Bono's making a career asking industrialized nation to relieve the debts of poor countries the world over. This isn't all that different except that our reasons for getting into the war were shit to begin with and noone's listening to bono
And all the allies have the same deal... help out, get a cut of the pie. American interests get first crack. Note that I am not speaking to the ethics of the thing, i am speaking to the politics of it. It's a 'fair' enough deal. the American economy will take the hit... the american economy will also be the first to set up jobs and sell product. follow the money. it does however make us look like the most capitalist of liberators. feh. there was better ways to make the dough.
Very melodramatic way to put it. The reality is much simpler.
We've taken on a huge debt to fight this war. France did not help split the costs. We were 'successful' in Iraq, so to the victor goes the spoils, that is we get first crack at the oil exports as well as first crack at sending in peacekeeping and human welfare efforts.
All 3 of which we are doing. How does it look to the rest of the world if we storm in, make a mess and don't fix it, only to have a dissenting country come out like saints and getting the better share of the booty? Pretty bad. That's why we're doing what we can afford and getting funding for it where we can.
Since France, russia, etc didn't help, they don't get jack. Since the debt is so large, I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them out of international deals for a decade or more. FOLLOW THE MONEY PEOPLE. It's not simple vindictiveness. It's too easy to hate the current administration for the their bungling, but at least do it intelligently.
The last 2 remind me of some HS acquaintances of mine who, one time while stoned, held discourse about the ifallible nature of Twinkies. If it looks like shit, smells, sounds, and tastes like shit... guess what... simply pathetic... oh! or maybe I don't 'get it'. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA
Yeah, see that's where I think you've left fact behind for a convenient fiction. The Anthrax "attacks", which killed approximately noone were done by local homegrown wackos.
You cannot buy ICBMs and transglobal warhead delivery systems on the global market. The fear that the administration was engendering is the only one that would have been a real threat at all... that Iraq could, within a matter of hours (before a US strikeforce can react) could mobilize and launch a missile capable of reaching Europe. What we found was remnants of an old test core 6ft under a guys rosebush. Hardly the threat worth the billions of dollars, lives and man hours it's taken to prevent.
Yes the world is a better place with him gone and iraq having freedom... but playing the worlds liberation force is hardly the conservative american thing to do now is it?
Are those really WMDs? When it came to chemical weapons I assumed it was all about delivery systems, not the chemicals themselves. Also nukes. I don't think anyone was particularyl worried about a VX attack when their missiles couldn't reach into Turkey. I was under the assumption that it was nukes and long-range chemical weapons we were looking for. We've all known about the chemical weapons. They have not-so-secret labs in vans rolling around making the stuff, everyone's known about those. Not really the WMDs worth invanding a country over. Or the big evil nuke we were made to shiver in fear about. Hmm. cold war... war on terrorism.... rule by fear?
Not really my point. Nor am I particualrly interested in reading your opinions when there's such a flood of them out there right now. You were scolding the parent poster for strawman arguments and I was chastizing you for backhandedly ignoring any of his concerns raised. You were smarmy, he put in some effort. I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but at least be productive.
Wow. You're so unable to deal with some of the broader issues at hand that you can't possibly fathom why people feel the need to discuss the war as a WHOLE. That's some tunnel vision you have there son.
Manhunt's political valence is amost a total non-issue (not completely, I'll get to that).
This isn't public policy Rock* is selling, it's entertainment meant strictly for adults. Pornography (or killography as some pinhead pundits have recently invented) isn't selling a statement on the plight of women in a male dominated industry, its selling lines,curves and semen and explosions. It takes a pundit or a politician to take that entertainment and make bad law and bad analysis.
Manhunt DOES have political valence, but only because it speaks to something the creators have decided to portray in an illicit manner. This is where AU censors get their panties in a twist. Suddenly a possibly thoughtful musing becomes this "offensive" moral play, where the audience is challenged to defend themselves and seek freedom. A lot of people (I call them shallow, and of short attention span) say that entertainment like this loses its point the second it does something 'extreme'. I say they're being naive to the nature of expression the moment they let their 'disgust' get the better of them. If the director succeeds, and the game/movie is good, then the audience will be entertained, feel challenged, etc.. I really think the AU censorship board is violating a core human right by denying victimless experiences to their citizens. That law then, becomes "bad art" of the worst kind.
It's always an uphill battle defending the rights of libertarian-minded adults when your test case at hand isn't exactly Shakespere. That Manhunt fails to satisfy the misdirected and ligitious moral philandering of Australian censorship boards is no real loss for most people, but there are many like me that see this as a slow erosion of personal resposibility and rights.
I imagine that AU, like America has bigger problems with their politicians creating false issues ('conciousness') than entertainment can ever bring to the fore. B.S. flag-waving, pro/con life issues and anti-gay marriage legislation creates more noise than entertainment often does. And those are just to get votes.
Go get in the bath, daddy likes his little girls CLEAN. You sound like a twisted bugger. Daddy can smell the SIN on you. You know all sinners go to hell. Daddy wants to smell your soiled panties.
Awww. Panties in a twist? Learn to appreciate GOOD art and BAD art. you'll find that you're "revolted" less and "entertained" more. Only in the twisted mind of a moral simpleton can art and action be confused.
Oh, well thank YOU mr. moral majority. While you're at it, why not make a list of perversities that you find offensive and we'll just go right ahead and make it all illegal. Listen up old biddies. There's GOOD ART and there's BAD ART. There's no "immoral art', only "immoral actions". Only in the twisted mind of easily offended and truly shallow can ART and ACTIONS be confused. I advise you to take some ethics of art classes.
I don't think people know sex when they see it. Sex is cheese. ALWAYS. Real humans use corny comeons, make squishing noises during sex, and are often grope inappropriately. i imagine this will not change in the distant sci-fi future. There are many amazingly sexy scenes in cimena history that do not portray actual physical interaction (see the orig. Thomas Crown Affair), but that kind of romance bores most people and is TOTALLY innapropriate to most sci-fi. I think what we have in this forum is a bloody lot of prudes or inexperienced/inattentive romantics who are blushing so hard they're mistaking "cheese" for "bad". In short, it's OK to be titillated (hee) by cheese, because it's not necessarily bad art.
"Plus that cigar makes Starbuck come across a little disgusting."
Are you one of those guys that can't stand watching a woman smoke because it's somehow unfeminine? Maybe you're like Jerry Lewis who once cracked that women should be comedians because noone likes hearing them curse. If you're just an anti-smoking person that I can understand, but "disgust" is too strong a word. If you're in the former category, go see a shrink, you've obviously got women issues.
I think you should expect a cap in your ignorant skull you redneck motherfucker. Get off your sister two seconds so we can explain to you the meaning of civility... at gunpoint.
like there's any question about what dean means. More time dealing with the middle east and not just bombing the shit out of iraq. most of the time when I read GWB's inane quotes I can't figure out what the context is, let alone what the hell the man is saying.
The sequals were very bad films. Volumes could be written about how poor they are. In most circles simply mentioning the sequals is paramount to discussing the nature of feces. "The movie sucked" saves us the untold man hours it would take to convince the average mindless matrix fantatic that they're beloved films do indeed "suck".
The real debate here is between good art and bad art. GTA3 didn't become popular based on its violence alone. It became popular because of it's quality. Kids and adults alike often react numbly to violence, not because they've been desensitized over the years, but because the violence is probably pretty bad art. Bad art does not stir or provoke. Violence in bad art (see T.V.) does not get the same reaction from people as violence in good art. I don't worry about kids being "desensitized", because it's entirely possible that the crap tv they're watching isn't riveting or engaging except in that vague "trashy" way. Put these same kids in front of a really disturbing movie with engaging characters and gripping violence and you'll get a reaction. Kids need to be exposed to good art. I think it's a parents job to expose more children to quality art appropriate for their age groups.
Why is this a problem exactly? Some of the most violent films, games, or literature I've ever read also rank as some of the most compelling quality work available. I havn't played, so I don't know if this game ranks up there with the greats, but I won't turn down the opportunity to be 'lit'. As it is, I think people are more desensitized to violence by bad art than they are to good art. Films like Baise Moi would disturb most anyone, where as senseless violence in some other crap hollywood film wouldn't. Does that mean they're desensitized, or just unengaged by crap? Think of that. Why is it porn doesn't appeal to some, but some softcore sexy scenes do titillate? It's a good example of the difference between bad art/good art as well as a desensitized response/titillation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bono's making a career asking industrialized nation to relieve the debts of poor countries the world over. This isn't all that different except that our reasons for getting into the war were shit to begin with and noone's listening to bono
And all the allies have the same deal... help out, get a cut of the pie. American interests get first crack. Note that I am not speaking to the ethics of the thing, i am speaking to the politics of it. It's a 'fair' enough deal. the American economy will take the hit... the american economy will also be the first to set up jobs and sell product. follow the money. it does however make us look like the most capitalist of liberators. feh. there was better ways to make the dough.
Very melodramatic way to put it. The reality is much simpler.
We've taken on a huge debt to fight this war. France did not help split the costs. We were 'successful' in Iraq, so to the victor goes the spoils, that is we get first crack at the oil exports as well as first crack at sending in peacekeeping and human welfare efforts.
All 3 of which we are doing. How does it look to the rest of the world if we storm in, make a mess and don't fix it, only to have a dissenting country come out like saints and getting the better share of the booty? Pretty bad. That's why we're doing what we can afford and getting funding for it where we can.
Since France, russia, etc didn't help, they don't get jack. Since the debt is so large, I wouldn't be surprised if we keep them out of international deals for a decade or more. FOLLOW THE MONEY PEOPLE. It's not simple vindictiveness. It's too easy to hate the current administration for the their bungling, but at least do it intelligently.
Ok, keep repeating that and it'll become true. All that intelligence was old and proved incomplete.
The last 2 remind me of some HS acquaintances of mine who, one time while stoned, held discourse about the ifallible nature of Twinkies. If it looks like shit, smells, sounds, and tastes like shit... guess what... simply pathetic... oh! or maybe I don't 'get it'. BWAHAHAHAHAHAA
Yeah, see that's where I think you've left fact behind for a convenient fiction. The Anthrax "attacks", which killed approximately noone were done by local homegrown wackos.
You cannot buy ICBMs and transglobal warhead delivery systems on the global market. The fear that the administration was engendering is the only one that would have been a real threat at all... that Iraq could, within a matter of hours (before a US strikeforce can react) could mobilize and launch a missile capable of reaching Europe. What we found was remnants of an old test core 6ft under a guys rosebush. Hardly the threat worth the billions of dollars, lives and man hours it's taken to prevent.
Yes the world is a better place with him gone and iraq having freedom... but playing the worlds liberation force is hardly the conservative american thing to do now is it?
Are those really WMDs? When it came to chemical weapons I assumed it was all about delivery systems, not the chemicals themselves. Also nukes. I don't think anyone was particularyl worried about a VX attack when their missiles couldn't reach into Turkey. I was under the assumption that it was nukes and long-range chemical weapons we were looking for. We've all known about the chemical weapons. They have not-so-secret labs in vans rolling around making the stuff, everyone's known about those. Not really the WMDs worth invanding a country over. Or the big evil nuke we were made to shiver in fear about. Hmm. cold war... war on terrorism.... rule by fear?
I was joking nimrod.
Someone who tries stealing my pocket computer will go home with one less hand! MWAAHAHAHAa... eh
Not really my point. Nor am I particualrly interested in reading your opinions when there's such a flood of them out there right now. You were scolding the parent poster for strawman arguments and I was chastizing you for backhandedly ignoring any of his concerns raised. You were smarmy, he put in some effort. I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but at least be productive.
Nice. Very classy way to NOT deal with any raised issues. For every "strawman" argument you see, there's a body count not far behind.
Wow. You're so unable to deal with some of the broader issues at hand that you can't possibly fathom why people feel the need to discuss the war as a WHOLE. That's some tunnel vision you have there son.
This isn't public policy Rock* is selling, it's entertainment meant strictly for adults. Pornography (or killography as some pinhead pundits have recently invented) isn't selling a statement on the plight of women in a male dominated industry, its selling lines,curves and semen and explosions. It takes a pundit or a politician to take that entertainment and make bad law and bad analysis.
Manhunt DOES have political valence, but only because it speaks to something the creators have decided to portray in an illicit manner. This is where AU censors get their panties in a twist. Suddenly a possibly thoughtful musing becomes this "offensive" moral play, where the audience is challenged to defend themselves and seek freedom. A lot of people (I call them shallow, and of short attention span) say that entertainment like this loses its point the second it does something 'extreme'. I say they're being naive to the nature of expression the moment they let their 'disgust' get the better of them. If the director succeeds, and the game/movie is good, then the audience will be entertained, feel challenged, etc.. I really think the AU censorship board is violating a core human right by denying victimless experiences to their citizens. That law then, becomes "bad art" of the worst kind.
It's always an uphill battle defending the rights of libertarian-minded adults when your test case at hand isn't exactly Shakespere.
That Manhunt fails to satisfy the misdirected and ligitious moral philandering of Australian censorship boards is no real loss for most people, but there are many like me that see this as a slow erosion of personal resposibility and rights.
I imagine that AU, like America has bigger problems with their politicians creating false issues ('conciousness') than entertainment can ever bring to the fore. B.S. flag-waving, pro/con life issues and anti-gay marriage legislation creates more noise than entertainment often does. And those are just to get votes.
Go get in the bath, daddy likes his little girls CLEAN. You sound like a twisted bugger. Daddy can smell the SIN on you. You know all sinners go to hell. Daddy wants to smell your soiled panties.
Awww. Panties in a twist? Learn to appreciate GOOD art and BAD art. you'll find that you're "revolted" less and "entertained" more. Only in the twisted mind of a moral simpleton can art and action be confused.
Oh, well thank YOU mr. moral majority. While you're at it, why not make a list of perversities that you find offensive and we'll just go right ahead and make it all illegal. Listen up old biddies. There's GOOD ART and there's BAD ART. There's no "immoral art', only "immoral actions". Only in the twisted mind of easily offended and truly shallow can ART and ACTIONS be confused. I advise you to take some ethics of art classes.
I don't think people know sex when they see it. Sex is cheese. ALWAYS. Real humans use corny comeons, make squishing noises during sex, and are often grope inappropriately. i imagine this will not change in the distant sci-fi future. There are many amazingly sexy scenes in cimena history that do not portray actual physical interaction (see the orig. Thomas Crown Affair), but that kind of romance bores most people and is TOTALLY innapropriate to most sci-fi. I think what we have in this forum is a bloody lot of prudes or inexperienced/inattentive romantics who are blushing so hard they're mistaking "cheese" for "bad". In short, it's OK to be titillated (hee) by cheese, because it's not necessarily bad art.
"Plus that cigar makes Starbuck come across a little disgusting."
Are you one of those guys that can't stand watching a woman smoke because it's somehow unfeminine? Maybe you're like Jerry Lewis who once cracked that women should be comedians because noone likes hearing them curse. If you're just an anti-smoking person that I can understand, but "disgust" is too strong a word. If you're in the former category, go see a shrink, you've obviously got women issues.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. what's the sound of a thousand voices blithering in a vaccuuum? "moooooderator! mod down!"
I think you should expect a cap in your ignorant skull you redneck motherfucker. Get off your sister two seconds so we can explain to you the meaning of civility... at gunpoint.
like there's any question about what dean means. More time dealing with the middle east and not just bombing the shit out of iraq. most of the time when I read GWB's inane quotes I can't figure out what the context is, let alone what the hell the man is saying.
The sequals were very bad films. Volumes could be written about how poor they are. In most circles simply mentioning the sequals is paramount to discussing the nature of feces. "The movie sucked" saves us the untold man hours it would take to convince the average mindless matrix fantatic that they're beloved films do indeed "suck".
The real debate here is between good art and bad art. GTA3 didn't become popular based on its violence alone. It became popular because of it's quality. Kids and adults alike often react numbly to violence, not because they've been desensitized over the years, but because the violence is probably pretty bad art. Bad art does not stir or provoke. Violence in bad art (see T.V.) does not get the same reaction from people as violence in good art. I don't worry about kids being "desensitized", because it's entirely possible that the crap tv they're watching isn't riveting or engaging except in that vague "trashy" way. Put these same kids in front of a really disturbing movie with engaging characters and gripping violence and you'll get a reaction. Kids need to be exposed to good art. I think it's a parents job to expose more children to quality art appropriate for their age groups.
you think maybe prison time?
Why is this a problem exactly? Some of the most violent films, games, or literature I've ever read also rank as some of the most compelling quality work available. I havn't played, so I don't know if this game ranks up there with the greats, but I won't turn down the opportunity to be 'lit'. As it is, I think people are more desensitized to violence by bad art than they are to good art. Films like Baise Moi would disturb most anyone, where as senseless violence in some other crap hollywood film wouldn't. Does that mean they're desensitized, or just unengaged by crap? Think of that. Why is it porn doesn't appeal to some, but some softcore sexy scenes do titillate? It's a good example of the difference between bad art/good art as well as a desensitized response/titillation.