I don't know about all you guys, but when I read other people's blogs or comments, I automatically lose a certain amount of respect for what they write if they obviously don't know the difference between "your" and "you're," "there" and "their," etc...a few typos here and there are fine, but when you consistently do it, it's really annoying IMO.

Seriously, who cares? I'm sure all the "innocent" children could care less what the sexuality of Dumbledore is as IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE STORY LINE, only adults with personal agendas make a big deal about this kind of stuff. I think you're using the "innocence of children should not be betrayed" argument as a front to express your own misgivings about homosexuality ("There is good cause for those of us believing Rowling for whatever reason chose such a self-destructive thing as pronouncing Dumbledore a homosexual succumbing to some inner demon, a moment of temporary insanity if you will."). The innocence isn't being betrayed, no where in the books does she even imply that he is gay. Why does it even matter to anyone that a fictional character is gay? Don't we have better things to think (or worry?) about?

Just because your Ph.D qualifies you to say something doesn't mean that your "professional opinion" is the end all of the discussion. The targeted population will always be entertained by the books because of the great story that is told, that is, unless people like you ruin it by lambasting the author for what she said after the series was finished when it doesn't even have any relevance to the story.

 

Yes you are Samuel, and if you think that deleting my comments will make me and my valid points disputing your writings go away, they won't. You may have the talent of stringing together words in a very eloquent way, but that doesn't make you any better than the rest of us. I don't normally read your stuff, but when I do it's usually to debate other people about how much we disagree. I never mean to personally insult you, but if you consider disagreement or questioning your beliefs a personal attack, well then they aren't going to stop. It's disappointing that you are never willing to debate or discuss your topic. If you want the genuine insults to stop, then don't do stuff like comparing Muslims to cats, Mexicans to slaves, or deeming those who support warning signs on the Kern River as idiots who have no regard for personal responsibility. If you're going to insult other people, then you can't expect to get nice, supportive comments.

It's hard to believe that more than 50% of the people of the Tehachapi area support the addition of a WalMart SuperCenter to the area. It will complete the sellout of the city to big box stores, which started with The Home Depot. Unlike that store though, WalMart will compete with nearly every business in town, and I can't imagine many of them being able to stay in business. Do we really want WalMart to come in, drive everyone out, and turn good ole Tehachapi into a soul-less place, lacking the small town charm that is already endangered? I certainly don't, but it seems inevitable.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned or whatever, but I have a thing against WalMart. It is the largest company in the world by revenue and it got that way by taking avantage of situations like that of Tehachapi. It is the epitome of successful capitalism and free market policy, exactly what the country was built on, but somehow I feel as though WalMart is too good at it's own game, proving that you really can have too much of a good thing. While it's nice to have a place where you can conveniently get a whole day's shopping done at one place for cheap, it's unsettling to walk into one of their stores and realize that a lot, if not most of their clothing is made in the poorest of countries where the workers live on $1.00 a week. It's also unsettling to realize that while it generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and turns at least a ten billion dollar profit, it's employees are paid considerably less than those working similar jobs at other stores and WalMart's health insurance doesn't even cover half of its US work force. Although unions themselves can represent a good idea gone too far, WalMart actively discourages unionization of it's workers so that they might be kept in a low-wage, low-benefit trap. Disturbingly enough this is exactly the philosophy that WalMart was built on, Sam Walton was quoted as saying: "I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, and low-benefit model of employment."

When I walk into a WalMart I feel as though I'm walking into a fake world where everything is generic, bland, and without soul or substance. WalMart to me is brightly burning star that has turned into a black hole, to use a galactical metaphor. It traps the least fortunate of the work force, those that don't have a college education and/or aren't trained in a specific skill, those that need money the most and holds them in a bottomless pit. The workers need money so they get a job at WalMart which then pays them a bare minimum and in turn (with the extra profit made from low wages) employs preditory pricing, thereby virtually ensuring that their own employees' first choice for shopping will be WalMart.

A link to a funny comic, I'd copy and post the image on the blog, but God forbid I violate one of the copywrite laws: http://www.hartfordcrg.org/...