I don't usually use my blog to forward other people's stuff, or link to other websites or anything like that. It's usually just a kind of soapbox. ButI felt this was too good to keep to myself. It's an op-ed piece from the Miami Herald.

AFTER 9/11 Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If,back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed,then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat-- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informedthat our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas-- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

Ifsomeone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no AmericaI know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

Allof these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appearsmore concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attackon Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America'scharacter than I once believed, because I would have expected such actionsto provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torchesat the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone whowould suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasmsof despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considersthe law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expectedthis nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rightsmovement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrouscampaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principlesof liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

PresidentBush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizenson at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification?He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law,constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Isthat America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are thereno principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would haveremembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up alittle liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have usexcuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror''-- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic,an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught everyperson guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow'sfirst-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fightinginfection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it willstrike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilegeto defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weighin: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bushstokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things hisextralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. Weare neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt downits enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately,our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holdingfast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bushclearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

How is George W Bush still in office? How many lies and backpedals can he get away with? He assured us all that Iraq was a direct threat to us. He then told us, after it was proven that it wasn't, that even though he was wrong, he was right. In the quotes below, Bush tells us in 2003 that we don't WANT to go to war, but we HAVE to because Saddam has WMDs. Then he says, in 2005, that even though they DIDN'T have WMDs, he still made the right move. How does that make sense? What is the noble cause for which Americans are dying? There are no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is no longer in power. The elections have been held. In the interest of calmness and peace, let's forget all your past lies and get our kids out of that goddamn country.

3/19/03:
GEORGE W BUSH: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

12/14/05:
BUSH: "I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision."

BRIT HUME: "So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?"

BUSH: "Absolutely."

THE MOON

Tonight is a full moon. I took some pictures with my new Nikon D-50 digital camera and the 200mm zoom lens. Here is the best one. The first picture is completely un-retouched. The second one is the same picture with contrast enhancements. Cool, huh?

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA is one of those books that I've heard of all my life as this big, sprawling, epic piece of literary wonder. Like LORD OF THE RINGS, it held a place of respect in my mind and I'd always meant to get around to reading it. Finally, when the Lord of the Rings films were announced, I "quickly" devoured the entire dense trilogy in a mere 6 months.

Now, the Narnia movies are coming out. Well, one of them is, and we'll see about the others. Unlike Lord of the Rings, the Narnia books are 7 completely seperate books. They cross characters over within each other and take place in the same general world, but they are less one gigantic narrative story than the Rings trilogy.

I've just begun reading The Chronicles of Narnia all-in-one-volume book. It's roughly the same size as Lord of the Rings, but it's 7 books, not 3.

Ok, why does everyone keep comparing the two books? Well, because JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis were friends, colleagues, and sometimes rivals. Both were distinguished scholars of medieval and early modern literature, both chose fantasy as their primary genre, and both left an indelible mark on every author who attempted to write fantasy and science fiction after them. Tolkien's leanings were toward language and mythology, while Lewis' background was one of Christian scholarship. That's why Tolkien's books are very dense and thorough. He was creating an entire world from scratch as if he was writing a history of it. Lewis' Narnia books are fluffier flights of fancy with a helping of battle, evil witches, and Christian symbolism thrown in. He was writing what he knew.

Anyway, I just finished book 3 of the Narnia septology. It's stunning how short they are! The second one, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is only about 90 pages long! The big battle at the end of that book is roughly a page long, and yet I hear the cinematic version of the fight is over a half hour! Weird. Another thing that distinguished Lewis from Tolkien is Lewis' playfulness and they fact that he's clearly writing for children as his main audience. He says things like, "The creatures were so horrible that if I described them to you, your parents wouldn't let you read any further!" It's cute and fun, but he books are so breezy, I sometimes wished he'd stopped to engage in details a little bit more. That's not to say the books are badly written. They're just fluffier than I expected from a classic piece of epic fantasy.

So you've all heard about the secret Christianity in the books. Oh puh-leez! Yes, alright, the lion is a Jesus figure, so what? The books are not Bible-stories. There are no evil witches in the Bible. No talking animals....oh wait...alright, but still. Millions of books have used Bible-related symbolism. The reason is that the Bible's stories are so univerally known that their reference resonates with the reader. C.S. Lewis was not trying to secretly convert kids to Christianity. That's Veggie-Tales' racket. Lewis has spoken about this in interviews. He has admitted to using Jesus as an inspiration for Aslan the lion, but the Narnia books are not Biblical allegories. So fine, you get inspired by reading the books, fine. You just like the talking lion, fine. I hate how the relious nuts are jumping all over this movie (Disney included) like it's THEIRS. Passion of the Christ? Fine, take it. Narnia? You're silly. What about the Green Mile? John Coffey? J.C.? A man who takes on the pain of others and sacrifices himself so that the innocent won't suffer? Where was Pat Robertson when that one came out, huh? Get a grip you jerks. As I said before, the Narnia books aren't the first, nor will they be the last to use religious imagery outside of Bible stories.

Another thing C.S. Lewis had said was that he never wanted a live-action film made because Aslan would no doubt look silly as a puppeted character. This was back in the 50's when movie effects were much less sophisticated. I think he'd be OK with the current film, as the lion looks very realistic and not at all buffoonish. Aslan would lose all power as a character if he was portrayed as anything but God-like.

My wife had read the books a lot a long time ago and said she had no interest in seeing the film version. This is the woman who couldn't wait to see the Harry Potter movies and Rent. But after reading the books, I can see her point. The books are so thin that htey leave a lot to the imagination. The Harry Potter and LOTR books shower you with details, so that the film version will no doubt be close to how you imagined it. This is different, I think, and I think I agree that the movie version can't be the same as the book so why bother? Eh, maybe I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD.

Many years ago, my wife went and saw that crazy AIDS musical called Rent. She loved it and got the soundtrack. She quickly got me to love the soundtrack and took me to see the play. I've seen the musical three times now and she four. We both agree that no matter how good the cast is, they'll never be as good as that original-run cast that was on the soundtrack. Those actors helped shape the show through workshops and really embody those characters.

Now, ten years later, 90% of that original cast has come back to make the movie version of Rent. Of course we had to go see it! We had been following the story of the movie for years, back when Spike Lee was interested in making it, then Martin Scorcese, and then...Christopher Columbus? The guy who directed Stepmom, Harry Potter 1 & 2 and Home Alone? I had to figure CC knew how much this show means to people and he's got the original cast to keep him in line, so he couldn't screw it up too bad. As the teaser commercials came on, we got more and more excited! It looked so good! Then more and more commercials came out with scenes of dialogue! What kind of crap is that? The show is basically an opera, with all the dialogue sung. Each commercial made us more and more sad.

That said, we were very excited to go see the movie, even though the only tickets available in our timee frame were in the theater's "Director's Hall." This means we pay an extra $2.75 for stadium-style assigned seating and ushers. And I guess it keeps the riff-raff out. Which means they'll never play Rocky Horror in a Director's Hall! Ha! Anyway...

A lot of people complained that the cast was too old. I don't disagree, butt I think the trade-off of having the originals was worth it. Most glaring was when Roger tells Mimi, "You look like you're 16" and we all though, "Uh, NO ya don't!"

So the real problem was trying not to nottice every single place where the movie diverged from the play and it was really tough to do. Especially during the songs, because we were already singing them in our heads and then all of a sudden a word chages oir a line is left out or a line is SPOKEN rather than SUNG!

With Harry Potter, Columbus was kind of railed by critics for being too true to the book and not adapting it enough. In Rent, it was almost as if he purposefully put his stamp on it and changed a whole lot of stuff. Honestly, I didn't mind most of the changes, but what really bothered me was that Columbus was SO trying to make this a heavy, emotional movie that he removed all the little sung dialogue bits in between songs and within songs and changed them to straight dialogue. One scene in the play, where Angel rescues Tom Collins, is totally sung:

"You Ok, honey?"
"I'm afraid so."
"They get any money?"
"No. Had none to get. But they purloined my coat."

Columbus apparently decided this kind of stylized dialogue would come off as goofy in the movie, so the scene plays out as a regular old movie scene. We see Angel playing drums and hears a cough. He slowly gets up and carefully trods into the alley to find Tom all beaten up and they engage in realistic dialogue. It just slowed the show down. The musical was BANG a song BANG another song BANG another song. The movie was BANG a song.....a very dramatic scene involving homelessness and drugs...BANG a song...some very heavy dialogue...etc. It felt like a car with bad gas in it, stopping and starting and sputtering with spurts of amazing speed and some flat out stops. The good parts were really good. The story held up well and th music was overall great. Mimi (Rosario Dawson) was one of the new actors and she was not nearly as good as the original. She was, I'm sorry, a bit homely and just not great. Joanne (Tracie Thoms) was kind of different from the original character but very likable.

Overall I would give it a 6.5 out of 10. We didn't hate it nearly as much as we were worried we would. If you liked the play, you'll find plenty to like in the movie and plenty more to talk about afterwards. If you never saw the play and wonder what the fuss is about, I'd say this is not the place to start. The movie just doesn't have the energy of the live performance.