Deus X Makina

RUSSERT: "Senator Clinton, this is the number three man in Al Qaida. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?"

CLINTON: "You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period...".

RUSSERT: "The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you."

CLINTON: "Well, he's not standing here right now."

-- Dartmouth Democratic Debate, 9/26/2007

This is the problem with the Democratic Party. Beyond far-left organizations like MoveOn.org speaking for everyone in unfathomably poor taste, it's comments like this. Someone, somewhere, said to the candidates, "People want to hear that you don't support torture. They don't like it, no matter what the circumstances." And then the candidates let moderators and Republicans walk them down scenarios in which any rational human being would resort to such methods, and they keep to the party line. This is why we get our asses kicked. Let me give you the appropriate response to Tim Russert in this situation.

The Correct Response

"What? We know this guy knows where it is? Heck, Tim, you give me the waterboard and I'll do it myself. Of course we use any means necessary to coax the answer out of this guy. Send in Jack Bauer.

The problem with your hypothetical, however, is that we are never certain of what someone knows. The Intelligence community deals in percentages. Often unquantifiable probabilities, such as 'We feel safely certain that this guy knows where the bomb is.' Should we authorize torture then? When we might get something useful, or we might get something he says just to make us stop, which is not exactly out of the realm of possibility, and we waste time and energy running down a false lead? Would more American lives be saved by offerring immunity for his crimes, the everpresent elephant in the room? Well, smart people have examined the issue, and they tell me that, in general, torture doesn't yield reliable results. I believe them.

History has shown us the secret police and the Inquisition, and I think we have the resources and the talent to stop the bombs from going off without violating the Geneva Convention or classifying those who act against us at home or abroad as 'enemy combatants'. And I remain committed to providing our Intelligence community every dime it needs to keep us safe."

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out this weekend, and I happen to find the time to read it. I've put together my thoughts on the last book of the series below, but therein lies major spoilers, so read on at your own risk.

SPOILER ALERT

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a good, but not great, book. It triumphantly announces J.K. Rowling's legacy and yet somehow muffles the feeling you get after reading that, despite some terrific action, there are some rather glaring shortcomings.

• First, what it does best: creation and maintenance of tension. The first action scene, "The Seven Potters", is magnificent. The best action since the battle at the Hall of Mysteries. It still gives me shivers to think what a director will do with this scene in the movie. Fantastic.
  
• The lull, however, cannot be ignored. Rowling sends Harry, Ron, and Hermione off into the wild for the fall and winter, with little direction and no sense of purpose. This usually happens in previous books, but with no Hogwarts schedule to keep them occupied, I was cheering Ron on when he confronted Harry with, "We thought you knew what you were doing!" There needed to be more structure.
  
• The return of so many characters ended up cheapening the ending. Granted, bringing back Dobby, Ollivander, and Griphook at the Malfoy Mansion was great stuff, but at the Battle of Hogwarts, it appears that Ms. Rowling simply woke up one morning and said to herself, "I need to fit every single character I've ever introduced into fifty pages". It's just not possible.
  
• The death toll also grew far beyond what I had expected or what was warranted. As it mounted, I became more and more aware that there was less and less reason to kill these characters. Mad-Eye, fine, but I don't know why you would leave his death open with the absence of his body and not bring him back. Scrimgeour, fine, we needed to put a little more guilt on Harry, sure. Dobby hit me hard, but I loved his sacrifice. After that, however, the list flies through the roof. Fred, Lupin, Tonks, and Colin Creevey serve no purpose whatsoever. None of them move the story in any way possible. George is already maimed, why Fred? Did Rowling really need another orphan in Lupin and Tonks' son? And what, in God's name, had Colin Creevey ever done to anyone? It's senseless to kill these people. We understand the situation is serious. And Hedwig? What the fuck, J.K.? Even Crabbe's death seemed cheap: Ron was cracking jokes two paragraphs later.
  
• The epilogue seems ridiculously short and ill-planned. There is absolutely no mention of anyone's profession! I had long predicted that Harry would end up at Hogwarts, teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts. Neville returning to teach Herbology is a good start, but no daring to put Arthur Weasly as Minister of Magic? To put Ron as a professional Quidditch coach? Anything?
  
• The last two points are the most bothersome for me: the first being the feasibility of it all. In all six books, I only had a problem with one plot point. I simply didn't believe that Barty Crouch Jr. could master Mad-Eye so totally as to fool several old friends of his for an entire year, especially Dumbledore and the accomplished legilimens, Snape. Everything else seemed well-thought out and executed. But in Deathly Hallows, however, some key things come to mind as being near impossible. When did she decide that Parseltongue could be imitated? It's a supernatural gift to wizards, who expend no effort in learning the language. If it can be taught to others, why not teach the whole of Durmstrang? Sure, Ginny used a bit, but she was possessed. Next, are you telling me that Albus' estranged brother, whom no one has talked about in six years at least, was living half a mile from him in an oft-visited location? And that he happened to be looking out his window just in time to see Harry cast a patronus from under his invisibility cloak? Are you sure? Plus, how many Death Eaters did Voldemort rally? He was down to maybe a couple dozen in Order of the Phoenix and and Half-Blood Prince during his attacks, but if he's attacking Hogwarts, it's not exactly like he can Imperius the entire Ministry of Magic, nor simply call on them to do his bidding. He's been recruiting heavily, sure, so figure, what, two hundred Death Eaters, ready to fight? Against over a thousand students, teachers, and others present at Hogwarts? Some of those wizards being, in fact, some of the most gifted wizards in the world. The heads of houses alone (McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout, and Slughorn) would have been devastating. What the Hell would Stan Shunpike have been doing against them? Plus all the castle defenses, which have been touted as better than Gringott's, which we now have first-hand knowledge of how superior those defenses are. Plus a herd of centuars and a horde of house elves? And, lest we forget, no Nagini or Voldemort? Forget it! Hogwarts should have held for days against those odds. And Hagrid stands up for the forest spiders afterAragog has died, and they just haul him off? Come on, Ms. Rowling.
  
• Last, and probably most importantly, what's missing from this book. Harry's Occlumency got tossed out the window. Neville's presence in the prophecy-- What prophecy? Oh, yeah. It got three mentions in the entire book. Dudley's final confession, "You saved my life", gets dropped with "Well, it was your soul really". Ms. Rowling seems to want to cater to the addicts who will dissect every line of the book: it's an emotional moment. Just drop it. Draco's defection, hinted at in his mansion, gets lost in the shuffle. And denying us Harry versus Snape was the most irritating thing she could have done. What would have happened if Harry hadn't been right there to take his pensieve thoughts? No Hagrid versus Snape? No Percy whooping ass after Fred dies in his arms? No reaction from George? Or Bill? Or Charlie? Or Arthur? Just three paragraphs of Molly killing Bellatrix. Thanks. Good thing Neville was tossing plants over a wall somewhere, he might have been interested in exacting revenge on his parents' torturer.

Overall, I find great things in this book, but am disappointed by many things as well. Ranking it among the seven, here's how I put it:

1. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
2. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
4. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
6. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
7. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

DONE!

1. NFL: Chad Johnson's Super Bowl Party, Fantastic cast, Beckham joke extremely funny.
2. Bud Light: Slapping, Great premise, strong finish.
3. Emerald Nuts: Robert Goulet, Goulet a perfect pick, love the epilogue.
4. Nationwide: K-Fed Rollin' VIP, Excellent execution
5. Coca-Cola: Grand Theft Auto, Smart premise, goes a little crazy at the end.
6. Bud Light: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Above average twist, interesting epilogue.
7. FedEx: Don't Judge, Not as good as FedEx's similar commercial a few weeks ago, but still very funny.
8. Sierra Mist: Beard Combover, Much stronger than the other Sierra Mist entries.
9. Bud Light: Hitchhiker, Premise could have gone really bad but AB kept it light.
10. T-Mobile: Dwayne Wade and Charles Barkley, Short, but a good joke.