These dances and this kind of music can be destructive.

While I'm on the subject of religion-gone-wacky I'd point you towards Ratzinger's latest example of stupidity.

Pope Benedict XVI strongly criticized modern-day atheism in a major document released today, saying it had led to some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known to mankind.

Uh-huh. Because it was atheists who flew those buildings into the Twin Towers. It was an atheist President who saw it as his moral duty, ordained by God, to invade Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's atheists who deny the importance of stem-cell research or the human contributions of global warming or the dignity of women or who refuse to acknowledge that the advancement of science can indeed ease human suffering.

Jackass.

Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, although he acknowledges that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time.

This is going to sound trite but it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that a former Hitler Youth has a problem with Marxism. I write this only to point out that maybe, just maybe, his moral objections to Marxism have a longer, more personal history than Ratzinger's ordination so many years ago.

As for lumping Nazism in with Marxism I have no doubt that Hitler was an atheist but I would like to point once again how much he co-opted Christianity into the Nazi state. (See here.)

Update- More religious craziness. Whether it's a blasphemous book, movie or name for a teddy-bear the faithful certainly do a good job of getting in every one's face when they don't fall into line.

Um... Evolution?

If you've been following the drama of Teddy Bear Trial of a British national in Sudan then you may be wondering as I am why any sane person would consider religion, any religion, a reasonable framework to hang one's moral framework. Whether it's naming a stuffed animal after a prophet or insisting that the ten commandments belong in civil courtrooms the commonality of insensitivity to the broader society they inhabit shared by many people of faith is undeniable. Is there really that much difference between the office clerk in Sudan that ratted out this poor British teacher or the fundamentalist nutjob in Kansas that insists evolution is controversial?

A pox on all their houses.

Hey laddyyyy!

Issue #423 as to why we should tell Senator Clinton to take a flying leap: She suggests she'd nominate Colin Powell as an Ambassador to "restore the reputation of the United States."

Oy.

There was a time when I found the idea of such bipartisanship appealing. We're all Americans, after all. That was view was completely naive obviously.

Powell was the king of playing the coy, non-partisan soldier before the 2000 election. Then he joined the Bush team after Bush "won" office and the rest is history. He can pretend now that he was misled. He can say the intelligence was wrong even though we know the intelligence team at State had it exactly right. He can pretend he was just being a good soldier in serving the Commander in Chief. None of that matters. None of it.

When it became clear publicly that there were no WMD and that, under the best of circumstances, the administration took us to war for the wrong reasons, the honorable thing for Powell to do in that situation would've been to draw an "X" on his chest and pull a General Tojo.

Powell has the blood of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis on his hands and he's never apologized. Never.

I know that in the fantasy world of Washington Powell is still considered to be some sort of hero because he resigned long after the point he could have actually done anything and where it would cause the least political damage to our Boy King, but Powell is nothing but a dishonorable toady to an incompetent administration. His legacy is lying dramatically to the United Nations. Period.

It says a hell of lot about Clinton that she would even float this nonsense. I'm all for bipartisanship but anyone that had anything to do with this administration should be automatically disqualified. Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. are just too stupid or too incompetent or both to be involved on any level with our government in the future. The stakes are just too important.

Look at me - underestimated from Day One. You'd never think I was a master of the universe, now, would you?

With regards to Cheney's irregular heartbeat just a couple of thoughts-

+ If, God forbid, something happens to Cheney does Bush become President?

+ I would recommend to any parents of small children in the D.C. area that they keep a close eye on their kids in the next couple of days. If Cheney's condition is serious he'll have to sacrifice something more important than a goat to the Dark Lord in order to keep his ticker going.

+ Could this just be Presidential politics? Cheney steps down and Bush puts Giuliani in office so he's got the inside track in the election?

And he, he himself, the Grinch, carved the roast beast.

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Me - I had a ton of fun playing RPGs with Swinebread and Overdroid. One character mostly insane and the other sacrificed to save the world. Woohoo!

I saw a couple of flicks and thoroughly enjoyed both despite the fact they were worlds apart. "The Mist" was a brave horror film on a lot of levels as it had a LOT of talking and character development but what really sets it apart from current big stream horror was a cynical, kick you squarely in the nuts ending that echoed "The Illustrated Man" from years ago.

But the film I absolutely LOVED was "Enchanted." I'm serious. The thing has a strong "Princess Bride" vibe to it with lots of plays on Disney storytelling and faerie tales. Very funny, happy movie that's a lot better than the trailers make it look.

I don't know about you but I'm turkey'ed out. Bring on the Christmas Roast Beast!

Wormer.

He's right. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

When I add this to Barack Obama's inability to take a strong stand, silly "moderate" positioning on issues like homosexuality (Centrism means taking a position somewhere in the middle between the view that gays are functioning members of society and those that think that gays are evil and must die now) and lack of progressive street cred I have to say there is no way in hell I'd support the guy.

Space exploration, which accounts for about half of 1% of the general budget, should not even be on the table when it comes to cutting spending or changing priorities. Finding and facing a challenge is in our fundamental make-up as a species, not to mention our identity as a nation. The problem is that those without imagination (i.e. conservatives) continue to try and create challenges in pushing for war and creating enemies whether it's the USSR* or Islamofascists.

We need leaders with the foresight to recognize this and the courage to inspire us to face the challenges of saving our environment, fighting hunger and poverty, curing fucking cancer and, yes; exploring the unknown in space and the world's oceans. We need leaders that recognize we're wasting resources in fighting false challenges (Space Shield, anyone?) and that the defense budget should be the first place we look when when we need to tighten our belt. Obama is not such a leader.

This guy was---




(*I am not arguing that the USSR was not a real threat to the security of the United States and western Europe but only that the response in terms of dollars spent on defense was disproportionate to the extent of that threat.)

So laying eggs all your life and then getting plucked, stuffed and roasted is good enough for you, is it?

Before I type out what's about to follow let me get this out of the way - I love my animals, particularly my dogs.

Having said that -

Ingrid Newkirk of Peta is a scumbag.

Yes, PETA has done some great things in ending the use of animal testing in cosmetics but Newkirk herself is clearly a person of which the elevator doesn't reach the top floor.

I've disliked Newkirk for a long time. In college I wrote a letter to the school paper attacking Newkirk for her idiotic statement "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses." In keeping with Newkirk's inanity I sarcastically compared Hitler to Colonel Sanders. I'm proud to say that my letter was one of the top 10 most despised letters to the editor that year. It was Eugene, after all.

Of course years later Newkirk and Peta elevated the concept of comparing the holocaust to the meat industry to an even more unimaginable level of absurdity in their Holocaust on your Plate campaign. Peta's faux-surprise at the predictable outrage that resulted just demonstrated once again that their organization seems to be largely composed of those that are only capable of empathy towards animals but, when it comes to their fellow humans, they could care less.

Call it species-ism, call it prejudice against animals, call it whatever you choose but I simply refuse to identify with the Newkirk and the people that make-up Peta. I am very much a Humanist. My sympathy towards PEOPLE informs and motivates my progressive politics. I would love to live in a world where the biggest issue we faced was the conditions of broiler chickens on their path to the table. That would be a world where every child was fed, armed conflict was a thing of the past and we weren't destroying the environment. Until that time Newkirk can bugger off.

If God had wanted us to fly he wouldn't have taken away our wings.

Bad luck for the Ducks. There wasn't a person following this team that wouldn't admit that Dixon was the thing keeping them going. Once he went down their season was pretty much over.

Sigh.

Maybe next year...

There you are, right back in the jungle again.

Kung Fu Monkey has done some terrific stuff on the screenwriter's strike (he's a screenwriter himself) but I'm really of fond of this latest post because he tears apart not just the giant production companies that are jobbing writers regularly but the libertarian rubes that support them.

This is where I'm always amused at libertarians, because they so love markets but never seem to understand how business actually works. If you, my fine libertarian friend, decide to forego the union and negotiate your own contract vis a vis residuals (or pretty much anything else), you will find that unless you are one of the maybe eight out of 12,0000 most famous and profitable writers in Hollywood, you will get exactly the same deal from each studio, or slightly worse. Because what possible motivation would they have to share their profits, relative to each of the other five competitors? That's just common sense.

Asking why writers don't just go start a new United Artists instead of negotiating for a fair residual on new media is like asking why autoworkers, if unhappy with their current contracts, don't just go start their own car companies. Sure, some of us are actually trying -- did anybody notice, in my posts on the pilot, any mention of a studio? -- but what the hell are the rank and file writer supposed to do in the meantime? And how does the remote possibility this could be done in any way justify the AMPTP's position, that they will reuse our material for free for the foreseeable future? And AGAIN, people, try to be clear on this -- we have intellectual property rights on this material. If you believe authors and songwriters should get royalties, then you believe screenwriters should get residuals. Period.

One of the odd things about libertarianism is it can include some of the smartest people on the planet who, at the same time, can also embody an almost child-like naivete about how business works. Free-markets left to their own devices without the interference of the state do not remain free as businesses tend to naturally consolidate. Free markets don't remain that way for long.

Anyhoo - it's hard to think of what we can do to support the screenwriters other than sign a petition.

Who can deny the snazzy of that?

Don't forget to watch Overdroid on "Rules of Engagement" at 9:30 on CBS. Word on the set is that he was quite the Diva...