Want to get into Jon's Mind? I think you do.#

Fat Caterpillar reviews Matrix Revolutions.#

One thing that took me completely by surprise in this movie is that Keanu Reeves does a pretty good job of acting. He's largely been a stunt prop for kung fu in the first two movies, but in this one he has significant amounts of dialogue, and he does a decent job of delivering it.

Unlike Reloaded, I don't think I'll have to see Revolutions again to understand everything that took place. However I feel like I want to see it again, I think I'm subconsciously hoping to see something different in the ending, and to get some more satisfying closure.

Richard Tallent makes a last minute prediction.

I'm probably way off. I'll know soon enough.

Chris Winters is disappointed and points to Deigo's slight modified script that is full of spoilers but funny.

D. Keith Robinson reviews it...

All in all I thought it was ok, but I'm not a big fan of the Matrix universe and had very low expectations. If you're like me and expect the worst you'll probably be pleasantly surprised, if you are expecting something great, don't be surprised if you leave the theatre a bit bummed.

Oh and if you're expecting some great philosophical revelation or some profound message, forget it, it's not there. Thank goodness. Reloaded had me a bit worried on that one.

Tim Jarrett is disappointed that the philosophy wasn't resolved.

Dylan Greene starts a spoiler file, post viewing discussion.

Andrew Bayer thinks that the brothers did a good job at doing something very hard: Ending the Matrix.

Michael Hanscom weighs in.

End result: While neither Matrix: Reloaded nor Matrix: Revolutions are the tour-de-force that The Matrix was, taken as a whole, I think they're a very solid trilogy, and sure to be some of the most talked-about movies for quite a while as people work their way through all the various philosophical, religious, and symbolic threads throughout all three films. That in itself is something of a coup — love them or hate them, they're sure to get people thinking.

Richard writes that girls can be creeps just as well as guys while reading Min Jung.#

The guy Min Jung describes is a bona fide creep, but while reading, however, it's important to keep in mind that there are women who date other guys on the side without telling their boyfriend too. I've been told that this is done out of fear of being alone, which, regardless of its verity, is a bullshit thing to say to a guy like me, since being alone is all I know.

So there's no moral high ground that women, as a whole, can take on this issue. That's because among them, they have their own creeps, although we rarely refer to such women in that way. Min Jung can, however, claim moral high ground in this case, and did: a) for dumping the jerk and b) for not lowering herself to his level by hitting him. "Cor", in the comments is, absolutely wrong for suggesting that Min Jung is "insane - for not hitting him". I'm glad MJ didn't punch the guy. He doesn't deserve the satisfaction.

Richard links to Baccus writing about pornography.#

Bacchus, [...]: "Some women object to porn the way wives object to the idea of prostitutes, and for the same reason: it means they have to use actual sex, rather than their erstwhile monopoly over the possibility of access to sexual stimulus, in order to maintain and enjoy the sexual attention of their men. Women who want to have that attention without having the actual sex for which most men will cheerfully trade it are teases, in all the negative and none of the positive senses of the word."

Richard links to Zimran Ahmed writing about economic preference.#

All else equal, a gain of $10 should be worth as much to you as not losing $10. In practice, losses loom larger than gains, and people prefer to forgo $10 new dollars over paying $10 old dollars out of pocket. People also use mental accounts, so they will create categories for expenditures and ignore the fact that money is fungible across categories. This leads to amusing anecdotes about people risking blizzards to see a play when they bought the ticket, but deciding the drive is not worth it if they were given the tickets as a gift. In standard Chicago school neo-classical economics, none of this should happen.

At Kuro5hin.org is a discussion about market failures in the Free Market.#

The most dangerous thing in this world is rampant idealism. When righteousness, even well-informed and well-meaning righteousness, gets out of control it can do infinitely more damage than the most depraved or bacchanalian acts performed by a cynic or moderate.

We acknowledge this freely in our every day lives, whether we are considering the dangerous idealism of fundamentalist Islamic organizations in the Middle East, of extremist Christian organizations in the Midwest United States or even, to a lesser extent, of organizations such as Greenpeace, the NRA or the FSF.

What we value much more than an idealist with tunnel vision is an intelligent person with a slightly cynical eye who can see the value of the ideals but can also see the many places where an exception might be warranted.

Patrick at Game Girl Advance asks if Disney really is "kiddy"?#

So what does this have to do with Kingdom Hearts and Disney? Well, a portion of the book discusses hidden mythological and religious symbolism in Disney movies. Harvard professor Robert Langdon, the novel's protagonist, cites examples from a number of Disney movies that contain heavy doses of symbolism; however, no film touches on the "sacred feminine," as Langdon puts it, as much as The Little Mermaid. From lead character Ariel's name to her red hair to the painting in her own underwater grotto (which you visit in Kingdom Hearts), the movie is saturated with allusions to the story of Mary Magdalene, who is conjectured by some to have been the wife of Jesus Christ.

Personal religious beliefs aside, that's some pretty serious symbolism for so-called "kiddy" flicks. While recent movies like Toy Story have likely had a greater influence in sculpting Disney's reputation in the minds of today's youth than oldies like Snow White, common misconception toward Disney in general is unfortunate considering its rich history. I recently sat down and watched a Disney movie with my niece and I was surprised by how serious the plot was without seeming serious to a kid. "For the trained symbologist," explains Langdon, "watching an early Disney movie was like being barraged by an avalanche of allusion and metaphor." Richard Schickel, author of The Disney Version, seems to agree, mentioning Walt Disney's knack of subtly including grisly aspects without force-feeding them to the viewer.

Matt Stoller at the Clark Sphere writes about Clark's thoughts on the Confederate Flag.#

Sometimes, there's just a right answer to a burning national question, and that's what Clark's gift really is, the ability to cut through the symbolic nonsense and cut to common interests and shared values. The Confederate Flag is a case in point, and Clark's reaction reflects a basic understanding of how to de-marginalize the South culturally and re-engage it politically. His answer, in fact, is the key to nationalizing the election and remaking American politics.

The General said: "I think it's very important we bring Southern voters to an understanding of differences between the two parties. And that the real differences are not on the sort of culture wars of litmus test issues like guns — I've got a lot of guns in my house, I've been shooting my whole life. The issue is, how do we work together to improve the lives of ordinary Americans." And then he added. "I'm against the divisiveness of the Confederate flag."

The Confederate flag is a symbol of a racist past, but it's also a symbol of a South that feels marginalized and angry at a country that doesn't seem to share its values. When Northerners like Dean or Kerry talk about the flag, they see it as a device to use to pander to Southern whites or African-Americans, but what they don't see is that in using the symbol as a way to appeal to certain demographic groups, they are effectively treating Southerners like pets, throwing them treats or holding out punishments in return for votes. It's like someone being 'pro-cappucino' and using that to woo Northerners - it's condescending and divisive.

Joi Ito continues to discus the Japan Society roundtable.#

Another interesting observation was that when Japan was confident and economically strong, many people were afraid of any addition expansion of the Japanese military. Now with Japan weaker and less confident, people seem to be positive of expanding Japan's role in security.

The issue of why Japan was so different from Germany in acknowledging history and deploy troops in peacekeeping operations was raised. The paradox of Japanese not feeling guilty for the war, yet being pacifist or negative about sending troops was raised. It was noted that this is an old discussion. There were arguments that Japan and Germany were actually very similar and other arguments that they were not. The regional difference of neighboring countries in in Europe urging Germany to participate in peacekeeping in Europe vs. most Asian countries relatively negative about the idea of rearming Japan also played a role.

One opinion about why the Japanese people do not want to expand the military was that the Japanese people did not feel that they could trust the government with addition power and did not like the image of the police state. In fact, they remember the pre-war Japanese police state and also the military being out of control. They feel that politicians and civilians can not control the bureaucracy. I personally feel this way.

At Kuro5hin.org is the European version of the "axis of evil."#

According to this news report, the Europeans have their own version of the "axis of evil." In a poll, European citizens list what they consider are the biggest threats to world peace. Top the list is Israel, followed by the United States, North Korea and Iran jointly in the second place. Other states (including some without statehood right now) behind in the list are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Russia and Somalia.

Israel expresses outrage at this poll and the European governments are trying to play down its significance. But a poll is a poll, and how can Israel object to democratic expressions of the people of Europe?

Julia Grey answers the eternal question, Why girls like jerks.#

The phenomenon of "women going for jerks" is a real one, but there is a very, very important thing missing from the usual understanding of it. It is, I believe, a product of women's enculturated fantasies that jerks really AREN'T jerks down deep in their most hidden souls. The usual La-La Land construct is that jerks are really powerful, confident, and misunderstood men that the Very Special Women Who Truly Love Them can bring into the Light, so that someday the erstwhile jerk will finally appreciate the Unconditional Love that has been lavished upon him so stupidly unstintingly. At which point, of course, he will fall into stunned, eternal adoration of the Very Special Woman who Stood By Him while he was going around being a powerful, confident, misunderstood jerk, world without end, Amen.

Yeah, it's nuts. But you do have to understand some of the vital elements of this scene to understand female sexuality. What turns women on? Novelty and beauty, of course: the new and different, the gorgeous hunk, the intelligent or humorous personality, an air of mystery. Touch, warmth, attention, sensual surroundings, laughter. But above all, most women will say that a man's inherent personal confidence, in and of itself, is a big turn on.