>> ^Sigh:

Except I'm not a right winger. I actually voted for the idiot. I want my vote back. He is as bad as bush.

Oh yeah? You one of these left-wingers who think they're moving the overton window left by reinforcing right wing attacks on Obama (i.e. dumb, failure, just like Bush, etc.)?

Seriously, I don't think conversion to metrics is worth fighting for. It'd be nice to see it happen some day, but the big problem is the stupidification of our political system. We can't have a rational conversation about anything anymore, least of all something like making our measurement systems compliant with the international community.

You may not be right-wing, but you totally fell into the moron trap -- I mention Obama's name, and you had to talk shit about Obama yourself, rather than simply agree that anti-Obama insanity plus our normal cultural insanity would make it completely impossible for us to do anything about trying to move to metrics (or deal with the economy, or deal with the environment, or deal with banking regulation, etc.).

lol bonus cringe for incestual overtones

This is unfortunately real and post modern irony free

Rural ireland has a thriving country and western, line dancing, faux nashville accent, stetson wearing thing going on that cant even be believed once seen. (not that I object to any of those things in their native habit)

They seem to be replacing Jedward, economic collapse and church scandals as the latest inducement to national suicide.

White Suit Dancing action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x60BovWjrk&feature=related

This was never punk. It's pop rock like blink 182, sum41 and all that college blah blah with political overtones (which are hip now) to draw the crowd. Meh.

>> ^acidSpine:
I'm probably gonna get some downvotes for this but what the hell. Is punk music the only genre breaking new ground anymore? I mean I listen to all kinds of music and it's the same stuff being recycled over and over. Punk on the other hand, just when I think it can't be degraded any further...

@peggedbea: Now that's how you move the overton window left!

@RedSky: I think we're in complete agreement, then.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
I think there's an endlessly rich intellectual world lying beneath the surface of politics, but all we ever see of it is the borderline anti-intellectualism of folks like Arianna Huffington arguing that it's actually good for liberals that Van Jones got pushed out of the White House, because he's too awesome to be constrained by such a job.

I really wish someone in a more mainstream media outlet would tap into the intellectual side of governance and political theory. It can be found all over the web (and I like to think in this particular corner of the web), but it's utterly lacking on TV. I suppose Bill Moyer's Journal occasionally dips into that realm, but I'm not sure if there's anyone but me watching that show.
I'm no fan of Huffington either. Huffpo is a decent news site, but Arianna herself seems devoted to making liberals look hysterical.
Oh, and as to your comment about progressives needing to embrace incrementalism, I agree to a certain point. I think it's important that we have people trying to shift the Overton window to the left, but I'd rather they sound more like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson than Michael Moore (though Moore is a good guy to have on our side too).
What I don't think we need is this whole segment of the progressive movement that's decided that the only way to move the Overton window to the left is to constantly badmouth Democrats, largely using the exact same attacks the right uses. I don't get that, but I see it happening all over the blogosphere. Lotsa people who claim to be on the left who can't do anything but talk about Obama being a secret Muslim Republican, and Rahm Emmanuel selling us out, etc.
I don't get it, do they think that driving Obama's unfavorables up is going to move the cause forward?


I could get behind liberalism if there was a movement within it to hold accountable those fellow liberals who sabotage the cause.

Liberals have plenty of sites like 'Crooks and Liars" or Mediawatch to keep an eye on the excesses of conservatives... why can't they do the same to keep an eye on the excesses of fellow liberals?

Next time Michael Moore says he's going to sabotage the healthcare debate by framing it as the US vs. Communism, organize liberals to boycott his short-sightedness. That's a kind of attitude of accountability and honor that I think has broader appeal to moderates.

>> ^chilaxe:
I think there's an endlessly rich intellectual world lying beneath the surface of politics, but all we ever see of it is the borderline anti-intellectualism of folks like Arianna Huffington arguing that it's actually good for liberals that Van Jones got pushed out of the White House, because he's too awesome to be constrained by such a job.


I really wish someone in a more mainstream media outlet would tap into the intellectual side of governance and political theory. It can be found all over the web (and I like to think in this particular corner of the web), but it's utterly lacking on TV. I suppose Bill Moyer's Journal occasionally dips into that realm, but I'm not sure if there's anyone but me watching that show.

I'm no fan of Huffington either. Huffpo is a decent news site, but Arianna herself seems devoted to making liberals look hysterical.

Oh, and as to your comment about progressives needing to embrace incrementalism, I agree to a certain point. I think it's important that we have people trying to shift the Overton window to the left, but I'd rather they sound more like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson than Michael Moore (though Moore is a good guy to have on our side too).

What I don't think we need is this whole segment of the progressive movement that's decided that the only way to move the Overton window to the left is to constantly badmouth Democrats, largely using the exact same attacks the right uses. I don't get that, but I see it happening all over the blogosphere. Lotsa people who claim to be on the left who can't do anything but talk about Obama being a secret Muslim Republican, and Rahm Emmanuel selling us out, etc.

I don't get it, do they think that driving Obama's unfavorables up is going to move the cause forward?

what ...the....FUCK did i just watch?
this video had me mouthing off like don rickles on a crystal meth bender but i'll curb my urge to eviscerate this....*cough*.....music?
talent aside...and lets be up front..these guys have some talent but the whole "arpeggio/melodic/overload with lyrical operatic overtones" was already done by jason becker and marty friedman in the 80's.if you like these guys you will most likely enjoy CACOPHONY.
i'll upvote on the bizzar factor but not on content.this song is...yeesh.../cringes.
meh../shrugs..maybe its just me but it seems they should be played at 33 RPM's and not 44 RPM's.
and i am by no means a purists,my music tastes are extremely eclectic but i'll listen to death metal before being subjected to this.
sorry guitarwolf but i cant join ya in appreciating this band.
seems you really like them.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I can't imagine that the producers of this commercial didn't realize that there might be some racial overtones in handing out a bucket of fried chicken to a group of Africans. Maybe it is my Americanness. I'll wait for more Aussies to chime in.
>> ^kymbos:
I'll suggest you are not separating your own cultural history from the Australian context, something that's almost impossible to do. As an Aussie living in Australia, I'll assert that the fried chicken thing is not well known, nor have I ever heard it applied to Indigenous Australians, which would be quite ridiculous were it done and clearly made out of complete ignorance of its origins.
Perhaps you mix with people more worldly than most Australians, or at least more familiar with American culture and history than most.
I think an American seeing that ad has an immediate and emotional reaction that is quite different to an Australian. What I'm saying is that the internet has no context, so things can be interpreted very differently depending on the viewer's cultural background.
Do you really think the ad was made intending to suggest that all black people like fried chicken, so feed them KFC should you meet some?

I love it when people have strict requirements for their art. There's lots of spoon-fed fiction out there for you plebes. This is a work of art (how ignorant\pretentious do you have to be to call it an "attempt at art?" And the story is right there on screen if you're willing to watch and listen and stop waiting for an explanation. In fact the story is rather clear it just leaves some things open-ended as to what's real and what's part of a book within the story. Yes it's a tone poem, but it has a plot which I could describe to you succinctly. It's a helluva lot more straightforward narratively than anything by David Lynch.

Also have to disagree on the religious overtones (are you referring to the tree of life?). There's lots of spirituality but very little religion in it.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Glad I'm not alone. It was billed in the promos as "epic science fiction", but I left the cinema feeling like I'd just been to a viewing of "The Secret". Blech>> ^syncron:
>> ^dag:
I'm probably in the minority, but I did not enjoy this movie. Lots of quantum flapdoodle and a muddy story.

Not at all dag, I tried watching this movie in it's entirety on two separate occasions but simply couldn't do it. The plot is rubbish and confusing at best. Movies that don't make any sense tend to be bad movies. It is more of a cinematic attempt at art than an actual movie imo. Also, it gets negative points for heavy religious overtones.

>> ^dag:
I'm probably in the minority, but I did not enjoy this movie. Lots of quantum flapdoodle and a muddy story.


Not at all dag, I tried watching this movie in it's entirety on two separate occasions but simply couldn't do it. The plot is rubbish and confusing at best. Movies that don't make any sense tend to be bad movies. It is more of a cinematic attempt at art than an actual movie imo. Also, it gets negative points for heavy religious overtones.

Up? Another money-printing pixar typical 'old man who hates kids spends time with kid, then come to like them as kid learns valuable life lessons'. Pfft.

Haven't seen Zombieland - yet another goreporn with bursts of comedic goodness but mostly bogged down in the gutters of pop culture.

Matrix - what a load of crap. Unrealistic plot. Washed up actors/actresses giving it one more go. Arrogant neo-religious overtones meant to guide viewer through a cascade of emotional discovery, but crashing several times on the way. Modern reinterpretation of the bible - if you don't see that you're a maroon.

The Princess Bride? Great movie - for teenybopper girls (actually, I've never seen it, or Lawrence of Arabia).

Casablanca - gimme a break. The black & white just oozes pretension. That ending? C'mon - mysterious doesn't always equal good.

The Godfather? Glamourizing organized crime while simultaneously annoying my ears with that wheezy voice on Brando. Try some Halls ferchristsake!

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.

My point is that you're many Overton window steps away from having the kind of conversation you want to have in your heart of hearts, and really it's shifting in the other direction.
Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security are unthinkable. Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law.
The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc.
But hey, it's nice to see that libertarians are dropping their pretense of constructionism and going for the idea of fresh reinterpretation of the Constitution as a living document, and judicial activism...


Heart of hearts? I have no idea what you are talking about. I speak from both my heart and my head, your insinuation is rather ambiguous so I can't address what you are even speaking of.

And getting rid of those things are not unthinkable, it is exactly that closed mindedness that has made them the crazy things they are today. Just because universal health care is popular has no bearing on weather or not it should be a law. This is just as much a bush "stay the course" liberal fallacy as I could think. "Keep going with the illegal and unjust thing...because to do the opposite wouldn't be politically expedient". Like I said previous, there have been MANY bad laws in history..ask Socrates how the hemlock tasted. ("Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." --Thomas Jefferson)

Madison talked so extensively on the General welfare being a phrase that embodied the enumerated powers listed by the judge.

"I will end with a quote from my favorite American framer:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
James Madison

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.


My point is that you're many Overton window steps away from having the kind of conversation you want to have in your heart of hearts, and really it's shifting in the other direction.

Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security are unthinkable. Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law.

The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc.

But hey, it's nice to see that libertarians are dropping their pretense of constructionism and going for the idea of fresh reinterpretation of the Constitution as a living document, and judicial activism...

^ If you convince me that what we need most from healthcare is something different than what I'm advocating? Well, I'd say different things when I call the various congresscritters' offices. I might even drop the idea out into the larger group of liberals, and see if I can sway some of them to do the same.

It's not particularly likely that you'd get me to adopt your "no regulation of any kind is the fix" position, but if you set your sights on something smaller like trying to convince me that a mandated contribution to a health savings account might address my concerns better than a big government-run public option, I think you would at least have a chance of convincing me.

If ya wanna change the world, learn some poli sci. Google Overton window.

On that note, I wanna know why we aren't talking about adopting a full-on Single payer system like we have throughout the rest of the western world...