Cantousent

You know, I get the feeling you two don't like each other. Do you disagree on every issue? B) One day, if even by accident, you'll agree on something and die of shock.

I don't think the message should be discarded because of the medium. I didn't look to the Matrix for my personal philosophy, it's true. Still, movies can be thought provoking. I'd rather read a book most of the time, but I've found a lot to think about in a lot of films. The Matrix has a ton of symbols. If you're like me, and I suspect mkreku and I are quite alike in this respect, you don't look to the matrix for anything more than a fun action film. That doesn't mean that JN' or Phosphor are somehow substandard for finding something more in the film. Hell, it might say something quite good for them. After all, one of my favorite set of books is the Dark is Rising series by Susan Cooper. It's a young adult book set I first read in Junior High School. A child's book or an action film... *shrug* We have to think about something, I suppose. Getting a thought or two from an action film is not so great a sin as getting no thought at all.

I really enjoyed Boondock Saints. I'm against the idea of anyone taking the law into his own hands. I'm against the idea that the Catholic Church return to the bad old days of deciding policy and enforcing justice. (I'm a Catholic. It's not the church, but the idea that good Catholic boys become the fiery sword of God.) The whole premise is completely flawed. I really enjoyed Boondock Saints. It's a wonderful film.

Well, it makes a huge difference whether you're going in as a freshman, transfer, or advance degree student. I have a friend who recently applied to attend Grad school for Classical Studies. She didn't make it, but that department can be a little on the tough side. As far as tuition and fees, it's a private school, so expect to pay. Grandpa's advice is quite sound. It is imperative that you understand the process, call and talk to the secretaries of the particular department in which you are interested, are willing to glad-hand with the faculty and staff, and generally competent. It greatly helps to have some extra-curricular activities and something to show for yourself outside of academics. Of course, this is general advice for any school. If you have a good record, it should be much easier to transfer into USC. As far as advanced degrees go, I wouldn't know. I'm not much interested in USC at any rate. I went not long ago to USC for a Classics seminar. I really didn't like the attitude, not only of the faculty, but also the students. ...And they demonstrate the same mid to late twentieth century bias I see from virtually all professors in the field. Rat bastards. My biggest bit of advice is: go to UCLA. I much prefer it.

First of all, Meg Ryan is a little cutie. She's getting a bit long in the tooth. I have a particular loathing for Julia Roberts. Her lips wrap half-way 'round her head, for crying out loud! My wife refuses to watch most scarey movies. She grabbed my arm so hard it left nail marks just watching "The Others." Dammit, I want to sit close to her to enjoy a movie, but I'm afraid she'll see a scarey scene and rip my damned arm off my shoulder.

I've only read Kafka, but I have to say that I usually find his works oddly haunting. The ending for Contact was a bit mushy, but that was okay by me. Mix in a tad of smaltz and it's all good. I'm not much for Adam Sandler flix. My favorite was probably Wedding Singer. I really enjoyed Pitch Black. My wife refused to see it. Her loss. I'm going to see Chronicles of Riddick eventually. It's probably not the greatest film in the world but it'll probably have good action scenes if nothing else.

I wasn't surprised by Contact, but I have to admit that I enjoyed it. It's a rare movie I might actually buy. I like 'em all, but I buy very few. How about movies that show our weird tastes. I didn't expect to like Groundhog Day, but I watched it and liked it show much I bought the video. I played it so much that the video wore out and my wife bought me the DVD. I guess there's something oddly fitting about enjoying Groundhog Day so much I watch it over and over again.

It's difficult to have a discussion about Heinlein's Starship Troopers with folks who haven't read it. Philosophically, I would place Starship Troopers as quite thought provoking. It is unabashedly pro-military, but it describes a system where the civilian government is in control of the military. Here's the rub... enfranchisement comes at the cost of one year's military service. Serve one year, and you're allowed to vote. That, and that alone, is the qualification of citizenship. I gave my copy of Starship Troopers to a friend a while back, but I believe my memory serves me. Now, here's another twist, everyone with virtually no exceptions is allowed to serve in some capacity or another. If a potential volunteer (because the miltary, even at the worst, was comprised entirely of volunteers) who was too stupid, slow, feeble, etc. to carry out other order might be sent for breaking down rocks at a remote location or used as a test subject. Nonetheless, virtually every member of society had the chance to become a full, voting citizen. There are some almost prophetic comments that made me believe the book was written after the Viet Nam conflict when I first read it. Indeed, it is a book from the 50s. One thing remains true, however... the book itself is multi-cultural. The main character is from the Phillipines. This fact is not known, however, until the very end of the book. Think about that. Heinlein had some motive in both making the protagonist non-white and dropping such knowledge on the reader at the last moment. The movie Starship Troopers is superficial and simplistic. It takes the complex system described in Heinlein's book and apes it. The movie might be thought provoking to a young person on the verge of graduating from junior high. It falls far short of Heinein's book. *shrug* That I'm quite biased in favor of Heinein should be readily clear to those who read my post. However, I will say that I think the movie had entertainment value. Furthermore, my experience has given me an education... don't be angry or upset when a movie fails to capture the essence of a book. The movie serves to inspire folks who would never have thought to read the piece to purchase and read it. Hell, I thought Troy was a great film. Action, adventure, Greeks and Trojans slaughtering each other... what's not to like. Still, it wasn't the Iliad. What do I care? It gives me the opportunity to put my rather expensive education to use teaching the next generation of Classics students all about the Iliad. Pretty much, I'm probably going to enjoy a movie. I laugh with them. I laugh at them. Occassionally, I show how much of a girlie man I am and cry with them. Whatever. It's Hollywood. Some movies are classics. I'll relish them. Some are bombs, I'll grin and shrug and enjoy the show.

Starship Troopers was quite unlike the book. First of all, the book was not anti-war. It wasn't a parody, either. In many ways, it was prophetic of the Viet Nam conflict. On the other hand, I enjoyed the movie. The chics were hot. The soldiers kicked ass. The bad guys were beastly. What's not to like? After I spend 7 bucks on a film, I'm going to look for the good things, not the bad.

Volourn, I love you. I'd marry you if I weren't already married. ...And you shaved your damned beard.

Well, deg, I agree with you on this one, also. I liked Van Helsing. I expected mindless action and I got it. Of course, I'm kind of a movie anti-elite. I like just about everything. Hell, I thought the movie was misleading as hell (needlessly so, since there are valid and true arguments to be used against guns) but Bowling for Columbine was actually entertaining. ...And it's just the nature of the universe, or maybe the cosmos, that a film has to have something thought inspiring in it, even by accident. *shrug* and I'm easily amused. After all, I come to this forum all of the time.

I truly hate talking public policy online. It's unfulfilling for me in sooo many ways. However, I will take the time to provide a few links concerning Michael Moore. http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 The above is from a decidedly biased writer, Christopher Hitchens. It is published on MSN's Slate Magazine. MSN, as you know, is widely believed to be a supporter of all things "conservative." Well... actually, not. Of course, in much the same way I perceive the scourge of conservative talk radio, I hate Moore. He doesn't think the truth can win, and so he prints falsehoods. Maybe some can be seen as merely slanted viewpoints, but splicing together two different ads and then claiming that a single candidate paid for the hybrid when indeed he didn't is a lie. Of course, other directors have made "documentaries" about presidents. In fact, apparently, Mr. Nixon had a fanclub. Here's the link: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103849/ Once again, that's slate magazine. If it were meant to knock Nixon out of the white house, it didn't work. To be fair, however, you aren't the only folks who carry the Moore flame. Linda Ronstadt got a warm welcome here in Las Vegas. (I happen to be here right now and I read it in the Newspaper.) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126222,00.html Not to be slanted in whom I choose to cite, I decided to use the Fox News link. After all, they're known for being a strong supporter of all things "liberal." Hmmm, not quite right on that one, either. Of course, you can't cite links about Michael Moore without linking the man himself. Read his page. Really, read it. It's amazing. The man isn't trying to get Bush defeated. It really is all about Michael Moore himself. What an ego! *shrug* it's his webpage. I've been to it a few times. (As an aside: it used to be, and rightly so, that internet links were less credible than print media. Actually, print is still superior to links and I will prefer to cite print where applicable. If you can't find the print, then that's your fault. After all, well-educated Europeans should have access to refereed journals. I do.) http://www.michaelmoore.com/ Of equal course, we can't cite the man without citing the anti-man, right? So, here's the opposition: http://www.moorelies.com/ I actually prefer the delivery on this site. It doesn't appear to have quite the rabid style of the previous page. http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html With a name like Independence Institute, you have to figure this might be a bit biased. However, the writer does include his sources. For your reading enjoyment: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm Note that the author of this work is Dave Kopel. Apparently, according to Kopel, he supported and voted for Nader. You might be able to find additional information on him. I've already done much of your homework for you. Now, I'll give the defense the last word. These are Michael Moore's war room responses. ...At least some of them. I'm willing to let folks, preferably educated Europeans, take a look and decide the issue for themselves. http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/ Now, I'd like to point out that the "war room" idea is clever. The film still lies, but the idea of having a group of attorneys arguing the case is sublime. Let's face it, though. Most folks here had an opinion of Moore before coming to this forum. That opinion is likely to remain the same no matter what links I post. It's a ridiculous sham to suggest that we provide internet links because, frankly, it requires both readers to agree to trust the same sources in evaluating the evidence. That seems quite unlikely.

I rather like it here myself. Like Gromnir and many of the other folks in this thread, I've lived around. There are certain parts of the country I definitely prefer to others. That's probably true of every country in the world. Well, some countries probably have bad and worse. That's just a matter of perception. However, with all due respect, I prefer dark haired beauties. B)

Well, deganawida, it's not like the rest of us don't write rambling posts. Anyhow, it was an amazingly informative post. A little rambling can be forgiven. The point is that American Indians bring down the stats for the country in terms of living conditions. It's a shame on both ends. Folks look at the country as a whole and say, "crime and poverty are terrible. What can we do to keep our neighborhood safe." The thing is, their neighborhood is probably safe already. The inner cities and the reservations don't have it so lucky. As far as rich white punks being just as dangerous as poor latino punks, I couldn't agree more. The fact is, European punks are just as dangerous as American punks. ...And I don't think it's any less a responsibility for white Americans to work for the betterment of society as a whole than anyone else. My ideas of what needs to be done to better society are undoubtedly different from yours, Product, but we probably agree that it's a problem for everyone at some level and should be solved by everyone. I'm not much for discussing politics on message boards, though. I'm merely discussing the issues in the context of the index.

What is tragic about this particular index is that it doesn't even show half of the story: race. Sure, if you want to muddle through the report, it does take a swipe at it, but the index is ponderously large as is. Americans in the middle classes and upwards are not more prone to violence. In fact, taking the broad statistics and applying them to the whole country doesn't do the trick at all. Murders, rapes, and robbery, the last time I looked (a few years ago) where a plague on minorities. White Americans were far less likely to suffer from crimes such as these. ...But does even that tell the whole story? After all, where do these crimes occur in the United States? What about the economic background of both the victim and the perpetrator? If an affluent, white American is victimized, it's on the news and we get to see the whole sordid affair. However, a few exceptions do not break the rule. Now, for a real test, how do white, middle class Americans stack up against white, middle class Europeans? Where do these people live? What do they do for a living? There is no way that the UN can give a reasonable answer to its own question. The study is weighted by the very choice of criteria, let alone the fact that there are so many variables embedded in the statistics that we might as well toss the statistics through the door before we even see them. I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I prone to bringing up race as an issue. I just can't help but wonder how all of these different variables, only a few of which we've identified in this thread, work into the mix. Hell, race is a major component of the report. I think it's sloppily done, but it's dominant. What about intangibles? What about the very issues Monte brings up in his posts? The index is an interesting idea, but I just don't see it as particularly useful. I'm curious, Gromnir. I believe you're at least part Native American? EDIT: However, I don't begrudge you your bragging rights, mkreku. It's cool that your country made it to the top tier. Hopefully, you're enjoying the benefits that put it in the top row.

I ended up being Hannibal Lecter. Oh well, I guess you should all be afraid now. Rawr!

Damn strait. Its not us it our gov't/ruling powers... But I guess were responsible since we 'let' it happen. [insert a ridiculous rant ending with] 'Me agianst the world' including my own country, is felt by Americans like myself... Droning on about these mysterious "powers" is absolutely ridiculous. Where is the money passed from point A to point B? Where is the payoff? I suppose that it happens in some back room deal where we can't see it? I also suppose that the onus is on me to "disprove" your theory? After all, you take a variety of unrelated facts (choosing only those items which support your ridiculous claim) and then package them together to "prove" that the Gnomes of Zurich or some such are the true "powers" behind our government. Other people must be misled because they don't see the obvious truth. ...Or they must be part of the massive conspiracy. These conspiracy theories made Republicans look ridiculous during the 90s and now it appears the Democrats don't want to be left out of the game. On the other hand, you, Product, have all the markings of a true conspiracy theorist. Truly, you transcend political parties. You are a theorist, my friend. Policy discussion must be beneath you. After all, why discuss the politics of the day when you can allude to your so-called evidence of rampant conspiracy? Well, please, provide some more web page research to prove your point that the Gnomes of Illuminati are running our lives. Rather, they're running your life. If the Gnomes are running my life (a notion I discard out of hand) then they're doing a pretty damned good job. Now, let me tell what I find dangerous: some ridiculous conspiracy theorist essentially telling me that because he has a feeling about some obscure conspiracy that our democracy is somehow malformed. After all, you don't like our government and bemoan the fact that "other Americans" have put it in place? I'm sure you would do away with all the conspirators and remake our country to fit what you know to be right. It wouldn't be a democracy, but it would certainly be better, right? You, sir, don't deserve the democracy that has served us so well for over 200 years. In 35 years, every president in office has been my president, whether I voted for him or not. It is simple, our government makes policy decisions, many of which are policy mistakes, but it is our government. I'm proud of our democracy and part of that is trying to dredge up some patience while listening to you. After all, while I find you boorish, misguided, and disgusting, I don't want to deny you the freedom of speech. My freedom and yours. It's our God given right. Go ahead, drag up another "internet authority" to prove, somehow, that the Gnomes are running things. Go on about how our country isn't really free and how you're persecuted and... whatever the hell you people say. The country will continue and people like you, often fat from the bounty you owe to the very country you deride, will continue to enjoy your freedom to speak.

I tend to not drink cokes. I prefer tea. I guess I'd fall in Di's camp on this one. There are so many claims concerning various and sundry artificial ingredients that it's hard to know what to believe. This is especially true since claims come out so quickly I'll hear the counter claim or research before I even hear the original claim.

Actually secrets are a good thing. The government isn't allowed to keep state secrets. It is obliged to keep state secrets. Even the most hard-boiled Republican or Democrat must concede the fact that there are things the government must not make common knowledge to the citizens at large or other nations. The real point revolves around discerning the difference between a legitimate state secret and secrets kept for the sake of the current administration. Bill Clinton lying under oath concerning his sexual conduct was not a state secret. It was in no way related to policy, and so there is no doubt that he was obliged to tell the truth. Likewise, Nixon had no compelling reason to claim that he was misleading the public for the purposes of national security. The events at Watergate were not related to policy. Policy decions and the obligation of the sitting administration to either make the facts known or keep them secret is another debate. Still, one thing should meet widespread agreement, it is that all governments must keep at the very least some secrets.

Leferd, thanks for the link. I read the article, and the views about both Bush and Clinton resonated within me. For those of you who didn't register, I'll quote from Kristof's article. ...And, to be fair, this is from later in the article. I don't want to deceive anyone about the nature of the piece.

I only follow the news in one language. That is, unless you count what passed for news a few thousand years ago, in which case I follow the news in three languages. Still, I follow the modern news in that one language very, very well.

To be honest, I've only witness mkreku insult Americans once and I've begun to suspect it was one of those heat of the moment things. This post is just an observation about that one particular issue. Far be it from me to comment on the political debate. B) Well, I'll comment on the debate itself rathen than the subject. A lot of people seem to have good points. Some of you actually have good points, which is almost more important. The only question I would ask (and I would ask this question of everyone, including myself) is this: how much of what you post is made in good faith, and how much of what you post is made to win an argument? The idea of honest debate is that we arrive at the right answers, not that we somehow win. Anyhow, that's my sermon on the mount.

The level of debate has risen, I see. Nothing benefits a democracy better than reasoned and honest discourse based on the evidence at hand. This is a shining example, right here. I make no suggestion that anyone stops posting. Please, continue posting and let others read, more to consider your remarks. Sometimes a bad argument helps the other guy. At any rate, now that we've gone from Moore to the usual, ol' political debate, there's not much to say anyhow. Discussing politics on message boards is so... unfulfilling.

Whether or not George Bush is a good president is a different issue. In fact, Mr. Doe makes a great point. What makes a good president? Conviction? I dunno. Here's my point about the movie. If you believe President Bush is a bad president, then the facts should support your belief. If you are forced to resort to manipulating the truth, or turning your back on it entirely, it makes me wonder if the facts don't support your argument. Lies in ragards to choosing candidates are wrong. Conspiracy theories based on tenuous evidence and spurious logic are wrong. I hated the ridiculous statements about Clinton's so called criminal activities. Simply put, our democracy, ANY democracy, must be based on rational consideration of the facts. Whether or not you hate Bush, you should at least understand that people like Moore are using tactics that undermine not only the current president, but the entire political process. The one fact that I can take to heart is that I don't believe most Americans are swayed by Moore. They apparently weren't swayed by the conspiracy theories regarding Clinton, either.

That's really interesting stuff. I normally don't like systems that match character levels or styles, but I suspect that it might be the implementation rather than the whole concept. I'm kind of cautious to get excited right now, but I know it's just a matter of time before we see something of this sort. Games are another medium for telling stories, and I see them getting a larger share of the entertainment market over time. I guess a lot of folks have been seeing that way for years! The upshot is that, while the march forward might have a set-back or two, we should see more and more acceptance of software as an artform rather than just an industry.