Of course, had the EW reviewer read the books, he or she would realize that the movie is completely faithful to the original material in this respect. There is hardly a single shade of grey in the entire series. A character is either good or evil. And the only place for people to go is down. For example, Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, and Galadriel all fear the Ring, because they know that if they try to use it, they will become completely evil. There's no middle ground.
On the other hand (and now I am going to contradict myself a bit), the Smeagol/Gollum part of the story does offer some ambiguity. Gollum is not purely evil, because he has some good buried deep inside him. Of course, Frodo bound Gollum to his service through the Ring, and the good in Gollum only appears during this service. And, in the end, Gollum turns out to have been wholly corrupted by the Ring anyway. Maybe the good parts were all just an act, as Sam thought. Or maybe not. In any case, Gollum is the only character that is not definitely evil or good. But, of course, the Smeagol/Gollum internal conflict is relatively minor aspect (with huge consequences) part of the story.
As I understand it, Tolkien's goal was to create a clear good vs. evil conflict. So (at last my point) complaining that the movie is too simplistic a representation of good and evil is not really a criticism of the movie, but of the source material.
I'm confused by your comment. Do you mean that the spectrum should not be unlicensed, because licensing makes gobs of money? If so, keep in mind that when spectrum is licensed, only those with gobs of money can afford it. Remember about two years ago when the FCC decided to expand the spectrum for amateur radio stations and lower the barriers to home radio broadcasting? Then all the big money radio conglomerates (and, yes, even NPR) stepped up their lobbying and Congress shot the whole thing down. I commend the FCC for continuing to try to make the spectrum available to the people who supposedly own it: the public, i.e., all of us. If the FCC is actually able to successfully unlicense this spectrum, just think about the potential for expanded home-brewed WiFi networks. Users could actually begin to successfully challenge the telecom monopolies and get the service we want.
I disagree. The search for knowledge will always proceed unimpeded (or only temporarily impeded), and in fact, the history of science proves it. But the right of people (intelligent, well-educated, or otherwise) to express their opinion about where that search is carrying humanity should neither be impeded nor ignored. Debate should be encouraged, because the only way people can participate constructively in human society is if they are informed and educated about what is happening in their world. We should not imprison people for the legitimate search for knowledge, but as a society, we can decide that certain things are off-limits (like human cloning). I shudder to think of a world where intelligent debate was stifled completely in favor of the unfettered search for knowledge.
The guy who sent in the post asks: "What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells? Could it be sacrificed?... or even experimented on further if part 'human'?" These questions just emphasize how silly it is to justify experimenting on animals because "they are not human." Just because these mice will have some human cells, they do not become human, or even partially human. They are still mice. If it was okay to experiment on them before, then it is still okay. If adding human cells to mice makes it not okay to experiment on them, then it wasn't okay in the first place. (Note that by "okay," I mean morally acceptable, and by "experiment," I mean cut them open, kill them, electrocute them, and whatever else scientists think they have the right to do non-human animals that they don't think they have the right to do to humans).
I am not saying that experimenting on animals is wrong. I believe it is justified by the lives saved (we wouldn't have had a polio vaccine as quickly if we couldn't test it on animals, yadda yadda). But for people who try to justify animal experimentation by the reasoning that it's acceptable because animals aren't human, this "test" quite nicely points out the flaws in that distinction. How you say? Let's take a hypothetical human-mouse hyrbid organism. This organism has human cells (which, as the article puts it, obey mouse rules) dispersed throughout its body. Now, the presence of the human cells doesn't really change the mouse's phenotype. If the mouse can breed (and produce viable offsring) with other, "pure" mice, then it's still a mouse by species (and therefore, has the same genotype). Thus, it is only the presence of a few cells which makes this hybrid organism "human enough" that it would be unacceptable to experiment on it. Well, how many human cells make an organism "human enough?" What if some unscrupulous scientist merges mice stem cells with a human? Does this person become a "mouse," i.e., a non-human animal upon whom we can experiment? Does this person lose its status as human by being combined with mouse cells?
Turning back to our hybrid organism, remember that it's still the same species ("mouse"), which means that it still has DNA that is similar enough to the DNA of other members of its species to breed viable offsrping. But don't mice always have DNA that is about 90% the same as human DNA (I can't claim to have the right number here, but I recall that mammals in general have DNA that is around 90% the same)? If a mouse has a DNA structure which is 90% the same as a human's, even before human cells are added, why wasn't it already "human enough" (especially given that the addition of human cells didn't make it substantially more similar to humans)? I predict that careful ethical consideration of whether this mouse-human hybrid experiment should be done is going to require that scientists think about the questions I have asked above, and utimately force scientists (and everybody else, I hope) to make more careful decisions about the ethics of animal experimentation in general.
The newscaster asked a company representative if this chute could help prevent lots of deaths in an airliner crash. The company rep just about laughed at the guy, and replied, essentially, that a parachute big enough to save an airliner would have to be so much bigger than the plane itself as to be infeasible.
My other thought on this (and I must admit that I am not a pilot and have never done any "flying" more realistic than flying a fighter plane in a number of "flight simulators" except the really realistic ones) is that it would seem to me that aviation accidents tend to happen in such a sudden and severe manner that this chute would have limited success. I question whether the chute can be useful in an uncontrolled spin. In addition, I suspect that most fatal aviation accidents (start to) occur under 500 feet, at which height I doubt the chute would have enough time to deploy effectively.
The one guy, Wirtz, admitted that he uncapped his modem, according to the article. But the author offers justifications for the uncapping: he had a cool business, he only did it for a short time, and he only did it for limited use. So what? He admits to committing the crime (whatever it happens to be, the article neglects to tell us what crimes these uncappers have been indicted for), and thus he should be punished. That's why we have a criminal justice system: to enforce the laws and punish those who violate them. Cool guys who are on the verge of inventing some neat device don't get a special dispensation from the laws.
The careful reader of this article will also note that it is not well-written: there are several grammatical errors; as noted above, the article fails to mention the crimes for which the uncappers have been indicted; and the last bit about the Blocks being on a crusade against that former town prosecutor is worse than pure speculation, its libel.
Re:Intimidating Computers
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Security patches? I think you're shooting a little high. I doubt the technologically unitiated even understand what a security patch is. Most of those email viruses were easily avoided by simply using an email program besides Outlook Express. Unfortunately, most people don't understand computers even to the level of being able to install and run programs besides the ones that came on their machines.
One question pops into my head after reading this: does your grandmother watch TV? If so, she must realize that what your dad is talking about is vastly different than what she remembers. At least your grandmother knows what a computer is. I haven't even tried to introduce my grandmother to a PC for fear that she will have an aneurysm trying to understand it (I am not being (completely) sarcastic).
The Wedding Present's "William Shatner"
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Have you heard the song "William Shatner" by The Wedding Present (or are you even aware of it)? In case you haven't heard it, The Wedding Present is a pop band from England, and the song is on their album "George Best," which came out in 1990 (or thereabouts). How do you feel about your name being used as the title for a song? Would you ever object to the use of your name by a group (not necessarily a rock band) or an individual that is completely unaffiliated with you? If that album had been incredibly popular and that song had been a hit single, would you feel differently about the use of your name?
There's a lot of good responses here. But there are two kinds of responses that stand out the most: (1) "My wife and I were like-minded in our desire to not follow the herd, and we decided together on an alternative to a 'traditional' diamond." (2) "Don't be a fool. Everyone buys a diamond. No one will understand if you don't buy a diamond. She's expecting a diamond."
The only thing those responses have in common is "her." Why are you asking us? Ask her. If you think she secretly wants a diamond, but is unwilling to tell you, you have more serious problems than whether or not to buy the diamond (both on her end and your end). In the end, you should give her something that will make her happy (and by making her happy, you should be happy), not something that will satisfy your overdeveloped sense of world guilt.
Re:42 submitters cant be wrong?
on
Gone Fission
·
· Score: 1
I'd just like to put another vote in the what-the-hell-is-this-doing-on-slashdot-especially -under-the-label-science column.
You're trolling, but I'll bite on your dig at Hasek. Recall that he beat the man generally regarded as the best goalie in the world to get to the finals. He's unorthodox, and any young goalie would be insane to try to emulate him, but no one can deny that the man has played a phenomenal career. You might not like him, but he is one of the best goalies to ever play the game.
This story is highly entertaining, but if you are worried that you broke the law, why would you publish it on the internet where someone who might want to prosecute you could find out?
You say that as if Hammil was good. The best thing that could happen to the original three movies would be replacing Hammil with someone who could act. But of course, we wouldn't want to raise the bar for the prequel movies (which contain similarly poor acting--even from the good actors).
This author characterizes some events from this movie in a, um, novel way. First, the destruction of Alderaan as the rightful putting down of a probable nest of violent rebels. From one perspective what he says is true. However, the people of Alderaan were not given a chance to declare or denounce their loyalty to the Emperor. On a planet of millions, it is reasonable to assume that their were a wide variety of opinions. Certainly some people supported the Emperor, just as others obviously denounced him. His supporters were executed as traitors for a crime they did not commit.
Second, if Darth Vader and the Emperor really wanted order, then they would not summarily execute millions of people. All governments that are worthy of the name provide their constituents with something called due process. Now, due process is not always as rigorous as it is in the United States. But in any fair government, there is always a set of rules that govern how the authorities can proceed to the decision to incarcerate or execute. Again, there was no process given to the denizens of Alderaan. Those people were executed as traitors for a crime they either did not commit or were not proven to have committed. That is something, but it is not order. Wearing the veil of government does not automatically make the Emperor's actions legal. For example, Hitler lawfully took power in Germany. In everything he did, he made sure that there was legislation, the imprimatur of legality, to support the action. However, his government lacked legitimacy. Nothing that the Nazis did should have been considered binding legal authority, because the Nazis did not have a legitimate claim to govern. Legitimacy comes from support of the governed (by, for, and of the people, remember?), not from standing up and declaring one's self emperor and thus the sole source of all legal authority. Legitimacy also comes from a certain moral authority. A government that executes its citizens like playthings, in a back room judgment about the greater good, lacks the moral authority to govern.
Third, the author characterizes Piett's promotion as a laudable example of merit rising into its own right. But we can assume then that his superior, Admiral Ozzel I think, did not rise to his lofty position through incompetence. No, Darth Vader executed Ozzel, because Vader had, to put it lightly, an anger management problem. If you ask any soldier worth his salt whether he would want to rise in rank based on his own merit, that soldier would enthusiastically say yes. But if you ask that soldier if he would like to serve in a force where field promotions were conducted by the commander-in-chief after he executed a top-rank officer for a minor mistake, that same soldier would give a resounding no. Meritocracy does not mean rewarding incompetence with execution. Nor does meritocracy mean that the rewards of life are available on the whim of one's superiors. Darth Vader's system of promotion is about as far from meritocracy as one can go.
Fourth, the author characterizes the Republic as eager to quash the separatists. Actually, the senators that we have come to associate with peace and justice (Amidala and Organa) are the main opponents of forming an army to counter the separatists. The only members of the Republic that are eager to quash the separatists are the ones under the direct influence of the guy that is funding both the separatists and the clone army in a brazen attempt (at least to the audience) to engineer a crisis that will allow him to seize total power. It's the burning of the Reichstag. First, Darth Sidious engineers the separation movement. Then, he secretly orders the construction of a clone army. Then, as Palpatine, he engineers the discovery of the separatist army. This discovery turns the separatists into something other than a bunch of systems that want small government--they become a force that is ready to attack the Replublic. Then, Palpatine is able to manipulate a weak-minded senator into pushing him into power in service of the cause of defending against the separatists. Palpatine is then able to call on the thing that he wanted all along: his army of efficient, obedient killing machines. The separatists are not earnest capitalists seeking the freedom of a laissez-faire government to bring themselves prosperity, they are dupes of a man with designs on nothing less than absolute power. By the time Palpatine is done he will have destroyed those separatists right along with the Republic.
I could go on, but you get the point. The author has taken the Star Wars story and used it in an attempt to weave his own little tale about how big government is bad. But by glossing over atrocities such as the wholesale murder of millions of people, he reveals that what he really thinks is that he ought to be the government because he knows better than all us stupid, little people. We should all do as he says, and if we don't like it, he won't mind killing us in the name of the greater good (of which he is sole arbiter). Frankly, I'll take freedom.
I know The Matrix Reloaded is coming out in 2003, but what is The Matrix Revolutions? Is that the name of the third movie? Is the third movie scheduled to come out in 2003 also?
Actually, should the bill be passed as is and challenged, there is a way for the non-offending provision to survive a finding that the offending provision is unconstitutional. Unless Congress states in the text of the statute that the whole statute must fall if only one provision is unconstitutional, a court will strike only the offending provision. The rest of the law will remain. I suggest reviewing the recent Supreme Court opinion on virtual child pornography for an example of certain sections of a statute being struck down, while others remain untouched.
Re:Bananas and Steel - Never Trust A Yank
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
You don't understand what I meant: based on the information I had when I first read his post, I would have moded it up. My point was that finding out that he might not have his facts right (and, mind you, I don't know that your facts are right, either), doesn't change my initial impression of the post. Obviously, if I knew for certain that his facts were wrong when I first read his post, I would not have been inclined to mod it up. Nor would I necessarily be inclined to do so now, because I know that his facts might be wrong. But even at that, his facts might be wrong. You say he is wrong, but I'd have to check it out to find out which version (yours or his) is more accurate. Given the possibility that he might be right, I might be inclined to believe him over you, and mod the post up.
Re:Bananas and Steel - Never Trust A Yank
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
It so happens that I do agree with the statement, which is only part of the reason I would have moded it up. First, fyi, I would have ranked it as informative. Second, I liked the succinctness and directness of the post. Third, the post has a nice catchy title, which reminded me of "Guns and Butter."
As it happens, he might not have his facts nailed down (at least according to you, I don't have the time or the prior knowledge to say which one of you is right), but it remains that his post is tight. I like it. It's well written. I would mod it up.
Re:Bananas and Steel - Never Trust A Yank
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
I wish I had moderator access so that I could rate this comment up. Nice work.
Although Jon Katz has not really caught on yet, the biggest impact of post-9/11 on his life is the fact that he is so much more obviously irrelevant and unnecessary in our new world. George Soros is a phenomenal person, and I am sure his book is worth reading for its thought provoking ideas. Pity that Jon has taken Soros' recent book and warped it to his own inscrutable ends.
There was no other movie this past year that provided me with the one thing I want most from a movie: a good story told through images. LOTR defines the ability of film as a medium to tell a wonderful story with pictures. Yes, the dialogue was weak. Yes, the character development was virtually non-existent. Yes, if you know the story, it's better than if you don't. Yes, it felt like the events in the movie took place over the course of a few days, not the months that one senses from the book. But the way Jackson told the story is the most important part of the movie. I walked out of that movie with the same feeling I get from reading the books: the feeling that I was actually there. And that results in caring about the characters and the story. In fact, the further I get from my viewing, the more I feel that this movie was one of the best I have ever seen.
For example, the scene right after Gandalf dies. This scene was perfect. In the book, Tolkien describes the characters weeping and lamenting. And you know how bad it is, because the book does a good job of developing the relationship between Gandalf and the others. The movie might not have shown us all of that development, but when you see the characters' reaction to his death, you definitely feel what he meant to them. And it isn't just the character's reactions--Jackson slows down the pace, he shows us the fellowship sundered, scattering all over the mountain, falling down on the hard desolate rocks. Even the landscape conveys sorrow. If you look carefully, I'm sure you would recognize the use of a particular kind of filter, or a soft focus. Jackson (and his cinematographer) used the tricks and abilities of the medium to convey an incredible amount of the story through the picture. You must realize that movies are not stories driven by dialogue, but by imagery.
Another example: the very end. You can feel just how hopeless Frodo is about his journey. Why? Because the path he and Sam face is obviously such a hard, unforgiving path (all those miles of sharp volcanic rock). The viewer doesn't need to be told the task is hard, the viewer can simply see it.
The problem with the critics of this film is that they fail to understand that when characters say "This is hard," it is less believable than when the characters say nothing and the director simply shows the audience how hard it is. The best acting in movies is understated, because the camera itself magnifies everything. Movies are visual and the best movies tell us a story with more imagery and less explanation. To quote an oft-quoted maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Movies laden with dialogue often drag and end up unfulfilling. Movies that take advantage of the medium to tell a story with pictures are generally superior. That's why I think LOTR should have won Best Picture over A Beautiful Mind. (However, A Beautiful Mind also took advantage of the medium--the audience sees Nash's hallucinations, we don't just hear Nash talk about them.) At the very least, though, LOTR won and deserved the cinematography Oscar.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, had the EW reviewer read the books, he or she would realize that the movie is completely faithful to the original material in this respect. There is hardly a single shade of grey in the entire series. A character is either good or evil. And the only place for people to go is down. For example, Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, and Galadriel all fear the Ring, because they know that if they try to use it, they will become completely evil. There's no middle ground.
On the other hand (and now I am going to contradict myself a bit), the Smeagol/Gollum part of the story does offer some ambiguity. Gollum is not purely evil, because he has some good buried deep inside him. Of course, Frodo bound Gollum to his service through the Ring, and the good in Gollum only appears during this service. And, in the end, Gollum turns out to have been wholly corrupted by the Ring anyway. Maybe the good parts were all just an act, as Sam thought. Or maybe not. In any case, Gollum is the only character that is not definitely evil or good. But, of course, the Smeagol/Gollum internal conflict is relatively minor aspect (with huge consequences) part of the story.
As I understand it, Tolkien's goal was to create a clear good vs. evil conflict. So (at last my point) complaining that the movie is too simplistic a representation of good and evil is not really a criticism of the movie, but of the source material.
I'm confused by your comment. Do you mean that the spectrum should not be unlicensed, because licensing makes gobs of money? If so, keep in mind that when spectrum is licensed, only those with gobs of money can afford it. Remember about two years ago when the FCC decided to expand the spectrum for amateur radio stations and lower the barriers to home radio broadcasting? Then all the big money radio conglomerates (and, yes, even NPR) stepped up their lobbying and Congress shot the whole thing down. I commend the FCC for continuing to try to make the spectrum available to the people who supposedly own it: the public, i.e., all of us. If the FCC is actually able to successfully unlicense this spectrum, just think about the potential for expanded home-brewed WiFi networks. Users could actually begin to successfully challenge the telecom monopolies and get the service we want.
I disagree. The search for knowledge will always proceed unimpeded (or only temporarily impeded), and in fact, the history of science proves it. But the right of people (intelligent, well-educated, or otherwise) to express their opinion about where that search is carrying humanity should neither be impeded nor ignored. Debate should be encouraged, because the only way people can participate constructively in human society is if they are informed and educated about what is happening in their world. We should not imprison people for the legitimate search for knowledge, but as a society, we can decide that certain things are off-limits (like human cloning). I shudder to think of a world where intelligent debate was stifled completely in favor of the unfettered search for knowledge.
The guy who sent in the post asks: "What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'?"
These questions just emphasize how silly it is to justify experimenting on animals because "they are not human." Just because these mice will have some human cells, they do not become human, or even partially human. They are still mice. If it was okay to experiment on them before, then it is still okay. If adding human cells to mice makes it not okay to experiment on them, then it wasn't okay in the first place. (Note that by "okay," I mean morally acceptable, and by "experiment," I mean cut them open, kill them, electrocute them, and whatever else scientists think they have the right to do non-human animals that they don't think they have the right to do to humans).
I am not saying that experimenting on animals is wrong. I believe it is justified by the lives saved (we wouldn't have had a polio vaccine as quickly if we couldn't test it on animals, yadda yadda). But for people who try to justify animal experimentation by the reasoning that it's acceptable because animals aren't human, this "test" quite nicely points out the flaws in that distinction. How you say? Let's take a hypothetical human-mouse hyrbid organism. This organism has human cells (which, as the article puts it, obey mouse rules) dispersed throughout its body. Now, the presence of the human cells doesn't really change the mouse's phenotype. If the mouse can breed (and produce viable offsring) with other, "pure" mice, then it's still a mouse by species (and therefore, has the same genotype). Thus, it is only the presence of a few cells which makes this hybrid organism "human enough" that it would be unacceptable to experiment on it. Well, how many human cells make an organism "human enough?" What if some unscrupulous scientist merges mice stem cells with a human? Does this person become a "mouse," i.e., a non-human animal upon whom we can experiment? Does this person lose its status as human by being combined with mouse cells?
Turning back to our hybrid organism, remember that it's still the same species ("mouse"), which means that it still has DNA that is similar enough to the DNA of other members of its species to breed viable offsrping. But don't mice always have DNA that is about 90% the same as human DNA (I can't claim to have the right number here, but I recall that mammals in general have DNA that is around 90% the same)? If a mouse has a DNA structure which is 90% the same as a human's, even before human cells are added, why wasn't it already "human enough" (especially given that the addition of human cells didn't make it substantially more similar to humans)? I predict that careful ethical consideration of whether this mouse-human hybrid experiment should be done is going to require that scientists think about the questions I have asked above, and utimately force scientists (and everybody else, I hope) to make more careful decisions about the ethics of animal experimentation in general.
The newscaster asked a company representative if this chute could help prevent lots of deaths in an airliner crash. The company rep just about laughed at the guy, and replied, essentially, that a parachute big enough to save an airliner would have to be so much bigger than the plane itself as to be infeasible.
My other thought on this (and I must admit that I am not a pilot and have never done any "flying" more realistic than flying a fighter plane in a number of "flight simulators" except the really realistic ones) is that it would seem to me that aviation accidents tend to happen in such a sudden and severe manner that this chute would have limited success. I question whether the chute can be useful in an uncontrolled spin. In addition, I suspect that most fatal aviation accidents (start to) occur under 500 feet, at which height I doubt the chute would have enough time to deploy effectively.
The one guy, Wirtz, admitted that he uncapped his modem, according to the article. But the author offers justifications for the uncapping: he had a cool business, he only did it for a short time, and he only did it for limited use. So what? He admits to committing the crime (whatever it happens to be, the article neglects to tell us what crimes these uncappers have been indicted for), and thus he should be punished. That's why we have a criminal justice system: to enforce the laws and punish those who violate them. Cool guys who are on the verge of inventing some neat device don't get a special dispensation from the laws.
The careful reader of this article will also note that it is not well-written: there are several grammatical errors; as noted above, the article fails to mention the crimes for which the uncappers have been indicted; and the last bit about the Blocks being on a crusade against that former town prosecutor is worse than pure speculation, its libel.
Security patches? I think you're shooting a little high. I doubt the technologically unitiated even understand what a security patch is. Most of those email viruses were easily avoided by simply using an email program besides Outlook Express. Unfortunately, most people don't understand computers even to the level of being able to install and run programs besides the ones that came on their machines.
One question pops into my head after reading this: does your grandmother watch TV? If so, she must realize that what your dad is talking about is vastly different than what she remembers. At least your grandmother knows what a computer is. I haven't even tried to introduce my grandmother to a PC for fear that she will have an aneurysm trying to understand it (I am not being (completely) sarcastic).
Have you heard the song "William Shatner" by The Wedding Present (or are you even aware of it)? In case you haven't heard it, The Wedding Present is a pop band from England, and the song is on their album "George Best," which came out in 1990 (or thereabouts). How do you feel about your name being used as the title for a song? Would you ever object to the use of your name by a group (not necessarily a rock band) or an individual that is completely unaffiliated with you? If that album had been incredibly popular and that song had been a hit single, would you feel differently about the use of your name?
There's a lot of good responses here. But there are two kinds of responses that stand out the most: (1) "My wife and I were like-minded in our desire to not follow the herd, and we decided together on an alternative to a 'traditional' diamond." (2) "Don't be a fool. Everyone buys a diamond. No one will understand if you don't buy a diamond. She's expecting a diamond." The only thing those responses have in common is "her." Why are you asking us? Ask her. If you think she secretly wants a diamond, but is unwilling to tell you, you have more serious problems than whether or not to buy the diamond (both on her end and your end). In the end, you should give her something that will make her happy (and by making her happy, you should be happy), not something that will satisfy your overdeveloped sense of world guilt.
I'd just like to put another vote in the what-the-hell-is-this-doing-on-slashdot-especially -under-the-label-science column.
Holy crow. I never would have thought that my home city would appear on Slashdot for any reason. Woot!
Ah, I get it now. I did misread your original comment.
You're trolling, but I'll bite on your dig at Hasek. Recall that he beat the man generally regarded as the best goalie in the world to get to the finals. He's unorthodox, and any young goalie would be insane to try to emulate him, but no one can deny that the man has played a phenomenal career. You might not like him, but he is one of the best goalies to ever play the game.
This story is highly entertaining, but if you are worried that you broke the law, why would you publish it on the internet where someone who might want to prosecute you could find out?
This author characterizes some events from this movie in a, um, novel way. First, the destruction of Alderaan as the rightful putting down of a probable nest of violent rebels. From one perspective what he says is true. However, the people of Alderaan were not given a chance to declare or denounce their loyalty to the Emperor. On a planet of millions, it is reasonable to assume that their were a wide variety of opinions. Certainly some people supported the Emperor, just as others obviously denounced him. His supporters were executed as traitors for a crime they did not commit.
Second, if Darth Vader and the Emperor really wanted order, then they would not summarily execute millions of people. All governments that are worthy of the name provide their constituents with something called due process. Now, due process is not always as rigorous as it is in the United States. But in any fair government, there is always a set of rules that govern how the authorities can proceed to the decision to incarcerate or execute. Again, there was no process given to the denizens of Alderaan. Those people were executed as traitors for a crime they either did not commit or were not proven to have committed. That is something, but it is not order. Wearing the veil of government does not automatically make the Emperor's actions legal. For example, Hitler lawfully took power in Germany. In everything he did, he made sure that there was legislation, the imprimatur of legality, to support the action. However, his government lacked legitimacy. Nothing that the Nazis did should have been considered binding legal authority, because the Nazis did not have a legitimate claim to govern. Legitimacy comes from support of the governed (by, for, and of the people, remember?), not from standing up and declaring one's self emperor and thus the sole source of all legal authority. Legitimacy also comes from a certain moral authority. A government that executes its citizens like playthings, in a back room judgment about the greater good, lacks the moral authority to govern.
Third, the author characterizes Piett's promotion as a laudable example of merit rising into its own right. But we can assume then that his superior, Admiral Ozzel I think, did not rise to his lofty position through incompetence. No, Darth Vader executed Ozzel, because Vader had, to put it lightly, an anger management problem. If you ask any soldier worth his salt whether he would want to rise in rank based on his own merit, that soldier would enthusiastically say yes. But if you ask that soldier if he would like to serve in a force where field promotions were conducted by the commander-in-chief after he executed a top-rank officer for a minor mistake, that same soldier would give a resounding no. Meritocracy does not mean rewarding incompetence with execution. Nor does meritocracy mean that the rewards of life are available on the whim of one's superiors. Darth Vader's system of promotion is about as far from meritocracy as one can go.
Fourth, the author characterizes the Republic as eager to quash the separatists. Actually, the senators that we have come to associate with peace and justice (Amidala and Organa) are the main opponents of forming an army to counter the separatists. The only members of the Republic that are eager to quash the separatists are the ones under the direct influence of the guy that is funding both the separatists and the clone army in a brazen attempt (at least to the audience) to engineer a crisis that will allow him to seize total power. It's the burning of the Reichstag. First, Darth Sidious engineers the separation movement. Then, he secretly orders the construction of a clone army. Then, as Palpatine, he engineers the discovery of the separatist army. This discovery turns the separatists into something other than a bunch of systems that want small government--they become a force that is ready to attack the Replublic. Then, Palpatine is able to manipulate a weak-minded senator into pushing him into power in service of the cause of defending against the separatists. Palpatine is then able to call on the thing that he wanted all along: his army of efficient, obedient killing machines. The separatists are not earnest capitalists seeking the freedom of a laissez-faire government to bring themselves prosperity, they are dupes of a man with designs on nothing less than absolute power. By the time Palpatine is done he will have destroyed those separatists right along with the Republic.
I could go on, but you get the point. The author has taken the Star Wars story and used it in an attempt to weave his own little tale about how big government is bad. But by glossing over atrocities such as the wholesale murder of millions of people, he reveals that what he really thinks is that he ought to be the government because he knows better than all us stupid, little people. We should all do as he says, and if we don't like it, he won't mind killing us in the name of the greater good (of which he is sole arbiter). Frankly, I'll take freedom.
I know The Matrix Reloaded is coming out in 2003, but what is The Matrix Revolutions? Is that the name of the third movie? Is the third movie scheduled to come out in 2003 also?
Actually, should the bill be passed as is and challenged, there is a way for the non-offending provision to survive a finding that the offending provision is unconstitutional. Unless Congress states in the text of the statute that the whole statute must fall if only one provision is unconstitutional, a court will strike only the offending provision. The rest of the law will remain. I suggest reviewing the recent Supreme Court opinion on virtual child pornography for an example of certain sections of a statute being struck down, while others remain untouched.
You don't understand what I meant: based on the information I had when I first read his post, I would have moded it up. My point was that finding out that he might not have his facts right (and, mind you, I don't know that your facts are right, either), doesn't change my initial impression of the post. Obviously, if I knew for certain that his facts were wrong when I first read his post, I would not have been inclined to mod it up. Nor would I necessarily be inclined to do so now, because I know that his facts might be wrong. But even at that, his facts might be wrong. You say he is wrong, but I'd have to check it out to find out which version (yours or his) is more accurate. Given the possibility that he might be right, I might be inclined to believe him over you, and mod the post up.
It so happens that I do agree with the statement, which is only part of the reason I would have moded it up. First, fyi, I would have ranked it as informative. Second, I liked the succinctness and directness of the post. Third, the post has a nice catchy title, which reminded me of "Guns and Butter."
As it happens, he might not have his facts nailed down (at least according to you, I don't have the time or the prior knowledge to say which one of you is right), but it remains that his post is tight. I like it. It's well written. I would mod it up.
I wish I had moderator access so that I could rate this comment up. Nice work.
Although Jon Katz has not really caught on yet, the biggest impact of post-9/11 on his life is the fact that he is so much more obviously irrelevant and unnecessary in our new world. George Soros is a phenomenal person, and I am sure his book is worth reading for its thought provoking ideas. Pity that Jon has taken Soros' recent book and warped it to his own inscrutable ends.
There was no other movie this past year that provided me with the one thing I want most from a movie: a good story told through images. LOTR defines the ability of film as a medium to tell a wonderful story with pictures. Yes, the dialogue was weak. Yes, the character development was virtually non-existent. Yes, if you know the story, it's better than if you don't. Yes, it felt like the events in the movie took place over the course of a few days, not the months that one senses from the book. But the way Jackson told the story is the most important part of the movie. I walked out of that movie with the same feeling I get from reading the books: the feeling that I was actually there. And that results in caring about the characters and the story. In fact, the further I get from my viewing, the more I feel that this movie was one of the best I have ever seen.
For example, the scene right after Gandalf dies. This scene was perfect. In the book, Tolkien describes the characters weeping and lamenting. And you know how bad it is, because the book does a good job of developing the relationship between Gandalf and the others. The movie might not have shown us all of that development, but when you see the characters' reaction to his death, you definitely feel what he meant to them. And it isn't just the character's reactions--Jackson slows down the pace, he shows us the fellowship sundered, scattering all over the mountain, falling down on the hard desolate rocks. Even the landscape conveys sorrow. If you look carefully, I'm sure you would recognize the use of a particular kind of filter, or a soft focus. Jackson (and his cinematographer) used the tricks and abilities of the medium to convey an incredible amount of the story through the picture. You must realize that movies are not stories driven by dialogue, but by imagery.
Another example: the very end. You can feel just how hopeless Frodo is about his journey. Why? Because the path he and Sam face is obviously such a hard, unforgiving path (all those miles of sharp volcanic rock). The viewer doesn't need to be told the task is hard, the viewer can simply see it.
The problem with the critics of this film is that they fail to understand that when characters say "This is hard," it is less believable than when the characters say nothing and the director simply shows the audience how hard it is. The best acting in movies is understated, because the camera itself magnifies everything. Movies are visual and the best movies tell us a story with more imagery and less explanation. To quote an oft-quoted maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words." Movies laden with dialogue often drag and end up unfulfilling. Movies that take advantage of the medium to tell a story with pictures are generally superior. That's why I think LOTR should have won Best Picture over A Beautiful Mind. (However, A Beautiful Mind also took advantage of the medium--the audience sees Nash's hallucinations, we don't just hear Nash talk about them.) At the very least, though, LOTR won and deserved the cinematography Oscar.