Curse my terrible memory, but that does remind me of something...
Why is it that when someone tries to compare the great AMERICAN (insert state/action/policy here), they get accused of oversimplifying? How much of an oversimplification is us-good, them-bad?
Someone driven their Ford Excursion to the video store. Sure.
Most people. Absolutely not. The last three cities I've lived in, it hasn't been worth it for me (or anyone I've known, exception one person) to own a car. Foot, bike, bus. What's the big deal?
Besides. Pass a punitive law and people will hate it even if it's the right thing to do. But how far will a man walk to return 24 beer bottles??? (ok, there is more beer waiting at the other end...)
That reminds me, though. Leaving out Frodo's attack on the Black Rider as he shouts out the Elven words was unfortunate, and I remember noting it missing at the time. Again, a nice show of character, instead of having him cowering. Maybe that's the result of him not having his mettle tested by Old Man Willow and the barrow wights. (hmm... good band name)
a population taught to think scientifically and flexibly, as from exposure to the sciences, is far more difficult to manipulate than one that has no understanding of any of it!
Actually, a population taught logic, basic philosophy, is far more difficult to manipulate, because they know spurious reasoning when they see it. If you think that a basic understanding of anything technical hinders manipulation, think about expert testimony in courtrooms. It's all about the more convincing presentation, because it takes a layperson's entire faculties just to follow along.
That being said, I like your general bent -- there is nothing wrong with teaching science to the basic population; many things right with it, I'd say. For one thing, we might get to the point where a majority of the population values and doesn't fear it, and we can ditch superstition forever.
now without Pixar as their partner, is Disney out of the animation game?
One can only hope. Ex-gf was a budding animator, and though some in her class were fodder for the regular recruiting turkey-shoot, most wanted nothing to do with zero-creativity, assembly-line animation. We're talking "you do ten thousand hands" cell animation, here.
Finally, a terrifically graphic illustration of the purpose for siege weaponry. Why the Enemy opened the gates I'll never know. It would have been nice to see the good guys reduced to banging on the gates, shouting "let us in!"
Not to mention, both TTT and ROTK conveys the impression to the mainstream that sieges were fought in hours not weeks or months.
NOT a Harry Punter fan, but had read the first book, and liked, it, when I saw the first movie. I have to say that whomever was responsible for the film did not at all get what was moving about the book -- none of the subtleties whatsoever.
Example: (and I'm going to butcher names because, like I said, not a fan) Young Harry is on the train to Hogwarts and is sitting across from his new friend who obviously wants something from the snacks tray but as it has to make do with his sandwich.
Book: Harry would like to buy his new chum some sweets, but doesn't want him to feel like a charity case, and also doesn't want to show off. Solution? Trades him sweets for half of his sandwhich, and then the author demonstrates that it's not really the sandwich he was after, because it sits there uneaten. Character.
Movie: "I'll take the lot! with his increasingly annoying, spoiled-brat grin. No character lesson. No character.
People went on and on about how it followed the book, but reciting dialogue doesn't make a movie into a perfect adaptation, capturing the meaning behind the lines and actions does. HP failed spectacularly, and I saw no reason to go on following it.
The question I have is this: Is there any change from the book that actually bothers people?
In ROTK, the born-yesterday ents, and two stylistic things:
in ROTK, Frodo is climbing the mountain, and look, it's a good day's climb to the top. Wait! *hops up stairs* Done!
And in FOTR (despite it being a fine film otherwise), Gandalf dangling there while Frodo has will and opportunity to help him but is held back. I mean, c'mon! How many seconds while people just watch him cling??
I wasn't actually taking issue with many statements in your post. That's why I didn't speak to them. I'm not out to demonize, I don't think any country is intrinsically evil -- I was borrowing your language to try to be intentionally satirical.
I do believe in the inalienable right to self-defence. Pre-emptive self-defence, however, makes sense only if you buy into the "new age of WMD" argument, and like forgetting that a chess piece was guarding another, most people seem to have forgotten that that, not 9/11 (and certainly not some kind of humanitarian initiative), was the justification for Iraq. Also, like Spun, below, points out, violence leads to other violence, and I can point you to the mechanism. What is to stop any other Security Council member from turning away when the others threaten veto? The Cold War was no toddler game, and yet the USSR and USA both respected the other's veto. That's quite an accomplishment. It's also over. I'm not saying that I agreed with the way that system was set up. It certainly was far from democratic (and many will no doubt point out that a truly democratic framework spelled the doom of the League of Nations), but the idea was stability and playing by the same rules. Now that the US has chucked out the rulebook, I don't see anything stopping might-as-right politics for the foreseeable future. And I'm not talking about rogue non-state terrorist cells. I mean China (and many others waiting for their turn). "Illegal combatant" is another wonderful example of this -- during Guantanamo's time -- a year ago, the administration was warning other states to not treat its unidentified special forces as illegal combatants. They are to have the full protection of the Geneval Conventions. Well, duh. There is not a thing more universally hated than hypocrasy. Not freedom. Not hamburgers. Not Microsoft.
So my message to you is not to ignore the lessons of history. Self-determination is the only thing that actually breeds democracy, and that isn't the U.S. going around approving or disapproving of others' democratically-elected choices. Self-defence? Sure. Regime-replacement? Uh-uh. And what do the last 100 years have to do with any of it? Because time and again, the U.S. has backed despots, and yes, terrorists, who later turn on the U.S., and then it's all out war to get them. Osama is one of those. We knew Hussein had chemical weapons because we sold them to him. The aforementioned Pinochet. And hundreds of thousands of civilians die in the meantime (I'm thinking Chile, there) while they're our friend, and we do nothing, because they're our friend, but as soon as they turn on us, suddenly those deaths are unnacceptable, and that's why we move in?
I wasn't making excuses, by the way. The last 100 years really have been full of the same kind of short-sighted "nation-building" in the face of democratically-elected leaders who may or may not want to do something nasty to the U.S., but have decided that they certainly don't want to trade with them. And what does it gain the U.S.? Enemies. More and more and more. So you can use violence to solve this latest round, but really, you're not doing anything you haven't been doing for the last 100 years, and sooner or later, surely, you have to see the pattern. The earlier part of that century was more naked resource-grabbing than it is now, but we have to be fools to not question the motives of an administration that claims a new motive every time their old one doesn't pan out. It's not about hating the U.S., or hating Bush, but applying the same standards to ourselves as we do others, because no life is worth more, American, Iraqi, Afghani, Peruvian - yet the choices being made betray that simple arithmetic...
Here. I don't have time to wait to find out you can't be bothered to learn your own history, and come back at me with your CAPITAL LETTERS and Ooooh nonsense.
We could go back 100 years and see the same thing, over and over, but let's take a mere 5 years.
1961 CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1962 CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep Joao Goulart from achieving control of Congress.
1963 CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.
1964 Joao Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
1965 A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua. "Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later.
And if you think I intentionally picked a juicy half-decade, well we're not even getting into Pinochet, are we?
Installing a "friendly" dictator is not a "compromise". Now go spew your uniformed rhetoric elsewhere, or at least go learn your facts.
Actually, I was paraphrasing you. Thanks for paying attention.
And it wasn't "big business" is evil. It's conflict/war for the sake of business that is. Choosing a dictator that wants to trade with your country over a democracy that might go either way is not a "compromise", unless you mean compromising morals for economic gain.
Seriously, if you need a history lesson, you only need to look at the way the U.S. has dealt with most of Latin America.
Still, it's certainly good form to appear to only be sending out a few resumes. Creating the appearance of confidence is good.
Damn straight. I flew into town for a total of two interviews and was told at the end of #1: "I hope you don't have a stressful few days here -- it's not good to pack your interviews too close together." "Actually," I said, "I'm only here for you and one other firm." "Determined, are you?" was the response. I nodded, confidently.
Well, it was that and the fact that I got two interviews from 50 applications. Two job offers later...
I doubt we will become zealots killing in the name of religion
No, killing in the name of business interests is by far morally superior.
The U.S. has toppled plenty of budding, but risky and not always U.S.-trade-friendly democracies in favour of U.S.-trade-friendly dictators. It is also the one constant naysayer in international treaties of every stripe that demand a little national sacrifice for a greater good.
I hesitate to use the word evil, but I do believe that a system that respects the equality of all persons apart from nationality is superior.
The only way to make sure all the terrorists are dead is to just kill everyone who disagrees with you about anything, because SOME DAY they may disagree with you enough to turn violent.
Welcome to the world of "pre-emptive self-defence"
They're not responsible? Well, they have weapons that they might give to those that were! They don't have weapons? Well, they're still a link in the chain! Everything's connected!
Nice to see the administration adopting such a holistic view of things.
Bush lost a lot of support by lying to the American people about WMD, not by violating international law and valuing American lives over others. Oh sure, that cost him, too, but he would have more than made up for it by standing up and simply saying from the beginning: "I don't care if it's illegal. We're going to go kick some butt and show the world who's boss".
Slashdot Mirror
Wiping out villages...
Curse my terrible memory, but that does remind me of something...
Why is it that when someone tries to compare the great AMERICAN (insert state/action/policy here), they get accused of oversimplifying? How much of an oversimplification is us-good, them-bad?
Two different sentences.
Someone driven their Ford Excursion to the video store. Sure.
Most people. Absolutely not. The last three cities I've lived in, it hasn't been worth it for me (or anyone I've known, exception one person) to own a car. Foot, bike, bus. What's the big deal?
Bingo. Carrots usually work better than sticks.
Besides. Pass a punitive law and people will hate it even if it's the right thing to do. But how far will a man walk to return 24 beer bottles???
(ok, there is more beer waiting at the other end...)
Yeah, can't tell you how many desolate video shop-free neighbourhoods there are out there.
I live downtown and am within walking distance to a half dozen (and that's easy walking distance). In the burbs, it's always one or two.
Thin plastic disc my ass. It all adds up.
Have to say, don't know why she didn't just take a sword, slay all of the Nine and then take down Sauron, herself!
No woman indeed... becch.
That reminds me, though. Leaving out Frodo's attack on the Black Rider as he shouts out the Elven words was unfortunate, and I remember noting it missing at the time. Again, a nice show of character, instead of having him cowering. Maybe that's the result of him not having his mettle tested by Old Man Willow and the barrow wights. (hmm... good band name)
a population taught to think scientifically and flexibly, as from exposure to the sciences, is far more difficult to manipulate than one that has no understanding of any of it!
Actually, a population taught logic, basic philosophy, is far more difficult to manipulate, because they know spurious reasoning when they see it. If you think that a basic understanding of anything technical hinders manipulation, think about expert testimony in courtrooms. It's all about the more convincing presentation, because it takes a layperson's entire faculties just to follow along.
That being said, I like your general bent -- there is nothing wrong with teaching science to the basic population; many things right with it, I'd say. For one thing, we might get to the point where a majority of the population values and doesn't fear it, and we can ditch superstition forever.
now without Pixar as their partner, is Disney out of the animation game?
One can only hope. Ex-gf was a budding animator, and though some in her class were fodder for the regular recruiting turkey-shoot, most wanted nothing to do with zero-creativity, assembly-line animation. We're talking "you do ten thousand hands" cell animation, here.
Wait -- almost forgot the gates of Mordor.
Finally, a terrifically graphic illustration of the purpose for siege weaponry. Why the Enemy opened the gates I'll never know. It would have been nice to see the good guys reduced to banging on the gates, shouting "let us in!"
Not to mention, both TTT and ROTK conveys the impression to the mainstream that sieges were fought in hours not weeks or months.
Actually, I think that's when they get to the gates of Mordor, you daffy English k'niggits!
I call your door-opening request a silly thing!
Sole purpose for Rosie, you fool of a Took.
NOT a Harry Punter fan, but had read the first book, and liked, it, when I saw the first movie. I have to say that whomever was responsible for the film did not at all get what was moving about the book -- none of the subtleties whatsoever.
Example: (and I'm going to butcher names because, like I said, not a fan) Young Harry is on the train to Hogwarts and is sitting across from his new friend who obviously wants something from the snacks tray but as it has to make do with his sandwich.
Book: Harry would like to buy his new chum some sweets, but doesn't want him to feel like a charity case, and also doesn't want to show off. Solution? Trades him sweets for half of his sandwhich, and then the author demonstrates that it's not really the sandwich he was after, because it sits there uneaten. Character.
Movie: "I'll take the lot! with his increasingly annoying, spoiled-brat grin. No character lesson. No character.
People went on and on about how it followed the book, but reciting dialogue doesn't make a movie into a perfect adaptation, capturing the meaning behind the lines and actions does. HP failed spectacularly, and I saw no reason to go on following it.
The question I have is this: Is there any change from the book that actually bothers people?
In ROTK, the born-yesterday ents, and two stylistic things:
in ROTK, Frodo is climbing the mountain, and look, it's a good day's climb to the top. Wait! *hops up stairs* Done!
And in FOTR (despite it being a fine film otherwise), Gandalf dangling there while Frodo has will and opportunity to help him but is held back. I mean, c'mon! How many seconds while people just watch him cling??
Sounds like an editing gaffe to me.
heh. alright, got me. if that's the worst criticism coming my way, I'll take it.
I wasn't actually taking issue with many statements in your post. That's why I didn't speak to them. I'm not out to demonize, I don't think any country is intrinsically evil -- I was borrowing your language to try to be intentionally satirical.
I do believe in the inalienable right to self-defence. Pre-emptive self-defence, however, makes sense only if you buy into the "new age of WMD" argument, and like forgetting that a chess piece was guarding another, most people seem to have forgotten that that, not 9/11 (and certainly not some kind of humanitarian initiative), was the justification for Iraq. Also, like Spun, below, points out, violence leads to other violence, and I can point you to the mechanism. What is to stop any other Security Council member from turning away when the others threaten veto? The Cold War was no toddler game, and yet the USSR and USA both respected the other's veto. That's quite an accomplishment. It's also over. I'm not saying that I agreed with the way that system was set up. It certainly was far from democratic (and many will no doubt point out that a truly democratic framework spelled the doom of the League of Nations), but the idea was stability and playing by the same rules. Now that the US has chucked out the rulebook, I don't see anything stopping might-as-right politics for the foreseeable future. And I'm not talking about rogue non-state terrorist cells. I mean China (and many others waiting for their turn). "Illegal combatant" is another wonderful example of this -- during Guantanamo's time -- a year ago, the administration was warning other states to not treat its unidentified special forces as illegal combatants. They are to have the full protection of the Geneval Conventions. Well, duh. There is not a thing more universally hated than hypocrasy. Not freedom. Not hamburgers. Not Microsoft.
So my message to you is not to ignore the lessons of history. Self-determination is the only thing that actually breeds democracy, and that isn't the U.S. going around approving or disapproving of others' democratically-elected choices. Self-defence? Sure. Regime-replacement? Uh-uh. And what do the last 100 years have to do with any of it? Because time and again, the U.S. has backed despots, and yes, terrorists, who later turn on the U.S., and then it's all out war to get them. Osama is one of those. We knew Hussein had chemical weapons because we sold them to him. The aforementioned Pinochet. And hundreds of thousands of civilians die in the meantime (I'm thinking Chile, there) while they're our friend, and we do nothing, because they're our friend, but as soon as they turn on us, suddenly those deaths are unnacceptable, and that's why we move in?
I wasn't making excuses, by the way. The last 100 years really have been full of the same kind of short-sighted "nation-building" in the face of democratically-elected leaders who may or may not want to do something nasty to the U.S., but have decided that they certainly don't want to trade with them. And what does it gain the U.S.? Enemies. More and more and more. So you can use violence to solve this latest round, but really, you're not doing anything you haven't been doing for the last 100 years, and sooner or later, surely, you have to see the pattern. The earlier part of that century was more naked resource-grabbing than it is now, but we have to be fools to not question the motives of an administration that claims a new motive every time their old one doesn't pan out. It's not about hating the U.S., or hating Bush, but applying the same standards to ourselves as we do others, because no life is worth more, American, Iraqi, Afghani, Peruvian - yet the choices being made betray that simple arithmetic...
Here. I don't have time to wait to find out you can't be bothered to learn your own history, and come back at me with your CAPITAL LETTERS and Ooooh nonsense.
We could go back 100 years and see the same thing, over and over, but let's take a mere 5 years.
1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1962
CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep Joao Goulart from achieving control of Congress.
1963
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.
1964
Joao Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
1965
A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
"Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later.
And if you think I intentionally picked a juicy half-decade, well we're not even getting into Pinochet, are we?
Installing a "friendly" dictator is not a "compromise". Now go spew your uniformed rhetoric elsewhere, or at least go learn your facts.
Don't just rant to me about how evil we are
Actually, I was paraphrasing you. Thanks for paying attention.
And it wasn't "big business" is evil. It's conflict/war for the sake of business that is. Choosing a dictator that wants to trade with your country over a democracy that might go either way is not a "compromise", unless you mean compromising morals for economic gain.
Seriously, if you need a history lesson, you only need to look at the way the U.S. has dealt with most of Latin America.
Only one of us was on a rant.
Still, it's certainly good form to appear to only be sending out a few resumes. Creating the appearance of confidence is good.
Damn straight. I flew into town for a total of two interviews and was told at the end of #1: "I hope you don't have a stressful few days here -- it's not good to pack your interviews too close together." "Actually," I said, "I'm only here for you and one other firm." "Determined, are you?" was the response. I nodded, confidently.
Well, it was that and the fact that I got two interviews from 50 applications. Two job offers later...
This is true. There was a turning point when they began to get good ratings. Before that, they were a consistent loser.
heh. In Canada, for years, the R.C.M.P. surveiled Greenpeace as a "terrorist group".
Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
I used to think so, and then came Guantanamo.
I doubt we will become zealots killing in the name of religion
No, killing in the name of business interests is by far morally superior.
The U.S. has toppled plenty of budding, but risky and not always U.S.-trade-friendly democracies in favour of U.S.-trade-friendly dictators. It is also the one constant naysayer in international treaties of every stripe that demand a little national sacrifice for a greater good.
I hesitate to use the word evil, but I do believe that a system that respects the equality of all persons apart from nationality is superior.
The only way to make sure all the terrorists are dead is to just kill everyone who disagrees with you about anything, because SOME DAY they may disagree with you enough to turn violent.
Welcome to the world of "pre-emptive self-defence"
They're not responsible? Well, they have weapons that they might give to those that were! They don't have weapons? Well, they're still a link in the chain! Everything's connected!
Nice to see the administration adopting such a holistic view of things.
I'd call that realistic.
Bush lost a lot of support by lying to the American people about WMD, not by violating international law and valuing American lives over others. Oh sure, that cost him, too, but he would have more than made up for it by standing up and simply saying from the beginning: "I don't care if it's illegal. We're going to go kick some butt and show the world who's boss".
That is not an endorsement. Just a sad truth.