So please explain, how do you believe one could critique something as personal as another's life work -- and that is exactly what Tolkien's novels were -- not in the proper format for literary critique, which is an essay, but in a "fictional" work in which "the general setting is real, but the specific events (with the occasional exception of particularly famous historical events) in the work are not"?
Can you explain why this wouldn't work? Maybe you have some reasoning behind your position, but you haven't presented anything beyond "that's not how it's done". In any case, it would be pretty straightforward (and not too original) to have some other characters talk with the Tolkien character about his work, and draw the literary criticism out through this imaginary dialog.
They got to pay taxes on the house or the government takes it away. Your analogy is only apt if the father was so creative as to make the house into a tourist attraction. Should the family own the house and keep the revenue from the tourists that show up? Yes, because they aren't infringing on any fundamental rights. Christopher Tolkien is.
Hasn't stopped the government on numerous occasions from advising the press on how to handle leaks of classified info. In any case, Wikileaks didn't leak the cables, they were leaked to Wikileaks.
Not really, there's no indication that Greenwald intends to go after Manning's or Lamo's personal life, so there's no equivalence here. The Assange rape story has been blown out of proportion in an effort to crucify the guy in the press. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying that the press should cover it up. Wired may be covering up important information. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying that Manning's personal life should be splashed all over the Times.
Breaking up the US would be stupid. We'd be throwing ourselves at the mercy of the rest of the world, to be pushed around by the great powers like all little states.
Rick Perlstein called them "E. Coli conservatives", because they think helping big business make more money is more important than protecting the food supply from deadly bacteria. The name comes from the Bush era FDA, much hobbled and reduced, and the rash of tainted food deaths that happened under its oversight. But the absolute nadir was when the Bush administration took a slaughter house to court to try to stop them from testing each cow for Mad Cow disease and use the negative results for marketing. They did this on behalf of the rest of the cattle industry, which was afraid they'd have to follow suit and a bunch of positives would turn up.
"Your argument for limited government controls to prevent a tragedy of the commons is not also an argument for strong government controls like massive redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the dollar as a valuable entity. "
If you'd see the more or less equitable distribution of wealth as a common good, which it is, then the argument for wealth re-distribution by the government, or rather, for foiling the natural tendency for wealth to be redistributed to a tiny, powerful class of people, is sound. The US has been structured in part from the beginning to redistribute wealth downward as a response to the perceived evils of the British aristocratic system. Even so, most parts of the American system work to distribute wealth upward, and I never hear libertarians or Republicans complain about that!
There's never been a time when the value of currency is not government business, and to argue that it shouldn't be is to argue that a government should have no power whatsoever. The arguments that it's somehow unjust or overreaching for the government to devalue the dollar (as opposed to arguments that a more valuable dollar is better) are nothing more than baseless whining by rich people who think their own personal bottom line is more important than the US defending itself in the ongoing global trade war.
or God Said "Hey! I remember doing that! But I couldn't figure out how it worked. I mean, I know all about sub atomic particles and fields and stuff, but when I saw that I'd also made life, I was like whoah."
C. S. Lewis was an idiot. He's the same guy who said that you can't think Jesus wise, and also not the son of God, because a man can't be wise and crazy or wise and a liar.
No. You have Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and friends to blame. They've spent the last few decades culturing a huge mass of Americans in ignorance to hate the rest of Americans as if we were traitors. They've succeeded. Palin would have no traction without this. Her rhetoric is hateful and divisive and would put her on the fringe in a sane era.
If it wasn't obvious when Colin Powell gave his nonsensical speech at the UN, it was obvious when the UN weapons inspectors got full run of Iraq and found nothing. This is months before the war.
Most people don't care about the truth, and the media is happy not to tell them. How many on the TV and in the Papers said Powell gave an open and shut case? Richard Cohen wrote in the "Liberal" Washington Post:
"This is where Colin Powell brought us all yesterday. The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."
And he was typical. I did not hear or read any commenter with the opposite take.
Powell had nothing. His best evidence was an ariel photo of trucks leaving a building.
"He wasn't smart, and he wasn't purposely deceptive"
Bush may be relatively dumb as presidents go, but he's a lot smarter than this. You can also tell whether a deception is purposeful by noting how it's delivered.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you explain why this wouldn't work? Maybe you have some reasoning behind your position, but you haven't presented anything beyond "that's not how it's done". In any case, it would be pretty straightforward (and not too original) to have some other characters talk with the Tolkien character about his work, and draw the literary criticism out through this imaginary dialog.
I'm glad we have you to tell us what we can and cannot write.
They got to pay taxes on the house or the government takes it away. Your analogy is only apt if the father was so creative as to make the house into a tourist attraction. Should the family own the house and keep the revenue from the tourists that show up? Yes, because they aren't infringing on any fundamental rights. Christopher Tolkien is.
The best part of the Iraq war is how every single apologist makes up his own bullshit reason for it.
If the government can't tax the fiat currency it creates, it'll probably become worthless and the government therefore powerless.
Why would anyone in their right mind pick up a "Dune" book by Brian Herbert? There is something seriously wrong with science fiction fans.
Rewatch it. It's still pretty awesome watching Neo progress to Supersayan, and the sequels still suck.
Hasn't stopped the government on numerous occasions from advising the press on how to handle leaks of classified info. In any case, Wikileaks didn't leak the cables, they were leaked to Wikileaks.
Not really, there's no indication that Greenwald intends to go after Manning's or Lamo's personal life, so there's no equivalence here. The Assange rape story has been blown out of proportion in an effort to crucify the guy in the press. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying that the press should cover it up. Wired may be covering up important information. Acknowledging that is not the same as saying that Manning's personal life should be splashed all over the Times.
Breaking up the US would be stupid. We'd be throwing ourselves at the mercy of the rest of the world, to be pushed around by the great powers like all little states.
Basic logic fail? The government didn't sell and use the chemical, that's definitely the fault of the free market.
Rick Perlstein called them "E. Coli conservatives", because they think helping big business make more money is more important than protecting the food supply from deadly bacteria. The name comes from the Bush era FDA, much hobbled and reduced, and the rash of tainted food deaths that happened under its oversight. But the absolute nadir was when the Bush administration took a slaughter house to court to try to stop them from testing each cow for Mad Cow disease and use the negative results for marketing. They did this on behalf of the rest of the cattle industry, which was afraid they'd have to follow suit and a bunch of positives would turn up.
"Your argument for limited government controls to prevent a tragedy of the commons is not also an argument for strong government controls like massive redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the dollar as a valuable entity. "
If you'd see the more or less equitable distribution of wealth as a common good, which it is, then the argument for wealth re-distribution by the government, or rather, for foiling the natural tendency for wealth to be redistributed to a tiny, powerful class of people, is sound. The US has been structured in part from the beginning to redistribute wealth downward as a response to the perceived evils of the British aristocratic system. Even so, most parts of the American system work to distribute wealth upward, and I never hear libertarians or Republicans complain about that!
There's never been a time when the value of currency is not government business, and to argue that it shouldn't be is to argue that a government should have no power whatsoever. The arguments that it's somehow unjust or overreaching for the government to devalue the dollar (as opposed to arguments that a more valuable dollar is better) are nothing more than baseless whining by rich people who think their own personal bottom line is more important than the US defending itself in the ongoing global trade war.
I don't think it's any less likely than the possibility that he's a genius that understands all the consequences of his actions.
or God Said "Hey! I remember doing that! But I couldn't figure out how it worked. I mean, I know all about sub atomic particles and fields and stuff, but when I saw that I'd also made life, I was like whoah."
Explain your logic. You seem to be taking for granted the notion that creators have a good understanding of their creations.
C. S. Lewis was an idiot. He's the same guy who said that you can't think Jesus wise, and also not the son of God, because a man can't be wise and crazy or wise and a liar.
The budget of Alaska is one of the easiest to balance. They actually pay people to live there.
No. You have Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and friends to blame. They've spent the last few decades culturing a huge mass of Americans in ignorance to hate the rest of Americans as if we were traitors. They've succeeded. Palin would have no traction without this. Her rhetoric is hateful and divisive and would put her on the fringe in a sane era.
Lincoln didn't start the war, you ignorant buffoon.
A better health care system than we've got, and this isn't fantasy land since lots of countries do it, would make both rich and poor wealthier.
The way the system is set up:
The rich get coddled.
The well to do get breaks everywhere they turn.
Only the poor pay full price.
For the ultra poor, full price isn't good enough, and the system finds way to suck them dry.
If it wasn't obvious when Colin Powell gave his nonsensical speech at the UN, it was obvious when the UN weapons inspectors got full run of Iraq and found nothing. This is months before the war.
Most people don't care about the truth, and the media is happy not to tell them. How many on the TV and in the Papers said Powell gave an open and shut case? Richard Cohen wrote in the "Liberal" Washington Post:
"This is where Colin Powell brought us all yesterday. The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."
And he was typical. I did not hear or read any commenter with the opposite take.
Powell had nothing. His best evidence was an ariel photo of trucks leaving a building.
It didn't take that long, pretty much all the debt was accrued under Reagan and Bush II
"He wasn't smart, and he wasn't purposely deceptive"
Bush may be relatively dumb as presidents go, but he's a lot smarter than this. You can also tell whether a deception is purposeful by noting how it's delivered.