The Pope Said A Thing...

The Pope Said A Thing...

So now that we're all into the Holiday season and everyone's into the whole Jesus thing, I guess it's time to listen to something the Pope said..

Pope says condoms acceptable 'in certain cases'

Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable "in certain cases", notably "to reduce the risk of infection" with HIV, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.

In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms."

"It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution," the pope replies.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," said the head of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.

The new volume, entitled "Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times", is based on 20 hours of interviews conducted by German journalist Peter Seewald.

Until now, the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception -- other than abstinence -- even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.

Benedict sparked international outcry in March 2009 on a visit to AIDS-ravaged Africa when he told reporters the disease was a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."

To illustrate his apparent shift in position, Benedict offered the example of a male prostitute using a condom.

"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes," Benedict was quoted as saying.

"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."

Well, isn't that something. I'm sure I could fill the rest of this blog with tons of articles and other such stories showing the horrors that the catholic church's standing on condoms has caused the world, especially in third world countries and the massive high number of aids cases in Africa, but that would be too much effort and it's the Holiday season after all.. Gotta rest up as the year comes to a close.



Then again, this won't change anything. No reasonable catholic ever gave a shit about what the Pope said. Hell, it's hard enough to find a reasonable catholic itself. Even if this is a step into the right direction for the Pope to do away with silly nonsense of trying to get the masses to produce like cattle.

It is a bit alarming that there's probably going to be a lot of religious idiots who will be upset about this reversal of a long time practice of shunning condoms as sinful. I mean, just look at the response by the Catholic church because the Pope stated an opinion..

But, as the Vatican noted in a longer, Italian version of its statement, the pope's remarks were made in a "colloquial and not magisterial" form. In other words, they represented his private opinions rather than official teaching.

Writing for the Catholic World Report website, US academic Janet Smith, argued: "The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense."

Ha. What a load of shit. So they pinned it that it was simply his opinion but has no baring on the stance the church has taken. That would be like Obama stating that racism shouldn't exist, but that our nation will still racially profile and the views are simply of that one head leader..



How could the church continue on with this stupid stance that using condoms will still send you to the fiery pits of hell? I guess it's a double win for them if they keep this stance. Those folks who are religious nuts will still be having tons of kids, who at least one or two will be more than willing to give money to the church as a life long member.

Not to mention that the less gay people who are for Jesus, even though the church tells them he hates them, will not use condoms because A.) The church says it's wrong and B.) because it feels a whole lot better. Leading the chances of AIDS in the community that much bigger and killing off the gays for the church.

I guess I should just settle with the Pope at least agreeing with the concept that using condoms should be something folks should practice. I wonder what his stance on double bagging is? Or maybe I just shouldn't take my sexual advice from someone who's not suppose to have sex.

I'm Coming, Jesus!

I'm Coming, Jesus!

In my daily attempt to find something about the catholic church to mock I came across this and my life has changed forever. Well, at least till the next blog post, which should be within 24 hours. I'm on a roll here.

Even though I was an alter server and I went to catholic school for most of my life, I still don't get a lot of the religion. I guess that happens when you stop believing the lies and become an atheist. But much like the famous "Things white people like", this following site tracks what Christian Culture likes

It's a comical site.. a lot of it seems actually serious in a sort of tongue and cheek sort of way. But there was one article that grabbed my attention.. It was last year's August entry which really had me bent over backwards laughing..

#31 Astroglide;
Christian women give this to each other at bridal showers and as it is unwrapped they say cheerfully "It's a married woman's best friend!" If you find this unsettling, that feeling is valid.

Even if this is a humor website, it does make you wonder. I mean, we already knew that Christians were so fucked in the head about sexuality. No wonder a lot of the men turn out to love the cock when they've been fighting it all their lives through persecuting gay rights. Maybe it's just that, in a hilarious turn of events, that these prim and proper Christians go so long without sex that the men don't have a clue what to do and the women are probably dried up by then anyway.

Nothing says "Thank you Jesus" like some astroglide. I mean, Jesus does keep them all dried up. He rose again.. that much is true, but he didn't arouse on that third day.. Guys, just don't tell them that they can orgasm. It'll ruin EVERYTHING! I guess the comments had me laughing even more.



Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. Said women use astroglide because their men don't even bother trying to turn them on enough that they might self-lubricate? That could possibly be the saddest thing ever. It's one thing if it's women who are aging or having medical issues causing trouble with self-lubrication, but apparently this is being given as routine advice to newlyweds in a culture where people marry as young as they possibly can. This is not something to give thanks for.

I don't know whether my response is "That's terribly depressing" or "my life feels pretty great right about now." I guess the moral of this story is that religions are telling their women that they have to submit to their husbands whenever they are in the mood. It doesn't matter if she's not in the mood for it, just have some astroglide and think about what you're going to be making for dinner while they grunt and moan their way to pleasure.

Fuck The Pope - Happy Thanksgiving

Fuck The Pope - Happy Thanksgiving

What? You expected me NOT to write something offensive on this turkey day? Yeah, I realize I made a lazy video post where you laugh at comical ads, but that's for your enjoyment in a more food coma sort of way... Besides that, you know me well enough to realize I would write something that is highly offensives, but is absolutely true.



I realize that I should be getting food ready right now, but I can't help but point out this absurd motion that the Pope made a decree of. Yes, he has stated that we stop world hunger now. Which is a bit topical on this day when we stuff our faces with the most amounts of food you will stuff it with. Ok, that's a lie, I mean, we are Americans after all. In saying that, The Pope declares we end World Hunger... Now... I warn you, this shit is long, just skim it:

(16 Nov 09 - RV) Pope Benedict XVI on Monday visited the Rome-based FAO for the opening of the Food Summit. We have this report...


Full text of Pope Benedict XVI's discourse at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation International Summit on Food Security:

Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen!
1. I was very pleased to receive an invitation from Mr Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO, to speak at the opening session of this World Summit on Food Security. I greet him warmly and I thank him for his kind words of welcome. I greet the distinguished authorities present and all the participants. Echoing the sentiments of my venerable predecessors Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, I should like once more to express my esteem for the work of FAO, which the Catholic Church and the Holy See follow attentively, taking a keen interest in the day-to-day work that is carried out there. Thanks to your generous engagement, aptly expressed in your motto Fiat Panis, the development of agriculture and food security remain among the key priorities of international political action. I am confident that this same spirit will inform the decisions taken at the present Summit, and those that will follow later, in the common desire to win the battle against hunger and malnutrition in the world as quickly as possible.

2. The international community is currently facing a grave economic and financial crisis. Statistics bear witness to the dramatic growth in the number of people suffering from hunger, made worse by the rise in price of foodstuffs, the reduction in economic resources available to the poorest peoples, and their limited access to markets and to food – notwithstanding the known fact that the world has enough food for all its inhabitants. Indeed, while low levels of agricultural production persist in some regions, partly owing to climate change, sufficient food is produced on a global scale to satisfy both current demands and those in the foreseeable future. From these data we may deduce that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between population growth and hunger, and this is further demonstrated by the lamentable destruction of foodstuffs for economic gain. In the Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate I pointed out that, “Hunger is not so much dependent on lack of material things as on shortage of social resources, the most important of which are institutional. What is missing, in other words, is a network of economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to sufficient food and water … and also capable of addressing the primary needs and necessities ensuing from genuine food crises …” I added, “The problem of food insecurity needs to be addressed within a long-term perspective, eliminating the structural causes that give rise to it and promoting the agricultural development of poorer countries. This can be done by investing in rural infrastructures, irrigation systems, transport, organization of markets, and in the development and dissemination of agricultural technology that can make the best use of the human, natural and socio-economic resources that are more readily available at the local level, while guaranteeing their sustainability over the long term as well” (no. 27). Hence the need to oppose those forms of aid that do grave damage to the agricultural sector, those approaches to food production that are geared solely towards consumption and lack a wider perspective, and especially greed, which causes speculation to rear its head even in the marketing of cereals, as if food were to be treated just like any other commodity.

3. The weakness of current mechanisms for food security and the need to re-examine them are confirmed, one might say, by the mere fact that this Summit has been convoked. Even though the poorest countries are more fully integrated into the world economy than in the past, movements in international markets make them more vulnerable and force them to seek the aid of intergovernmental institutions, which no doubt do valuable and indispensable work. The concept of cooperation, though, must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity: it is necessary to involve “local communities in choices and decisions that affect the use of agricultural land” (ibid.). This is because integral human development requires responsible choices on the part of everyone and it demands an attitude of solidarity – meaning that aid or disaster relief should not be seen as opportunities to promote the interests of those who make resources available or of elite groups among the beneficiaries. With regard to countries that are in need of external support, the international community has the duty to assist with the instruments of cooperation, assuming collective responsibility for their development, “through the solidarity of … presence, supervision, training and respect” (ibid., 47). Within this overall context of responsibility, every country has the right to define its own economic model, taking steps to secure its freedom to choose its own objectives. In this way, cooperation must become an effective instrument, unbeholden to interests that can absorb a not insignificant part of the resources destined for development. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that an attitude of solidarity regarding the development of poor countries also has the potential to contribute to a solution of the current global crisis. Support given to these nations through financial plans inspired by solidarity, enabling them to provide for their own requirements of consumption and development, not only favours their internal economic growth, but can have a positive impact on integral human development in other countries (cf. ibid., 27).

4. In the current situation there is a continuing disparity in the level of development within and among nations that leads to instability in many parts of the world, accentuating the contrast between poverty and wealth. This no longer applies only to models of development, but also to an increasingly widespread perception concerning food insecurity, namely the tendency to view hunger as structural, an integral part of the socio-political situation of the weakest countries, a matter of resigned regret, if not downright indifference. It is not so, and it must never be so! To fight and conquer hunger it is essential to start redefining the concepts and principles that have hitherto governed international relations, in such a way as to answer the question: what can direct the attention and the consequent conduct of States towards the needs of the poorest? The response must be sought not in the technical aspects of cooperation, but in the principles that lie behind it: only in the name of common membership of the worldwide human family can every people and therefore every country be asked to practise solidarity, that is, to shoulder the burden of concrete responsibilities in meeting the needs of others, so as to favour the genuine sharing of goods, founded on love.

5. Nevertheless, while it is true that human solidarity inspired by love goes beyond justice – because to love is to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other – it is never without justice, which leads us to give the other what is “his”, what belongs to him by virtue of his being and acting. Indeed, I cannot “give” the other what is “mine”, without first giving him what belongs to him in justice (cf. ibid., 6). If the aim is to eliminate hunger, international action is needed not only to promote balanced and sustainable economic growth and political stability, but also to seek out new parameters – primarily ethical but also juridical and economic ones – capable of inspiring the degree of cooperation required to build a relationship of parity between countries at different stages of development. This, as well as closing the existing gap, could favour the capacity of each people to consider itself an active player, thereby confirming that the fundamental equality of all peoples is rooted in the common origin of the human family, the source of those principles of “natural law” that should inspire political, juridical and economic choices and approaches in international life (cf. ibid., 59). Saint Paul speaks eloquently on this subject: “I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality. As it is written, ‘He who gathered much had nothing over, and he who gathered little had no lack’” (2 Cor 8:13-15).

6. Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, in order to combat hunger and promote integral human development, it is necessary to understand the needs of the rural world, and likewise to ensure that any decline in donor support does not create uncertainties in the financing of activities of cooperation: any tendency towards a short-sighted view of the rural world as a thing of secondary importance must be avoided. At the same time, access to international markets must be favoured for those products coming from the poorest areas, which today are often relegated to the margins. In order to achieve these objectives, it is necessary to separate the rules of international trade from the logic of profit viewed as an end in itself, directing them towards the support of economic initiative in countries with greater need of development; once they have greater income at their disposal, these countries will be able to advance towards the self-sufficiency that leads to food security.

7. Nor must the fundamental rights of the individual be forgotten, which include, of course, the right to sufficient, healthy and nutritious food, and likewise water; these rights take on an important role in the realization of others, beginning with the primary one, the right to life. It is necessary, then, to cultivate “a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination” (Caritas in Veritate, 27). Much has been patiently accomplished in recent years by FAO in this regard: on the one hand it has favoured an enlargement of the objectives of this right over and above the mere guarantee of satisfying primary needs, and on the other it has emphasized the need for its adequate regulation.

8. Methods of food production likewise demand attentive analysis of the relationship between development and protection of the environment. The desire to possess and to exploit the resources of the planet in an excessive and disordered manner is the primary cause of all environmental degradation. Protection of the environment challenges the modern world to guarantee a harmonious form of development, respectful of the design of God’s creation and therefore capable of safeguarding the planet (cf. ibid., 48-51). While the entire human race is called to acknowledge its obligations to future generations, it is also true that States and international organizations have a duty to protect the environment as a shared good. In this context, the links between environmental security and the disturbing phenomenon of climate change need to be explored further, focusing on the central importance of the human person, and especially of the populations most at risk from both phenomena. Norms, legislation, development plans and investments are not enough, however: what is needed is a change in the lifestyles of individuals and communities, in habits of consumption and in perceptions of what is genuinely needed. Most of all, there is a moral duty to distinguish between good and evil in human action, so as to rediscover the bond of communion that unites the human person and creation.

9. As I pointed out in the Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, it is important to remember that “the deterioration of nature is … closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits.” Indeed, “the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.” And “the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society.” Therefore, “our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages society” (ibid., 51).

10. Hunger is the most cruel and concrete sign of poverty. Opulence and waste are no longer acceptable when the tragedy of hunger is assuming ever greater proportions. Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Catholic Church will always be concerned for efforts to defeat hunger; the Church is committed to support, by word and deed, the action taken in solidarity – planned, responsible and regulated – to which all members of the international community are called to contribute. The Church does not wish to interfere in political decisions: she respects the knowledge gained through scientific study, and decisions arrived at through reason responsibly enlightened by authentically human values, and she supports the effort to eliminate hunger. This is the most immediate and concrete sign of solidarity inspired by charity, and it brooks neither delay nor compromise. Such solidarity relies on technology, laws and institutions to meet the aspirations of individuals, communities and entire peoples, yet it must not exclude the religious dimension, with all the spiritual energy that it brings, and its promotion of the human person. Acknowledgment of the transcendental worth of every man and every woman is still the first step towards the conversion of heart that underpins the commitment to eradicate deprivation, hunger and poverty in all their forms.

I thank you for your gracious attention and, as I conclude, I offer greetings and good wishes in the official languages of FAO, to all the Member States of the Organization.
God bless your efforts to ensure that all people are given their daily bread.
Que Dieu bénisse vos efforts pour assurer le pain quotidien à chaque personne.
Dios bendiga sus esfuerzos para garantizar el pan de cada día para cada persona.

Before I get started on my Holiday rant, I would like to say Happy Thanksgiving... and now..

FUCK THE POPE.

Fuck ALL popes past, present and future.



While a lot of this is gooey, non-specific pro-help the world language that we can all support, I was amazed by two things:

1.) Population growth is NOT a cause of hunger, nope, no way, no how, keep those babies coming, who needs rubbers? Abortions? pffft- please. No way will more people on earth mean more mouths to feed.

2.) Opulence is BAD! You should always remember that when you see the Pope sit on a throne made of gold in a castle made of gold on a mountain made of gold.

They claim that the Catholic Church's net assets in 2007 was $669 million, and that doesn't count the wealth of the individual dioceses. The Catholic church, overall, is extremely wealthy. So I have to wonder why they're asking me to help out in this situation? Get with the program or at the very least don't bug me for donations while you have ostentatious displays of wealth.



Does the Vatican really claim to have less than a billion dollars in assets? Because that's just balls out bullshit and I'm impressed that they have brass balls that big. Maybe that's the net figure, taking into account liabilities for future child abuse lawsuit settlements.

This doesn't even cover the value of the land the vatican holds if you were going to turn it into a giant beet farm. The Catholic Church needs centuries of stolen wealth and trinkets for the same reason a talent agency needs a big fountain in the lobby.

Hello, I'm the Catholic church. I accept donations under the pretense of feeding starving people in Africa but the money actually goes to buying blood diamonds that fuel genocide and slavery in Africa instead. The Pope sure looks pretty in his robes though.

It's okay. I believe in Jesus..



Yeah. It's almost enough to shave your head and tear up a picture of the Pope.

One of my favorite lectures was back in my Catholic high school days where a jesuit priest gave a speech using the line "There's infallible and there's 'infallible.'" It made me laugh. But it is really annoying to think that Catholic people feel the need to vote on Politicians based on their positions on abortion and gay marriage. How about what they'll actually do instead of who you can most likely drink with at a bar (sinful!) and not get into a fist fight with. This is in a country that has important issues facing it.



Then again, if my earlier post is any indication, I'm not going to be eating all that much if I want to actually lose that weight, or at least not gain it before the New Year. So perhaps the food I lack eating will be gladly consumed by those who face hunger. I know, I shouldn't make fun of this. But really, I can easily say I'm doing more for those who face hunger than the Pope. I at least buy a family part of an animal for the holidays through Heifer International. This year I may buy them some bees again.

It certainly beats spending money on your loser employees relocating them after they've gone off the deep end and raped little boys. But then hunger is a key part of a legacy from centuries of colonial oppression and exploitation. Gotta keep that co-dependency relationship going. Can't let them be on their own and able to think for themselves. Just gotta keep telling those African folks that condoms increase the risk of AIDS and hope that they just keep multiplying.

I usually dislike Sarah Silverman, but she does make a very valid point here.


Besides, she's a Jew. In this time of year, she's going to get the short end of the stick and I'm sure I'm going to write a lot more about the Jewish Holidays as they approach, so I wont get into those. I have to say, they are what I can relate to. Oy!

But really. It's times like this that I'm glad that I'm Atheist. At least that way I don't have to make up excuses for the most ignored man in history. The Pope is the one guy no one takes seriously. Whatever he says gets negated. Thankfully. Because while his views are the ones that the Catholic Church is suppose to be conveying. Mainly because they're so extreme and people want to get into heaven, they just don't want to be on the fucking honor roll.

It's times like this that I think there's a need for the Anti-Pope.

Remember, Remember the V of November

Remember, Remember the V of November

Talk about a concentrated amount of holidays near each other. In the past week we have had Halloween and Day of the Dead and now we have Guy Fawke day. This man is Guy Fawkes.



On November 5th 1605, Guy Fawkes tried to assassinate King James I (and most of the Protestant aristocracy), by blowing up the British Houses of Parliament. This would be the equivalent of destroying the Capitol during the State of the Union.

No one is entirely sure why Guy and his associates (pictured below) wanted to do this. The main theory is that it was an effort to re-establish Catholicism in England (as King James I and his predecessor Queen Elizabeth I were both Protestants).



I should point out that Guy Fawkes wasn't the prime mover of the 'Gunpowder Plot, he was merely a cog. Guy had been a soldier though, and it is likely he was involved as he had some knowledge of explosives. The conspirators had rented a cellar below the House of Lords and had been stockpiling gunpowder in there, to create the explosion.

The story goes that a letter was sent to a Catholic Lord, telling him to stay away from Westminster on the 5th. He was suspicious and showed the letter to King James, and unfortunately Guy was caught leaving the cellar in the morning of the 5th, where the guards found at least 1800 lbs of gunpowder, underneath coal and firewood. Apparently if the explosion had occurred, it would have destroyed most of the surrounding buildings and smashed windows up to 1km away.



Fawkes was subsequently tortured over the next few days. He held out for four days without revealing anything, and only gave in after seeing some of his fellow conspirators in shackles after giving themselves up. He ultimately only revealed the names of conspirators who were dead or who had already been arrested.

The men were tried and convicted on Jan 31st, and were hung drawn and quartered. On the day the plot was discovered, the people of London were encouraged to build bonfires to celebrate the survival of the King. The next year, Parliament passed the 'Thanksgiving Act' which made November 5th an annual celebration. This Act remained in force until 1859. In modern Britain, 'Guy Fawkes Night' (or 'Bonfire Night') is still celebrated, with fireworks, bonfires and church-bell ringing. Traditionally, children would create an effigy of Guy Fawkes to raise funds to buy fireworks ('Penny for the Guy!'). These effigies would be put on top of the bonfires and burned. This is less common now, as children aren't allowed to purchase fireworks any more.



Guy Fawkes was also used in the comic books and film, V for Vendetta. The famous mask is supposed to be the face of Guy Fawkes. But really, I disliked that Alan Moore book. It was such a piece of shit. Remember, remember, that "V for Vendetta" was, upon watching it a second time, a movie that's largely about a disfigured savant who kidnaps a woman, keeps her locked in his basement, tortures her, breaks her mind and then only lets her out once she's become a devoted follower of his ideas.

the only way a libertarian could get a woman. Rorschach could totally beat up V for Vendetta . But if you want to be a nerd, you could make a joke that it has been 404 years. Revolution not found. Ha ha ha ha ha...a.... yeah. One more for the road. The other joke is that he was the last man to enter parliament with honest intentions.



But Guy Fawke is not the only way to feel the V of this day, just a couple of days ago a new take on the 80's TV mini-series V aired the first episode. Yes, I'm moving on to the topic of Television here. For those unfamiliar with V, it's about a somewhat covert takeover of Earth governments by a race of reptile aliens that want to steal our water and eat the flesh from our bones. I know it's 25 years old, but I'll take the high road and assume that you haven't seen it.

But then again, if you saw the first episode on Tuesday, you saw what was the first 3-4 episodes of the original series. I mean, seriously, they pretty much breezed through it. I sort of felt that they were playing it in fast forward. They got to the healing, went to the reveal that they were reptilians, and even set up the resistance in the alien crowd.



I don't even think they formed a resistance until the 2nd-3rd hour of the original miniseries. One thing I did realize was that Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliet from Lost) is literally the worst female actress that has ever lived. Seriously, I couldn't stand the scenes she was in. They were awful in every way and the only redeeming factor was that Wash was with her.

Which leads me to another thing. Does this mean that we'll never get a Firefly get together again? All the key actors seem to have gotten steady gigs now. This show has two of the cast from the show. All I know is that the next time I see any of the cast members from Firefly, I'm going to be stabbing them with a metal stick because they're god damn Reptilians.



I'm sort of interested to see how they are going to work the moral calculus here. If some aliens show up and heal millions upon millions of people and achieve world peace, how exactly could you justify forming a resistance to expel them? Even if they were all about stealing our water and eating our flesh, they did bring about world peace. Maybe the aliens will start eating people en masse to really make us turn against that whole thing.

Though I can see this show causing a lot of political ramifications. I mean, what the fuck was up with bringing up Universal Health Care? I know I talk about it at least once a week here, but in this show that has the V's in favor of it, even if it's under a rouse, it's still going to be fodder for the conservative right to protest. The Teabaggers already are going crazy with Obama for the birth certificate, I can see them running with this whole V stuff and making it even more annoying to see them protest stupid shit.



It's bad enough that Coast 2 Coast is constantly ranting and raving about the reptilians. Clearly a case of one too many red neck hicks who watched the original V mini series acting out. But now with this we're going to get even more crack pot fools talking about this. I suppose it's a lot better than talking about Mel's Hole, right?

Then again, while I saw the current political situation reflected in what the Vs were attempting to do, I did see some Scientology parallels, mostly in the interview with Queen V, where she was ready to walk out unless they didn't mention things that would portray them in a bad light.

So there you have it. A little history lesson into another famous day that was marketed as a "remember", hmmmm. I wonder if we'll have a "never forget the 11th of September" chant in a couple hundred years. And there's your taste of history and television talk.

Happy Bonfire Night everyone! Long live the rich aristocracy!