* You still file US taxes? Wow, that's some overreach. I tend to live in the camp of voluntary taxation to fund government programs (excise taxes, etc.), which essentially boils down to no income tax. Income tax in the US is only a 3rd of the Federal Government's revenue, so it's hard to convince me it's necessary especially since such a large portion is spent on defense (which we all know is NOT defense, but really offense).

* Institutional welfare tends to leave people more destitute than aided. Look no further than the Native Americans in the US and Canada. I have a really close connection to one particular treatied band in Southern Canada where alcoholism and gambling isn't just a stereotype. And I've watched young boys grow up disliking when their parents (or parent) use them to get more money from relatives, but once they reach a self-sustainable age they fall right back into that cycle. So few of them I've seen have a drive to escape that life, but instead accept it and live a life of handouts and poverty. I can only guess this isn't because they're natives, because I'm 1/8th native, but because that's what welfare does to them.

Welfare has a stigma, and if you grow up accepting a lifetime with welfare then you grow to associate yourself with that stigma. At least that's the best I can guess.

* Nuclear power is the future. It has to be.

* The free market is the best way for individuals to learn how each of us can better serve our fellow man. No central authority can be smart enough to understand the complexities of every human endeavor, so progress is truly within the open markets. Don't misread that as corporatism. I mean, it's certainly not perfect, but it's better.

* The great, late father of Comparative Mythology, Joseph Campbell, once wrote (and I paraphrase because I can't find it now), 'The world today is as good as it's ever been in history, and it's as bad as it's ever been.' I like that.

* Yeah, when did wanting a more efficient, limited government become a Republican only talking point? It used to be a liberal belief when liberals were more libertarian.

* You should look into Scientology!

Skepticism is a virtue, to me. Ignorance is not.

Things are bad with the corporations quickly taking over in our society. At some point in our lives most of us will work for a large corporation as there will be very few small businesses left. And these corporations use the apparatus of government to create legislation and regulations that help them grow, increase profits, but most importantly they use it to stifle competition. And a lot of these corporations are profiting from the war, particularly the oil companies. Gas prices just rose here in LA to over $4 a gallon. And what gets me is how surprised people act when they see the new price hikes. I can't wait to see how they'll react when it goes over $5/gallon.

And we all think voting once every two or four years will fix all the ills of society and somehow magically contain the corporations and spendthrift politicians and bureaucrats. It's a bit of a joke when you think about how powerless we really are. But, before things turn for the bleak, I can say I believe what Joseph Campbell once said (and I paraphrase) that the world is as good today as its ever been and as bad as its ever been. In other words, it will always be getting worse and better, and we each participate in it.

So, yes, we should question everything the government does, and if we don't give in to cynicism we should participate in changing it as well.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

You know, I have been thinking about what you said, and not only is it not being a dumb fuck, or a nut job to question. Isn't It our duty as American Citizens to question things our Government tells us that don't make sense? I mean, the whole GasLand thing going on. And Inside Job. This shit is getting out of control. They are getting away with anything they want and are not being held accountable for any of it...

As @VoodooV put it:
"To me it's a moot point. Even if it was proven that it was a conspiracy. America simply doesn't show any willingness to prosecute anyone anymore. No one was prosecuted for the lies that led us to the Iraq war, no one is prosecuted for Wall Street destroying the economy. America simply doesn't care about justice anymore. Justice is inconvenient.

Of course, one could imply that because of America's inability get much done these days, that it's a strong argument for it not being a conspiracy. It actually takes competence to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. We're too busy fighting with each other."

I know this comment is remix of commentaries from many individuals over the span of forever, but here goes anyway.

I'm not going to defend Hollywood's endless regurgitation of the same material. The dearth of original ideas in that town is appalling. However, if you read Joseph Campbell, other mythologists, and literary experts, you'll know that there are really only a limited number of original stories in the first place. Kirby Ferguson even mentions Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces. One author whose name completely escapes me at the moment wrote that there are only about 60 stories - various tragedies, romances, heroic adventures, and even comedies have their roots in basic stories that have been told for millennia. Other experts will say there are fewer stories than that, others will say more, but you get my point. However, it's HOW those stories are retold is what makes them great, mediocre, shitty, etc.

Take the movie The Fighter. It's a classic story of an underdog beating the odds and achieving greatness. In this case it's a true story, but it's a classic. Just ask Rocky. However what made The Fighter great was in the details, especially the acting. Melissa Leo, Amy Adams, and Christian Bale all turned in great performances.

Also George Lucas did take a LOT from other films, but he made the material his own and succeeded wildly with Star Wars. (Then 20 years later he took all that greatness and took a huge fucking dump on it, almost souring me on my love of the originals.)

So I don't mind stories being retold, as long as the filmmakers can make them their own, keep them interesting, and stock them with good actors (not necessarily famous actors, but good actors). I hope Kirby Ferguson touches on this in the third part.

I hate to be that guy, but... *douchebag.

It's not that his message isn't apt and correct. It's just generic and easy. Joseph Campbell said it better and quicker when he said "follow your bliss."

And Mr. Campbell was dignified and calm when he did it. He wasn't a wad of self-important, angst-laden energy.

In reply to this comment by fissionchips:
*dead

fixed

finally.

Here's another clip worth viewing.

Here's another clip worth viewing.

this guy needs a crash course in Joseph Campbell.

Hmmm. This is a hard one. I'm surprised I don't have more works of fiction on this list.

1. Robert R. McCammon's Boy's Life
2. Joseph Campbell, Bill Moyer: The Power of Myth
3. Ron Paul's The Revolution:A Manifesto
4. Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion
5. Simon Singh's The Code Book

I love Joseph Campbell's stuff. It's fascinating, and so informative about the nature of the human psyche. But I will never understand how somebody can see all those myths and think, those are interesting but false and mine are true, as Bill Moyers does. I still have a ton of respect for the guy though, despite his frustrating near-sightedness.

^Yep, those who decry that humanity has changed have never read Joseph Campbell who further illustrates the point that today is (as Charles Dickens said) "the best of times, it was the worst of times." We're just as worse off today as we were four thousand years ago. That's JC's perspective, and I believe him, that's why I hate those fear peddlers who insist we need Obama for change. He's not changing shit. [/troll]

>> ^thepinky:
Of all of the comments, I have no idea why I'm replying to this one.

There are a few schools of thought as far as language goes. Some people, like you, seem to believe that language is stagnant and that definitions are based on some kind of standard set by an expert. I believe that language is what we make of it. And myth has a new definition than it used to. That happens. Deal.

>> ^blankfist:
Thanks for the copy and paste reference.com definition of myth. That's great if you want the English Exam question number nine on page six for that standardized test where no child is left behind. But, when you speak to a scholar (such as one so respected as Joseph Campbell) I really hope you can refrain from rolling your eyes, lest you will lose your argument. Joseph Campbell does, in fact, define Myth as a metaphor. If you want to dispute him, that is fine and great, in fact, I love that notion. But, please, please, give evidence outside of a pedestrian link to some homogenized dictionary definition.





It seems like BLANKFIST is the one making something of the language here. Thepinky's the one coming up with a standard two word definition and leaving the argument at that. Why the fuck would anyone upvote this comment? Because she says, "deal"?

It's not even an argument at all...

Thepinky's comment here is so hypocritical that it's collapsing in on itself like a dying star and people are upvoting it?

I've tried to keep from making personal attacks on these threads but JESUS CHRIST...

>> ^thepinky:
Of all of the comments, I have no idea why I'm replying to this one.
There are a few schools of thought as far as language goes. Some people, like you, seem to believe that language is stagnant and that definitions are based on some kind of standard set by an expert. I believe that language is what we make of it. And myth has a new definition than it used to. That happens. Deal.
>> ^blankfist:
Thanks for the copy and paste reference.com definition of myth. That's great if you want the English Exam question number nine on page six for that standardized test where no child is left behind. But, when you speak to a scholar (such as one so respected as Joseph Campbell) I really hope you can refrain from rolling your eyes, lest you will lose your argument. Joseph Campbell does, in fact, define Myth as a metaphor. If you want to dispute him, that is fine and great, in fact, I love that notion. But, please, please, give evidence outside of a pedestrian link to some homogenized dictionary definition.



It seems like BLANKFIST is the one making something of the language here. Thepinky's the one coming up with a standard two word definition and leaving the argument at that. Why the fuck would anyone upvote this comment? Because she says, "deal"?

It's not even an argument at all...

Thepinky's comment here is so hypocritical that it's collapsing in on itself like a dying star and people are upvoting it?

I've tried to keep from making personal attacks on these threads. I even qualitied her feminism post to promote the discussion but JESUS CHRIST...

>> ^thepinky:
Of all of the comments, I have no idea why I'm replying to this one.
There are a few schools of thought as far as language goes. Some people, like you, seem to believe that language is stagnant and that definitions are based on some kind of standard set by an expert. I believe that language is what we make of it. And myth has a new definition than it used to. That happens. Deal.
>> ^blankfist:
Thanks for the copy and paste reference.com definition of myth. That's great if you want the English Exam question number nine on page six for that standardized test where no child is left behind. But, when you speak to a scholar (such as one so respected as Joseph Campbell) I really hope you can refrain from rolling your eyes, lest you will lose your argument. Joseph Campbell does, in fact, define Myth as a metaphor. If you want to dispute him, that is fine and great, in fact, I love that notion. But, please, please, give evidence outside of a pedestrian link to some homogenized dictionary definition.



Because you haven't got anything relevant to add to anyone elses comments?

Of all of the comments, I have no idea why I'm replying to this one.

There are a few schools of thought as far as language goes. Some people, like you, seem to believe that language is stagnant and that definitions are based on some kind of standard set by an expert. I believe that language is what we make of it. And myth has a new definition than it used to. That happens. Deal.

>> ^blankfist:
Thanks for the copy and paste reference.com definition of myth. That's great if you want the English Exam question number nine on page six for that standardized test where no child is left behind. But, when you speak to a scholar (such as one so respected as Joseph Campbell) I really hope you can refrain from rolling your eyes, lest you will lose your argument. Joseph Campbell does, in fact, define Myth as a metaphor. If you want to dispute him, that is fine and great, in fact, I love that notion. But, please, please, give evidence outside of a pedestrian link to some homogenized dictionary definition.