I doubt he'll be remembered as anything other than a massive disappointment

Edit: Re-reading that, it came across harsher than I had intended. I think Obama was a good guy with mostly good intentions (still not keen on his policy of murdering brown people in other countries without due process).

But his healthcare was half-assed, he did nothing about gun control, and he STILL hasn't closed Guantanamo. Meanwhile, privacy rights have further eroded under his watch, and whatever legislation he apparently put in place around Wall Street is clearly not working. I'm not sure he's even looked at campaign finance reform.

Granted, a lot of that is down to an increasingly intractable (read: borderline retarded) republican congress, but the fact remains, he didn't achieve nearly as much as was hoped for.

I could go either way without wider context, I was basing my comments pretty much entirely on my past experience with such people.

However going only off the vid, the couple filming make it clear they hadn't actually paid for the sauces yet, suggesting that the way they asked had caused the conflict if you see what I mean.

i.e. it wasn't withholding already paid for services

When I said entitlement, I really just meant that it seemed like they couldn't handle the idea that they didn't get exactly what they demanded regardless of how they asked or behaved. But it was purely intuition from past experience. Without wider context I couldn't say with any conviction.

I don't have a lot of time for people who conveniently forget you are still a human being just because you work somewhere. I'd always put basic human respect first and never had much time for "the customer is always right" thing if you know what I mean. (I'm not the best guy to hire for such a job as a result)

I think it would be a more civil society if customers were also held responsible for their actions by more companies, but I recognise this is probably hopelessly wishful thinking.

I do recognise that much of our culture is not set up that way, that's why I consider him a braver man than I in some sense. I would just pussy out in favour of economic stability and whatnot.

I would be foolish if I expected things to not work as you have described. But I did feel a little swelling of pride to see the guy appearing to put his dignity before economics. (or just me projecting)

Probably not a smart move, but laudable perhaps in its own little way.
If the job actually matters that much to him, then yes that was clearly self destructive. Though I felt there was a healthy dose of sarcasm when he referred to it as his nestegg. Perhaps I just misread that.

And again, I may just be projecting all of this.

As for the last part, I really just meant that in the grand scheme of things this probably shouldn't matter that much to them. Either they were being assholes, or this guy had bigger problems than they did with his life.

If it had been a habitual problem that could be another matter, but I see no suggestion of that.

Could so easily go the other way, just that the couple instantly set off my "entitled asshole alarm" for whatever reason. It's usually right, but I don't for a moment think it forms the basis of a valid argument. That's why I went to great pains to use only ambiguous language.

I reserve the right to be wrong at all times in life.

Yep 8 years of Obama is not working.

More cops on wall street? Really 8 years of Obama and Dem control and not one Wall Streeter is in jail, let alone being investigating. But Obama's Quantifying Easing has put Trillions into the hands of these people at 0% This is worse that any Republican/ Conservative has done.

Trump has done very well regardless who is in power. Like him or not he is a business success. You turn a Million to 10 Billion.

Claiming that Trump has cheated and defrauded people to get ahead. Sounds like a proper government official today.

Yep the economy is real trouble and we can thank Democrats for not pushing corrective plans forward. All they have done is push for gay marriage, legalization of pot, opening the boarders and blame Bush for this mess.

Elizabeth Warren- what a stupid ......
*lies
*wtf
*fear

I think they should call it "Hotblack' after Hotblack Desiato, the front man for Disaster Area.
Alternately, Quantum Black would be a good choice.

I wonder if you painted your car this color, would cop radar and laser speed traps not work on you?

I don't get it, hitting those keys does nothing for me. Ze goggles, zhey do not work!

"Automatically ok"? Not necessarily. But in cases where it makes sense, at a stretch even "plot sense" for the character to be there; yeah, I think that is OK.

The Last Samurai isn't a documentary. But, the general historical justification for Tom Cruise's character being in Japan is pretty much valid. Meiji was interested in the West -- clothes, technology, weapons, and military. He actually did hire Westerners to train his army, although from what I read it sounds like they were German, French, and Italian rather than American. Still, the movie portrays the general situation/setting with at least *decent* broad-strokes historical accuracy. LOADS of movies deviate from even this degree of historical accuracy *way* more without drawing complaints; particularly if their main purpose is entertainment and not education / documentary.


Your hypothetical reverse movie makes some valid criticisms. Even though it would have been historically possible for a Westerner to be in Japan at the time -- even to be involved with training a Western-style military -- it would be unlikely for such a person to get captured, run into a Shogun that speaks English, become a badass (or at least passable) samurai warrior, and end up playing a major role in politics and significantly influencing Emperor Meiji.

My defense against those criticisms is that, for me at least, the movie is entertaining; which is kinda the point. Your "Union Samurai" movie might be equally entertaining and therefore given an equal pass on historical inaccuracies by me.

The whole characters as a "lens through which the audience can appreciate a culture/history outside their own" issue is (slightly) more weighty to me. I don't think those are often necessary, but I don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted if the movie maker feels that they are in order to sell tickets.

I love the Chinese historical novel "Three Kingdoms". A few years ago, John Wu made the movie "Red Cliff", mostly about one particular battle in the historical period portrayed in that book. For the Chinese audience, Wu made the movie in two parts, summed up about four and a half hours long. For the US / West, he made a version trimmed to just over two hours. Why? Because he (and a team of market researchers, I'm sure) knew that very few Westerners would go to see a 4+ hour long movie, entirely in Mandarin Chinese (with subtitles), about a piece of Chinese history from ~1800 years ago that very few in the West have ever heard of or know anything about.

I think the full 4+ hour long movie is great. In my personal top 10 favorite movies of all time, ahead of most Hollywood stuff. But I also understand that there's no way that movie would appeal to all but a tiny, tiny fraction of Western viewers in that full-on 4+ hour format. But, even though I personally think the cut-down 2 hour "US" version is drastically inferior to the full cut, I am glad that he made it because it gives a suitably accurate introduction to the subject matter to more people in the West (just like the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "Dynasty Warriors" videogames do), and makes that tiny, tiny fraction of Western people that know anything about it a little less tiny. While being entertaining along the way.

For other movies, sometimes the best way that a filmmaker can sell a movie to an audience that otherwise might not accept it (at least in large enough numbers to justify the production costs) may be to insert one of these "lens" characters for the audience to identify with. I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with that. It might not work for movies that are taking a more hardline approach to historical / contextual accuracy (ie., if Tom Cruise showed up in "Red Cliff" in circa 200AD China), but outside of those situations, if that is what the studio thinks it will take to sell tickets... Cool.

The Last Samurai is, like @ChaosEngine said, a movie primarily about an outsider learning a new culture (and accepting his own past). He serves as that lens character, but actually the hows and whys of his character arc are the main points of interest in the movie, at least to me.

I'm sure that an awesome, historically accurate movie could be made dealing with young Emperor Meiji, Takamori (who Katsumoto seems to be based on in The Last Samurai), and the influence of modernization on Japanese culture at the time. It could be made with no Western "lens" character, no overt influence by any particular individual Westerner, and be entirely in Japanese. But that movie wouldn't be The Last Samurai, wouldn't be attempting to serve the same purpose as The Last Samurai, and very likely wouldn't sell as many tickets (in the US) as The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise!) did. That wouldn't make it a worse movie, just an apple instead of an orange.

my understanding is that most of the "scientists" that they claim support them were not relevant to the field or are not working scientists and also included things like science teachers. once you reduce it down to researchers in the field you get a number closer to 0.002% (this is just off the top of my head).

This isnt about the change new technology brings. You can welcome the Digital Age or you can condem it. Doesnt matter. What matters that things WILL change. Very drastically in a small amount of time. A LOT of stupid, boring, menial jobs will soon vanish. Which is a good thing, but what to do with all this people who worked on those jobs?

Our wealth is based on us buying lots and lots of new things. Things and services. For that, we need money. We work to get that money. But if more and more jobs vanish, you cant just wait and hope for the best. You have to somehow counter that loss of expendable income.

What method you use or what combinations will be effective ... time will tell. But relying on the Invisible Hand of God (err ... The Free Market) and making the already super rich even more rich will NOT work.

As i said ... in Davos more and more influental people finally agree that something has to be done, because those job losses and economic changes will happen. Very fast. This is not a slow process like changing from hunter/gatherer to farming. Even the Industrial Revolution took several generations to finally establish itself. The Digital Revolution, in combination with a more and more intertwined, globalized world will change our lives in a matter of only a few decades.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

yeah..i am with @VoodooV on this one.

the man was not working.
was not wearing any company logos or identification,yet loses his job.

for what?
being an insensitive racist idiot?

public shaming?
all for it,and it might even change a few hearts and minds.inject a little empathy in an otherwise rigid and narrow worldview.

losing his job?
eeeeeeh..i think some people are taking the social warrior thing a tad too far,and are not being far sighted in their execution.

sure..we can hate on this racist asshole and ridicule him for his idiocy,but what happens when the PC police find something that YOU do offensive or inappropriate?

would you still be as confident in losing your livelihood?

i have been following this case in canada where this graphic designer is facing 6 months in jail for criticizing and disagreeing with two feminists.these women are trying to make the case that his criticisms,in the form of tweets,constitutes harrassment.

he lost his job.
is 80k in the hole,and the case has been ongoing for three years.

so there is already a frightening amount of this PC police,social warrior fascism having actually consequences.

so where do we draw the line?
who is going to arbitrarily monitor that line?
who decides what is offensive and what is not?

you start going down this road and that line will become more and more blurred until the first amendment is toast.

i am finding it more and more disturbing that people are beginning to think that being offended somehow equates to a right.that their little world,their minute and tiny habitat should be protected from offensive language.

unless you are ok with destroying peoples lives for being an idiot or an asshole.

social warriors:morality police concerned with their own little habitat,but they have your best interest as well.

oh goodie....

No, nothing about this was cool. It reproduced everything that was BAD about sci fi action movies.

The obscene amounts of light flicker, despite the fact that POWER SYSTEMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY, would make JJ Abrams blush.

By 1st world standards, it's doable by almost anyone with a half decent job.

By global standards, being able to not work for anything longer than a few days is the height of luxury, nevermind being able to leave your country.

Does not work on my dog. I honesty have the pickiest dog I've every run across.
Some of Things she won't touch.
Hotdogs
bacon
cheese
baloney
crackers
chips of any kind
Most dog treats
most dog food
its a crap shoot on finding things she will touch

Sweet zombie Jesus! What an insanely violent douchebag.
That is the official response to a child sitting quietly?!? That this behavior is sanctioned by the force is another glaring piece of evidence that there are no good cops anymore, a good person would not work for an organization that supports this behavior.

I hope this girl never has to work a day in her life, and that officer friendly never has another dime to his name when the lawsuit is over.

It seems daily we are given more evidence that, when confronted by an armed thug on a power trip, the only right thing to do is defend yourself with force as if your life depends on it, because it just may.

This crap boils my blood.