stonebuddha

Though written several decades ago, this is one of the best essays I've read from Rothbard. Sounds just like something Galt or Francisco might say... http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1607

I liked VANILLA SKY because it shows that no matter what kind of world you live in (real or virtual), the basics of life - joy and sorrow - still exist. I am reminded of an old saying, "Heaven or hell starts from where your feet stands." I have also seen ABRE LOS OJOS (OPEN YOUR EYES) - this is the original Spanish film which was remade into VANILLA SKY. Penelope Cruz plays the same character in both films. Since I've already seen the Tom Cruise version twice before I saw this, all the mystery & surprise are gone. However I still enjoyed it. What surprised me is that VANILLA SKY is essentially a shot by shot remake which even retains most of the original dialogue. Since both films are nearly identical with good acting all around, I would have to give VANILLA the edge, as it does have superior production values. Not to say that the original looks crappy, but it's not as visually impressive. If you had to pick only one version to see, then go VANILLA.

If you've seen the director's (Zhang Yimou's) other works, he is definitely very critical of the Communist regime and all authoritarian systems. He ran into trouble with the Chinese authorities for his views in: To Live Raise the Red Lantern The Story of Qui Ju It's true that Yimou had to work under the watchful eye of the Communist govt for HERO, so he had to make some concessions to placate them. So if this were the ONLY movie you've seen from him, then you can make a case that HERO is somewhat (though not entirely) supportive of authoritarian rule, but not necessarily a collectivist society. The Emperor in the movie only talks about uniting the various warring states, he never said anything about being "our brother's keeper", "welfare", "economic equality" or any such collectivist nonsense. Of course the historical Emperor Qin Shi Huang Di tortured & killed thousand in his effort to unite ancient China. So he's definitely not an objectivist hero.

Basically, there are two versions of the DVD: 1. A 98 minute version which is the same as the one shown in theathers in Asia & will be shown in the US later this month. 2. A 110 minute version with extra footage. From my extensive research, the extra long version doesn't really add anything which is substantially different. By the way, you would need an all region DVD player to play these discs and both are available for purchase only from retailers located outside of the US. I bought mine online from a Hong Kong retailer and had it shipped to California. The US version of the DVD has not been released - Miramax owns the rights and they will not issue a DVD until after the film is shown in theathers later this month.

Crouching Tiger and Hero have nothing in common - different characters, different story, different time periods. They are in no way related as far as trilogy goes.

This movie came out in Asian in 2002. I've had the import DVD for the last year & a half. I've viewed it many times and I would not say it has a water thin plot. The story is simple but told in a complex Rashomon like way. Here is my original spoiler free review: As jaded as I am when it comes to kung fu films, this one delivered the goods. Far be it for me to spoil the plot, so allow me to compare this film to one other you're familiar with. In my view, the best OVERALL martial arts film is still CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON. Although CTHD does NOT have the best, most intricate, martial arts sequence in all of cinema, overall it has that unique combination of story, acting, and martial arts which ranks number one in my book. As for HERO, it blows away CTHD in terms of cinematography, set design, costumes, wirework, CGI, and overall visual splendor. I feel sorry for anyone who sees this film in a less than ideal home theater venue. More epic and historic than CTHD, this is Yimou's love letter to the wuxia genre. If you're familiar with Yimou's sense of style, then HERO is the culmination of all the techniques he's garnered from his previous films. Every frame is a work of art - the way silk blows in the wind, the way rain drops upon the pavement, the way ten thousand arrows fly through the air while Jet Li & Maggie Cheung whirl around to deflect the onslaught is breathtaking. This is unlike any movie I've ever seen. Even if you turned off the sound and understood nothing in terms of plot or character development, it would still be a visual masterpiece. With that being said, CTHD does have a more personal & involving story which in my eyes ranks it as slightly higher overall than HERO. As for the martial arts, there is one outstanding battle between Jet Li & Donnie Yen. The rest is more stylized, less intricate in terms of long takes and authenticity, relying more on CGI & wirework, but visually amazing nonetheless. The sword fight between Zhang Ziyi & Maggie Cheung in a field of cherry blossoms is a sight I will not forget. Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

The problem I have with this movie (other than the corrupt philosophy) is two fold: First, can Spiderman be killed? Does he have any weakness at all, other than his weak mind? Judging from the stuff that happens to him in this movie, he's practically indestructible. At least with Superman, he has kryptonite. My other problem is that Spiderman doesn't seem to have any sense of momentum to his movements. Does it bother anyone here when he rescues ordinary people by slamming into them at the bottom of his swing after he's reached maximum speed? He must be moving in excess of 50 mph! I understand that his superpower prevents him from being killed, but ordinary folks should be dead after such a collision.

While I am a fan of the Next Generation TV show, it does have a socialist/commie bent. The link Dagny posted is worth a read and is on the mark. While I give the writers credit for portraying the Borg as the collectivist evil that they are, the Federation is different only in degrees. That is, if the Borg represents pure communism, the Federation is socialist in nature. The alien race which is most concerned with trade and profit (the Ferengis) are always portrayed negatively. Also take a look at the Next Generation movie - Star Trek: Insurrection. Not only is it a love letter to the environmentalist movement but it also takes a stance which is pro labor union!

North Koreans die trying to save portraits of their Totalitarian masters... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...th_portraits_dc

I've been following Moller's progress since the mid 80's when his flying car design was featured in Popular Science magazine. I applaud the man for his determination & vision. But I'm saddened to say that in the post 9-11 world, the Leviathan state will probably not approve his invention. Their irrational justifications will likely be fear of terrorist flying into buildings, dropping bombs, and the average citizen engaging in drunken flying. And then the pilots' union will likely chime in with their objections & bribe their congressman to draft a bill to outlaw flying cars.

An update on the Castro prank call.... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/28/cas...reut/index.html

I grant that it's a well crafted, loving tribute to Asian cinema with Hong Kong style action. I understood what QT was trying to do and he succeeded. Despite the fact that all the pieces were there, I regard KILL BILL Vol. 1 & 2 to be the weakest of all his films. I enjoyed TRUE ROMANCE more (I know he only wrote the screenplay, but it felt more like a QT movie than this.) I did enjoy Vol. 2 more than Vol. 1, but I just can't imagine wanting to see either films again. The whole KILL BILL epic has an unserious, wink at the audience feel about it. I know that's what he was going for, but that just served to take me out of the realm of movie magic. I think the biggest problem for me was the dialogue. After RESERVOIR DOGS & PULP FICTION came out, a slew of movies tried to mimic its success with sub par Tarantinian dialogue. Ten years later, that's what KILL BILL felt like for me. It has the flavor of Tarantino's dialogue, but seems like a pale imitation. I also felt emotionally detached from the whole proceedings. I didn't care for any of the characters because they felt like one note caricatures who only exist in the movies. Even though I give it 4 stars out of 5 (mostly for technical merit), I was disappointed.

How would society survive without the FCC? Read the horror... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/04/24/cas...k.ap/index.html

I think the majority of these government/police auctions come from seizures & asset forfiture laws mostly related to the inane war on drugs. In many cases, the Leviathan state has deemed that property can be seized at will without having to prove wrongdoing on the part of the owner. This has lead to the ludicrous notion that inanimate objects can be guilty of crimes. Read the horror here: http://reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml

What is the morality of purchasing a used car from one of those police auctions. I believe that the government’s property seizure laws are draconian. So would purchasing a car there be considered morally the same as dealing in stolen property?

The only one I know of is: http://www.thejakartapost.com I've never read this newspaper, so I don't know their stance on issues.

I've just discovered this forum and am glad to be on board. I offer for you a distillation of letters between my cousin (a Muslim) & me (an ex-Muslim who became an atheist long ago). The crux of the following is a dialogue concerning God & the nature of the universe. When we were children growing up in Indonesia, we were both raised as Muslims. When I came to live in America 20 years ago, we lost touch. Recently we began conversing again since she is now living in the US. She started the exchange by asking me why I wasn't a Muslim anymore. What follows are my actual responses, though I have omitted her questions and replies so that the text flows more easily. May the reader finds this of value... Dear Cousin, the problem with all religions is that it is based on faith. Faith by definition is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Which necessarily means that no argument/logic/reason is needed in order to accept the gospel of that particular religion. Even the supreme FAITH in the existence of God is without question to the believer. These people are being selectively rational. They can be extremely logical & analytical when it comes to all other matters of their life, but when it comes to God - they shut down their minds. All the arguments for the existence of God have been thoroughly examined and debunked for hundreds of years; the most popular being the "argument from design" which keeps popping up under different metaphors. Another problem is that by surrendering your rational faculties when it comes to matters of religion, it leaves you open to the manipulation by various leaders who claim to have more knowledge of God/scriptures/Koran, etc. I'm not saying that nothing good can come from religion; obviously you can develop strong familial or communal ties. Also, some (though not all) of the morality espoused by religion can be beneficial, such as "Thou shalt not steal." But all that & more can be achieved without the need of the supernatural and without sacrificing your mental faculty. What I am advocating is a life based not on faith, but on reason; and a morality which is based on life in THIS world. Cousin, I'm not sure what you mean by "spiritual needs". Since I'm an atheist, by definition I don't feel the need to be comforted or reassured by the presence or plan of a divine entity. I get comfort & reassurance about my life from doing the things I enjoy and the people I love. But I think a lot of people believe that "if somehow, a benevolent, supreme being is watching over me, then no matter what happens, no matter how bad things get, it's all part of God's master plan. Whether I understand that higher purpose or not is unimportant, just as long as I have FAITH, then I'll have the courage to continue on. Besides, life in this world is just a prelude for the life to come in Heaven." Now, I do consider myself a "spiritual" person, but that spirituality is not based on the supernatural. When I say I'm "spiritual", what I mean is that I feel a connection, a one-ness, with the universe. I see myself as the physical manifestation of energy - just like water can either be a solid, liquid, or gas - so can energy manifest itself as either rocks, trees, cats, or human beings. I feel fortunate that right now, a small portion of the energy of the entire universe has transformed itself into a human being, and I'm able to comprehend my own nature and the nature of the universe - which is really the same thing. One day, I'll be dead and the atoms in my body will be part of something else, perhaps a worm or a flower. Actually, the atoms in my body are constantly being replaced by other atoms - what was once atoms in a bushel of wheat, were transformed into a cow, and in turned transformed into me. The energy that was a cow has now been literally "reincarnated" as a human being capable of self awareness, contemplation, and wonder. Think of it another way. If the universe did not have beings capable of contemplation and wonder - if the entire universe were full of nothing but rocks & gas, then there would be no one to appreciate it. It would be like a beautiful symphony playing with no one to hear it. But because beings capable of self awareness, contemplation, and wonder do exist, we have in essence completed the circuit. Not only does the universe exist, but now someone is aware of it! The symphony is playing and the audience is loving the show. Why resort to a supernatural explanation when the secrets of the universe are in plain sight? Who do I have to thank for the marvelous symphony? Certainly not some all powerful, all knowing entity. It's understandable to look at our universe and wonder, "Who created all this?" The problem with saying "God created the Universe" is that it doesn't solve anything, it doesn't have any explanatory power. Let's say we were trying to figure out how gravity works, but instead of doing calculations & experiments with falling weights, we merely said, "There must be some unknown force responsible. We don't know what it is and we don't know how it works, but we have a name for it - the 'G-force'. Furthermore, its existence is without question - you can't do any experiments or rely on observation to prove or disprove it. It just is - don't question it, accept it." The second problem with saying that "God crated the Universe" is that it will lead to an infinite regress. Because one can always ask, "If God created the Universe, then who created God?" If your answer is "No one created God, God always has been, always will be." My reply is, "Well then, let's just save a step and say that no one created the Universe, the Universe always has been, always will be." Does that mean that you & I are just using different words to express the same idea? That depends - if you believe that God is just another word for Universe, then we're in agreement. But if you believe that God is an entity separate from the Universe and that he acts with intelligence, purpose, motivation, & planning, I would have to disagree. Which leads me to my next point - the word "Universe" means "The totality of all existing things." Therefore it is meaningless to ask what is beyond or outside the Universe; you cannot have some entity standing outside of everything. By extension, the concept of "a creator & the things he creates" only applies to things IN the Universe, it does not apply to the entire Universe itself. For example you can say, "John created this watch." This is a meaningful statement only because "John" & "watch" are both things which exist IN the Universe. But the statement, "God created the Universe" is meaningless because how can you have something outside of Everything which in turn creates Everything?? Perhaps what you're saying is "Look at all the things happening in the universe - the marvelous symphony. It seems impossible that it could all happen at random, without purpose, without a conductor running the show." To which I say: "The individual neurons in your brain are not conscious. It is not aware of the fact that it is trying to solve a problem or make a decision about what you should have for dinner. They are simply passing along chemicals across the synapses, minding its own business, doing its own thing. Only when taken as a whole and looked at from a wider perspective does the action of neurons passing along chemicals seem to be doing so for a greater purpose." So now you say, "Let's take that analogy further. Perhaps humans are to God the way neurons are to humans. Perhaps there is a meta-consciousness which we cannot perceive; just like the individual neurons are not aware of us, so we are not aware of God in a direct way." To which I say, "Perhaps. But that is just a theory which has yet to be proven. Even if it were true, the meta-conscious God came into being AFTER the Universe has already existed." But all my reasoning & logic with regards to the God issue is perhaps irrelevant to you dear cousin. You still haven't told me whether your belief in God is based solely on FAITH or on evidence/reason....