But with only a few changes in dialogue, these themes can be eliminated; let’s go chronologically through the movie:

In the scene where Lord Yuba talks with Nausicaä’s dad King Jihli, the prescient old crone Obaba recites a prophecy:

“After a thousand years of darkness, he will come, clad in blue and surrounded by fields of gold, to restore mankind’s connection with the earth that was destroyed.”

Just change that line to:

“After a thousand years of darkness, he will come, clad in blue and surrounded by fields of gold, to rescue mankind.”

In the scene where Lord Yuba finds Nausicaä in her secret room, Nausicaä says:

“But I don’t understand who could’ve polluted the entire earth.”

Eliminate that line, or change it to:

“But I don’t understand what could’ve polluted the entire earth.”

In the same scene, Nausicaä goes on to say:

“I had no idea my rage could drive me to kill. No more killing. It has to stop.”

This line should be eliminated.

(Alternatively, if you want to change Nausicaä from a flat character to a round one, you can leave this line in but later have her say something like: “I realize now that not all killing is wrong. Sometimes circumstances force our hand.”)

During the first dogfight scene, Nausicaä says:

“Stop it! All this killing must stop!”

Eliminate this line.

In the scene with Nausicaä and Asbel beneath the Toxic Jungle, Nausicaä says:

“The trees of the Toxic Jungle must’ve evolved to purify the earth of all the pollution that we humans have made.”

Change to:

“The trees of the Toxic Jungle must’ve evolved to purify the earth of the pollution.”

In the scene at the Pejite capitol, Nausicaä says:

“Every one of us relies on water from the wells because mankind has polluted all the lakes and rivers.”

Change to:

“Every one of us relies on water from the wells because all the lakes and rivers are polluted.”

Referring to the Toxic Jungle (home of the ohm), Nausicaä goes on to say:

“The insects are guarding it so that we won’t pollute the world again.”

Change to:

“The insects are guarding it so that it doesn’t become polluted.”

In the scene where the people of the Valley of the Wind await the dreaded ohm stampede, Obaba says:

“The anger of the ohm reflects the anger of the earth. The earth knows it’s wrong for us to survive.”

Change to:

“The anger of the ohm reflects the anger of God. God knows it’s wrong for us to survive.”

Or if you want to take out the reference to God:

“The ohm are angry. It’s wrong for us to survive.”

And there you have it. With those dialogue changes, the movie is much improved!

--Swordfish

Last modified Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:24 PM PDT

Self-esteem, narcissism and common sense

By: RICHARD KIRK - For the North County Times

Radio talk-show host Dennis Prager has a useful rule of thumb for judging studies: Either they confirm common sense or they're wrong. The recently released study on narcissism, led by San Diego State psychology professor Jean Twenge, falls in the first category.

Rest of the article here

Think about it the next time someone complains that the rich people get the lion's share of a tax cut.

 Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

 Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

 The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
 The fifth would pay $1.
 The sixth would pay $3.
 The seventh would pay $7.
 The eighth would pay $12.
 The ninth would pay $18.
 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

 So, that's what they decided to do.

 The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
 But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
 They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
 So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 And so:

 The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
 The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
 The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
 The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
 The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
 The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

 "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

 "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

 "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

 "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

 The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

 And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
 Professor of Economics
 University of Georgia

One scene one might consider liberal, or at least “non conservative”: Toward the end of the novel, hero Alex Rider, 14, is escaping from the villains’ compound and has only a short time to warn the authorities about a dastardly plot to kill thousands of innocent people all over England.

Alex (who can drive) sees a jeep he can commandeer. The guard is looking the other way. Alex happens to have a harpoon.

Which leads to this excerpt which I consider too “liberal” for my taste: “But Alex knew he couldn’t do it. Whatever Alan Blunt [Alex’s spymaster boss] and MI6 wanted to turn him into, he wasn’t ready to shoot in cold blood. Not for his country. Not even to save his own life.”

--Swordfish