I can see it now:

"Eddie Murphy.... Adam Sandler in: "Two Headed Freak!" A remake from the 70's classic "The Thing With Two Heads.

Eddie Murphy is Maxwell Fielder, the successful CEO and founder of a bio-tech company, who is dying from a degenerative disease.

Adam Sandler is Jake Antonelli, a door-to-door salesman, who stumbles unto a murder scene and is wrongfully thought to be the culprit, but hasn't given up on finding the real killers.

Maxwell Fielder's bio-tech company R&D department, manages to convince the state to have a convict become a volunteer for a temporary head transplant."

No need to thank me Hollywood. I'll take my check now, please!

The only difference between "racism" and "reverse racism" is that RR is tolerated. eg. Eddie Murphy, Delirious. Plenty of jokes at the expense of white people. Where was the hue and cry?*

Newt's pretty much right, racism is racism. I'm of the opinion that we let everyone crack jokes at everyone else and stop being so fucking sensitive.

With that in mind, we are talking about a comedy bit where the guy uses hyperbole to ramp up to the punchline about white folk not being able to dance... Perhaps we're being a bit too sensitive about it and should just enjoy the joke? ; )

*Not that I'm complaining, that shit was hilarious...

That's an excellent alien badge It's a pretty decent Jonathan Coulton cover too.

Three cheers each for @alien_concept, @dag and Chris Murphy.

I would think that if you were really interested in learning anything (be it about private law enforcement or anything else), you'd know how to manage your own discomfort in order to read something fully without being so reactive and defensive, which only serves to confirm your biases.

You say that "most people don't think of taxation as theft," but such a notion is actually irrelevant to the point here. Did you sign a social contract? I certainly didn't. There's no such thing (and to believe in one is to be living in a fantasy world).

Look: No one is forcing you to read anything you don't want to read. It's your right to learn or not learn whatever you want. In fact, you shouldn't read it (as if I stood to gain anything by your reading it). The ignorance here (in my view) is your own and only you stand to benefit by addressing it. Whatever your life circumstances, they're your problem and you certainly don't need anyone else's (particularly my) input on the matter.

Your comments... well.. They speak for themselves. I wish you all the best and know that if you are happy with your situation then I have nothing to contribute to it and if you are not, then you have what you deserve.

People who cling to dogma or sarcasm aren't likely to change their views regardless of the 'evidence.' They have a different agenda. And that's their prerogative. And someone will always exploit it (if it hasn't been exploited already).

Many people read Murphy's work (along with Mises, Higgs, etc.) including Harvard professors and the heads of central banks, and the kings of various political persuasions. How many people read your views on economics, or care about what you think is "worth reading" or not?

I shouldn't give you this outlet here to feel important (as if this debate served any other purpose), but i don't want to be an enabler.

Really? It was a 1984 reference? Gee, thanks mister, I totally didn't get that, nosiree.

And while you can try to make an argument that taxation is theft, to state it outright like that is confusing opinion with fact. Most people do not view taxation as theft. It is part of a social contract.

So in the space of the first paragraph, you have engaged in a false premise and then brought up them evil commies and nazis. Yeah, this is a worthwhile argument....

I have zero interest in contacting Murphy, and I'm not surprised Krugman doesn't want to debate him either. As Dawkins says about debating creationists, "it looks good on your resume, not on mine".

He is making reference to Orwell's "Slavery is Freedom." The hawks do wage endless war to end war and taxation is theft, as Chodorov and others have demonstrated, and social democrats do advocate massive taxation. Your gripe is a bit like complaining of ad hominem when saying Communists and Nazis engage in theft and murder. Sometimes people do bad things and that needs to be pointed out. There are however plenty of non-ad hominem argument provided by Murphy, which I encourage you to read.
Furthermore, "argumentum ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

These you cited above are not "fallacies" and hardly irrelevant, as they provide reasons why the current system is not desirable. In any case, I can put you in touch with the author to see if he'd like to respond to your response to his essay.

Robert is used to this kind of BS and has worked out some really good replies. This is the man who, after all, is challenging Krugman to a debate it seems Krugman will continue to avoid.

In any case, whether the rest of it is "worth your time" or not, only you can decide on that.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need."

Exactly what I was about to post. It's a great piece by John Murphy but for the love of <insert name of deity> give it a break already.

It really is a cheap way of stirring up emotions and I doubt the film will be good enough to earn that kind of response in any case.

BTW I noticed Matthew Vaugh's credit there, he used Murphy in Kick Ass so he may have had a say.

It's no Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Stories.

What do I get from this trailer?

PG-13 "death" scene. All he does is get blown up in a car, not the extremely violent and painful death of Alex Murphy from the original film goes through, the trigger in him remembering his previous life and becoming more than just an emotionless robot/cyborg. The trigger in this? His family. Yawn. They turn one of the most important scenes from the original into "boom". Also leads me to believe this'll be a PG-13 puss-fest.

Face time! The vanity of celebrities or producers that think they need to have the star's face plastered throughout the entire film (massive props for Karl Urban and the director of Dredd for sticking with the fact Dredd never shows his face). In the original, once he was RoboCop, you only ever see his face until the end. It was a good visual reminder to the audience that he was human, to reinforce that now he's reclaiming some of humanity.

It IS a powersuit. Rather than literally being a human brain in a robot as the original is, you see it's just a guy in a suit with a robot leg and arm (his bare hand and his "face in a helmet" looks ridiculous). Kinda weakens the human mind battling the robot programming aspect of the plot. Especially considering it seems he's all emo as soon as he wakes up "What have you done to me! WAH WAH!"

Where's the satire? Sure it may be hard to wedge in satirical aspects in a trailer, but I have a feeling there'll be none of it in this one. The tone is completely different and feels very generic.

Granted this is just a trailer, but it feels like this is nothing more than a generic action movie with the same name as an old beloved cult classic. I'm not against reboots, but if you plan to reboot something successful, two things need to be kept in tact: The tone and feel, and key aspects to the plot. I'd love to see more RoboCop, this isn't it.

Did anyone else try their best Eddie Murphy impression after the dust has settled?

"I like that boulder. That is a nice boulder."

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

It's there. Thanks as usual to Chris Murphy for his outstanding badge designs.
http://www.chrism70.com/

I doubt he's had a job like this one before.

Here are @pumkinandstorm's awesome new custom badge (based on the above photo) and star icon:



<meow!



Btw, these, like all our badges and Galaxy icons, are the work of talented artist Chris Murphy.

Eddy Murphy finally funny again.

Murphy's Law of "shit will get fucked up" strikes again.

Happy birthday! You outlived Brittany Murphy!