The TV show was mostly based on her earliest days in comic books. Indeed, she originally didn't have the power of flight, but the writers gave it to her in 1960 - over 50 years ago now. They boosted her other powers slowly over time, just like they did with Superman (who now can approach the speed of light, but back in the beginning he was happy just to outrace bullets). Even when the TV show debuted her power of flight had been in existence for 15 years, but I think they chose to ignore it mainly because realistic human flight FX were too costly for most TV budgets back then.

I really believe they never tried to make a serious show. It was the '70s, and jiggling curves had finally become acceptable for American television. This is what they exploited. And to make a crappy, campy show like that last 4 years is a testament to how much one woman's bouncing boobs were cherished by male Americans of the time. Now it takes multiple sets of titties to make it these days. We've made great strides, haven't we? >> ^NetRunner:

@kronosposeidon I only really know her from the 70's show, and I admittedly mostly watched it for the, uhh, woodrows.
Sounds like in the comics she had a lot more power than her softcore TV version did. I don't recall her lifting anything much heavier than a car there, and she wasn't inhumanly fast, nor capable of flying without machinery.
I suppose she was a genius there too, but that only really manifested itself in her being able to occasionally answer trivia questions, not in the sense that Wonder Woman got presented as being uncannily intelligent in her actions or speech...

The ocean (biggest 'carbon sink') is becoming more acidic. Most coral reefs are a goddamn disaster now compared to just 50 years ago. Its scary stuff.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^maestro156:
Very cleverly written propaganda.
What he leaves out, of course, is that the bill doesn't overturn "pollution". It overturns the definition of carbon dioxide and water vapor as pollution.

At higher amounts, carbon dioxide becomes a contaminant which upsets the balance of the ecosystem.

First, the western world has so many foundational ideas beyond Christianity that we take for granted. For instance, rights language. We talk about our right to this and that, but that is only after hundreds of years of getting it wrong and consciously working towards better models. The "east" only has one rival school, Confucianism, which the middle east does not hold. The middle east has no real rights language at all, spare religious orders.

One again, Japan isn't a "great" model for liberty, but compared to the dictatorships of the middle east, it is a pillar. I mean, just 50 years ago they had a emperors, and not just ceremonial ones. I don't want to breeze by all the very important points you bring up, they have a long way to go...and they still are very exclusionary in many ways. But comparable that to women being stoned for being in a room with a man that is not their husband.

I don't think any of his examples where bad, in fact, they showed the small case compared to the large cases. Japan has had partial implementation of western ideas and values, and has had partial success with social change for the better. He has to be careful what examples he uses. He can't use the USA as an example without being completely ostracized. And even then the United States has a similar story to tell about colonization and displacement of natives.

>> ^undefined:

Mmmm I don't know, I think his praisal of western culture comes from being frustrated with his own culture. In fact, what's so different about western world and the spread of Christianity vs the spread of Muslim teachings and its expansion to east and west? It's basically the same thing when you think about it. Both the west and middle east wanted to spread their teaching (by means of conquest most of the time). It's not like west did things any different than the Arabs.
And his examples are misleading. Japan isn't a great model for liberty and democracy. Japanese still very much live in a very closed society with limited exposure to foreign ideas. You don't hear of certain things on the news, females are still expected to behave certain ways, etc etc. The Yakuza still acts as the 'Samurai class' of the old days where they can get away with bullying its citizens. So much for individual liberty and freedom of ideas. However, its economy, technological innovation and civil infrastructure did benefit largely from western teachings tremendously, which it could not have gotten from within its closed society model.
Australia and South Africa was born out of colonization and by enslaving the indigenous population and this too makes for a terrible example. But in today's world these guys enjoy stability and happiness where its citizens are happy and isn't looking to revolt at any second because they too adopt western technologies and other foreign ideas and methods to cope with their own environment.
One thing I do agree with him is when he says closed society lag behind other nations. Japan certainly was a closed society before the Americans forced open its gates, and the Japanese ended up with an empire of their own in the East. America opened its gates towards all immigrants and saw an incredible rate of growth for the past 3 centuries. 15th century Europe got a huge boost in culture and technology when they started accepting knowledge from outside their own worlds like the Arab culture and the Far East Chinese.
Openness to other cultures, philosophies and technology gives benefits to your own. This is what this man was trying to say, despite all the bad examples

>> ^bobknight33:

Loving someone enough to tell them that what they are doing is wrong is a good thing. Turning your head and letting wrong behavior continue doesn't help anyone.
Sadly the younger generation has been fed such a pack a moral lies that they don't know the difference between right and wrong.
For the most part what is morally right today was morally wrong 30 years ago. Has man obtained such wisdom in this short period of time to discount the wisdom of the past thousand years?
>> ^bareboards2:
What I find is that some Christians are quick to call it "evil" when more truly loving folk call it "compassion" and "acceptance of diversity."


"Believe me my boy, there is no grey. The world is either black or white!"

When you quote the bible, why do you call it the wisdom of the past thousand years? The bible was written around 300AD. And do you really think that a group of self-proclaimed holy-spirit-hearers 1700 years ago, or some group of clergymen more concerned with the exploitation of their flock than anything to do with love and compassion in 1100AD have the wisdom to judge how we ought to live our lives today?

A lot of the stuff that was considered morally upright 50 years ago is rightfully considered repugnant today.

The true wisdom doesn't lie in trying to find a framework of absolute, unchanging rules by which to live to the end of times. Rather it lies in recognizing that time changes things, and rules have to change with them and constantly be reassessed if they still apply.

The only two rules which I would consider fundamental in inter-personal relationships are:

• Don't treat people like objects (aka treat the other person as you yourself would like to be treated)


• My rights end where your rights begin and vice versa

And while we're at it - consider why the Old Testament is so pro fertility ("Go forth and multiply" or all the anti-homosexual rants). 3500 years ago small semitic tribes were being encouraged to grow rapidly to have a chance to survive in a hostile world where huge enemies where to the south (Egypt) and east (Babylonians/Sumerians) and whoever happened to live to the north at the time. All of whom regularly held their battles where the semitic tribes were living, and all of whom frequently raided the area for slaves. Rules devised for that kind of circumstances ought to no longer be regarded as dogma, in my opinion.

"The head is round so that your thoughts can change direction."
- Francis Picabia, 1922

That was a silly comment Net... In no way did Blank suggest that being racist or overlooking racism was fine---so long as it overall diminishes.

But this is my thought on the matter. Division is what? White versus black, old versus young, North versus South, Democrat (You) versus Republican, belivers versus non, rich versus poor. The list goes on, but the point is; what is classification, or better termed, what is divisionism among humans (And some animals?)

It is a natural survival mechanism. Just like sexual impulses.

Does it make it right? No. Has it existed since humans first formed? Yes. Is it exclusive to one or another culture? No, it is in every culture. It is Mother Nature's dark impulses.

As you buy tvs, laptops and other such goods for dirt cheap, think on this. You made slaves of other "divsions" of people who work in poverty so you don't have to. If that is not racisms equal, then I do not know what is. Oh, we can say "We are not explotists," but of course that does not make it so.

My final point is, Divisonism (The head of all schisms) will be alive and well for all the time humans live.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
My grandmother was a racist. Was. That's why I think this guy can be so calm, because he knows that era is almost at a close.

The era is at a close?
You've lived in America during the last couple years, right?
Besides, the era of human sacrifice is pretty much over, does that mean I shouldn't be horrified if someone does one in front of me?

Yes today's racism is exactly like it was 50 years ago.

There are fewer human sacrifices today than there were 2,000 years ago. That's why I never bat an eye when people do them now. I'm so confident that they're going away, I simply refuse to make a fuss over ritual killings anymore.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
My grandmother was a racist. Was. That's why I think this guy can be so calm, because he knows that era is almost at a close.

The era is at a close?
You've lived in America during the last couple years, right?
Besides, the era of human sacrifice is pretty much over, does that mean I shouldn't be horrified if someone does one in front of me?

Yes today's racism is exactly like it was 50 years ago.


There are fewer human sacrifices today than there were 2,000 years ago. That's why I never bat an eye when people do them now. I'm so confident that they're going away, I simply refuse to make a fuss over ritual killings anymore.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
My grandmother was a racist. Was. That's why I think this guy can be so calm, because he knows that era is almost at a close.

The era is at a close?
You've lived in America during the last couple years, right?
Besides, the era of human sacrifice is pretty much over, does that mean I shouldn't be horrified if someone does one in front of me?


Yes today's racism is exactly like it was 50 years ago.

Some of the Irish Bishops who presided over this stuff tried to resign, and the pope wouldnt let them!

Its not a catholic exclusive problem, its about the same rate as other religions (according to CBS, C4 news etc. before someone says prove it), the difference is the conspiracy to cover up. Most other religions dont have a support structure to keep them from getting caught, and to protect those that did.

Those who got caught 40 or 50 years ago, got sent off to missions in the 3rd world as "punishment". One can only imagine (or try not to) what went on in those places where there were even fewer protections in place for children.

This argument is always framed wrong by both sides. See, gays already have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Opponents make this argument but then continue with another that's not true: that gays are asking for special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, they're asking for new rights.

If these are "new" rights, then how did an activist judge magically discover them in the old Constitution? I appreciate your forthrightness. The actual activists simply claim these rights have been hidden in there all along like the right to an abortion.

These new rights would apply to us all. Straight or gay, we could all marry whomever we wanted, genders be damned. You should be happy to gain rights in a time when they are being whittled away in the name of safety. Just because you have no desire to utilize those rights doesn't mean they have no value. I don't own a gun but I'm glad I have the right to.This is not about sexual orientation; it's about freedom from government control over your personal life.

But marriage is not about any one personal life. It's about two lives intertwining on every level, including matters of the State.

What kind of "conservatarian" are you that thinks the government should have this sort of power?

A realistic one.


(re: Freedom from Religion)
It depends on how you interpret "freedom from religion". If you interpret it as meaning I should be able to live my life without ever being exposed to anything religious, then no. That's obviously ridiculous.

Glad you feel that way, but you're in a shrinking minority. Los Angeles removed a tiny cross from their city seal, and there's now a huge court batle over the Mojave Memorial Cross.

What it's supposed to mean, and what is protected by the First Amendment, is that I can live my life without having religious beliefs imposed on me by the government.

You may think so, but "Thou shalt not steal" is the basis for many of our secular laws. You cannot "escape" religion, it's intertwined with everything.

The government cannot tell me I can's go out after sundown on Friday or go to work on Sunday. They cannot make eating pork and shellfish illegal, at least not on religious grounds.

They cannot make you do these things on overtly religious grounds, but under certain circumstances they can make you do or not do all these things and more. How about curfews in a riot zone? Now we're back to the "Thou shalt nots" in varying forms.

Same-sex marriage was legal and common in the Roman Empire up until the Christians took power and made it illegal. They also had anyone who was in such a marriage executed.

If gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did gay unions not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.

A lot of things haven't existed until very recently. In this case it's called progress.

Oh is that what you call it? Progress? Well, if gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did it not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.

Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a straw man fallacy. Denying polygamy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

But I'm not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, except to point out that both are less desirable to a society that plans on surviving. And if gays can argue that the State discriminates against them because of sexual orientation, then the polygamist can argue that the State discriminates on the basis of numbers.

Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

How does a gay marriage have any more rights than a straight one? They're fighting for the SAME rights that are given to straight couples. If this was 60 years ago you'd be arguing against giving black people the "special" right to use the same water fountain as you.

A "How DARE you!" would be an appropriate response for making such a blanket accusation, but I can't get the proper English accent for it. So I'll just add you're going to have to do better than crying racism or raising taxes, the only tricks lefties know if you don't count surrendering to America's enemies.

You call it tyranny if you're forced to accept that a minority has access to the same rights as you do? You playing the victim here is moronic and laughable.

Society is the victim and decadence is the poison. As the "evil" conservative I'm as valuable or more so than the "good" liberal who always demands CHANGE for the sake of change, since 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. Thousands of years of trial and error have brought us here and now. And none of us are smarter than those thousands of years of trial and error.

I know, I know...the government is bad. Same song, different day.

I don't really give a rat's ass for the FCC. I don't even care about prioritizing between different types of data. Giving VOIP priority over filesharing traffic is fine and makes perfect sense, one's gap-sensitive and the other isn't. What I want is one simple rule. The -source- of the data packet cannot be used in that prioritization. IOW, all VOIP packets must be treated the same, all video must be treated the same, etc.

Allowing the big network providers to do WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY THREATENED TO DO is just stupid. Allowing them to do so because you're worried about something that -might- happen later is even more so. It's like allowing a mugger to stab you, because you're worried that fighting back or running will allow him to file a claim against your insurance.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.
The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?

^xxovercastxx
I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.

The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?



^xxovercastxx

I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

Upvote for the use of maths and accurately reporting history.

I guess if we're just going to label organizations as racist based on events 50 years ago the U.S. is fucked. So is Canada. England. France. Spain. Portugal. The Dutch. Italy. Ah shit...

This is one of these half-truths the right likes to tell people about the Civil Rights Act.

Sure, more Democrats opposed it than Republicans, but those weren't northern and western liberal Democrats, those were conservative Southern Democrats. If you look at the breakdown of votes by party and region, you see that it was the representatives of the former Confederate states that voted against it.

Also, think about some notable individuals who voted against it. Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater, conservative hero even today, voted against it. One of the so-called Democrats who voted against it was South Carolina Democrat Strom Thurmond, who later became a Republican.

In fact, if you think about the former confederate states, do they tend to vote Republican, or Democratic today?

As for the point about the KKK, they too changed parties in the same time period. They really liked (and still like today!) the kind of reasoning people like Barry Goldwater and Rand Paul use on the Civil Rights Act -- it's wrong because it takes away freedom from racists to discriminate.

Modern conservatives run on a platform that includes dismantling legal protections from discrimination. They use their persuasive clout to stoke racial resentment, and to vilify anyone who expresses even the slightest complaint about racial insensitivity. When called out on it, they hold up events from 50 years ago; not as proof that they're interested in racial equality, but primarily to try to discredit the people who champion equal rights in 2010 as being somehow hypocritical.

Democrats don't deny our past. We definitely don't claim to have always been pure on the question of race, and we don't claim to be pure on it now. What we do claim is that we're committed to using legislation to blunt the worst effects of it, and use whatever persuasive clout we have to kill off the rest of it.

First of all, just because there haven't been a great number of deaths from H1N1 yet doesn't automatically mean were out of the woods. There is a good evolutionary potential for it to mutate to something worse.

Secondly, who says that H1N1 is the only potentially dangerous virus out there? Even if the H1N1 virus never mutates into something terrible, it doesn't mean that other viruses won't. So we need someone who has a better understanding of them at the helm, or at least someone who doesn't think his knowledge of virology he acquired 50 years ago is still completely true today.

Finally, if there is a deadly pandemic like the 1918 Spanish flu, you better believe there should be mandatory vaccinations. If hospitals everywhere are overflowing with flu patients, then public health is overwhelmingly more important than the rights of one person to say no to vaccinations. One person's liberty doesn't trump my right to live. Typhoid Mary would be the poster child for Ron Paul's approach to disease control.

Should we wait until a deadly pandemic breaks out before we let market forces do their supply/demand dance? Or can we encourage sensible approaches to serious public health issues? Time after time, when vaccination rates drop, disease morbidity and mortality go up. We can't let a political/economic theory dictate public health policy. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being that we are all still alive from the swine flu epidemic, I would say that it was most likely completely overblown. If you have watched other videos from him on the matter, you will of learned that 20 years ago there was a similar fear endued rather than data endued pandemic. In that case, the cure killed more people than the illness. Furthermore, if you watched any of his stuff, you would learn that he isn't against vaccines, he is just against making them federally controlled. Saying everyone gets a flu shot doesn't mean it is actually possible as the MASSIVE shortages on H1N1 showed. It didn't matter that the government was mandating it for certain people as there simply wasn't enough. Once again, he isn't against vaccination, merely legal mandate of them.
But ya, age is pretty interesting. If you look at him though, he hardly seems at the end of his rope yet. Some people get those lucky genes, he seems to be one of those few. He was actually an Olympic level runner when he was much younger.