Other Music from a... Different Kitchen

For audiences coming right from a replay of "The Two Towers" DVD this may be just fine, but other moviegoers can expect to be a little perplexed... Why exactly is everyone fighting so hard to preserve a land of hereditary rulers and cranky old guys in dresses?

If the answer isn't immediately clear, it may be because you don't share Tolkien's reverence for the ruling class and implicit belief in the superiority of Northern Europe. Always lurking on the page, it becomes more explicit in this installment, where you can't help but notice the abundance of blue-eyed, fair-skinned heroes fighting off hordes of swarthy brutes.

That's not necessarily an offensive choice in and of itself, or even inappropriate. Tolkien's Middle Earth was always a stand-in for an ancient, homogeneous, pre-Norman England; its whiteness can be a little startling but it's still preferable to those Hollywood movies that, trying to make the Middle Ages relevant, would drag in Sidney Poitier or Morgan Freeman as "the Moor."

But Jackson's movie doesn't ignore other races, or patronize them. It casts them as villains. Why is it, otherwise, that our heroes' latest enemies are said, ominously, to come "from the South," and enter riding elephants and wearing burnooses? Why, then, would Aragorn gives a rousing speech before the climactic battle, telling his troops that they fight for "the West" and all they hold dear? (The Star-Ledger)

The decision by Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi to permit UN weapons inspectors into his country validated the argument that the United States can achieve its strategic international goals using tools other than military force – namely, diplomatic, political and economic pressure. According to the LA Times, "Libya was virtually isolated from the world" because of UN economic sanctions since it orchestrated the Pan Am 103 bombing. Desperate to re-enter the international community, the North African country has been trying for at least 10 years to have those sanctions lifted. And while the developments are certainly positive, they beg a number of questions.

WHY LIBYA AND NOT IRAQ?: President Bush has repeatedly told Americans that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to live up to statements that he would disarm and allow UN inspectors into Iraq (which he did before the war). Yet, the Administration is now telling Americans that we can trust Ghadafi – a man with a similar record of repression, aggression, and disdain for international law, not to mention the fact that while Saddam never attacked the U.S., Ghadafi masterminded the killing of 270 people aboard Pan Am 103. On Friday, two days shy of the 15th anniversary of the airliner bombing, Bush thanked Ghadafi for "his commitment to disclose and dismantle all WMD in his country" – yet failed to explain the disparity between the policy towards Saddam and the Libyan leader.

WHY NOT NORTH KOREA?: Just this weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney exacerbated the North Korean situation, blustering, "I have been charged by the president with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it.'' His comments came at the same time the Administration was using quiet diplomacy and negotiation with the Libyan dictator, begging the question: why the disparity in policies towards the two nations?

"The were wack when they first came out and they are even weaker on the feet of every 35 year old wannabe-17 year old old ad exec..."

"Yeah because I'm out here trying to get shows and a lot of these dudes are taking my money you understand? It's like a lot of these cats are taking my money. The Ugly Ducklings, Atmosphere, Aesop Rock, and all this shit that I ain't even heard of. I guess it's a lot of these young kids that always be on the computer that are into these MC's and these groups that kinda represent and look like them. When I hear these niggaz music I be like "damn that's horrible man." This shit is straight garbage."

Among poll respondents interviewed Monday and Tuesday, 63 percent said they approved of Bush's job performance, while 34 percent disapproved. The approval rating is Bush's highest since June and is a significant gain over his rating of 50 percent a month ago.

By contrast, in a poll done Thursday to Saturday, before news of the capture broke, Bush's approval was 54 percent, with 43 percent expressing disapproval.

The poll also showed that Americans are increasingly supportive of, and optimistic about, the U.S. effort in Iraq.

About six out of 10 respondents said it was worth going to war. A majority also think Bush has a clear plan for Iraq and that the war has made the United States safer from terrorism. (CNN.com)

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.

"The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." (CNN.com)

"The president boldly proposed a "forward strategy of freedom" for the Middle East: A new U.S. policy of persistent, pushy pluralism that would become the Middle East's agent of change and a harbinger of peace and prosperity for the region's people.

This great endeavor has started in Iraq, but it should not - must not - end there. Our security, and that of the free world, depends upon it.

"If we succeed in transforming the cradle of civilization, a tidal wave of freedom will wash over the Middle East." (The Heritage Foundation)

As Iranian Elections Approach, Voters Lose Faith in the Reformers (New York Times).

Iraqi Leaders Say U.S. Was Warned of Disorder After Hussein, but Little Was Done (New York Times).