The amendment didn't pass, yay!

I guess I'd better fulfill sock puppet's prediction here and put up a few words in this strip's defense: I didn't think it was so bad. The point of the strip wasn't foaming-at-the-mouth right wing commentators, but rather the media's craven willingness to give them prime coverage even as they viciously attack the very media they use to gain exposure.

It kind of reminded me of the old Kent Brockman line: "I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

After so many instances of being disappointed by the short-sighted behaviour of those who I thought would know better, it's nice to see the opposite happen: a company that was largely written off as Neanderthals unexpectedly seeing the light. Let's hope they see it through! Walmart in particular has more power to push through the needed changes than any other organization short of the U.S. government, which has been sadly AWOL in this area.

There sure seems to be a lot of unprovoked hatred directed at hippies, which is rather strange since I'm not sure hippies even exist anymore, and they were at worst goofy and harmless when they did. Imagine "101 uses for a dead WASP", or "101 uses for a dead fundamentalist", and you can see that this sort of humor isn't all that funny. C'mon Keith, I know you can do better than this!

-Jeremy

Of course someone's physical appearance is going to play a major role in whether you are physically attracted to them or not. People's sex drives, just like the sex drive of every other animal on Earth, have been shaped by millions of years of evolution. And evolution doesn't care about what is "fair" or "nice" or "shallow", it cares only about maximizing your success at passing on your genes. Blaming someone for being attracted (or not) to the 'wrong' traits is just as unfair as blaming someone for being attracted to the 'wrong' gender -- in both cases, the person likely has very little (if any) control over whom he finds attractive or unattractive, so criticizing him for his personal choices is pointless and discriminatory.

That video wasn't bad (although admittedly suicide bombings are pretty easy to condemn). From the linked translation of the posted Quran verse:

"that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people"

I think part of the problem may be that big caveat in the middle there. All a person (or group) has to do is convince themselves that in some (vague, metaphorical) way, the people they want to kill are guilty of "murder or spreading mischief", and they have their loophole by which they can say their crimes were approved by Islam.

Not that other religions don't suffer from the same problem... but "Thou shalt not murder" seems a bit open prone to misinterpretation than the above.

Perhaps what we need is a more fine-grained rating system. Instead of making assumptions about what parents will find inappropriate for their kids, the MPAA could put out a report with various things rated on a sliding scale, e.g.

(1 is "best", 9 is "worst")

Movie: Death Force 3000

Language: 8

Violence: 9

Nudity: 5

Sex: 2

Drug Use: 1

... or something like that. Of course it would take up a little more space in the movie ads, but you could shorten it to "L8V9N5S2D1" or something like that, if you had to.

Eh, just a thought.

Even if torture were effective, it would still be morally unacceptable. If Bush could somehow fight terrorism by killing babies or worshipping Satan, would he do those things also? (Answer: probably)

To hear Mister "we must stop stem cell research because every human life is sacred" Bush defend torture is nauseating, and his doing so while proclaiming to be a Christian is a profound insult to genuine Christians everywhere.

I don't really care who finally gets the message through to the American public about the ride they've been taken for, as long as the message gets through.

Honestly, does it really matter who gets the credit for the story? The only thing that matters is that the cancer that is the Bush admistration is neutered and removed as quickly as possible, both to minimize any further damage it might do and so our nation can begin healing itself.

-Jeremy

"No problem" is a good response to an apology -- it's meant to reassure the other person that they haven't caused any significant harm. A better response to "thank you" (if you're tired of "you're welcome") would be "sure".

That said, it's kind of a trivial thing to gripe about. I think Mr. Keillor may be entering the flower of his curmudgeonhood.

Scott K -- I don't believe you for a second ;^)

In 2004 we all swallowed our ideals and voted for the "electable" candidate... who then turned out to be, well, unelectable. I'm all for pragmatism, but at some point you end up compromising away everything that makes a candidate worth voting for. Perhaps sometimes you just have to take some risks?

Personally, I think the "Hillary is unelectable" meme is one that the Republicans have been deliberately spreading on for years, because privately they know she is electable -- Hillary clearly terrifies the Republican Party. Based on that, I think she could indeed win if she had the backbone to run a non-neutered campaign.

-Jeremy

The bird made to disappear has actually been crushed to death in a collapsing trick cage sent through a trapdoor into the table, and another bird in an identical cage is produced.

Yikes! It takes the enjoyment out of watching magic tricks when you find out that animals are being crushed to death for your amusement. :^(