@Asmo

On your comment:

The CIA's role in the 1953 Iran ouster is generally exaggerated. Several things - (1) by 1953, the Islamic clergy supported Mossadeq's ouster, something they have been suppressing ever since in inflating their anti-US stance (2) by the time of his ouster he also lacked the support of either his parliament or the people, (3) prior to it that year, he deposed his disapproving parliament with a clearly fraudulent 99% of the vote in a national referendum, (4) strictly speaking Iran was still a monarchy and the shah deposed his PM legally under the constitution, something that Mossadeq refused to abide by.

Did the UK put economic pressure on Iran when it threatened to nationalize its oil and usurp its remnants of imperialism? Sure. Did the UK then convince Eisenhower to mount a political and propaganda campaign against Mossadeq? Sure. Was that instrumental in fomenting a popular uprising of the parliament, the clergy and large portions of the 20m general population against him? Probably not.

Also I listened to it. Really, it's a meandering, probably scripted (the parts where he feigns surprise at the questioning is particularly humorous) that tries to generalize US actions, some of which were obviously harmful and support his argument. Putting Stalin in a positive light relative to the willingness of the US to use the bomb is, amusing? I'm not sure what to call it.

That the US needs a common threat to unite against holds some grains of truth in the present day but is really part of a wider narrative by Putin to construct the US as imperalist and domineering when by all accounts since the end of the Cold War, excluding GWB's term, it has been pulling back. It hardly needed to invent Iran's covert nuclear ambitions in the early 2000s, NK's saber rattling or China's stakes on the South China Sea islands.

Modern US foreign policy largely relies on reciprocation. The US provides a military alliance and counterweight to China's military for small SE Asian nations at a hefty cost to itself, and presumably gets various trade concession and voting support in various international agencies. The key word being reciprocation, something that Russia could learn a fair bit from in its own foreign policy.

Instant upvote for the Minecraft Saber.

How much can this be repeated? The saber fights in the OT were FAR more realistic. The new ones they are barely paying attention, flipping and twisting and spinning and twirling their weapons around in a flashy, showy obviously choreographed dance.In the OT they fought much more slowly but with precision, focus and skill. Each blow had purpose beyond pretty colors flashing on screen. Nobody EVER turned their back on their opponent or (for fuck sake) leaped over them. It helps that the sabre fighting was choreographed by the legendary Bob Anderson who coached Errol Flynn and played Vader in the sabre fights himself.

I know, in this day in age everything in the movies has to be fast, showy and mesmerizing but those original Star Wars sabre duels are so memorable because they were raw and realistic. You think when life or death hangs in the balance you ever actually turn your back to your opponent? Or swirl your weapon flashily? No you make every strike, country, parry and guard a deliberate action. It's about outmaneuvering and out thinking your opponent, not how many blows you get in per second.

I always thought the aperatures were made of plasma-resistant material since they're in contact with the main blade, that had some reason, too rare or some thermal issue that stopped people from making their entire saber out of it.

Besides, you would think a Sith Lord could twist his hand so that the Jedi's blade hit the plasma before it touched the aperture. Plus, the "hilt blades" come into play whenever you have that trope where the dualists lock blades and push together, allowing use as a weapon.

Someone play back some light saber action for these beauties!

I did fencing in college, but only foil -- didn't get into it enough for epee or saber. Rating quality of a hit and control both seem like they would be good additions to the judging in fencing to me.

"Right of way", which can be gained by attacking first or reclaimed by making a successful parry and counterattack is a decent substitute, but the concept of "control" as they describe it sounds more pragmatic/real.

That's the point where you stab your light saber through your own chest.

Your video, Alton Brown: How To Open A Bottle Of Champagne With A Saber, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I thought he was pretty good in Jumper, but then again I didn't hate the star wars prequels as much as other people apparently. I mean, they were worth it for the Yoda light saber battle alone imo

Wait, are lightsabers flat, like a real saber? (1:31)
I never noticed that before. I thought they were round, like the toys.

Ah, interesting... very different & spirited vocal from Ann Wilson. Cool stuff. And yet - although Ann Wilson is singing live - the rest of the band is faking along to a pre-recorded backing track. Not uncommon in those days for TV guest spots. (And, of course, de rigueur along with "vocal support track" for any aspiring ingenue pop star these days.)

Also, check out Luke Skywalker, faking it on lead guitar! Complete with, uh, some sort of concealed light saber weapon...

I'm just glad I was proven wrong and Obama has ended all the wars in the Middle East and chosen to also not rattle the saber of war at Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, et. al.

*promote

I see that as part of the problem. There is an almost cult-like worship of the military and the people who have served. (oh no VoodooV is anti-military! lynch him!).

They bring a vast amount of experience and insight to the table? Of course they do, but are they the end all be all? Are they fundamentally better/superior to people who haven't been in the military? Not so much. If you think they are Then you seem to have trouble with that pesky concept of equality.

There is a fundamental pressure every US elected official ever has experienced to not "appear weak" That can often lead to unnecessary chest thumping and saber rattling as history has shown time and time again can get us into trouble. But it is a reality that you have better odds at winning an elected office if you served than if you hadn't and people need to fundamentally re-consider that line of reasoning.

Quite honestly, McCain is part of the old guard, the old way of thinking. We can't afford to think like that any longer. As technology continues racing ahead, The world becomes an increasingly small place and we have GOT to figure out how to get along with each other. Of course there will always be a need to have/show military force, but it's a scalpel, not a blunt object.

To me it seems like McCain is just becoming more and more incompetent. If there is any...ANY grain of truth to how they failed to vet Sarah Palin because they both thought they other guy did the vetting, that is just this huge failure and that McCain simply didn't care or pay attention to what was going on in his campaign and to me that speaks volumes as to how he would have led the country.

Time for retirement John.

But here is where I defend him. He wouldn't be where he is at right now if people didn't choose him. Whether I agree with him or not, He is doing what he thinks is best because the voters put him there. There is no mustache twirling villain. The world doesn't work that way. @arekin is absolutely right. There is a massive compulsion that whenever a vote doesn't go someone's way, then obviously the bad guys won and that everything they do will be evil, all the absurd arguments like "he's not MY president," or "I don't think he's a citizen," or "he's not a REAL American" are just lies people tell themselves to make them feel better. This isn't an episode of Scooby Do where if you solve the mystery you get to pull the mask off and the villain says "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!"

Talk is cheap Mr. Speaker, if you want to be in power so you can "arrest the gov't" put your money where your mouth is, STFU and run for office then asshole. Convince the people you're right and lets see if you can do any better. That's how the system works! If there is one negative to the Internet is the massive amount of armchair quarterbacking the Internet breeds. Countless millions of people who seem to honestly think they would do a better job. Well hey, you know what? I'm sure there are some of you out there that COULD do a better job, but if you're not going to throw your hat into the ring and walk the walk then I've got no time for your rambling and conspiracy theories.

McCain's response to his speech was fucking perfect. Not only did he call him out to run for office, He pointed out that he IS governing with the consent of the people. So if you don't like it, do a little community organizing of your own and convince the people to demand better. Oh shit, that takes effort! fuck it then!

No one really takes power. The people will always be strong enough (with or without guns) to thwart anyone who takes power. In reality, power is given. There are countless mechanisms of peaceful change in our gov't. Use them or shut the fuck up.

IMO, the single best thing we could do for gov't is to COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL PRIVATE MONEY FROM OUR ELECTIONS AND ABOLISH LOBBYING. It's because of all the corporate influence in our gov't that we probably get into these shenanigans in the first place.

Didn't Raven's Jedi Knight games have yellow and purple light sabers all over the place? I wonder how they got away with that.