Give corporations MORE rights than government because corporations are less dangerous. Only governments have the right to use guns to force you to comply with their plans. It is a necessary right that governments must have, but because they have this right their ability to act should be severely restrained.
Corporations have to persuade or bribe you to comply with their wishes (unless of course they co-opt the government - see my point above). Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.
In fact, isn't the biggest problem with the "left" side of the US political spectrum the fact that they're off in so many different directions
There are usually more wrong ways to do something than right ways to do something.
In contrast, the "right" side of the US political spectrum marches in lock-step unison.
US news organizations often choose the term "lock-step" to describe conservatives whenever they are united. However they never apply that term to liberals when they are united.
How ironic that you would choose to parrot back the term "lock-step" in a post where you argue that liberals aren't being brain-washed.
If by "liberal" you mean letting people do what they want with their own lives and properties so long as what they do doesn't infringe on other people's lives and properties then you're right that they are at loggerheads.
But at least in the US, "liberal" no longer means that and it hasn't meant that for many decades.
People who are likely to make up their minds based on debate performances tend to be people who haven't paying attention to the candidates records or to what they've been saying during the campaign. This is especially true when the debate becomes Democrat vs Republican.
The debates are therefor not aimed at the most well-informed voters because those voters have usually already decided - and in any case aren't likely to be persuaded by a single performance on a single night.
Instead debates are aimed at the least well-informed voters. Debates don't tell you much about the reasoning skills of informed Americans, they tell you instead about the reasoning skills of a small set of uninformed voters. This is even more true of commercials as election day grows near.
There are a few fringe groups in the west with the belief in racial superiorty. However they don't have the other beliefs.
What is the western equivalent of Wang Leehom's "Descendants of the Dragon"? - a hit song by a famous singer celebrating a particular race? What is the western equivalent of China's desire to annex Taiwan - by blood and death if necessary?
About the same as the number of Americans killed by the Japanese in 1940.
Or the number of Jews killed by the Germans in 1935.
Or the number of Chinese killed by the Japanese in 1930.
A belief in racial superiority.
A belief that their finally taking their rightful place as a world power.
A resentful belief that the race had been held down due to malevolent forces (Jews, Colonialism).
A stated aim to "unify" with others of the same race (whether those others want to unify or not).
All they need now is a belief that their potential enemies have grown "soft" and weak.
Speaking of Aaron - he was a slave in Egypt. We know how in cultures where slavery is practiced it is not uncommon for the slave owners to make mistresses of the enslaved. How many Egyptian men - particularly the rich ones - had Hebrew mistresses? How many of the children of such relationships became traders traveling up the Nile and fathered descendants of Jacob in Ethiopia? Just a few - but wait 500 years and that few becomes a large number and if just a few of those travel farther south...
People tend to marry people from the same culture, who speak the same languages, non-nomadic people tend to marry within their own village, nomadic people within their own tribe.
That's true, but if you have Jacob even once in your ancestry, you're his descendant, and all it takes to have that occur is for that to occur is for one of his descendants to have married someone from your group 2000 years ago. How many Jewish people were traveling around the Roman Empire at that time? How many cities had Jewish communities? Paul seemed to find them everywhere he went. How many married outside their faith and/or culture. Remember, it only takes a few or even just one.
How Hebrews were carried off to Babylon and blended in instead of returning to Israel, and how many of those might have descendants who traveled the Silk Route and intermarried with the people of East Asia? And even if that process took a 1000 years so that no descendant of Jacob reached China until 500 A.D., that means every person in China has 2^60 ancestors in China at a time when there were less than 1 billion people there. Even allowing for inbreeding (which is a mathematical certainty) you have extremely high odds that every Chinese is a descendant of that descendant of Jacob.
The Mitochondrial ancestry requires, if I understand it correctly, a direct female line. That is, you would be looking at your mother's mother's mother's mother's...... mother. Now since you only have one of those at Jacob's time your odds are pretty small to have that particular link. The same odds apply true if you look for a direct male line ancestor. But if you're looking for any ancestor, you're looking at the odds of Jacob being one of the huge number of ancestors you had at that time - and your odds are pretty good.
Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.
Jacab was how many years ago? Maybe 5000? With an average childbearing age of 25, that makes 200 generations. Ignoring inbreeding for the moment, the number of ancestors you have doubles every generation. 2 to the power of 200 is....I don't have a calculator but it is pretty darn big, many many times the number of people there were on this planet 5000 years ago or even today.
Even if you go back a mere 2000 years ago, you have 80 generations meaning you have far more ancestors than there were people.
What this implies is that you are almost certainly the descendant of every single person who was alive and had progeny in your ancestors region 2000 years ago. You can argue that that still doesn't make you descended from certain minorities, but think about that exponential growth in ancestors again. All it takes is one foreigner to come in and mix with the gene pool. 1000 years later everyone is that foreigner's descendant. There might not have been a lot of travel back then, but there was enough.
About the only way one could reasonably claim not to have ancestors of a certain race is if that race was almost completely isolated - like the American Indians or Australian aborigines. But anyone with ancestors from Europe, Asia or Africa can be pretty sure they have Jacob as an ancestor.
You buy into the US propaganda as much as anyone. Native Americans? America is named after an Italian guy. When Columbus landed, there were at MINIMUM 900,000 people living in the current USA (by a study commissioned by the US government. Most estimates tend to put the population at around 10 million. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica. We infected them with smallpox, raped and pillaged their villages and lands, and hunted them down and massacred them in the name of "Manifest Destiny"... we were bringing civility to the savages!
Are you saying that he US military is responsible for the fact that by the time the pilgrims arrived there were hardly any of those 10 million American Indians left because they had been wiped out by disease the Spanish brought with them? The US military was responsible for plagues that happened more than 250 years before the military came into existence?
Forgetting your fevered imagination for a moment, it is true that the US military played a significant role in the final stages of the genocide of the American Indians, but the numbers still pale in comparison to the numbers of killings the US military can be created with preventing. Furthermore, if we stick to the last 100 years we pretty much eliminate the major cases of the US military attacking civilians (the atrocities of the Phillippine-American war - again pretty mild compared to what the US military has prevented - ended just over 100 years ago).
Most estimates put Afghan civilian deaths north of 100,000, and Iraq close to 1,000,000.
Ignoring for a moment that most of those deaths were the direct result of actions by non-American actors, let's pretend that every single one of those deaths was caused by a US soldier committing murder. Let's pretend that Iraqi Shiites didn't hate Sunnis and Christians and kill them. Let's pretend Iraqi Sunnis never acted on religious hatred either. Let's pretend that fighters coming in from other Muslim countries didn't hide among civilians. We still end up with a balance sheet of the US military saving far more lives that it has taken.
And watching the BBC or Al Jazeera news.
I watched BBC news quite a bit during the US invasion of Iraq. It was very confusing because the news I was getting from the BBC was so different from all the other news I was getting. It turned out the BBC was taking everything Iraqis said - including Baghdad Bob - at face value while disbelieving what the Americans told them. So I would briefly see some other channel showing film of US tanks in the middle of Baghdad and then a few minutes later hear the BBC claiming the US wasn't making much progress penetrating Saddam's defenses. It took a while to figure out just how badly the BBC reporting was.
And US Imperialism hasn't also caused the deaths of millions around the world?"
No.
First, the term "imperialism" is debatable. But even if you're right and you ascribe the worst motives possible to American voters and their leaders, you may argue they have caused a lot of deaths, but "millions" would be an exaggeration and the worst accounting tricks you could use would bring you nowhere close to the numbers killed by the regimes that the US military has done so much to contain.
You're still supporting an organization dedicated to killing people.
Depending on which country you work for, you may view it as supporting an organization dedicated to prevention of mass murder.
The US military is controversial to many people, but it was primarily the US military that prevented the spread of Soviet Communism. How many people did the Soviet Union kill - now extrapolate that to what they could have done had they controlled the rest of the world.
Chinese communists did a lot of killing too. Perhaps the US played a role in limiting their damage too. It is tough to say because by the time the Communists came to power the US was dominant enough to contain them and we don't know how aggressive they would have been toward the rest of the world (although as China (still authoritarian but no longer communist) is growing again it is threatening one neighbor with complete conquest and making aggressive territorial claims against other neighbors).
I wouldn't be good at any of those things. I'm pretty smart at a lot of things, but I'm horrible at art and my morals would prevent me from performing certain favors for you. I'm intelligent enough that I won't be replaced by a computer anytime soon. But there are a lot of jobs that might be eliminated by computer soon in which the people currently holding the jobs might not be able to do anything useful enough to justify paying them enough money to get the basics of food shelter and clothing if justification is based purely on market forces.
This has always been an issue for society. Some people are born with serious problems that prevent them from doing useful work. A long time a person with very limited mental ability could dig ditches - now that job is more efficiently done by an intelligent person with a machine. Now we have welfare and other government programs to care for such people because they can't support themselves. How long before the guy operating the back hoe is replaced by a computer and has to go on welfare too?
I'm generally a free-market kind of guy, but I do think computers and machines will eventually challenge that way of looking at the world. Like it or not, we humans are limited in our abilities and it is not impossible that at some time in the future the abilities of most people will become obsolete. It pains me to say it but as jobs that require the abilities of most people have become scarce, it may make sense to adopt the European model of requiring long vacations and short work weeks so that the few jobs can be distributed among larger numbers of people.
I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet, but it is something to think about.
I disagree with you both. I find nothing ethically wrong with abortion or screening for diseases. How about we let parents decide whether it's ethical for them?
There is also historical evidence to shows many examples of professions that were once predominately male then began to see an influx of women in the profession, wages tend to fall
So you're saying that when there was a sudden increase in the supply of workers while demand remained constant, the price of the labor went down! Does this always happen? If so, there ought to be some sort of LAW forbidding it.
If you check out analysis of why the Republicans cosy up to religious nutters, its because there are a lot of them and they vote. Broadly speaking they are a reasonable fit to - Small government, rampant capitalism, strongly enforced arbitrary laws and illegal overseas crusades.
Small government and rampant capitalism - yes (at least for conservatives - not necessarily for Republicans) But when it comes to strictly enforced arbitrary laws (such as those made by unelected regulators or to laws that arbitrarily stretching the interstate commerce clause) then you're talking about Democrats. Illegal overseas crusades are bipartisan. Almost 40 years ago the Reagan administration illegally funded a war against communism in Nicaragua (a law specifically forbidding that had been passed). More recently Obama illegally went to war with Libya (Bush I and II both obtained congressional approval as required by the US Constitution for wars during their terms. Obama did not get congressional approval and was acting unilaterally without the Constitutionally required support of Congress).
First, Global Warming pushers tried did a Godwin on us by referring to skeptics as "deniers" (a term formerly used almost exclusively for Holocaust deniers). Now they're trying to equate Global Warming skeptics with Evolution skeptics.
Frankly I don't know enough about the science to decide for myself, and I'm humble enough to realize that I never will know enough about it. So I'm left having to decide only partially on the plausibility of the science. I also have to decide which side I have more confidence in.
The current practice of global warming folks of trying to avoid debate by making name calling and false equivalence doesn't give me much confidence in their side.
The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.
They were doing pretty well at "enforcing immigration policy" when the Vikings tried to move on from Greenland and settle North America. It was disease that reduced their numbers later and made them vulnerable to the bible thumpers.
My guess is that the American Indians would have been better off letting a few more Vikings in (but not too many). A small permanent settlement in the colder less populated far north would have allowed the slower introduction of both technology and disease for a while before getting hit with all of the new technologies and diseases at once.
I was fortunate enough to have a company sponsor me on a H1B. It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card. It's not that easy. The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.
The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.
1. Build a wall and take other border security measures to prevent the bringing in of illegal aliens, illegal drugs, illegal weapons, and whatever else we want to keep out of our country.
2. When the border is secure - really secure - amnesty current illegal trespassers so we can end the situation of having two classes of people in the country and can stop having to show our papers any time we want to do a little bit of work.
3. Give out plenty of visas to software engineers because the cost of shipping software is next to nothing and I would rather compete against an Indian making an American salary than an Indian making an Indian salary.
4. . . . ?
5. Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
Which is another reason the government should be extremely limited, so that it can't be a powerful tool of anyone.
Give corporations MORE rights than government because corporations are less dangerous. Only governments have the right to use guns to force you to comply with their plans. It is a necessary right that governments must have, but because they have this right their ability to act should be severely restrained.
Corporations have to persuade or bribe you to comply with their wishes (unless of course they co-opt the government - see my point above). Therefore Corporations can be given far more rights than the government.
In fact, isn't the biggest problem with the "left" side of the US political spectrum the fact that they're off in so many different directions
There are usually more wrong ways to do something than right ways to do something.
In contrast, the "right" side of the US political spectrum marches in lock-step unison.
US news organizations often choose the term "lock-step" to describe conservatives whenever they are united. However they never apply that term to liberals when they are united.
How ironic that you would choose to parrot back the term "lock-step" in a post where you argue that liberals aren't being brain-washed.
If by "liberal" you mean letting people do what they want with their own lives and properties so long as what they do doesn't infringe on other people's lives and properties then you're right that they are at loggerheads.
But at least in the US, "liberal" no longer means that and it hasn't meant that for many decades.
People who are likely to make up their minds based on debate performances tend to be people who haven't paying attention to the candidates records or to what they've been saying during the campaign. This is especially true when the debate becomes Democrat vs Republican.
The debates are therefor not aimed at the most well-informed voters because those voters have usually already decided - and in any case aren't likely to be persuaded by a single performance on a single night.
Instead debates are aimed at the least well-informed voters. Debates don't tell you much about the reasoning skills of informed Americans, they tell you instead about the reasoning skills of a small set of uninformed voters. This is even more true of commercials as election day grows near.
There are a few fringe groups in the west with the belief in racial superiorty. However they don't have the other beliefs.
What is the western equivalent of Wang Leehom's "Descendants of the Dragon"? - a hit song by a famous singer celebrating a particular race? What is the western equivalent of China's desire to annex Taiwan - by blood and death if necessary?
How many Americans have been killed by Chinese?
About the same as the number of Americans killed by the Japanese in 1940.
Or the number of Jews killed by the Germans in 1935.
Or the number of Chinese killed by the Japanese in 1930.
A belief in racial superiority.
A belief that their finally taking their rightful place as a world power.
A resentful belief that the race had been held down due to malevolent forces (Jews, Colonialism).
A stated aim to "unify" with others of the same race (whether those others want to unify or not).
All they need now is a belief that their potential enemies have grown "soft" and weak.
oh wait...
Speaking of Aaron - he was a slave in Egypt. We know how in cultures where slavery is practiced it is not uncommon for the slave owners to make mistresses of the enslaved. How many Egyptian men - particularly the rich ones - had Hebrew mistresses? How many of the children of such relationships became traders traveling up the Nile and fathered descendants of Jacob in Ethiopia? Just a few - but wait 500 years and that few becomes a large number and if just a few of those travel farther south...
People tend to marry people from the same culture, who speak the same languages, non-nomadic people tend to marry within their own village, nomadic people within their own tribe.
That's true, but if you have Jacob even once in your ancestry, you're his descendant, and all it takes to have that occur is for that to occur is for one of his descendants to have married someone from your group 2000 years ago. How many Jewish people were traveling around the Roman Empire at that time? How many cities had Jewish communities? Paul seemed to find them everywhere he went. How many married outside their faith and/or culture. Remember, it only takes a few or even just one.
How Hebrews were carried off to Babylon and blended in instead of returning to Israel, and how many of those might have descendants who traveled the Silk Route and intermarried with the people of East Asia? And even if that process took a 1000 years so that no descendant of Jacob reached China until 500 A.D., that means every person in China has 2^60 ancestors in China at a time when there were less than 1 billion people there. Even allowing for inbreeding (which is a mathematical certainty) you have extremely high odds that every Chinese is a descendant of that descendant of Jacob.
The Mitochondrial ancestry requires, if I understand it correctly, a direct female line. That is, you would be looking at your mother's mother's mother's mother's...... mother. Now since you only have one of those at Jacob's time your odds are pretty small to have that particular link. The same odds apply true if you look for a direct male line ancestor. But if you're looking for any ancestor, you're looking at the odds of Jacob being one of the huge number of ancestors you had at that time - and your odds are pretty good.
Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.
Jacab was how many years ago? Maybe 5000? With an average childbearing age of 25, that makes 200 generations. Ignoring inbreeding for the moment, the number of ancestors you have doubles every generation. 2 to the power of 200 is....I don't have a calculator but it is pretty darn big, many many times the number of people there were on this planet 5000 years ago or even today.
Even if you go back a mere 2000 years ago, you have 80 generations meaning you have far more ancestors than there were people.
What this implies is that you are almost certainly the descendant of every single person who was alive and had progeny in your ancestors region 2000 years ago. You can argue that that still doesn't make you descended from certain minorities, but think about that exponential growth in ancestors again. All it takes is one foreigner to come in and mix with the gene pool. 1000 years later everyone is that foreigner's descendant. There might not have been a lot of travel back then, but there was enough.
About the only way one could reasonably claim not to have ancestors of a certain race is if that race was almost completely isolated - like the American Indians or Australian aborigines. But anyone with ancestors from Europe, Asia or Africa can be pretty sure they have Jacob as an ancestor.
tell that to the relatives of millions of koreans, vietnamese, and iraqis
Check your numbers.
Are you saying that he US military is responsible for the fact that by the time the pilgrims arrived there were hardly any of those 10 million American Indians left because they had been wiped out by disease the Spanish brought with them? The US military was responsible for plagues that happened more than 250 years before the military came into existence?
Forgetting your fevered imagination for a moment, it is true that the US military played a significant role in the final stages of the genocide of the American Indians, but the numbers still pale in comparison to the numbers of killings the US military can be created with preventing. Furthermore, if we stick to the last 100 years we pretty much eliminate the major cases of the US military attacking civilians (the atrocities of the Phillippine-American war - again pretty mild compared to what the US military has prevented - ended just over 100 years ago).
Ignoring for a moment that most of those deaths were the direct result of actions by non-American actors, let's pretend that every single one of those deaths was caused by a US soldier committing murder. Let's pretend that Iraqi Shiites didn't hate Sunnis and Christians and kill them. Let's pretend Iraqi Sunnis never acted on religious hatred either. Let's pretend that fighters coming in from other Muslim countries didn't hide among civilians. We still end up with a balance sheet of the US military saving far more lives that it has taken.
I watched BBC news quite a bit during the US invasion of Iraq. It was very confusing because the news I was getting from the BBC was so different from all the other news I was getting. It turned out the BBC was taking everything Iraqis said - including Baghdad Bob - at face value while disbelieving what the Americans told them. So I would briefly see some other channel showing film of US tanks in the middle of Baghdad and then a few minutes later hear the BBC claiming the US wasn't making much progress penetrating Saddam's defenses. It took a while to figure out just how badly the BBC reporting was.
No.
First, the term "imperialism" is debatable. But even if you're right and you ascribe the worst motives possible to American voters and their leaders, you may argue they have caused a lot of deaths, but "millions" would be an exaggeration and the worst accounting tricks you could use would bring you nowhere close to the numbers killed by the regimes that the US military has done so much to contain.
You're still supporting an organization dedicated to killing people.
Depending on which country you work for, you may view it as supporting an organization dedicated to prevention of mass murder.
The US military is controversial to many people, but it was primarily the US military that prevented the spread of Soviet Communism. How many people did the Soviet Union kill - now extrapolate that to what they could have done had they controlled the rest of the world.
Chinese communists did a lot of killing too. Perhaps the US played a role in limiting their damage too. It is tough to say because by the time the Communists came to power the US was dominant enough to contain them and we don't know how aggressive they would have been toward the rest of the world (although as China (still authoritarian but no longer communist) is growing again it is threatening one neighbor with complete conquest and making aggressive territorial claims against other neighbors).
I wouldn't be good at any of those things. I'm pretty smart at a lot of things, but I'm horrible at art and my morals would prevent me from performing certain favors for you. I'm intelligent enough that I won't be replaced by a computer anytime soon. But there are a lot of jobs that might be eliminated by computer soon in which the people currently holding the jobs might not be able to do anything useful enough to justify paying them enough money to get the basics of food shelter and clothing if justification is based purely on market forces.
This has always been an issue for society. Some people are born with serious problems that prevent them from doing useful work. A long time a person with very limited mental ability could dig ditches - now that job is more efficiently done by an intelligent person with a machine. Now we have welfare and other government programs to care for such people because they can't support themselves. How long before the guy operating the back hoe is replaced by a computer and has to go on welfare too?
I'm generally a free-market kind of guy, but I do think computers and machines will eventually challenge that way of looking at the world. Like it or not, we humans are limited in our abilities and it is not impossible that at some time in the future the abilities of most people will become obsolete. It pains me to say it but as jobs that require the abilities of most people have become scarce, it may make sense to adopt the European model of requiring long vacations and short work weeks so that the few jobs can be distributed among larger numbers of people.
I don't think we're anywhere near that point yet, but it is something to think about.
What about those of us who aren't creative and can't design a house?
We could correlate it with where most black Americans live. Or would that cause problems with your pre-conceived notions?
I disagree with you both. I find nothing ethically wrong with abortion or screening for diseases. How about we let parents decide whether it's ethical for them?
For how long?
There is also historical evidence to shows many examples of professions that were once predominately male then began to see an influx of women in the profession, wages tend to fall
So you're saying that when there was a sudden increase in the supply of workers while demand remained constant, the price of the labor went down! Does this always happen? If so, there ought to be some sort of LAW forbidding it.
If you check out analysis of why the Republicans cosy up to religious nutters, its because there are a lot of them and they vote. Broadly speaking they are a reasonable fit to - Small government, rampant capitalism, strongly enforced arbitrary laws and illegal overseas crusades.
Small government and rampant capitalism - yes (at least for conservatives - not necessarily for Republicans) But when it comes to strictly enforced arbitrary laws (such as those made by unelected regulators or to laws that arbitrarily stretching the interstate commerce clause) then you're talking about Democrats. Illegal overseas crusades are bipartisan. Almost 40 years ago the Reagan administration illegally funded a war against communism in Nicaragua (a law specifically forbidding that had been passed). More recently Obama illegally went to war with Libya (Bush I and II both obtained congressional approval as required by the US Constitution for wars during their terms. Obama did not get congressional approval and was acting unilaterally without the Constitutionally required support of Congress).
First, Global Warming pushers tried did a Godwin on us by referring to skeptics as "deniers" (a term formerly used almost exclusively for Holocaust deniers). Now they're trying to equate Global Warming skeptics with Evolution skeptics.
Frankly I don't know enough about the science to decide for myself, and I'm humble enough to realize that I never will know enough about it. So I'm left having to decide only partially on the plausibility of the science. I also have to decide which side I have more confidence in.
The current practice of global warming folks of trying to avoid debate by making name calling and false equivalence doesn't give me much confidence in their side.
The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.
They were doing pretty well at "enforcing immigration policy" when the Vikings tried to move on from Greenland and settle North America. It was disease that reduced their numbers later and made them vulnerable to the bible thumpers.
My guess is that the American Indians would have been better off letting a few more Vikings in (but not too many). A small permanent settlement in the colder less populated far north would have allowed the slower introduction of both technology and disease for a while before getting hit with all of the new technologies and diseases at once.
I was fortunate enough to have a company sponsor me on a H1B. It took me six years of waiting and thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees to adjust my status, i.e. go from H1B to Green Card. It's not that easy. The people on the Mayflower would be turned back if they made that trip today.
The American Indians wouldn't have suffered as much genocide had they been able to enact and enforce a meaningful immigration policy.
1. Build a wall and take other border security measures to prevent the bringing in of illegal aliens, illegal drugs, illegal weapons, and whatever else we want to keep out of our country.
2. When the border is secure - really secure - amnesty current illegal trespassers so we can end the situation of having two classes of people in the country and can stop having to show our papers any time we want to do a little bit of work.
3. Give out plenty of visas to software engineers because the cost of shipping software is next to nothing and I would rather compete against an Indian making an American salary than an Indian making an Indian salary.
4. . . . ?
5. Profit!
No offense, but who is she? Can't you add this information in the damn summary?
She was love interest in Night at the Museum II. Stop wasting your life in front of the computer and go watch some movies.