Gary, I get your point. But it does nobody any good to over-simplify the liberal/conservative divide, or the Reagan legacy for that matter.

Clearly, to me, Reagan's domestic and economic policies were devastating and are largely to blame for the mess we find ourselves in currently. But face it: his approach to the USSR did accelerate the decline of the Soviet empire. It just did. Yes, it was gong to collapse regardless, but his policies caused it to happen sooner -- which I believe, in the long term, was a better outcome. That's all fine and good in terms of the end justifying the means (which it doesn't, but surely we can agree that the Soviet satellites are better off as autonomous nations!); but there was a genius to the plan that was rarely touched upon: Reagan wrote about ending the Soviet Union via an arms race before he was even governor of California! He'd been kicking the theory around for nearly 20 years before he got a chance to put it into action, and guess what? It worked exactly as he'd planned.

I think it's high time we (the left and everyone else!) began taking a more nuanced approach to history. In the same way that we can look at Nixon and recognize the importance and net-positive outcomes with China and air/water quality while abhorring Watergate and Cambodia and the DEA, we should be able to look at Reagan and recognize that in spite of trickle-down economics and Iran/Contra and the War on Drugs and breaking up the unions and James Watts, etc., there are a couple of things he accomplished that served the greater good of our nation. Does he deserve a place in the presidential pantheon? Fuck no! But was he evil incarnate? No, he wasn't.

Things just aren't black and white. It's childish to believe otherwise and irresponsible to suggest that an all or nothing approach serves the long-term good of our nation.

I get your aversion to the uncomfortable juxtaposition of religion and government, but I think that's taking this example a bit far.

Frank could have made a similar point had he compared the trio to characters out of Hindu or Buddhist literature or from Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or Fitzgerald or any other writer. I'm willing to bet that such a reference would not have raised your hackles.

Frank's is far more an analogy from literature than it is an analogy from religion.

I was actually impressed by A-Rod's press conference. It was the first time I've seen any player come remotely close to being honest about a truly shitty situation. I felt empathy for him, and that's a feeling that never threatened my being while watching McGwire or Canseco or Bonds or Clemens.

It bugs me though, that no one seems to be at all upset about the fact that these test results were from a round of tests that the league promised would be secret and would result in no punishment--as they were trying to discern the magnitude of the drug problem league-wide. While it looks as though no punishment is looming, it was malicious of S.I. to run with this story. Period.

It goes to show that David Sirota's Michael Phelps column from the other day had it right on the money: America's drug of choice if feigned outrage!

Watching Frontline last night in the wake of Obama's housing proposal, I was adamant that the Administration hasn't gone far enough. My wife insisted that the president had done the best he could to move things in the right direction without alientating Wall Street. I thought she may have had a point.

But the more I watched, the more I reverted to my initial stance: Let EVERYONE suffer the failure of our financial institutions!

I'm not an economist, but my gut tells me that if we would just let cause and effect take its course -- provided we still shore up health insurance, unemployment and food stamps -- we'll all suffer, but we can hit bottom sooner rather than later and get to the business of building a new system/culture that is far more sustainable.

It seems to me that by capitulating to Wall Street, workers and the "little guy" small businessmen, like myself still end up getting fucked, while banks and lenders who've been monumentally unethical for 20 years now get to go on doing what they've always done (if by lesser degrees).

THAT is not fair. We should all pay for this crisis proportionally to the amount of responsibility we shoulder.

To paraphrase Chris Dodd (I think it was he), if a corporation is too large to fail, it is too large to exist.

It's time for big sticks!

Why, oh why is former Oregon governor Dr. John Kitzhaber NEVER mentioned as a candidate for surgeon general?!

Dean's not the only former Democratic governor/doctor: Oregon's John Kitzhaber.

I'm just sayin'...

Thank you, Alva Noe. This was a MUCH needed interview in this series, but I'm sure the reductionist wing will still think it smacks of religion: it's fucking, systems theory people. Get over it.

Anyway, three cheers!

"trying too hard", "conveyor belt", "packing in the requisite number of inside jokes"

These are all the reasons I won't pay to see this film in a theater - in spite of my kids wishes otherwise.

I admit that Shrek grew on me after awhile, but even there the characters come second to the nudges and the winks. Dreamworks' films are snarky, fitful and trite. They don't even try to hide the fact that their only reason for existing is to make money. The technical aspects of the animation are the only thing keeping the DW catalog above 'B' Movie status.

I have given DW every opportunity, but no more. I will take the ethos and pathos of Pixar every, single time.