l'Incendiario

So you are suggesting that because we cannot trust government, we should not let them have power over THIS ONE aspect of our personal lives? What made you decide that people who do not want nor have any notion or willingness or motivation to raise small people into our society should be allowed to? It seems pretty arbitrary, to me. And the results of NOT moderating people's ability to create their own abuse victims seems to have had a very predictable result. Children are regarded as chattel, to be used, abused and disposed of as their "guardians" (Ha! these people are guarding their own selfish wants, not the innocent lives) see fit. At the very least you should turn your attention to fixing the government, rather than prohibiting government from acting. Government is not, nor never will be, perfect. But it must, at least, achieve a minimum standard for what the society expects. If the cost of electricity jumped tomorrow to more than a year's wages for a day's consumption, people would expect the government to create a "work-around", whether that is pedal-powered living room tv or burning criminals for heat in winter. How could it work? That's a practical question. I can't even get you to agree it is a problem that needs to be fixed! How can we create a work plan without everyone buying into the goal? Or, secondly, that it is a serious problem. If everyone recognises how serious a problem is, then more radical behaviour can be acceptable. "Free" society is very new, historically speaking. It will always be a compromise between privacy and security (in this case social security). For a start, I agree, we need education. That helps to reduce the unwanted total, if nothing else. It needn't be a (solely) punitive exercise. Tax breaks, insurance deductions, even government aid; all sorts of incentives can be made to reward good behaviour (like attending parenting classes). The first step is to make people realise that children are not a "right", they are a CHOICE. Choosing to have children for reasons that are not beneficial to them should be made difficult and expensive, if not illegal. (I'm all for giving people a permanent, but reversible, form of sterility. ) Once we agree that is the goal, we can contruct rules and checks and safeguards. Couldn't have said it better myself. Whatever we do, doing nothing will just make it worse.

The end of Wall-E bugged me personally - how does a disposable consumerism society survive in a spaceship with finite resources (far more finite than were on Earth, which they left because they'd exhausted/garbage-fied)? How do they have the material to make new products when we see Giant Wall-R robots dumping consumer waste into space? How do any of the people stand when they get back on earth having (seemingly) never walked? Why do they even want to go back? The trash is all still there (Wall-E was the last working robot and the trash had been piled up, not actually removed from the planet) so how are they able to come back and survive? And with only one plant? Its a cute film, but to me the first half works where as the second doesn't. It's a fairytale. The Age of Enlightenment bequeathed to modern society the belief that technology can and will solve all our problems, even greed and negligence! "Don't worry about polution, we'll invent something (just in time!) to clean up all the mess." (See next point about the buffet, too.) Being a film made to suit a large number of children, they have to end it happily. (After all, the Grimm tales that featured Red Riding Hood being eaten by the wolf, without rescue from the woodsman, didn't get much airplay.) In order to accommodate their fable's morality, the authors have glided over some of the more awkward technological issues using "future magic" technology like that for the "regenerative food buffet". Maybe you might feel better if you pretend that in seven hundred years' time man will be able to sculpt matter from refuse materials (say transmute lead into gold and water into wine, for example). As well as being a love story, it is a morality tale, or fable, like Aesop used to tell, using "future animals": robots. The captain (who represents "authority" or our human government) demonstrates contrition and a comendable desire to clean up the mess and re-green the planet, showing a responsible nature. The film is shorthand for "humanity is banished from paradise, learns its lesson and returns to behave correctly," ergo they may return to the planet and all live happily ever after. More annoying are the flat human characters. And where are all the teenagers? (Answer: they aren't part of the target demographic! Too old to be entranced, too young to be able to watch it in front of their peers. ) But the film isn't about the humans ... it's about the anthropomorphic androids and mechanisms that the humans created, who love and live as humans should do. It is also an unreservedly happy film, without drowning the audience in mawkishness or giving them a diabetic coma. (No swearing. Violence is minimal.) PS In the last pan of the film we see that there are in fact thousands of "plants" (represented by the duplication of the "plant" icon used for the entire film), revealing that enough of the surface has been cleared to make room for arable purposes. (For what it's worth I was more worried about the poluted water table, as the oceans and rivers seemed to be toxic sludge.)

Yes, it's a great documentary. I'm not too sure about the use of the word "documentary", perhaps more like "commentary"... I just share the name (although mine has the "e" on the end). I'm also a prosecutor, although not a "high-profile" case expert, so to speak (but never represented the "other side" like his character did). I do have a mock-up courtroom in my basement, though, in which to practice and perfect my chosen craft. That is, when I'm not trying to enrich young minds as to the many wonders in the world of Criminal Law! Lawyer - check. Military training - check! Being an ex-military man myself (in Intel), I have a huge fascination with the series! Yes, that is probably our favourite line in ANY series or film, ever.

Yes, it's a great documentary. If you like Shark, you might like The Unit, especially after the first season concludes, as there is a legal story line. and many others!

*Edit: Nope. I asked you how procreating was a "right" when it cannot be universally granted. (Property ownership is NOT an congenital trait of humans, established at birth, and it can be changed in many ways.) To continue your analogy: people have a "right" to own a car and drive it, too, yet you seem to think that "right" is somehow different to the "right" to have children ...

These ones made the cut:

You know, I made that comparison once too.. Then I realized how utterly fallible the argument is.. When you think about it, does the driver licence really prevent accidents? It's still the most unsafe mode of transportation, even with this system in place. And with a birth licence you pretty much assume that it's going to be a good system and that it will filter out the bad seeds. Problem is a lot of potential great parents are gonna get hit by it.. What should the critirias be? Who should determine them? How do we enforce them? It's gonna be legislate nightmare as well and any law that impedes so seriously on such a fundamental human thing as having a child is, in my honest opinion, going to fail so hard that you'll hear the cries of injustice three lightyears away. ... Because you do realize that it's impossible to do something on that scale case by case, there are gonna be some inflexible laws which the social workers has to follow and if you don't live up to enough of them then the hammer falls.. Regardless of how great you are in the other areas.. So, because people still commit murder illegally, we should abandon all attempts to stop them? It's too hard? What do you think is the reason that every government requires a driver to be licenced? Do you really think it doesn't prevent accidents? Really? I suppose it's just Big Brother invading privacy and raising revenue ... Why? How many offspring do individuals have a "right" to have? What about the rights of those who cannot reproduce (by normal means), either by disease (low motility or barrenness) or by gender (homosexuality)? How do these "rights" equate universally? How can it be a right if it isn't available to everyone, equally? If you think about it, you are already (passively) setting arbitrary restrictions on people whose only crime was to be less fortunate in their birth, situationally speaking. (Now THERE'S some irony.) Wouldn't it be fairer to consider these restrictions logically, and implement a fair system based on ethical standards, rather than just accept the lottery of babies born to the significant proportion of parents that do not want them, don't have the first idea how to care for them, and are not motivated to find out? Don't these potential people have equal rights to acceptable parents? Wouldn't it make sense to vet the parents instead of penalizing the children of them, considering they are completely innocent victims (as innocent as anyone can be, ethically speaking, in any situation: they did not ask to be born!) and society can, if it chooses, interdict before the abuse takes place. Abuse that will lead ineluctably to further societal evils. In other words, we cannot (as a group) fix the mess afterwards, but we can intervene beforehand to reduce the likelihood of harm. I just thought your remark deserved some comment. So by your logic we shouldn't bother with free speech then, because there are some amongst us that can't communicate? What? Non sequitur. Free speech has limits: you cannot incite a riot, for example, or mendaciously slander / libel another person. I never said that everyone should be restricted from having children: I said it would be a good idea to prevent those that don't want children, or who cannot look after them, from having them BEFORE they either accidentally, or for reasons other than the summum bonum (of the children and society), have them. For example, to reduce unwanted children, I wonder how many people would opt for a temporary sterilization for a cash reward ..? Nope. I asked you how procreating was a "right" when it cannot be universally granted. Property ownership is NOT an congenital trait of humans, established at birth, and it can be changed in many ways. Okay, let me understand your ethical position. Privacy is paramount, over all other considerations. Right? You want your privacy, I assume, because you don't trust others to govern you (despite your admiration of democracy). Here's the problem with your argument: paradoxically, you are stating that society should trust ANYONE who can copulate to govern the consequential innocents (new babies). Their privacy (as well as every other part of their lives, such as their safety & education, and their ability to earn money as brick-makers, tiny tot pageant entrants or street walkers) is governed by their parents (until sui iuris). The consequences are not insignificant. You advocate the deliberate (through inaction) promulgation of preventable misery on countless innocent victims all because you value privacy more? Current estimates are that 20% (one in every five) children has been abused physically or sexually. Victims are extremely likely to victimize others in a continuing cycle of violence. You could marry someone who (personally, or have a relative) who will abuse your children. Does this abuser keep their absolute "right" to procreate? Does your "right" to procreate end when the being is born, or do the children have the right to a healthy upbringing (until they can procreate themselves)? Do you support the privacy of other criminals, too, like murderers? Should they have the right to privacy and should, therefore, The Man NOT have the right to investigate their alleged criminal activities and further NOT infringe on their privacy (or their right to freedom) by locking them up in jail? Or do you just not see crimes against children -- innocent victims -- as of equal worth as murder of an adult? I have no problem proving my bona fides in order to keep them. In my experience, people who want unimpeachable rights, regardless of how they behave or what they say, seem to me to be the ones most likely to abuse those rights.

Maybe if it were more difficult to become a parent, there might be some more thought about it. It seems to me that a lot of parents are accidental, and have put little -- or no -- thought into providing for another human being. The parlous state of adoption and foster care seems discredit your assumption that it is desirable or even possible to clean up the mess ex post facto. If your concern is that a system cannot be created that is fair and just, I would caution you against emotion. To cite a trivial example, consider the automobile drivers license. Eveyone can get one. There is no wealth requirement; you don't need to own a Mercedes Benz before you sit the exam. The only pre-requisite is that drivers must have a basic ability to drive by meeting minimum standards of vision, hearing, coordination responses and cogent thought processes, etc, that allow them to navigate local traffic conditions. (Driving in Samoa is different to Finland is different to London is different to New York City is different to Chicago, etc.) To continue the illustration, if you have bad vision, you are perfectly able to get a license as long as you wear corrective lenses. I think it is a right.. Why? How many offspring do individuals have a "right" to have? What about the rights of those who cannot reproduce (by normal means), either by disease (low motility or barrenness) or by gender (homosexuality)? How do these "rights" equate universally? How can it be a right if it isn't available to everyone, equally? If you think about it, you are already (passively) setting arbitrary restrictions on people whose only crime was to be less fortunate in their birth, situationally speaking. (Now THERE'S some irony.) Wouldn't it be fairer to consider these restrictions logically, and implement a fair system based on ethical standards, rather than just accept the lottery of babies born to the significant proportion of parents that do not want them, don't have the first idea how to care for them, and are not motivated to find out? Don't these potential people have equal rights to acceptable parents? Wouldn't it make sense to vet the parents instead of penalizing the children of them, considering they are completely innocent victims (as innocent as anyone can be, ethically speaking, in any situation: they did not ask to be born!) and society can, if it chooses, interdict before the abuse takes place. Abuse that will lead ineluctably to further societal evils. In other words, we cannot (as a group) fix the mess afterwards, but we can intervene beforehand to reduce the likelihood of harm. I just thought your remark deserved some comment.

Tigranes is statistically the least offensive person on any given forum. Mentioning statistics* is the best way to make people ignore your comments, statistically speaking. *I made this up. But statistics tell me you didn't notice.

Deus Ex, we're up to the Paris level ... which I think is my favourite.

Just finished that a few weeks ago. We think Milton has his tongue firmly in his cheek ... seriously, talk about making a farse of religion, with the ENDLESS pages of hymn-singing banality of the heavenly host! Still very good, though, regardless of your religious politics. Picked some verses to keep. Lovely prose.

Unfortunately the fiction you are reading is "of it's time" ... which is a cop out, kinda like saying "Isaac Newton was a smart guy, even though he stole calculus from that nice Leibniz fellow and believed he would successfully complete alchemy". PKD was also a great ideas man. (Count the films made from his short stories.) We didn't think much of Electric Sheep, though the whole novel is a set-up for the , and the Ridley Scott film interpretation is a much better incarnation of the whole tale. (But only if you don't watch the dumbed-down original release with the Ford voice-over, which completely avoids the from the novel!) We re-read Foundation a few weeks ago and found it brilliant, if na

Pagans and Christians, Robert Lane Fox. Very dry, but seemingly scrupulously researched. Much better than John Mann's Atilla the Hun, which should have been called "My Whimsical Theory", not Historical Investigation.

a lot of students would qualify for Ataxic Neurodegenerative Satiety Deficiency Syndrome

Yes. Never had any Lawful Good attributes or intensions. Anti-Paladin, maybe ... If you read the article it says quite clearly that the state is paying for the children's upkeep. He's likely spending his disposable on drink and cigarettes, and chasing and trapping more women who fit his checklist ...

Castration!

Nice to see some New Romantics getting to be character models.

my eyes

... Because even though Highlander 2 was made, Highlander 3 was okay. And yes, I'm aware that my analogy means that Deus Ex 3 would be a repeat of the first game (with some small tweaks, like Mario van Peebles instead of the Kurgan bad guy, but with the same vocal special effects:), but I'd play a plain remake of the first game ... with some small updates, like cross-wind when trying to snipe (for example).

YOu're a borderline sociopath with a conscience, and -- gorrammit -- you really want to be one or t'other.

^^ It was A Beautiful Mind, based on the life of a true person (John Forbes Nash). As for the topic, what Walsh needs to remember is to be a blue rabbit for the local red rabbits (or vice versa). *MYSTERY* is sexy.