Fine -- But Is It Necessary?
I love the Harry Potter books. I was quite sad to see them end. And I wept at the death of Albus Dumbledore in the sixth book of the epic series.
And so I ask this question with all due respect to the incredibly talented author -- why do you find it necessary to make this announcement, and why now, given its seeming irrelevance to the story?
Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.
After reading briefly from the final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," she took questions from audience members.
She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love."
"Dumbledore is gay," the author responded to gasps and applause.
She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."
Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
Frankly, it seems to me that this adds nothing to the story. And while it answers a question about his family (or lack thereof), I don't see where the detail really matters. Rowling really included nothing that can be seen as contributing to this conclusion in the books themselves (my reading of the final novel left me understanding that the "great tragedy" was his role in his sister's death).
Is there any particular reason that Dumbledore should not be gay? No, there is not, and given my high regard for the gay educators I work with I have no problem with a gay man in the position of headmaster. But because of the nature of the the role that Dumbledore fills in the story, I do not see any particular reason that his sexuality is even relevant. I fail to see the information as enriching the story in any manner. As such, I argue that Rowling ought to have remained silent in regard to this particular detail.
1
Actually it was necessary as she retains script approval, and one of the rocket scientists that was writing 1/2 Blood Prince, decided to have Dumbledore smitten with a girl. When Rowling saw that, she was kind of forced to reveal what she had to to make sure her franchise was not compromised.
Oh yeah even though some may claim otherwise it really is her franchise as she is the creator
Posted by: Nunya Biddness at Sun Oct 21 05:41:17 2007 (BR9zA)
2
And again, you seem to have missed my point (which seems typical or your comments here).
Yes, she did need to fix up the script -- but that could be (and was) done confidentially. Was there a need to disclose the detail publicly about the character, especially in the way it was, when it really does not add anything to the storyline or the understanding of the character as presented in the book.
Yes, I acknowledge that the franchise is hers. I just question the decision to expose a detail that she did not see fit to include in her boos.
3
Well from the stories I've read, she was speaking in front of fans and the question was asked about Dumbledore, and she answered truthfully. I commend her for being truthful, and don't let the revealed info bother me. I figure this is just one more thing for the bat-shit insane fundamentalists to screech about, not that anyone with more than 1/2 a brain listens to them anyway.
Posted by: Nunya Biddness at Mon Oct 22 00:02:59 2007 (BR9zA)
End Of An Era
The television as we have always known it is no longer available at one retailer.
The nation's largest consumer electronics chain says it has pulled all analog televisions off store shelves. Flat panel and high-definition screens have taken their place.
Beginning in February 2009, broadcasters plan to stop transmitting analog signals, although people with older sets can still get programming via special converter boxes, set-top box or direct satellite.
The Minneapolis-based chain says it told its stores to stop selling the products at the beginning of the month.
More than 60 million U.S. households currently rely on an antennas or analog cable. Cable operators are required to guarantee their customers will receive broadcast channels until February 2012.
After the first of the year, the government will be making available coupons that can be used to buy converter boxes. Best Buy will sell coupon-eligible converter boxes starting early next year.
As one of those folks with nothing but analog sets in my home and analog cable running into it, I'm not happy with the upcoming change. But Best Buy is making a responsible decision (something i rarely say -- I hate Best Buy) in light of the upcoming change in broadcast standards.
Posted by: Greg at
10:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
Disney Demands: Ditch DeityNo mention of God allowed in Radio Disney ads for a new movie – The Ten Commandments.
It's a movie about the Bible, but family-friendly Disney Co. is moving heaven and earth to make sure the word "God" is stricken from some advertisements promoting an upcoming animated film on Moses and the Ten Commandments.
Radio Disney was to broadcast a radio spot for Promenade Pictures, makers of the film "The Ten Commandments," but the company sent an e-mail earlier this month instructing that the phrase "chosen by God" be stripped from the script.
"Our BS&P [Broadcast Standards and Procedures] said Both scripts need to include the studio mention and omit the following line: CHOSEN BY GOD.... Please let me know if you have any questions," reads the e-mail, sent Oct. 2 to Promenade media buyer Casey Baker by Radio Disney Network sales.
The network claims that the problem isn’t the mention of God, and that there is no prohibition on religious references in their BS&P – but the letter says otherwise.
I’ll definitely see the movie – indeed, I may make it the first I have seen in a theater in at least three years – but I think I’ll continue a personal boycott of Disney products.
1
They're remaking the Ten Commandments? Why? What's wrong with the original?
Posted by: rightwingprof at Thu Oct 18 06:39:28 2007 (0o7wJ)
2
It's funny. Fox News has a 2 minute segment suggesting that Disney Radio was wrong for removing the word "God" from the advertisement, and less then 10 minutes later a commercial on Fox News for that very movie does not mention the word God! Funny, huh. Maybe you should boycott Fox News as well.
Posted by: Scott at Thu Oct 18 22:51:50 2007 (VpaGF)
3
Scott -- show me where Fox DEMANDED the removal of the reference to God and I will begin such a boycott.
4
Who cares if they demanded its removal, the word wasn't there in final product (are you privy to the behind the scenes dealings?). Apparently the word God wasn't necessary for the ad, or else it would have been in the TV ad as well. Besides, if Fox News found it important to report such trivial, and might I say stupid, non-news, then perhaps they should be willing to air a version of the advertisement that they claim was ruined by Disney. Otherwise, they are accusing Disney of doing something wrong, while reaping the benefits of an advertisment similar to the one approved by Disney.
Posted by: Scott at Sat Oct 20 10:13:01 2007 (VpaGF)
5
Actually, Scott, it makes all the difference in the world.
My objection is to the demand from RadioDisney that the word "God" be removed from the ad, not the lack of the word "God" in the ad.
You do see the difference, don't you?
And until and unless you can provide evidence (as in proof) that Fox refused to run an ad with the word "God" in it, your comparison fails miserably because the two situations cease to be comparable.
6
I guess Fox News was just lucky, or from your point of view, unlucky to not have been provided with an adverstisement that had the phrase "chosen by God" or the word God in it. Otherwise, I'm certain they would have done exactly as you say, and run the adverstisement with the word God in it. But, alas, they were given the easy way out by the movie company who for some odd reason gave Disney Radio one ad, and Fox News another ad. Even more odd, is the fact that Fox News got the advertisement without the word God, when the news report made it very clear that Fox News wanted the word God (or phrase "chosen by God") in Disney Radio's adverstisement. Very odd if you ask me. And yes, you are right, they are not exact parallels. In light of your need for exact parallels to stage a boycott, I take it that your criteria for boycotting is that a company must demand the removal of the word God (although a more precise criteria would be the removal of the phrase "Chosen by God") from an advertisement for a movie about the Ten Commandments. Fair enough. But pretty narrow criteria if you ask me.
Originally I was just trying to point out the obsurdity of boycott Disney based on a news story by Fox News, but I guess I should have also pointed out the obsurdity in the news story itself. You see, the idea that the removal of the word God was demanded is not exactly the truth, but rather a nice and alarmist headline. Disney simply asked for a version of the ad without the phrase "Chosen by God" which Disney found oddly placed in the script. This is hardly a demand, but rather an editing decision.
Let's take a closer look. The placement of the phrase comes immediately after a list of actors, making it appear that the actors were chosen by God. However, by replacing that phrase with the name of the studio, the adverstisement actually makes more sense. Simple editing if you ask me. Here is the text of the original script (look it up on the fox news website if you don't believe me):
Narrator: One of the greatest stories of all time is now an animated movie event for the entire family ... "The Ten Commandments."
God: Moses, give them my message and they will follow you out of Egypt.
Narrator: An ordinary man, an extraordinary calling.
Moses: Let my people go!
Narrator: With Ben Kingsley, Christian Slater, Alfred Molina and Elliott Gould. ... chosen by God.
Moses: On to the promised land!
Narrator: 'The Ten Commandments,' Rated G. Now in theaters. Check your local listings.
So boycott Disney all you want. But come on, don't be so dishonest to think that Fox News is innocent here and just trying to report the facts. They clearly have an agenda and are spinning things in a particular way to get people all hot and bothered about a non-issue. Oddly enough the controversy is creating publicity for the movie. Isn't this standard Hollywood procedure?
Posted by: Scott at Sun Oct 21 09:51:39 2007 (VpaGF)
7
Yeah -- it's not like there is documentary proof of the RD demand. Oh, wait -- there is documentary proof!
I'm still waiting for you to come up with some proof of your charge.
(By the way, I agree with you about the edited ad making more sense. But again, that is irrelevant -- Disney stated that the problem was the use of "God" in the ad being in violation of their policies.)
8
Do you read my posts? When I claimed that Fox News demanded the removal of the word God from the ad I was being facetious. ha ha, get it?
My point was that when they take a moral stance on an issue, they should probably back it up with their actions. And by airing an ad that was very similar to the one they claim wronged the movie company (as the following quote from the article suggests: "In connection with the Ten Commandments, I did find it offensive," said Promenade president and Chief Operating Officer Cindy Bond. "God in our movie is the main character. You rip the whole guts out of the piece."), they are clearly not taking a moral stance on an issue they claim is important. While they might not be ripping the whole guts out of the piece, they are clearly promoting the piece without any guts.
Now, you have your facts wrong. Read the entire article on fox news and you will see that even Fox News claims that using the word God is NOT against Disney policy! The Disney policy is that the name of the Studio must be mentioned! The only conclusion, and one which you have already agreed to, is that the removal of the phrase was an editing decision.
Here's a quote from the article on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302746,00.html):
"Radio Disney has said in other media reports that it made the request because its policies require mention of the studio in its commercials and it decided to replace the "chosen by God" phrase with "from Promenade Pictures" because the original script made it sound as though the actors were chosen by God, not Moses, as was the intended meaning.
Mention of God isn't prohibited in the company's standards and procedures, according to Radio Disney."
Now, it is your turn to prove to me where Disney demanded that the word "God" be removed from the script because it is Disney policy. (and please don't provide the Fox News Headline as proof. As I have just shown you, the content of the article clearly refutes the claim in the headline.)
Otherwise, just as you won't boycott Fox News, your own criteria for staging boycotts should force you to end your boycott of Disney.
Posted by: Scott at Mon Oct 22 01:32:58 2007 (VpaGF)
9
All of which is true -- but for the fact that you have ignored this minor detail.
"Our BS&P [Broadcast Standards and Procedures] said Both scripts need to include the studio mention and omit the following line: CHOSEN BY GOD.... Please let me know if you have any questions," reads the e-mail, sent Oct. 2 to Promenade media buyer Casey Baker by Radio Disney Network sales associate Jason Atkinson.
Sounds like a statement in writing that they require the omission of the reference to God to me.
Of course, I quoted that in the post above, and you chose to ignore that -- so I think our discussion is at an end due to your utter lack of intellectual honesty.
10
I didn't ignore it. You read it and understood it as a demand (I see how you might construe the phrase "need to include" and the word "omit" as a demand). Me, on the other hand, read it along with the quote I provided that said that using the word God was not against Disney policy and understood it as an editing decision (I see the phrase "need to include" and the word "omit" as being typical editing terms. For example, "you need to include page numbers and omit the paragraph that I circled, which makes absolutely no sense."). You, as a history teacher, should know that documentary evidence can be read in any number of ways, especially when only a portion of the original document is available (oh, those pesky ellipses).
But, you are free to interpret the isolated quote from the email any way you decide. And, yes, you are free to boycott any company you want for any reason.
Unfortunately, your efforts are being wasted on such trivial matters when they could be used to boycott companies that are really doing something wrong, like mistreating employees, or using cheap overseas labor to avoid hiring Americans, or something that actually hurts people instead of offending you for some trivial reason (I thought it was the Democrats who were accused of being so easily offended?).
Another thing, I just don't see how this simple editing decision (my interpretation) is anti-God (your interpretation). If anything, the ad is dishonest and is tricking people into seeing a movie that appears to have nothing to do with God! It's funny how Disney is anti-God in the advertisment but has no problem promoting the movie itself. Wait, you're right. Boycott Disney! They trick people into seeing movies about God!
Posted by: Scott at Mon Oct 22 23:00:37 2007 (VpaGF)
t has become something of a cliche: politicians launching their electoral campaigns on late-night talk shows, in a calculated attempt at hipness.
But a late-night comic announcing his presidential candidacy on a late-night talk show - now that is a hall-of-mirrors maneuver worthy of Stephen Colbert. The man known to viewers for his portrayal of a fulminating right-wing blowhard said on Comedy Central on Tuesday night that he will be a candidate in his native South Carolina.
* * *
Colbert, who in real life is a Democrat, said he would file papers to run in both parties' primaries.
It is hard to take the guy seriously in any event, but if he is going to make a run, shouldnÂ’t the equal time rules apply across the board?
Posted by: Greg at
11:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
Texans V. Jaguars
I'm expecting quite a dust-up in Jacksonville, as my Texans take on the Jaguars in an AFC South battle. By the way -- all teams in the AFC South are over 500 right now.
Here's how CBS analyzes the matchup.
This team owned the Jags last year -- even as we played played a poor season. I think that we can do it again, although injuries may make it difficult. My guess is that this is a game won by a margin of 7 points of less -- and I won't predict the winner.
Posted by: Greg at
06:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
Boot This Player From International Competition
If he insists upon proclaiming wearing his bigotry and anti-Semitism as a badge of pride and honor, then this German soccer player should not be permitted to participate in any international competition, now or in the future.
The tensions in the Middle East seem to have influenced the decision of Iranian-born German international soccer player Ashkan Dejagah's decision not to travel with the national Under-21 squad for a match in Israel.
Dejagah, who plays for Bundesliga club VfB Wolfsburg, asked his national team managers to withdraw him from Germany's European Championship qualifier against Israel, to be played in Tel Aviv on Friday, citing "personal reasons."
"He came to us citing personal reasons that seemed very plausible," DFB spokesman Jens Grittner said in a statement.
Dejagah was quoted by mass-circulation tabloid daily Bild as saying his motive was cultural.
"I have more Iranian than German blood in my veins," he said in a report published Tuesday. "That should be respected, and besides I'm doing this out of respect. My parents are Iranian."
Dejagah was born in Tehran, but later moved with his parents to Germany. He holds a German passport.
The decision on his part is outrageous, and based upon the hateful tenets of the rogue regime of his homeland and the hateful tenets of the Islamist religious cult he follows. Given GermanyÂ’s history, it is incumbent upon the German government to boot this Islamo-Nazi from the national team -- and from the country, revoking his German passport in the process.
1
dejagah is just afraid about the consequences for his family living iran he fears that they might suffer repressions when he goes to israel or that he might not be allowed to go to iran anymore.
the former coach of the israeli national team, shlomo sharf was quoted: "he is afraid about what might happen to him when traveling to iran. if i was his coach i d accept his decision."
Posted by: c.sydow at Tue Oct 9 23:07:26 2007 (TZjZl)
2
And I fundamentally disagree with that decision.
The world must not give in to brutal dictators, nor should it countenance those who do out of cowardice.
We saw what happened when the world tried that 75 years ago -- and you as someone writing in Germany should be aware of the consequences of doing so.
3
And interesting enough, "c. sydow", I see from your blog that you are actually of Muslim extraction, with a distinctively Muslim name. Why are you afraid to come here and post under your real name?
4
haha, u get me wrong. i guess u r referring to al-sharq. well thats the arabic term for "the orient" which is what i am blogging about. sorry i am not muslim.
btw: meanwhile dejagah has declared that he d be willing to play against israel in the rematch in germany. he just fears that he wont be allowed going back to iran after having entered israel that's it.
Posted by: c.sydow at Wed Oct 10 04:20:28 2007 (TZjZl)
Kris Brown -- Demigod
That is my response after he was responsible for no fewer than16 of the 22 points scored by the Houston Texans today -- including two 54-yard field goals and the game-winning 57-yarder that won the game with just seconds to go.
Kris Brown kicked a 57-yard field goal with one second left — his third of at least 54 yards — to help the Texans escape with a 22-19 victory over Miami at Reliant Stadium.
Brown had kicked four field goals of 54, 43, 54 and 20 yards to keep the Texans in the game when the offense bogged down. He tied an NFL record with three field goals of at least 50 yards.
The Texans' offense was limited to one touchdown for the second game in a row against a winless team.
The Texans are now 3-2 and Miami 0-5. It feels like the Texans lost because they played so poorly against a terrible team.
The defense finally forced a turnover, but the offense capitalized with a field goal, not a touchdown. The defense couldn't stop Ronnie Brown. It couldn't contain Cleo Lemon, the backup quarterback who replaced the injured Trent Green.
Green left the game after suffering a concussion when he blocked Travis Johnson on a reverse. Green went low on a reverse by Ted Ginn Jr. His head hit Johnson's knee, and he didn't get up. Green, who was able to move his legs, suffered a concussion. He was taken off the field on a stretcher and was taken to the hospital.
Other than Kris Brown, there are only to bits of good news coming out of this game -- we will hopefully have both Ahman Green and Andre Johnson back next week, and Trent Green was reported back in the Dolphin's locker room after going off that field in a fashion reminiscent of Cedric Killings' departure against Indianapolis.
I'll take the win -- but this one was sadly reminiscent of the 2004 and 2006 seasons. God grant that I never have to compare this team's play to 2005 season.
NAME: Greg
AGE: 40-Something
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: World History Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dog, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.
