campaign to fight for working people may be ending tonight, but our fight will never end.” Let me suggest, Dick, that your fight for the working people might have been more effective if you had actually worked in the last 28 years, instead of just being a politician. It’s absurd on the level of Stalin and Hitler fighting for human rights, or Castro fighting for democracy. The big question is, how long will it take for Gephardt to blame NAFTA for his job loss?
On the less relevant end of the scale, uber-wacko Dennis Kucinich (campaign slogan: Who?) picked up 1% of the vote, while Joe Lieberman, Wesley Clark, and Al Sharpton brought up the rear with, um, 0. Lieberman and Clark didn’t campaign in Iowa, and Sharpton apparently had trouble getting his message out and convincing white people that it’s OK to vote for a man that hates them. This, I suspect, was also the problem with Howard Dean.
My guess is that Iowaegans found him to be a bit to abrasive for their tastes, and they also probably saw straight through his religious posturing. I suspect that these liabilities will become assets in New Hampshire, where he will be much more successful. So what do these Iowa results mean? Historically, in spite of all the media hype, not too much.
It means the end for Gephardt since Iowa was supposed to be the lynchpin of his campaign, but for the others, the results are fairly meaningless. Example: Bill Clinton picked up 4% of the vote in 1992 caucuses. As I’ve mentioned before, Iowa is not very representative of the rest of the country, so the key for most candidates is simply surviving it (the reason, I suspect, that Lieberman and Clark chose to sit it out). Dean has rabid volunteers, and he has them organized in all 50 states. He also has more money than anyone, as well as the ability to maintain. The only candidate that’s close is Kerry, and he’s mortgaging everything his wife owns to pay for his campaign. History bodes well for the man with the money, and that man, for now, is Howard Dean. If nothing else, he may be able to win his way to the top simply by outspending his competitors. Of course, Bush has 6 times as much cash-on-hand as Dean, so take that for what it’s worth.
As a side note, Matt pointed me to an excellent site for tonight’s State the Union Speech: The 2004 State of The Union Speech Drinking Game. I would encourage you all to play along drinking only water, but I don’t think your bladder would make it through the event. While completely absurd, like the Brent Mussberger Drinking Game, it is also highly amusing. And you never know, Peter Jennings could be sitting on his rockstar bus and playing right along.

***

Side note: the re-location of this site means that a lot of my links are now bad - primarily the ones where I am referencing previous columns. I will do my best to get those fixed over the next few days, reenabling everyone to see the startling frequency of me being right.

I finally saw The Matrix: Revolutions last night, which means that there is no excuse for anyone else to have not seen it. I may be ahead of the curve on everything else, but, for whatever reason, I just don’t catch many movies. Because of this, I’m going to assume that everyone reading this has either seen the movie, or just doesn’t care, meaning it is OK for me to spoil the entire plot over the next several paragraphs. If this is not the case for you, you should probably stop reading, and not come back until after you’ve seen the movie(s).
My biggest disappointment of Revolutions was the lack of character development. Reloaded introduced a bunch of new and potentially important characters to the series. Revolutions, unfortunately, failed to make any use of them. A prime example of this is the Merovingian. He is deliciously evil, in sort of the same way Smith was in the first 2 movies (not so much when he went insane and became a megalomaniac). Not only that, “Merv’s” relationship with Persephone could probably be made into an additional, full movie. I really thought that Persephone would play a key role in this movie. I believed that she was the ‘intuitive’ program that was the Mother of the Matrix. Instead, it’s the Oracle, a very obvious and very weak plot point. Persephone, instead of being allowed to manipulate and shine, was relegated to a single line, and the Merovingian, a single scene. “Bring me the eyes of the Oracle,” has the makings of a weird, noodle-baking plot; instead, it is immediately pushed aside, and alluded to only a few other times.
There were a myriad of additional wasted characters - the Trainman, the Kid, all of Zion’s ruling council (more on that in a bit) and Commanders (Lock and Mifune), Sati (the Last Exile), the Architect, the crew of the Hammer - and wasted relationships - Link/Zee, Morpheous/Niobe, Oracle/Architect. The other main annoyance of mine was the misuse/non-use of Seraph. The Merovingian refers to him as a “prodigal,” but we are told nothing about their relationship. Instead of real plot and character growth, Seraph is relegated to cool-but-unnecessary fight scenes and acting mysterious. There is a strongly implied history between the Oracle, the Merovingian, and Seraph, but we’re told nothing of it. Boring.
Doing something with these characters could have given the audience a much stronger emotional attachment; when all the main characters are killed off, it is much more difficult to be concerned with the fate of the secondary characters. Better development also would have provided more opportunities for plot twists, something movie 3 sorely lacked, especially when compared to the 1st movie. For example, in addition to the major role I expected from Persephone, I also anticipated that Councilor Harmon would play an important part in Revolutions. His long discussion with Neo in Reloaded about the dichotomy of man and machine - their necessary interdependence and co-existence - showed a lot of insight, and also, to some level, was a foreshadowing of the end of the series. Based on this, I had guessed that Harmon was, in fact, the previous “One,” which also explained why he didn’t need any sleep, as well as many of his ‘off-handed’ comments to Neo, like, “You’re still only human,” which may have more meaning that the Neo realized. It turns out that being eerily correct on many levels isn’t enough to get you a significant part in the 3rd movie.
As for the ending of the movie, or the non-ending, as the case may be, I think there are some serious holes. My biggest problem is that Neo sacrificed the freedom of human beings in order to achieve peace with the machines. Yes, a large number of humans will be able to free themselves, and Zion is now ‘truly’ free (though it is arguable to what extent that is the case), but an even larger number of humans are still enslaved to the machines. And yes, it is a better alternative than letting Smith gain control of the Matrix and destroying both the humans AND the machines; however, Neo ends up accomplishing, albeit in a rather long, painful, roundabout way, the same thing he would have if he had chose the other door at the end of Reloaded: Trinity dies, and he returns to the source. I guess, on a Utilitarian level, it is a major improvement, but still… The logic for Neo’s decision could be based on the discussion he has with Rama-Kandra in the Train station, which points to machines/programs having emotions, like love. This indicates that, in the same sense, humans are enslaving machines. So Neo and the Machine, in my view, choose to co-exist with humans and machines both living in slavery. Oh, Wachowski brothers, why do you ignore your religious and philosophical knowledge at the most critical point? Machines may be able to express emotions, or an understanding of them, based on the human label, but it is still emotions in the form of 1’s and 0’s. For all their computational ability, what do machines lack that humans do not? Souls. Machines do not have souls. This is why it is morally OK for machines to be “enslaved” to humans. In fact, this is the purpose of the machines. The fact that the movies spent so much time examining the concept of purpose, only to completely miss the boat in the last moments is highly frustrating. Each machine (Architect, Oracle, Smith) examines and understands its purpose, but the machines, as a whole, never look at their overall purpose: they were designed and created to serve humans. And, though I didn’t expect the movie to draw this connection, humans were designed and created to love and serve God. If both humans and machines accept their purpose, it solves the problem. Voila. If only it were that easy.

***

In retrospect, I guess that the death of Gloria Foster (the original Oracle) was a much bigger blow to the series of movies than anyone anticipated; Seraph was not kidding when, in Reloaded, he said, “I protect that which matters most.” Foster was much more believable as the manipulator of the whole process than Mary Alice, and he knowing smile would have added infinite amounts of noodle-baking to the movie. Oh, well.
Incidentally, if you’re interested in this at all, I recommend checking out thematrix101.com, they have done a very thorough job explaining everything, and the site was helpful to me in understanding a lot of Revolutions.

Bush to Discuss Social Security in State of Union Address
Starting on a serious note, I just want to go on the record as saying that this is going to be huge. Watch for a massive opposition to his plan for privatization, and watch how the media frames the issue. Just remember, you heard it here first. Speaking of which…

President Bush’s proposal helps America’s security and economy.
I am, once again, ahead of the curve.

ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh’s Defense
The liberals attempt character assassination via guilt-by-association.

Iowa’s First Lady Endorses John Kerry
Rest of World Yawns.

Braun will drop out of race, endorse Dean
Dean happy to collect 12 more votes.

Britney Spears Believes in ‘Sanctity of Marriage’
Pat Blair Believes in ‘Evil of Guitars.’ Or maybe it should be “Spears Advocates ‘Talented Musicians.’” On a related note, I wonder how kissing Madonna works in to that whole ’sanctity’ thing.

FCC Chair Wants New Ruling on On-Air Expletive
I am, once again, ahead of the curve. And, once again, it is by a significant margin. “Powell’s proposal… comes amid continued criticism of the FCC for a ruling last October that an expletive uttered by the musician Bono on a network TV program was not indecent…” A man and his blog: making a difference, changing the world.

Starbucks Opens First Paris Franchise
Mass produced, American Lattes: take that, you arrogant culture-snobs!

U.S. to Iraqi Loyalists: Lay Down Arms or Else
A drastic shift from the previous policy of putting them in the air and waving them like you just didn’t care.

Pa. Chi-Chi’s Reopens After Largest U.S. Hepatitis A Outbreak
I’d go, but I’m guessing that the wait will be too long.

Gore accuses White House of ignoring global warming
Storm Pummels the East With Cold, Snow
The facts speak for themselves.

Gillette Introduces High-Tech ‘Vibrating’ Razor
Company promises an end to regular nicks and cuts, replacing them with jagged scars, instead.

Mystikal Gets 6 Years for Sexual Battery
Another fool in jail for trying to live the image. He’s in “Danger” of being told to “Shake Yo’ (Thing),” and I’m guessing it doesn’t seem all that glamorous any more.

Jude Law Says He’s Stronger After Divorce
And poorer, too.

Iowa Race Still Too Close to Call
Apparently we’re actually going to have to vote to figure this one out.

AARP Loses 45,000 Members Over Support for Medicare Law
Lets quit the formalities and just start calling them what they are: Democrat Old PEopleS.

Democrats: Bush Not Protecting U.S. From Attacks
Actually, I’d say that he’s been fairly successful. And if he’s not doing enough, why are you trying to de-fund the war in Iraq and end the Patriot bill. In fact, what is your national defense plan? “Um… Bush sucks.” That’s what I thought.

French Pol Blames ‘Neo-Con’ Ideas for U.S.-Europe Tensions
Pat Blame ‘French’ For Sabotaging US in the UN and Supplying Saddam With Weapons

Olivia Goldsmith: ‘First Wives Club’ author dies after plastic surgery
This makes me sad and angry. Everyone gets old, and we all know it. So why do we try to hide it? Goldsmith died at age 54 because she wanted to get some loose skin removed from her chin. Not because she had some horrible disease, or needed an operation badly, but because she wanted to look younger. Some would call this ironic.
Ladies: you are going to gain weight as you get older. You will be wrinkled. You will not always have abs/thighs/buns of steel. Your hair may turn grey. You will never look like anyone on the cover of Cosmo. It’s OK. Gentlemen: you are going to get a pot belly, even if you’re skinny now. Your hair may turn gray, fall out, or both. Your joints will ache, your face will wrinkle, and your pants will slowly start to creep up your waistline, making a fast break for your neck. It’s OK. Everyone ages, and those who try to avoid it look ridiculous. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a liar and/or a plastic surgeon.
I don’t know if we blame the magazines and media, the medical profession, our culture and its obsession with youth, or maybe ourselves for our obsession with self, for creating the cult of “me.” Regardless, it is a sad state of affairs. Grow up, and grow old; everyone does, eventually.