Beltmann

Because the topic happened to arise, and because Book 7 finally has the most hints of Dumbledore's orientation. To me, it doesn't seem odd that Rowling waited so long to publicly confirm it. The relevant question is, Why assume that Dumbledore must, by default, be heterosexual? Why are the heterosexual characters allowed to not be overtly identified as such, while a homosexual character must? Those listed relationships only confirm my contention that the series avoids sexuality as a serious subject. Those relationships might be about love, romance, devotion, or commitment, but none of t

I... must... resist...

Was he indeed closeted? Or was his orientation just never made explicit, one way or the other? (I don't recall Mad-eye Moody's sexuality ever being discussed, either--perhaps he was a closeted heterosexual?) It's reasonable to argue that a more explicit exploration would have better promoted the theme of tolerance, but must every aspect of a theme be "major" and explored fully? Why can't the texture of a theme have both major and minor aspects? I don't see why Dumbledore's orientation shouldn't be a very minor beam in the overall support of a major theme--especially in a children's series

Rowling clarified that Dumbledore's orientation relates directly to the issue of tolerance, which is, after all, one of the enduring themes of the series. (Consider how prejudice--towards Muggles, half-bloods, house-elves, centaurs, etc.--provides a major source of tension throughout all of the books.) Therefore, this adds another dimension to that theme. Making Dumbledore gay makes literary sense, and not just "for the sake of doing it."

Minor Von Trier, but it has some clever situational comedy.

Sort of like Linklater-lite, which means that it lacks the wisdom of Before Sunset but has a similar feel for dialogue, social interaction, and the pleasures of minor human moments.

Hey now... I would like it noted that I am an English teacher and yet have never pointed out a spelling or grammar error on a message board.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Wendy!

Since the answer might help illuminate the music itself, I think this is a fair topic for discussion. Right now I don't have much to add to the discussion except that I don't think "Theologians" is anti-religious; I think it objects instead to the arrogance of men who claim to speak for God. It resists the notion of one-size-fits-all spirituality, observing that our spiritual lives are too personal and too complex to reduce to a canned experience. In fact, to the degree that it expresses belief in a supernatural plane, it might be said to endorse spirituality.

The Brewers have exactly 1 division title and 1 postseason appearance in their history (1982). Since 1982, the Brewers have had only 5 winning seasons, with the nadir being 106 losses in 2002. In comparison, since 1982, the Rangers have had 10 winning seasons, 4 division titles, and 3 postseason appearances. And they have never lost 106 games in a season, unless you count the 1963 Washington Senators. That's certainly an impressive record of futility, yes--I feel for ya--but, alas, no match for the Brew Crew.

Huh. I tracked it down many years ago because all I ever heard were good things. I thought it was okay.

Here in Milwaukee, we have a different idea of what a true "stretch of futility" actually looks like.

Not much time lately, but today I managed to see a handful of '30s short films by George Marshall, all in a series of broad slapstick comedies starring Zasu Pitts and Thelma Todd. I also watched several mid-period shorts by Jan Svankmajer. The best of the bunch was probably Food, a very funny bit of surrealism that features two men in a restaurant being ignored by their waiter. Eventually they start nibbling at the table flowers, and soon they are devouring everything in sight, gulping down shoes, chairs, utensils, and even flesh. I read it as a metaphor for mankind's capacity for ravenou

I agree with everything above, and will add that an artist's turn inward may indeed be a response to what's happening externally, which therefore can be interpreted as a political act.

Yeah, "House of Cards" is the one I can't stop listening to. It's terrific.

When people complain about the evils of religion, what they're really complaining about is man's inevitable corruption of faith. It's tempting to say that, in the aggregate, organized religion (a man-made creation) probably has done more harm than good--what with all the war, bigotry, intolerance, and repression--but it's impossible to truly quantify. It's probably safer to say, though, that individualized, personal spirituality has added immeasurable good to the world. Those two distinct sides of faith should not be confused.

I like it when rock bands don't bother with what other people think they are "supposed" to do.

Those activities will disrupt the industries that currently stabilize our economy--and honestly, I don't care if we annihilate the planet, as long as I can wear cheap Nikes while it happens.

I'll admit that I love Field of Dreams. Yes, it's totally hokey--but in the best possible sense.

That's a classic--I think you'll like it a lot. Just finished: No great shakes, but quite amusing.

Speaking of Murnau, the Criterion forum was recently talking about the possible discovery of a lost Murnau film. It's a pretty good read.

I kid you not, I know at least two college-educated people who believe Stephen Colbert is a real pundit--and they think he's the best thing since, well, Ann Coulter. What does it say about "real" commentators (and their followers) when a cartoonish parody is indistinguishable from the real thing?