Before we start celebrating, note the bounce in the Bush approval rating.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/21/content_3948726.htm

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/approval-rating/index.php (also the second story as of this posting from the main url http://www.wonkette.com)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900924.html

I have been urging my senators and representatives (all of them, depressingly, are Republicans) to preserve their jobs and reputations by distancing themselves from an administration that is growing more reminiscent of Nixon's on the eve of his resignation.

Eilonwy said: "Hi. I'm a half-Ugandan, half-Solomon Islander, Jewish convert to Rastafarianism who draws her beliefs from Buddhism and Sufism" "Oh, nice to meet, you I'm just a plain ol' human being."

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I find different cultures fascinating. I grew up in a little bitty Texas town and will attend a holiday celebration today to which a number of Jews, Hispanic Catholics, and who knows what else will show up to eat latkes and tamales, drink beer and champagne, and have a good old time.

With the McDonald's-ization of global culture ingesting so much of the local color and excreting bland product where once were quirky little restaurants, stores, and other businesses, I say more power to that crazy Wilson clan.

Still, though...habanero vodka? Yikes!

Saw the original film back in the day. It was hysterical. If Mel Brooks couldn't even be bothered to direct this one...yawn. A filmed version of the musical version of the...what? Sounds like the episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in which Mel recruits Larry David to perform in the stage version...so it will tank. Maybe Mel is tiring of his cash cow.

Anyhow, I totally agree with krzmarzick: I may not agree with Zacharek, but she always has something substantive and thought-provoking to say, unlike 90 percent of the pimps...I mean so-called critics...in the business of hyping...I mean, reviewing...films.

Anyhow, off to the local brew cinema for a beer, a brot, and a movie rated a solid 91 on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer.

Personally, I though he looked like Rocky Dennis, on whose life the Cher vehicle "Mask" was based. Anyhow.... One thing that has bugged me about the A&F makeover even before I saw the result of Jeffries' own numerous "upgrades" is addressed in one paragraph on the third page of the story.

Founded in 1892, in its heyday it served Presidents Hoover and Eisenhower (they bought their fishing equipment there), Ernest Hemingway (guns), and Cole Porter (evening clothes). During prohibition A&F was where the in crowd went for its hip flasks. But by the 1970s it had become a fashion backwater, holding on for dear life.

In an alternate, more tasteful universe, Abercrombie & Fitch would still be selling hip flasks, fishing gear, and clothing along the lines of a more upscale REI. Given that some of us boomers are always looking for more sophisticated targets for our discetionary spending, Jeffries could have spared himself the freakish makeover(s) and be selling martini shakers and overpriced hiking boots to people his own age.

Please.

Why would anyone who "prefers to read books" care about the Oscars, Emyth?

And the vitriol of "You.Guys.Suck"...? That is the kind of abuse that was a big part of my leaving the journalism biz.

I think this could pretty darned entertaining. I might just watch the Oscars after all, just to hear what these two have to say.

Great idea, Salon.

From the article: "They [Richard Dawkings and other secular humanists] have as bigoted a view of religion as some religious fundamentalists have of secularism. We have too much dogmatism at the moment. Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He did a couple of religious programs that I was fortunate enough to miss."

Condescend much? I have been fortunate enough to miss a lot of religious bullshit over the years since I embraced my fundamental disbelief in a daddy figure in the clouds. So, if I say that to Karen Armstrong, I have a pathology?

I call bullshit.

The "bigoted...view of religion" of these scientists and secular humanists is based on empirical evidence or the lack thereof, or on sound logical argument. Either of these is more reliable than dressing up the universe in some clothing that suits your need for a parental figure.

BTW... Four pages? Do the Salon editors actually edit? As in, cut? Or do they just let writer blather on and on as long as they wish? A waste of bandwidth, IMO.

I do not usually express myself so angrily but this really got my drawers in a bunch.

Heh.

Have a good week, all.

As RuthAlice said, "I believe that not only should our language be larger than the right to an abortion, but so should our goals."

I agree with this. Not only does this viewpoint frame the issue positively, it begins to speak to larger issues.

If we believe in equal protection and related values espoused in our Constitution, then it is accurate and inclusive of other issues to coin the term "Pro-rights."

This implies that our opponents are anti-life. Similarly, we could begin refering to the so-called "pro-lifers" (who imply that those of us who support abortion rights are somehow "anti-life") as "anti-abortionists."

This is also a more accurate label for them. How many of them support the death penalty? Is this truly a "pro-life" position? This last question is rhetorical and beside the point, of course, but I think it speaks to the illogical use of their label. Labelling ourselves "pro-rights" is, comparatively speaking, far more accurate.