Wednesday, May 09, 2007

How come…

those that cry loudest about “separation of church and state” have no problem with the church interfering with the state’s prerogatives when it suits their political purposes?

These people who want the churches permanently muzzled when it comes to expressing such values as “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” and whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to get married, think that some churches should be allowed - nay required - to interfere with governmental policy regarding immigration, by giving those individuals who have been ignoring Federal Law for years “Sanctuary” because those years of flouting the Law have now progressed to the point of them finally facing deportation.

The whole argument in their favor seems to be something along the lines of “we shouldn’t be separating families”, yet they won’t accept the obvious solution of “deporting the entire family”.

Look, I’m all for immigration. This country was founded on immigrants - people who left their home nations to make a better lives for themselves and their families.

The difference between what was going on then, and what is going on now is the word that most of the “Immigration Reform” backers refuse to use - “illegal”.

That’s the sticking point. I have no problem with millions of Mexicans wanting to come here because much of Mexico is a slum and a shithole, with corrupt governments, a thuggish police force, and an economy that rivals that of your local Boy Scout troop…

But why don’t they stick around and try to fix those problems? Why do they feel their only solution is to violate the rules of the rich next-door neighbor and sneak in the basement window? Why can’t they just file the paperwork and get permission?

This is a great country, with lots of room for opportunity and advancement based on one’s own merit and abilities. But if you wanna live here like the rest of us, you gotta ask nicely and follow the rules.

Just like the rest of us.

All kinds of hidden things

in the Harry Potter books.

Maybe the author intended it, or maybe I’m just reading too much into it…

Not necessarily the movie versions, because they have to have some editing and cutting of explanations and exposition that is available to the print versions. Although now that I think of it, it is required in the book versions - the author needs to visually describe a scene that can be captured at a glance in the movie version. Picture worth a thousand words, and all that…

But as I explained the other day, I’m going through the (unexpurgated) audio versions - delightfully read by Jim Dale; if you get a chance to listen, you should, especially if you’re a fan. And I just got to the first climax scene in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - where Harry’s name has just unexpectedly popped out of the Goblet during the banquet.

And I noticed something: the four “champions” are still basically representing the four Houses of Hogworts. The Beauxbatons students are sharing the Ravenclaw table, the Durmstrang crowd are (obviously) hanging out with the Slytherins, the Hogworts champion (Cedric Diggory) is from Hufflepuff, and we all know that poor Harry comes from Gryffindor.

I would also recommend (if you’re a fan) the highly amusing, but completely Unauthorized, book that I just found yesterday at the nearby book store. Written by Adam-Troy Castro, the title is “The Unauthorized Harry Potter: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Harry Potter Series”, and he addresses such intriguing questions as “Why doesn’t Hogworts have a gymnasium?”, “Has Dumbledore ever been right about anything?”, and “Why don’t we see more of Hermione’s parents?”, while still managing to bring teh funnay.

One bit had me laughing so hard, I startled my mother-in-law, who was watching Jeopardy…

Spoilers after the jump!

You have been warned…