I've decided that registering for classes is hazardous to mental health - well maybe just for super-anal-about-school me. I spent most of the night circling around classes I wanted, classes I had to take, and classes I wasn't sure I either needed or wanted. I popped open a bottle of Pinot Grigio halfway through just to keep my head from overheating. Would this class contribute to my goal to get into a PhD program? Is this professor a potential grading minefield that would forever destroy my stellar GPA? If I took both of my early British literature classes this semester would I still be able to get in my period requirements? Yep, it's back to school for Brooke. The problem is that I know what I want to be when I grow up. I want to be an English professor. What I don't know is the right way (for me) of getting there. I've considered modern American women writers, Germanic folklore and fairytales, science fiction, among others. And the truth is, all of these would be wonderful options. But unfortunately, the classes I take now will determine how potentially successful I will be in pursuing those fields in graduate studies. It's all so overwhelming. So how was the outcome? I ended up hedging my bets by choosing German for my foreign language. Since I'll be double-majoring in English and Feminist Studies, I'm also taking Introduction to Feminist Studies (which is funny, because I think we've already met) and Feminist Positions. Feminist Positions is part of the philosophy department covers the various philosophical quandries and viewpoints that fall within the rubric of feminist thought. I also signed up for Poetics of Justice and I'm clueless as to what you read for it. I'm guessing it's early British poetry that deals with issues of justice. The class that I'm most excited about is Shakespeare Performance: MacBeth (Present fearsAre less than horrible imaginings. Macbeth, 1. 3). The class takes the perspective that because Shakespeare intended his plays to be performed, one must take part in a performance of the play to truly grasp the flavor of the text.

A 47-year old woman was refused her birth control prescription by a local "pro-life" pharmacy. The woman, who is unable to conceive and uses birth control for medical reasons, recieved the above note. This is what I hate about the so-called "pro-life" movement. These people aren't "pro-life" but control freaks that give no thought to other human beings except whether or not their heart is beating. Those that oppose abortion oppose sex education and, as evidenced above, birth control which contributes to preventing the unwanted pregnancies which result in abortions. These "pro-beaters" refuse to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies, but want to force them to carry them to term regardless of their best interests. But that's not all. Once the child is born, this same group is the one that denies that LIFE that they "saved" healthcare. The same group denies the mother of that LIFE they "saved" financial help to support that child they want to force her to birth. These same people are the ones that have cut funding to Federal Financial Aid for poor college students for the past seven years of the Bush administration. Thus making it incalcuably harder for this child they demanded must be born (the same one they denied health care and financial support) cannot get a higher education that might give their life meaning, comfort, and that health care they view as such a privilege. So it should be no surprise that the same people who believe that denying people medical care, education, and the financial ability to survive belive they are also justified in denying a human being a prescription. Life is an all-encompassing term that does not just apply to a beating heart. Life must have purpose and meaning and supporting the continuation of life without a care to its quality is hypocritical and immoral.

Two years ago I was having a political conversation when the subject of Bill Clinton's presidency came up. Suddenly, I was speechless as I realized that I knew absolutely nothing about his presidency. Oh sure, I can tell what store the infamous blue dress came from. The positions he and Monica performed in. The name of the various scandals. But nothing about his administration itself. Tabloids aside, I had no basis by which to judge Clinton. Even as a child, I had been fascinated with politics. My brother, Jay, and I acted out debates during the 1992 election (I was eleven). Jay played up the smarmy Slick Willie persona we heard daily while our mom listened to Rush Limbaugh. I was stuck as GHW Bush. Dana Carvey did it much better. So since my knowledge of Clinton was limited to Rush Limbaugh and my brother's hoarse impressions about pork rinds, I decided to do some digging. The experience ended up being so frustrating - one place lauded his policies for the upturn of the economy while another credited Bush/Regan and the Dot Com boom - that for the first time in my life, I ignored the political arena completely. Sure I still mouthed off about feminist issues and the Iraq War, but for the most part I traded in my GHWB impression for one of an ostrisch. This ongoing frustration has caused me to keep my ear turned away from the rampant speculation about 2008. Until now. You knew that was coming, didn't you? With some extra time over the Memorial Day weekend, I spent some time visiting the websites of the five major hopefuls - Hillary, Obama, McCain, Edwards and Guiliani. I thought, this time I can do it right. I can go straight to the horse's mouth for information and let the pundits worry about interpretations.After my review, I found myself extremely excited about the idea of Hillary Clinton as president. Which I can honestly say surprises me. As the only candidate to address women's issues and rights on their website, I was automatically won over. But why does the first (major) female candidate have to be the only one willing to voice support for women's issues? Shame on Obama and Edwards. Let's hope that this time I get to enjoy a Clinton presidency for myself. I wonder if my brother would look good in a short, blonde wig?

I just watched the Dixie Chicks' documentary "Shut Up and Sing," which chronicles their struggles after the controversy over their remarks about Bush and Iraq. Going in, I felt little sympathy for their plight for several reasons. I felt that the situation was no different than other celebrity who experiences a public image dive after making stupid comments. Tom Cruise, anyone? As country music singers, they should be saavy enough to realize that their audience is primarily conservative and aware that negative comments about Bush would be received poorly. Speaking of receiving things poorly, the movie is two hours of sour grapes mixed with righteous indignation. Lead singer Natalie Maines level of obnoxiousness rises every moment she is on film. She doesn't come off as an intelligent woman whose attempts to speak out about her convictions are being stifled. She comes off as a self-righteous spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because people aren't responding the way that she wants them to. Her contempt and condescension for country music fans, conservatives and the general public does little to support the film's claims about this being a free speech incident and makes it appear more like a playground brawl. The group's feelings of inflated self-importance have led to their attempts to spin this incident into a debate over free speech. The website for the movie is a blog allowing people to express their opinions in an exercise of free speech. This is probably what irritates me the most. The Chicks are obviously very angry about their treatment - see "Not Ready To Make Nice." But don't their fans have a right to express their opinions about the Chicks in the same way Natalie wants to express hers about Bush? What is the difference? I despise Bill O'Reilly. I think he is a pompous, rude, ignorant blowhard. So guess what? I don't watch his show, read his books or support him in anyway. Does that mean I'm stifling O'Reilly's free speech? Nope, I'm not inhibiting his right to speak anymore than fans throwing away Dixie Chicks' CDs are. They are obviously still able to express their views - and are given Grammy awards for them - so how have they been stifled? I absolutely hate to say this, but the person in the film who made the most sense was Bush himself when he said that freedom of speech is a two-way street. Maybe that's why I'm so annoyed at the Dixie Chicks - they made me agree with George W. Bush. That being said, I do feel that the backlash to the comments was grossly disproportionate to the actual statements. And Bill O'Reilly and the others who commented that the girls deserve to be slapped around were out of hand. And I felt great sympathy that Emily Robison was forced to separate from her husband and son because of safety. But those incidents alone are not enough to overcome the stupidity of the rest. A final note. I mentioned that I felt the backlash was disproportionate to the actual comments. After watching the movie, I started wondering whether Natalie Maines' gender was partially responsible for this. Particularly in light of all of the sexist perjoratives being spewed - slut, twit, bimbo. If a man had spoken out about Bush, would there have been such an uproar? How much of the media backlash was due to Natalie being a young, attractive woman? Maybe this is where the real issue lies.

I've been an avid novel reader my entire life. I average about 1 per week. However, last year I noticed that my pace was dwindling as it became increasingly more difficult to find something worth actually reading. (Any recommendations in response to this post are welcome BTW). On a recent trip to the bookstore I purchased a graphic novel on a whim. It was "Preludes and Nocturnes," the first for Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. A big fan of Gaiman (but not comics), I decided it was probably better than any book I would've picked out. It was. And then some. The next day I was on eBay bidding on a lot of the rest of the series. Now I've been spending my normal reading time in comics. I've been shocked at the amazing quality of some of the series available. So, I'd like to take a minute to recommend a few series which I've found to be on par quality-wise with some of my favorite novels.The SandmanThis hauntingly surrealistic series is grounded in literature, myth and dreams. Morpheus, the personification of Dream, rules over the kingdom of dreams. Exiled from his world, Morpheus is trapped in the human world and upon his return must seek out the things that have been stolen from him. And that's just the first book! Sandman centers on The Endless: a family of immortals that personify permanent aspects of humanity. Dream, Desire, Delirium, Destiny, Despair, Destruction and the wonderfully practical and gentle Death. FablesWhat if all the characters from fairy tales and fables were real? In this delightful series by Bill Willingham, they are - and living in New York City. The Fables have been exiled from their homeworld by The Adversary (you'll never guess which famous character this is) and forced to masquerade as humans in "The Mundane World." Living between Bullfinch and Kipling streets, the Fables have setup Fabletown run by Old King Cole (a merry old soul is he!). Willingham creatively re-imagines the famous characters. The practical and tough Snow White is deputy mayor and Bigby Wolf (the Big Bad Wolf) is the gruff security chief who loves her. Prince Charming (ex-husband of Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty) is a power-hungry lothario. Cinderella is a flighty party girl/spy and Jack (of the Beanstalk) is a carefree conman. Fables includes a large cast of many other famous characters and compelling, fun stories. Y: The Last ManA virus of unknown origins has just killed every fetus, human, and animal with the Y chromosome: with one exception, our protagonist Yorrick and his monkey Ampersand. Vaughn wrote the book with the intention of exploring the continuing inequality of genders and ended up with a post-apocalyptic adventure with witty dialogue and great characterizations. I like to think of this title as a little bit Buffy, a little bit Battlestar. RunawaysThe only superhero book in my list is also written by Brian K. Vaughn. Forget that the glorious Joss Whedon is taking over the reins and check out the back issues of this fun, fresh series. Set in the Marvel Universe, Runaways starts when a group of teenagers realizes (much to their horror) that their parents are all evil super villains. Determined to destory them and right their wrongs, the kids run away and start their own superhero band. Like Vaughn's other works, Runaways features witty dialogue, fun stories and lots of adventure. A bonus: Vaughn is also great at creating strong, believable female characters.Fullmetal AlchemistThis one's actually a manga (and a wonderful anime), but Fullmetal Alchemist is one of the most original stories I've read (or watched) in a long time. In a world where the military is king and alchemy is science, brothers Edward and Alphonse Elric set out to use alchemy to restore their dead mother's life. Ignoring alchemy's first law of equivalent exchange, the brothers pay a high cost. Ed loses a leg and arm while Al loses his entire body. Determined to restore their bodies, the brothers join the military as state alchemists and go on a quest to find the Philosopher's Stone, a powerful alchemic amplifier they believe will give them their bodies back. Fullmetal is simultaneously dark and funny, but its the wonderful characters that will keep you hooked. The book's greatest achievement is that in a world of magic, hot-headed Edward and kind-hearted Alphonse always feel painfully human.

Just posting a shameless plug for the trailer to Stardust, the latest movie based on a Neil Gaiman novel. If you haven't read the book (or the lovely graphic novel version), I highly recommend it.http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/stardust.html

I recently had a discussion with my brother about the drastic nose-dive in quality of Veronica Mars during its third season. What used to be a glorious hour of television is now trite, boring and juvenile. How could this happen? You can point to the neutering of Logan (maybe the Initiative put a chip in his head), the lack of interaction between the characters we know and love (where's Wallace, Weevil, Mac?), or the increasingly vaudeville smugness of Veronica. There are other things that fans might point to as signs of the fall of the House of Mars. Last week my brother asked me a question that I'd like to try and answer here: What would I have done differently? Now that's a question deserving of a livejournal entry. ResolutionAny television show that attempts to adopt a serial format must provide its viewers with some resolution. Rob Thomas gave us [i]too[/i] much. At the start of season one, Thomas threw a number of balls in the air: Lily's murder, Veronica's social rejection, Keith's disgrace, Logan's dysfunctional family, Duncan's disease, Veronica's paternity, Veronica's mother is missing, the rape. And then by the end of the season, every single thread had been resolved. Aaron killed Lily. Veronica was re-united with the 09ers. Duncan's disease was never mentioned again. Logan's parents were out of the picture. Keith regained credibility and concretely established Veronica's paternity. Veronica's mother has returned and disapeared. Duncan was the (kind of) rapist. It was all wrapped up so neatly, that viewing the season two opener came with quite a jolt. Everything was different than it had been the year before. Rob often mentions the overly-dragged-out Laura Palmer mystery on Twin Peaks as his reason for wrapping the story up. Well, okay. But it wasn't necessary to tie every loose end. Anyone who has watched Soaps, read comics or read John Irving knows that new storied must be introduced before the older ones are wrapped up. The tension can never be completely resolved. But it was at the end of Seasons 1 and 2, forcing a complete reboot that couldn't be maintained indefinitely. Our heroine, instead of growing into her new persona as girl-detective reverted immediately back to 09'er arm candy at the start of season 2. Would Buffy the show has survived for seven seasons had Buffy the character become a "normal girl" at the end of season 1 and the Hellmouth closed? No way. Or let's consider the also serialized Battlestar Galactica as an example. During the start of the first season, they similarly introduced a number of storylines beyond the basic Cylon attack/Earth search plot: Adama and Apollo's family issues, Boomer is a sleeper Cylon, Baltar is untrustworthy and sees visions of a Cylon, Starbuck is responsible for Zak Adama's death, Laura Roslin is forced to assume a position she is neither prepared for nor wanted. And this is only to name a few. By the end of the first season, everyone knows the truth about Starbuck and Zak and Boomer has just revealed her true nature in the final scene of the season. There are still a lot of balls in the air - and this keeps us watching. What Might Have BeenI won't go into too much detail about the many mistakes made in Seasons 2 and 3. Instead, I'm going to detail the things that I think would have made this show last longer.Save AaronHarry Hamlin was great as malevolent superstar Aaron Echolls. So why did the writers kill him off at the end of the second season? They shouldn't have. Aaron had just been acquitted of Lily's murder and was looking to make both Logan and Veronica pay for his time behind bars. Why kill him off when he was poised to wreak havoc on our favorite Neptune duo? Instead of the lame mysteries and a false, rushed romance of Season 3, we could have had Logan and Veronica (still reluctant allies) fighting against evil Aaron. This would have drug out the tension between the two while they were forced to work against a common enemy. Plus, wouldn't it be nice to see Logan growing up a little by having the purse strings taken away? Our GangOne of the things that made the show so great was the vast array of background and secondary characters we'd come to know and love over the course of the first two seasons. But instead of seeing them in season 3, we saw cardboard college stereotypes (drunk frat boys! stupid sororiety girls! angry feminists!). I would have much rather spent more time with Wallace, Mac, Weevil, Alicia, Lamb, Cliff and Vinnie. What about Kendall as an unlikely romantic partner for Keith? Weevil as a long-term employee of Mars Investigations? Cliff doing ANYTHING!? Why introduce new characters no one gives a fig about when you have a vastly underused stable of characters we already know?What about you? What would you have done differently?

It just occured to me that I could concieve, carry and give birth to a child in the time before the always-excellent Battlestar Galactica returns to my small screen. Whose brilliant idea was this? This fact makes me very nervous for Sunday. The SciFi channel website seems to indicate that the Final Five will definitely be revealed this week, but I'm not too confident about that. And if it does happen (I'm guessing Chief, Anders, Tori, Tigh and Starbuck) it will probably be in the last two minutes. Then nine frakking months of cooling our heels. I won't give Ronald D Moore the ultimate sadist prize until I see if he makes us wait that long to see Starbuck again. Please, let me see The Buck one last time before 2008. I miss her so...

I've been away from LiveJournal for a while, and I have to say that I've missed posting here. I'm hoping to re-vamp my journal with new and exciting entires.I'd like to take a minute to say HAPPY BIRTHDAY to the Cat in the Hat!

The UK Telegraph is reporting that protests are mounting against MySpace for hosting profiles/blogs for over thirty Texas death row inmates. Like all other wannabe hipsters with obnoxious favorite movie lists, the inmates are seeking to project their own personalities into cyberspace.One of the greatest critiques of the American prison system is the fact that its purpose it to dehumanize criminals. It could hardly be argued that people are sculpted by their environments. By placing humans in cages and treating them like animals, we are promoting violence. We are not punishing violence and we are certainly not curing it. There is something very flawed about a system that treats humans like animals and yet is surprised when they continue to act accordingly. Critics of prisoner's activities on MySpace are using the argument that the criminals have the ability to "romanticize" their crime. Surely, these profiles do no more romancing of crime than your average True Crime book or CSI episode? By allowing prisoners to use social networking sites such as MySpace, these individuals are allowed genuine human contact and expression that threatens no one. They are unable to physically harm anyone, but they are allowed healthy human interactions and the ability to relay the horrors of their experiences within prison. Cyber social networking for prisoners could be utilized for rehabilitation if that was the system's actual goal. What's the crime in that?

Battlestar Galactica Collectable Card GameMy love affair with CCGs started with my first hand of Magic: The Gathering a looong time ago. Goblin attack! The BSG CCG is more like the Trek CCG than Magic, but so much fun. The best part? You can't get manna fucked. Cylon Attack! Fear and Loathing in Las VegasWell this is more about a particular copy. The Half Price Books in Austin has a signed copy in its Rare Books Section. Anybody wanna buy me an early Christmas present? Secret Santa? Anybody? Bueller?Veronica Mars' Greatest MysteryForget who killed Lilly, who stabbed Felix, and will she and Logan ever get their act together. The biggest mystery on Veronica Mars is why the CW won't pull its head out of its ass and order the full season. Right now, I'm checking online 100 times a day for news about my favorite show. We need Pixie Spy Magic, stat!Dr. WhoI'm totally late to the game on this one, but this series is great! I started watching because it comes on before BSG and fell in love with its quirky charm. Although I'd give my left eye (in honor of Col. Tigh) to see Bill OR Ted climb outta that police box.Authors Phone HomeSend an email with your name and phone number to admin@litpac.org to have Dave Eggars (Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius), Jonathan Franzen (The Corrections), Audrey Niffenegger (The Time Traveller's Wife) or another famous author call you and remind you to vote on Tuesday. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Franzen, although I wonder if he'll call me blindfolded. Yes, I'm totally the queen of obscure literary references.

Big budget cuts have been forcing many major newspapers to lay off large numbers of reporting staff. While layoffs are rarely big news, these are getting a lot of coverage because it is news reporters who are getting laid off. Some sanctimonious editors are crying about the truth being in jeopardy due to understaffed newspapers. Somebody thinks they're Fox Mulder.As Stephen Colbert so correctly stated recently: reporters in America have become little more than "typists" chronicling the stories that the major corporations and government want them to cover. The truth was sacrificed a long time ago at the altar of false objectivity.Objectivity is one of the first credos of news writing, but it has failed our system. Dry, just-the-facts-m'am reporting has led to a stagnate news force and an intellectually apathetic public. Imagine a literature or history class in which the professor just stands in front and spouts off a litany of facts with no discussion, questions, or flavor. Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. Would you really learn anything? Would you even care about the class? Since you probably answered "No", then my next question is why do we believe that journalism can accomplish anything different? The Socratic method has long been used in college classrooms, academic forums, and law schools. It has also been used in journalism schools to develop critical thinking skills. But why couldn't it be applied to the actual job of journalism as well? A so-called "Socratic journalism" would invite the reader into a mental dialogue with the journalist, allowing them to digest the information as something more than merely a list of events.If we want the privilege of living in a democratic, free society, then we must take the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the system. Information for information's sake does no good. As the late, great journalist/revolutionary Hunter S. Thompson said: ""Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long. You can't be objective about Nixon." Indeed. Perhaps an unexamined news piece is not worth reading.

I always stop at Huffington Post on my daily news rounds and today they had a heartbreaking link to clips from a new documentary about EDs. Photographer Lauren Greenfield has a new documentary coming to HBO in which she spent 10 weeks inside an eating disorder treatment center. The clips available are heartbreaking and can be viewed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/becoming-fearless/If you're intrigued as much as I was, stop by Lauren Greenfield's own site and take a look at her photobook "Girl Culture" in which she chronicles the performance aspects of American female culture. It's a fascinating view of the way women adapt aspects of the outside world into their individual personas. The questions raised at Greenfield's site are intriguing, and her photos are amazing. A definite must-see.Greenfield's work made me think of the prevelance of performance in women's rituals of dress, grooming, and eating and wonder if perhaps women focus the majority of their artistic abilities towards their bodies. We use our bodies as canvases to express ourselves as well as to receieve attention or prestige in a way that men would never consider.

The New York Times and other major media outlets are reporting the results of new scientific findings that indicate a significantly reduced low-calorie yet vitamin full diet extends life in research animals. The results of scientific studies shouldn't make me nervous, but everytime someone comes out with information like this, it makes me uncomfortable. Aesthetic fascism - particularly the onslaught against women - is one of my personal hot-button issues. It has always bothered me that we have such strict standards about what beauty is. This goes both ways for me. I despise comments about "real women have curves" as much as I do the weight-loss ads with the Before a size 10. There's no doubt in my mind that many will cite such reports as justification for starving themselves (I checked out some pro-Ana sites and confirmed this suspicion). I want every woman to be physically healthy, but I want them to be mentally healthy as well. So, we may have learned that adhering to strict low-calorie diets isn't unhealthy for one's body, but it's important to remember that doing it to remain within a false ideal of beautiful is unhealthy for the mind.

The New York Times is reporting this morning that the end of YouTube as we know it has begun. Due to their buy-out by Google, they've begun purging clips. Comedy Central has begun the charge by demanding that clips of its shows be removed from the site. I'll admit to have wasted a lot of time over at YouTube. But it's not all wasted time. What the corporations are missing in this crusade against YouTube is that the site is a promotional gift from the gods. Without ever spending a penny of their own dimes, networks and bands are getting absolutely free marketing that doesn't come off as marketing to the jaded post-modern anti-consumer. I've discovered great new bands and shows, obsessed over favorite shows, and stayed plugged-in to pop culture through YouTube clips. Jerking these off the web is going to be Napster redux. All it will do is breed resentment from consumers and destroy a great chance to get the message out there. Don't believe me? Just ask little-known band OK Go who treadmill danced their way into the hearts and record shelves of over one million people in just six days on YouTube. These guys need to stop listening to Metallica.

A report was published last week stating statistics that over 600,000 Iraqis had died since the American invasion three years ago. The proverbial ink wasn't even dy on this announcement when the Right started filling the airwaves, print media, the blogosphere, and cyberspace with "NAH UH!" rebuttals. In true form, the left immediately jumped back with "UH HUH!"S. So goes the pointless tug and pull of what masquerades as political discussion in America. There is no political discussion in America. All of those talk radio shows, news and magazine articles, and blogs do little more than bicker over meaningless semantics as this latest incident illustrates quite readily.Political pundits of both parties and persuasions will never make any actual progress because they refuse to treat the disease. As long as legislation exists only to place band-aids over serious problems, then all this so-called political debate will only remain mindless chatter.The disease is not the number of Iraqis killed in the past three years, that is the sympton. The disease is our presence there. As long as we refuse to take a long, honest look at the validity of our presence in Iraq then we miss the point entirely. Abortion has been a hot-button/hair trigger issue between parties for over thirty years. But abortion is also merely a sympton. The disease is our negligence to place proper importance on sex education and providing full contraceptive control to women. We live in the richest country in the world, yet we refuse to provide free birth control to women. We live in a country where Congress demands that insurance companies carry Viagra on all prescription plans, but not birth control. It is hypocritical of the pro-life movement to seek only to outlaw abortion without supporting methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies. The disease, people. The same applied to the angry debate over gun control. I don't give a damn about guns either way, but why has not one major political figure ever considered trying to uncover why gun violence occurs instead of focusing on the gun? Why do we condemn the guns but not our society that forces people into permanent marginalization and therefore crime? Once again, Americans believe that the symptom is easier to treat than the disease. As long as every major contributor to so-called political thought continues to seek out band-aids to cover our wounds, our wounds will just continue to reappear and multiply. But don't expect those band-aids to disappear anytime soon. Can I have the ones with Scooby Doo on them?

For a truly unique listening experience, move your mouse as fast as you can to go to Rolling Stone's website for a free listen to the new full-length Nellie McKay album.

This month's issue of Wired Magazine has a lengthy feature article and cover story on the "New Atheists." In summation, the article discusses the views of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. This "big three" believes that atheists have a call to begin prosletyzing for their cause and speaking out against religion. In fact, the New Atheists believe that religion is evil and should be eradicated to usher in an era of true reason. It took me awhile to write this article, because there are quite a few things I want to say about it.First, I am an atheist. I do not believe in Jesus, Allah, or any other vague notion of God. Second, anyone that has read my writings or knows me in person knows that I am pretty anti-religious. But Dawkins and Co. are taking their ideas too far. It is one thing to imagine a world with no religion (TM John Lennon), it's another thing to actively pursue its elimination. This is where one crosses the line into the same kind of fundamentalist thinking that we are so quick to denounce in Christians and Muslims. This is the kind of fundamentalist thinking that encourages suicide bombings and denies people equal rights in our government. This is the kind of thinking that all people of reason - despite their personal position on the Big Guy - should be fighting against. Absolutism is a dividing force if it has God or Science behind it. I believe we would be better off as a whole without religion (although that may not apply individually), but I draw the line in dictating that belief to others. I believe most strongly in freedom. I would rather live in a place where people are allowed to worship Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as they keep that belief private. My primary problem with religion in America is the increasing need of its followers to use it as a platform for legislation. If we, as atheists, attempt to fight religion with fundamentalist mentalities, then it will only result in an increase in reaction from the kind of religious fundamentalism that is already threatening to destroy our nation and world.

Veronica Mars 3.4If Logan isn't being emotionally tormented or physically tortured ... then you ain't watching Veronica.[ more later ]

Jane Magazine is officially the biggest sell-out since Jewel. Jane used to be the last glossy haven for young women of feminist conscience. But not anymore. With the management change, Jane has become like every other pointless anti-feminist glossy magazine out there only worse; worse because it's still pretending to be forward-thinking.Recent offenses?Jessica Simpson as covergirl. She's either the stupidest female that's ever lived, or even worse - she just pretends to be to appeal to men.Pages after pages of anorexic models sporting waaaay too expensive clothes followed by psuedo-feminist features exhorting women to love their bodies. That's reaching Christianity levels of hypocrisy there. An ongoing feature about a virgin wanting to get laid. Send in your dates! Now the magazine is a pimp. And lastly, all of the articles that used to be interesting and unique have been dumbed down like season three of Alias.I get it Jane, next month you'll tell us Vaughn in married, right?