did a presentation in my high school law on this so here's a lil breakdown for ya'll-

Prostitution is a legitimate business and it needs to be legalized to stop unnecessary crime and spread of disease in the community and to enforce the human right of fornication to its extent.

Why Legalize?

When you make something illegal, whether it is drugs, guns or Prostitution, it goes into the underground. Circuits of black market trade and illegal activity are formed. Plainly, when something is illegal, it becomes dangerous instantly for anyone in contact with it. The reason that prostitution does spread disease and murder is only because it illegal.

1. When prostitution is illegal, there is no way of controlling the spread of HIV, AIDS and STDS. Prostitution only accounts for the spreading of 3-5% of STDs while 30-35% is teen-related. Making Prostitution illegal increases the number of the disease’s victims. If a prostitute is infected with AIDS, and she does have 868 partners that year, without a condom that is 868 new cases of AIDS, only further to be spread. Although this is very unlikely since most prostitutes use condoms. The issue of pregnancy also occurs, since AIDS will be passed on directly. With the legalization of prostitution this problem will be wiped out entirely and the number of HIV, AIDS and STDS will go down significantly. All brothels mandatory check their clients monthly, sometimes weekly, and mandate the use of condoms.

2. Again, making prostitution illegal makes it extremely dangerous for prostitutes to work. Prostitutes are the most targeted female group for violence. If a prostitute is raped or violently abused, she cannot go to the police. Prostitution fatality rates are extremely high and the homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000. Perpetrators include violent clients, pimps, and corrupt law-enforcement officers. Serial killers also target prostitutes since the authorities will show less effort to solve the case as apposed to the murder of a schoolteacher or secretary. Jack the Ripper is said to have killed at least five prostitutes in London in 1888. In a recent US study of almost 2000 prostitutes followed over a 30-year period, by far the most common causes of death were homicide. The homicide rate among active female prostitutes was 17 times higher than that of the age-matched general female population.

3.Will eliminate all other illegal infusion such as drugs, gun crime and violence.

4. Will eliminate pimping completely

5. Will help stop the underground child sex slave trade and sex trafficking.

6. The fear of being prosecuted will not exist. This will not prevent prostitutes to go to authorities when needed. Men whose intention is violence or a combination of sex and violence can then be stopped.

7. Most women who prostitute have no previous work experience and live in poverty. Legalizing prostitution will provide prostitutes with a safe work environment and a legal, beneficial job. In result, poverty rates will drop.

8. Less accidental pregnancies causing women to go onto further poverty taking that child down with them.

9.”It costs $2,000 per case to arrest, court, and jail a prostitute. Cities spend from $1 million to $23 million dollars, for an average of $7.5 million dollars, on prostitution-control. Despite the expenses made trying to prevent prostitution, it hasn't been prevented, but only driven underground to places where prostitutes are in the greatest danger of having their rights violated by pimps, clients, and cops. Instead of spending an average of $7.5 million trying to prevent prostitution and arresting prostitutes, cities should spend that money preventing rights-violations against prostitutes, and punishing those who commit crimes against prostitutes.

History

Prostitutes have existed in every human civilization knows to date. It is only recently that a 180 was done in its regard. Throughout 1910 and 1915 the Woman’s Christian Temptation Union strongly influenced the ban of Prostitution. This was the same time as the alcohol prohibition. In 1949 The United Nation released an act that stated that prostitution is against human morals and should be abolished. Since then it has been, in many countries, especially the U.S, which is supposed to be the land of the free.
Prostitution is said to be the oldest female profession. It was one of the only way for females to do gain money throughout most of history, since they were greatly oppressed by men. Mind you male prostitutes did exist and still exist. In Greek and Japanese societies, prostitutes were held on a higher level then most other women. They had an excellent income, were respected and influential figures and admired throughout the community. They were called Hetaeras and Geishas. Although Religion is the main reason prostitution is currently illegal, it was actually a main supplier and benefited of prostitution throughout history. Cyprus and Corinth temples were in charge on thousands of prostitutes. The bible also contains prostitution. King David’s grandmother was one. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church was the main supporter of brothels and gained more wealth and power from it. Augustine of Hippo claimed that Prostitution is a necessary thing, in order to stop greater sins such as masturbation, rape and sodomy.


World Prostitution and Criminal Code

Muslim Countries- Death Penalty
Thailand-prostitution is illegal
New South Wales, Australia- any person over the age of 18 may offer to provide sexual services in return for money.
Victoria, Australia- a person who wishes to run a prostitution business must have a license. Prostitutes working for themselves in their own business, as prostitutes in the business, must be registered. Individual sex workers are not required to be registered.
Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Netherlands- prostitutes are tax-paying and unionized professionals and brothels are legal
Bulgaria and Sweden- outlawed pimping, legal prostitution
Japan- vaginal prostitution is against the law and fellatio prostitution is legal
Turkey- street prostitution is illegal. There are government-run brothels in most cities, which house sex workers. Private brothels must have a license.
Brazil and Costa Rica- prostitution per se is legal, but taking advantage or profit from others' prostitution is illegal
United Kingdom-prostitution is not formally illegal, but several activities surrounding it are outlawed such as pimping, brothels, street and car prostitution
America- Nevada and Rhode Island have legalized prostitution. In all other states it is illegal. A Prostitute can be sentenced up to 15 years in prison.
Canada-prostitution itself is legal, but most other activities around it are not. Pimping is illegal and it is illegal to negotiate a sex-for-money deal in a public place. Section 213 of the Criminal Code states that communicating for the purpose of prostitution is a summary conviction offence. Summary offenses are considered "less serious", carrying a maximum six-month jail term, a $2,000 fine, or both.


Statistics

One prostitute may have 868 partners a year. This is knows as a under reported number.
16% of 18-59 year old men have paid for sex (arguably also under reported)
Per a hundred thousand people, 23% are Prostitutes.
1 in 3 women in jails re arrested for prostitution
15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes, 59% of prostitutes have thought of committing suicide, compared to 61% of non-prostitutes.
77.8% of arrests are women, 22.2% men. In larger cities, 20-30% of prostitutes are male


Hypocrisy
There is a president place for the US constitution to support prostitution.

In 1965 the Supreme Court in Griswold vs. Connecticut found a right of privacy that covered the right for couples to use birth control.
1973 that right of privacy was extended to abortion in Roe vs. Wade, which later extended to Laurence very Texas to same sex conduct.

Based on this principle Prostitution should therefore logically extend to encompass the right of consenting adult to procure fornication part of a monetary transaction. The hidden agenda is social control.

It is a human right to have sexual intercourse whether it is free or paid for
Prostitution is said to victimize. If a woman willingly provides sexual services to a man who is willing to pay money for it, there is no violation of human rights.
Catholic and Christian group’s word cannot hold a strong meaning since their religions have been the top benefactors of prostitution throughout history
It is hypocritical for the government to say they are banning prostitution with people’s well being in mind when it is the ban that provokes thousands of deaths related to prostitution.



If Legalized

Brothels would be completely legal with guidelines of monthly health checks and security.

Private prostitution would be legalized with a license. A mandatory course would be required for education on health risks, contraception, prostitute rights, smart and careful choice of customers and advertising recommendations.

Street prostitution would not be made legal because 80% of prostitutes are killed on the street and although with legalization this number will improve, I consider it still dangerous. A 1500$ penalty and community hours will be enforced instead of imprisonment.

>> ^charliem:
lol @ "institutionalize the black market"
By definition, its no longer a black market if its legal. Bag of religious douche.

It remains in the black market as long as the average public doesn't have easy access to it by walking down to the local pharmacy, or coffee shop and buying it which it what is implied. So what you're getting is that fine grey area where it's partially legal for some, in the majority of illegal for most, and everyone is still going LALALA ... who gives a crap, and continues to go on about their business.

lol @ "institutionalize the black market"

By definition, its no longer a black market if its legal. Bag of religious douche.

Medical Care Confusion

by

Thomas Sowell


Is there a coherent argument for government-controlled medical care or are slogans and hysteria considered sufficient?
We hear endlessly about how many Americans don't have health insurance. But, if we stop and think-- which politicians hope we never do-- that raises the question as to why that calls for government-controlled medical care.
A bigger question is whether medical care will be better or worse after the government takes it over. There are many available facts relevant to those crucial questions but remarkably little interest in those facts.

There are facts about the massive government-run medical programs already in existence in the United States-- Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' hospitals-- as well as government-run medical systems in other countries.
None of the people who are trying to rush government-run medical care through Congress before we have time to think about it are pointing to Medicare, Medicaid or veterans' hospitals as shining examples of how wonderful we can expect government medical care to be when it becomes "universal."
As for those uninsured Americans we keep hearing about, there is remarkably little interest in why they don't have insurance. It cannot be poverty, for the poor can automatically get Medicaid.
In fact, we already know that there are people with substantial incomes who choose to spend those incomes on other things, especially if they are young and in good health. If necessary, they can always go to a hospital emergency room and receive treatment there, whether or not they have insurance.
Here, the advocates of government-run medical care say that we all end up paying, one way or another, for the free medical care that hospitals are forced by law to provide in their emergency rooms. But unless you think that any situation you don't like is a reason to give politicians a blank check for "change," the relevant question becomes whether the alternative is either less expensive or of better quality. Nothing is cheaper just because part of the price is paid in higher taxes.
Such questions seldom get asked, much less answered. We are like someone being rushed by a used car dealer to sign on the dotted line. But getting stuck with a car that is a lemon is nothing compared to signing away your right to decide what medical care you or your loved ones will get in life and death situations.
Politicians can throw rhetoric around about "bringing down the cost of health care" or they can even throw numbers around. But the numbers that politicians are throwing around don't match the numbers that the Congressional Budget Office finds when it analyzes the hard data.
An old advertising slogan said, "Progress is our most important product." With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. And they confuse medical care with health care.
Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years-- repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?
Refusing to pay the costs is not the same as bringing down the cost. That is why price controls create these problems. When developing a new pharmaceutical drug costs roughly a billion dollars, you are either going to pay the billion dollars or cause people to stop spending a billion dollars to develop new drugs.
The confusion of "health care" with medical care is the crucial confusion. Years ago, a study showed that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. Are doctors who treat Mormons so much better than the doctors who treat the rest of us? Or do Mormons avoid doing a lot of things that shorten people's lives?
The point is that health care is largely in your hands. Medical care is in the hands of doctors. Things that depend on what doctors do-- cancer survival rates, for example-- are already better here than in countries with government-run medical systems. But, if political rhetoric prevails, we may yet sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage.

Lego *is* god damned expensive, but the gold would probably be easier to get rid of on the black market than 19.32 tons of Lego

>> ^gtjwkq:
Setting working conditions and minimum wages is the art of benefiting the hired at the expense of the employers and the unemployed. Pretty soon a black market for illegal hiring will grow as businesses and people try to survive in tough times despite such ill-considered regulations. So you actually end up with 3rd world salaries that way.

Minimum wage is a whole other topic, but my read of what you're saying here is that 3rd world salaries in the US are unavoidable, and we should just accept it. Suffice to say, I disagree.

Just FYI, almost 70% of America's GDP accounts for consumer spending, its not reliable as an indicator of a nation's productivity. Over the years, a lot of that spending is just people borrowing with their home equity extractions and mostly credit card debt. Now that we're in a credit crunch, GDP will probably fall (unless statisticians come up with a more hedonistic interpretation for it).
In a recession like we're having, in the private sector you need more productivity and you need to flush out the malinvestments and money wasting businesses.

I agree with this, though I'd replace the Austrian-defined "malinvestment" with just plain "bad investments." Why did the market go for an asset bubble, rather than go after investments with a real long-term prospect?

In the public sector, you need less govt so it can be less of a burden on the private sector.
How can that possibly happen if govt borrows/taxes/prints a stimulus into existence (adding to the burden of debt), then proceeds to use all that taxpayer money to expand govt programs and spending (more burden),

How does laying off schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, closing VA hospitals, etc. Help recovery? It seems like a highly ideological statement to say that no one the government gives money to should be employed.

Being worried about the debt seems natural, but why you would say the spending itself adds burden? That seems to presuppose that money spent by government is automatically, intrinsically going to purchase nothing of value to anyone.

[It] bails out the inefficient businesses that should've failed otherwise (more burden)

For what it's worth, the left (myself included) isn't pleased about the bailouts. We're mollified slightly when the CEOs of several of these institutions is asked to resign. I'm not so worried about the auto bailouts (since they're all loans, and I suspect they'll be repaid), but the bank bailouts should involve more pain from people who aren't taxpayers.

and poorly hands that money out to businesses via govt contracts instead of letting consumers make better choices with their money themselves (burden burden burden)?

As a general proposition, I would agree with this, though we're "fortunate" in that successive rounds of conservative politicians have let our infrastructure crumble, so we have a very convenient, worthwhile target for stimulus. That's in contrast to Japan, whose stimulus mostly went towards things of little long-term economic benefit, like increasing their level of hurricane and earthquake resistance.

Blaming mostly investment banks for this recession is like force-feeding alcohol to a bus driver and blaming him for killing all the passengers in the resulting crash. Don't you have any idea of the Fed and other federal institutions' role in causing the market distortions that led to this recession? How can you give them a free pass as the major culprits?

I've seen Peter Schiff use this metaphor (and others like it) several times. It makes no sense.

You say government force-fed them alcohol, when really what it did is give them money. Why is government solely or primarily at fault for the investment bank using that money to make bad investments?

To me, this seems like trying to jail the CEO of Smith & Wesson for a murder committed with one of their guns, while holding the person pulling the trigger blameless.

It is a kind of selection, just not as brutal as you described, because its not the end of the world: people get fired, businesses go bankrupt, the assets of incompetent people are transfered to the competent people, people are hired again somewhere else and eventually the economy resumes growth.

Yes, people get fired, lose their health insurance, lose their savings (what's left of them), go even more deeply into debt, potentially lose their home...yep, nothing at all brutal in that!

The market is not an omnipotent unstoppable force, its complexity just eludes the narrow-mindedness of the fools that try to plan it, specially when they're the same fools that screwed it up in the first place. A market is already planned by those in it, and they have the best incentives in place to make the best plans, because they are usually the first ones to pay for their mistakes. Politicians and bureaucrats, on the other hand, are exempt from responsability and are seldom punished when they waste huge amounts of money. They are the ones who commited the worst sins.

Why are politicians exempt from accountability? Don't we have elections?

Which CEO of these companies is now on welfare or in jail? Seems to me, other people wind up paying for their mistakes, government bailout or no.

The terrible mistake in your criticism of the market is that you constantly blame its "emergent" irrationality as an excuse for thinking on its behalf. What you correlate to auto-immunity on an otherwise healthy body I would compare to a heavily medicated pacient that undergoes daily surgeries after years of treatment for what started out as a sore throat.

I think anyone familiar with the history of the Great Depression, and the 1920's generally would view things my way. This is why I decry Austrians with such venom -- they engage in revisionist history rather than adapt to the revelation that government isn't Satan, and that the market can indeed do the wrong thing all by itself.

Setting working conditions and minimum wages is the art of benefiting the hired at the expense of the employers and the unemployed. Pretty soon a black market for illegal hiring will grow as businesses and people try to survive in tough times despite such ill-considered regulations. So you actually end up with 3rd world salaries that way.

Just FYI, almost 70% of America's GDP accounts for consumer spending, its not reliable as an indicator of a nation's productivity. Over the years, a lot of that spending is just people borrowing with their home equity extractions and mostly credit card debt. Now that we're in a credit crunch, GDP will probably fall (unless statisticians come up with a more hedonistic interpretation for it).

In a recession like we're having, in the private sector you need more productivity and you need to flush out the malinvestments and money wasting businesses. In the public sector, you need less govt so it can be less of a burden on the private sector.

How can that possibly happen if govt borrows/taxes/prints a stimulus into existence (adding to the burden of debt), then proceeds to use all that taxpayer money to expand govt programs and spending (more burden), bails out the inefficient businesses that should've failed otherwise (more burden) and poorly hands that money out to businesses via govt contracts instead of letting consumers make better choices with their money themselves (burden burden burden)?

Seriously, if you're counting on govt to do anything productively, you probably got the wrong person for the job. People are far better at making choices with their own money than the govt is with money that they effortlessly take from others.

Blaming mostly investment banks for this recession is like force-feeding alcohol to a bus driver and blaming him for killing all the passengers in the resulting crash. Don't you have any idea of the Fed and other federal institutions' role in causing the market distortions that led to this recession? How can you give them a free pass as the major culprits?

AFAIK, creative destruction in economics is an often misunderstood sophism that doesn't apply to what I'm advocating. If an economy is moving towards a recession, the recession is not the problem, the artificial *boom* was the problem that the market is trying to correct with a recession. It is a kind of selection, just not as brutal as you described, because its not the end of the world: people get fired, businesses go bankrupt, the assets of incompetent people are transfered to the competent people, people are hired again somewhere else and eventually the economy resumes growth.

The market is not an omnipotent unstoppable force, its complexity just eludes the narrow-mindedness of the fools that try to plan it, specially when they're the same fools that screwed it up in the first place. A market is already planned by those in it, and they have the best incentives in place to make the best plans, because they are usually the first ones to pay for their mistakes. Politicians and bureaucrats, on the other hand, are exempt from responsability and are seldom punished when they waste huge amounts of money. They are the ones who commited the worst sins.

The terrible mistake in your criticism of the market is that you constantly blame its "emergent" irrationality as an excuse for thinking on its behalf. What you correlate to auto-immunity on an otherwise healthy body I would compare to a heavily medicated pacient that undergoes daily surgeries after years of treatment for what started out as a sore throat.

oh there are jobs,if you want to make 6.50 an hr.
in 1971 america's largest employer paid an avg of 14.50 an hr,plus bennies and retirement.the american dollar was worth .78 on the dollar.
fast forward to now:
america's largest employer pays 8.50 and hr,no bennies,no retirement.the dollar is now worth .04-.07 on the dollar.
so not only did our parents make more,their money went many times further than it does today.
our forefathers had it right,labor is the strength of this country and its ability to manufacture goods.
by definition,America is a third world country.a total reversal of 50 years ago.
where once this country imported more raw materials than any other country,manufactured and exported more goods than anybody and lent money more than any other country.
it been a total 180 in the past 35 years.
take away our cell phones and cable tv and we are indonesia.
out of the top 100 richest nations,50 are corporations.think about that and weep.
this country does not need a bailout,nor another war..it needs a fucking enema.
power wishes only to concentrate itself with MORE power,be that a government or a corporation.
welcome to the united states of corporate america,can i take your bags?
those who hold the keys to OZ care not if you are a worker,a small business owner,a single mother or a student.they wish only to perpetuate a system where THEY benefit...we can go fuck ourselves.
call me when the revolution begins(which will only be when americans lose their cable TV)..ill be the guy selling black market cigs.ill bring the weed and the matches...
let the death be swift so we can clean up the garbage and start something good.
interesting how our forefathers had a pretty fantastic understanding about human nature and warned against such events:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

"^Prostitution is very much a victimless crime. You're equating the extremes of the black market with the act of trading sex for money."

I'm sure the people being taken from their families and sold in to sex slavery understand and appreciate that correction.

"Trafficking would most likely end if prostitution was legalized."

Not necessarily, it would definitely drop dramatically but I don't think it would disappear altogether, slavery still exists for one thing. Also in my original statement I did say it would be best to legalize it. It would definitely help rather than hurt.

I simply can't agree with you separating Prostitution and Human Trafficking for the purpose of Prostitution. Yes two consenting adults exchange sex for money does seem to be victimless. An adult pimping out a small child, or a child trading sex to get enough money just to eat that day is certainly a victim. If we're serious about it we should be looking into how we can help the victims of this sort of thing, rather than claiming there simply aren't any.

^Prostitution is very much a victimless crime. You're equating the extremes of the black market with the act of trading sex for money. Trafficking would most likely end if prostitution was legalized.

is it my turn to toss in?
good.
lets take mr walters point by point.
1.he is from the hudson institute-(neo-con think tank)deduct 50 points right there.
2.taxable income questionable?ok,i agree here.there is no actual data as of yet.
3.weed is the number ONE reason for drug treatment.
what?where is the former drug czar getting his numbers?
the number ONE abused and treated addictive drug is legal prescription painkillers.even if we used illegal drugs, pot is fourth.(data from A.M.A)
4.weed is responsible for violence and deaths among dealers.
no..its creating a black market that leads to violence and deaths.
its not like a drug dealer can go to the authorities and bitch about another dealer creeping into his turf.this is just bad logic.you can apply the same sentence and just add:coke dealers,pimps,gambling,fights...
when you create a black market,the only way those who RUN that black market can protect their investment is usually through violence,which may lead to deaths,sometimes innocent.
5.mr walters keeps using the term "drugs".
while not wrong,its not entirely accurate."drugs" is an umbrella term which includes ALL drugs i.e :coke,meth,x,heroin etc.
to conflate these very dissimilar narcotics is dishonest and misleading.
6.again mr walters conflates "drugs" with violent behavior.
"many of the arrests found weed on the person"
and?using circular logic to make a point is still circular logic.
so if i got arrested with a playboy in my possesion that would mean im a sexual deviant?thats just weak.
6.marijuana dependency?
first off,doesnt exist.at least not in the way mr walters is portraying it.
THC is fat soluble,which means it takes at LEAST 3 weeks for HALF the THC to leave your body.you have to smoke a tremendous amount,consistently for a very long time to feel any adverse affects if you stop smoking.even then the effects are mild.
7.0.3% is the population percentage in jail for possesion of weed..
thats an outright lie.
that figure is way higher,some as low as 20% and as high as 65%(couldnt get a solid number)but considering that private jails are now the number 9th largest lobby,and are the biggest funders of keeping weed illegal.
well..you tell me what that looks like.
8.more conflation about number of people who use "drugs".
the fact is,a certain amount of the population will use drugs.
its predictable and steady.this number coincides with weed smokers.
i believe the number is 23%,but im not sure and forgot the studies name.
but its around there.

one final note.
some have mentioned it here already,and i totally agree.
if you do something in your own home,harm noone,not even yourself.
how can it be deemed illegal?
even the constitution backs up the dissilution of this ill-thought,inane,archaic and totally useless law.
the man who demonized weed was a man named henry anslinger.
who used the "demon weed" for political purposes,and he did a damn fine job of it.
that was in the late 30's and early 40's.
time to huck this piece of irrelevant legislation out the door.
thank you..and good night.

I was going to tell you about the time I was addicted to porn and robbed drug dealers at gunpoint to pay for my addiction. I got a life sentence in Thailand for that, but was kidnapped by one of the guards and sold into black market prostitution where I was castrated and made into a very ugly ladyboy. After three years working the bars of Pattaya, I earned enough to pay off my debt of 12000 baht to my pimp and was free to leave the prostitution ring.

With no money, no clothes and no penis, I had to beg for meals and shelter for six years while I made my trek from Thailand to the deserts of Kandahar, Afghanistan. There, I took refuge with a local resistance movement and was taught how to fire an AK-47 and rig explosives. Shortly thereafter I was sent to New York to... um... nevermind, 9/11 was an inside job.

^ also, gwiz thinks Lost is quality television.

Fun fact, btw: all of my BSG-watching friends think 'Black Market' was a "pretty good" episode, even the ones that don't agree with me on how decent the finale was.

I just started watching it 2 weeks ago. I'm at the 15th episode of the 4th season now.

I'm so friggin glad they got rid of the stand alone episodes. That god awful "Black Market" episode literally put me to sleep.

Here's hoping that the new tv movie and the new prequel series in the works will continue kicking ass.

Yes, Lost is worth it. If you rent season 1 and season 2 and you aren't hooked after that, then you are not human.

It does fall a bit flat in season 3, but season 5 has been pretty awesome.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Yeah, it's worth it. The miniseries and first two seasons are great (although there are a handful of horrible episodes scattered throughout, including one called 'Black Market' which is probably the worst episode evar). Season 3 starts out pretty amazingly, as an allegory for the occupation of Iraq, where we actually empathize with 'insurgents' and even suicide bombers.

After that conflict resolves, the show begins its decent into the toilet, and the bad episodes outnumber the good ones by a healthy margin. If you make it that far, you'll probably want finish it out, but the ending is a complete let down. The writers completely lose there discipline in the 3rd and 4th seasons, and all of the logic of the BSG universe goes out the window. In the end, none of the mysteries or plot contrivances are tied up in any kind of satisfying way.

At least Netflick the miniseries and 1st season, and watch it with your girl.

I've not seen any of lost. Should I check that out?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
So, I haven't watched BSG yet, but it seems like people are ticked about the ending. Is it worth watching the four or five seasons of BSG? Or is it a let down?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Let's hope the Muppets actually stick to their plan.