...there would be fewer troops in Iraq?

To take my previous comment another way, you have the perfect Democratic spin: "Because the public voted to stand up to Bush and the GOP and call for an end to the failures in Iraq, the White House says the Administration decided to send more troops into the Hell it created. We call that punishment for - and counter to - the wisdom displayed by Americans in the last election. We call that tossing more logs on the fire."

As always, Keith is so FLICKIN funny.

...Not voting or watching at all. Screw Fox and Ford and the insanely corporate show.

I am 28, and it is interesting to read the other letters about Castaneda and see the generation-grounded or culture-grounded criticisms thrown back and forth. I read Castaneda in college and, while it doesn't surprise me, it never occurred to me that his books were symbols of hippies or counter-culture. The drug use and sexual "rituals" described in the books make that a reasonable assumption in the context of the 60s.

Univ. of Virginia Prof. Roy Wagner taught a course in the school's anthropology department on the Castaneda books, and I knew Professor Wagner's reputation as an interesting mind in anthropology and an eccentric personality. Prof. Wagner taught the course--perhaps hugely tongue-in-cheek--in a very earnest manner. However, this earnest (or maybe just dead-pan) method was not applied so much as to anthropoligic elements, but to storytelling in general, and even some of the mystical phenomena in particular. Wagner first instructed us to skip the entire first section of the first book--to discard Castaneda's own "earnest" anthropolical writing and analysis of culture, ritual, etc. The real storytelling began in the second half of the first book, and continued from there, uninterrupted by any more "serious" anthropology.

At times, Wagner would even state that he had experienced the mystical phenomena discussed in the books, or at least attested to their "reality." But, perhaps because I began the course with a mindset combining jovial adventurism and passive skepticism, it didn't matter to me what Wagner said about the phenomena. I think what Prof. Wagner intended to impart--and certainly what I took--was the more metaphorical meaning of storytelling, using the specific episodes as disguised lessons concerning particular points of broad human philosophical arguments. The books are filled with obvious parallels to the issues tackled by Plato, Neitzche, Heidegger, and the deconstructionists. In a way, I see these books as taking more sophisticated and opaque tacks towards philosophy as recent pop-culture movies like The Matrix, or any Charlie Kaufman work.

For these reasons, I found Castaneda's books to be both illuminating - if only fables - and hellaciously fun reads to boot. Perhaps I give him (and Prof. Wagner) too much credit in assuming that the motives were more sophisticated and intentionnally metaphorical. But that's sort of the point-we take out what we put in, we often see meaning differently, and at the same time, the same symbols may also function universally.

I can't necessarily defend my love of this show, but I'll try to explain.

On the production level, the voices are hilarious and emote well. Shake's voice in particular always cracks me up. Also, the animation is so cheesy and corny, but also sublime in detail and timing. The funny, absurdist elements are so random, but timed just right to hit me precisely in the nerve that causes me to laugh out loud.

The creators of the show come from the same post-Simpsons ilk as the writers of Family Guy, Space Ghost, and other Cartoon Network shows. Randomness, repetition, and GenX cultural references are de rigeur. There's a wink in most jokes at how intelligent the writers (and many fans) are, while at the same time reveling in the basest of topics and techniques for humor (violence, toilet humor, etc.). The characters are also eminently "gettable". One could even say they are rich in development, at least, in developing their primary character traits, much like Seinfeld characters. And like Seinfeld or Simpson characters, there may not be much more than ultimately superficial primary traits, but fans come to love the expected and un-expected reactions of each character to the situations.

At its best, ATHF reminds me of the best of cult cartoons through the years like Rocky and Bullwinkle, Ren and Stimpy, or Robert Smigel. Clearly many people don't response to the techiques and content of ATHF humor. The show isn't the Simpsons, as plays less on witty dialogue, universal themes, or sheer polish. It's guerilla comedy, employing shock, raw emotion, testosterone-realism, and negativity. Caveat emptor.

Nice insights Leucippi

Why doesn't McCain or Liebernman put their damn money where their mealy mouths are and volunteer to be Czar?

What time is it?