The Wrath

I had a very revealing conversation with a coworker today. This isn't the kind of guy who will be convinced by moral arguments, so I was arguing against the practicality of the bill. The main point I raised is that it will decrease competition and, eventually, force people to use the public option, which will provide lower-quality care. His response was "why should you have better health care than everyone else?" I was dumb-struck. He actually believed that, rather than improving health care for everyone else, people like myself who have coverage through a private company should be brought down to the level of the lowest common denominator. When I pointed out to him that he basically just admitted his primary goal was to bring down health care for the rich, rather than improve it for the poor, he gave me the standard line about "equality." This isn't the attitude of everyone who supports health care reform...some people think it will actually work. While I think they are misguided and, ultimately, wrong, I don't hold it against them to the same degree that I hold it against this guy. What a contemptible way to view the world.

I can definitely see how it would be confusing to someone who hasn't read the books. But, since I have read them, it's kinda hard for me to judge.

Anyone else see it yet? I saw it on Sunday, and I have to say that is by far the best of the movies so far. It's about 2 and a half hours long, but it didn't feel like it. It's obviously much darker and more adult than the previous ones, but there is also a good dose of humor injected in the right moments. I noticed that there were a number of times when the adults in the audience laughed, but the children did not...I suspect it was because, now that the characters are in their mid-teens, the adults in the audience can relate to all the social awkwardness that comes with adolescence, whereas the kids cannot. There are a few important parts of the book that were left out. I know that, since it was already 2 and a half hours, they had to cut some stuff, but I would have preferred if they had chosen something else to cut. Here are the examples that come to mind. SPOILERS The music is fantastic, and sounds like it was scored for an epic movie, rather than a children's movie...which is a welcome change, given the darker subject matter. The scene in the cave is also fantastic, particularly when Dumbledore saves Harry from the zombie-things. I look forward to Deathly Hallows Part 1.

Since I don't expect I will like any of the candidates, I'm doing a write-in for Optimus Prime. In all seriousness, I will probably vote for whoever opposes Obama. There are a few Republicans (Palin, Huckabee, etc.) who I find even less palatable than Obama, so who knows...

I've noticed that the easiest way to kill a thread is for me to post in it.

I wouldn't count out the possibility that it will be strung along indefinitely until the next Congressional elections, when the Republicans will be likely to gain some seats. Obama's honeymoon is all but over, and people are getting frustrated with all the spending and nationalization. Here's hoping the Republicans can rise from the ashes and rediscover their small government roots.

I heard that this morning too...I was a bit surprised. It won't stop me from shopping there, however. I can't just not shop at every business that supports things I disagree with.

Oh...well, nevermind then.

Please use spoiler tags for stuff like that. This movie is on my Netflix queue, and I now know how it ends. I've had it recommended to me by several people...maybe the philosophy of it really is terrible, but I'd like to be able to judge that for myself once I've seen it.

I suspect that it isn't so much anti-Capitalism that draws Europeans, etc. to Moore's movies. I also suspect that it isn't anti-Americanism, per se, if you define "anti-Americanism" as "opposed to the fundamental values of America." I think that it's--for lack of a better term--penis envy. Much of the sentiment against America in the rest of the world is jealousy of our power to, essentially, do what we want without having to ask permission. They want to have our power and influence, so they oppose us as a way of narrowing the gap between us and them, knowing that they'd behave in much the same way as us, if our positions were reversed. It's just good, old-fashioned ingroup/outgroup human rivalry.

I remember that conversation, but didn't remember that it was you. I'll just rehash my same point, which is that the philosophical subtext is undeniable. Whether you think it is good/bad philosophy or whether you think is does a good job addressing the issues is not the point. The point is that it is there and that virtually everyone who watches it recognizes it...even people (like myself at the time, as well as all my 16 year-old friends) who have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy. The third is better than the second, but that isn't saying much. The reason the first one was cool was because it had innovative special effects, incredible fight scenes, and a just-below-the-surface philosophical subtext. The other 2 were basically showcases for ridiculously long fight scenes (which were less cool than the first, since they weren't new anymore) and outright philosophical sermons.

Michael Moore is among the most despicable, openly dishonest people in this country. But I never feel particularly threatened by him, because all he does is preach to the choir. Most people who see his movies--and virtually everyone who doesn't recognize them as dishonest propaganda--are Daily Kos wackos. Mainstream liberals don't even like him.

The movie poses philosophical questions, but doesn't really try to answer them. How can you watch that movie and not see the philosophical questions that it poses?

Philosophy aside, that movie just sucks. It makes me wonder what happened to M. Night Shyamalan. Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs were all outstanding movies. Then he punished us with The Village, Lady in the Water, and The Happening, all of which are probably in the top 20 worst movies I've ever seen.

I've only seen The Godfather once and remember thinking that I didn't understand why it was considered one of the greatest movies ever made. Well, I was a stupid college student and, now that my taste has presumably matured somewhat, I have put the whole trilogy on my Netflix queue so I can watch it again and hopefully understand. Regardless of whether I end up changing my opinion, I will withhold my judgement until I've actually watched it all.

Uh...Palin really did say that her foreign policy experience was the fact that she lived so close to Russia. She also didn't know what NAFTA was.

If the Republicans nominate that idiot, I might actually vote for Obama in 2012. And that is not a decision I would take lightly. Of course, I live in DC, so it's not like it matters anyway.

The only similarity I can imagine is that Adam bangs Eve in Genesis, resulting in their many children who proceed to begin incestuously banging each other.

This has been discussed numerous times. In short, no he doesn't. If you listen to how he actually talks about this subject, there's nothing at all "mystical" about how he views meditation. He is a neurologist by training and is interested in how introspection can affect someone's perception of reality, but he does not ascribe anything mystic or supernatural to the experience. And he clearly doesn't think it is the ideal way to live, or else he'd be doing it. If you have some quote as evidence that he thinks it is "ideal," I'd be interested to see it.

What pro-choicers are you 2 watching? I have never heard a pro-choicer admit that a fetus is a human being, in the sense that you and I are human beings.

Agreed...Hitchens is always amusing, but I find that he is my least favorite of the 3, because I think his methods do more harm than good.

I'd rather see Sam Harris do something like this. More than any of the other "new atheists," he recognizes that "atheism" is not something to be explicitly promoted, but is rather a by-product of accepting the principles of reason. He also discusses the rational basis for a non-theistic morality. He doesn't get everything right, but he is at least right in that his approach is to build up a rational belief system, more than tearing down an irrational one.

Absolutely not. However immoral it is for the government to take your money and use it on whatever it uses it on, don't forget that you aren't the only person being extorted in that manner. Stealing a computer from the local school amounts to stealing it, not from the government, but from the students of the school whose parents are paying the same taxes that you are. By that logic, it's okay for you to steal GM cars or to rob any bank that was part of the recent financial sector bail-out. When people ask questions like this, it seems to me that they're trying to find excuses to break the law to get some sort of material gain.

I didn't care for 28 Days Later and haven't seen Dawn of the Dead. 28 Days later was pretty well-made...I just didn't care for it. Silence of the Lambs is one of my favorite movies. I think that one belongs more to the psychological thriller genre, than the horror genre.

Now, thanks to Arlen Specter, the socialists have a supermajority in the senate.