Only because the young white males don't realize the degradation of personal civil liberties over the last 8 years.

Authoritarian rule is not imposed by revolution but by small increments in executive power, all in the name of protecting freedom, liberty and democracy against terrorism.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
only if you're not a young white male.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
The US is already a police state.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
> no hon, its not even that the last one isn't my cup of tea...
smibbo called me hon!
> its that a lot of my vid-watching is done at the laptop while nursing the baby and thus I often turn down the sound.
aHAAAaaa! right. shoulda' thought of that. i beens a daady befor.
>...either vids I have already seen (esp most music vids)...
and a lot of good music i found here, gets stuck in the 'teens. it's why the jukebox was my 1st list here!

ok, so apparently my last recommendation for you, wasn't your cup of tea.
but i 'm not one to give up easily.

you're the person that came to mind the most, that would want to catch this one.

Well Thank you smibbo, very much.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
*quality

because I can

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

I just found that the whole se7ven movie's purpose was to make you feel like shit by the time you see his wife's head in the box. I walked out of that movie utterly depressed. Sure the whole deadly sins thing was clever, but so contrived and just a means to an end that was utterly horrible.



In reply to this comment by smibbo:
(last comment, I swear) The thing is, the Kevin Spacey character in Se7en was hideously and evil and scary et al but at least he had a point to make. The killer in NCFOM? He has no point. None. He's just a scary, evil motherfucker. That's it. And that's not enough for me.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Your review makes me not want to see this movie. I dislike movies that are technically wonderful, (great perfomances, great story) but depress the hell out of me.

If I'm looking to get bummed out, there are cheaper methods than that. Red wine works for me.

I think the number 1 movie that was technically good but depressed me- would have to be "7" with Brad Pitt. Hate that movie.

My future avatar is now in your hands

Together, we can do this. http://www.videosift.com/video/Fuck-it-If-Unicorn-planet-made-it-this-can-too

wow, smibbo. 4 playlists! i'm honored, especially being captain playlist and all.

i was just about to pm the creators, on YT, to let 'em know. i'll pass on your thanks, as well.

*MWAH!*
In reply to this comment by smibbo:
ZOMG!
*squeeee!*
I TOTALLY LOVED THAT!

In fact, I'm embedding that on my LJ!

*MWAH!*

We're talking about practicalities now, which is quite right, that's where the public debate should be. I actually think it's quite workable.

In my proposal you wouldn't have to take the man's word for it, he would be required to make an official declaration before a given date. I don't know offhand what the current foetus age limit is on abortion, ludicrously low certainly, but that would be the obvious starting point. It needn't be difficult or expensive either, I had to make a declaration a while ago for work and it cost me one phone call to a solicitor, ten minutes of my time and £5. The court would only have to get involved in rare cases, such as where a man had to show that he wasn't aware of the pregnancy or that he was unable to abdicate responsibility in time.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
I agree with you in principle however, the reality is that what you suggest opens up a new can of worms; more lawsuits based on intent. A man can SAY he is supportive of the idea of having a child with a woman but what happens once the pregnancy reaches the third trimester and he changes his mind? or after the baby is born? Then it is his word against his. Same for if he says he doesn't want it then she gets an abortion and he then can sue her? The problem is, when a baby is born there are only two certainties: the mother wanted to have the baby and the baby is of her blood. Everything beyond that is he said/she said. And that's the reason why we err on the side of the mother; because ultimately, when a woman has a baby we KNOW she wanted it (at least initially) and we can only make assumptions about the father. Before modern birth control and Roe vs Wade we could assume a man must have had some intent because the connection between sex and impregnation was much stronger.
When there is a way to prove the intent of the man upon delivery, then we can talk about enforcing a man's wishes (including allowing the man to abdicate parental responsibility and rights) until then, in the interests of the child, we must have things be "unfair"

We're not adjudicating in the interests of the man; we're adjudicating in the interests of correct moral principle.

Whether a child is disadvantaged by the lack of a father is not the issue; there is no law or, more importantly, moral imperative against single parenting. Neither is the man the issue, he had nothing to do with the decision to have a child.

This needs to be elaborated upon. Having sex with or without birth control is not in itself a procreative act. There is always the option of abortion in the case of pregnancy, even in uncivilised (anti-abortion) or poor countries one could always 'leave the baby out for the wolves' or similar. Therefore, a conscious or unconscious decision not to abort, i.e. the deliberate decision to have a child, is an integral part of every birth. Unintuitively, simply conceiving does not make one a parent.

I agree with you when you say that a person who takes action leading to the birth of a child is responsible for that child. In the example we are discussing, only the mother has taken that action, only she has refused an abortion, therefore only she is responsible for the child. Consider that if both the mother and father agreed to abort, neither of them would be responsible for the support of a child that wouldn't exist. The father's actions are the same in both cases, consequently his responsibilities must be the same.

It is not acceptable to force the burden of a child on someone who hasn't chosen it. Far better to force an abortion on the woman if that were the only other option, but I'm suggesting it isn't. Where a person chooses to have a child without a partner that is their decision and their responsibility alone. If they can't afford to support that child as they would like, that is unfortunate. You can only legislate so far against bad decision-making.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
because then you are adjudicating in the interest of the man and THE CHILD suffers. your suggestion puts it as if its "person who opposes abortion" versus "person who doesn't oppose abortion" or mother versus father etc but its not about them, its about the child.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
I don't see why men who don't want children shouldn't say exactly that, smibbo. If birth control fails, have an abortion. If the woman refuses an abortion, the man should be able to make a legal declaration refusing parental rights and responsibilities to the child.

Roast IV begins Monday, January 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM, GMT.

Roastee: MINK
Master of Ceremonies: jonny

Look for jonny’s launch post.

THE JESTER

You know, I do remember hearing something along those lines, but I haven't ever watched it dubbed. Mononoke-hime is actually possibly my favorite Ghibli (that or Grave of the Fireflies...SO SAD), so I guess I ought to upvote anyway lol.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
the English version of "Princess Mononoke" was not a dub, it was rewritten by Neil Gaiman especially for American/English audiences with the supervision of Miyazaki. It had American and British stars and while not at all a different film was much more than a dub. I know because I own both the subtitled original and the reworked English. THe reworking is just as excellent as the original.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I don't vote for dubs as a general rule.

Nice! I'll try to keep them in mind. I'm a little backed up on bands that I need to check out, but I don't have enough delicious 80s rocking out on my computer right now.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
Killing Joke were kinda like the Rage Against the Machine of their time except they weren't as political as they were meta-sociological - trying to be a dark reflection of the culture of the times. I highly recommend the first three albums (eponymous, "What's THIS for?" and "Revelations") as well as "Pandemonium" as their best stuff.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
I'm sad to say I've never even heard of this band, but that's a really catchy riff.

Well I thank you for the star that pushed me over into silver. Appreciated.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
*quality