taks

he decries capitalism, john... blatantly. he regularly refers to capitalism as an evil system, or even a sin... that's hypocrisy when you tend to make your money of said system. he advocates extremely high tax rates on the rich, which he is, yet i don't see him giving any of his money back to the government. that's hypocrisy. he's abusive to the people that have worked for him, laborers no less, yet says he speaks for the "common man." hypocrisy. and yes, advocating taking taxes out of my paycheck and giving it to the poor is socialism (actually, a more encompassing term is statism). any time taxes are used to provide for those that don't have, you're advocating socialist principles. by definition. taks

as i noted earlier, mkreku, the UN list isn't bad at all NOR does it indicate the best places to live. i have no problem with the numbers as they are probably correct. objective data is objective data. the "ranking" is not about where it is better to live, but just the countries with the highest averages with the top numbers (education, life expectancy and GDP per capita). it becomes subjective when you actually do the averaging and weight each statistic in your own manner and THEN, make comments about what that means. some people may prefer money (GDP per capita) so they would weight that heavier. some may simply want to live longer so that carries more weight. heck, some people may just perfer NONE of those stats and go for something more esoteric like "mountains to ski on" rendering the list meaningless to them... either way, it's based on opinion. the #s for this list were probably weighted evenly... but what exactly is a "human development index" anyway? a subjective term to say the least. as such, newsweek's list will be equally subjective though an interesting read nonetheless. taks

i wonder what the difference is from the original? i liked it, but it was a little slow... btw, that website has been up since the original was released. at first, the argn type folk thought it might be another online game similar to "the beast" which was done as a promo for the AI movie... taks

I did not realize that it was from Asimov... quite stunning the first time you watch it. did anyone see the chronicles of riddick (a follow on to pitch black)? it wasn't out long so i'm assuming it sucked. taks

it was the one he was writing just before he died... hence the unfinished business. it was basically about a guy that worked for some shady corporation. i can't recall the entire premise, but it was definitely conspiracy minded. the last 20 minutes, btw, were obviously not written by kafka. the style completely changed and the ending seemed contrived and expected whereas the rest of the movie kept you guessing a bit. taks

cool... my favorite "surprise" movie, btw, was the usual suspects. i was not a fan of kevin spacey till that movie... now he's one of my favorites (i simply hadn't seen him in much before that). taks

well, isn't the kafka movie a biography of sorts, not actually written by kafka? kafka was actually not so much dour and self-serious, but paranoid and horribly afraid of the world, IMO. maybe he was just being cynical and humorous... i haven't studied him enough. i think the movie i watched was "the tower" with about 20 minutes of black and white footage to imply the unwritten portion. i can't recall if i watched the kafka movie or not. taks

oh wow... translation of book. i was quite wrong what the differences were. the movie is much more cynical than the book... taks

well, perhaps the anti-war statement was a misnomer... i had heard the book was cynical regarding war... the veiled references to nazism and such, the gung-ho attitude of the soldiers, etc. taks

i've heard the movie did not quite portray the "war is ludicrous" theme nearly as well as the book. at least, a lot of the cynicism was played down (though still evident). taks

if you actually understood how the numbers worked out, you'd realize how stupid this statement actually is. regardless of how you want to look at it, the vote means a lot. for all its flaws, the electoral college is mathematically superior to a popular vote (at least on this scale). there are even better methods, however, though it is questionable that the general public would understand them. taks

by past military spending, i'm assuming you mean pension/benefits for veterans? that number is actually $60B for 2004 (still an estimate on the chart) and expected to be $67B for 2005. the current expenditure, on the same chart, for national defense is $450B. receipts are about $2.1T for the same year which STILL puts you at or under 25%... given that you called it the "corporate war machine" and that approximately $175B of this total expense is actually pay and benefits ($104B current, $67B veterans) for the personnel themselves, that means that somewhere around $330-340B is spent on the "corporate" part of your war machine (including maintenance, procurement, construction and R&D). now we're down to under 17%, again. human resources, including VA benefits, account for approximately $1.6T of our budget (that's the shame). our gov't should ONLY be spending money on defense of our rights. taks

again, according to the 2005 budget, total defense expenditures for homeland security plus DoD are $432B, nothing is proposed for the war... total outlays for the year are estimated at $2.4T. less than 25%, not 50%. you diced nothing but your ability to add. taks

even for 2005, the total DoD+war+homeland expenditures are in the $400B range... out of over $2T in total expenditures... still not close buddy... taks

see above for the actuals in the budget... the $536B number is incorrect as are the $50B iraq/afghanistan #s. in 2004, we spent a total of $2.3T. "past military" doesn't make sense and your # of $1.9T is also incorrect. taks

corrected that error... taks

this happens all the time. the arguments vary and sometimes they try the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" argument saying income taxes are unconstitutional. the supreme court has ruled they are not. taks

Indeed it seems to be just that: am i good or what... it REALLY was that obvious. i'm curious about the journalists that were still writing AFTER the film aired... are they really that stupid they couldn't figure it out? taks

i don't bring up BFC, 'JN, because that has been done to death. you'll note that even the most liberal politicians are staying away from him or making statements like "it's a film that will make you think." of course it will make you think... think about how much nonsense can be included in 90 minutes of film. rational, objective thought precludes such conspiracy theories posited by moore. but appealing to the fears of the average american is the tactic moore uses to preclude rational, objective thought. taks

you apparently don't understand the concept of hypocrisy. he decries the very thing that made him rich while flaunting the fact that he's rich. spin it how you want... more shouldn't be given to the rich or the poor, btw. and campaigning either way is advocating socialism, coincidentally a system destined for failure. a concept at odds with capitalism (something that moore denounces). taks

1. 50% of the US budget is not for the "corporate war machine." the numbers are public and it amounts to less than 5%. we spend more money on education and medicare, unless you want to somehow spin that into the "corporate war machine." do some research before spouting rhetoric like a moron. 2. tax evasion by folks such as this is nothing new. these idiots have been doing it for years and it simply becomes more of an issue near an election. to date, nobody has been able successfully challenge the constitutionally ameneded income tax for "oppression." taks

sorry for a plug but dang, that place rocks. i'm ordering an OS and some more memory for my rig and, for free, my package will be here in two days. i placed the order yesterday and it shipped tonight. this is the 4th time i've ordered from them without any difference in service... kewl. taks

i've got no problem with him beig rich and that isn't the point i made either. you substitute a straw-man argument. moore is a hypocrite because he is the very thing he says he loathes about this country. he talks about the common man but he is further from the common man than 99.9999% of the people. he's all for our public (socialist) education system yet... somehow, his kids go to private schools. he mocks the very thing that made him rich. no sir, being rich isn't what makes him a hypocrite. the way he behaves is. taks

it's one thing to stand up for what you believe in, totally another to do it with deciet. distorting facts to prove a point makes him just as bad as those he accuses. further, if he were so bent on the policies those in the US should live by, why doesn't he live that way himself? live right, vote left... that's the very definition of a hypocrite. taks