This film was, to me at least, the greatest super hero film to date. Ever. I just can't get enough of that action, and the pacing, dialogue and maturity of it was just icing on top. Superman is my least loved (most hated, even) super hero of them all, and I love this film.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to get into this in depth, but this article might help to clarify my thoughts on the issue.

This is not a "competition," by any means, but I am sensitized to the issue, having been indoctrinated throughout my schooling and my upbringing by what feels like a social inequity which purports that, implicitly, men are "bad" and need to be "checked" at every turn, while women are "good," and must be protected and acquiesced at all times. As I get older, however, this attitude turns sour as I continuously find myself faced with a stark dichotomy between either heeding the social, professional, and political needs, wants, and desires of "all women," and those of protecting my own social, professional, and political needs, wants, and desires "as a man." These shouldn't be dichotomous, but for some reason, it has become such.

I am willing to look at and manage my own triggers and/or issues around this, as a personal effort (and I do on almost a daily basis), but in the meantime (and in the hopes of supporting such an effort), I feel there needs to be a lot more recognition and dialogue around what constitutes "equality" (be it gender, or financial, or otherwise) within a society that is either politically regulated and thereby "rigged," by definition on behalf of some people, at the expense of others; or it is socially imposed, whereby (for example) a man is simply expected to be the breadwinner, by virtue of his gender, and reactively judged if he is or can not be that.

I have no interest in "making a video" about this, since my energies are better placed elsewhere, at present, but I can and do make comments on videos like this one, in an effort to meet and respond to the messages with which we're inculcated, with the personal albeit opposing view that things "are as they are" for a reason, and if we're to do anything about it, it requires a fuller examination of the entire picture, and not simply a one-sided, biased and therefore "unequal," perspective which posts blame (and/or guilt) upon one side of the equation without any (or with little) insight as to what role one plays in the issue, oneself.

I am not saying that the inequities aren't there. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
that people need to come to terms with the fact that some people will always "have more" than others and, in a leveled playing field, that is the only fair situation that can exist. In other words, any forced or imposed "equality" is implicitly incompatible with both liberty and freedom, and can not (and should not) be abided as a matter of course.

I encourage you to take a look at the article posted at the top of this comment for another perspective on the same (or "similar") issue.

rhetoric and horseshit, every bit of dialogue here and an embarrassment to anyone who voted for it or has to suffer it

Whilst I agree completely with what they're saying, the format is that of an adversarial argument. In fact, it was an obvious scripted dialogue intended to establish a proposition (quote straight out of Monty Python).

7:22 was my favourite: "throwing money into both sides [...] republicans and democrats". That's one side. There's no opposition to the view that they have.

tl;dr: point good; presentation bad.

necssary news headline: biased reporting used to oppose biased reporting.

Yah, he yells to Wanda out the window while she's jogging, "I'd recognize that tush anywhere!I'
ll include it in another viddy if this one sinks dead in the pqueue there NJ, I'd have to edit it in another program and then let you sift it though...Get back to ya on that one..There's also the dialogue between Larry and his wife about the incident that would work in there, too-

There's an ongoing trial, Newegg vs patent troll TQP, who try to blackmail corporations by claiming a patent on SSL+RC4.

Yesterday, Whit Diffie himself was called upon as an expert witness. Check out this dialogue between him (D) and Newegg's lawyer Alan Albright (A):

A: "We've heard a good bit in this courtroom about public key encryption. Are you familiar with that?"

D: "Yes, I am."

A: "And how is it that you're familiar with public key encryption?"

D: "I invented it."

SO who thinks this circle-jerk should survive to finally be published if but for the banter??

See, this is why voting for "content" is limited in this 'democratic' arena-This dialogue is destined for oblivion because of some panty-knots and opinions about what peeps THINK they know.

I enjoy the twirl, like any decent troll and perhaps now everyone can see the pile of shit that all this meaningless discourse is worth?
(it's my job peeps, to keep this absurd bullshit in-check, and more thanna half pint of ego)

DC writers sucked-ass could be one explanation as to why Marvel has always been a cut above. Part of the dynamic are the explanations of origins and powers and the more believable evolution of their characters...not to mention superior illustrators who tended to draw more FEMALE characters (HELLO!?) than the man-crushers over to DC-

DC could hardly develop suspension of disbelief with Superman...he never washed his fucking unitard for one thing, and if it was indestructible, how the FUCK did Ma Kent sew that shit from the fabric in his space pod?? That's just one small wrinkle in his whole MO, before he ever leaves for Metropolis, there's hundreds during the course of this poorly-thought-out franchise-

Oh yeah, another one that always bugged me:If Supermans' supposed to have superior intellect, how come the writers never used him as a platform to teach the younger readers anything substantial and why did Superman's dialogue always sound like some self-righteous beat cop?? Holes, holes, holes....

I'm definitely not saying that Hayden Christiansen is a great actor, but Anakin's whiny petulance came purely from George Lucas's shitty dialogue. I don't think there are many actors that could have portrayed Anakin better, Lucas gets complete responsibility for the character of Anakin

That actually is the dialogue, it's just out of sync.

And from the looks of the "Global" tag in the corner, I'm guessing this is Canadian.

@alcom No hard feelings. I'm starting to get used to this. Please let me try to explain one more time, because I feel like I have an important point:

Videos like this are great for the people who are already in agreement, but it's my belief that they're intended to educate and bring positive change.
My belief is that we need to get people who disagree entirely with the subject and message to absorb the information if we actually want to make that change.
We're communicating with people who, for all intents and purposes from our point of view, are completely irrational. 'They' believe the same about people with our perspective. If you're going to approach them for a dialogue, it only takes ONE mistake, misquote, or sense of being manipulated to lose them, and then you're back to square one.

So the reason I criticize this video is because I could see someone who was ignorant of this information easily turning it off as soon as it got to the dramatic music and the matter-of-fact narrative presentation, or the misalignment with their Empirical analogies.
I'm sure you've seen enough mainstream media today to know that as soon as something smells fishy to one party or another, they hang onto that, no matter how trivial whatever that thing is, and it's the only excuse they need to stick fingers in ears and "La la la I can't hear you! You're wrong!"

I feel like I'm turning into exactly that kind of manipulative, psychoanalyzing communicator, which makes me sick. But my whole motivation is to clear the bullshit away, that's all. Thanks for your reply.

Response to earlier comment. Continued dialogue with humorous observation.

Greg Rickford: "At every stage of the research process, scientists are aware of what they should and shouldn't be disclosing. I think we've had an open dialogue with candid on that basic research"

Well obviously something is wrong if that open dialogue has turned into an open air dialogue

@enoch, I didn't see your response to me since you didn't "reply" to me, or "message me" ("@Trancecoach"), so I'm just seeing this now:

> you argue like someone who has found religion.

What is this, then, if not ad hominem? What has religion got to do with economics in this context? I'm willing to change my mind, if you can show me the flaws in my argument.

> and its not just you that never wants to address the dark side of capitalism.

So, please tell me what didn't get 'addressed?' Did I not respond to every point in your post? Where are your replies to my reply?

> disciples of free market capitalism never want to talk about their deformed child
> locked in the upstairs bedroom.out of sight..out of mind.

Again, what wasn't addressed? Free market capitalists love to talk about free market capitalism. Ok. So are you stuck on this such that you're unable to read/respond to my response?

Seems to me that you're projecting, because while you say that my responses are like a 'sermon,' this portion of your post actually sounds like a sermon:

> every system has its flaws.
> both positive and negative.
> and no system is a rigid single dimension but rather varying layers of slight
> differences.
> this includes every political and economic system thought of or just living in the
> realm of dreams.
> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow.
> this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.
> instead i get a sermon.
> hope has two daughters.
> anger and courage.
> anger at the way things are,and courage to change them.
> i havent had a beer in ten years.
> gonna go grab me a beer or two.
> what a silly,sad old man i have become.
> old men should stop dreaming.....

Let's not degrade the level of discourse to ad hominem or sob stories. If you need help, ask for help. But don't blame me if you relapse. We are all accountable for our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

> old men should stop dreaming

Dream all you want, but don't expect everyone else to take your dreams seriously just because you say so. (Why not address any of the points I made in my response?)

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the
average voter." ~ Winston Churchill

I'm at a loss as to what response I can give you that would 'appease' your sensibilities? As far as I could tell, all of your questions were addressed. But you ignored my reply, and went back to "no one wants to talk about it" or whatever. So, what can be said?

It seems like you don't really want to "debate" or "converse" or whatever. If I refute your arguments, then you interpret that as meaning that I don't want to talk about it. Did I get that right? That doesn't make much sense to me. If not, please explain what I am missing here.

Also, what does it matter if you are old or young, or a dreamer or not, in terms of getting to the truth about socialism and capitalism?

> but you are blinded by dogma.

If so, why not show me what part of my argument is dogmatic or not epistemologically sound?
For example, what specifically about the right to and/or preference for non-aggression is 'dogmatic?' I don't like being bullied, so does that make me dogmatic? What about the impossibility of economic calculation under any sort of socialism is 'dogmatic?' And how so?

If someone doesn't understand calculus, they might call it 'dogma.' But if you understand it, then you can look at the equations and see for yourself if they make mathematical sense (or not). Was Galileo's contention that the Earth orbits the Sun dogmatic? What about the assertion that the Sun orbits the Earth, was that dogmatic? What's the difference?

> it is through discussion with people we may disagree in which new ideas can breed
> and grow. this was my ultimate goal in talking with you.

This is all very nice, but did you bother to find out what my 'ultimate goal' in talking to you was? Or is it all about yours?

Some-but-not-all people get upset when you point out how their beliefs do not correspond to the facts. Socrates was sentenced to commit suicide and Galileo died under house arrest.

I won't say whether or not this is true, or applies in this instance.

> every system has its flaws. both positive and negative. and no system is a rigid
> single dimension but rather varying layers of slight differences. this includes every
> political and economic system thought of or just living in the realm of dreams.

This, in itself is a dogmatic statement.

Look, man. I like you. I appreciate your comments, your earnestness, and willingness to engage our discourse. I also appreciate your respect and appreciation (although I can't say I'm sure how I've earned or deserved it). You've apologized for what seems to me to be ad hominem and I appreciate and accept your apology. I, too, apologize if you seem that I've been terse or avoidant in authentic engagement in dialogue with you. But in keeping with the points and arguments themselves, I think we'll both be much better off in terms of learning and growing and avoiding going off-track or off-topic into commentary about the messenger as opposed to the message.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.