What of the millions of people who can't *afford* new HDTVs or the little box to convert down to "normal" broadcast signals of today? Do they get told, "Sorry, you're fucked"? There are plenty of people out there that simply will not stand for this, if the options are either buy a new television or give up TV.
Let's see, the poor can't afford the new televisions, so they're forced to no longer watch TV. This results in a massive amount of culture and independant thinking amongst the poor, sort of re-emergance of the "Harlem Renaissance". Suddenly, millions of people realise that they don't need television, and that they can create their own entertainment that is beyond almost anything ever put on the boob tube.
And meanwhile, the rich and middle class are watching reruns of "Seinfeld" in beautiful HDTV quality.
It's really just a plot to find out which of us actually use linux. You don't know what they'll do with this information. When a fascist totalitarian regime meant to oppress our resistance (read: Microsoft Fascism v2.0) comes about, will those who have registered be forced to wear penguin armbands and relocate to getto camps with only 9600 baud access?
Yeah, and damn Bakunin and Proudhon straight to hell for ever even *considering* writing books about anarchism. I mean, anarchism just happens, right? People aren't supposed to think or plan, they're just supposed to go straight to smashing the state and capitalism without ever understanding the impetus of the situation, or how to help progress and structure society following the revolution, right?
Whatever. You obviously have listened to too much psuedo-anarchist punk music.
Understand the history of free socialism, and call yourself an anarchist if that's what you believe in. How in the world would the anarchist movement progress if no "true anarchist" proclaimed themselves to be one?
Your rhetoric reeks of ignorance. Please help out at a Food Not Bombs or organise your workplace into a radical union. Otherwise, stop wasting your time labelling those of us actually involved in the movement as "posers". Thank you.
I'm probably going to come off sounding like a big time Socialist-sniper, but whatever. It happens. It's amazing that people (read: Sierra Clubbers, Greenpeace, et all) always assume that government will lead the way to more economically happy ideas and products.
First, please do me a favor and don't assume that anybody who is a socialist is a Marxist or any other form of authoritarian.
Second, corporations are not leading us to more economically happy ideas and products. They are also not moving our society towards a more positive future.
Of course, neither is government. And don't get me started on the prospect of the two working together against the will of the common man, as they have always done.
I find it strange that people are interested in trying to artificially increase our intellegence and capabilities, when we as humans are nowhere near our limit. There are so many things that keep us from achieving great things (government, institutionalised education, parents, religion, republicans). Why not work on moving forward naturally before we resort to this aspect of science?
Case in point: If you've ever watched a martial arts master, it's really amazing. Human beings are capable of throwing a punch in less than 1/10 of a second. No genetic engineering is necessary.
We need to focus on breaking down those institutions and barriers to our progress, and then increasing our capabilities naturally. If, at that point, we find that we have met some restrictive limiting point, then playing God might be justifiable. But I don't think we'll meet that point for a *long* time.
With the proliferation of the Internet, and the increasing powers of corporate interests to sway the opinions of those elected, haven't electoral politics become obsolete?
What would possibly keep us involved in a failed, antiquated system? What caveats do you see that would keep us from moving towards a completely direct democracy?
As much as we'd all like to be the JFK, Jr. and Princess Di's of the world, you have to remember that any person, put in a position of power over others, will become corrupted. There are no exceptions to this rule.
I'd hope that we'd move towards a more egalitarian society where everybody's contributions are valued.
I sent this message to the highschool that I graduated from (my younger brother attends now). It's under the GPL if you'd like to copy, modify it for your needs, and send it to your local school.
------
I would highly recommend you read the following report about the "Bess" censorship software that is used in Yorkville Highschool's internet LAN.
http://censorware.org/reports/bess/
Please reevaluate the use of software which costs taxpayers, yet does not function well enough to justify those costs. More importantly, however, please question the morality of blocking perfectly acceptable yet educational websites.
He didnt turn out so well. Not that its my play to judge how "well" kids have turned out (I'm 17 myself). But he just acts like hes better then everyone (and because of this, became racist). He lies to his friends, as well to his family, and his family takes it all so lightly. Hes just an all around asshole, and his parents think hes an angel.
One thing about libertarian parenting is that it requires two very strong role models. Also, although it is libertarian, it is not laissez faire. You cannot take a "hands off" approach, and not provide values and morals for a child.
Don't let the term "libertarian" confuse you into thinking that it's a matter of spoiling your child, nor does it mean not having to be a parent.
Does anyone else see a problem here? Isn't that sometimes a parent's job? IOW, there are times when a parent has to "intrude on their children's privacy" to assure that their kids are being raised the way they see fit. My parents restricted what I could watch when I was a kid (I'm 23 and married now), and I'm glad they did -- it showed me they cared.
If you feel the need to invade your child's privacy, then you obviously haven't provided your child with a reason to trust you. A child is a human being, and therefore cannot be denied their basic humanity.
So let's see, Katz now advocates illegal acts (like copyright violation and illegally sneaking into movies) as well as a hands-off parenting approach? Doesn't sound like libertarianism, sounds like anarchy.
Very good. Although not exactly "hands off", it is an anarchistic approach. Take a look at methods of anarchist parenting. In fact, you may want to take a look at the whole Anarchism FAQ to get a proper definition of anarchy.
Michael Chisari dominion@beyondtheweb.com "Got a revolution behind my eyes, we got to get up and organize."
But as a general principle, "leave nature alone" is simply not an option. Unless you decide to execute 80% of the population, we have to tamper with nature, or nature will execute those people the slow way. Our only option is to try and understand the complex system we are living in a minimize unwanted side-effects.
It gives some interesting insights about how population growth is a direct result of the growing lower class. If you've noticed, in economically prosperous areas, families usually stop at two or three children.
It's my fear that we have come upon a dangerous era in population growth. Countries in economical distress have populations which have large families (partially due to religion, partially due to culture, and partially due to the necessity to feel "human" when your society takes that from you), and conditions are such that they can't be taken care of, but yet aren't so bad that they die (which is what kept populations in check in earlier years, and was the reason for having large families).
What's needed to keep the human population in check is education, contraception, and women's rights.
But most importantly, it's freedom. Economic, political, and social freedom. -- Michael Chisari dominion@beyondtheweb.com
As I understand it (and this ain't exactly my bag, baby. my ex-girlfreind was more into this) if a population doesn't have sufficient gene diversity, it doesn't matter how many of them exist. That's one of the problems with species that are "virtually" extinct. You can't rely on inbreeding, or (in this case) cloning a species that can't continue it's own existance without our help.
The ability to clone extinct species is a noble one. And somebody, I hope we can recognize when a species is endangered, and propogate their species without letting them become extinct.
But in the end, we can't allow these advancements to distract us from the problem of why these species are being destroyed in the first place.
In regards to the problem of homogenous reactions (ie, anti-microsoft/anti-clinton), I think that these sites should encourage people of all viewpoints to add to the discussion.
I'm working on setting up a community site which discusses Anarchism (Libertarian Socialism) and modern day activism, and after it's gotten on it's feet, I think it'd be a great idea to encourage people from FreeRepublic.com to visit, and people from my site to visit there.
Although you might think that posting a Slashdot advertisement to alt.love.bill-gates, or posting a FreeRepublic ad on EatTheState.org would be inciting a riot, I think it's the only way to provide your users with all sides of the coin.
And there's always moderation. I absolutely love Slashdot's system, it's worked wonders. I set my threshold to 2 or 3 (sometimes 1 if I have a lot of time), and I usually get about 10-15 very thought out messages. Only problem I see is that good posts that are far down a thread seem to be lost. Maybe there could be some system for randomly injecting posts outside of your threshold at the bottom of all the comments?
And, by the way, let me take this opportunity to rail against people who take snipes at stores that are considered "common." Exactly what the !@#$% do you have against K-Mart? Oh, no, a store that sells inexpensive goods. Oh, no, a store where the working class goes to spend money. I can feel the property values dropping already.
In my case, it has nothing to do with classism. It has everything to do with the fact that big business (K-Mart, Walmart, etc) are large, monolithic, oppressive machines which destroy communities and dissolve American culture.
--
Michael Chisari dominion@beyondtheweb.com
Re:Unionization is the only way to get ahead.
on
Home Sweet Sweatshop
·
· Score: 1
In ways, I agree with your assessment of Unions. However, you're looking at it from a capitalist stance. You might want to take a look at it from an anarchist (libertarian socialist) viewpoint:
The problems with trade unions are heirarchial, just as almost all problems are. You can't trust your boss because he is in a position of power over you. How can you trust a union leader?
A highly democratic, non-heirarchial union would be a different story, however. Maybe programmers (being the most anarchistic and meritocratic, especially in Linux community) would be the best ones to try out a new system such as this?
1. Jedi's are so cool. There really aren't any cool Jedi's in 4,5 and 6. Yoda isn't exactly that tough and all he does is lift luke's space ship. Big fucking deal. Obi-wan gets his ass kicked really easily by Darth. He's 60+ years old, what do you expect. Epsiode 1 has great jedi and great fight scenes.
Yeah, nothing in the last three even compared to the final scene with Darth Maul. So incredibly bad-ass, it was without definition.
2. Why didn't the trade federation use storm troopers? It seems to me that droids would be much more difficult to maintain. Epsecially considering that they had thousands of them. And they never really killed anything. They just got their asses kicked. Remember the scene when obi wan is in the hanger and says "I'll take out the droids," and kills a dozen of them with no problem? You'd never see Luke or Han going after a dozen storm troopers. In fact, they ran like hell in Starwars when six or so came at them.
If you've heard anything about the next movie, you'll find out about this. Basically, they don't use storm troopers because they don't exist yet.
3. Anakin's mom is psycho. Would you let your kid fly a pod racer at 600 miles an hour with people shooting at you and other racers trying to knock you into mountain walls? Hell no!
Point well taken. Of course, I don't think most moms would let their sons train to become jedi knights, either.:) She should have said "no", it would have kept things a lot more peaceful in the universe.
4. The queen is hot. I never really thought princess Leah was hot. Maybe that was because I was 4 years old when starwars came out.
I never thought princess leah was hot for a simple reason: she's not hot.:) Natalie Portman was absolutely gorgeous in this movie. I know I'm not the only one, but I have an unhealthy obsession with her. Maybe I'll go into movies. See where that takes me...
Of course, I was a Natalie Portman fan before this movie. I saw "The Professional" when I was 14, and instantly fell in love with the 13 year old Natalie Portman.
5. Lucas has some very fucked up family values. Just look at the relationships in his starwars movies: Luke and Leah - Brother and sister. Queen Amilda and Anakin - 16 year old and 9 year old. He's a pedophile incest lover.
Nothing ever happened with Luke and Leah, other than a kiss (which was only used to piss off Han Solo). As for Amadala and Anakin, I thought he foreshadowed a relationship between them very well, without making it seem... well, "icky." He made it seem more maternal on Amidala's side, and more of a crush on Anakin's side. Definitely plausable, and not very f'ed up, unless you read into it a little too much.
6. Jar Jar - Could someone translate his dialog for me?
Just find a little kid from rural Jamaica or one of those little islands that speak english. That's all it was...
Okay, well, now my thoughts. Overall? I was enthralled. I thought it was everything that a Star Wars movie should be. I think the problem is that people are going into it with specific expectations. They've put the first three up on this pedastal, but they're criticizing this movie like it's supposed to be "Pulp Fiction." Not so.
Jar Jar wasn't nearly as bad as I thought he would be. Once in a while he was actually funny. Not very often, but still. Ewan McGregor got the Obi Wan think *perfectly*, and I thought that was great. Liam Neesan was also great. I was worried that Jake Lloyd would be really really annoying, but he ended up being really good. And don't even get me started on how fantastic Natalie Portman was.:)
As for the action scenes, the pod racing had me on the edge of my seat. The fight scenes were leagues beyond any other SW movie. Naboo looked fantastic, definitely a place I'd like to vacation. And I especially liked those giant fish underwater.
Overall, it was an incredible Star Wars movie. Was it a good movie? Not really. But none of them were.:)
I actually used to live in Hastert's home town (Yorkville, IL). My girlfreind grew up down the street from him, and she claims that he's the only republican that she can deal with. I've actually considered showing up at his door and educating him on matters of privacy/cryptography, and possibly even getting linux adopted a little more throughout the government.
On the other hand, he might have me arrested if I do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody read about things that the NSA, FBI, CIA, Microsoft, etc. do, and thing "My GOD, we do NOT have to live like this!"
We need to stop trying to make these organisations act ethically, and we need to do away with them completely.
Stop hoping for benevolence, and start working towards freedom.
Michael Chisari
What of the millions of people who can't *afford* new HDTVs or the little box to convert down to "normal" broadcast signals of today? Do they get told, "Sorry, you're fucked"? There are plenty of people out there that simply will not stand for this, if the options are either buy a new television or give up TV.
Let's see, the poor can't afford the new televisions, so they're forced to no longer watch TV. This results in a massive amount of culture and independant thinking amongst the poor, sort of re-emergance of the "Harlem Renaissance". Suddenly, millions of people realise that they don't need television, and that they can create their own entertainment that is beyond almost anything ever put on the boob tube.
And meanwhile, the rich and middle class are watching reruns of "Seinfeld" in beautiful HDTV quality.
So, what's the problem, again?
Michael Chisari
It's really just a plot to find out which of us actually use linux. You don't know what they'll do with this information. When a fascist totalitarian regime meant to oppress our resistance (read: Microsoft Fascism v2.0) comes about, will those who have registered be forced to wear penguin armbands and relocate to getto camps with only 9600 baud access?
You really should ask yourselves these things.
(ps, it's a joke)
Michael Chisari
Yeah, and damn Bakunin and Proudhon straight to hell for ever even *considering* writing books about anarchism. I mean, anarchism just happens, right? People aren't supposed to think or plan, they're just supposed to go straight to smashing the state and capitalism without ever understanding the impetus of the situation, or how to help progress and structure society following the revolution, right?
Whatever. You obviously have listened to too much psuedo-anarchist punk music.
Understand the history of free socialism, and call yourself an anarchist if that's what you believe in. How in the world would the anarchist movement progress if no "true anarchist" proclaimed themselves to be one?
Your rhetoric reeks of ignorance. Please help out at a Food Not Bombs or organise your workplace into a radical union. Otherwise, stop wasting your time labelling those of us actually involved in the movement as "posers". Thank you.
Michael Chisari
It's times like these when I'm glad to be an Anarchist.
Michael Chisari
I'm probably going to come off sounding like a big time Socialist-sniper, but whatever. It happens. It's amazing that people (read: Sierra Clubbers, Greenpeace, et all) always assume that government will lead the way to more economically happy ideas and products.
First, please do me a favor and don't assume that anybody who is a socialist is a Marxist or any other form of authoritarian.
Second, corporations are not leading us to more economically happy ideas and products. They are also not moving our society towards a more positive future.
Of course, neither is government. And don't get me started on the prospect of the two working together against the will of the common man, as they have always done.
Instead, check out these links:
The truth about Monsanto
The *true* ideals of socialism
Thank you, that is all...
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Michael Chisari
I find it strange that people are interested in trying to artificially increase our intellegence and capabilities, when we as humans are nowhere near our limit. There are so many things that keep us from achieving great things (government, institutionalised education, parents, religion, republicans). Why not work on moving forward naturally before we resort to this aspect of science?
Case in point: If you've ever watched a martial arts master, it's really amazing. Human beings are capable of throwing a punch in less than 1/10 of a second. No genetic engineering is necessary.
We need to focus on breaking down those institutions and barriers to our progress, and then increasing our capabilities naturally. If, at that point, we find that we have met some restrictive limiting point, then playing God might be justifiable. But I don't think we'll meet that point for a *long* time.
With the proliferation of the Internet, and the increasing powers of corporate interests to sway the opinions of those elected, haven't electoral politics become obsolete?
What would possibly keep us involved in a failed, antiquated system? What caveats do you see that would keep us from moving towards a
completely direct democracy?
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
I guess we should fire Linus and Alan.
No, no, no. Those two are leaders, who are respected by their peers. That's different from blind media worship.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
As much as we'd all like to be the JFK, Jr. and Princess Di's of the world, you have to remember that any person, put in a position of power over others, will become corrupted. There are no exceptions to this rule.
I'd hope that we'd move towards a more egalitarian society where everybody's contributions are valued.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
Think this is cool? Maybe. But it's also incredibly ironic.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
I sent this message to the highschool that I graduated from (my younger brother attends now). It's under the GPL if you'd like to copy, modify it for your needs, and send it to your local school.
------
I would highly recommend you read the following report about the "Bess" censorship software that is used in Yorkville Highschool's internet LAN.
http://censorware.org/reports/bess/
Please reevaluate the use of software which costs taxpayers, yet does not function well enough to justify those costs. More importantly, however, please question the morality of blocking perfectly acceptable yet educational websites.
--
Michael Chisari
He didnt turn out so well. Not that its my play to judge how "well" kids have turned out (I'm 17 myself). But he just acts like hes better then everyone (and because of this, became racist). He lies to his friends, as well to his family, and his family takes it all so lightly. Hes just an all around asshole, and his parents think hes an angel.
One thing about libertarian parenting is that it requires two very strong role models. Also, although it is libertarian, it is not laissez faire. You cannot take a "hands off" approach, and not provide values and morals for a child.
Don't let the term "libertarian" confuse you into thinking that it's a matter of spoiling your child, nor does it mean not having to be a parent.
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
Does anyone else see a problem here? Isn't that sometimes a parent's job? IOW, there are times when a parent has to "intrude on their children's privacy" to assure that their kids are being raised the way they see fit. My parents restricted what I could watch when I was a kid (I'm 23 and married now), and I'm glad they did -- it showed me they cared.
If you feel the need to invade your child's privacy, then you obviously haven't provided your child with a reason to trust you. A child is a human being, and therefore cannot be denied their basic humanity.
So let's see, Katz now advocates illegal acts (like copyright violation and illegally sneaking into movies) as well as a hands-off parenting approach? Doesn't sound like libertarianism, sounds like anarchy.
Very good. Although not exactly "hands off", it is an anarchistic approach. Take a look at methods of anarchist parenting. In fact, you may want to take a look at the whole Anarchism FAQ to get a proper definition of anarchy.
Michael Chisari dominion@beyondtheweb.com
"Got a revolution behind my eyes, we got to get up and organize."
But as a general principle, "leave nature alone" is simply not an option. Unless you decide to execute 80% of the population, we have to tamper with nature, or nature will execute those people the slow way. Our only option is to try and understand the complex system we are living in a minimize unwanted side-effects.
You may want to check this out:
E.6 What is the population myth?
It gives some interesting insights about how population growth is a direct result of the growing lower class. If you've noticed, in economically prosperous areas, families usually stop at two or three children.
It's my fear that we have come upon a dangerous era in population growth. Countries in economical distress have populations which have large families (partially due to religion, partially due to culture, and partially due to the necessity to feel "human" when your society takes that from you), and conditions are such that they can't be taken care of, but yet aren't so bad that they die (which is what kept populations in check in earlier years, and was the reason for having large families).
What's needed to keep the human population in check is education, contraception, and women's rights.
But most importantly, it's freedom. Economic, political, and social freedom. -- Michael Chisari dominion@beyondtheweb.com
As I understand it (and this ain't exactly my bag, baby. my ex-girlfreind was more into this) if a population doesn't have sufficient gene diversity, it doesn't matter how many of them exist. That's one of the problems with species that are "virtually" extinct. You can't rely on inbreeding, or (in this case) cloning a species that can't continue it's own existance without our help.
The ability to clone extinct species is a noble one. And somebody, I hope we can recognize when a species is endangered, and propogate their species without letting them become extinct.
But in the end, we can't allow these advancements to distract us from the problem of why these species are being destroyed in the first place.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
In regards to the problem of homogenous reactions (ie, anti-microsoft/anti-clinton), I think that these sites should encourage people of all viewpoints to add to the discussion.
I'm working on setting up a community site which discusses Anarchism (Libertarian Socialism) and modern day activism, and after it's gotten on it's feet, I think it'd be a great idea to encourage people from FreeRepublic.com to visit, and people from my site to visit there.
Although you might think that posting a Slashdot advertisement to alt.love.bill-gates, or posting a FreeRepublic ad on EatTheState.org would be inciting a riot, I think it's the only way to provide your users with all sides of the coin.
And there's always moderation. I absolutely love Slashdot's system, it's worked wonders. I set my threshold to 2 or 3 (sometimes 1 if I have a lot of time), and I usually get about 10-15 very thought out messages. Only problem I see is that good posts that are far down a thread seem to be lost. Maybe there could be some system for randomly injecting posts outside of your threshold at the bottom of all the comments?
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
The point of being a consumer is finding the best price for the goods you want to consume.
I am not a consumer.
I am not a market segment.
I am a human being, thank you very much.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
And, by the way, let me take this opportunity to rail against people who take snipes at stores that are considered "common." Exactly what the !@#$% do you have against K-Mart? Oh, no, a store that sells inexpensive goods. Oh, no, a store where the working class goes to spend money. I can feel the property values dropping already.
In my case, it has nothing to do with classism. It has everything to do with the fact that big business (K-Mart, Walmart, etc) are large, monolithic, oppressive machines which destroy communities and dissolve American culture.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
In ways, I agree with your assessment of Unions. However, you're looking at it from a capitalist stance. You might want to take a look
at it from an anarchist (libertarian socialist) viewpoint:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secJ5
The problems with trade unions are heirarchial, just as almost all problems are. You can't trust your boss because he is in a position of power over you. How can you trust a union leader?
A highly democratic, non-heirarchial union would be a different story, however. Maybe programmers (being the most anarchistic and meritocratic, especially in Linux community) would be the best ones to try out a new system such as this?
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
Some of these are raised in the article. We live in interesting times!
Odd that you say that. "May you live in interesting times" is an old (Chinese, I believe) curse.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
1. Jedi's are so cool. There really aren't any cool Jedi's in 4,5 and 6. Yoda isn't exactly that tough and all he does is lift luke's space ship. Big fucking deal. Obi-wan gets his ass kicked really easily by Darth. He's 60+ years old, what do you expect. Epsiode 1 has great jedi and great fight scenes.
:) She should have said "no", it would have kept things a lot more peaceful in the universe.
:) Natalie Portman was absolutely gorgeous in this movie. I know I'm not the only one, but I have an unhealthy obsession with her. Maybe I'll go into movies. See where that takes me...
:)
:)
Yeah, nothing in the last three even compared to the final scene with Darth Maul. So incredibly bad-ass, it was without definition.
2. Why didn't the trade federation use storm troopers? It seems to me that droids would be much more difficult to maintain. Epsecially considering that they had thousands of them. And they never really killed anything. They just got their asses kicked. Remember the scene when obi wan is in the hanger and says "I'll take out the droids," and kills a dozen of them with no problem? You'd never see Luke or Han going after a dozen storm troopers. In fact, they ran like hell in Starwars when six or so came at them.
If you've heard anything about the next movie, you'll find out about this. Basically, they don't use storm troopers because they don't exist yet.
3. Anakin's mom is psycho. Would you let your kid fly a pod racer at 600 miles an hour with people shooting at you and other racers trying to knock you into mountain walls? Hell no!
Point well taken. Of course, I don't think most moms would let their sons train to become jedi knights, either.
4. The queen is hot. I never really thought princess Leah was hot. Maybe that was because I was 4 years old when starwars came out.
I never thought princess leah was hot for a simple reason: she's not hot.
Of course, I was a Natalie Portman fan before this movie. I saw "The Professional" when I was 14, and instantly fell in love with the 13 year old Natalie Portman.
5. Lucas has some very fucked up family values. Just look at the relationships in his starwars movies: Luke and Leah - Brother and sister. Queen Amilda and Anakin - 16 year old and 9 year old. He's a pedophile incest lover.
Nothing ever happened with Luke and Leah, other than a kiss (which was only used to piss off Han Solo). As for Amadala and Anakin, I thought he foreshadowed a relationship between them very well, without making it seem... well, "icky." He made it seem more maternal on Amidala's side, and more of a crush on Anakin's side. Definitely plausable, and not very f'ed up, unless you read into it a little too much.
6. Jar Jar - Could someone translate his dialog for me?
Just find a little kid from rural Jamaica or one of those little islands that speak english. That's all it was...
Okay, well, now my thoughts. Overall? I was enthralled. I thought it was everything that a Star Wars movie should be. I think the problem is that people are going into it with specific expectations. They've put the first three up on this pedastal, but they're criticizing this movie like it's supposed to be "Pulp Fiction." Not so.
Jar Jar wasn't nearly as bad as I thought he would be. Once in a while he was actually funny. Not very often, but still. Ewan McGregor got the Obi Wan think *perfectly*, and I thought that was great. Liam Neesan was also great. I was worried that Jake Lloyd would be really really annoying, but he ended up being really good. And don't even get me started on how fantastic Natalie Portman was.
As for the action scenes, the pod racing had me on the edge of my seat. The fight scenes were leagues beyond any other SW movie. Naboo looked fantastic, definitely a place I'd like to vacation. And I especially liked those giant fish underwater.
Overall, it was an incredible Star Wars movie. Was it a good movie? Not really. But none of them were.
--
Michael Chisari
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
I actually used to live in Hastert's home town (Yorkville, IL). My girlfreind grew up down the street from him, and she claims that he's the only republican that she can deal with. I've actually considered showing up at his door and educating him on matters of privacy/cryptography, and possibly even getting linux adopted a little more throughout the government.
On the other hand, he might have me arrested if I do that.