Amy and I were talking about child-beatings the other night. As someone who was beaten as a child, I do not think that it's such a big deal that parents sometimes hit their children. I grew up fine, my parents grew up fine, and their parents grew up fine. Plenty of mammals use violence to teach and demonstrate proper social conduct. This may be nostalgia talking but it feels like people were more principled back when violence had a place in one's upbringing. I believe it was Robert Heinlein who said that an armed society fosters a polite society because people mind their manners when they have to back up their actions with their life. I think the same could be applied to a society that tolerates violence. This does not mean I am for child-abuse. I mean that there is a line between discipline and abuse, and the fact that our generation is growing up without distinguishing that line, the fact that we are categorizing all physicality as abuse does our children no service. But just as there is no good in giving up pain as a teaching tool, we must also remember too much does no good either. I will not be beating my children because I understand that using violence in everyday child-raising desensitizes the child and renders the method ineffective. But I will never be above the threat of violence. The proverbial foot in the ass, when used sparingly, is a very good motivator.

Amy feels very differently. She is very deeply against any type of violence against children, touting the many videos she has seen where violent offenders direct the blame for their crimes to beatings by their parents. She is unconvinced even after I point out that if the woman who is in jail for beating her child to death only did it because her parents beat her, then why did the abuser's parents not beat her to death? Why did my parents not beat me to death when their parents beat them? Why were generations of good people able to be such good people even though they had to take licks as children?

We sat on our bed that night, our discussion at an impasse, with her bewildered at my supposed callousness and me trying to understand why she refused to yield, when she told me that it wasn't fair children were being hurt, that there *are* so many good people in the world and none of those good people deserve physical pain. This is why she wants to become a social worker, this is why she wants to help - because the world is unjust and she needs to correct that. I do not know if justice has anything to do with discipline, but I understood then why she could not yield to me. I understood that for Amy this was about the human condition, and how her place in it made sense. My sincere, but casual remark about my upbringing unwittingly attacked that place, and indirectly I had attacked her.

The only reply I could think of to what she said to me was that I know she would be a great social worker. This I believe is true. I love you, Amy Coble.

HARRY POTTER IS JESUS!

What is up with contemporary culture's fascination with resurrection? Yes, I finally read it. It is less amusing than Mightygodking's review, but it's also less creepy than he made it out to be. I think he just hates Ron.

I haven't read any Alan Moore comics besides Watchmen, so I cannot comment on his life's work. I can say that Watchmen is honest, that besides a couple of larger-than-life relishes it has a voice grounded in reality. I do not doubt that it was genre-breaking when it first came out. It is poetic, philosophical, and slightly raw. But I never warmed up to the ending. Ozymandias' plan exposes him not as the smartest man in the world, but as the most short-sighted sociopath in the world. That's all fine and well, but to have all of the other heroes (except one) yield to him as easily as they do points to the then 34 year old Moore as a slightly cynical (and perhaps wee bit short-sighted sociopathic) writer. I mean honestly, even without Rorschach's journal how long could they expect peace to last - 10 years, 15 years? It wouldn't take very long before the nations of Earth ask, so when the hell are the aliens going to attack? What then? Does Ozymandias commit another genocide to keep the fear going? It should only take the other heroes ten minutes to come to this conclusion and expose him. If Adrian's goal is to unite the world, then unite the world against him. Wage war on the frigid plains of Antarctica, and unleash nukes on the uninhabitable wasteland. That would be a smarter plan, and kill far fewer people over a longer timeline.

This is why I prefer Snyder's ending for the Watchmen movie. Dr. Manhattan is a real "threat". The fact that he implicitly takes responsibility for the millions who die makes the the threat significant. The premise is still flawed, but at least with a real face put on it, Ozymandias' peace has a chance to last longer than the initial hysteria. I enjoy the movie, I think it is physically as close to the comic book as a live-action movie can get. In fact, it is so close that it pretty much alienates the American movie-goer public, what with the movie being a convoluted action-drama that is way too long and try to do way too much. It's fairly obvious the editing team knew this, and they compensated by strategically placing over-the-top gratuitous violence & sex in twenty minute intervals throughout the movie. Don't get me wrong, it is enjoyable. But since the story is lifted page by page from a comic book, the conversion to a new medium makes it an awkward red-headed stepchild of cinema. If you have not read the comic book, it is best if you just pretend the film is a glorious montage of action and copulation with slightly campy dialogue. And ignore the ending because no, it makes no sense.

That being said, I am sad to point out that Snyder and team did not "get" the Watchmen. The story is about ordinary people putting themselves in impossible situations and failing because of their very human limitations. It is a celebration of the vulnerabilities of human life, of learning, loving, tragedy, and acceptance. This story has more in common with Shindler's List than it does with 300. But in their flawed vision, Snyder, Hayter and Tze lifts the characters up from their mortal place in the comic book up to a larger than life position to (ironically) fit the mold of the stereotypical superhero. Seriously - the Night Owl punching bone out of an arm? That is so excessive.

And what the hell is up with Patrick Wilson toward the end of the movie? I know he was close with the writers but to write him into Rorschach's death with an over-the-top Darth Vader "No!!!!!"? It took away so much from the poetry of the death. It made me lol in what should've been the sombre and symbolic death of Justice.

To sum it all up, if you haven't read the graphic novel, go see it because it's action packed and no worse than Schwarzenegger films. And if you find yourself curious about the comic book afterwards, go read it. You'll thank me. If you have read the graphic novel, go see it because it will stroke your fanboy/fangirl epeen to full mass. And if you're Alan Moore, well you were right; it's better that you stay away from it.