Well, except for Canadians who cheat and have their Thanksgiving Day early.

My favorite think about Thanksgiving is, obviously the turkey.  I love to eat turkey.  Why?  Because turkey’s are ugly animals.  And if there is one thing years of watching Disney films have taught me?  Ugly=Evil.  We cannot trust ugly things.  This is why I only surround myself with attractive people.  It’s why I trust Barack Obama and Joe Biden more than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Of course, the one exception to this rule is attractive people (usually a prince or princess) made ugly by spells placed upon them by evil ugly people.  Anyways, I like eating turkeys because they are ugly.   Boy, I sure hope none of the turkeys I’ve eaten over the years were really attractive royalty cursed by a witch.  That would be my bad.

I found this in my queue of unpublished posts.  I discovered a few others, like one about the use of Hitler in politics.  Oddly, I thought I waited to long…and yet now it seems more timely than ever.  But this particular post has been sitting in queue for awhile…but I kind of like it.  So I thought I would publish it.

In a conversation with Bob Barr, Glenn Beck said we used to value people failing in this country.

Well, specifically, he said:

Do you think the problem is — with the Republicans, they got tied up into the compassionate conservative thing? Which is, the — I don`t even know what that means. Is that an admission that conservatives are not compassionate? I think the most compassionate thing you can do is let a man fail. Let a man find himself. Let a man pull himself up by the bootstraps. That used to be something that was admired in this country. Now it`s not.

I get that he was saying the bootstraps thing was valued. And it was. It still is. But the failing part he ties directly into pulling up by the bootstraps? Failure has never been a virtue. Nobody said, “Joe Bob failed? Awesome! That’s great. That’s what America is about.” No, Joe Bob faced humiliation and disrespect for his failure. Sure, if he eventually succeeds? Joe Bob becomes a hero…and example of the American Dream.

But we rarely applaud failure.  Sometimes we mock it.  Sometimes we ignore it.   We might offer the person who failed some platitude that amounts to better luck next time.  Something about how this failure could open the door to something better.  And that is only if the failure doesn’t hurt anyone else.  If a lot of people are hurt?  Say, lose jobs due to the failure?  Then the person who failed risked people wanting them to suffer.  But no one, and I am confident in saying this…no one ever truly admires someone for a failure.  We’ve never valued it.

I find it quite funny that the Republicans are introducing a “purity” test and referring to it as a Reagan Test…and Reagan fails the test.  Ha!

So, they are talking about Khan for the next Star Trek…apparently.  And you know what?  This is truly a terrible idea.

I get why fans would want it.  The Wrath of Khan is easily one of the best of the Trek films.  It (like First Contact) gets what is best in Trek.  Noble heroes facing situations that challenge their ethics, trying to be the best of humanity when it seems easier to just give into vengeance.  Mix in some humor, space battles and paused delivery?  Viola!

But nothing would be quite as terrible as trying to redo the Wrath of Khan.  Why?

Do you folks clamoring for a Khan redux understand why Khan was so effective?  Truthfully, I do not think this is understood.  It’s because between Space Seed (the Star Trek Episode that introduced us to Khan) and Star Trek 2?  There is about fifteen years.  Fifteen years between their meetings.  There is a sense of history between Khan and the crew of the Enterprise.  His thirst for revenge is palpable.

They certainly could not remake the Wrath of Khan, as there is no wrath here.  Remember?  This is a new time line.  Remaking Space Seed is essentially what would have to be done.  And remaking a TV episode?  It worked okay for the Twilight Zone Movie, but really?  For Star Trek?  It’s a terrible idea.  I mean, why not Charlie X or Court Marshall for a third and fourth film then?

I’d rather see them try working up some fresh ideas.  Yeah, I know that the Dark Knight worked great.  But the super-hero film is a bit different.  They also played up the idea that there was not a history between Batman and the Joker.  But we need a history between Kahn and the Enterprise.  For a revisit to Khan?  We have to have a lapse in time.  We need Kahn to have time to stew.  To become singly obsessed.  That will not happen in a two hour film.

No.  The next Star Trek film must be something fresh.  It can have familiar characters, but it should feel like a new adventure, like somewhere we have not gone before.

My mom.  Even though she didn’t pass on the genetic code for thick and luxurious hair like Alec Baldwin.  Other than that,  she’s been supportive.

My Dad.   Also supportive, we have some great laughter and conversation.

My sister and my Brother-in-law.  We can always find a way to goof off and have fun.  When I am down, they can lift me up.

My friends.  For both fun and thought provoking-ness (make that a word, people!).

The Music of the Eels.  Never has melancholy been captures quite so beautifully.

Sarah Palin isn’t in the White House.  I breath a sigh of relief.

The Daily Show…because real news just makes me want to cry.

Community, the Office, Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock.  Thanks for a bright spot in the midst of the week, NBC.

J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek on Blu-Ray. Blu really brings those lens flares to life!

George Clooney.  For being so handsome.  I think this is the most important thing on this list.

Thanks, John!

I think the next Abram’s Star Trek movie should feature a revamped Q as the villain (borrowing from the Next Generation).  And he should be played by Johnny Depp.

But she is peeved…over Newsweek’s “Sexist Cover”.

The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin.

Not only is it not sexist, the “out of context” photo she posed for makes some sense.  It suggests a person who is preparing for a run.  And she is.  She is already sprinting through TV shows to try and paint herself as more than she is.  But conservative Rod Dreher comments on Palin and her new book saying:

The rap on Palin is that she’s too shallow and inexperienced for the presidency — a conclusion that early Palin supporters like me came to during the 2008 campaign. Alas, for conservatives in search of a champion, there’s nothing in Going Rogue to challenge that conclusion. It’s like this: Palin spends seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views.

So, I think that cover is only sexist if the presence of “shorts” is inherently sexist.  The cover correctly shows what a vapid “leader” Palin is.

UPDATE:  Well, apparently the photographer who sold the photo to Newsweek violated his contract with Runner’s World.  So, while Palin is still not a victim here, apparently Runners World is.

How in any movie with mass carnage?  A dog makes a miraculous escape while thousands of people die…and we are supposed be relieved…because the damn dog survived.

Come on, Hollywood…let the freaking dogs die for once.

So, on Monday, this apparently happened.  Now, according to the activists involved?  They were going to challenge hate crime laws and were sure they would be arrested for freely expressing their religious opinions on homosexuality.

Matt Barber, the guy who called the FBI on Joe Jervis, notes the dangerous evil Gay Terrorist threat.  He points out that Joe removed the postings they referred to…suggesting Joe was trying to pull a fast one.  He publicly noted he was removing them and why.  But why let the facts get in the way of the crazy.  He whines a bit on how the media is ignoring this threat and the plight of Christians:

It doesn’t fit the PC narrative, you see. Islam is really a “peaceful religion,” right? And homosexual activists?  Well, they’re the victims, not the victimizers. They’re the targets of “hate crimes” not the architects.

No offense, but the reason noone takes it seriously is the same reason Christians argue it is okay to in our culture to mock Christians.  Because Christians are non-violent.

For example, in the Town Hall peice comments?

Don’t push this too far, gay men. There’s a reason why gay men were brutally repressed in every society until the Western Societies of the past 20 years — the potential forces of violence arrayed against you are infinitely greater than anything you can muster.

Everything you enjoy now is “dependent on the kindness of strangers” Stay tolerant to get tolerance. You may have pushed things as far as they can go. If so, live with it. If you break down religion you may also break down the institutions that restrain violence being visited on you.

or try:

If gay activists launch violent attacks on their enemies, then they have set the terms of engagement. They made the rules and we will play the game by them. Last time I checked, they were outnumbered over fifty to one. Since they know this, it is a guarantee that not one of the cowardly little weasels will ever do anything more dangerous than key a car or send anonymous threats. They simply don’t like the odds. Sensible of them, isn’t it!

Or:

And to many of us, the best defense is a good offense. Get medieval with any Christian friends or neighbors of mine, and I can guarantee you’ll spend the rest of your days regretting it.

But don’t think that I am the one who’ll do the retaliating. There are many folks much more willing and able than me… I probably won’t have to do anything.

In conclusion, yes… we think you blowhards out there are bluffing on these threats of violence against us, and we’re calling your bluff. But just you set off one bomb or fire one shot in anger… and just see what it gets you.

And then(just for fun):

Same sex “marriage” denies the rights of kids to have a mom and dad.

(Uh…if marriage is not a right?  Neither is “a mom and a dad.”)

Finally? (Because Townhall is making my head hurt with the crazy:

One thing homosexuals need to remember. We have them outnumbered 99 to 1. It is a war they cannot win. If they want a war they can have it. But, I would not recommend it.

But there are no threats and hate from the right.  But I should be way more worried about the gays.

To date?  I have not seen any news reports of these guys getting arrested for “hate speech.”