See, the difference is that when liberals think they know what's best for someone, they don't force them to do it by law
It would be more accurate, I think, to say that liberals do not want to backup *moral* judgements by law... they are more than happy to use the law to backup just about anything else (something I am very greatful for).
First, from your post it is blatantly obvious that you don't read National Geographic. Your post is instead a knee-jerk reaction based on bad information.
Second, National Geographic's statements regarding the catfish are factually correct. Please read and re-read that statement -- "statements regarding the catfish are factually correct". Please stop dismissing factually correct information as some sort of leftist bias...
Oooh, I like this -- the next logical step from the 6th-grade staple: "My Dad is a fireman, what does YOUR Dad do?"
Come on, Refrag, answer the question! Tell us before EraserMouseMan and I ditch out to pick up some peace activists with a fetish for corporate-whore computer programmers...
My apologies... that "-------------" in your post made me think the portion that fell below it was your sig, and hence I did not read that line on my first pass. My mistake:)
Actually the War on Drugs costs around $18 billion dollars a year to run.
Our differing figures probably just come from different ways of cutting the data. I believe the federal anti-drug budget is around 20 billion as you mentioned, but including states expenditures raises that dramatically. I don't really have time to find more sources, but here are a few articles from a quick google search that mention the higher figures I was referencing.
Remember, only the Sith think in absolutes;) I certainly did not advocate that we spend *no* money on the military... There is a middle ground between "less" and "none" that I suggest you take into consideration. Half of our discretionary budget is military-related... we spend more on the war on drugs than we do on NASA, despite the fact that the war on drugs has been proven ineffective, and it is known that education and reform (rather than military interdiction, increased police focus, prisons, etc) is something like 11x more effective in combating drug problems.
Then why do we do this? In the end, you must face up to facts... we as a nation opt towards heavy/expensive action against the symptoms of our problems (especially when it's military related), rather than focusing on the roots of the problems. Why? Because focusing on the roots of problems is a LONG-TERM solution, a notion which has not yet made it into the government dictionary. Short-term solutions make better press releases, provide instant feedback numbers, and are more effective in getting people reelected. It doesn't matter that drug use did not decline under Clinton or Bush -- all that matters is that they increased the anti-drug budget and talked tough in a few press conferences. Like it or not, but this is how our government operates.
I readily admit that short-term strategies are important and effective in their own right -- but I also think there is a price to pay when neglecting the long-term. Because our budget resources are finite, whenever you indulge in such an expensive operation like the War in Iraq, there will be tradeoffs in other areas. Whenever you choose to do A, you are, to some extent, choosing not to do B.
Exactly true -- it is all just a matter of priorities. By looking at our budget, you can easily see where are priorities are. Really too bad... What better way to spend taxpayer money than hi-tech infrastructure, research/dev on next-gen technology, etc. The days of the United States holding the world's best technology are coming to a close (if it's not already the case). Instead, we busy going after "evildoers" sitting on oil fields, or spending 60+ billion a year fighting "the war on drugs". Imagine if this money was instead invested in our future!
Crappy actually, but that doesn't stop me from being a fat American pig and making fun of frenchies. You see American logic now?
Yes, we see the logic, and frankly it's not all that impressive. As an American, I wish to be formally excluded from you and your kind. Please, in the future, refer to people like yourself not as "Americans", but qualified more fully as "Simplistic Fox-News American Rushbots." Much appreciated...
I'm not talking about "gas milage." I'm talking about true, overall savings of energy. Current hybrids do not save energy. They obtain their "savings" by stealing it from some some other point in the chain not immediately obvious to the "consumer" who owns and operates one.
I eagerly await to see evidence of this. This is a bold and complicated claim...
For instance, the manufacture, disposal and recycling of batteries for the electric motor.
No doubt that this requires energy and brings into play tradeoffs unique to hybrids. I still await evidence that this is energy expenditure is not offset by the fuel mileage gains... after all, our methods to acquire oil have just a few... let's call them "little inefficient spots"... that also must be taken into account when making your comparison.
but the public does not seem ready to adandon the idea that a combustion engine is necessary somehow to provide drive.
I disagree. "The public" does not care what powers their car. If you create a 4-seater selling at $20k and infinitely powered by magic iquanas, I think you would find quite a few takers. The current hybrid model is certainly a compromise, but the immediate advantage of it is that it is nicely compatible with the fact that we have gas stations on every corner, and you need never "plug in" the vehicle. In other words, there is no infrastructure change required... it's more or less invisible to the user. "The public"'s real concern is that they do not want to be troubled too much - they want an easier choice. And sticking with the status quo sure is easy...
That being said, I agree that current hybrids are not the answer we are looking for ultimately... but hey, I get 60+ miles per gallon in my hybrid, today.
The public is not demanding hybrids at all. In fact they are pretty much ignoring them and buying conventional gasoline engined cars, because that's what they are comfortable doing.
Incorrect. Hybrid sales are growing at a very rapid pace. Sure, they still make up a tiny proportion of the overall market, but you have to start somewhere.
Everything we do can be considered bad for the environment, because we use the earths resources. But the real trick for real environmentalist (not tree huggers) is to understand what we do and how it impacts the environment on a hole.
... which is why the parent poster made a good point about LCDs being better for the environment than CRTs. No one thinks that all CRTs should be banished - sure, there will probably be uses for them for a long time to come. However, most people would get by just fine with a LCD, and I would be very surprised if most would not choose a LCD if given a comparible choice. As for environmental impact of CRTs versus LCDs, this is from ViewSonic's website:
The power required to run an LCD is about one-third of that required for a CRT with the same screen area. In addition, the amount of heat generated by an LCD monitor is considerably less than a CRT monitor, resulting in a lower load on air conditioning. Building cooling needs may be decreased by up to 20%.
And, if an LCD monitor is used with an uninterruptible power supply, the lower power required provides precious extra minutes to store critical data and shut down gracefully in the event of a power failure.
You certainly have a point. Whenever you draw a line in the sand, there are bound to be circumstances that seem ridiculous when judged by that line. For example, does anything really think that age-of-consent laws were drafted to prevent 17-year-olds from dating 16-year-olds? Of course not. And when you look at situations like that, of course the whole thing sounds silly.
But in the end, a line still must be drawn. Those grey areas in between - let a judge figure it out... there are going to be some good decisions and some bad ones, but I don't think that makes a valid case that age-of-consent laws should not exist.
This should be modded up. I ripped on libertarians in my other post on this thread, but that was probably more of a response to the typical libertarian you hear speak their views - not the "real" libertarian stance. After all, I never heard Badnarick say that age-of-consent laws should be revolked (please, correct me if I'm wrong and indeed this is an official stance).
As a Green-party kind of guy, I can relate to people often misrepresenting your party. I see the Greens as Libertarians in terms of civil liberties, but who also realize that things like war, pollution, and media consolidation do indeed "harm other people", to use your phrase, and therefore justify government action to correct the problem. Cheers sir
As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.
As a Libertarian, you probably also are not living in the real world. Here in the real world, laws concerning age-of-consent are entirely necessary. Sure, in the worldly sense, they are arbitrary... but I also like to think the west has advanced since the days of, oh, I don't know... people getting married at 12.
If you feel otherwise, I suggest you keep an open mind when your 13 year old daughter is being seduced by 39 year old named "Chevy". Hey, if she consents, is all good, right? Just as long as that nasty government doesn't tell your daughter how to live her life.
Perhaps it depends on the car. My Honda Insight has a meter than tells you what MPG you are getting (as well as averages over time). I can definitely see a difference if I am "trying" to get good mileage, versus if I am in a hurry and pay no attention.
I am not so sure that acceleration speed is much of a factor, but anticipating stops and coasting to those stops definitely helps increase mileage. Of course, a hybrid car like mine uses these coasting periods to recharge the electric battery, so these gains might be specific to hybrids.
I'm not going to argue that the parent's comment wasn't biased or that it was well reasoned and fully developed, but at the same time, deflecting to the nature of the True Christian doesn't really address the problems that inspired his/her remark.
Your argument can be applied to just about anything... I often hear people defending socialism by saying that recent implementations of Communism were not True Socialists. This is, of course, correct. But that doesn't get them off the hook for the fact that many of those Communist societies were (and are) pretty horrible.
Likewise, you are correct when you say that this current movement toward the right/religion that we are experiencing doesn't accurately reflect the True nature of Christianity... but that doesn't mean we cannot critisize this real-world implementation. And yes, this real-world implementation and trend is very much enabled by Christians in our society. Look at Frist and his church speeches for a recent example... Listen to O'Reilly refer to other news sources as "the secular media"... the fact that the modern Republican movement relies on and caters heavily to the faithful is not really debatable.
Those of us that see major flaws in the decisions being made by this administration have every right to not be happy with Christians nowadays... the fact that they may be not True Christians doesn't help us with the fact that we are in Iraq fighting a war, seeing environmental regulations being rolled back, taking on massive deficits, etc.
there are very few truly good actors in hollywood. there are, however, plenty of very good directors. however, even those very good directors can't pull something out of someone who doesn't have it. acting is a very challenging skill to hone. it takes years of practice to really get it. many of these hollywood stars don't actually get it.
I agree that acting must be very difficult... but the role of the director is still far more important in my opinion. Not only do good directors get better performances out of their actors (you need not be an actor to realize this trend) but they also frequently have their hands in on many other aspects of moviemaking, from casting to cinematography to editing, etc.
mcgregor is one of them.
Fine and well to have an opinion on him -- I was simply saying that I know he is capable of acting better than he did in the two Star Wars films... I'm not saying I think he is the greatest ever, just that I've seen him rise above "piece of wood" status in other acting roles.
what tends to happen in hollywood is that scripts are cast not by talent but by marketability and personality. when a script is sold in hollywood it is sold primarily based on the appeal of a particular actor. and typical audiences are not looking for actual talent - they are looking for personalities. i.e. when you go to see Jack Nickelson in a movie you want to see "Jack Nickelson". you don't want to see Jack do something other than himself. Same thing with Sean Connery.
I agree completely... I've read that Nick Nolte refers to this as the "star system", in which all the good roles are given to a select few, regardless whether they are actually the best actor/actress for the job. But I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment....
george lucas is a horrendous director. he makes horrible casting choices and settles for mediocre performances at best.
I agree, which is why I said he wasn't a good director. I truly feel that, putting the exact same script and set of actors in the hands of a better director, that we could have had a 100x better film.
Lets face it, we all saw the original 3 when we were kids (or at least 25 years younger than we are now). We know every detail by heart. We can recite the dialog and probably follow along with the choreography of the fight scenes. These movies have become *legends* to us. There was no way to top a legend or to really win the hearts of the moviegoers. The same elements that we cheered for in Return of the Jedi (C3PO's comments and R2D2's squeal, people hanging of the edges of cliffs, etc) are the same things that everyone claims are "cheesy" now.
I disagree. I have no problems updating my thoughts on films as I grow older - many films that I used to love I now view as total crap. But the original trilogy I still feel are good films. They are exciting, have great music, some great action sequences (though some are admittedly less impressive nowadays) and just overall are filled with a great sense of adventure. The chemistry between Han and Leia is just as amusing now as it was then, and I still feel the anxiety and desperation of the rebel soldiers as they take positions in the snow and await the approaching AT-ATs.
What do the new films have? Plastic line recitals and effects galore. Can someone name one funny scene in either of the last two films? How about one witty exchange? Or one action sequence that is even half as cool as the surprise attack by the Empire in RotJ? Do you feel that the battle between the plastic robots and Jar-Jar armed with blue beachballs stacks up?
The people that criticize the new films based on imagined racism are just trying too hard... the new films suck because, well, they suck:) And that conclusion has nothing to do with how old I am...
Slight nitpick... Direction is definitely more important than Acting, because good directors tend to create good performances. That's why good directors always seem to get good performances out of their subjects, whereas bad directors do not. McGregor can act, but he was so wooden in the latest two star wars films because he had nothing to work with (i.e. Lucas is a bad director). I suppose one could argue that the real problem with the last two Star Wars films was the writing, but I definitely lean towards it being a problem with Lucas' direction.
Also I would omit "Story" and just say "Writing", because some films have very little actual story/plot, but have excellent writing (e.g. Hurlyburly).
Hate to respond to my own post, but I just had to mention that I was about to pass around a collection plate for Shell, when I realized that their profits jumped 55% last year which made them set a new UK corporate profit record.
Gas taxes increase the consumer's cost, but they do not increase the supplier's revenue. Thus the supplier has no incentive or extra capital to seek out more expensive sources of existing oil (such as Canadian oil shale). The price increase that would give suppliers the incentive and captial to seek more expensive sources of existing oil is going to the gub'mint.
Yeah, those energy companies are really hurting. If only they had some spare cash to search for oil in Canada...
I suppose it also may have been a bad idea to tax cigarettes, because with that capital the cigarette companies could have invested it in some better, new form of cigarettes... but you know what, somehow I think we are all a bit better off having just taxed the little bastards:) When an industry, whether the fault of the companies or not, brings negative side effects on a society, it is reasonable for that society to counter that. Remember, the free market is great at setting prices, but its terrible at realizing costs.
Slashdot Mirror
See, the difference is that when liberals think they know what's best for someone, they don't force them to do it by law
It would be more accurate, I think, to say that liberals do not want to backup *moral* judgements by law... they are more than happy to use the law to backup just about anything else (something I am very greatful for).
First, from your post it is blatantly obvious that you don't read National Geographic. Your post is instead a knee-jerk reaction based on bad information.
Second, National Geographic's statements regarding the catfish are factually correct. Please read and re-read that statement -- "statements regarding the catfish are factually correct". Please stop dismissing factually correct information as some sort of leftist bias...
So what do you do for a living, Refrag?
Oooh, I like this -- the next logical step from the 6th-grade staple: "My Dad is a fireman, what does YOUR Dad do?"
Come on, Refrag, answer the question! Tell us before EraserMouseMan and I ditch out to pick up some peace activists with a fetish for corporate-whore computer programmers...
My apologies... that "-------------" in your post made me think the portion that fell below it was your sig, and hence I did not read that line on my first pass. My mistake :)
Actually the War on Drugs costs around $18 billion dollars a year to run.
B ackground_5.htm r isons/investment.html
Our differing figures probably just come from different ways of cutting the data. I believe the federal anti-drug budget is around 20 billion as you mentioned, but including states expenditures raises that dramatically. I don't really have time to find more sources, but here are a few articles from a quick google search that mention the higher figures I was referencing.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/warondrugs/a/WOD
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/p
Agree with everything else you said wholeheartedly.
Remember, only the Sith think in absolutes ;) I certainly did not advocate that we spend *no* money on the military... There is a middle ground between "less" and "none" that I suggest you take into consideration. Half of our discretionary budget is military-related... we spend more on the war on drugs than we do on NASA, despite the fact that the war on drugs has been proven ineffective, and it is known that education and reform (rather than military interdiction, increased police focus, prisons, etc) is something like 11x more effective in combating drug problems.
Then why do we do this? In the end, you must face up to facts... we as a nation opt towards heavy/expensive action against the symptoms of our problems (especially when it's military related), rather than focusing on the roots of the problems. Why? Because focusing on the roots of problems is a LONG-TERM solution, a notion which has not yet made it into the government dictionary. Short-term solutions make better press releases, provide instant feedback numbers, and are more effective in getting people reelected. It doesn't matter that drug use did not decline under Clinton or Bush -- all that matters is that they increased the anti-drug budget and talked tough in a few press conferences. Like it or not, but this is how our government operates.
I readily admit that short-term strategies are important and effective in their own right -- but I also think there is a price to pay when neglecting the long-term. Because our budget resources are finite, whenever you indulge in such an expensive operation like the War in Iraq, there will be tradeoffs in other areas. Whenever you choose to do A, you are, to some extent, choosing not to do B.
Exactly true -- it is all just a matter of priorities. By looking at our budget, you can easily see where are priorities are. Really too bad... What better way to spend taxpayer money than hi-tech infrastructure, research/dev on next-gen technology, etc. The days of the United States holding the world's best technology are coming to a close (if it's not already the case). Instead, we busy going after "evildoers" sitting on oil fields, or spending 60+ billion a year fighting "the war on drugs". Imagine if this money was instead invested in our future!
Crappy actually, but that doesn't stop me from being a fat American pig and making fun of frenchies. You see American logic now?
Yes, we see the logic, and frankly it's not all that impressive. As an American, I wish to be formally excluded from you and your kind. Please, in the future, refer to people like yourself not as "Americans", but qualified more fully as "Simplistic Fox-News American Rushbots." Much appreciated...
Also, the people of Naboo .... were supposed to be pacifists who just happened to have well-armed starfighters at their disposal.
Being both pacifistic and having weapons intended for self-defense is not a contradiction.
I'm not talking about "gas milage." I'm talking about true, overall savings of energy. Current hybrids do not save energy. They obtain their "savings" by stealing it from some some other point in the chain not immediately obvious to the "consumer" who owns and operates one.
I eagerly await to see evidence of this. This is a bold and complicated claim...
For instance, the manufacture, disposal and recycling of batteries for the electric motor.
No doubt that this requires energy and brings into play tradeoffs unique to hybrids. I still await evidence that this is energy expenditure is not offset by the fuel mileage gains... after all, our methods to acquire oil have just a few... let's call them "little inefficient spots"... that also must be taken into account when making your comparison.
but the public does not seem ready to adandon the idea that a combustion engine is necessary somehow to provide drive.
I disagree. "The public" does not care what powers their car. If you create a 4-seater selling at $20k and infinitely powered by magic iquanas, I think you would find quite a few takers. The current hybrid model is certainly a compromise, but the immediate advantage of it is that it is nicely compatible with the fact that we have gas stations on every corner, and you need never "plug in" the vehicle. In other words, there is no infrastructure change required... it's more or less invisible to the user. "The public"'s real concern is that they do not want to be troubled too much - they want an easier choice. And sticking with the status quo sure is easy...
That being said, I agree that current hybrids are not the answer we are looking for ultimately... but hey, I get 60+ miles per gallon in my hybrid, today.
The public is not demanding hybrids at all. In fact they are pretty much ignoring them and buying conventional gasoline engined cars, because that's what they are comfortable doing.
Incorrect. Hybrid sales are growing at a very rapid pace. Sure, they still make up a tiny proportion of the overall market, but you have to start somewhere.
Everything we do can be considered bad for the environment, because we use the earths resources. But the real trick for real environmentalist (not tree huggers) is to understand what we do and how it impacts the environment on a hole.
... which is why the parent poster made a good point about LCDs being better for the environment than CRTs. No one thinks that all CRTs should be banished - sure, there will probably be uses for them for a long time to come. However, most people would get by just fine with a LCD, and I would be very surprised if most would not choose a LCD if given a comparible choice. As for environmental impact of CRTs versus LCDs, this is from ViewSonic's website:
The power required to run an LCD is about one-third of that required for a CRT with the same screen area. In addition, the amount of heat generated by an LCD monitor is considerably less than a CRT monitor, resulting in a lower load on air conditioning. Building cooling needs may be decreased by up to 20%.
And, if an LCD monitor is used with an uninterruptible power supply, the lower power required provides precious extra minutes to store critical data and shut down gracefully in the event of a power failure.
You certainly have a point. Whenever you draw a line in the sand, there are bound to be circumstances that seem ridiculous when judged by that line. For example, does anything really think that age-of-consent laws were drafted to prevent 17-year-olds from dating 16-year-olds? Of course not. And when you look at situations like that, of course the whole thing sounds silly.
But in the end, a line still must be drawn. Those grey areas in between - let a judge figure it out... there are going to be some good decisions and some bad ones, but I don't think that makes a valid case that age-of-consent laws should not exist.
This should be modded up. I ripped on libertarians in my other post on this thread, but that was probably more of a response to the typical libertarian you hear speak their views - not the "real" libertarian stance. After all, I never heard Badnarick say that age-of-consent laws should be revolked (please, correct me if I'm wrong and indeed this is an official stance).
As a Green-party kind of guy, I can relate to people often misrepresenting your party. I see the Greens as Libertarians in terms of civil liberties, but who also realize that things like war, pollution, and media consolidation do indeed "harm other people", to use your phrase, and therefore justify government action to correct the problem. Cheers sir
As a libertarian, I believe it's no business of the State to get involved with anything two people do consentually in private.
As a Libertarian, you probably also are not living in the real world. Here in the real world, laws concerning age-of-consent are entirely necessary. Sure, in the worldly sense, they are arbitrary... but I also like to think the west has advanced since the days of, oh, I don't know... people getting married at 12.
If you feel otherwise, I suggest you keep an open mind when your 13 year old daughter is being seduced by 39 year old named "Chevy". Hey, if she consents, is all good, right? Just as long as that nasty government doesn't tell your daughter how to live her life.
many people prefer an edged weapon because it minimized collateral dammage.
God, who are these people?! And where, might I ask, do you live?? I want to make sure I never go there...
Perhaps it depends on the car. My Honda Insight has a meter than tells you what MPG you are getting (as well as averages over time). I can definitely see a difference if I am "trying" to get good mileage, versus if I am in a hurry and pay no attention.
I am not so sure that acceleration speed is much of a factor, but anticipating stops and coasting to those stops definitely helps increase mileage. Of course, a hybrid car like mine uses these coasting periods to recharge the electric battery, so these gains might be specific to hybrids.
I'm not going to argue that the parent's comment wasn't biased or that it was well reasoned and fully developed, but at the same time, deflecting to the nature of the True Christian doesn't really address the problems that inspired his/her remark.
Your argument can be applied to just about anything... I often hear people defending socialism by saying that recent implementations of Communism were not True Socialists. This is, of course, correct. But that doesn't get them off the hook for the fact that many of those Communist societies were (and are) pretty horrible.
Likewise, you are correct when you say that this current movement toward the right/religion that we are experiencing doesn't accurately reflect the True nature of Christianity... but that doesn't mean we cannot critisize this real-world implementation. And yes, this real-world implementation and trend is very much enabled by Christians in our society. Look at Frist and his church speeches for a recent example... Listen to O'Reilly refer to other news sources as "the secular media"... the fact that the modern Republican movement relies on and caters heavily to the faithful is not really debatable.
Those of us that see major flaws in the decisions being made by this administration have every right to not be happy with Christians nowadays... the fact that they may be not True Christians doesn't help us with the fact that we are in Iraq fighting a war, seeing environmental regulations being rolled back, taking on massive deficits, etc.
Unless the sandworms are from Tremors and not Dune, in which case staying in one place is the best survival strategy.
All future NASA rover missions should be equipped with a Kevin Bacon.
... sharks in the water. Our shark.
there are very few truly good actors in hollywood. there are, however, plenty of very good directors. however, even those very good directors can't pull something out of someone who doesn't have it. acting is a very challenging skill to hone. it takes years of practice to really get it. many of these hollywood stars don't actually get it.
I agree that acting must be very difficult... but the role of the director is still far more important in my opinion. Not only do good directors get better performances out of their actors (you need not be an actor to realize this trend) but they also frequently have their hands in on many other aspects of moviemaking, from casting to cinematography to editing, etc.
mcgregor is one of them.
Fine and well to have an opinion on him -- I was simply saying that I know he is capable of acting better than he did in the two Star Wars films... I'm not saying I think he is the greatest ever, just that I've seen him rise above "piece of wood" status in other acting roles.
what tends to happen in hollywood is that scripts are cast not by talent but by marketability and personality. when a script is sold in hollywood it is sold primarily based on the appeal of a particular actor. and typical audiences are not looking for actual talent - they are looking for personalities. i.e. when you go to see Jack Nickelson in a movie you want to see "Jack Nickelson". you don't want to see Jack do something other than himself. Same thing with Sean Connery.
I agree completely... I've read that Nick Nolte refers to this as the "star system", in which all the good roles are given to a select few, regardless whether they are actually the best actor/actress for the job. But I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment....
george lucas is a horrendous director. he makes horrible casting choices and settles for mediocre performances at best.
I agree, which is why I said he wasn't a good director. I truly feel that, putting the exact same script and set of actors in the hands of a better director, that we could have had a 100x better film.
Lets face it, we all saw the original 3 when we were kids (or at least 25 years younger than we are now). We know every detail by heart. We can recite the dialog and probably follow along with the choreography of the fight scenes. These movies have become *legends* to us. There was no way to top a legend or to really win the hearts of the moviegoers. The same elements that we cheered for in Return of the Jedi (C3PO's comments and R2D2's squeal, people hanging of the edges of cliffs, etc) are the same things that everyone claims are "cheesy" now.
:) And that conclusion has nothing to do with how old I am...
I disagree. I have no problems updating my thoughts on films as I grow older - many films that I used to love I now view as total crap. But the original trilogy I still feel are good films. They are exciting, have great music, some great action sequences (though some are admittedly less impressive nowadays) and just overall are filled with a great sense of adventure. The chemistry between Han and Leia is just as amusing now as it was then, and I still feel the anxiety and desperation of the rebel soldiers as they take positions in the snow and await the approaching AT-ATs.
What do the new films have? Plastic line recitals and effects galore. Can someone name one funny scene in either of the last two films? How about one witty exchange? Or one action sequence that is even half as cool as the surprise attack by the Empire in RotJ? Do you feel that the battle between the plastic robots and Jar-Jar armed with blue beachballs stacks up?
The people that criticize the new films based on imagined racism are just trying too hard... the new films suck because, well, they suck
Story>Writing>Acting>Direction>Cinematography>Effe cts/costume.
Slight nitpick... Direction is definitely more important than Acting, because good directors tend to create good performances. That's why good directors always seem to get good performances out of their subjects, whereas bad directors do not. McGregor can act, but he was so wooden in the latest two star wars films because he had nothing to work with (i.e. Lucas is a bad director). I suppose one could argue that the real problem with the last two Star Wars films was the writing, but I definitely lean towards it being a problem with Lucas' direction.
Also I would omit "Story" and just say "Writing", because some films have very little actual story/plot, but have excellent writing (e.g. Hurlyburly).
Hate to respond to my own post, but I just had to mention that I was about to pass around a collection plate for Shell, when I realized that their profits jumped 55% last year which made them set a new UK corporate profit record.
But alas, that oil shale eludes us...
Gas taxes increase the consumer's cost, but they do not increase the supplier's revenue. Thus the supplier has no incentive or extra capital to seek out more expensive sources of existing oil (such as Canadian oil shale). The price increase that would give suppliers the incentive and captial to seek more expensive sources of existing oil is going to the gub'mint.
:) When an industry, whether the fault of the companies or not, brings negative side effects on a society, it is reasonable for that society to counter that. Remember, the free market is great at setting prices, but its terrible at realizing costs.
Yeah, those energy companies are really hurting. If only they had some spare cash to search for oil in Canada...
I suppose it also may have been a bad idea to tax cigarettes, because with that capital the cigarette companies could have invested it in some better, new form of cigarettes... but you know what, somehow I think we are all a bit better off having just taxed the little bastards