Bill O’Reilly Takes Credit For Low Gas Prices

Ken AshfordRight Wing and Inept MediaLeave a Comment

Sweet Jesus, what a pompous blowhole.  From a Fox News interview with Neil Cavuto, via Think Progress:

O’REILLY: I have guys inside the five major oil companies – my father used to work for one of those oil companies by the way – who have told me that in those meetings they look for every way to jack up oil prices after Katrina, every way, when they didn’t have to. They got scared because of my reporting and reporting of some others. They said, “Uh ho.”

CAVUTO: So wait a minute, you’re not, you’re taking credit for gas prices being down from where they are?

O’REILLY: I said my reporting and some reporting of others. They got scared.

Why The Bush Strategy Isn’t A Strategy At All

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Here’s a section of Bush’s strategy plan for Victory in Iraq (PDF).

This is under the section entitled "The Political Track In Detail".  Key words to that heading are: "…in Detail".

Even with this solid progress, we and our Iraqi partners continue to face multiple challenges in the political sphere, including:

  • Ensuring that those who join the political process leave behind violence entirely;
  • Building national institutions when past divisions and current suspicions have led many Iraqis to look to regional or sectarian bodies to protect their interests;
  • Building political movements based on issues and platforms, instead of identity;
  • Encouraging cooperation across ethnic, religious and tribal divides when many wounds are still fresh and have been exacerbated by recent hardships;
  • Convincing all regional states to welcome and actively support the new Iraqi state politically and financially;
  • Building ministerial capacity to advance effective government and reduce corruption

That may seem like a lot of words (to some), but a laundry list of "challenges" is not the same thing as a "detailed strategy". 

And to prove it, let’s do a thought experiment.  Based on what’s written above, can you answer ANY of the following questions:

(1)  HOW will we go about "ensuring that those who join the political process leave behind violence entirely"?  WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN before this item can be checked off the list?

(2)  HOW will we go about "building national institutions when past divisions and current suspicions have led many Iraqis to look to regional or sectarian bodies to protect their interests"?  WHAT IS MEANT by "national insitutions"?  WHO DECIDES WHEN "past divisions and currents suspicions" are leading Iraqis "to look to regional or sectarian bodies to protect their interests"?  WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN before this item can be checked off the list?

(3)  HOW will we go about "building political movements based on issues and platforms, instead of identity"?  WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE between a political movement based on issues and platforms, and a political movement based on identity (consider the political parties in this country)?  WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN before this item can be checked off the list?

(4)  HOW will we go about "encouraging cooperation across ethnic, religious and tribal divides when many wounds are still fresh and have been exacerbated by recent hardships"?  IN WHAT FORM will this "cooperation" occur?  WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN before this item can be checked off the list?

(5)  HOW will we go about "convincing all regional states to welcome and actively support the new Iraqi state politically and financially"?  WHAT IF THEY WON’T (Are we going to respect their autonomy or simply blow them to bits?)?  WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN before this item can be checked off the list?

(6)  HOW will we go about "building ministerial capacity to advance effective government and reduce corruption"?  WHAT IS MEANT by "ministerial capacity"?  HOW "effective" does the Iraqi government have to be before we can declare this objective complete?  HOW "reduced" does corruption have to be before we can declare this objective complete?

Remember, the foregoing is from the detailed section of the new "strategy document".  The report does not answer ANY of these questions.  It simply moves on to the next topic.

Most of us are going Christmas shopping in the next few weeks.  Maybe some of you even have a specific list of things to purchase.  Do you know how you are going to get those things?  Are you going online?  Are you going to a specific store?  Have you picked a time when to do all this?

If you have answered "yes" to any of those questions, you’ve got a more detailed strategy than this piece of drivel from the White House.

More on Bush’s “Victory In Iraq” Strategy

Ken AshfordIraq, War on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Here’s the real problem with Bush’s "Victory in Iraq" strategy.  We’re supposed to be fighting al Qaeda — they are the bad guys who pose a threat to us.  Where’s the "Victory Against Al Qaeda" plan? 

Sure, the Bush "Victory in Iraq" plan seeks to prevent al Qaeda from establishing a foothold in Iraq, but of course, al Qaeda never HAD a foothold there to begin with.  Talk about a zero-sum game.

And in fact, many generals and experts believe that our efforts in Iraq have resulted in increasing al Qaeda membership, not decreasing it.  And increasing it worldwide.

And while we are focusing on Iraq, Bush’s Iraq strategy does nothing to address getting rid of al Qaeda where it already does exist, which is throughout the world.  As others have said, it’s like obsessing over one square of the chessboard. 

Bush likes to say that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terror, but is it?  What connection did the London subway bombings, the Spain train bombings, the Bali nightblus bombings, or the Jordan wedding bombings have to do with Iraq?  Zip, nada, nothing.  Just like 9/11.

Sadly, it may take another attack on the United States to make many people realize two things: (1) we have all our eggs in one basket; and (2) it’s the wrong basket.  I hope it doesn’t come down to that, but I fear it might.

Bush’s “Victory in Iraq” Strategy (or “Look, If We Built This Giant Wooden Badger….”)

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

I haven’t read it (things are crazy here), but Matt Yglesius has.  It sounds like what I expected: a laundry list of ideal goals, but not an actual plan on how to achieve them.  Here’s Matt:

[I]t’s plain that there’s no actual strategy here. The document calls for "building democratic institutions" and eventually "providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region." But the administration has no idea how to do that stuff. The government is corrupt, the security services, when not totally ineffective, are highly politicized and rather brutal, and there’s simply no consensus in Iraq about the basic legitimacy of the state. I don’t blame the White House for not devising a ten point plan to resolve those problems — they simply can’t be resolved — but I do blame them, a lot, for their determination to waste more blood and treasure in a situation where they’re hopelessly adrift. The "longer term" goals, meanwhile, are just idiotic:

An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.

An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

That would be nice, I guess, but Iraq can’t both be a sovereign country and have its long-term policies determined in Washington. What if Iraq doesn’t want to be a partner in the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? How is Iraq supposed to be united if Iraq’s Kurdish population doesn’t want it to be united? How are we supposed to force Iraq’s rulers to govern the country "justly?" And most of all, what about having 100,000+ soldiers and Marines running around the country hunting down bands of insurgent fighters is supposed to achieve any of this?

Of course, in my humble opinion, we should have had a national strategy for Iraq before the butcher’s bill was 2,110 dead American soldiers.

FURTHER THOUGHTS:  My problem with the Bush speech, as well as the message being pushed by war supports, is that it cuts against itself.  We are asked to believe (1) that things have been going extremely well in Iraq (despite what the mainstram media is telling us) and (2) we should plan to be Iraq for quite a while (presumably because it is one hell of a mess).  It has been close to two years since the fall of Saddam’s regime, so it seems that one of these two themes lacks inherent truthfulness.

UPDATE:  Think Progress has an analysis.  The bottom line: The document is a PR push, and says nothing new.  The strategy, apparently, is to "stay the course because it’s wicked important that we stay the course."

UPDATE:  Billmon snarks that the strategy for Iraq apparently involves the use of many many many bullet points.  A quick glance at the document shows that he’s right.

UPDATE:  Tbogg (from whom I shamelessly stole this blog’s subtitle), gives a list of ALL the many many times in the past when Bush gave a major address on Iraq strategy.  And even the boys at Powerline agree the strategy contains nothing new.  AP adds: "“Bush’s speech did not break new ground or present a new strategy.”

Kayes Expresses Herself

Ken AshfordConstitution, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Kaye1129Our favorite wingnut columnist, Kaye Grogan, has a new column up.  It’s called "Freedom of speech and expression . . . most abused rights"  The title alone suggests that Kaye is having trouble with verbs this week, as she prefers to use ellipses.  Still, we forge on:

Freedom of speech is perhaps one of the most abused freedoms we have. From profanity to nudity these moral destroyers are acceptable and protected, and yet the freedoms associated with religion are met with disdain, and attempts to suppress those of faith is gaining momentum.

Looks like Kaye is also having problems with punctuation, subject-verb agreement, and — well — basic sentence structure too.

When I hear how pornography is protected under the "freedom of expression" I have to laugh. Since the people back in the days before the Constitution was drafted kept their clothes on, I doubt very seriously that they had pornographic images in mind, so it’s a big stretch to say this smut — is covered under the "Bill of Rights."

One wonders — how people back in the days before the Constitution managed to create more people, what with all the clothes-wearing they did.   Still, we know Kaye is speaking with a first-grader’s education of the Founding Fathers, totally ignorant of — for example — the fact that Ben Franklin was a milf-man.  And don’t get us started about Thomas Jefferson.

But you — have to applaud Kaye’s brand of logic.  Of course, people back in the days before the Constitution didn’t have the Internet — so, technically speaking, anything Kaye writes is not covered under the "Bill of Rights" either.  In fact, back then, women discussing political matters was seen as distasteful. 

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression does not give a person the right to do things that are detrimental to society as a whole.

And who gets get to decide what is "detrimental to society as a whole", Kaye?

When people have a problem conducting themselves in a proper manner — they have to be reigned in.

Or reined in, I suppose.  Unless they’re kings.

Bank robbers could be viewed as utilizing their freedom of expression, because they are expressing their desire to take money that doesn’t belong to them. Rapists could be viewed as just fulfilling their desires. So, you see — there has to be a restriction on freedom of expression.

And people who pray to God could be viewed as engaging in the Crusades and inquisitions, therefore we must restrict prayer.  Hey!  This is fun!!

I guess Kaye’s point is that because stupid people like Kaye could call anything "expression", we should limit "expression".

While freedom of speech gives us the right to verbally express how we feel, it does not give us the right to curse and abuse other people.

Of course it does!  Kaye confuses what we have a right to do, with what is the right thing to do.

Some things require self-control and respect. But unfortunately there will always be those who will pontificate that they have a right to do whatever they please.

Kaye, honey, look in the mirror.

There are many anti-religious and pro-abortion groups who are sweating the confirmation of Judge Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, because they are fearful that he is a champion for the religious right and mutilated babies.

Samuel Alito is the champion for mutilated babies?  I hope I’m not being too partisan here, but if that’s true, maybe he really shouldn’t be confirmed.

This is a prime example of how these groups are under the impression that they are the bomb — when it comes to controlling free speech. Boy, this is pathetic!

No, Kaye-dog.  It’s whack, yo.

For years, conservatives have had to stand by watching an out-of-control high court make erroneous rulings that have capitulated Americans into a cesspool of filth.

Still having verb trouble, I see.  Americans (supposedly) capitulate, Kaye.  Rulings don’t.

And now that the tide may be changing — it’s time to push the panic button for many.

But only while counting chickens before the sky is falling.  Block that metaphor!

They fear the inroads they have paved to change society for years, is in jeopardy of turning around to the other side. Boy, what a day of rejoicing that will be!

The inroads is in jeopardy?  Okay, now I’m lost.  Someone is turning the pavement around?  What?

While all indications point toward Judge Alito being a champion for unborn babies, I have qualms about his statement that the Constitution does not provide protection for the unborn.

Harumph.  Some "champion for unborn babies" he turned out to be!

Pray tell what does provide protection against the slaughtering of innocent babies?

Methinks obviously not the Constitution, since it doesn’t say anything about it, right?

It must be you know what for pro-abortion advocates to spend the biggest part of their lives getting up every morning trying to decide what their next strategy will be — to keep the murdering of little innocent babies legalized. What a bloody life!

I can’t speak for others, but I only get up every morning once a day — usually in the morning.  I don’t spend the biggest part of my life getting up.  In fact, I don’t spend the biggest part of my day getting up.  Because once you’re up, you’re up.

Let’s see now — does the killing of babies fall under the freedom of expression clause? I guess this crutch is as good as any cramped under the umbrella of evil.

Let’s see.  Kayes writes an article about the freedom of expression clause, wedges in the issue of abortion, and then makes fun of others because they (supposedly) equate the abortion issue with the freedom of expression clause.  Pundit, heal thyself!

But I choose instead to fixate on the "umbrella of evil", because it sounds like something a James Bond villain would carry.

As the contentious battles between good and evil continue on a daily basis, the so-called 85 percent of the population who claim to be Christians need to use their freedom of speech — while they still have a voice.

Kaye, if you are going to say that Christians comprise 85% of the population, don’t defeat your argument by writing "the so-called 85%".  It’s sounds like you are doubting your own statistic.

That said, I have to laugh at the notion that 85% of the population is the oppressed minority here.

Right now they are lying dormant (mostly unresponsive — just warming pews) while their religious freedoms are evaporating faster than smoke from a teapot.

It’s steam, dear, not smoke.  Unless you fail to put water in the teapot first, in which case it very well might be smoke.

In Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights where it reads: or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances — indicates that this is the only form of freedom of expression outlined in the 10 amendments.

Anyone care to diagram that sentence?

Amendment 10 reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Time and time again, the people in every state (with the exception of Massachusetts and Oregon) have voted down same-sex marriages and pornography. So, something is more than just a little amiss here.

Boy, is there ever!  You’ve overlooked the 14th Amendment.

It is completely to the extreme when gavels of liberal judges are finalizing errant rulings, overriding established laws and the will of the people.

Yes, it is "to the extreme".  Rad and narly, too.  And that’s Kaye, finalizing her opinion!

Focus on SCOTUS: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

Ken AshfordSupreme Court, Women's Issues1 Comment

Yup.  It’s time once again to look at a major case coming before the Supreme Court, and attempt (inadequately) to translate what the legal issues are, as well as the case’s impact.

Tomorrow, the Court will hear arguments in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.  As you may have guessed, this is an abortion case, and as abortion cases go, this could be important.  For two reasons: (1) the issues involved (discussed below); and (2) the first abortion case in the Roberts Court.

As an interesting sidenote, this case deals with parental notification.  The last major case on this subject was Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, where Justice O’Connor spanked a Third Circuit judge who was not sympathetic to the pro-choice, anti-notification side.  That lower court judge was Judge Alito, O’Connor’s (probable) replacement.  But since Alito hasn’t been confirmed yet, the Ayotte case will be heard tomorrow by O’Connor and the other eight.

But there is an interesting angle to composition of the Supreme Court, which I will get to toward the bottom of this post.

The statute under review in Ayotte is New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, which prohibits abortion providers from performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless the minor’s parents or guardian have been given at least 48 hours’ notice.

The statute carves out three exceptions to this rule: (a) the pregnant minor has written confirmation that her parents already know about the abortion; or (b) the abortion provider certifies that the abortion is necessary to prevent the pregnant minor’s death and that there is insufficient time to provide the required notice; or (c) the minor obtains a court decree authorizing the abortion upon a finding that she is mature and capable of giving consent to the abortion procedure, or that it would be in her best interests not to notify.

The NH statute was challenged as unconstitutional.  A district court upheld the challenge, and ruled the statute unconstitutional.

On appeal, the First Circuit also ruled that the statute was unconstitutional for two reasons:

(1)  The statute fails to provide an exception when the health of a pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy.  Note that the exception above applies to death of the pregnant minor only.  But the Supreme Court has always ruled, from Roe to Casey to Stenberg (the partial abortion case a few years ago), that statutes which seek to limit access to abortions must contain an exception for situations where the health of the mother is at risk, not just her life.

(2)  The statute fails to provide an exception when the life of a pregnant woman is threatened by the pregnancy.  Even though the statute has a "death exception", the First Circuit thought it was too narrow.  Under the statute, the physician has a 48-hour period to ascertain whether the "death exception" might apply, and if so, the pregnant minor would then be able to have an abortion without parental notification.  Unfortunately, the court reasoned, a physician might not know with certainty within the 48-hour window if a life-saving procedure would be needed. The statute thus forces physicians to choose between gambling with their patients’ lives and facing liability.

Aside from the health/life issues, there is another aspect to the Ayotte case which may have an even broader impact on the abortion court battle.  The case also raises the question of what hurdle opponents of abortion statutes must clear before making facial constitutional challenges to those statutes.

Planned Parenthood argues that they should only have to show that the law might endanger the lives or health of some hypothetical women in some hypothetical circumstances.

The State of New Hampshire, on the other hand, argues that constitutional challenges should be allowed only if the challenger can show that the law would endanger the lives or health of every pregnant woman, and thus be unconstitutional in every circumstance. Challengers who can only show that a law is dangerous to some women in some circumstances must wait until those circumstances actually arise, and then only have the law declared unconstitutional as applied to them.   

Think about the ramifications of New Hampshire’s argument as applied to the New Hampshire statute: pregnant minors would have to wait until their life or health was at risk before they could challenge the constitutionality of the statute.  In other words, if New Hampshire wins on this particular issue, it will be harder in the future for other people to challenge statutes which seek (in some way) to limit access to abortions.

Now, how will this case come out?  Conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court will be split on ideological lines (like other abortion cases).  And (like other abortion cases) O’Connor will be the deciding vote in favor of Planned Parenthood (meaning, the statute is unconstitutional because it doesn’t provide adequate exceptions to the parental notification requirement in situations where the life/health of the pregnant minor is at risk).

HOWEVER (here’s where it gets interesting), if Judge Alito gets confirmed and O’Connor’s retirement becomes effective before the Supreme Court actually decides this case, then the Supreme Court will probably have the litigants re-argue the case before the new court (with Alito on the bench).  And in that scenario, conventional belief is that Ayotte (i.e., New Hampshire) will win the case, and the backward slide against abortion rights will begin.

Kelly Ayotte is the Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire, arguing in favor of the statute.  The United States Solicitor’s Office has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief, also supporting the New Hampshire statute.  Jennifer Dalven will argue the case for Planned Parenthood.

Julie Andrews Ruins The Opening Of “The Sound Of Music” For Me

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

Somandrews CNN:

At a question-and-answer session celebrating the 40th anniversary of "The Sound of Music," Julie Andrews recalled the scene in which her character, Maria, runs through the mountains singing the title song.

It wasn’t as serene as it looked, the 70-year-old actress said Monday.

"I will never forget it, there was a large helicopter coming towards me through the mountains with a brave cameraman hanging out the side," she said.

"We shot the scene many times, and at the end of each take, the helicopter would circle round. The downdraft nailed me flat onto the grass, and a couple of times I bit the dust. At first it was funny, but after several times I began to get very angry."

I’d love to see the outtake reel.

Stupid Lawsuit Of The Day

Ken AshfordCourts/LawLeave a Comment

SimpsonsrussiaD’oh:

A Russian lawyer plans to take his case against The Simpsons to the European Court of Human Rights.

It comes after a Moscow Court rejected Igor Smykov’s appeal to have the show banned from Russian TV.

Mrr Smykov wanted to have the cartoon series taken off the air in Russia, or at least shown at a later time, claiming it promoted drugs, violence and homosexuality.

He also demanded £6,000 in compensation from TV channel REN-TV saying the show had morally damaged his nine-year-old son.

But the Moscow City Court rejected his appeal and Smykov says he now plans to take the case to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Everything’s Out Of Whack In Kansas City

Ken AshfordEducation, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Censorbluevalley…but they haven’t gone as fer as they can go.

A group of concerned parents in the Blue Valley School District want to ban certain books from the high schooler English curriculum.   The petition objects to the "quality of the books", although as far as I can tell, literary "quality" is measured largely by the number of polite words (the less vulgarity, the higher the "quality" of the literature).  Other objections are centered around books which contain racial conflict (because, apparently, we want adults-of-the-future to be unaware of disgraceful behavior) and books that don’t have a happy ending.

Click on the links below to find out what the Blue Valley parents find so objectionable about each book (you can click past their "warning" message).

  1. All the Pretty Horses
  2. Animal Dreams
  3. The Awakening
  4. The Bean Trees
  5. Beloved
  6. Black Boy
  7. Fallen Angels
  8. The Hot Zone
  9. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
  10. Lords of Discipline
  11. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  12. Song of Solomon
  13. Stotan
  14. This Boy’s Life

Something To Consider

Ken AshfordCrimeLeave a Comment

Electricchair_1In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to execute criminals again.  This week, barring any changes in schedule, the 1000th execution will take place since the 1976 reinstatement.  And it’ll probably happen here in North Carolina.

Fun fact: In the past 32 years, 120 death row inmates have been proven innocent and released.  Most of them have been in the past fifteen years, because of advances in DNA as exculpatory evidence.

Where do you stand on the death penalty?

The Abstinence Wars

Ken AshfordHealth Care, Sex/Morality/Family Values, Women's IssuesLeave a Comment

What’s more important?  Young girls learning to have safe sex so that they don’t get pregnant and/or sick — or young girls being sexually abstinent?

Logically, these two positions are not incompatible.  Most would agree (I hope) that we would want young girls to be knowledgeable about safe sex, and then choose abstinence (until they are ready).

CensorshippregnantBut sadly, much of the religious right doesn’t see it that way.  They work under the belief that knowledge about safe sex will lead to actual practice of sex.  I don’t think there is a single study to support this, but the religious right isn’t big on science anyway.

So, via Amanda Marcotte, we have two pictures which reflect the battle-of-the-messages in the Abstinence Wars.  The first picture (on the left) shows teenagers creating T-shirts which read "Censorship got me pregnant" in response to an incident at their school.    Here’s what happened:

Copies of a high school’s student newspaper were seized by administrators because the edition contained stories about birth control and tattoos. The seizure has raised concern about possible infringement of the First Amendment.

Administrators at Oak Ridge High School went into teachers’ classrooms, desks and mailboxes to retrieve all 1,800 copies of the newspaper on Tuesday, said Wanda Grooms, a teacher who advises the staff, and Brittany Thomas, the student editor.

The Oak Leaf’s birth control article listed success rates for different methods, and said contraceptives were available from doctors and the local health department. Superintendent Tom Bailey said the article needed to be edited so that it would be acceptable to all the school.

IowablingThe second picture (at right) is the message from the other side — a billboard from Iowa’s Abstinence Mission, urging young girls to get married before they have sex.

I find it amusing that the abstinence message attempts to speak in the "hip" vernacular of teenagers (do they even know the word "bling" in Iowa?).  And it attempts to appeal to some presumed materialism they assume must exist in teenagers.  Whereas, on the other hand, the actual teenagers in the photo above actually speak in regular English, and seem to have higher ideals on their mind (censorship, health, etc.)

It should be noted that the Iowa Abstinence Mission isn’t some independent Christian group.  It is a division of the Iowa Department of Health.  And while abstinence is certainly the best method to prevent pregnancy and STDs, it’s clear that the Iowa Department of Health isn’t pushing abstinence for health reasons here.  Does anything about that billboard suggest health concerns are the chief concern?

It’s The End Of The World On Your TIVO

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

I’ve always been intrigued by entertainment fads as a reflection of culture and the national psyche.  For example, after Japan was nuked (twice) in WWII, they started making movies about giant monsters (Godzilla, Mothra, etc.) sent to destroy civilization.  And nuclear radiation was often the given reason why these monsters came into existence in the first place.  I’m not a sociologist (I only have a social psychology degree), but it takes take a genius to see the connection.

So what to make of this, as reported by Variety via Drudge:

The TV networks are getting edgier in their ’06 pilot plans.

The nets have filled their development slates with a bevy of brave ideas and bold format experiments, VARIETY reports on Monday, including shows about THE END OF AMERICA!

ABC alone has at least two would-be shows set in post-apocalyptic America ("Resistance" and "Red & Blue") while Gavin Polone and Bruce Wagner are teaming for the comfy-sounding plague drama "Four Horsemen" at CBS (which also is developing "Jericho," about life in a small town after America is destroyed).

We’re actually in the middle of this trend.  Witness Spielberg’s "War of the Worlds" and the popular (at least among Christians) "Left Behind" series.

What can explain our supposed newfound interest in apocalyptic entertainment?  Is it defeatism?  Is it the rise of evangelical belief in things like The Rapture?  Is it the mass-marketing of fear (fear of terrorism, bird flu, etc.)?

I, for one, am not complaining.  I tend to like that genre.  The mini-series "The Stand" was pretty cool, even if it did have the odd pairing of Molly Ringwald and Gary Sinese.  So bring it on.

Vatican vs. Me

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

The Vatican (as reported by Reuters):

The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked "destabilizing people and society," had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.

Me:

"The segmentation of people based on their sexual preference destabilizes people and society, has no social or moral value, and could never match the importance of minding your own business."

Look, the Vatican obviously has a PR problem, what with the naughty priest scandals and all.  But pinning the blame on homosexuality doesn’t address the issue.  The problem with naughty priests was not about homosexuality per se, but child abuse.  If the Vatican wants to change its standards for the priesthood viz a viz homosexuality, that’s their business.  But let’s not cast aspersions on an entire lifestyle.