2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.
2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed nine.
Futher noting that the gov't tends not to release information about attacks that they've thankfully been able to suppress (i.e. thwarted before anything public occured), it appears to me that Al Q is generally active outside of Iraq as well as within Iraq.
In other words, increased Al Q activity within Iraq may only mean something if Al Q activity significantly decreases elsewhere; FYI you may have been influenced by the "Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003" headlines originating this past Spring from the State Department. Unfortunately they "gamed" their report; it ignored terrorist activity after October 2003, but compared it's numbers to earlier annual reports that actually included 12 month-years' worth of data.
> The whole lighting rod effect was not I think a thing > anyone was going in for exactly - but would you deny it > seems to be the case?...
> More effort and money is going into tryign to destabilize > Iraq than going after other targets. What sources do you base this on?
You're presuming that the violence is primarily the result of efforts by foreign terrorists; this is not proven, and in fact, it is more likely that the bulk of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis who have been made "eminently recruitable" due to frustration with the U.S.'s failures in their country.
In other words, many of them are fighting against because they don't trust us and want us to leave their country (running 18 months of quasi-anarchy tends to turn people against you), not because (like Al Q) they want to see the western world destroyed/out of the Middle East.
That said, I won't dispute that foreign terrorists are active in Iraq; however, given that AQ has apparently returned to their pre- U.S. Afghanistan invasion strength, what's to prevent them from operating in BOTH Iraq and the U.S. (they've certainly been active in other nations over the last 12 months)
While I can see the abstract argument for hoping to bring the fight against terrorists (i.e. AQ) to a foreign front, I wouldn't call Iraq a foreign front against AQ; rather, it's a foreign front against the U.S. military we've placed there, not to mention a recruiting tool for the bad guys.
The conventional term for this sort of situation is "quagmire".
It's a brilliant plan, why oh why didn't I understand it before?
If I follow your logic, then we're making a sacrifice play - i.e. deliberately sending thousands of soldiers (U.S., Iraqi + coalition) to their deaths (and more to a lifetime of severe disability due to injury), in the hope that terrorists will be so caught up in wreaking havoc in Iraq that they won't pursue any actions elsewhere...
While this contradicts the stated purpose that we're bringing freedom to Iraq, unless that's "Step 4" (following Step 2, "Attract Terrorists to Iraq" and Step 3, "Kill Terrorists in Iraq"). I must assume that the huge casualties suffered by Iraqi civilians during steps 1 & 2 are obviously worth it, though, because it's obvious that after Step 2 & 3 that freedom will simply appear, "poof!" - after all, it's not at all the case that Iraq is a historically unstable region likely to collpase to into civil disputes without a strongman at the helm. Nope, all we have to do is to get rid of the terrorists. Who are all in Iraq, fortunately.
Even the radicalized Islamics who are recruited by the revived Al Quaeda from other countries based on the U.S.'s behavior in Iraq, they all take the next bus to Iraq. It's "the thing to do" for terrorists these days. Like Woodstock in '69, but with guns and IEDs.
After all, it's not like any patriotic Iraqis are joining up with the insurgency due to an incompetent U.S. occupation that can't get the power and water running regularly; nope, it's all trouble stirred up by foreign terrorists, "drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame".
Except for Osama, we're not quite sure where he is...
(in short: do you have any logical backing for this statement, beyond some pleasantly compelling imagery?)
> Think about this: the record industry, the TV industry > and the motion picture industry have all been hammering > hard on Bush.
I want to live in your world; the media conglomerates have been sucking up hard to the Bush WH, in order to curry favor with the FCC, thus enabling greater de-regulation.
If you think that the news has been hard on Bush, you need to pay closer attention to what they're not asking questions about, and how they spin what they do report.
in part due to this (as well as many other factors), Bush has gotten a free ride since 9/11; the fact that he receives some occasional "flak" from the press in no way disproves this - by any reasonable standard, there needs to be much, much more serious discussion of the actual actions taken (and not taken) by this OR ANY administration.
The "next Superman movie" has been in development (many tens of millions of dollars worth, at this point, with nary a frame shot) since the early 90s, at which point Tim Burton was the director, Kevin Smith the writer, and Nic Cage pegged for Superman (crazy, huh?).
A plethora of directors, scripts, and a few leading actors have been plowed through since then, but it's really in the last year that this has caught fire (especially with Bryan Singer being named as director a few months ago). This has even escalated into a ridiculous public wager between a prominent comic writer (Mark Millar) and a movie rumors web site maven (Harry Knowles) as to the identity of the actor being considered to play Superman, and this preceeded Reeve's death by several months.
There's plenty of other arguments to be made against this urban-legend-style assumption (i.e. the large amounts of time that it takes to bring a movie through pre-production, the unlikelihood that Reeves would have any business role in choosing his "successor" (cameos aside, how much role did he play in producing the "Lois & Clark" or "Smallville" series?), etc.
At most you can accuse the movie companies of opportunism in the timing of this announcement (i.e. riding the wave of "Superman" interest following Reeve's death); however, assuming that Reeves would/could in any way be blocking the production of the film is pretty uninformed.
It's an oversimplification to say that he was portrayed as incompetent; he was protrayed as a leader coming back into his own, with moments of weakness.
The major departure from the books's characterization was a shift from Tolkien's iconic approach to dramatic motivation by drawing out the arcs of the character's personal transformations. In the case of Aragorn, his arc in the book essentially ends at Rivendell; in Theoden's case, with release from Wormtongue. The films drew these out to the ROTK, which many people feel was necessary for the story to work on film (Tolkien's iconic characterizations would come across as terribly static in film storytelling, something which both J.R.R. and Christopher Tolkien have acknowledged).
BTW, you missed the "(apparent)" in my description; Theoden and the Rohan refugees had nowhere else to go, hence Theoden's decision to stay and fight. Aragorn, meanwhile, made foolish outbursts that seriously threatened the refugees' morale (their only real asset at that point, something that Theoden recognized). While not original to the book, it's easy enough to recognize this as dramatic conflict between motivated characters with multiple layers of meaning; the scenes leasing up to the battle demonstrate the failures of both Theoden and Aragorn (movie versions).
Feel free to disagree with these choices, but dismissing them out-of-hand doesn't give anyone much to think about, and gives the impression that you didn't bother to consider the other side of the story.
I always find it interesting that there's so much fuss about the Star Wars changes (i.e. the unavailability of the original/last versions's footage w/ each new edition); meanwhile, people complain about LOTR's production company making both the theatrical (i.e. original) and EE versions available.
Somehow, I doubt that the/. population of SW complainers (lack of choices) includes none of the LOTR complainers (too many choices)...
For those who feel "tricked" into buying the theatrical cut when they could've bought the EE, you're frankly in the wrong. This is one of the few cases where the film producers have been entirely upfront w/ the public about the differences between editions, including pre-announcing release dates for the different releases so that customers could plan ahead. So, if a few people buy the movie twice by mistake - too bad for them. And if you "couldn't wait" for the EE, then clearly the theatrical cut was worth the twenty bucks and there's nothing to really complain about.
As for those fools (myself included) who deliberately seek out both versions, we're a particular strain of film enthusiast that enjoys watching different versions of the same movie; this can be incredibly educational about the editing process (for example, the studio re-cut of "Brazil" entirely belies the plot and meaning of the original cut of the film, though it uses no different footage; the special edition DVD includes both these cuts plus an alternative European cut).
Furtheremore, we get a kick from being able to view the movie "the way that audiences first saw it" - at the least this makes later viewing the most updated/remastered/restored/extended version of the film a fresh and more interesting experience.
So there is a reason to own/view multiple versions of a movie; it may not appeal to some, but there's enough of "us" out here that the DVD market will often cater to this irrational and unnatural desire.;)
Actually, the Aragorn almost drowning scenes fo accomplish several things relevant to the plot:
1. by separating Aragorn from the larger refugees party, he is able to encounter the Uruk-Hai army before Theoden does - this sets up the conflict between him and Theoden, as Aragorn (apparently) sees a greater threat than Theoden does.
2. Eowyn's belief in his death dramatizes her feelings for Aragorn (something that's much harder to accomplish in cinema than in text).
3. provides an opportunity to shift away from the Rohan story and reflect on what happening with the elves (otherwise the appearance of the elves would not have made as much sense/had as dramatic an impact.
While it's certainly acceptable to state that these elements are uncessary changes to the book, they are all set-up and supported by the Aragorn-nearly-drowning "twist". Despite the obviousness to the audience that Aragorn will survive, this plot device actually sets up the second half of the Helm's Deep storyline very well.
> Resident Evil (the first one) was an excellent movie, > beautifully paced and choreographed
I'm verging on flamebait here, but the first RE (yes, I have seen it) was the cinematic equivalent of 10-day-old theater popcorn.
Sure it was technically filling, but overall it was a waste of time that left a bad taste in my mouth and a sore feeling in my stomach.
The main problem with the movie (which also plagues all the films of its director, Paul Anderson) is that character and plot development are entirely unattended to - eveything is sub-sumed to "kill" or "puzzle" or "fight" set-pieces. Inconsistency and illogic are used to "work-around" anything that might get in the way of setting up these events.
While this may work in an actual video game, non-interactive storytelling mediums keep the audience engaged in the narrative with characters and story. RE had an elaborate plot, but its characters were entirely plot-driven creatures; there wasn't a single point where they showed actual personalities in any but the crudest, most caricatured ways (and even that was done inconsistently).
The result is that there's not a single person in the film to care about in any way (i.e. wanting the characters to die would've indicated engagement in the film), thus removing the tension from even its best action sequences faster than air from a broken balloon.
I've wasted way too much time complaining about this film, but the fact that you rate this an an "excellent" or "great" movie really indicates that you need to watch a wider selection of movies.
(Heck, most entries in the Zombie genre alone blow RE away. Check out anything by Romero or Argento)
You're spot-on, re: green.; however, it also represents to starting point of the trilogy - the peaceful, abundantly green shire. While this doesn't represent the whole movie, it is where all the characters (whom we follow) start from.
Red typically represent warning/emergency/alert/etc.; "Towers" role in the trilogy was to demonstrate how the whole of Middle Earth, esp. humans whose role had not yet been very well established, were affected. In other words, the goal of the second movie was to raise the stakes on the first movie; hence, red.
Blue shows the return of serenity and calm under the new King, i.e. the state subsequent to the triumph over Sauron; it is not a return to green, as the (the multitiude of endings demonstrate) it is impossible to return home again. Thus, blue represents calm AND change.
Anyway, this is just my interp.; you're free to your own.
> Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you > come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats > who are the ones closest to making it a reality?
Except that the Dems lack a majority in Congress - this makes raising such a controversial position a primarily symbolic act (you don't often see minority parties proposing legislation which the majority are likely to strike down).
The goal is to draw attention to a radical option, thus pre-emptively defusing the possibility of that option being adopted, before the nation is backed into a situation in which the "radical option" can be framed as "the only solution".
In other words, this helps to build up national resistance to the idea of bringing back the draft before those who are interested in actually reinstating it can create any momentum.
Just because you don't understand (or like) that this is a legitimate way for the minority party to play the political game doesn't make it illegitimate.
> you would not refer to much of the analysis as "woefully > uninformed." And to sum up the entire analysis as a > "brief obsession with kerning"
Pardon my hyperbole, but the majority of the discussion re: digital typography was premised on poor processes - for example, the reference that you cite is exceptionally detailed, but makes the mistake of trying to prove the documents as forgeries (rather than suspect) entirely within his own narrow area of expertise (furthermore by using copies of the original documents, which is an inherently flawed approach).
Besides, while this account certainly manages to raise suspicions, it's not definitive in its specific points without at least corroboration by similar experts. The fact that it sounds good isn't enough without subjecting it to further expertise. This account fails to cite any corroboration.
Meanwhile the WaPo attacked the problem from multiple angles (vetted by multiple experts): content analysis, interviewing Killian's secretary at the time, and yes, typesetting issues. Ultimately, the former were found to be the most convincing and consistent arguments against the docs, certainly more so than the typesetting minutiae (which more often than not descended into experts in related but distinct fields sniping at each other from within narrow fortresses of expertise).
In short, while the blogs may have pointed out the smoke, it was the traditional media who actually found the fire. Maybe the blogs could have done it, but they were focused on the less important aspects of the issue.
Finally, the entire conflagration regarding the forged docs misses the point that noone (including the WH) has contested the events described within the docs; so even in the scenario that this story is an example of "blogs triumphing", this triumph accomplished little besides... distraction from the issues at hand.
Which is truly something for those with journalistic aspirations to be proud of, I'm certain.
While the right-leaning blogosphere drew attention to the memos, the grounds on which they were declaring them to be suspect (similarity to MS Word output) were completely spurious.
In fact, it was investigation by the Washington Post that provided the authoritative evidence that the documents were forgeries, and NOT the blogosphere. Let me repeat that with more detail.
Investigation by the Washington Post, in which they determined that actual content of the suspect memos failed to match a writing/composition patterns consistent with the mass of memos coming from Killian's office, provided the authoritative evidence (i.e. not definitive proof, but good enough) that the documents were forgeries, and NOT the blogosphere.
The blogs provided cheerleading support, but their actual investigation focused on woefully uninformed discussions regarding technical typesetting. It was pretty apparent that most of the discussion was an echo chamber in which noone was actually consulting with document forensics experts, but rather with friends/of/friends.
Anyone putting forward that the blogosphere's brief obsession with kerning constituted a triumphant moment in the "battle of blogosphere vs. the traditional media" (which is a ridiculous concept in the first place, as there's clearly a symbiotic relationship there, not competitive) is blowing smoke up your ass as well as their own.
Pardon the tone of this comment, but this incident reminded me of nothing more than the odd occasion that the crazy homeless person screaming future predictions from the corner bus stop actually gets something right. It was a case of being right by getting lucky, and pumping it up as anything more undermines any future chance of building media blogging communities that will have the know-how to "get it right" again.
> It's like me screaming at someone's open source project > after them adding or changing an API
if Star Wars was software it'd be a program re-released every few years with minor patches (with minor, but distinctly noticeable changes in functionality/look-and-feel).
And it'd by no means be an OSS project, the public has only ever had access to the "binary releases" of the Star Wars "program".
Think harder about your metaphors, please. You broke this one badly.
> And it's really a cheap shot.. to say that he's not giving > people any hope... he's simply not giving them false > hope.
OK, I admit that we don't have a cure for Parkinson's (and a host ofneurological diseases)... but what other practical hopes for a cure do we have beyond stem cell research? Maybe the same fairy that will make our missile defense system work will also be able to cure all those afflicted!
Seriously, I think that providing funding (which the majority of citizens approve of) while applying restrictions that make the funding very unattractive, even detrimental (details which do not make the front page, but will be noticed by and appreciated by those vehemently opposing the funding, and are naturally paying more attention) is called being disingenuous.
It's like the old political trick of having a photo-op with the Boy Scouts (i.e. insert popular group here) just before cutting their funding; the majority will see the photo and associate the politician with the popular group, but won't necessarily notice that the story attached is about the politician undermining that group.
It's not what Bush professes to do that crushes hope, it's the disingenuity in how he undermines these professed goals that crushes hope.
> I prefer there to be embryonic stem cell research. But I > would not favor confiscating other people's money to do > it, particularly if those people are not like-minded about > the type of research.
The "confiscating other people's money" rhetoric is nice touch, a sure-fire way to get people offended over how their tax dollars are used.
It's also an absurd complaint in any real economic sense- as long as you're paying for health care, a certain portion of those monies are goig to be going towards privately-funded research - which means that some (insignificant fraction) of your health care $ is going to stem cell research. Get over it.
Furthermore, the federal funding for stem cell research limits the research (actually very few potentially viable lines are allowed, fewer than the announced # of allowed lines) in such a way as to emasculate the research possibilities; allocating fewer funds would have been preferable to these restrictions, but the other approach is used to look good to the layman, while appealing to those who lobby oppose the research (who will look more closely at the actual results).
Finally, this ignores the fact that the stem-cell research ban can be used as a club even against research groups/foundations who accept fed. funds for unrelated research, while also pursuing stem cell research using private funds. This is also in that "actual results" category.
FYI, the "The Growing Class of Americans Who Pay No Federal Income Taxes" report you cite might easily be read as "The Growing American Lower/Poverty Class". Those who live in poverty ( a quickly growing class) get to pay no taxes - and what luckie duckies they are!
FYI, envirotruth is "Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research", a famously partisan "think tank" (i.e. a media mill for a partisan viewpoint)
Look here for a decent overview of similar organizations (though these are mostly industry-funded, vs. politcal) http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Indus try-funded_organizations
> We shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have > recently been diagnosed
I entirely agree, it's better to remove any hope from these people (even in the case of long-term neuro-degenerative diseases, which may take decades to affect their victims), rather than to take the horrible risk that they may feel any sort of false hope.
It is clearly the role of government to crush false hope wherever it may be found, by whatever means necessary!
> the candidate that emasculates American military and > cultural influence the most
Ah, are you implying then that they'd vote for the candidate who tied up the U.S. military in an unnecessary war (Iraq), leaving us vulnerable to a resurgent Al Quaeda (going into Iraq forced us to give less attention attention to re-building Afghanistan), an increasingly aggressive N. Korea, not to mention other "Axis of Evil" members?
Or are you implying that they'd vote for the candidate who would squander the world-wide goodwill expressed towards the U.S. post 9-11 via ham-fisted diplomacy and the above military action?
Or maybe they'd vote for the candidate whose fiscal irresponsibility has driven the nation into an unprecedented degree of debt, all the while without a net creation of jobs (the latter of which no president has accomplished since Hoover, who presided over the Great Depression).
BTW, nice slur against Kerry - implying that a willingess to acknowledge and work with other nations towards mutual benefit is "emasculation", as opposed to intelligent foreign policy!
Unfortunately, you didn't address my questions. This is summed up in your point:
> You can't just show one side of the story.
Yes, you can and you may. This is called advocacy; at one point, we had explicit governement regulations requiring balanced coverage by broadcasters/opinion-makers on controversial topics. These regulation are effectively gone.
Just look at the major media outlets; they pay lip service to balance, but they're main goal is ratings/profit, i.e. sensationalistic stories where conflict/who's winning are the focus of the story (rarely weighing the reliability of the "sides", and almost as rarely covering conflict resolution) - and that's during the NEWS segments. Editorial/punditry segments are where the media "take the gloves off" and overtly take sides.
I sympathize with the desire to bring back this sort of regulation, but its outrageous that you don't recognize the complete lack of it everywhere else in the media.
> Spewing this bulk of propaganda and lies in an attempt > to change the results of the election would break the > process.
It sounds like you have an issue with MM's film - unfortunately, the fact that it applies to everyone is one of those "tricky" parts about deregulation of the airwaves, not to mention free speech.
As a counterexample, I find the SVBT ads to be horrendous, but I can't dispute the right to buy air time and play them.
Now, try and come up with a reason that applies generally (i.e. is not dependent on your interpretation of F911) and you'll begin addressing my arguments.
> are their reasons for removing George Bush so > unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's > survival that they justify any and all means, including > short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?
> Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with > almost anybody as president than accept this kind of > overt political manipulation as the new standard of > behavior in American society.
a) explain how broadcasting a movie on TV = "any and all means"; you're conflating free speech with violent action.
b) Further explain how this would, in an ideal world, break the process.
c) Given b), please further explain how this short-circuits the democratic "process" as it currently exists in the U.S. (i.e. fearmongering, secretive gov't, broken media coverage, and even easily-rigged voting processes).
Nice rhetorical device though, passionately asserting something without backing it up. Now let's get back to that process you were talking about...
My personal preference is also for web-based apps... however, you're not really answering his question, for the following reasons:
- client-server database applications (i.e. "database on ONE SERVER"...) are possible w/o using a web browser as the platform for the client, but instead using an app native to the client OS. this is not only how Filemaker does it (yes, FM can work w/ remote dbs), it's the standard way of doing this sort of thing
- "They don't have to figure out whatever GUI you develop for the tool." - huh? while certain functionalities are always clear on the web, those tend to relate to navigation, not inputting and updating data. once an application gets specific (i.e. worthwhile) enough, it's doubtful that it'll look muhc like a common web-page asides from some header navigation. using the web as a dev. platform is only helpful towards GUI design when the app's GUI shares a lot w/ the web browser GUI. - "one easy interface that everyone can reach and access make it easier to maintain" - this, I almost agree with. I removed "easy" as I've found that making web app interfaces "easy" often requires more work that would be necessary in a native app (either lots of design work or lots of development work to paper over browser diffs).
I just did this for my girlfriend; she plays CDs at work and home and while walking to/from, and beats the hell out of her CDs in doing so. She's also lost quite a few of them.
I got her a CD-MP3 player for her b-day, and backed up all of her (beat-to-hell, scratched and fingerprinted) CDs, and then ripped the pristine back-ups to MP3.
She had close to 100 CDs, and could not afford to re-buy these if she lost them, either to wear or loss. Now, however, she can listen to the MP3s (entrie collection on 6 CDs) while walking (and rarely has to change CDs), and she has a backup version for if/when the original CDs stop working entirely (thank god for error correction, even though it meant reading at 2x on a 52x CD-RW).
I did this "on-the-sly" for her birthday and she was -very- happy with this gift, and she's not a tech geek by eny stretch of the imagination.
The point is that not many people necessarily will do this, but that a fair number of people need to, and the people who need to are certainly glad that they could!
I've got ~1000 CDs myself, and am planning my own backup (lossless compression to multiple HDs for backup, rip to MP3 for regular use), which will allow me to put my CDs in storage so they don't take up my limited living space (live in Boston, city of small apartments).
And yes, I do realize that I killed all of my argument's credibiity with the claim of having a girlfriend.;)
Slashdot Mirror
> So while there may not be a lot of hard proof, it makes a lot of sense.
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html
2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): Four bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
2004 (March): Ten terrorists bombs exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400.
2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed nine.
Futher noting that the gov't tends not to release information about attacks that they've thankfully been able to suppress (i.e. thwarted before anything public occured), it appears to me that Al Q is generally active outside of Iraq as well as within Iraq.
In other words, increased Al Q activity within Iraq may only mean something if Al Q activity significantly decreases elsewhere; FYI you may have been influenced by the "Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003" headlines originating this past Spring from the State Department. Unfortunately they "gamed" their report; it ignored terrorist activity after October 2003, but compared it's numbers to earlier annual reports that actually included 12 month-years' worth of data.
> The whole lighting rod effect was not I think a thing ...
> anyone was going in for exactly - but would you deny it
> seems to be the case?
> More effort and money is going into tryign to destabilize > Iraq than going after other targets.
What sources do you base this on?
You're presuming that the violence is primarily the result of efforts by foreign terrorists; this is not proven, and in fact, it is more likely that the bulk of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis who have been made "eminently recruitable" due to frustration with the U.S.'s failures in their country.
In other words, many of them are fighting against because they don't trust us and want us to leave their country (running 18 months of quasi-anarchy tends to turn people against you), not because (like Al Q) they want to see the western world destroyed/out of the Middle East.
That said, I won't dispute that foreign terrorists are active in Iraq; however, given that AQ has apparently returned to their pre- U.S. Afghanistan invasion strength, what's to prevent them from operating in BOTH Iraq and the U.S. (they've certainly been active in other nations over the last 12 months)
While I can see the abstract argument for hoping to bring the fight against terrorists (i.e. AQ) to a foreign front, I wouldn't call Iraq a foreign front against AQ; rather, it's a foreign front against the U.S. military we've placed there, not to mention a recruiting tool for the bad guys.
The conventional term for this sort of situation is "quagmire".
It's a brilliant plan, why oh why didn't I understand it before?
If I follow your logic, then we're making a sacrifice play - i.e. deliberately sending thousands of soldiers (U.S., Iraqi + coalition) to their deaths (and more to a lifetime of severe disability due to injury), in the hope that terrorists will be so caught up in wreaking havoc in Iraq that they won't pursue any actions elsewhere...
While this contradicts the stated purpose that we're bringing freedom to Iraq, unless that's "Step 4" (following Step 2, "Attract Terrorists to Iraq" and Step 3, "Kill Terrorists in Iraq"). I must assume that the huge casualties suffered by Iraqi civilians during steps 1 & 2 are obviously worth it, though, because it's obvious that after Step 2 & 3 that freedom will simply appear, "poof!" - after all, it's not at all the case that Iraq is a historically unstable region likely to collpase to into civil disputes without a strongman at the helm. Nope, all we have to do is to get rid of the terrorists. Who are all in Iraq, fortunately.
Even the radicalized Islamics who are recruited by the revived Al Quaeda from other countries based on the U.S.'s behavior in Iraq, they all take the next bus to Iraq. It's "the thing to do" for terrorists these days. Like Woodstock in '69, but with guns and IEDs.
After all, it's not like any patriotic Iraqis are joining up with the insurgency due to an incompetent U.S. occupation that can't get the power and water running regularly; nope, it's all trouble stirred up by foreign terrorists, "drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame".
Except for Osama, we're not quite sure where he is...
(in short: do you have any logical backing for this statement, beyond some pleasantly compelling imagery?)
> Think about this: the record industry, the TV industry
> and the motion picture industry have all been hammering
> hard on Bush.
I want to live in your world; the media conglomerates have been sucking up hard to the Bush WH, in order to curry favor with the FCC, thus enabling greater de-regulation.
If you think that the news has been hard on Bush, you need to pay closer attention to what they're not asking questions about, and how they spin what they do report.
in part due to this (as well as many other factors), Bush has gotten a free ride since 9/11; the fact that he receives some occasional "flak" from the press in no way disproves this - by any reasonable standard, there needs to be much, much more serious discussion of the actual actions taken (and not taken) by this OR ANY administration.
Interesting paranoia, but uninformed.
The "next Superman movie" has been in development (many tens of millions of dollars worth, at this point, with nary a frame shot) since the early 90s, at which point Tim Burton was the director, Kevin Smith the writer, and Nic Cage pegged for Superman (crazy, huh?).
A plethora of directors, scripts, and a few leading actors have been plowed through since then, but it's really in the last year that this has caught fire (especially with Bryan Singer being named as director a few months ago). This has even escalated into a ridiculous public wager between a prominent comic writer (Mark Millar) and a movie rumors web site maven (Harry Knowles) as to the identity of the actor being considered to play Superman, and this preceeded Reeve's death by several months.
There's plenty of other arguments to be made against this urban-legend-style assumption (i.e. the large amounts of time that it takes to bring a movie through pre-production, the unlikelihood that Reeves would have any business role in choosing his "successor" (cameos aside, how much role did he play in producing the "Lois & Clark" or "Smallville" series?), etc.
At most you can accuse the movie companies of opportunism in the timing of this announcement (i.e. riding the wave of "Superman" interest following Reeve's death); however, assuming that Reeves would/could in any way be blocking the production of the film is pretty uninformed.
> Theoden isn't supposed to be incompetant.
It's an oversimplification to say that he was portrayed as incompetent; he was protrayed as a leader coming back into his own, with moments of weakness.
The major departure from the books's characterization was a shift from Tolkien's iconic approach to dramatic motivation by drawing out the arcs of the character's personal transformations. In the case of Aragorn, his arc in the book essentially ends at Rivendell; in Theoden's case, with release from Wormtongue. The films drew these out to the ROTK, which many people feel was necessary for the story to work on film (Tolkien's iconic characterizations would come across as terribly static in film storytelling, something which both J.R.R. and Christopher Tolkien have acknowledged).
BTW, you missed the "(apparent)" in my description; Theoden and the Rohan refugees had nowhere else to go, hence Theoden's decision to stay and fight. Aragorn, meanwhile, made foolish outbursts that seriously threatened the refugees' morale (their only real asset at that point, something that Theoden recognized). While not original to the book, it's easy enough to recognize this as dramatic conflict between motivated characters with multiple layers of meaning; the scenes leasing up to the battle demonstrate the failures of both Theoden and Aragorn (movie versions).
Feel free to disagree with these choices, but dismissing them out-of-hand doesn't give anyone much to think about, and gives the impression that you didn't bother to consider the other side of the story.
I always find it interesting that there's so much fuss about the Star Wars changes (i.e. the unavailability of the original/last versions's footage w/ each new edition); meanwhile, people complain about LOTR's production company making both the theatrical (i.e. original) and EE versions available.
/. population of SW complainers (lack of choices) includes none of the LOTR complainers (too many choices)...
;)
Somehow, I doubt that the
For those who feel "tricked" into buying the theatrical cut when they could've bought the EE, you're frankly in the wrong. This is one of the few cases where the film producers have been entirely upfront w/ the public about the differences between editions, including pre-announcing release dates for the different releases so that customers could plan ahead. So, if a few people buy the movie twice by mistake - too bad for them. And if you "couldn't wait" for the EE, then clearly the theatrical cut was worth the twenty bucks and there's nothing to really complain about.
As for those fools (myself included) who deliberately seek out both versions, we're a particular strain of film enthusiast that enjoys watching different versions of the same movie; this can be incredibly educational about the editing process (for example, the studio re-cut of "Brazil" entirely belies the plot and meaning of the original cut of the film, though it uses no different footage; the special edition DVD includes both these cuts plus an alternative European cut).
Furtheremore, we get a kick from being able to view the movie "the way that audiences first saw it" - at the least this makes later viewing the most updated/remastered/restored/extended version of the film a fresh and more interesting experience.
So there is a reason to own/view multiple versions of a movie; it may not appeal to some, but there's enough of "us" out here that the DVD market will often cater to this irrational and unnatural desire.
Actually, the Aragorn almost drowning scenes fo accomplish several things relevant to the plot:
1. by separating Aragorn from the larger refugees party, he is able to encounter the Uruk-Hai army before Theoden does - this sets up the conflict between him and Theoden, as Aragorn (apparently) sees a greater threat than Theoden does.
2. Eowyn's belief in his death dramatizes her feelings for Aragorn (something that's much harder to accomplish in cinema than in text).
3. provides an opportunity to shift away from the Rohan story and reflect on what happening with the elves (otherwise the appearance of the elves would not have made as much sense/had as dramatic an impact.
While it's certainly acceptable to state that these elements are uncessary changes to the book, they are all set-up and supported by the Aragorn-nearly-drowning "twist". Despite the obviousness to the audience that Aragorn will survive, this plot device actually sets up the second half of the Helm's Deep storyline very well.
> Resident Evil (the first one) was an excellent movie,
> beautifully paced and choreographed
I'm verging on flamebait here, but the first RE (yes, I have seen it) was the cinematic equivalent of 10-day-old theater popcorn.
Sure it was technically filling, but overall it was a waste of time that left a bad taste in my mouth and a sore feeling in my stomach.
The main problem with the movie (which also plagues all the films of its director, Paul Anderson) is that character and plot development are entirely unattended to - eveything is sub-sumed to "kill" or "puzzle" or "fight" set-pieces. Inconsistency and illogic are used to "work-around" anything that might get in the way of setting up these events.
While this may work in an actual video game, non-interactive storytelling mediums keep the audience engaged in the narrative with characters and story. RE had an elaborate plot, but its characters were entirely plot-driven creatures; there wasn't a single point where they showed actual personalities in any but the crudest, most caricatured ways (and even that was done inconsistently).
The result is that there's not a single person in the film to care about in any way (i.e. wanting the characters to die would've indicated engagement in the film), thus removing the tension from even its best action sequences faster than air from a broken balloon.
I've wasted way too much time complaining about this film, but the fact that you rate this an an "excellent" or "great" movie really indicates that you need to watch a wider selection of movies.
(Heck, most entries in the Zombie genre alone blow RE away. Check out anything by Romero or Argento)
You're spot-on, re: green.; however, it also represents to starting point of the trilogy - the peaceful, abundantly green shire. While this doesn't represent the whole movie, it is where all the characters (whom we follow) start from.
Red typically represent warning/emergency/alert/etc.; "Towers" role in the trilogy was to demonstrate how the whole of Middle Earth, esp. humans whose role had not yet been very well established, were affected. In other words, the goal of the second movie was to raise the stakes on the first movie; hence, red.
Blue shows the return of serenity and calm under the new King, i.e. the state subsequent to the triumph over Sauron; it is not a return to green, as the (the multitiude of endings demonstrate) it is impossible to return home again. Thus, blue represents calm AND change.
Anyway, this is just my interp.; you're free to your own.
> PS - the predictable copout... is a little tired
Or, if you look at he facts of the situation, what you've spun as a "copout" is a reasonable response to a real situation.
> ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft
> routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly"
> wanting to bring it back
This isn't about "cronies", this is about the military (which is directed by the executive branch and not the legislature) overtly preparing infrastructure required in order to reinstate the draft. The legislative movements you see are in response to the military actions.
> Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you
> come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats
> who are the ones closest to making it a reality?
Except that the Dems lack a majority in Congress - this makes raising such a controversial position a primarily symbolic act (you don't often see minority parties proposing legislation which the majority are likely to strike down).
The goal is to draw attention to a radical option, thus pre-emptively defusing the possibility of that option being adopted, before the nation is backed into a situation in which the "radical option" can be framed as "the only solution".
In other words, this helps to build up national resistance to the idea of bringing back the draft before those who are interested in actually reinstating it can create any momentum.
Just because you don't understand (or like) that this is a legitimate way for the minority party to play the political game doesn't make it illegitimate.
> you would not refer to much of the analysis as "woefully
> uninformed." And to sum up the entire analysis as a
> "brief obsession with kerning"
Pardon my hyperbole, but the majority of the discussion re: digital typography was premised on poor processes - for example, the reference that you cite is exceptionally detailed, but makes the mistake of trying to prove the documents as forgeries (rather than suspect) entirely within his own narrow area of expertise (furthermore by using copies of the original documents, which is an inherently flawed approach).
Besides, while this account certainly manages to raise suspicions, it's not definitive in its specific points without at least corroboration by similar experts. The fact that it sounds good isn't enough without subjecting it to further expertise. This account fails to cite any corroboration.
Meanwhile the WaPo attacked the problem from multiple angles (vetted by multiple experts): content analysis, interviewing Killian's secretary at the time, and yes, typesetting issues. Ultimately, the former were found to be the most convincing and consistent arguments against the docs, certainly more so than the typesetting minutiae (which more often than not descended into experts in related but distinct fields sniping at each other from within narrow fortresses of expertise).
In short, while the blogs may have pointed out the smoke, it was the traditional media who actually found the fire. Maybe the blogs could have done it, but they were focused on the less important aspects of the issue.
Finally, the entire conflagration regarding the forged docs misses the point that noone (including the WH) has contested the events described within the docs; so even in the scenario that this story is an example of "blogs triumphing", this triumph accomplished little besides... distraction from the issues at hand.
Which is truly something for those with journalistic aspirations to be proud of, I'm certain.
While the right-leaning blogosphere drew attention to the memos, the grounds on which they were declaring them to be suspect (similarity to MS Word output) were completely spurious.
In fact, it was investigation by the Washington Post that provided the authoritative evidence that the documents were forgeries, and NOT the blogosphere. Let me repeat that with more detail.
Investigation by the Washington Post, in which they determined that actual content of the suspect memos failed to match a writing/composition patterns consistent with the mass of memos coming from Killian's office, provided the authoritative evidence (i.e. not definitive proof, but good enough) that the documents were forgeries, and NOT the blogosphere.
The blogs provided cheerleading support, but their actual investigation focused on woefully uninformed discussions regarding technical typesetting. It was pretty apparent that most of the discussion was an echo chamber in which noone was actually consulting with document forensics experts, but rather with friends/of/friends.
Anyone putting forward that the blogosphere's brief obsession with kerning constituted a triumphant moment in the "battle of blogosphere vs. the traditional media" (which is a ridiculous concept in the first place, as there's clearly a symbiotic relationship there, not competitive) is blowing smoke up your ass as well as their own.
Pardon the tone of this comment, but this incident reminded me of nothing more than the odd occasion that the crazy homeless person screaming future predictions from the corner bus stop actually gets something right. It was a case of being right by getting lucky, and pumping it up as anything more undermines any future chance of building media blogging communities that will have the know-how to "get it right" again.
> It's like me screaming at someone's open source project > after them adding or changing an API
if Star Wars was software it'd be a program re-released every few years with minor patches (with minor, but distinctly noticeable changes in functionality/look-and-feel).
And it'd by no means be an OSS project, the public has only ever had access to the "binary releases" of the Star Wars "program".
Think harder about your metaphors, please. You broke this one badly.
Actually, we almost have an unproven, untested, deployed-only-for-political-reasons missle system "right now".
.. to say that he's not giving
> And it's really a cheap shot
> people any hope... he's simply not giving them false
> hope.
OK, I admit that we don't have a cure for Parkinson's (and a host ofneurological diseases)... but what other practical hopes for a cure do we have beyond stem cell research? Maybe the same fairy that will make our missile defense system work will also be able to cure all those afflicted!
Seriously, I think that providing funding (which the majority of citizens approve of) while applying restrictions that make the funding very unattractive, even detrimental (details which do not make the front page, but will be noticed by and appreciated by those vehemently opposing the funding, and are naturally paying more attention) is called being disingenuous.
It's like the old political trick of having a photo-op with the Boy Scouts (i.e. insert popular group here) just before cutting their funding; the majority will see the photo and associate the politician with the popular group, but won't necessarily notice that the story attached is about the politician undermining that group.
It's not what Bush professes to do that crushes hope, it's the disingenuity in how he undermines these professed goals that crushes hope.
> I prefer there to be embryonic stem cell research. But I
> would not favor confiscating other people's money to do
> it, particularly if those people are not like-minded about
> the type of research.
The "confiscating other people's money" rhetoric is nice touch, a sure-fire way to get people offended over how their tax dollars are used.
It's also an absurd complaint in any real economic sense- as long as you're paying for health care, a certain portion of those monies are goig to be going towards privately-funded research - which means that some (insignificant fraction) of your health care $ is going to stem cell research. Get over it.
Furthermore, the federal funding for stem cell research limits the research (actually very few potentially viable lines are allowed, fewer than the announced # of allowed lines) in such a way as to emasculate the research possibilities; allocating fewer funds would have been preferable to these restrictions, but the other approach is used to look good to the layman, while appealing to those who lobby oppose the research (who will look more closely at the actual results).
Finally, this ignores the fact that the stem-cell research ban
can be used as a club even against research groups/foundations who accept fed. funds for unrelated research, while also pursuing stem cell research using private funds. This is also in that "actual results" category.
FYI, the "The Growing Class of Americans Who Pay No Federal Income Taxes" report you cite might easily be read as "The Growing American Lower/Poverty Class". Those who live in poverty ( a quickly growing class) get to pay no taxes - and what luckie duckies they are!
FYI, envirotruth is "Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research", a famously partisan
s try-funded_organizations
"think tank" (i.e. a media mill for a partisan viewpoint)
Look here for a decent overview of similar organizations (though these are mostly industry-funded, vs. politcal) http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Indu
While this is true in the absolute sense, in any sort of practical sense the Bush administration has a horrible record for distorting science.
I don't recall anything a severe as this condemnation happening under any prior administrations.
I would say that the record is bad enough that they shoud be kicked out.
> We shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have
> recently been diagnosed
I entirely agree, it's better to remove any hope from these people (even in the case of long-term neuro-degenerative diseases, which may take decades to affect their victims), rather than to take the horrible risk that they may feel any sort of false hope.
It is clearly the role of government to crush false hope wherever it may be found, by whatever means necessary!
> the candidate that emasculates American military and
> cultural influence the most
Ah, are you implying then that they'd vote for the candidate who tied up the U.S. military in an unnecessary war (Iraq), leaving us vulnerable to a resurgent Al Quaeda (going into Iraq forced us to give less attention attention to re-building Afghanistan), an increasingly aggressive N. Korea, not to mention other "Axis of Evil" members?
Or are you implying that they'd vote for the candidate who would squander the world-wide goodwill expressed towards the U.S. post 9-11 via ham-fisted diplomacy and the above military action?
Or maybe they'd vote for the candidate whose fiscal irresponsibility has driven the nation into an unprecedented degree of debt, all the while without a net creation of jobs (the latter of which no president has accomplished since Hoover, who presided over the Great Depression).
BTW, nice slur against Kerry - implying that a willingess to acknowledge and work with other nations towards mutual benefit is "emasculation", as opposed to intelligent foreign policy!
I hope that you're proud of your talking points!
FYI, Kucinich is no longer a candidate, as of the Democratic Convention. (both he and Kerry were running in the Dem. primaries).
That aside, I would also have liked to hear other candidate's responses, including those of some of those who dropped out.
Unfortunately, you didn't address my questions. This is summed up in your point:
> You can't just show one side of the story.
Yes, you can and you may. This is called advocacy; at one point, we had explicit governement regulations requiring balanced coverage by broadcasters/opinion-makers on controversial topics. These regulation are effectively gone.
Just look at the major media outlets; they pay lip service to balance, but they're main goal is ratings/profit, i.e. sensationalistic stories where conflict/who's winning are the focus of the story (rarely weighing the reliability of the "sides", and almost as rarely covering conflict resolution) - and that's during the NEWS segments. Editorial/punditry segments are where the media "take the gloves off" and overtly take sides.
I sympathize with the desire to bring back this sort of regulation, but its outrageous that you don't recognize the complete lack of it everywhere else in the media.
> Spewing this bulk of propaganda and lies in an attempt
> to change the results of the election would break the
> process.
It sounds like you have an issue with MM's film - unfortunately, the fact that it applies to everyone is one of those "tricky" parts about deregulation of the airwaves, not to mention free speech.
As a counterexample, I find the SVBT ads to be horrendous, but I can't dispute the right to buy air time and play them.
Now, try and come up with a reason that applies generally (i.e. is not dependent on your interpretation of F911) and you'll begin addressing my arguments.
> are their reasons for removing George Bush so
> unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's
> survival that they justify any and all means, including
> short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?
> Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with
> almost anybody as president than accept this kind of
> overt political manipulation as the new standard of
> behavior in American society.
a) explain how broadcasting a movie on TV = "any and all means"; you're conflating free speech with violent action.
b) Further explain how this would, in an ideal world, break the process.
c) Given b), please further explain how this short-circuits the democratic "process" as it currently exists in the U.S. (i.e. fearmongering, secretive gov't, broken media coverage, and even easily-rigged voting processes).
Nice rhetorical device though, passionately asserting something without backing it up. Now let's get back to that process you were talking about...
My personal preference is also for web-based apps... however, you're not really answering his question, for the following reasons:
- client-server database applications (i.e. "database on ONE SERVER"...) are possible w/o using a web browser as the platform for the client, but instead using an app native to the client OS. this is not only how Filemaker does it (yes, FM can work w/ remote dbs), it's the standard way of doing this sort of thing
- "They don't have to figure out whatever GUI you develop for the tool." - huh? while certain functionalities are always clear on the web, those tend to relate to navigation, not inputting and updating data. once an application gets specific (i.e. worthwhile) enough, it's doubtful that it'll look muhc like a common web-page asides from some header navigation. using the web as a dev. platform is only helpful towards GUI design when the app's GUI shares a lot w/ the web browser GUI.
- "one easy interface that everyone can reach and access make it easier to maintain" - this, I almost agree with. I removed "easy" as I've found that making web app interfaces "easy" often requires more work that would be necessary in a native app (either lots of design work or lots of development work to paper over browser diffs).
This is only anecdotal, but...
;)
I just did this for my girlfriend; she plays CDs at work and home and while walking to/from, and beats the hell out of her CDs in doing so. She's also lost quite a few of them.
I got her a CD-MP3 player for her b-day, and backed up all of her (beat-to-hell, scratched and fingerprinted) CDs, and then ripped the pristine back-ups to MP3.
She had close to 100 CDs, and could not afford to re-buy these if she lost them, either to wear or loss. Now, however, she can listen to the MP3s (entrie collection on 6 CDs) while walking (and rarely has to change CDs), and she has a backup version for if/when the original CDs stop working entirely (thank god for error correction, even though it meant reading at 2x on a 52x CD-RW).
I did this "on-the-sly" for her birthday and she was -very- happy with this gift, and she's not a tech geek by eny stretch of the imagination.
The point is that not many people necessarily will do this, but that a fair number of people need to, and the people who need to are certainly glad that they could!
I've got ~1000 CDs myself, and am planning my own backup (lossless compression to multiple HDs for backup, rip to MP3 for regular use), which will allow me to put my CDs in storage so they don't take up my limited living space (live in Boston, city of small apartments).
And yes, I do realize that I killed all of my argument's credibiity with the claim of having a girlfriend.