Valsuelm

I Origins 8/10

I'm genuinely intrigued. Do you get drunk before these posts, or do they get you high in their own right? Eric Garner was killed for not paying his protection money. He simply wasn't paying his dues. NYC government considers itself head of the cigarette cartel in the city, and killed this man while enforcing that cartel's position. One has to be intoxicated on koolaide to not see that for what it is. I'm sorry but that's nonsense, Garner wasn't assassinated by the police for not paying protection money. You are starting to sound like Vals, next thing you will be expecting us to believe that 9/11 wasn't committed by Al-Qaeda He died while resisting arrest, you do know that arresting arrest is illegal right? Grossly misinterpreting someone else and in putting words they never wrote or uttered in your post as if they stated them. as usual. He didn't say anyone was assassinated. He said: "NYC government considers itself head of the cigarette cartel in the city, and killed this man while enforcing that cartel's position." [bolding mine for emphasis on what he stated in contrast to what you stated he said.] You're essentially a socialist. If there's anyone that I've seen post on this board that is a card carrying Marxist, knowing or unknowing, it's you. Coincidentally (or not), if there's one person I've see on this forum spout mainstream marxist narrative BS as if it's the truth again and again, it's you. You slurp up mainstream western propaganda like a starving pig slurps at his trough and then gleefully plops into your pile of poo slinging it everywhere, as to you the world looks better covered that way, and nevermind if the other creatures in it don't want it that way. You think you know better for people on the other side of the world what is good for them than they do. You support all sorts of evil BS that oppresses, ruins, and quite literally destroys lives. In your mind you probably actually think you're doing good, but the reality is you've been seduced by evil that appeals to your base emotions and superficial thinking at the expense of reason, logic, immediate and long term realities. I certainly do not expect you to see the forest through the trees you've surrounded yourself with and correctly see the situation for what it is. You support all sorts of laws, and fail to realize (or just don't really care) that every law that's ever passed is ultimately enforced at the end of a barrel of a gun if it's enforced. Even the ridiculous ones than many ignoramuses think are nothing but helpful such as an excessive tax on cigarettes, or a must wear seat belt law. Sometimes, that gun is fired, literally or figuratively, but it is always aimed during enforcement, if not literally then figuratively as threat is there. Unfortunately for Eric Garner, he was killed during the enforcement a law that people such as yourself wanted enacted and enforced. People who think they know better for others what's good for them than they do and would deprive such people of the basic freedoms to decide for themselves, as well as wants the state to enforce your ideas upon others. And with force, as that's the only way it's done. The State is force. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - Washington You would burn the world with the oppressive fire of your ideal government if you could, knowingly or unknowningly. As for 9/11. You're the one who keeps bringing that up, not I. I'm pretty positive I've never actually directly discussed 9/11 on these forums. Some time back I did make a couple of posts about cognitive dissonance and linked a video discussing it, in part in the context of 9/11. You suffer so much from cognitive dissonance that you failed to see the entire point of the video. Instead suffering a knee-jerk reaction because something in it went against a fragile world view that you need to preserve for yourself so much you close your eyes to various truths all around you, and would marginalize or 'kill the messenger' rather than receive the message.

I'm genuinely intrigued. Do you get drunk before these posts, or do they get you high in their own right? Eric Garner was killed for not paying his protection money. He simply wasn't paying his dues. NYC government considers itself head of the cigarette cartel in the city, and killed this man while enforcing that cartel's position. One has to be intoxicated on koolaide to not see that for what it is. I'd call it indoctrinated brainwashing rather than koolaid intoxication, as they're just thinking what they've been trained to think sine they were little kids if they don't see it for what it is, but you're 100% right on. Very few of us grow up in an environment where we are taught to question everything, including authority. On the contrary, one of the major purposes of public education is to teach people to mindlessly subject themselves to authority. The validity of the police and many other established institutions are not to be questioned. The fact of the matter is, that if you don't question everything at some point, you're not truly thinking or truly aware of the world around you, you're in a box.

Lucky him. Most of the rest of us would go blind.

In Finland public spending in our school system and culture is 6.6 billion euros (8.1 billion dollars), which includes schooling for everyone from kindergartens to universities and public support for arts, sports and research, if we multiply it with proportional population difference between Finland and USA (about 60) we get about 490 billion dollars, which is less than what they say USA uses to public elementary and secondary schools. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 So I would guess that it is not just government aid in higher education that makes things more expensive. The amount of spending on something does not mean whatever it is, is necessarily expensive. This is certainly not the case with K-12 in the U.S., as the actual expenses paid by the public school systems are generally the same as what a private K-12 school's would be. The public school systems tend to spend a lot more though, but in general they do not need to. The reason for the amount of spending on K-12 in the U.S. varies by locale, but in most of them the biggest reasons so much money is spent comes down to two things. 1. Pure waste. ie: buying crap that's totally unnecessary for the classroom (like a plethora of state of the art computers at government high prices to teach history), remodeling old or building new buildings far far more often than they need to be, spending stupid amounts of $$$ on high salaries for educational bureaucrats, spending millions on a 'state of the art' sports facility, the list goes on..... 2. People who think throwing money at something will solve problem X. There are a lot of people out there deluded with the idea that education is underfunded, that the various problems in the education system can be solved with $$$. And no matter how many times that budget has gone up, it's still underfunded in many people's minds (these people are not well grounded in reality and facts). #2 leads to more #1. Now, there are certainly some places in the U.S. that could use some better funding (most notably some inner city areas), but even there it's likely more a situation of misallocation of funds (See #1 vs decent salaries for teachers and the basics like good books). That said, the big problems plaguing your average inner city are such that no amount of money is going to solve them, as many fundamental issues grow out of societal and cultural problems that transcend education. ie: sh*tty parents. There is a world of difference in how public K-12 is funded in the U.S. vs how 'higher education' is funded. Comparing them as you wish to is comparing apples and oranges. And without a doubt for anyone who understands and is familiar with the issue, the #1 driver for how expensive higher education has become in the U.S. is the Federal Student Loan programs.

Just because all facets of a society/government/bureaucracy are not X, doesn't mean that some of aspects of it are not. Note that I said 'drift towards communism and fascism'. The U.S. is not a communist state yet, nor do I think it will ever be fully. An amalgamation of communism and fascism however is definitely on the horizon and in large part already here. And yea... much of Europe is largely communist. They're turning into soviets of the EU over there. Many have argued they already have, notably including Mikhail Gorbachev. I call spades spades. I don't refer to fascism as 'crony capitalism' and I generally don't call communism/Marxism 'socialism' or anything other than what it is, nor do I make excuses for either. People who do have been deluded or have evil intent. The former far outnumbers the latter. As ever: 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - Geothe

Eric Garner's daughter gets it:

If I was to draw a conclusion from that it would be that the 90% of those not in the elite, don't work? Because they aren't all first generation immigrants. Besides, that isn't really relevant to the question I was asking. The US is a large economy and some individuals, like Schwarzenegger, come a long way from nothing. But an individual should not have to be as rich as he is to be able to afford good education (that would not send a family into debt), health care, etc. for his children? Or even necessarily in the middle class, let alone the 1%? If there is so much wealth to go around (and there is, many times more so than in France, Germany, UK etc.) then why are some of the basic services a government should provide on the level of a third world country? The last official comparisons placed US health care in the same category as Cuba. And Cuba has been living under a US enforced embargo and in poverty for over 50 years. You don't need to be rich to afford a good education in the US. What is wrong with taking on debt to pay for school? It's part of a social contract, they are offered at extremely low interest rates, and you are given a long time to pay them back. I certainly don't regret the $40,000 I spent on college and grad school, I've been paying it off slowly over the last decade and now only have $7k left on the loan. That's without my parents help. My parents paid for my first year of school, which came out to about $10k. After that I got a part time job and managed my debt carefully. Some people make dumb decisions about how much debt they take on, but there are plenty of chances to succeed without drowning yourself. I'll agree with out health care being screwed. I've got insurance and I still have a pile of ridiculous medical bills sitting on my desk right now. Why take on a debt when the state can provide it for free, or close to it? Why take on large amounts of debt when if the state isn't involved the price of education is affordable to the average person. Prior to Department of Education getting involved in student loans paying for even the most prestigious schools in the U.S. was feasible for anyone who was willing to work and go to school at the same time. It's how it was done by a great many people up until the mid 80s or so. While the Federal student loan programs started sooner, it took a little while (as it always does) for the negative affects to be seen and those college prices, set by greedy and irresponsible trustees and college bureaucracies, began skyrocketing due to guaranteed funding by the Feds. (Note: that college prices are only one of the negative affects of the Federal Student Loan programs) It's largely the same reason a lot of medical prices in the U.S. are ridiculous, Near unlimited federal money begets corruption and price inflation, and a whole heckuvalot of it. One shouldn't have to take out loans equivalent to a very nice house mortgage in order to get a good higher education. Hurlshot is a happy debt slave with $40k in loans for something that wasn't needed a few generations ago to do his job but is required by his beloved state now, and something that cost a fraction of what it does now just a generation ago. He thinks he signed a social contract at some point and that everyone else did too, even though no such thing exists. Lucky for him he was actually able to find a job in his field. A very large number of college grads with 5 or 6 figures of debt cannot. Hurlshot chooses to be ignorant of that problem though because his life is good and he believes in the mythic socialist utopian 'social contract' Also, one should be able to dispose of those loans in the same manner as any other in bankruptcy court if need be, but one cannot and millions of people are shackled as debt slaves in the U.S. as a result. The federal student loan program is very arguably the greatest evil the U.S. government has perpetrated on it's populace. Perhaps even moreso than the income tax. Hmmmm... both of those evils benefit the same people! Wonder why.....

It was manslaughter if not murder. What would I have done? What any reasonable person would have and not assaulted the guy to begin with. And if I'd somehow lost my mind temporarily and felt the need to tackle the guy I'd have let up when the guy said he couldn't breathe. I certainly wouldn't have put him in a choke hold unless the guy had made and obvious attempt on my life, as I'm well aware (as anyone should be; especially anyone who has training/experience in any kind of hand to hand combat) just how dangerous and potentially deadly those are. Had I been one of the other people there and seen the whole thing unfold, I'd have been screaming at the police to get the bleep off the guy. Had I been one of the other police there, I'd have told my fellow officers to step off, and if necessary physically forced them to after the guy indicated he couldn't breathe. Unfortunately things are so @#(!ed up now that as a citizen I likely wouldn't physically get involved as the police would have likely shot me and people like yourself would have justified it. No. Once upon a time it was that way. But for the better part of a century now it's not been that simple, and the more and more we drift towards communism and fascism that is less and less the case. The U.S. is still one of the best places to live, and it's still one of the best places on earth to go from near nothing to something, but that avenue has gotten a lot harder to find and travel. And to say that the U.S. is still one of the best places is not as much saying the U.S. is a good place now, it's just that near everywhere else is worse. Compared to what it once was, the modern U.S. has a nightmarishly oppressive government. What the U.S. still has over more other nations though is better tools to become what it once was, and a larger portion of the populace than pretty much anywhere else on earth that appreciates real freedom. The bad thing is, as large as that portion of the populace is, it's become dwarfed by legions of zombies sucking the teet of the state or mindlessly supporting the state in the various evils it perpetrates home and abroad. A lot of people have unwittingly come to support fascism and communism in the U.S., and near as many if not more are just mindlessly watching snookie or 'professional sports' game X and couldn't even name the three major branches of government.

They aren't running around harassing, assaulting, or killing people and getting away with it on a daily basis.... It's hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out hyperbole like this. I support law enforcement reform, I want to see way more accountability, I want a dramatic shift in the way police interact with their communities. Do you support these things? How do you expect to achieve any of them if you treat every police officer as some thug who goes around harassing, assaulting, and killing people on a daily basis? Do you recognize how hostile (and frankly unrealistic) that sounds? It's weird to me that the same people that want to yell at the police for not respecting the ideals of innocent until proven guilty are so fast to condemn an entire police force without evidence. There is no hyperbole here. You choose to be ignorant of what is common amongst police, and what their job actually is. You choose to buy into the propaganda that we need law X, need police, and that they are the good guys. Hey.. I once thought that way too. It's hard not too.. that's the BS we're fed in this nation of ours as we grow up. But then I saw and experienced some things that opened my eyes and changed my mind. I never said every police officer is a thug. You did. Nearly every police officer (the ones on the streets anyways) do go around harassing people every day. Some may do it politely, but they do it just the same. People are indeed assaulted on a daily basis in this nation, and killed on an almost daily basis. Most of the assaults go unreported, and a great many of them are ignored. Some of those killings (like Michael Brown) were justified, but a great many of them are not. And of the latter, it is extremely rare for the offending officer to be held accountable for their actions. And that's because of people such as yourself who think the cops are the good guys, and because of that 'bro' code mentioned in this thread where even otherwise good police cover, condone, or don't speak out against evil action X taken by their fellow policemen. And that makes them bad police. You speak of reform? Well... that's feasible in some departments, unneeded in others (there are some well run police departments out there), and impossible with some (ie: LA, Albuquerque). You can't reform what is rotten to the core. You need to throw it out and find something new or nothing at all. It's something to be handled on a local/state basis however. Unfortunately there are far too many people such as yourself right now that assume the system works and that we need much of the system at all. The truth is that system is a bleeping nightmare for tens of millions of people.

They aren't running around harassing, assaulting, or killing people and getting away with it on a daily basis....

No way that's not due to corruption. Police aside, it's way too easy to get disability retirement in states like New York or California. I personally know numerous people who have such retirement, and those who really truly are permanently disabled vs those who are gaming the system are in the minority. I also worked i the disability department of a large insurance company for awhile... some of the things I saw (corruption by those insured as well as by the insurance company) would outrage a lot of people.

In Finland there has been 110 police officers that have died in line of duty in last 97 years, which includes our civil war and World War II, in years after the wars there has been 21 officers that have died in line of duty. So it is quite hard to perceive situation and culture where cops in USA live from my point of view, because over hundred officer dying in line of duty every year is lot even for 60 times larger country. While the specifics of every police death vary, some generalizations can be made. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html First, keep in mind that not every police death is the result of someone else killing them. Some are the result of the officer's actions. ie: a police officer killed themselves in a one car accident a county over from me two years ago by driving at excessive speeds (and no one knew why; but of course the propaganda was such that said police person died a hero). Accidents are also counted in the tally. For example, in 2012, out of 122 deaths only 57 were actually definitely killed by someone else (though it's possible some of the 14 hit by cars were purposely killed). Also keep in mind that some of these killings of police may have been justified (though the local DA likely didn't see it that way). And, some or even many of these deaths very well may have occurred in any line of work and were not job specific related (ie: the police person who drove themselves off the road at excessive speed I mentioned). Second, Note that the highest rates of police deaths on the job occurred during the Prohibition era in the U.S. Per capita police were at least 5 times more likely to be killed during those years than they have been in the last few decades (save 2001). As soon as the 25th amendment was passed that repealed the 18th, which gave us Prohibition, the death rates dropped and haven't risen near as high since (save 2001, but there's an exceptional reason for that year). Now, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the death rate is what it is in any given year, but without a doubt, the more intrusive police are into people's affairs in what many would perceive and unjust manner the more likely they are to get killed. While being a police officer can indeed be a dangerous job, in 2011 (the last year I was able to easily find into for) it's a line of work that didn't even make the top 10 most deadly jobs in America list. It did make #11. And this was in a year that saw the 2nd highest overall police fatality rates in the last decade, and highest # of police shot. Note that the top ten most dangerous jobs don't involve carrying a gun and confronting potentially dangerous people. The propaganda that the police need to do X, when X is assault or killing, in order to protect themselves is overwhelming, in general it's pure BS, but a lot of people buy it. We've got innumerable TV shows and movies reinforcing this propaganda. When one factors the # of police killed in any given year and consider the circumstances a police officer works in, it's a surprisingly safe job.

The Feds lack the authority to compel State or local jurisdictions to report, though I don't think they'd exercise that authority even if they had it. If the populace knew the number of people assaulted and killed by police every year in the U.S. more would be less inclined to blindly support them. That number is not low. That said, some departments do self report. Whether or not they tell the truth is another matter. Hit up your local or state government if you want reform. The feds are not the answer on this one. Also, believe it or not, in some jurisdictions killing people is a badge of honor for the police. A buddy of mine is an attorney in a low population county in Tennessee where the Sheriff proudly exclaims his department has killed three people under his 'watch' over the last decade or so he's been Sheriff. From talking to my friend, he told me that one of the killings was definitely justified, however the others should have seen the cop arrested and tried. None of the police involved shootings were ever reprimanded and all are still on the force. The local populace however votes for this sheriff overwhelmingly every election. There's a lot of blind support for the police out there. A lot. And that's the number one reason I'd say they get away with it.

Alright. For the first time in over 25 years on BBS/internet forums, I'm putting someone on ignore. Please let me know if Gromnir actually starts attempting to post in correct English, and I'll take him off of it. It's certainly not something I'm expecting however.

How would the police know he had existing medical conditions for that to be a consideration in whether they used a proper response to the situation? Choking someone, was not a proper response to the situation. That wasn't what aluminiumtrioxid's point was, his point was "accidently killing a dude through the compression of the chest which triggers a host of existing medical conditions"; thus my point is to question whether unknown pre-existing medical conditions can be considered at all before an action is taken by the police. Because they can't by definition; they're unknown. This does not mean that taking the action is valid (or invalid) by necessity. Just that I don't see how the pre-existing medical condition can change that validity/invalidity of the action. In essence, it was either right or wrong to choke/restrain the man or it wasn't. The medical condition couldn't have been known at the time so can't be a factor in determining the rightness or wrongness of the action. Uh... you miss my point. And it is a point that trumps all others. Choking the guy wasn't warranted. Now, in a court of law, all that would need to be demonstrated in order to justify manslaughter or murder charges (different states have different criteria as to what legally constitutes murder, but intent is usually a key factor) is that the tactic used by the offender would be known by your average person to possibly cause death. In this case, the answer is yes. Choking someone is indeed a well known way to cause death, whether or not said victim has a medical condition. In regards to the medical condition. Yes, that would be admissible in court, and if the DA was doing their job they'd hire a medical professional(s) to testify in regards to it, as is very common practice in trials against those who are not police. It would also be brought up in a courtroom (by a competent and incorrupt DA) that an average person should reasonably suspect that a man of the size of the victim would be likely to have at least one serious medical condition, with respiratory conditions being quite common amongst the obese (and increasingly common throughout the population in general; ie asthma is hardly a rare or unusual medical condition) . But medical condition or not, and of paramount import is the fact that the guy is saying repeatedly that he cannot breathe as the officers pile on him, yet they do not relent. In a better world the officer choking him would have been tried and convicted of at least manslaughter if not murder, with the others dog-piling on the guy accessories there to. But our world is so #@)$ed up right now you can have murder filmed and people will make excuses and justify it if it happens to be the police perpetrating the crime.

How would the police know he had existing medical conditions for that to be a consideration in whether they used a proper response to the situation? Choking someone, was not a proper response to the situation.

Only because you're too lazy to go enlighten yourself, and are content with others doing the thinking for you. And if you think that just because there's a lot of media attention to something that things still can't be hidden.... well.... shoot me a pm for some good deals on bridges I have special just for you!

In fantasy worlds without an established binary morality. Once again; you seem to discussing the idea of anti-villains in fantasy without taking into account that Starwars specifically has already established that it has binary morality. Not to mention that the Starwars universe is silly and unsuited for depth and nuance. Here's the thing. Star Wars *never* established that. You apparently only saw that. A couple cases in point off the top of my head: 1. Hans Solo. He's a smuggler, outlaw, and shoots Gredo first! 2. There are sympathetic characters within the empire. ie: at least one of the guys Darth kills. 3. And if you fast forward through the original trilogy Darth is indeed a complex and sympathetic character by the end of the Return of the Jedi. Star Wars was never angels vs. demons. The whole 'lure of the darkside' is there from 'A New Hope', and that's a message and concept full of moral ambiguity and all sorts of shades of grey. I think perhaps you're insisting these movies were meant for 10 year olds because you refuse to look at them from a point of view other than that of an average 10 year old. But really, even your average 10 year old can see some of the morale ambiguity. You're generally usually far more astute Namu. Why you can only see black and white on this I'm not sure.

Valsuelm makes a fair point with regard that a DA has a vested interest in not alienating the people they work with by providing vigerous prosecution. But as Grand Jurys are secret, we'll never know if there wasn't enough evidence of if the DA presented a weak case to ensure his future cases don't get sabatoged. While what exactly is discussed between the members of the jury when they deliberate behind closed doors is secret, the actual proceedings and evidence presented in any given case usually is not and is a matter of public record. ie: One can read what the grand jury in the Ferguson case saw and heard here: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/ For less famous cases one would have to go to the local courthouse where case X was heard and petition to acquire the information. But it's information that anyone can get if they wish to (you often need to pay a fee to cover the costs of providing that material. A fee which one might find is reasonable or unjustifiably high depending on where they live. If it's the latter you can be rest assured that your local court system is corrupt.

You seem to have a decent idea of what the purpose of a grand jury is n the U.S. legal system. Three things to keep in mind. 1. A jury, grand or not, is only looking at the evidence the District Attorney's office shows them. If the local DA's office is corrupt (which they often are) or inept (which they often are), the grand jury may never get to see crucial evidence of the case. It is rare to find a DA's office that will prosecute a police officer or anyone else working on 'their team' (for the same state as them) to the fullest extent of the law and to the best of their abilities. 2. Of slightly lesser import, is that juries, grand or not, generally are restricted (or at least told they are) by the judge overseeing the proceedings. Some judges attempt to influence the jury by telling them falsely that they cannot think outside the box that is shown to them. This is complex, and situational, but it's not too uncommon to have juries decide X (almost always in favor of the state) when they could have decided otherwise or thrown the charges out all together if they knew their legal rights better. [for more on this fairly complex issue, look up concepts and legality of 'jury nullification', though that isn't the only aspect of what I'm talking about.] 3. Juries, grand or not, have people on them that are prejudiced or brainwashed in manner X. In regards to criminal transgressions by the police, it's not uncommon to have people on juries that think the police cannot do wrong, as there are people who think this way everywhere in society these days. Theoretically they may admit the police can do wrong of course, but you could show them a cop murdering someone on film and they'd make up excuses in their mind that the cop is just doing his job. (Evidence of this is all over this and other forums, ie: Gifted1's post above justifying what's unjustifiable to anyone who really knows what a choke hold is, appreciates an individual's rights, their well being, and saw that video.) All that said, from everything I've ever, seen, read, and experienced. #1 is by far the biggest problem.

Well yea... One should ask themselves why the Michael Brown case was even made such a large national news.... heck, international news story, and the innumerable Eric Gardners out there don't. Police brutality and murder is sadly and scarily not a rare thing. Even more unnerving is the fact that them getting away with it is commonplace. Yet the main stream media chose a case that wasn't actually either of those and pretended it was, yet routinely ignores cases where it clearly is one or both of those cases.

George Lucas also said that Greedo shot first... The original trilogy, without a doubt the first two movies, were made for people of all ages. If those movies just appealed to kids, they would not have been near as successful as they were. Nor would so many people be wanting to be seeing them decades later, or be invested in what the sequel trilogy will bring us. The addition of the original cast would not be so important if they just wanted to appeal to 10 year olds. Starwars was based on Flash Gorden; a kids show. When making the original script George Lucas wanted it to be, "A movie a ten year old would love." (From his biography) With the original trilogy he never strayed from that premise. Don't get me wrong; he didn't design the movie to alienate adults, but ten year old kids were the target. The fact that such a wide audience enjoyed the movie came as a complete shock to Lucas. We've already seen the results of both approaches to Starwars. Make it a story of the heroic good guys fighting the evil bad guys (The originals) and you get some of the greatest movies ever made. Make it morally unclear and have sympathetic villains and you get the prequels. Movies that are sub-par at best. They're based on more than just Flash Gordon. Westerns for one. That's well known. Again, Lucas says that Gredo shoots first. <<<< this means that near anything Lucas says anymore and for a long time now means poop. (he also contradicts himself in many other instances over the years). Insofar as why the prequels suck: It has nothing to do with the moral ambiguity, and everything to do with an abysmal script and direction. You have multiple good actors in those movies give the worst performances I've ever seen them give (Portman, McGregor, Neeson to name a few). The reason is the atrocious dialogue and George's direction. Lawerence Olivier couldn't have saved some of those scenes. The premise of the story behind Anakin's fall to the dark side is a great one. I was looking forward to it. How Lucas executed his vision of decades earlier was poorly to say the least. Lucas lost his way a looooong time ago. The respectable George Lucas that gave us the original trilogy, Raiders of the Lost Arc, and envisioned Anakin's tale died sometime in the mid to late 80s. The doppleganger who sounds and looks like him yet is strangely pudgy is soulless, shallow, tasteless, heartless, and greedy. When I saw those 'love scenes' between Anakin and Padmé for the first time I thought to myself: 'No wonder George's marriage ended in failure....'.

It does'nt really have a nice ring to it, does it? Another good one is ixquick. Neither are data-mining you like google, bing, et al. I definitely appreciate LadyCrimson's effort to not use that all too popular phrase synonymous with a 'web search' named for a once great but now long inferior search engine from what's become a really evil corporation that most think is benign.