• A few weeks ago I bought some uber-special DVD edition of “To Kill A Mockingbird,” and last night I finally got around to watching it. I read the book in high school and don’t remember much of what happened (it was a school assignment after all), but I watched the movie a few years later and absolutely loved it. I haven’t seen the film again since 1995, but when I was at Best Buy in early January of this year I saw this DVD marked down from $29.99 to $9.99 and felt an impulse. I think there was a clerical error regarding its price because I didn’t see this special advertised in Best Buy’s weekly circular, and when I had the movie scanned the retail price of $29.99 remained the same. However, after showing a clerk that this was indeed the advertised price (and the price was for this edition and not some crappy bare-bones DVD; I make sure to check these things out before going to the register), they marked it down for me.

As I watched this film again last night, I was still impressed with it after 10 years from my previous viewing. I can’t explain why I like this movie so much: there’s no CGI, no real profanity besides the “n” word being said a few times (which was necessary because I doubt those rednecks saying “African-American” would have been all that believable), there was no T&A outside of Scout wearing a dress that revealed her knees, and, worst of all, it was shot in black and white. I guess when you’re watching a good movie you don’t need all of those additional features, which is why I’m sure a lot of movies nowadays have to have these “enhancements.”

After watching this movie, I remembered that hippie list the American Film Institute released a few years ago rating the greatest heroes and villains of the silver screen. Since Atticus Finch was the top person for the hero list (it figures Hollywood would consider a lawyer a hero), I decided to check out that list one more time.

Whenever a list like this comes out, it’s pointless to do any real debate. Oh my God, James Bond is below Indiana Jones! Why is Charlton Heston’s Moses ranked so low? – Damn you liberal media! I will say though that’s it’s funny Han Solo cracked the 14 spot and Luke Skywalker didn’t make the Top 50 (I can’t remember if he was in the 51-100 group).

However, over in the villains section, there is something that I question: I still don’t get how the shark from “Jaws” is a villain. He was a just a fish swimming around looking for food. If anything the real villains of this film are the executives who gave the green light for those godawful sequels: I don’t think there is such a drop-off in quality for a series from the first film to the most recent sequel than the "Jaws" franchise. To make matters worse, I remember as a kid watching “Jaws: The Revenge” in the theater and wondering how the shark knew to swim down the Eastern Seaboard and find Ellen Brody after she left her New England home and went to the Bahamas.

• Cindy Sheehan is threatening to run against Diane Feinstein for her Senate seat if Feinstein doesn’t come out more strongly against the war in Iraq. Man, if this happens it will sure make her look like a moderate to the voters. Wait a second, who would look more like the moderate in California– Sheehan or Feinstein?

• So now the first year of college is the "riskiest." Riskiest? Give me a break. The first year of serving in Iraq is “risky.” The first year of fighting cancer is “risky.” The first year of going to a college isn’t. Yeah, that keg party just jumped out of nowhere and that steady stream of alcohol just happened to pour down Johnny’s throat while he were sleeping. Now there is a risk of catching bacterial meningitis or some other condition due to living in close quarters with many people, which is a part of dorm life, but most of the problems college students have that involve "risky behavior" are self-inflicted. Save me the sob story for someone who deserves pity. Not some 18-year-old idiot who got drunk and jumped off a roof.

• Well, it turns out former independent prosecutor Ken Starr might now get invited to a few cocktail parties around California's social scene. Starr has contacted Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding the upcoming execution of Michael Morales, who raped and murdered a 17-year-old girl back in 1981. Starr wants Morales to receive clemency. Now you may be asking yourself why would Starr want to grant mercy to this confessed murderer: Was there a last-minute eyewitness to refute the prosecution’s side of the story? Was there some new DNA evidence that puts some doubt as to Morales’ guilt? Of course not. Morales said he's sorry.

But that's not all. Another person trying to spare Morales' life is Judge Charles McGrath, who first sentenced Morales to death row. The judge now says he doesn't believe the testimony of jailhouse informant Bruce Samuelson, who said that Morales boasted of his assault and made obscene and derogatory references toward his victim. Says the judge, "New information has emerged to show the evidence upon which I relied in sentencing Mr. Morales to death - Mr. Samuelson's testimony - is false."

So Morales saying mean things about his victim was your deciding factor in whether or not he deserved the death penalty? I think that says more about you, judge, than it does about the so-called unreliable testimony.