but seriously the adaptations made in the 80's have an almost porno-grade cheesiness to them
What? Because some guy's disembodied head is licking a naked woman all over her body and in some places twice?
You're absolutely right of course. The adaptations of Lovecraft (at least the few I've seen, maybe only that one now that I think of it) have always completely missed the point.
A good Lovecraft adaptation would rely totally on atmosphere and characters' reactions to drive the horror and the special effects and blood-and-guts-and-gore-and-vein-in-my-teeth stuff would be kept to a minimum, if shown at all. The true masters of horror, like Hitchcock, knew that real fear lies in the unknown, ill-defined terrors, creating an appropriate mood and not being sure what's going to happen. So many modern horror movies are solely exercises in repeated startling (not scaring, big difference), buckets of fake blood and poorly delivered anatomy lessons.
Although, from what I've heard ("The Sixth Sense", "The Ring", and that Shamalama-ding-dong guy etc) real horror movies are making a bit of a comeback. Too bad I'm so spoiled by MST3K that I end up watching a lot of old 50's B-movies instead. In fact, I discovered one, I think it was called "The Unknown World" that was essentially the same plot as "The Core" only slightly more unrealistics and nowhere near as poorly-written. It amazed me that so many 9-figure special-effects extraordinaires of today are no better the cheapest, cheesiest, shoe-string-budget movies of 50 years ago. Money can buy lots of eye-candy, but apparently it can't buy good writing (and often not even good acting), because so few of the most expensive movies ever have it.
I'd actually read this potentially interesting material if whoever made the site didn't have some kind of OCD thing going on with the letter Z. Wotta chump.
Thanks for the corrections. Yes, I oversimplified on the speed of light thing, which is pretty funny considering the simple level of my understanding. One of my long term goals is to educate myself enough to understand relatively in detail. I realize this is pretty ambitious, but I'm not in a hurry either. I've got lots of projects...
Yeah, as I understand it, the problem with getting to the speed of light is that it would take an infinite amount of energy. But if, like you said, you could "jump" past it in a discontinuous manner, you could evade the "cosmic speed limit".
I would think "encoding the structure of matter" would be totally impossible regardless of what technology you have, also you run into the problem hypothesized in Star Trek (and discussed in detail in the very first Star Trek novel "Spock Must Die") that in fact it might be the case the when a person is transported, he is instead actually destroyed and an exact duplicate is recreated at the target location. The moral and metaphysical implications of that are staggering. Assuming you could evade the Heisenberg Principle (using the Star Trek "Heisenberg Compensator" if I recall my geek science:-), would you in fact be really "transporting" matter or recreating it from a digital image?
That said, I want a transporter installed on my desk with a target machine at the Tastykake factory with hourly shipments of Butterscotch Krimpets and Tandytakes.
I should go on to say IANAP, but around here there are plenty, and I'm sure they would agree with me. Of course, that doesn't mean we can get around the fact that we would have to utilize (literally) astronomical amounts of power and/or procure substantial amounts of "strange" matter, which has negative energy and mass, which no one has ever seen. Possible does not mean probable. It would be possible to fill the Grand Canyon with lemon yogurt, but it's not probable. It would be possible to build a Niven-style Ringworld, or even a Dyson sphere, but I don't think we'll be seeing cheap real estate in the quadrillions of square miles anytime soon. It would be possible for a./ geek to have a girlfriend, I mean besides my super-stud self, naturally...
I'm sorry, but a warp drive is impossible, as is any attempt to go faster than the speed of light.
In theory, both are in fact quite possible. I refer you to Einstein-Rosen bridges, as an example. Check out the books of Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Michio Kaku, Stanley Greene (is it Stanley? I'm not sure now, the book is "The Elegant Universe", best physics book I've ever read, but it was better 'cause I'd read a lot of others first.) There was also a pop physics book from about 12-15 years ago called (specifically) "Superluminal Physics". I can't find my copy right now, but it was a fun read. The fact is, Einstein proved you can't go faster than the speed of light, but he never said you couldn't cheat.
Nothing's impossible if you believe in it. If you were like Hubert and Cubert, you would understand that.:-)
But I don't like her... I want a ship I fly to have that certain special something......Warp Drive!
Sailing is for wimps. Ejecting matter out the ass-end of your ship is for chumps. Only a sissy would mince off into hyperspace to get somewhere. I don't want to screw around with flying to places or prancing around different dimensions, I wanna frickin' bend space and make the places come to me!
(Yeah, I changed my Python geek hat for my SF geek hat several lines ago)
Even a simple majority override for a line veto isn't going to help when the President and the Majority are from the same party.
That's because it's called Majority Rule. If the minority party were good at anything besides name-calling these days, they would be winning more seats. It's not like they don't have an easy target to defeat. You can't blame the system for that.
Well, since you completely misunderstood my point, I think we are at parity.
My original statement was: The idea that level of effort and merit would not be relevant to financial success should terrify any sane person. and you went off on some weird tangent about business plans and AT&T merging with SBC. I have no idea what that has to do with what I said or anything else in this conversation. If I misread your reply it is simply because your reply didn't make any sense in the context in which it was given. That's why I phrased my response in the form of question. You see?
Since you claim you are so much smarter than I am, maybe I need to spell things out in simpler terms. (How's that for another non sequitur?)
I simply said that if you work hard and are good at what you do, then that should have some positive influence on your chances of success. Unions tend to negate that relationship since everyone tends to be considered equivalent (or worse, based solely on seniority).
My meaning was that if hard work and skill do not have any bearing on your success then you should be terrified because you are in the Worker's Paradise of Communism. My comment had nothing to do with the difficulties of business plans or CEO's or mergers any of those other things you were ranting about.
So you can sit around and some up with more elaborate ways to call me stupid or we can discuss work. Personally, I find the ad hominem stuff to be really childish and pointless. But then again, for someone who feels the need to be anonymous this might be the status quo.
"aid and comfort to an enemy insurrection" Uhh... what? What insurrection? Last I knew we were fighting Al-Qaeda. Did I miss some mass violent uprising somewhere on this continent?
I didn't say it was on this continent. It's in Iraq. And you know darn well that those folks are tickled pink that America's own Senators are making those kinds of comments. Durbin couldn't have hurt us more if he'd called us the Great White Satan.
And making a bad analogy is a hell of a stretch of the meaning of aid and comfort to the enemy... Last time I checked, bad mouthing the government/country/president was a constitutional garuantee... Oh gee! it's the very first amendment!
And last I checked, slander wasn't covered by the First Amendment. Also, there's a difference between freedom and license. There's nothing legal stopping a Senator from undermining our country in a time of war, but that doesn't mean it's not immoral or harmful.
Character assissination is nothing new. Welcome to American politics of the last 60 years.
Character assassination in U.S. politics is as old as the U.S., but never before has the entire platform of a party been devoted to it. If the Democrats stand for anything else these days, they sure haven't shated it with the rest o f us. The biggest reason that the Republicans are in free-fall is that the Democrats have hit bottom slightly ahead of them.
Even though I don't agree with which side you're likely on, I have to unfortunately agree with your last 2 paragraphs. The country is heading downhill fast. I hope not to meet you across a field of craters.
If we can break the duopoly of the do-nothing party and the know-nothing party (either label fits either party depending on your point of view) we can save this country.
I'm calling your bluff. If you insist on angering me with obnoxious and intrusive ads then I will continue to block them. If you think you need to charge to run your site, then go ahead. If it's worth it, I'll pay for it, if not, well, my loss and yours too.
My boss isn't corrupt and I've never worked 50-60 hours weeks because I was forced. I have done it by choice though.
You see, as a successful professional I have some leverage. Many people don't, and that's why unions still need to exist in some cases. That was more common in the past, but I never said or implied it isn't still true.
If you're asking if I ever worked for some slave-driving company that abused me? No, but if I had, I'd've left. I left good paying jobs for less severe reasons. I'm good, I can find other work.
If the market will bear paying some CEO $10M a year for making a few decisions and lots of photo-ops then fine. It's stupid, and probably immoral, but I've eked out a pretty decent life without having some nanny organization to do my negotiating for me. I have also chosen to work almost exclusively for small companies, often start-ups, where merit is indeed highly relevant to recognition.
Can everyone do that? No, and I never said they could. But I can, and never will join a union. I'd change careers first. Because if someone with a decent-education, a decent work-ethic and a lot of skill can't succeed at something, then, well, then I'm wrong about a lot of things. And yes, I've suffered because of outsourcing, with over a year out of (paying) work, but you know what? All I had to do was find an employer that recognized the value of someone with skill, good communications skills and an ability to think and adapt, none of which are easy to find when you are looking for the cheapest warm bodies you can find.
One more comment. I'm glad to see you don't feel I need to look up "asshole". I know it's a sad choice of words, but it's hard to express my utter disgust at how glibly this Senator suggests moral equivilancy between American servicemen and -women and the most horrible evil that the Earth has ever seen. In my opinion, no honest man or true patriot could ever use that choice of words.
Well, let's see. We're at war, and he is giving aid and comfort to an enemy insurrection. You know Al-Jazeera had a field day with that quote, and I'm sure all the Muslim fanatics are using this as a selling point for recruitment.
To me, that's sedition.
Now if the Honorable Senator had said that he thought the treatment of prisoners was wrong and certainly not something we would expect of the United States, that it is a black mark on our record of human rights and our moral standard, and that we should reconsider our policies for detaining and interrogating prisoners in Guantanamo, he would have communicated the exact same information, and not insulted every Jew, former Soviet prisoner, Cambodian, the American Legion, the VFW and every man and woman in our armed forces.
But given the new standard of political hate-speech evidenced by Screamin' Dean, apparently trashing your own military, your country and your President is the new standard for political opposition. Apparently disagreeing isn't enough, we must now assassinate characters and use the language of our mortal enemies in order to make our points.
Now I know this is not new, but it has become so prominent that I believe all real civility is gone, and that no politician seems to be able to rise above the level of playground altercations. How can anyone take our politicians of either party seriously when people are describuing each other in the same terms that the Soviets once used to describe us.
This is why I don't think this country will remain united for much longer. Within this century, perhaps even the next generation, states will again consider secession. There are a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum who feel the country is out of control and there is no one that represents them. The most vile stereotyping and even bigotry has replaced political disagreement, just read./ on politics for cryin' out loud. We've got the America that was founded in the 18th century up against the world of George Orwell's "1984", the world of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and many other speculative dystopias. Rhetoric trumps logic. Slogans trump common sense. And the average person doesn't seem to understand anything but the simplest issues, and the people campaigning have no intention of describing things as they are but would rather use fear, doubt and uncertainty (where've I heard that before) to cow us into accepting things we might not otherwise choose.
So what's wrong with a gentleman's agreement. The Senators are supposedly such a friendly little club (partisan politics aside).
Senator A: Hey, Senator B. I understand you don't agree with a tax break for left-handed widget manufacturers, but I will vote for your Waxy Yellow Build-Up Appropriations bill if you vote for my tax break.
Senator B: OK, that sounds fine. The President is putting pressure on us to increase funding for Waxy Yellow Build-Up. I don't think the tax break is a good thing, but it would be worse to have a Waxy Yellow Build-Up deficit. Thanks.
Senator A: No problem.
Votes are normally not secret, so the Senators and Representatives know that if someone welshes on the agreement, he'll get found out.
Naaah, this makes too much sense. It would require people to work together, compromise and be reasonable.
It is terrifying. The idea that level of effort and merit would not be relevant to financial success should terrify any sane person.
Because you see, socialized medicine has no incentive to prevent people from abusing it for frivolous means. The only way to control it is to create an artificial shortage of supply. There is no incentive for customers to be prudent with their medical decisions from a financial point of view since they don't pay for it. This is largely a problem with the current insurance system as well.
Secondly, are you aware of some of the absurd and counter-productive things unions will inflict in order to get what they think is fair. In the case of the airlines, the unions have repeatedly shown they would rather see the company destroyed than have to give in to whatever silly demands they require. It's no wonder stupid and lazy people want unions... their communistic in nature. There are legitimate reasons for them to exist (much more so in the past), but in many cases their sole purpose is to perpetuate themselves.
I'd rather rely on myself and let the lazy and incompetant fail. Otherwise, there's no incentive to succeed and then everyone fails.
You have a valid point, although I have to wonder about a criticism of American education with so many spelling mistakes. But perhaps English is not your first language.
However, your conclusion is quite possible. I actually predict it is likely the U.S. will not survive the 21st century in one piece. Hopefully it won't be another Civil War, but I can't imagine this country remaining united for another 100 years.
Yes, I did hear what he said, and no I don't listen to Hannity.
And what's even funnier was his so-called apology, which amounted to, "I'm sorry you took offense at my perfectly reasonable assertion. I obviously didn't mean what I clearly and unambiguously said, and I'm really sorry if you took my words at face value."
1. Unconstitutional? That's why I said we need an amendment.
2. Too much power? That's why I suggested a simple majority. Let the item stand on its own merit. Congress normally isn't as polarized as it is now (and hopefully it won't be soon). But when that "Mr. I Hate Those Evil Republics" nutcase is in charge of the Demmies, I don't see any compromising happening any time soon.
There must be some way to have some accountability! RIGHT? Right? right? well, ok, maybe not
The solution is simple. Pass an amendment giving the President a line-item veto. Let each item stand on its own merit. Perhaps a line-item veto could be overturned by a simple majority rather than a supermajority as with normal vetos. In other words, prevent Congress from blackmailing the President and each other with these (usually spending) bills that normally would never pass.
But I suppose making things more efficient and effective isn't The American Way (TM).
How long till someone proposes a whole year's worth of legislation as one bill... up or down? And voting down means depriving war orphans of free milk, which makes you worse than Hitler (at least according to Senator Durbin), whereas voting up cedes citizens' rights to the **AA, insurance companies and other large, rich corporations, buried so deeply in the legislation no one even knows it's there.
Slashdot Mirror
but seriously the adaptations made in the 80's have an almost porno-grade cheesiness to them
What? Because some guy's disembodied head is licking a naked woman all over her body and in some places twice?
You're absolutely right of course. The adaptations of Lovecraft (at least the few I've seen, maybe only that one now that I think of it) have always completely missed the point.
A good Lovecraft adaptation would rely totally on atmosphere and characters' reactions to drive the horror and the special effects and blood-and-guts-and-gore-and-vein-in-my-teeth stuff would be kept to a minimum, if shown at all. The true masters of horror, like Hitchcock, knew that real fear lies in the unknown, ill-defined terrors, creating an appropriate mood and not being sure what's going to happen. So many modern horror movies are solely exercises in repeated startling (not scaring, big difference), buckets of fake blood and poorly delivered anatomy lessons.
Although, from what I've heard ("The Sixth Sense", "The Ring", and that Shamalama-ding-dong guy etc) real horror movies are making a bit of a comeback. Too bad I'm so spoiled by MST3K that I end up watching a lot of old 50's B-movies instead. In fact, I discovered one, I think it was called "The Unknown World" that was essentially the same plot as "The Core" only slightly more unrealistics and nowhere near as poorly-written. It amazed me that so many 9-figure special-effects extraordinaires of today are no better the cheapest, cheesiest, shoe-string-budget movies of 50 years ago. Money can buy lots of eye-candy, but apparently it can't buy good writing (and often not even good acting), because so few of the most expensive movies ever have it.
I'd actually read this potentially interesting material if whoever made the site didn't have some kind of OCD thing going on with the letter Z. Wotta chump.
Thanks for the corrections. Yes, I oversimplified on the speed of light thing, which is pretty funny considering the simple level of my understanding. One of my long term goals is to educate myself enough to understand relatively in detail. I realize this is pretty ambitious, but I'm not in a hurry either. I've got lots of projects...
:-), would you in fact be really "transporting" matter or recreating it from a digital image?
Yeah, as I understand it, the problem with getting to the speed of light is that it would take an infinite amount of energy. But if, like you said, you could "jump" past it in a discontinuous manner, you could evade the "cosmic speed limit".
I would think "encoding the structure of matter" would be totally impossible regardless of what technology you have, also you run into the problem hypothesized in Star Trek (and discussed in detail in the very first Star Trek novel "Spock Must Die") that in fact it might be the case the when a person is transported, he is instead actually destroyed and an exact duplicate is recreated at the target location. The moral and metaphysical implications of that are staggering.
Assuming you could evade the Heisenberg Principle (using the Star Trek "Heisenberg Compensator" if I recall my geek science
That said, I want a transporter installed on my desk with a target machine at the Tastykake factory with hourly shipments of Butterscotch Krimpets and Tandytakes.
I know, I know... replying to yourself.
./ geek to have a girlfriend, I mean besides my super-stud self, naturally...
I should go on to say IANAP, but around here there are plenty, and I'm sure they would agree with me. Of course, that doesn't mean we can get around the fact that we would have to utilize (literally) astronomical amounts of power and/or procure substantial amounts of "strange" matter, which has negative energy and mass, which no one has ever seen. Possible does not mean probable. It would be possible to fill the Grand Canyon with lemon yogurt, but it's not probable. It would be possible to build a Niven-style Ringworld, or even a Dyson sphere, but I don't think we'll be seeing cheap real estate in the quadrillions of square miles anytime soon. It would be possible for a
I'm sorry, but a warp drive is impossible, as is any attempt to go faster than the speed of light.
:-)
In theory, both are in fact quite possible. I refer you to Einstein-Rosen bridges, as an example. Check out the books of Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Michio Kaku, Stanley Greene (is it Stanley? I'm not sure now, the book is "The Elegant Universe", best physics book I've ever read, but it was better 'cause I'd read a lot of others first.) There was also a pop physics book from about 12-15 years ago called (specifically) "Superluminal Physics". I can't find my copy right now, but it was a fun read. The fact is, Einstein proved you can't go faster than the speed of light, but he never said you couldn't cheat.
Nothing's impossible if you believe in it. If you were like Hubert and Cubert, you would understand that.
But I don't like her... I want a ship I fly to have that certain special something... ...Warp Drive!
Sailing is for wimps. Ejecting matter out the ass-end of your ship is for chumps. Only a sissy would mince off into hyperspace to get somewhere. I don't want to screw around with flying to places or prancing around different dimensions, I wanna frickin' bend space and make the places come to me!
(Yeah, I changed my Python geek hat for my SF geek hat several lines ago)
But I don't want to sail... I'd rather...
Even a simple majority override for a line veto isn't going to help when the President and the Majority are from the same party.
That's because it's called Majority Rule. If the minority party were good at anything besides name-calling these days, they would be winning more seats. It's not like they don't have an easy target to defeat. You can't blame the system for that.
I hereby dub it: Gliquid
Now you owe me a nickel every time you use that term.
Well, since you completely misunderstood my point, I think we are at parity.
My original statement was: The idea that level of effort and merit would not be relevant to financial success should terrify any sane person. and you went off on some weird tangent about business plans and AT&T merging with SBC. I have no idea what that has to do with what I said or anything else in this conversation. If I misread your reply it is simply because your reply didn't make any sense in the context in which it was given. That's why I phrased my response in the form of question. You see?
Since you claim you are so much smarter than I am, maybe I need to spell things out in simpler terms. (How's that for another non sequitur?)
I simply said that if you work hard and are good at what you do, then that should have some positive influence on your chances of success. Unions tend to negate that relationship since everyone tends to be considered equivalent (or worse, based solely on seniority).
My meaning was that if hard work and skill do not have any bearing on your success then you should be terrified because you are in the Worker's Paradise of Communism. My comment had nothing to do with the difficulties of business plans or CEO's or mergers any of those other things you were ranting about.
So you can sit around and some up with more elaborate ways to call me stupid or we can discuss work. Personally, I find the ad hominem stuff to be really childish and pointless. But then again, for someone who feels the need to be anonymous this might be the status quo.
"aid and comfort to an enemy insurrection"
Uhh... what?
What insurrection? Last I knew we were fighting Al-Qaeda. Did I miss some mass violent uprising somewhere on this continent?
I didn't say it was on this continent. It's in Iraq. And you know darn well that those folks are tickled pink that America's own Senators are making those kinds of comments. Durbin couldn't have hurt us more if he'd called us the Great White Satan.
And making a bad analogy is a hell of a stretch of the meaning of aid and comfort to the enemy... Last time I checked, bad mouthing the government/country/president was a constitutional garuantee... Oh gee! it's the very first amendment!
And last I checked, slander wasn't covered by the First Amendment. Also, there's a difference between freedom and license. There's nothing legal stopping a Senator from undermining our country in a time of war, but that doesn't mean it's not immoral or harmful.
Character assissination is nothing new. Welcome to American politics of the last 60 years.
Character assassination in U.S. politics is as old as the U.S., but never before has the entire platform of a party been devoted to it. If the Democrats stand for anything else these days, they sure haven't shated it with the rest o f us. The biggest reason that the Republicans are in free-fall is that the Democrats have hit bottom slightly ahead of them.
Even though I don't agree with which side you're likely on, I have to unfortunately agree with your last 2 paragraphs. The country is heading downhill fast. I hope not to meet you across a field of craters.
If we can break the duopoly of the do-nothing party and the know-nothing party (either label fits either party depending on your point of view) we can save this country.
I'm calling your bluff. If you insist on angering me with obnoxious and intrusive ads then I will continue to block them. If you think you need to charge to run your site, then go ahead. If it's worth it, I'll pay for it, if not, well, my loss and yours too.
Put up or shut up and quit whining.
I dare you.
My boss isn't corrupt and I've never worked 50-60 hours weeks because I was forced. I have done it by choice though.
You see, as a successful professional I have some leverage. Many people don't, and that's why unions still need to exist in some cases. That was more common in the past, but I never said or implied it isn't still true.
If you're asking if I ever worked for some slave-driving company that abused me? No, but if I had, I'd've left. I left good paying jobs for less severe reasons. I'm good, I can find other work.
If the market will bear paying some CEO $10M a year for making a few decisions and lots of photo-ops then fine. It's stupid, and probably immoral, but I've eked out a pretty decent life without having some nanny organization to do my negotiating for me. I have also chosen to work almost exclusively for small companies, often start-ups, where merit is indeed highly relevant to recognition.
Can everyone do that? No, and I never said they could. But I can, and never will join a union. I'd change careers first. Because if someone with a decent-education, a decent work-ethic and a lot of skill can't succeed at something, then, well, then I'm wrong about a lot of things. And yes, I've suffered because of outsourcing, with over a year out of (paying) work, but you know what? All I had to do was find an employer that recognized the value of someone with skill, good communications skills and an ability to think and adapt, none of which are easy to find when you are looking for the cheapest warm bodies you can find.
I don't think so. That whole idea is very fishy if you ask me. I've thought so for years.
One more comment. I'm glad to see you don't feel I need to look up "asshole". I know it's a sad choice of words, but it's hard to express my utter disgust at how glibly this Senator suggests moral equivilancy between American servicemen and -women and the most horrible evil that the Earth has ever seen. In my opinion, no honest man or true patriot could ever use that choice of words.
Well, let's see. We're at war, and he is giving aid and comfort to an enemy insurrection. You know Al-Jazeera had a field day with that quote, and I'm sure all the Muslim fanatics are using this as a selling point for recruitment.
./ on politics for cryin' out loud. We've got the America that was founded in the 18th century up against the world of George Orwell's "1984", the world of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and many other speculative dystopias. Rhetoric trumps logic. Slogans trump common sense. And the average person doesn't seem to understand anything but the simplest issues, and the people campaigning have no intention of describing things as they are but would rather use fear, doubt and uncertainty (where've I heard that before) to cow us into accepting things we might not otherwise choose.
To me, that's sedition.
Now if the Honorable Senator had said that he thought the treatment of prisoners was wrong and certainly not something we would expect of the United States, that it is a black mark on our record of human rights and our moral standard, and that we should reconsider our policies for detaining and interrogating prisoners in Guantanamo, he would have communicated the exact same information, and not insulted every Jew, former Soviet prisoner, Cambodian, the American Legion, the VFW and every man and woman in our armed forces.
But given the new standard of political hate-speech evidenced by Screamin' Dean, apparently trashing your own military, your country and your President is the new standard for political opposition. Apparently disagreeing isn't enough, we must now assassinate characters and use the language of our mortal enemies in order to make our points.
Now I know this is not new, but it has become so prominent that I believe all real civility is gone, and that no politician seems to be able to rise above the level of playground altercations. How can anyone take our politicians of either party seriously when people are describuing each other in the same terms that the Soviets once used to describe us.
This is why I don't think this country will remain united for much longer. Within this century, perhaps even the next generation, states will again consider secession. There are a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum who feel the country is out of control and there is no one that represents them. The most vile stereotyping and even bigotry has replaced political disagreement, just read
So what's wrong with a gentleman's agreement. The Senators are supposedly such a friendly little club (partisan politics aside).
Senator A: Hey, Senator B. I understand you don't agree with a tax break for left-handed widget manufacturers, but I will vote for your Waxy Yellow Build-Up Appropriations bill if you vote for my tax break.
Senator B: OK, that sounds fine. The President is putting pressure on us to increase funding for Waxy Yellow Build-Up.
I don't think the tax break is a good thing, but it would be worse to have a Waxy Yellow Build-Up deficit. Thanks.
Senator A: No problem.
Votes are normally not secret, so the Senators and Representatives know that if someone welshes on the agreement, he'll get found out.
Naaah, this makes too much sense. It would require people to work together, compromise and be reasonable.
D'Oh! Stupid typos.
s/their/they're
It is terrifying. The idea that level of effort and merit would not be relevant to financial success should terrify any sane person.
Because you see, socialized medicine has no incentive to prevent people from abusing it for frivolous means. The only way to control it is to create an artificial shortage of supply. There is no incentive for customers to be prudent with their medical decisions from a financial point of view since they don't pay for it. This is largely a problem with the current insurance system as well.
Secondly, are you aware of some of the absurd and counter-productive things unions will inflict in order to get what they think is fair. In the case of the airlines, the unions have repeatedly shown they would rather see the company destroyed than have to give in to whatever silly demands they require. It's no wonder stupid and lazy people want unions... their communistic in nature. There are legitimate reasons for them to exist (much more so in the past), but in many cases their sole purpose is to perpetuate themselves.
I'd rather rely on myself and let the lazy and incompetant fail. Otherwise, there's no incentive to succeed and then everyone fails.
You have a valid point, although I have to wonder about a criticism of American education with so many spelling mistakes. But perhaps English is not your first language.
However, your conclusion is quite possible. I actually predict it is likely the U.S. will not survive the 21st century in one piece. Hopefully it won't be another Civil War, but I can't imagine this country remaining united for another 100 years.
The line-item veto was declared unconstitutional
Um, you do realize I said "Pass an amendment".
Yes, I did hear what he said, and no I don't listen to Hannity.
And what's even funnier was his so-called apology, which amounted to, "I'm sorry you took offense at my perfectly reasonable assertion. I obviously didn't mean what I clearly and unambiguously said, and I'm really sorry if you took my words at face value."
The guy is a seditious asshole.
1. Unconstitutional? That's why I said we need an amendment.
2. Too much power? That's why I suggested a simple majority. Let the item stand on its own merit. Congress normally isn't as polarized as it is now (and hopefully it won't be soon). But when that "Mr. I Hate Those Evil Republics" nutcase is in charge of the Demmies, I don't see any compromising happening any time soon.
There must be some way to have some accountability! RIGHT? Right? right? well, ok, maybe not
The solution is simple. Pass an amendment giving the President a line-item veto. Let each item stand on its own merit. Perhaps a line-item veto could be overturned by a simple majority rather than a supermajority as with normal vetos. In other words, prevent Congress from blackmailing the President and each other with these (usually spending) bills that normally would never pass.
But I suppose making things more efficient and effective isn't The American Way (TM).
How long till someone proposes a whole year's worth of legislation as one bill... up or down? And voting down means depriving war orphans of free milk, which makes you worse than Hitler (at least according to Senator Durbin), whereas voting up cedes citizens' rights to the **AA, insurance companies and other large, rich corporations, buried so deeply in the legislation no one even knows it's there.