Not sure how to put this in the context of the video, but...

My gf was diagnosed with breast cancer a few months back and has just finished chemo... now prepping for surgery, radio, and hormone therapy. I know that's a world apart from chronic leukemia - like flu and aids are both viruses - but her attitude was/is:
"Ok, I'm sick, I've got to go through some crap and I'll be better than I am now, even if I'm not fully cured. There's no point raging out about the big fight, or raging inwardly about how unfair it is. I've just got to do some stuff.

"Sick or not, going to work is annoying but necessary. When I need to take care of my child or bf it can be annoying, but necessary. There's no promise that life is easy, but you just do what you can."

I think it's great that people have the strength of character to rage against the disease and not give in to depression, but I will forever be astounded and impressed by my gf's incredibly practical "meh" attitude.

She's Russian. They're a strange people with the weirdest and most practical dark sense of humour, but it's amazing how practical that whole side is.

Your video, The big fight over Coexist, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

Sorry @newtboy, gotta downvote this one on the basis that Cenk is making a big deal out of nothing.

Michigan didn't make sodomy and oral sex illegal, it's ALREADY illegal in Michigan. (Hell, it was illegal to swear in front of women and children until 2002, when they were forced to repeal the law after a man fell out of a canoe, swore, got arrested, and then was represented by the ACLU.)

But here's the thing, the ban is unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable.

Now, should it be removed? Of course.

However, the idea behind this bill was an amendment to the existing bill to create an animal abuser database, and the guy who proposed the bill (Republican Senator Rick Jones) decided that it simply wasn't worth the effort to fight to get this removed when it's already unconstitutional anyway.

In other words, he took a pragmatic approach to fixing an important issue (animal abuse) by ignoring something that doesn't matter (an unenforceable law).

To his credit, he actually suggested another bill that would automatically strike unconstitutional laws from the state (which kinda seems like something that should be happening anyway).

"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional." Rick Jones

http://www.inquisitr.com/2775741/michigan-was-not-trying-to-ban-sodomy-with-logans-law-it-was-simply-not-un-banning-it/

Yes, it's fucking stupid, but "fucking stupid" seems to be the defining trait of most of the US system of government (two party system, electoral college, tacking on stupid amendments, etc)

>> ^jmzero:

If I was representing "organized religion"s interests in this debate, my position would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let government oversee civil unions as a matter of contract and civil law. Let people then define marriage however they see fit. Churches would thus be in the clear to think of gays as unmarried (even if they had a civil union) or as still married even if a civil union was ended (if that church doesn't recognize divorce). Some churches would do gay marriages, some wouldn't. Similarly, some churches currently recognize a baptism performed by some other subset of churches or denominations, and some don't. And yet there isn't big fights about this or something, because there's no single government standard that everyone can't agree on.
Now, certainly, for practicality sakes there's no reason that they couldn't still do the civil union stuff in association with whatever kind of marriage ceremony is preferred - but either could also proceed without the other. Marriage is a word loaded with baggage, and is tied to personal issues and relationships that government needn't concern itself with. At the same time, the concept of a civil union is still useful in helping to protect people in a relationship - and there's perfectly good reason for the government to manage that.


That would be logical if their goal was to be allowed to freely practice their religion. Unfortunately their real goal is to make society conform to their religion. They are trying to justify their opinions, marriage between a man and woman, be having it legislated and enforced on everyone. If everyone is made to do it, it must be right.

The other thing I'd be interested in is how the study controlled for economic status. It's very difficult to disentangle these things and the correlation is going to be high in most parts of the States. And it'd be even harder to do with gay couples - there's far fewer, and I'd bet there's very, very few poor gay couples (married or not) that manage to adopt children. That's going to make it very hard to isolate any sort of causal effect.

The other problem in using a statistic like this (even if it had been correct) is that society is currently going to be less accepting of the children of gay couples, and this will leak into the data. However, that's also a very bad starting point for reasoning about gay marriage. For example, compare it with a debate on interracial marriages in the 1950s. Their children probably were less happy, and they were probably less successful overall because a lot of people would have treated them (parents and children) poorly due to prejudices at the time. But that doesn't mean that interracial marriages should have been disallowed. Sometimes things are right even if the transition isn't easy for those involved.

If I was representing "organized religion"s interests in this debate, my position would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let government oversee civil unions as a matter of contract and civil law. Let people then define marriage however they see fit. Churches would thus be in the clear to think of gays as unmarried (even if they had a civil union) or as still married even if a civil union was ended (if that church doesn't recognize divorce). Some churches would do gay marriages, some wouldn't. Similarly, some churches currently recognize a baptism performed by some other subset of churches or denominations, and some don't. And yet there isn't big fights about this or something, because there's no single government standard that everyone can't agree on.

Now, certainly, for practicality sakes there's no reason that they couldn't still do the civil union stuff in association with whatever kind of marriage ceremony is preferred - but either could also proceed without the other. Marriage is a word loaded with baggage, and is tied to personal issues and relationships that government needn't concern itself with. At the same time, the concept of a civil union is still useful in helping to protect people in a relationship - and there's perfectly good reason for the government to manage that.

In any case, good on Franken for examining source data, and for making his point in a clear, calm, and effective manner. Good politicianing!

I can't be certain what you mean by "up here" but in the Canada I live in, physical therapy is not lumped under chiropractics and is covered by healthcare.

Physiotherapy is covered by our healthcare system because it is an accepted and proven medical treatment. Chiropractic 'medicine' is not, and therefore should not be covered, just as fairy dust and tiger penis potions are not covered.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
Very sad. I've seen good people in my home state (NC is my home state) worry about receiving coverage. My brother sells insurance in that state. He even knows the system is fucked.
At some point we gave over our power to choose medical treatment to the insurance companies. Today our insurance plans are meal plans (meaning visits to preventive care is covered, such as pediatricians, OBGYNs, etc.) instead of catastrophic care (meaning emergency visits, unexpected health emergencies and hospitalization).
Nowadays doctors and dentists have raised their prices to offset the constant denials of coverage from insurance companies. Out of necessity they've raised their prices knowing the ins. companies will usually deny coverage.
For a year now I've tried to have a "gum graft" cleared through my insurance. After going back and forth, finally it was cleared. But a year ago when I made the request it would've cost me just my copay of $10. A year later they've raised my premium, modified my treatment meal plan and raised the copay, and now I owe a copay of $20 plus $238 of the treatment. I don't mind paying that much because I really need this done, but it's obvious they waited for the changed so they could save a couple hundred bucks.
And the treatment would'nt cost so much if the dentists (and doctors!) didn't require insurance. And they've raised prices mainly to subsidize the staff needed to handle the insurance companies (and the time spent going back and forth with the insurance companies). When's the last time you've ever heard a doctor or nurse give you dollar amount for your visit? Not often, because all we care about is the copay, right?

"At some point we gave over our power to choose medical treatment to the insurance companies."
I am terrified to ask this Blankfist, but what is the alternative? Presumably like this guy you can just not bother with insurance and choose medical treatment yourself based on what you can afford, right? Isn't any other alternative the evil machinations of Statists like me?
I am after all Canadian, and we truly have given over our power to choose medical treatment to the government. Though, it's a mixed bag up here where private hospitals and medicine is illegal and vehemently decried as inherently evil, while at the same time dental, chiropractic and optical medical treatments are all 100% private for profit enterprises and good luck getting the government to spend a dime on you if you need treatment in those fields.

Chiropractic is not a real medical field in the same way that homeopathy and voodoo aren't. If you have back problems, go to a real GP doctor and they can refer you to whatever kind of specialist you need (which is NOT a chiropractor).

Up here any physical therapy generally gets referred to or lumped in under chiropractors, and you've got a big fight on your hands to get the government to count it as a covered universal health care treatment. If you need any physical therapy from a major join injury, good luck to you. Despite the government refusal to allow the existence of any for profit hospitals, those for profit hospitals frequently don't provide the recovery therapy for many things that people end up doing without, or paying out of pocket for.
I guess my overall point is what is the alternative to the insurance companies? It basically amounts to some form of government intervention to either regulate, replace or ban them. None of which I can imagine being alternatives that Blankfist is willing to tolerate, let alone advocate for.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
Very sad. I've seen good people in my home state (NC is my home state) worry about receiving coverage. My brother sells insurance in that state. He even knows the system is fucked.
At some point we gave over our power to choose medical treatment to the insurance companies. Today our insurance plans are meal plans (meaning visits to preventive care is covered, such as pediatricians, OBGYNs, etc.) instead of catastrophic care (meaning emergency visits, unexpected health emergencies and hospitalization).
Nowadays doctors and dentists have raised their prices to offset the constant denials of coverage from insurance companies. Out of necessity they've raised their prices knowing the ins. companies will usually deny coverage.
For a year now I've tried to have a "gum graft" cleared through my insurance. After going back and forth, finally it was cleared. But a year ago when I made the request it would've cost me just my copay of $10. A year later they've raised my premium, modified my treatment meal plan and raised the copay, and now I owe a copay of $20 plus $238 of the treatment. I don't mind paying that much because I really need this done, but it's obvious they waited for the changed so they could save a couple hundred bucks.
And the treatment would'nt cost so much if the dentists (and doctors!) didn't require insurance. And they've raised prices mainly to subsidize the staff needed to handle the insurance companies (and the time spent going back and forth with the insurance companies). When's the last time you've ever heard a doctor or nurse give you dollar amount for your visit? Not often, because all we care about is the copay, right?

"At some point we gave over our power to choose medical treatment to the insurance companies."
I am terrified to ask this Blankfist, but what is the alternative? Presumably like this guy you can just not bother with insurance and choose medical treatment yourself based on what you can afford, right? Isn't any other alternative the evil machinations of Statists like me?
I am after all Canadian, and we truly have given over our power to choose medical treatment to the government. Though, it's a mixed bag up here where private hospitals and medicine is illegal and vehemently decried as inherently evil, while at the same time dental, chiropractic and optical medical treatments are all 100% private for profit enterprises and good luck getting the government to spend a dime on you if you need treatment in those fields.

Chiropractic is not a real medical field in the same way that homeopathy and voodoo aren't. If you have back problems, go to a real GP doctor and they can refer you to whatever kind of specialist you need (which is NOT a chiropractor).


Up here any physical therapy generally gets referred to or lumped in under chiropractors, and you've got a big fight on your hands to get the government to count it as a covered universal health care treatment. If you need any physical therapy from a major join injury, good luck to you. Despite the government refusal to allow the existence of any for profit hospitals, those for profit hospitals frequently don't provide the recovery therapy for many things that people end up doing without, or paying out of pocket for.

I guess my overall point is what is the alternative to the insurance companies? It basically amounts to some form of government intervention to either regulate, replace or ban them. None of which I can imagine being alternatives that Blankfist is willing to tolerate, let alone advocate for.

I'm playing the game and enjoying it. First off, these guys clearly are trying to bash the game. I mean, who starts the level by running off the edge of a cliff and then says "see, this sucks". Then picks the scene with the elevator falling, and doesn't even pull the handbrake until the end and wonders why they die. The one guy hasn't even seen the game until his buddy shows him parts and he says "boy this is boring". No shit, it doesnt matter what the game is, if i'm watching someone else play, its going to be boring as all hell.

So the game runs great on my computer. Looks good too. I can't tell you what it looks like on a console, nor do I give a shit about consoles. If you are playing a fps on a console, you're missing out. Anyway, my load times average 3 seconds. I have detected no bugs or buggy play so far. It feels solid to me. I heard people complain that it had no music, but it does. Not so much as to be annoying, kicks in when it should, it gives you clues about when a big fight is coming and ends when you're done. The pacing is a little slow in some areas, but not enough that i was ever bored. There is a lot to look at in the world. Its populated with items and posters and whatnot fairly well. I felt like there was a lot of attention paid to the details in the world. There are a lot of things you can interact with, but i wish there was a higher level of interactivity and a little more in the way of physics on items.

I don't like the fact that you can't go off and explore everywhere, and the "secret areas" I found were simple with maybe one or two hidden objects stashed there. But then I played the "strip club" level. I realized that besides just putting strippers and boobs back into the game, that level is actually a fun little exploration level with more than one way and more than one area to find all the items.

I heard complaints that there is no mighty boot, but there is, it's just automatic now, it's used when it needs to be and I kinda like that. It's not overused and it feels powerful. Speaking of which, all the weapons so far feel pretty good and sound nice and beefy.

Dukes animations are pretty good (and his jump animation in the mirror is a cool throw-back to the old duke). I like when he gets thrown or falls down and gets back up, it looks good and makes me feel more like I'm playing as duke. The enemy animations are good. The non player characters are what is lacking in both detail and animation

I thought his one liners would get annoying fast, but they aren't too bad, some made me laugh a little. Some of the encounters are truly funny. Some are not.

I also heard some people say there aren't enough enemies at once, but I had many encounters with a lot of enemies so I don't know what they are talking about.

Overall I feel like i'm playing in a real world with enough attention to detail to not be too bland. I don't know how far into the game I am. I am taking my time and not just rushing through and I probably have a good 7, maybe 8 hours with it so far and I'm glad I bought it. I have no regrets and am having fun with it.

So there is my opinion of the game so far. I'm tired of people bashing games just because they think it's cool to do so. How about for once an actual in depth review of all the games attributes by someone who wasn't purposely looking to find as much negative that they could and exaggerate it.

And just as a side note, I actually played Diakatana from start to finish and once the patch was released and you got past the misquitos and frogs in the very beginning, the game was actually quite good (for it's time of course). Yet most people wouldn't know it because reviewers were trying their best to steer people away from it. I see duke getting bad reviews because its not the best game ever, so instead of a 7 out of ten (that's what I would give it so far, and I played a lot of games over the years), they try to make a point by giving it a 3 or something stupidly low.

I concur with you assessments of the movies I mentioned and welcome your recommendations with great anticipation. In fact, I intend to search out copies this weekend. Thank you again.
>> ^steroidg:

>> ^chicchorea:
I am unfamiliar with the two films mentioned and look forward to seeing then. He has done some of the most beautiful films. Curse of the Golden Flower and House of Flying Daggers are stunning.

If you were looking for things similar to "Curse of the Golden Flower" in the 3 movies I named, then you'll probably be disappointed as they are very different. To me, Zhang Yi Mou is much better at depicting characters than big fighting scenes (though I think his direction of the Beijing Olympic opening was awesome).
"House of the flying dagger" and "Curse of the golden flower" were just too superficial for my taste. Sure they have pretty pictures and actors, but they lack the essence of humanity that's present in his other movies.
Another one of my favorite movies of his: "No one less" is terribly slow and uneventful from the first glance, but at a certain moment in the movie, the viewer couldn't help but to feel the raw emotional connection with one of the main characters, and I literally couldn't hold back my tears. It's the only moment in the movie that makes you feel that way, and it only last a few seconds... but it's all worthy.

>> ^chicchorea:

I am unfamiliar with the two films mentioned and look forward to seeing then. He has done some of the most beautiful films. Curse of the Golden Flower and House of Flying Daggers are stunning.


If you were looking for things similar to "Curse of the Golden Flower" in the 3 movies I named, then you'll probably be disappointed as they are very different. To me, Zhang Yi Mou is much better at depicting characters than big fighting scenes (though I think his direction of the Beijing Olympic opening was awesome).

"House of the flying dagger" and "Curse of the golden flower" were just too superficial for my taste. Sure they have pretty pictures and actors, but they lack the essence of humanity that's present in his other movies.

Another one of my favorite movies of his: "No one less" is terribly slow and uneventful from the first glance, but at a certain moment in the movie, the viewer couldn't help but to feel the raw emotional connection with one of the main characters, and I literally couldn't hold back my tears. It's the only moment in the movie that makes you feel that way, and it only last a few seconds... but it's all worthy.

>> ^ForgedReality:

So this is what those suicide bombers are like in real life.


And no joke in that either. Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist and the ONLY person to have interviewed Bin Laden after 9/11 was in Lebanon during the last big fight with Israel. Hamid Mir had gone to speak with Hezbollah, and they had locked him up while deciding what to do with him. During that time Israel's air raids started and the compound they were in started getting hit. Hamid Mir recalls the Hezbollah guards panicking and lamenting that they had ever joined Hezbollah, terrified that they might be killed. Mir was decidedly unimpressed with the strength of their 'convictions'.

I like the big fight with the queen at the end... She obviously couldn't lay eggs any more so that pretty much make alien 3 impossible.

What they should have done is have Ripley and Hicks lead a new team to the aliens' homeworld to blow their shit up.

Two things:

1) Did anyone else notice that a lot of the blood & guts in this movie was CGI?
2) Was anybody else disappointed that during the big fight scene Rambo simply sat behind a giant machinegun for the entire thing?

Maybe you're getting old and poor, Sly.