ha! being from chicago, i've always called it the bean. i had no idea it's real name was cloud gate.

*kill

the fast food + music theme makes me flashback to 1992 when the barenaked laides performed mcdonalds girl on the radio. the only recording i can find now is:
http://www.deanfriedman.com/realaudio/McDonaldsGirlbnl.ram
(somewhere in box of several hundred floppy disks in my basement is a .wav of this)

They remind me of The Bobs, who've been doing crazy acapella since the early 80s. A recent example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-OeQpLf_rQ

Kino has a great four disc set of Edison Company films.
http://www.kino.com/edison/

I regress. I intended to make a constructive argument, but attacked the wrong thing. Let me try again.

How do you equate compassion to tyranny in the context of governments? I don't see the relationship. Do you qualify actions such as providing food and water to disaster victims to be compassionate? If so, how would something like that be oppressive to the people?

Perhaps you have a different definition of compassion and/or government than I do. I could see the case where a compassionate leader of a tyranny could be bad. Making absolute decisions based on emotion instead of fact could be disadvantageous to the people. But this assume that a tyrannical government already exists.

Now, if you're suggesting that government shouldn't legislate morality, then I agree with you. However, I don't think morality and compassion are equivalent.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Go back to YouTube, troll.

In reply to this comment by mugwumpj:
A compassionate government (which is an oxymoron) is a tyrannical government. My three cents.

...which by corollary make a tyrannical government an oxymoron also. How about you read up on logic before trying to use it. And for the record, I don't care about Palin's rights or wrongs. I just think you're an idiot.

In reply to this comment by Hominid:
All compassionate governments are tyrannical governments.
All compassionate governments are oxymorons.
Therefore all tyrannical governments are oxymorons.
FALSE

The above syllogism fails because you never make a statement about ALL tyrannical governments in the set-up.

Don't call people out on logic if you're not using it properly. Also, don't troll. You can correct people without calling them idiots (see, see I'm doing it right now.)

If the statements are interpreted as inferences, then you are correct.
Given A -> B and A -> C, C does not imply B.

If the second statement is an equality, which is how I interpreted it, then I am correct.
Given A -> B and A = C, then C -> B.

And I regress. The idiot comment was out of line. It was intended to qualify the argument, not flame. But that obviously failed.

A compassionate government (which is an oxymoron) is a tyrannical government. My three cents.

...which by corollary make a tyrannical government an oxymoron also. How about you read up on logic before trying to use it. And for the record, I don't care about Palin's rights or wrongs. I just think you're an idiot.

this makes me think of not TED, but ted nelson and his project xanadu.

"Warm Leatherette" was originally done by The Normal in 1978. The b-side was "T.V.O.D"

Nooooooo they be stealin mah bucket!!!

Windows computer? That's a MacBook Pro (which can run Windows).