Living in Japan, I get to eat octopus pretty frequently and I'm always so conflicted about it. On the one hand, I really admire them as they're such smart creatures. On the other hand, they are damned tasty when prepared right (great takoyaki, for instance).

Still, there is no way I would eat this. I prefer my food 100% dead. I had the same problem at a sushi place once where they took the fish out of the tank and sliced it up right in front of us. The fish slices were still wiggling ever so slightly when the chef handed them to us. I couldn't eat it and my friend wound up eating my share.

@Diogenes

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. Why should a reasonable person be pissed off at a third party calling out offensive language use? To use a hypothetical:

I jokingly call my brother a "retard" because he locks his keys in the car. We grew up in the 80s, so this this pejorative is something we are comfortable with and feel no inhibitions about using. My brother laughs it off.

Now let's assume this happens in a parking lot as we're standing outside my brother's car and a woman passing by overhears my comment and chastises me for equating stupid actions with people who have mental disabilities.

Should reasonable bystanders watching all this be pissed off, since my comment wasn't directed at the woman? On the one hand, my brother and I weren't offended by the use of the word "retard" to mean stupid. On the other hand, our very usage of the word "retard" in that particular way promotes and sustains a culture that already heavily looks down on mental illness and mental disabilities.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer to this. If I'm reading your comment correctly, the primary negative of PC language that you see is that some people feel smug when they call out other people on their language usage. But does the fact that some people are smug about it make them wrong in pointing out the offender?

I have mixed feelings about dogs on trails.

On one hand, I love dogs and seeing one running alongside his owner clearly enjoying themselves is awesome.

On the other hand, I've had several really close calls with trail dogs not under their owners' control, which nearly resulted in serious injury to me, the dog or both of us. Obviously, I don't want to get injured, but I'd feel REALLY bad if I ended up hurting or even killing a dog by hitting it at speed.

My general feeling is that they're fine on family tracks or on flat easy stuff, but they really shouldn't be on downhill trails.

Dogs in the snow, on the other hand, are just pure win.

I used to do this. But I was only good with one hand and I had to use a wooden paddle.

On the one hand. the birth of a kid is far more important than a sports event. On the other hand, many things are more important than a sports event.

On the one hand, having a guided experience like that from somebody that knows the "proper" way of doing things is a very good thing.

On the other hand, I hate snobbery when it becomes sort of evangelical to the point of "saving people from ruining their meal". Maybe they like "candy sushi" rolls, dipped into soy sauce mixed with wasabi to the point of being salt bombs. I do. AND I like good nagiri the "proper" way also.

Arrgh, conflicted.

On one hand, she's the worst. Everything wrong with right wing media neatly tied up in the only kind of pretty blond package that women are allowed to be on these things.

On the other (and I can't believe I'm about to say this), it's a pretty shitty way to treat an employee. If they don't want her anymore, they should release her from her contract.

If the same thing happened to a good journalist, we'd all be annoyed about it.

But, on the other other hand, a) she's an idiot for signing the contract and b) again she's the WORST, so I can't really bring myself to care.

this article sums up my feelings nicely (written about Bin Laden, but still applies)

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

What a load of shit.


There's a spindly tower, somewhere in Russia, without one single teenager dangling by one hand off the top? Complete load of shit. Where's the dash cam shots? So un-Russian.

I'm torn.
On the one hand, more Blade Runner would be awesome.
On the other hand, these god damn member berries keep getting their disgusting sticky juice all over my childhood memories.
I'll reserve judgement on this particular nostalgic 'redux', but I really fear that's all it will be. Hollywood is completely devoid of independent thought or original storytelling these days. Part of me hopes this movie loses $200000000 so they'll quit rehashing classics.
I totally expect another Treasure of the Sierra Madre to come out in the next few years with way more explosions, more grisly deaths and action, and everything that made the original great missing.

The thing is, people still believe that Obama is the Antichrist and that he is destroying America. On one hand, I don't understand at all where that sentiment comes from as he obviously has done a great deal of good in his time in office. On the other hand Faux News and their surrogates (like Winstonfield, BobKnight33, etc.) have been having a histrionic shitfit over nothing for 8 years. They're not interested in facts, but in making people 'feel' like Obama is hurting them. It was like this even before Obama was elected with the Birther and ObamaMuslim movement. Feels before reals for the right, remember.

And on the third hand, I'm Canadian and Obama personally came by my house the other day to give me the guns he took from you so... Thanks, Obama!

The flaw I also see is with the "distribution". I question the equal spread of good-looking & nice, good-looking & jerky, etc...I think on one hand, we would qualify more people as jerks, while on the other hand every one of us has adequately qualified as a jerk in someones eyes at some point.

Also, we tend to over-emphasize the negative with the less-than intimate/familiar, much like how 99% of the News is really sucky stuff.

It may sound exaggerating, but it really is an epidemic. I walk down the street near a university every day, and 8 out of 10 cars that drive by have their phones up in one hand, and driving with the other. And like the video shows so well, it may not be you that is the cause...but just the victim. Its scary. Always be alert and watching around you...tho there may be nothing you can do if someone else is 'texting' and driving. My son is 4, and hopefully by the time he start driving, there will be something in place to prevent this careless behavior.

It's more natural to hold a phone in portrait (vertical) than in landscape (horizontal). Typically landscape requires 2 hands -- and if filming landscape with one hand, it becomes easy to lose grip.

I know it ruins the cinematic quality, but he didn't film the dude for our entertainment, he filmed it as proof.

It's also a logistical issue, as it is easier to grip a phone vertically than horizontally. This is the reason why there are so many videos filmed in this mode. Especially in situations where people are unable to use both of their hands to stabilize the video, such as running, when in danger, or at the top of a bridge...

Also, his subject is a human which stands upright, so filming vertical allows him to distribute his subject matter across the entire canvas; whereas landscape would cut off the primary focus and distribute the background on either side of the subject, which is unimportant to the situation, in place of filming the man from head to toe in a single frame.

i'm just impressed they can fit their junk in one hand.