First Contact has three unforgivable flaws.

1. The time travel plot makes zero sense. Why do the Borg need to go back to that particular time to assimilate humanity? Why don't they go back to pre-WW3, where there were a) more humans to assimilate and b) lower tech weapons? Why do they need to interrupt the moment of humanity's first contact with the Vulcans? Why do they give themselves such a tiny margin of error by only giving themselves a few days to assimilate Earth before the deadline? Why don't they send Borg down to begin assimilating humanity straight away? And the Enterprise conceals itself from the Vulcans by hiding behind the fucking moon.

2. The writers fundamentally ruin the idea of the Borg by giving it a figurehead it doesn't need. They are not a collective if they have a Queen; they are subjects.

3. Worst of all, Picard's characterisation is a complete volte face. Seven seasons of the TV show proved that Picard just isn't a man who stoops to revenge. Only a year or so after recovering from his own assimilation, Picard has the chance to cripple or destroy the Borg forever and he doesn't take it, because he's a man of balance and pragmatism, not of blind rage. His sudden change into Captain Ahab is lazy and it's unearned. Picard, like everything else in the film, is dumbed-down for the sake of the action, and the character as written undermines the work done over the course of the TV series, amputates him from Roddenberry, and is frankly unworthy of being performed by Patrick Stewart.

Star Trek: First Contact is fucking dumb.

Of course I have to concede to subjectivity and some of the action is very exciting (if still stupid; the "no firing at the deflector dish oh except when you do" incident is a prime example). But it's only possible to enjoy it as an action movie if you like your action movies to appeal to the very lowest common denominator.

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

Well, I'm a big Bernie supporter an I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton if I have to. I'm only assuming that others are pragmatic like me. I'll choose the lesser of two weevils.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

@newtboy, it's not that they shouldn't be doing anything about the water situation; obviously, they should.

But just because problem 1 (water) is worse doesn't mean you can't deal with problem 2 (animal abuse).

Think about it this way: if Jones HAD proposed removing the anti-sodomy laws as part of this legislation, the state senate would have wasted even more time having a completely pointless debate about it. Instead, he chose the pragmatic route of ignoring something that isn't and hasn't been a problem* to use his limited legislating time to pass a useful law around animal abuse.

Also, IANAL, but from what I've read on the topic, one bad section does not invalidate an entire bill.

It saddens me greatly that in 2016 in a developed country, there's even a debate on an anti-sodomy law, and quite frankly, anyone who supports one is a terrible person and should get the fuck out of politics (and preferably life) at the earliest opportunity.

But that's the US political climate.

* when was the last time anyone was actually prosecuted under this law? Honestly, someone should confess to sodomy, get prosecuted and have the law struck down in court.

Sorry @newtboy, gotta downvote this one on the basis that Cenk is making a big deal out of nothing.

Michigan didn't make sodomy and oral sex illegal, it's ALREADY illegal in Michigan. (Hell, it was illegal to swear in front of women and children until 2002, when they were forced to repeal the law after a man fell out of a canoe, swore, got arrested, and then was represented by the ACLU.)

But here's the thing, the ban is unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable.

Now, should it be removed? Of course.

However, the idea behind this bill was an amendment to the existing bill to create an animal abuser database, and the guy who proposed the bill (Republican Senator Rick Jones) decided that it simply wasn't worth the effort to fight to get this removed when it's already unconstitutional anyway.

In other words, he took a pragmatic approach to fixing an important issue (animal abuse) by ignoring something that doesn't matter (an unenforceable law).

To his credit, he actually suggested another bill that would automatically strike unconstitutional laws from the state (which kinda seems like something that should be happening anyway).

"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional." Rick Jones

http://www.inquisitr.com/2775741/michigan-was-not-trying-to-ban-sodomy-with-logans-law-it-was-simply-not-un-banning-it/

Yes, it's fucking stupid, but "fucking stupid" seems to be the defining trait of most of the US system of government (two party system, electoral college, tacking on stupid amendments, etc)

yeah, but unless you're going to go to the level of attempting to ban alcohol and cigarettes and all the other things that are demonstrably harmful when overdone, there's nothing wrong with what Bill is doing here.

The problem is, Maher is pretty much one of the more vocal spokespeople for legalized marijuana. He's only reinforcing the people who were already supportive. Obviously by the reaction of the Jeb supporter lady, she wasn't convinced or swayed.

One of the things that helped legalization gain strides was the recession. Even conservatives were considering legalizing and taxing it if only to help the budget. Now that the recession is effectively over. That steals some of the urgency away and now they can go back to being against it for ideological reasons, where pragmatism isn't needed as much.

So we need to start publicizing the financial benefits of legalization. It's my understanding that Colorado has been getting tons of new revenue because of legalization, but for some reason, that's not advertised more. Or showing things that dispel the usual myths about marijuana that people have been clinging to for decades.

I put very little stock in these personality tests. In particular, I don't trust them because they only describe whatever personality you have in positive, flattering terms - a trait/tactic very similar to horoscopes. Of course you will like the result if you are being compared to Shakespeare and told that you are among the most brilliant minds in the known universe.

So the MBTI's practical use is overwhelmingly unscientific, and it's often criticized for this. Criticism ranges from the pragmatic fact that neither Jung nor Myers and Briggs ever employed scientific studies to develop or test these concepts, relying instead on their own observations, anecdotes, and intuitions; all the way to charges that your MBTI score is hardly more meaningful than your zodiac sign.

Very interesting, but I disagree with one aspect of what she is saying:

Yes, we're all sort of ignorant blank slates at that age (college entry). But she is suggesting that professors / instructors / parents / etc. are or should be responsible for curing us of that. I think that is bunk. Life itself, and in particular being responsible for one's own life, is what cures us of that ignorance.

Society tells all these kids that they cannot and will not accomplish anything without having a college education -- WAY more than it ever did in the past. A big percentage take that to heart, and therefore stay under the sheltered wing of their parents longer because they feel that they MUST.

I think once they get out into the real world, that ignorance and idealism will get quickly tempered with a dose of pragmatism. Being hyper-PC seems less important when you've got to work a double shift to pay your rent or buy luxuries like food. ...Or pay off staggering amounts of student loan debt.

I liked it a lot, but then again I'm in a Western/Eastern mixed marriage also. Maybe that helps.

To each his own, but one thing that really rang true for me was Western PC-ness and being judgmental vs Eastern pragmatism. Last time I visited home (US) with my wife and daughter, *everybody* (strangers on up to family) gave unsolicited advice / criticism of parenting decisions (breast vs bottle, diapers vs cloth, etc. etc.), all acting like they know best. Everybody is a critic / doctor / psychologist / scientist all wrapped into one. Here in Thailand, that never happens -- there is moderate reluctance to step on toes even if you *ask* for advice. There isn't anything inherently "right" or "wrong" about either way, but as someone who has lived in two separate cultures, the video's portrayal of that general mentality really struck a chord with me.

No offense to those that didn't enjoy it; comedy can never be all things to all people.

Meh, just weld on some armour plate.

I'm still waiting on someone in the walking dead using my idea of harvesting walkers to create bio-diesel. I find it hard to believe no pragmatic-minded people survived the outbreak.

I'm ashamed to say that I never thought of looking at the German press, my own sources have been British, so I had rather missed the perspective you report.

It's interesting that Syriza has been getting quite a lot of support from almost everyone except Angela Merkel. I'm starting to think that a pragmatic compromise of some sort or another is likely rather than a mexican stand off on The Austerity... the 5 month delay they are asking for takes them nicely past the Spanish elections and allows for much more face saving.

Now whether or not a deal can be reached, Syriza has rather larger problems than Germany and the ECB... they have been elected with a mandate to defeat generations of nepotism (Varoufakis himself describes it as a Kleptocracy), and while I wish them all the best, I'm quite curious as to how they plan to do so.

Hey Newtboy,

God provided four major lines of evidence so that you would know that He exists. The first is Creation itself:

Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

His existence is so evident from the Creation that He considers that people are without excuse for their unbelief.

A quick science fact for you:

The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, and the Sun is 400 times farther away from the Moon. This is the reason they appear to be the same size in the sky. The Moon is also receding from the Earth at a few centimeters at year. This would mean it is only a “coincidence” that we happen to live at a time that the Sun and Moon have an exact correspondence in the sky, making solar eclipses possible. Yet, the scripture says God created the Sun and the Moon for signs and seasons, for days and years. The amount of “coincidences” really adds up to an absurdity when you study the conditions necessary for us to be here. You can find a good study on that here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0

The other lines of evidence are your conscience, the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and bible prophecy. I understand, perhaps, where you’re coming from. It very much has to do with what your worldview is. If you start apriori with the idea that there is no supernatural and no divine being, you won’t recognize the evidence right in front of your face. You will instead embrace alternative explanations for the origins of life which appear to be pragmatic but start with a greater amount of faith required than a belief in an all powerful Creator God.

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.

I agree with a lot of this.

What I'd dispute is whether we know know for certain it is largely man-made. Again I would defer to NASA where it specifies it is "very likely due to human activities" that is the consensus. I study statistics and the hypothesis/ significance testing you could perform to test time periods before and after human activity would be very rigorous in determining a trend change, and there is certainly no lack of data.

As far predicting the benefit/harm and the most cost effective policy alternative if one is required, I agree it's debatable. There are organisations such as the Copenhagen Consensus that argue for technology based solutions such as stratospheric aerosol injection or carbon capture rather than pure taxes/reduced emissions.

My own (layman) take here is that mitigating a potentially large unknown is pragmatic. At the very least until such technologies are proven to be effective and feasible in reversing the trend. European colonists destroyed ecosystems through introducing but a handful of non-native species to a previously isolated habitats. I think it goes without saying we should not be naive about the unforeseen impacts of a global change like this and taking a conservative approach is warranted.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.