I like Ron Paul's stance on non-intervention. I like Ron Paul a lot.
But what he is saying on Syria and the convoluted power system there is simply not true. There are Al Kaida fighters on the sides of the rebels. However, there are also Hezbollah fighters on the side of the Assad Regime.
If America's stance on what asserts a terrorist group and what not holds true interpolitically they, by their own theory can not stand by passively and watch. America HAS to do something- they allready "invested" too much into the region to now sit back and not act. WHAT exactly this intervention should look like is the question and you can see the current adminsitration suffer with a good answer to it.
Don't listen to the currently popular theme of "Gas-weapons are just another way to kill people". If you think the deployment of poison gas weapons into a urban warzone is the same as just "regular" bombardment you have to seriously go and read up on how gas-weapons behave in an urban environment especially WHEN combined with regular bombardment.
The use of this weaponry is an absolute show stopper, which makes it a lot more painful to realize that the USA itself is using enriched Uranium munitions and clusterbombs) - Nonetheless- the USA not acting now would be like saying: "You might not be as powerful and omnipotent as we are, but go ahead since we take this so seriously that we trivialize it to start our own wars".

Does it have to be military intervention? Hell, no.
Can it be expensive? Hell, yes.

The Use of UEAE-weapons (undiscriminatory extended area effect weaponry- i.e. stuff which even gets into protection shelters and doesnt worry which ones) is like lining up and shooting an entire part of a town by principle. Kinda like a poor man's nuke and even if it was a ruse by the rebels- this certainly warrants the current drama.
The USA invaded Iraq because they thought that Sadam Hussein had these weapons (fabricated charges or not, thats what they started the war on) so what exactly would be the consequences now if America sits back?
John Steward said on the daily show that this is like 7 year old bullies fighting on the playground. The irony is that he is frightingly right.
Again, I am against military intervention but this is some serious stuff.

Some of the best drama works when the protag is hard to identify with or endear yourself to...s'called good writing and by-god, TV needs more!

I think there's three main points here:

(1) The availability of shows online legally and illegally is what has encouraged people to invest in deeper storylines that build over time rather than episode to episode sitcom with little continuity. The pilot model and short term nature of these shows comes from a different era where there wasn't that same availability to catch up on a show you missed. As a result, people were reluctant to get overly involved in a storyline, nowadays it's the opposite.

(2) I think cable companies are always going to struggle to embrace video on demand because their advertising agreements as a major source of revenue (compared to subscriptions for Netflix) require them to stretch out the broadcast of the show. I'd wager that as an ad sponsor, the value of being able to reinforce a brand weekly as a opposed to dozens of times over short several day binge weekend is much larger.

(3) US TV tends to be based on very short term contracts and consequently short term narratives and story arcs. This becomes particularly evident where shows that never expected to make it to their 4th or 5th season see characters acting irrational and appearing to exhibit multiple personality disorder as writers try to inject drama into underdeveloped characters. You can see the lack of long term planning, and the writing looks like it's been done episode to episode, with the result being a mess. I'd say that this was a big issue with Lost and Heroes (subjectively speaking).

Comparatively, I would argue the success of something like Game of Thrones is partly attributed to a ready-made long term narrative from the source material which avoids these usual issues. In the case of House of Cards, they not only had the UK version to base it on and the additional flexibility that Netflix provided and I'm sure these were major contributing factors to the strength of the show.

Pieces of Jerry Lewis Unreleased Holocaust Drama has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.

Drama created for people stupid enough to believe that it's real.
Too many camera angles, too many obviously fake reactions and too many scenarios requiring more lawyers than even the Jackass jackasses can produce.

Plus, before they got to the beauty pageant I thought to myself "someone made an entire film starring the grandfather from Little Miss Sunshine!", and then they completely ripped off Little Miss Sunshine's finale. Wtf?

I'm not sure if you actually disagree or just misunderstand. I have no issue with fantasy, except when it's put in place of reality. I enjoyed LOTR and Hobbit, and I even want to see Pacific Rim (although I must admit I'm embarrassed about it). When fantasy replaces history, history is lost.
When you tell a story that's historical in nature, I (and many others) feel you have an obligation to your audience to teach them the actual history, not to bastardize and fictionalize it with fantasy and Neo. I'm sorry if you feel that way of thinking makes me a jerk, it wasn't what I was going for. I feel it makes me an adult that is unapologetic about being interested in amazing history more than flashy fantasy.
My point about Lincoln has been ignored or misunderstood...would you have liked to see him fight a confederate dragon? Would that have added to, or detracted from the compelling adult story being told? Was Lincoln Vampire Hunter as good a movie as Lincoln in any way? Did the addition of Vampires help you understand the person or time period, or would it have confused you about the historical facts if you knew nothing about the subject(s)?
I understand 300 was not meant to be historical, but it has the same issues with adding fantasy and drama to a well known, historical story. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as I feel most people have a tenuous grasp of history at best, and are not served by being told about historical events in a clearly non-historical, unreal, dramatized, and fantasized manner. It is especially egregious when there is no historical version to point to (in English at least, there is Chushingura in Japanese) when discussing the subject. I read mostly science fiction, and I read both 300 and The Gates of Fire, and while I loved 300, I wish the latter had been made first. I have read many versions of 47 Ronin, and none of them had a dragon or any unrealistic fantasy. Any of them would have made a great action packed adult movie with many lessons to teach rather than just a fun few hours watching Neo save the Asians. To me, adding the fantasy is tantamount to saying the story isn't compelling enough without embellishment, and this one certainly is. To me, it's the same as exaggeration, it's like admitting reality isn't good (or bad) enough to make the point in your argument. Pure fantasy is exempt from this issue.
P.S. sorry for the essay.

Humans being humans on this one, the cops are cops are cops and the guy with the cell-phone another drama-addicted, thumb-crab complete with loud, shitty, music pumping out his rolled-down windows and his showcase hood-rotty in-tow, 'bout to upload some "police brutality" to You Tube for all his friends to see....Can you say, "Robot?"

Fuck the police and fuck the dumbshits who work as extras for the crappy feature and the next 1000 sequels!

The poor dog was simply being true to his breed, and his Hu-Man.

Thanks, Eric. It's pretty quiet on the Sift these days, huh? What happened to all the fun and drama?

Damn son, you've got your drama meter set too sensitive or have never had many conversations with women...this cat lost half an arm to a hippo's mouth and was initially treated by doctors in Africa!

I don't watch the show but based on what I read and saw I am guessing that the Idiot in question was in some kind of leadership position. If that is correct then Ramsay may not have been asking him to bitch about his team mates so much as evaluate them as a leader has to do sometimes, and in turn, evaluate the Idiot's skills as a leader. The Idiot may have decided that he wasn't comfortable with this and tried to weasel out of it by getting his team mates to critique themselves. I thought the basic conflict was honest enough but I do agree that Ramsay didn't have to go on trading f-bombs with the Idiot for as long as he did and added more drama than necessary.
Meanwhile, the Idiot thought maybe he could get more career mileage by getting into a dick waving contest with Ramsay, of course if he acts like this with all his other bosses it could be a short career. (again I could be misreading a lot of this)

hey man,
my comment on your snuffy vid was not a reflection of my opinion of you.
i love your posts and usually vote for them.

i didnt even realize all this drama was going on until eric pointed it out to me.
wish i had read through all the comments and maybe i would have made my commentary less acerbic.

for real man.
i may be on the side to kill the video but not in any way to ban you.
fuck that noise.

i am super sorry if my comment made you feel in any way ostracized.
my most sincerest apologies.

The guy is an idiot, but in his defence he was trying to allow the nominees an opportunity to admit their own mistakes rather than bitching about them. Ramsay could have just accepted that and asked the nominees themselves, but he obviously saw an opportunity to drum up some manufactured drama.

Of course, the idiot loses all credibility once he starts talking about how he "ain't no bitch".

edit: Oh and Ramsay was born in Scotland, is handy with a knife and tips the scales at a bit over 200lbs. He'd have killed him.

With the pimp-Air show mishaps happen (plenty examples on the VS already) and human tragedy for human tragedy sake is always a loser in choggieland-

I'd like to think the snide description reflected your distaste for drama as spectacle though instead of a, "WHOA!! Did you see that shit?!" rally-race reaction...

When you have such a good story to tell, do you really need to be such a drama queen about it?

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.