Some lady wrote a review of the Fifth Harry Potter movie, and the people over at Gospelcom linked to it, so I read it. I had to shake my head and laugh. (here it is)

Regardless of her opinion on the entertainment value of the movie, she makes two comments that are quite revealing about her familiarity with the Harry Potter saga:

1. “I think the film could have been stronger, more entertaining, and less bleak, and still remained very true to the original story.”
2. “And Quidditch—what is a Harry Potter story without Quidditch?!?”

As anyone who actually read the book would know (and she implies that she has in the first comment), Harry was banned from Quidditch that year, and thus it didn’t even appear in the book. How can she comment on it’s faithfulness to the book when she obviously hasn’t even read it?!? And if she knew anything about Quidditch, she would know that it’s a quite simple game, we’ve seen enough of it, and putting it into any future Harry Potter books and/or movies would be, quite simply, boring.

Don’t try to be an expert on stuff you know nothing about.

This morning I read an article on MSNBC.com about a girl’s battle to be allowed to wear her virginity ring to a school that has a ban on jewelry. While I commend her commitment to sexual purity, and applaud her desire to stand firm in her convictions, I agree with the court’s decision.

The whole point behind the ban on jewelry, I’m guessing, lies somewhere in having a distraction-free place of education, and keeping people from outwardly flaunting or flashily broadcasting their social, political, and religious views. There are better ways of proclaiming that you’re a christian than wearing a shirt that says “JesUSAaves” (yes, saw one yesterday). The school, as far as I can tell, has not prohibited her from talking to people about her faith or commitments, and to throw a stink about not being granted special privileges to wear this ring is ridiculous.

If the ring was essential to her virginity (ie, if she wasn’t able to remain a virgin without the ring) or if it was dictated by her faith (ie, if her faith demanded that virgins wear a ring), I would consider it necessary that she be allowed to wear the ring—and I’m guessing that the court might be as well.

The bottom line is that no one else is allowed to wear jewelry as a means to express anything about themselves. Why should she?

Another thought on the “True Love Waits” movement.

Welcome to the world of double standards.

Recently in Canton, OH, Bobby Cutts Jr. was arrested for the June 14 murder of his girlfriend. The charges brought against him? Two counts of murder. I agree with the charges–she was 9 months pregnant at the time of the murder, and therefore the crime involved the killing of both Jessie Davis and her unborn child.

The case, however, brings with it a double standard. If a mother decides to abort her “fetus”, it is not murder, and in many cases she can do this with no better reason than person preference, usually up until “viability” (around the 24th week). After that point, abortions become less common, yet are still performed–and not always just to save the life of the mother.

There’s little question about the second murder charge in this case, but what would the outcome have been if the pregnancy was in the second trimester? How about the first? The fact remains that if this woman hadn’t been murdered, she’d be having a baby next week–how far back do we have to go before it stops being a future baby? If we have to arbitrarily draw the line somewhere, does that mean we’re playing God?