True enough. I just find the all consuming-ness of it tedious.
I actually play a game with myself often. Whenever something like this Miley thing comes up, I actively steer clear of any news/info regarding the subject as long as I can. (That means changing the channel on tv or radio and not disucssing the topic). Then a bit later, maybe a week, I compare notes with folks who follow this topic. It's amazing how current I am. One conclusion: I need to tighen my game. :)
I've stayed out of this thread because, frankly, I just don't give a damn, but I came across Marc Randaza's post on the subject and found it...just so on point.
It's stories like this that "flesh out" the background of the B5 universe and it does it pretty good. It's not a great episode, but it's interesting in that you get a better persepctive that things are going on outside of the title characters and creates some depth to the station.
We don't have a "market capitalist" society. We have a "Corporatist" society. Second, you confused economic ramifications on the "market" not on the gov't devaluating the currency. The us dollar has lost over 75% or more of it's buying power in the last half century or so. Why do you think 2 incomes are necessary now vs back in the day? And it's not the economy that needs new workers, it's the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare that need new taxpayers to fund their wealth transfers.
Frankly, regardless of the points above, I chose not to have kids for completely different reasons: i didn't want them. I didn't want them because I didn't want to spend the time and/or money to do so.
Politicians are lying scumbags that will do anything to obtain power and retain power. They'll tell lies when it serves their interests and will flip flow if politically expiedient?
I'm sure there are a few that are "seduced" by power after taking office. I expect there are much more than were allready willing to sell their soul first before obtaining power.
It's not a question of being left alone. It's an issue of choosing those who you care to interact with. Currently you are ALLOWED to deny service to some people for some reasons (no shirt, no shoes etc.) but not for other reasons. Why? Under what legal authority? Why that far and no farther? Why not say "you have to serve everyone?
It's not a negative right..it's a positive right and it isn't given to anyone, they are innate, and the gov't has no authority to enact those rules, and certainly not under "democracy" which is a fancy word for "mob rule".
Sadly, the law has grown to force people of strong religious beliefs into doing work that object to. That's not something that should be tolerated. Business should be free to discriminate for any reason, if they so choose. If some segment isn't being served, someone will step in and serve that group.
It's a vague reference to a skit from "The Chappelle Show"
"Had drunken make out sex with XXX while her 2 friends were passed out on the floor, technically qualifying as a foursome. Another great moment in hook up history" :)
While "Governments” do not lie. The people employed by them do." is literally true, let's add, "those gov't employees who know other gov't employees have lied, and do nothing, essentially lie as well. It's similiar to the "blue line".
It doesn't matter why they lie. We've allowed them to do so by not creating consecquences for them when they do lie or when we catch them. And yes, that means if someone told a lie and is retired and the only thing we can do is take their pension away, we do it. A lie in public service should be almost equivilent to commiting capital murder. Gov't workers are the public's employees. We deserve to be told the truth. Anyone who can't or won't doesn't deserve our trust or our employment. Full Stop.
@leeesq
I'm not interested in what everybody does. And I'm not interested in whether or not people want to live the same as I would like. The gap between where we currently are and me has some much room for improvement that it doesn't matter. Our society could spend decades moving towards my position and we'd all be better off for the movement. I advocate a postion that offers an alternative viewpoint. Maybe others will grow tired of the status quo and look for an alternative vision. I just offer that.
Don't make me laugh. Neither side has them. For me, the most glaring and relatively recent example were the "Bush is a war criminal" types that rolled over when Obama decided not to investigate the whole torture issue-and then defended him. A clearer example of people sacraficing their own principles on the alter of political expediency I've not seen in a while.
I guess it depends upon your perspective. Both parties want to use the state to force me and others to do things we may not want to do. The outcomes are just different.
The FISA court found that the NSA violated the terms of search parameters THREE times over the course of two years or so. And they still skated with a slap on the wrist. Let me repeat that. A US gov't agency violated the law three times and walked with no significant repurcussions. This tells me the entire process needs to be reviewed and rewritten. I want people fired and prosecuted. Maybe then we'll get compliance.
I stopped using "liberal" alone. I'll use it combined with "liberal economics" to refer to the Chicago school, and a fair amount of people understand that use. I use "statist" now as it's a more accurate word to describe both "liberals" and "conservates".
As a single middle aged guy, I'm very surprised at the percentage of women (never married, divorced, etc. without kids) who are in the 35-50 age range, that want kids. And by that I mean they put "definitely, someday, want kids" in their profile vs "maybe", especially in the 40+ age categories.
I don't think it's a question of understanding the question. It obviously is a test to feel out the desires of the various races. Only those races that answer the question in the right way become "someone we can use". I think this becomes clearer farther along the story arc. The Mimbari have greater "experience" with these issues than the Centari. Even the Narn have some "experience". (I'm trying to avoid spoilers here) with Mr. Morden's associates.
I am curious as to why the Humans were never asked the question, but given future developments, maybe it's because the key human character has not made his appearance yet. Of couse this is all looking back at the story arc, so who knows....
That message was received by the Guardian as well. They are reporting that the security services demanded (and got) the Guardian to destroy hard drives containing the Snowden info.
"During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention."
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Yes, this is a good episode. You see the beginning of the sides in the coming war, the begining of the "fall from grace" of one of the characters, and the backstory of the Mimbari surrender at the battle of the line come into focus a bit. And we know that there are some bad asses in the universe that are causing trouble and wheeling and dealing. Who are they? This is the first episode where the story arcs really start to gel and get going.
Stay tuned.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Put it away, Miley”
True enough. I just find the all consuming-ness of it tedious.
I actually play a game with myself often. Whenever something like this Miley thing comes up, I actively steer clear of any news/info regarding the subject as long as I can. (That means changing the channel on tv or radio and not disucssing the topic). Then a bit later, maybe a week, I compare notes with folks who follow this topic. It's amazing how current I am. One conclusion: I need to tighen my game. :)
"
I've stayed out of this thread because, frankly, I just don't give a damn, but I came across Marc Randaza's post on the subject and found it...just so on point.
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/miley-cyrus/
Linked it because there is lots of profanity. Well said Marc.
On “Babylonia!”
It's stories like this that "flesh out" the background of the B5 universe and it does it pretty good. It's not a great episode, but it's interesting in that you get a better persepctive that things are going on outside of the title characters and creates some depth to the station.
On “The Child-Free Generation’s Hard Bargain With Capitalism”
I should have used the term "free market". People often make the assumption that capitalism = free market. We don't have a truely free market.
Intersting that no one has responded to my comments about the devalued dollar....
On “Kitties!”
cats are evil. That's why i like them.
On “The Child-Free Generation’s Hard Bargain With Capitalism”
We don't have a "market capitalist" society. We have a "Corporatist" society. Second, you confused economic ramifications on the "market" not on the gov't devaluating the currency. The us dollar has lost over 75% or more of it's buying power in the last half century or so. Why do you think 2 incomes are necessary now vs back in the day? And it's not the economy that needs new workers, it's the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare that need new taxpayers to fund their wealth transfers.
Frankly, regardless of the points above, I chose not to have kids for completely different reasons: i didn't want them. I didn't want them because I didn't want to spend the time and/or money to do so.
On “Government and Going Through the Motions”
How about a third alternative?
Politicians are lying scumbags that will do anything to obtain power and retain power. They'll tell lies when it serves their interests and will flip flow if politically expiedient?
I'm sure there are a few that are "seduced" by power after taking office. I expect there are much more than were allready willing to sell their soul first before obtaining power.
On “The Price Of Citizenship (Updated)”
It's not a question of being left alone. It's an issue of choosing those who you care to interact with. Currently you are ALLOWED to deny service to some people for some reasons (no shirt, no shoes etc.) but not for other reasons. Why? Under what legal authority? Why that far and no farther? Why not say "you have to serve everyone?
It's not a negative right..it's a positive right and it isn't given to anyone, they are innate, and the gov't has no authority to enact those rules, and certainly not under "democracy" which is a fancy word for "mob rule".
"
Burt, excellent article.
Sadly, the law has grown to force people of strong religious beliefs into doing work that object to. That's not something that should be tolerated. Business should be free to discriminate for any reason, if they so choose. If some segment isn't being served, someone will step in and serve that group.
On “Our Government Lies. Deal With It.”
Sadly, "tar and feathering" has gone out of style
On “Sex-ed, Lies, & Protection”
LeeEsq
It's a vague reference to a skit from "The Chappelle Show"
"Had drunken make out sex with XXX while her 2 friends were passed out on the floor, technically qualifying as a foursome. Another great moment in hook up history" :)
On “Our Government Lies. Deal With It.”
@ Art Deco
While "Governments” do not lie. The people employed by them do." is literally true, let's add, "those gov't employees who know other gov't employees have lied, and do nothing, essentially lie as well. It's similiar to the "blue line".
It doesn't matter why they lie. We've allowed them to do so by not creating consecquences for them when they do lie or when we catch them. And yes, that means if someone told a lie and is retired and the only thing we can do is take their pension away, we do it. A lie in public service should be almost equivilent to commiting capital murder. Gov't workers are the public's employees. We deserve to be told the truth. Anyone who can't or won't doesn't deserve our trust or our employment. Full Stop.
On “Quick question for movement conservatives”
@ Murali
Sorry, I don't see the difference. They both spring from a single root desire: control.
"
@leeesq
I'm not interested in what everybody does. And I'm not interested in whether or not people want to live the same as I would like. The gap between where we currently are and me has some much room for improvement that it doesn't matter. Our society could spend decades moving towards my position and we'd all be better off for the movement. I advocate a postion that offers an alternative viewpoint. Maybe others will grow tired of the status quo and look for an alternative vision. I just offer that.
On “The Democrats Have a “Principled” Contingent, Too”
Principles?
Don't make me laugh. Neither side has them. For me, the most glaring and relatively recent example were the "Bush is a war criminal" types that rolled over when Obama decided not to investigate the whole torture issue-and then defended him. A clearer example of people sacraficing their own principles on the alter of political expediency I've not seen in a while.
I have nothing but contempt for people like that.
On “Quick question for movement conservatives”
I guess it depends upon your perspective. Both parties want to use the state to force me and others to do things we may not want to do. The outcomes are just different.
On “Sex-ed, Lies, & Protection”
"technically, this qualifies as a threesome"
On “Malice or Petty Bureaucracy?”
I don't get it.
The FISA court found that the NSA violated the terms of search parameters THREE times over the course of two years or so. And they still skated with a slap on the wrist. Let me repeat that. A US gov't agency violated the law three times and walked with no significant repurcussions. This tells me the entire process needs to be reviewed and rewritten. I want people fired and prosecuted. Maybe then we'll get compliance.
On “Quick question for movement conservatives”
I stopped using "liberal" alone. I'll use it combined with "liberal economics" to refer to the Chicago school, and a fair amount of people understand that use. I use "statist" now as it's a more accurate word to describe both "liberals" and "conservates".
On “Adulthood and Freedom”
As a single middle aged guy, I'm very surprised at the percentage of women (never married, divorced, etc. without kids) who are in the 35-50 age range, that want kids. And by that I mean they put "definitely, someday, want kids" in their profile vs "maybe", especially in the 40+ age categories.
On “Cross-Cultural Relationships: Stereotyping, Assimilation, and Cultural Similarties and Differences”
@murali
Yep. "Level up" means that.
On “Babylonia!”
I don't think it's a question of understanding the question. It obviously is a test to feel out the desires of the various races. Only those races that answer the question in the right way become "someone we can use". I think this becomes clearer farther along the story arc. The Mimbari have greater "experience" with these issues than the Centari. Even the Narn have some "experience". (I'm trying to avoid spoilers here) with Mr. Morden's associates.
I am curious as to why the Humans were never asked the question, but given future developments, maybe it's because the key human character has not made his appearance yet. Of couse this is all looking back at the story arc, so who knows....
On “Shining a Light Across the Water”
That message was received by the Guardian as well. They are reporting that the security services demanded (and got) the Guardian to destroy hard drives containing the Snowden info.
"During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters
So, looks like the intimidation is on full court press.
"
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
In other words: Any damn time we want to.
On “Babylonia!”
Yes, this is a good episode. You see the beginning of the sides in the coming war, the begining of the "fall from grace" of one of the characters, and the backstory of the Mimbari surrender at the battle of the line come into focus a bit. And we know that there are some bad asses in the universe that are causing trouble and wheeling and dealing. Who are they? This is the first episode where the story arcs really start to gel and get going.
Stay tuned.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.