197 days in space makes that shirt feel like 10 lbs. Shirt comes after about a month in. Then a necktie a few weeks after that. Then a tie clip after a week more.

It will take about a full year before he can attend his honor banquet.

I have only one complaint. Calling "Get away from her you bitch!" the most famous line underplays the fact that this film is chock full of the most quotable lines in film history.

Compared to just about anything Apone says, also Hudson and many from Hicks, that line is pedestrian.

-"I like to keep this handy, for close encounters."
-"How do I get out of this chicken-shit outfit?"
-"Game over man... game over!"
-"Well why don't you put her in charge?!"
-"Me and my team of ultimate bad asses are here to protect you!... We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks," etc.
-"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure."
-"A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade - I LOVE THE CORPS!"
-"What do you want me to do, fetch your slippers for you?" etc. and "Look into my eye......"

I'll stop before I end up pasting the entire script.

Edit: One final complaint - i consider Aliens to be tarnished by associations with modern wonder woman, which IMO was indicative of the abject failure of rich Hollywood males to produce a worthy female superhero.

I agree that it does, from a technical audio standpoint, but I don't know if his message got twisted... he's been dropping these weird annoying non-hints about Seth Rich in numerous interviews. He might be being honest, but he's feeding Alex Jones a banquet.

Many many moons ago when I was seventeen we started doing life drawing at my school. there were a few models they used but the most common two were a lady about thirty, nice looking, slightly plump but attractive and Alan. Alan was a thirtyish year old gay guy who was just very average looking. Physique wise he was 5' 10" or so, maybe just under 200lbs, slightly balding, wore glasses. Nothing offensive but as a seventeen year old lad I obviously started off preferring drawing boobies to schlong.

Thing is, I always drew better when drawing Alan because I just wasn't as distracted I suppose. He was a really nice guy and we got to know him pretty well over the year or so we did the class. I'd grown up doing a lot of sailing at a club with communal showers for the men so naked guys were no mystery to me. I wasn't offended by him and he certainly never did any poses like the guy in this video.

Fast forward ten years and I'm at a friend's house party. I know about half the people there and there's a lot of people from her work that I don't know. She worked at a medieval castle as a wench for their banquets and a lot of her actor colleagues were there. I kept catching the eye of this guy, forty years or so old, 5' 10" and just over 200lbs, pretty bald. You know when you get that feeling that you know someone? The face is familiar but you can't for the life of you remember where you've seen him before. Worse was the feeling that it was someone I knew quite well, not just someone I'd bumped into in the supermarket or something like that.

He looked puzzled by me too and we eventually got talking in the kitchen about where we knew each other from. We went through everything, from what we did for a job, where we'd worked, where we lived and drew blanks every time.

We went further and further back in time until he stopped, grinned and said 'you didn't go to Woodland's school did you?'

In that instant I knew exactly who he was, laughed and completely without thinking blurted 'Alan! I didn't recognise you with your clothes on!'

Of course it went quiet and I had to explain to my wife why I didn't recognise the gay guy with his clothes on (not helped by the fact that it was an all boys school). I still have paintings and drawings of him in my attic somewhere, which my wife was 'thrilled' to be shown!

Life drawing is great, and you don't need a 'fit' or attractive model. Anyone will do, in fact the more normal the better I think. It helps you look at what's there rather than any sort of ideal you might have in your head.

*banquet

Genji,

I appreciate your words, Ezra, thank you. Let's say that you're right, that my life is meaningless, and that I am the one who determines what is true. Do you know what I would determine to do? What I would determine to do is to do the same things I am doing right now. Even if I knew Jesus Christ was not God, I would still determine to follow His blueprint for the ideal person, because following that blueprint has radically transformed my life for the better. There are many who aren't Christians who feel the same way, that Jesus got it right. If I wasn't a Christian, I would follow the ideal He set forth, summed up in the great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. To turn swords into plowshares. To pray for your enemies and hold banquets for the homeless. To walk two miles when someone asked you to walk one. To give the shirt off your back to someone else who needs it. To love everyone unconditionally, and see every person as fundamentally worthy of my respect. That is what my life about it, and I wouldn't consider that to be a wasted life, even if I was wrong.

I've also lived the alternative. Contrary to what you say, I was never really afraid of death. I can't say I liked the idea of death, but I accepted it; and so I was resigned to triviality, and meaninglessness. I was also content to go to the grave with those beliefs. Like everyone else, I got by on my dreams, my relationships, and whatever gratification I could get out of the moment; I indulged in the pleasures of sin freely, and felt little shame.

So I didn't come to be a Christian out of fear, or a need to be comforted. I came to be a Christian because God touched my life and shook me from my agnosticism. He showed me I wasn't quite as smart as I thought I was. He showed me that the material reality is but a thin veil covering a much greater truth. He showed me that the truth was always staring me right in the eyes, but I was too blind to see it. What He showed me was that He had always been there, my entire life, and that many of the things I wrote off as coincidence really were not.

You see, it is perfectly reasonable and rational for me to believe there is a God. He has simply given me too much evidence to deny it. It's not a convenient belief that fills in all the scary things about life; rather, it is my reason for being, my logos. It is also my eternal gratitude to the Creator for rescuing me and loving me even though I don't deserve it. To know God is to know truth, to know who you are, and why you're here. To know God is to have hope for your future, and an ever present peace and contentment. You believe I am fooling myself, but I say that even if you're right, it is a life worth living, a life well enjoyed, a life that hopefully will touch many others in positive ways. If that is the only meaning I die with, its worth it to me.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Shiny.
Accept it. You're an ape.
You're a conglomeration of amoeba.
Your life is a just a blip in the twinkling of the universe.
There is probably no god or gods.
There's probably no purpose or reason for your existence.
You are the being that gives purpose or meaning to your life.
When you realize that.
When you realize that there's not supernatural sky daddy to hold you when you're scared or confused..
You'll understand that you've been talking all this nonsensical religious babble in order to establish that purpose.
That the only reason you and jihadist are so adamant about your own personal interpretation of the essence of the abyss..
Is to distract yourself from the fact that your life is just another series of events in this long chain of entropy, chaos, disorder.
The only reason you're so religious is because you're an ape that's too scared to accept your death and the triviality of your existence.
One day, I hope you'll realize this.
On that day, you'll be "born again" just like you were when you accepted "Jesus Christ" and Christian doctrinal teachings.
On that day, you may become self-actualized..
And from then on, understand that we homo sapiens are very lucky.
For we, among few other animals, are able to choose their life's meaning and purpose.
Please don't waste yours.. being a religious troll on the interwebs.
Your brother,
Ezra.

The stadium seats 65,000+ people....maybe the banquet hall at the local VFW was already booked??

>> ^wormwood:

I have started to wonder a lot more about where all that money is going TO. People have started counting these dollars as though they are equal to votes, with the actual votes seeming to matter less and less. When do we just dispense with this troublesome voting and just weight candidates money piles in November? But seriously, where does all the money go? TV commercials, lavish banquets and ?????. Can you really spend a billion dollars on that? What happened to one man one vote? It's like we don't even get one anymore--the slot in the box doesn't accept ballots, just $1000 bills.
>> ^ghark:
Dammnit, Marbles fooled me, I upvoted his comment then I realised he was blaming most of that stuff on the Government. The root of the problem is lobbyists influencing the Government. I hear Obama wants to raise one billion dollars for the next election cycle, I wonder where that money is going to come from, and what it will mean for the decisions he makes after he is likely re-elected?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/barack-obama-re-election-r
un



In terms of what the money gets used for, it's a very good question and something that certainly needs more attention. As far as who's getting it, I was kind of surprised to recently see that the money is allowed to go to some very unexpected places - the so called super congress had raised over $300,000 in donations by the end of September alone, with most of that going to 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats on the committee.

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/10/18/7138/super-congress-hauls-super-donations-special-interests-try-influence-budget-cuts

I don't know if that's just the tip of the iceberg though, with the Citizen's United ruling, there may be other PAC's donating far more.

Also, after watching all this video, my one gripe is that he seems to put too much focus on political ideology, he talks a lot about how Communism, Socialism etc can work, and is working in some parts of the world, but I would say that of greater importance is how accountable those in charge of the system are. I mean, Democracy is turning out to be worse than any other system in the history of the world but it's not because the principle of letting people have a vote is bad, it's because those in charge are abusing the system.

The environment is getting destroyed on unprecedented scales that were impossible previously
Millions have been, and are being, slaughtered because of kleptocratic regimes installed by the US
In the EU, bankers are being installed to lead countries, while political parties get merged - in so called 'democratic' countries
Austerity measures are being imposed on the middle class in many countries, while the rich are doing as well, or better than ever

I think it's human nature to want to vote for a person that you think will stand up for the principles you believe in, but in reality I think you are right wormwood - one man one vote is quite a meaningless term these days, especially so because we are in the age of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Speechnow v. FEC decisions.

I have started to wonder a lot more about where all that money is going TO. People have started counting these dollars as though they are equal to votes, with the actual votes seeming to matter less and less. When do we just dispense with this troublesome voting and just weight candidates money piles in November? But seriously, where does all the money go? TV commercials, lavish banquets and ?????. Can you really spend a billion dollars on that? What happened to one man one vote? It's like we don't even get one anymore--the slot in the box doesn't accept ballots, just $1000 bills.
>> ^ghark:

Dammnit, Marbles fooled me, I upvoted his comment then I realised he was blaming most of that stuff on the Government. The root of the problem is lobbyists influencing the Government. I hear Obama wants to raise one billion dollars for the next election cycle, I wonder where that money is going to come from, and what it will mean for the decisions he makes after he is likely re-elected?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/barack-obama-re-election-r
un

The housing credit bubble was caused just as much by certain public institutions as it was private.

This is true. I've always said that the housing bubble was a THREE PARTY problem. 1. Government changed the laws (IE created the environment). 2. Finaincial institutions set out the banquet (provided the cash). 3. Businesss & citizens borrowed money like idiots. All three of these groups were necessary to create the bubble. But all too often, especially in neolib circles, only one group gets the blame (financial guys) while the government and the public get a free pass.

The separate issue from all of this is how much you want to provide to citizens as a basic right.

Depends on what you mean by that. I totally disagree that the federal government has ANY role in the lives of citizens except as (A) a place to go to redress greivences and (B) national defense (including enforcing of borders). That's it. Everything else should be done as the state and local level. If citizens want to have government take care of food, shelter, and medicine then that should take place at the state level where it is more directly monitored and where abuses can be punished more directly at the ballot box. I don't have a problem with government stepping into such areas. I have a problem with FEDERAL government doing it. Federal programs have proven to be inefficient, ineffective, and hopelessly cumbered by corruption, waste, and cronyism. Time to ditch the 'one state' solutions which are so clearly failing and return to a more local, privatized, federalist approach. Socialist systems result in the mobs and yobs we see in the UK, and should be avoided at all costs.

Looks like a successful attempt by the teabaggers to scapegoat one of the good guys to cover their own egregious racism. If this is what passes for black "racism", I bet black folks wish the Klan could follow her example:



Sherrod identified the white farmer as Roger Spooner. CNN today interviewed his wife, Eloise Spooner, who said Sherrod had helped her and her husband save their farm.

"She's a good friend ... she helped save her farm," Spooner said, adding that Sherrod did all she could to help them. "They have not treated her right."

From the article: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/usda_appointee_forced_to_resign_after_discussing_r.php?ref=fpa

But Sherrod told first to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and then CNN that her comments were taken out of context. She says that the anecdote was part of a larger story, one in which she explains how she overcame her initial prejudice.

"The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race," she told the AJC, adding that she went on to help other white farmers.

Big Government has not posted the full speech. The Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release it to TPMmuckraker. The owner of the video company, Johnny Wilkerson, says he is sending the full video to the national NAACP, and hopes to post it in full once he gets permission.

Wilkerson also told us that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm.

In 1986, at the time of the incident, Sherrod worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, a job she held until she was appointed to the USDA last year.

I was expecting a larger fanfare! Trumpets! Hot Devry quality 3D graphics! Dancing ballerinas! Casio keyboards! Important VIPs! A banquet! Balloons! Busch Light!

That was fun. Yay.

Yo I worked for four years shining shoes full-time in golf season. Yes it was a private golf club, but I was shining shoes (and cleaning bathrooms and setting up banquets). I took PRIDE in shining shoes! So I take offense to the concept that the mere suggestion someone might shine your shoes ought to be taken as an insult.

much regulation stifles innovation and growth, but there are behaviors and practices that are strictly parasitic or needlessly risky which should be reined in

The history of the housing meltdown is long and tortured - but it began in the 70s under Carter and culminated in the 90s under Clinton. When Clinton's admin repealed Glass-Steagall it lit a slow fuse on the economy which finally blew in 2008.

Congress (both Dem & Repub) wanted more people "in houses" because it got them votes. AIG and other financial houses lobbied for the changes because they saw they could make money by selling financial packages. I remember VERY well in the 90s the rancorous debates on this subject. People who opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall were labelled by political opponents as 'evil rich fat cats' who 'oppressed the poor' and who wanted to 'deny the American dream to the working class...'

Do you remember that rhetoric? I sure do. They were able to argue very strongly that they were doing a GOOD thing and that opposing them made you a lousy, slimy, no-good dirtbag who hated the working poor.

So the law changed, and ALL BANKS (not just the lobbyists) were forced to deal with new market realities. If you didn't complete - you died. So they opened up financial options for 'the poor' they never would have DREAMED of messing with before. Now the poor could get loans. But in most cases the 'poor' SHOULDN'T have gotten loans because they couldn't afford them. But everyone was told, "Don't worry - Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae will get your back." So they did it anyway not because they were irresponsible or malicious. It was what they were TOLD to do because that's what government wanted, and as such it created a marketplace reality they couldn't avoid.

Moreover, it wasn't just the poor for whom financing got easier. The middle class could make a quick buck by flipping multiple properties. Speculation went wild. Housing prices skyrocketed. People got rich quick for virutally nothing. It was all going great until people overseas finally decided they couldn't keep make money on financial packages built on poisonous debt forever. POP!

I'm hesitant to lay the blame for this all on 'risky practices' of 'parasitic financial companies'. They played a big part - very true. But I've always said the housing problem was a THREE part problem. I list the problems here in order of culpability...

1. Government arranged the banquet and set the table.
2. Financial houses provided the food and sold the meals.
3. Stupid consumers gorged themselves on food they didn't need and couldn't afford.

Most people ONLY look at #2. I think that is a foolish & myopic approach that ignores the most important player (government) and gives a free pass to #3 (consumers).

Then when they bite, you exploit them with all of the things written in the fine print in that contract they signed.

People keep acting like bank credit with interest is some 'secret'. Everyone knows that credit cards have high interest rates and fees. When a bank hits you with fees then you pay off the balance and cancel the account. Or (better) never run a balance and you'll never have a fee. Or (best) never borrow money from a bank. It isn't complicated.

Also, some are acting as if banks should behave like altruists. It's as if you are pretending the world is Bedford Falls, that banks are the Building & Loan, and bankers are George Bailey. No no no... Customers must walk into the bank with the mindset that they are dealing with Mr. Potter. Banks sell a useful, but dangerous product. If you are smart and careful you can come out well. If you are stupid and careless you will lose every time. Pretending that banks should act like friendly charities is foolish.

I don't know why the government hasn't made strict guidelines as to how a bank must conduct itself.

They did. The government was the entity that opened the 'free money' floodgates by repealing Glass-Steagal because they wanted more people buying homes & cars. Banks were cool with it because it allowed them to be one-stop-shops, repackage debt into paper commodities, and government promised Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would cover it all. Government set the table & provided the food. Banks sold the tickets to the banquet. Customers gorged until they ruptured internally. Three parties were involved, and the blame is shared by all three equally.

I'm just saying the government needs to protect those less savvy about credit and debt and keep the banks from exploiting these poor fools.

I'm all for the concept, but how do you implement it? Force everyone to take a class or sit down with a lawyer before they can get a loan? I don't think that will help except maybe 1 case in a million. Almost no-one goed to banks with the delusion that they don't have to make payments or incur interest.

I volunteer time as a sort of career/money counseller to help people out of financial trouble. I've sat down and explained the whole 'never borrow money because of interest...' formula very patiently and clearly. It doesn't matter. People hear the speech, and turn right around and get in debt to the gills buying crap they didn't need. They don't want to sell the stuff and pay the bill either. They want someone to pay the bill or absolve the debt so they can keep their stuff. That's just the way human beings are. So forcing banks to sit people down and go through a "here is how debt & interest work" education is helpful, but will not make the problem go away.

The only sure fire way to 'protect these fools' (as you put it) is to have the banks use a means-testing system by which they deny credit to 'risky borrowers'. "Sorry - we're not lending you money for your own safety." That's a recipie just asking for a lather-rinse-repeat of the whole 'red lining' accusation in the 90s. Can't win for losing. Banks are 'evil' if they expect to be paid back.... Banks are 'evil' if they refuse to lend money to people who can't afford it... Nice catch 22.