Swinburne?

Does anyone else think Richard Swinburne's philosophies on the problem of evil are a little... um... sketchy? He says that the existence of evil doesn't disallow the existence of god for most of the normal reasons (free-will and all that much debated b.s.) but he mentions that suffering at the hands of another is a good thing, because it means you are of use to the universe. Excuse me, but what? I don't think that my painful and torturous death (or anyone else's) at the hands of a sadistic monster can be considered a good thing, even if it is allowing human beings a choice between good and evil. And I will never be comforted by the thought that "at least I didn't die in vain." He's wanting me to be happy that some jackass gets to decide to kill me? Seriously, I'm a pretty selfless person (I think) but this is ridiculous. And besides, who's to say people want to be useful anyway. Apparently, Swinburne does.
He mentions that a study of unemployed showed that most people who are out of work claimed they most disliked feeling useless in society (as opposed to the lack of money). I say that's crap. I've known a lot of people who lost their jobs, and they didn't feel 'useless to society'. They just felt pissed off that they'd been fired, or maybe sad that they couldn't provide for their families. Society doesn't factor into it.
Am I the only one who thinks this line of reasoning sounds a little communistic? (Is that a word?) As does his statement that dieing for your country is a wonderful thing, even if you were conscripted and fighting for a cause you don't believe in. I wouldn't want to die for the 'War on Terrorism', even if it was 'for the good of my country. It sounds like the position of a privileged white male who's never seen any real hardship to me.
And what about this crap about having 'the right to cause your child to suffer for his own good'? By this reasoning, couldn't you make the claim that child-abuse is a good thing? The parent could say it's his right and it's for the child's own good and Swinburne would apparently agree with that. I'm sure you could take this reasoning even further and do a whole lot of really awful shit that was justified by "free-will" and "the greater good". I think Dostoevsky had it right, I don't think the ends justify the means. The cost is too high.

Anyway, on a more artistic note, what's with all the commercials lately trying to be 'artsy'? That black-and-white Papa John's commercial with bits of color thrown in that looks like a low-budget Spielberg film? It irks me (that's right, I used the word irk, what're you gonna do about it?). And what do castles have to do with pizza anyway? Blah, it's not even particularly creative. That style of cinematography is getting a wee bit overused. Black-and-white for the sake of looking 'high-end' and 'artistic' is used way too much lately.