Wil, I've always enjoyed your blog; to me it's really interesting to read your thoughts about whatever it is you're writing about, as you have both writing skills and interesting opinions. That being said, I'm not much for these fancy Web 2.0 doohickeys like Twitter and Tumblr. Twitter posts are fragments of thoughts with no room for explanation, elaboration, description, all the other fancy writer-y things that you're quite good at. While I totally support you in the future if you do decide to stop blogging entirely, I have to say that it's a shame. Your fleshed-out, expanded thoughts are much more interesting than 140 character tidbits.

I would like to recommend Underground as well. I actually got my hands on a physical copy a few years ago, it's an amazing book.

Wil, you pretty much influenced me to see Juno...thank you. I probably never would have seen it otherwise; this post was the first thing that came to mind when a female friend called me up and asked if I wanted to go with her to see it. It's an amazing movie.

Wil: Voting Republican is not so much voting for a chef that hates his food so much as voting for a chef that knows his own limitations. Well...it ought to be a vote for limitations, anyway, but in this day and age the Republican party has lost sight of its principles. I suspect that I'm considerably further right than you are, with my libertarianism and all, but I still would have voted for Obama if I wasn't stuck in the super-late-primary state of Indiana. He's the only candidate who matches up with enough of my policy preferences for me to like, and he's very charismatic.

I'm amazingly glad to see my two favorite blogs converging like this. I have to say that your characterization of libertarians is slightly outdated, Wil, though there are certainly enough ultraconservative gun nuts that call themselves libertarians to make it confusing. I pretty much see libertarianism as a fusion of the best parts of conservatism and liberalism: freedom of action and freedom of markets. It's just a shame that both major parties have half of it right but have some truly terrible policies that go in the other direction.

I have to go against the mold and say that I really enjoyed Spider-Man 3. Yes, Sandman should have been left out in favor of focusing on Goblin and especially on Venom, who was seriously underdeveloped, but his presence wasn't the grievous flaw that it's being made out to be. It's really more "comic-y" than the past two, besides a couple of the "cry over MJ" scenes that are slightly out of place. Just to put things in perspective though, I'm more of a Picard person than a Kirk person; "too much talking" has never bothered me. The comedy was mostly well done; Jameson is funny, though slightly underplayed this time around, and "Emo/Lady's Man" Peter was hilarious though overly prolonged. I have to admit that I'm apparently a lot less critical of the movies that I watch than either your average movie fan (as opposed to average moviegoer, which is an entirely different story) or your average blogger. I just don't have the knack for the nitpicking. If you're willing to leave your Enchanted Pants of the Movie Critic +3 in your closet, something which a lot of people on the internet have trouble with, you should really enjoy Spider-Man 3.