The Wrath

See, this is exactly why I don't want to see it. If the philosophy is what makes it valuable, then I'd say the filmmakers didn't do their job as filmmakers. If I want the philosophical message, I'll reread the book or watch a series of lectures. I can't imagine watching a movie for the sole purpose of it's philosophy...I need some entertainment value. I don't want to see it for the same reason I wouldn't want to watch a movie based on Locke's writings.

Okay, I misread that line, at first. I read that as a critique of the movie but, after looking at it again, I can see that it is in fact the same misconception about Objectivist ethics that most lefties seem to have. However, the rest of his review is still on the artistic merits. Given that at least one review (PJ O'Rourke's) points out the same flaws and comes from someone sympathetic to Objectivism...it's enough to turn me off from seeing it. I thought the previews looked awful anyway. I'll stick to my memory of reading the book and not bother myself with seeing it in dramatic form.

He didn't give it his lowest rating. And I'd be interested to know where in the review he slams Objectivism. He does nothing of the sort. It's pretty clear that it is not a philosophy to which he subscribes, but he also doesn't critique it. He critiques the movie. Given that other people have panned the movie (such as PJ O'Rourke) who are sympathetic to its philosophy leads me to believe he is not doing this out of spite.

I'm not being a smartass with this question, but it's one I want to ask based on the other reviews I've read: What about the movie did you think was so good? Is it that you agreed with the dialogue/philosophy, or did you also think it was a well-made movie?

Given the immense distances which must be covered, I think it's unlikely that we will ever have any significant contact with alien civilizations. If there's a "sci-fi" threat that we need to worry about, there's one that is much closer afoot...

I would have seen it if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie had remained attached, as they were at one point. Not because I'm huge fans of them, but because they're too well-known to allow themselves to be involved with a movie that is likely to get such a scathing review. Had A.O. Scott given this review, I might not have been so pessimistic, because his reviews often seem constructed for the sole purpose of pissing off the fans of overwhelmingly popular movies (like Inception, which virtually all other critics adored). I find Ebert's taste to be very close to my own, even if his politics aren't. But, like I said, politics aren't really discussed here.

Roger Ebert's review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/REVIEWS/110419990 Cliff's notes version: he pans it, criticizing more or less the same flaws that I thought this film would have, when I first heard it was being made. To his credit, though quite the liberal, he sticks to the artistic value of the movie and doesn't stray into criticizing its philosophy.

Sam Harris is the best debunker of Christianity around...I don't think this video is his best attempt, however. There are plenty of crevices for Christians to hide in, even after admitting that the gospels were written decades after Christ. There are other videos (and books) by Sam Harris which so thoroughly deconstruct Christianity, that to disagree with him is to engage in massive cognitive dissonance.

He said his wife is extremely supportive and even edits his speeches for him. He also said that she has asked him to "convince her" that there is no God, but that his response has been that she needs to come by atheism according to her own reasoning.

Yeah, I was a little disappointed that he didn't wear the crocoduck tie.

And, me with David Silverman, president of American Atheists.

The iPhone 3GS takes crappy pictures, but this is the only evidence I have of him playing pool.

Not that this is particularly newsworthy, but I thought it was cool enough that I wanted to brag a little. It's also a bit of an exaggeration...I was at a Japanese tsunami fundraiser that he hosted in Maryland (which doubled as a plug for several secularist/rationalist causes), and wound up in a 2-on-2 game of pool against Dawkins and someone else. He had never played before, so we had to explain the finer points of stripes vs. solids and when to hit the 8-ball. Nice guy, although he was a little stand-offish, probably because he was tired of the numerous twenty-somethings who were fawning over him, treating him like a rockstar, and telling him how he had changed their lives. I also (unknowingly at first) fell into conversation with the president of American Atheists. Had an interesting talk with him about how to be in a romantic relationship with a religious person (as I am engaged to a Catholic, albeit an extremely lapsed and pretty apathetic one). Oddly enough, he's married to an observing Jew...which struck me as quite surprising, given his presidency of an organization dedicated to combating religion.

We encouraged Mubarak to leave, as we should have. Using rhetoric to push for dictators to step down and allow their countries to democratize is an appropriate and desirable thing for our government to do. It does not constitute intervention and certainly does not constitute "removing" anyone. And yes, Salih is in power but is preparing to step down. Assad is still in power but his government resigned.

I actually haven't been around here that much. When I am, I don't usually have anything I feel like adding.

All over the region, we have not (in this current uprising, anyway) removed a single bad actor. Ben Ali, Mubarak, Abdallah Salih, and Assad's government were removed without western intervention, and it looks very possible that Qaddhafi will not be going anywhere.

CapitalistSwine: I'm not disagreeing with you, but perhaps you could elaborate what you think are the political reasons behind this action, if not for the oil? I don't think this action has been taken explicitly for oil, but I do think that if this were a landlocked country in central Africa that lacks natural resources with a stranglehold on the world economy (i.e. Rwanda), no one would lift a finger to stop it. I don't think there is much done in the Middle East that is not, at least indirectly, a result of the oil there...or, at the very least, the effect on oil supply has to be taken into account before any foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East.

This is not something I would agree with very often, but I think you're absolutely right. I also think Hillary Clinton has been the lone voice of reason, from the US policy community...something else you won't hear me say very often.

The point is not for Western powers to remove Qaddhafi. Just to stop him from massacring the population of Ben Ghazi.

Since I firmly believe that there is never an inappropriate moment to quote Christopher Hitchens: "Europeans think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."

Cliff's Notes version, for those of us who don't want to spend 16 minutes watching it?

Then you oppose it in both cases, which is at least consistent. But this isn't the opinion of many people who call the tactics "legitimate" when used for their own purposes, but "illegitimate" when used by their opponents. I'm just calling for consistency.

No one except committed left-wingers listen to Michael Moore. Even Obama wouldn't be caught dead agreeing with something this blatantly socialist.

I would argue that the tactic, in and of itself, is not illegitimate. It's not like this is used every time people oppose a particular bill. Occasional use of obstructionist tactics can be effective. I don't think it should have been used in this particular case, because I support the new legislation. But imagine that the tables are turned...imagine that a Democratic majority is trying to vote massive new powers to the public sector unions, and the Republicans fled the state to avoid a quorum. Would you still consider it illegitimate?

People seem to oppose obstructionist tactics when they are used against legislation they support, but support them when they are used against legislation they oppose. Recall, for instance, how Democrats pissed and moaned about the potential for a Republican filibuster of Obamacare, when they engaged in the exact same tactics against numerous judicial appointments under Bush. There is something to be said for consistency in your approach to democratic government. Though I am firmly with the Republicans on this particular bill, the tactic that the Democrats used was a perfectly legitimate attempt at being a check on majority rule. If I oppose it now, how can I support it when the tables are turned, and someone is trying to filibuster a bill that I oppose?