Powered by Gregarious (42)
I loved the new Star Trek. Let's just get that out of the way at the beginning, then continue.
I am a huge Trek fan, from way back (not WAY way back, like the 60's way back, but way back, like from the 80's). I used to watch Original Series reruns on TV as a kid (in the 70's), I went to see the first Star Trek movie in the theater (not that I really remember it, but my parents have reminded me), then stopped watching Star Trek altogether when Wrath of Khan came out because the little brain-worm-things scared the shit out of me. I got back into it when Next Gen started, and just went nuts over it. You ask me how dilithium crystals work in a warp drive, and I can probably give you an explanation without doing any research.
There are tons of reasons why I enjoyed the original series (and Next Gen, and DS9, and occasionally Enterprise), and I'd love to tell you that it was because of the hopeful and optimistic vision of the future, and the way it portrayed humanity as having overcome greed and prejudice and having dedicated themselves as a race to bettering themselves and fighting the just and righteous fight for freedom and cooperation. But really, I loved it because of the characters. The sometimes quirky, sometimes absurd, sometimes hyper-real, sometimes bizarrely unrealistic characters and relationships that populated the show. I loved it because of the stories, and the campy humor, and the glorious over-acting. And, I loved it because it sometimes asked deep philosophical questions, and other times it paraded around in front of you wearing a Nazi uniform. I don't think I really grasped the historical, philosophical, and sociological ramifications of the Trek universe until later.
But, we're here to talk about the new Star Trek movie, aren't we?
Taken on its own merits, I think this is a phenomenal movie. There are issues of science and issues of execution of course, but overall it is exciting, and fun, and touching, and very Star Trek in lots of the right ways.
I think Chris Pine made a great Kirk. All the characters were written (and directed, I assume) somewhat… over-the-top, and very earnest. I felt that, though Pine also suffered this, he had a presence and subtlety that really befitted the character, and that I can see serving him very well in subsequent outings. There was at least one scene (and I've been trying to remember exactly where it occurred, but nevertheless) where I remember thinking to myself… "There's Kirk. That's Kirk. That was right on." And I think it was just a single word, or very short line, delivered with a certain mixture of joy and self-awareness that I think captured the spirit of "The Kirk," and channeled a bit of the old Shatner magic. Suffice it to say, I enjoyed this new Kirk.
There were certain Kirk moments from a story/plot perspective and from a characterization perspective that I didn't like, but those would be difficult to elucidate without spoilage.
Quinto's Spock also had a lot to offer. Maybe he played it a little too close to the chest at times, and maybe he played it a little too "smirky" at times, but neither of those are entirely un-Spock-like qualities. I thought the father/son and the mother/son things were well written and well played, but I did feel that this Spock, somewhat interestingly, was representative of the Spock we came to understand over the last ~40 years, rather than the Spock we met in the first Original Series episode. Our Spock started out (well, after Where No Man Has Gone Before, anyway) as an emotionless, purely logical, and imperceptibly conflicted character who had very much chosen his Vulcan side over his Human one. That was not the Spock we got in this movie. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing, and I did really enjoy this Spock, but I also felt that this new Spock didn't represent where our Spock would have been at this point in his life. It didn't kill my enjoyment of the character, but it stood out to me as a point of unnecessary disunity.
Ultimately though, I thought Quinto's Spock was fantastic. He enabled you to become invested in the character very quickly, and he brought you along for the… yes, emotional ride through the rest of the movie.
The supporting cast was also varying degrees of good.
Karl Urban's doctor was good, but I felt that he was trying too hard to imitate the wonderful DeForest Kelley. I also felt that the writers did him a disservice by restricting his dialogue almost exclusively (I felt) to classic "Bones" catch-phrases. Dixon over at Shelfbound considered that this may simply be the way McCoy talks, which is an interesting thought, but one I don't necessarily agree with. McCoy (the "real" McCoy, you might say buh-doom-tsh!) had plenty of aphorisms and metaphors to go around, but his dialogue was never so heavy with catch-phrases. Ultimately, it's forgivable, but it was irksome.
As an aside, I absolutely adored the way they introduced McCoy's nickname. It was a bit awkward, perhaps, but I loved it.
Simon Pegg as Scotty was a real treat. The character was fun, and lively, and seemed to come off as both brilliant and moronic at the same time. I like Pegg, he's fun. Unfortunately, I never believed he was Scotty. Doohan's Scotty was brilliant but subdued, earthy but not offensive, and excitable but responsible. Pegg's Scotty was mystified, frenetic, and frequently out-of-his-depth. Also unfortunately, Scotty didn't get enough good screen-time to further establish the character. Perhaps there's more to him than this situation allowed to come through.
Uhura was good. Her character had strength, conviction, self-confidence, and power. It is a testament to the actress (and the writers as well) that they were able to establish this, because she was woefully lacking many really meaty scenes.
Sulu was also good, and I felt he fared a bit better than Uhura, scene-wise. He didn't try (unlike Urban) to mimic his predecessor, but inhabited the character he was given. I don't think that I ever really felt he was Sulu, but rather that he was some entirely separate character.
The Christopher Pike character was really great. I felt he got shortchanged in the leadership department in a few spots, but that ties into some movie-wide problems and more potential spoilage. Still, I really liked this character.
Finally, we get to Checkov. What to say… I did really enjoy his introductory moments in the movie, but ultimately I found his character to be very annoying. I also felt that this character was the farthest from the original source material. I won't go so far as to say I didn't like the new Checkov—because he was entertaining, to a point—but he's just not Checkov. However, maybe he is just another casualty of the way the characters were generally over-played. If he'd been more subdued, perhaps he would have fit perfectly. Who knows?
Well, I said "finally, we get to Checkov," but really, the Enterprise is the last (or first?) major character in the Original Series, and we should talk about her as well.
I really liked the new Starfleet ship exteriors, and felt they were true enough to the original. The bridge, on the other hand, was a different story. The old bridge was spacious, and austere but powerful, and it felt comfortable and open. This new bridge was bright, flashy, and claustrophobic. So much of the old Star Trek took place on the bridge—perhaps this is an indicator that the bridge will no longer be the central story-telling vantage point. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in future movies.
At last, we get to the story itself. As I mentioned, it was enjoyable and exciting. Unfortunately, I felt it was also, like most of the rest of the movie, a bit over-blown. It was as if they tried to make every single moment just as tense and dramatic as possible—tried to give the story as much weight as it could possibly carry. The good thing is that it delivered. The question is, is that a good thing? Personally, I prefer my Star Trek a little more cerebral, and a little less "wagon train." Maybe that's the Next Gen era initiate in me, I dunno. I just think there's a line between sci-fi action/thriller and sci-fi action/drama that this movie played too often on the wrong side of.
At this point, I'm not sure how much more i can say without really getting into specifics of plot. I definitely have more thoughts on specific aspects of the movie, and also generally about what it means that we now have this New old generation of characters.
As I've mentioned in other venues, to other people, I loved it, but I also hated it.
Popularity: 10% [?]
My favorite view is at the other end of the garden, in the grassy space up above the gates, looking out into the courtyard with the Obelisque and the fountain(s?). From here, you get a great view of the Eiffel Tower to the left across the Seine, and of the Obelisque and Arc de Triomphe up the Champs Elysees to the right. My favorite spot in all of Paris is that spot, if you go up the ramp (the left ramp if you're walking towards the gates at the end of the garden) you get that great view I mentioned.
Finally, and especially if doing a lot of walking, the picture I attached is of the book my sister relied on during her five+ years there. Any Plan de Paris should work, I imagine, and there seem to be a few pocket-sized versions around, but this one worked very well for me.
brad said:
Let me know if you need help with that armed revolution.
i am cocked and loaded…
Mr. John \ said:
thanx for werking on all my dumb shit, bro. from what i can tell from the homeland security handbook, all email, and web text (as well as telephone calls and bank transactions) are put in a folder under your name. so when you talk shit about JW Bush, you should use a code word, just to throw them off. kinda like how truckers call the police 'Bears'. here are some code words you could try. "Timmy".
Ex: timmy is bad bad boy.
or "Mr. Man".
EX: I wish MR.Man would comitt suicide on national T.V.
or "Dog Balls"
EX: our president, mr.Dog Balls, is a coke head alcohollic, who wants to murder people so his faggit ass texan freinds can make more money than god.
i sure hope this helps buddy, carry on.
schifter said:
so what did you do to your clutch? should i even mention that i've never gotten less than 100k miles out of a clutch?
brian. said:
ahhh…i love the sweet smell of political dissent in the morning.
Javan said:
I am the only pro-Bush person here… sorry, guys. Just not the liberal.
m@ said:
well, you're still young.
brian. said:
wait until you have to pay taxes and run the risk of having to fight in a conflict which shouldn't concern us at all…
Javan said:
Oh, but the conflict does concern us, all to much. That is the only reason why we are looking into this war, I don't believe it is another Vietnam. I only hope we don't wait until it is to late…
brian. said:
the only thing that concerns the US about conflict in the middle east is oil prices, javan.
m@ said:
oil prices, and appeasing Dog Ball's lust for blood & power with the added bonus of making him a "war president," so that, if it goes well, his approval rating will remain high and he may win a re-election bid.
brian. said:
keep in mind, 80% of the general public OPPOSE a war in iraq and Timmy's approval ratings are at their lowest point, post-september 11th.
m@ said:
TIMMAY!
pants party no.1 said:
as well as MR.MAN's affilation with Skull&bones.wich has been traced to numerous world events including stock exchange plumits, and interst rate changes. but fuck it, kid. who cares about all that, whether a war is a good move or not, should not even be questioned. when 30 million americans do not have health coverage, and one out of every 6 children go to bed hungery every night, and unemployment is at a 10 year high, who gives a god's damn fuck about war. it is not an option. there is too much to work on here at home. bush says war must happen so that millions of people can live decent lives. tell that to any of your friends who make $6 an hour, without any health benifits, that have to borrow $20 000 a year to get a basic BA at some 2 bit state skool. ask them if they would rather have some jack ass blow up babies, and then drop a crate of food on top of them for 1 billon dollors a day (estamated cost of war) or would they like a living wage and health insurance? i say bush is an idiot, and war is a stupid move, but really it's the fact that problems at home are getting ignored.
brian. said:
amen!
preach it, brutha.
Javan said:
I think you guys are still totally missing it all…
I guess you do realize it is hard for me to argue with you because you are so much older than me, but here goes anyway.
This war is a national security issue. We can't make people get paid more, or work more, or do much more than we do in the poor-assistance (welfare) area. Welfare, of course, is a good thing in it's place (our dad, Matthew, survived because of Welfare if you remember) but if we start handingout money, people will stop working, just because they are lazy.
And as for war, any President (whether it be Gore, TIMMAY, or your own Ralph Nader) would have to be considering war at this point. Think about it.
I have heard it said "I used to be a liberal, but then I grew up". You have to keep your eyes open.
m@ said:
Fact 1: The government's primary function is protecting the welfare of it's citizens.
Fact 2: A lunatic dictator with nuclear weapons is a potential threat to the well-being of any world-citizen.
Fact 3: As the #1 superpower, our government *must* act as a responsible member of the world community. "Lead by example" is how the cliche goes, i think.
Fact 4: Our government's war lust has extremely limited support even outside of it's own stately doors, much less outside of the borders of this country.
Fact 5: If our government proceeds to wage war on Iraq, it will be doing so (at this point, though things may change) against the will and/or wishes of the greater world community.
I think Mr. pants' point was that there are more important things to take care of within our own walls at this point, especially considering the lack of world support on foreign fronts. Instead of trying to fix problems abroad, we should be trying to fix them at home. At the very least, we should be giving equal attention to both "fronts."
Living Wage: by instituting a living wage, *all* individuals who work (a 40 hour work week) will be making enough money to pay their bills, put a roof over their heads, and feed themselves and their children. So, yes, we *can* make people make more money… it's called making the "minimum" wage a "living" wage.
Welfare: The peril of any social program is the possibility that it will be taken advantage of… in fact, this is a potential "problem" any time one person makes a sacrifice to help another. This is why the welfare program needs to be overhauled so that it is *much* more difficult to take advantage of. There are many programs that can be implemented in support of welfare:
a) people on welfare *must* work for the money they're given. There are thousands of jobs our governments can create and give to people who can't get other work. Or, we can pay people to get an education (so they're more employable).
c) child care. working mothers need places/people to care for their children while they work. govt. sponsored day cares could be staffed by welfare recipients (under supervision of govt. licensed child care providers).
bottom line for welfare… if you get paid by the government, you work for the government. If you don't do your work, you don't get your money.
And yes, any president might be considering war at this point, but against North Korea if anyone, since we actually *know* that they already have nuclear weapons. Plus, though they might be considering war, a *good* president would not act without the support of the world community.
And don't miss the point of your own advice… keep your own eyes open. Both political "sides" have a tendency to get mired in their opposition of each other, and thus become as closed minded as those they oppose. There has always been an ideological welfare system in place for the human race, people giving freely of their ideas and others taking them. Since ideas are so freely handed out, many people have stopped working for them, because they are lazy. I *try* (though i do not always succeed) to not be one of these lazy people. I hope you will continue to do the same.
Javan said:
And you're saying we don't already know that Iraq has Nuclear weapons?
And the reason that the "Greater World Communtiy" doesn't support us yet, I believe, is because they are not the ones who the Lunatic dictator would we wanting revenge on, now would they?
Jackie said:
Precisely the arguement I was looking for…
A) The reason The Greater World Community does not support America as a superpower is because we are threatening to deconstruct virtually every government in the world who's top officers aren't in league witht The Bushes/The Ashcrofts. Why is England one of our main backers? Because the Prime Minister is Bush's cousin. All in the family.
B) Welfare… It's really easy to just call welfare recipients "lazy." But humans are, essentially, products of their environment. There is money to spend on low-income housing, like there is money to spend on (as Matt said) government jobs for the lower-income, child-care, and government grants for higher education. There are so many young men and women out there (a few of whom I consider my closest and finest friends) from poverty who are trying very hard to sustain a lifestyle without the aid of welfare. My friend Mike for instance, who has been trying for two years to get excepted into the National Jobcore in North Carolina (where he would live for a year, learning a trade, with free rent and 3 meals a day) but it's obvious how extremely difficult it is to even get involved in these programs… And not everyone are even so lucky to afford a year away from their family, children, and/or friends.
Yet we can afford to spill missiles (what's the quote? $100,000.00 – $1,000,000,000 per missile dropped?) all over Baghdad, killing thousands of private citizens in their own homes for… what? Revenge? Right, because Cheney, oops I mean Bush, cares that much about his citizens.
C)The last thing you need to trust in America is the American Media… even the "liberal" media such as NPR. Need I remind everyone of the recorded pact between Roosevelt and the American Media? The one that says the media will subscribe to anything the government asks… leaking only small bits of liberalized false info in order for the public to believe that what they are viewing, reading, and hearing is uncensored. It's recorded in history… and also recorded in history are all of the penny-anty games Roosevelt played while in office that, evidently, Bush is using as guidebook. Come on folks! We've been living under Martial Law our whole lives, and for most of the lives of our parents — how's that for life, liberty and justice.
D) The US is a very very young country still, and still suseptible to government corruption. Particularly with a supergrowth of technology in the past 50 years. And your telling me that I'm supposed to assume everything is right, and the government, and all of her human cabinet members, are most definitely just & rational people? Yet if a citizen says anything otherwise, they're called… UNPATRIOTIC? And possibly risk jailtime?
E) Why are we allowed to have the largest arsenal of Nuclear Weapons in the entire world… Why are we allowed to even contemplate putting these nuclear weapons in SPACE… yet North Korea can't have some shit too? As a Korean-Japanese-Swedish-American, with family scattered all over North Korea and South Korea… here's a clue: people of that country are, mostly, happy with the way things are. This includes South Korea… It is not our business to try and discourage their country's growth. Koreans are clanish by nature (TRUST me on that) — and the more we bully into their business, the more likely it is that they'll be a problem. Any dispute between the North and South can and should be resolved between the two of them, possibly under the guidance of the UN — but no more than that unless a massacre ensues.
F) There's this great song off of the new Dead Prez cd that says something to the effect of… "They didn't bomb my house… Not your house either… They bombed the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and tried to get the White House…" That sounds pretty fair to me, frankly. And I'm also saying this as someone with a close family member (My mother's sister) who was on a top floor in one of the towers. We'd thought she'd died… but thankfully, she hadn't. However, I know and she knows that no terrorist meant to kill her or her friends… they meant to make a very bold statement. Another thing I thought was nice from the Dead Prez song, which I'm sure everyone already knows but it's nice to hear it on vinyl, was the mention of the Al-Quiada being a former terrorist group working for the US Government. But I suppose, as they say, American Terrorists aren't terrorists, just patriots.
G) (I'm going through the entire alphabet here)… This isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue… It's an issue of every American's civil right to ensure that our government isn't abusing it's authority… And yes, it's not just the conservatives… I'm SURE there are plenty of liberals in league with the Bushes plan… Anyone can be swayed by the power of the almighty dollar (not to mention world domination). There was and is no threat to American citizens, except for in the case of wrong place at the wrong time…
Unless the US starts fuckin people up all over the world — in which case my ass is on the line and I'm not down with that shit, yo.
brian. said:
this just in: 70% of the british public now oppose a war in iraq. wait…i have yet to find a person (aside from javan) that wants to go drop a bunch of bombs on innocent women and children. over oil.
and let that be the point, javan…this is only about oil and old grudges. saddam has been a tired, rusty sabre for the american government to rattle whenever something isn't going exactly how they would like it to. anyone remember when clinton ordered the airstrikes in the middle of the whole "monica thing"? prime example.
history on the gulf conflict (reader's digest version): we only invaded iraq the first time because the invaded kuwait. why did we give a fuck? oil. plain and simple. the problem with that whole scenario is that cheney and powell didn't finish what they started. now they've got an enormous chip on their shoulders and a baby bush to help them take care of it.
then comes september 11th. they probably started laying out their invasion plans 30 minutes after the second plane hit. they finally had an excuse!
my point: never listen to any of the jackass bullshit powell is saying. whether it be to the UN or the american people. he says (and javan agrees) that they have wepons of mass destruction, chemical weapons and all these evil things. he's hiding all of them. he has massive mobile laboratories. he's a sneaky snake in the grass.
you think the amercan intelligence system can't fake just about any photo they want? how do we know those things were taken in iraq? how do we know that what we're seeing is what they say it is?
ahhh…fuck it. i gotta go to work.
Javan said:
Mr. Jackie, I must address you first. I will state now that you have stepped over the line. When you state bullshit like "no terrorist meant to kill her or her friends…". How the hell can you say that? Make a statement they did, by PURPOSELY killing thousands of people.
Your argument is quite laughible.
If you feel no compassasion for these people and no need to to remove the threat from the world community, you should go back to Korea.
You (all of you) tell me not to believe the media, which in itself is probably true. But why should I believe you instead? You don't believe the media simply because you think TIMMAY and his cronies are simply trying to take over the world.
And, unless I am mistaken, the Irag Incident did not reappear until long after 9/11. If any rush plans were made, they were pointed towards Afghanistan and Al-Quaida and Irag and nut-dictator came later.
Brain: The reason you have heard no one but me fighting on my side, is because you have not looked. And also, we are not going to "drop bombs on innocent women and children", rather remove their dictator. I know not why I made that statement, for I know you will counter it by telling me I shouldn't believe the TIMMAY administration, and certainly not the media.
As for Powell, you should honor him, instead of disgracing him. And I do aggree with him.
And the American intelligence system could fake photos. Of course. But what good would it do them? It isn't like we are going to take over Iraq.
Take no offense, but if you guys were the American government, I would indeed head to France. Or Russia. Or Belarus. Or Iraq. I suppose you get my drift. But I assume you fell no different about me.
nunyah. said:
Javan–
By saying "no terrorist meant to kill her or her friends," Jackie was talking specifically about her mother's sister. Jackie was saying that the terrorists were not targeting HER specifically, they were targeting the World Trade Center (to make a statement). Dig?
Also, about your comment of "we are not going to 'drop bombs on innocent women and children."
…are you kidding? Do you have any idea how many times we HAVE bombed innocent people? That's what happens. Jesus, on the day of the Columbine shooting President Clinton killed MANY innocent people in a bombing…but nobody heard about it.
I can't believe that anyone would ever be pro-war under any circumstances.
brian. said:
javan:
do you honestly believe that any war ever launched had no civilian casualties? they call them many things at the white house, including "collateral damage." this has nothing to do with believing the media, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, or anyone else. this is just a simple matter of truth. war kills. not just soldiers…innocent people.
okay…now that that's out of the way, i have to ask you a few simple questions…
first off, do you even have any idea why the U.S. is even IN the middle east? i'm talking pre-9/11, pre-iraq, all that business. any clue? well…i hate to break it to you, but the answer is OIL. that area is rich with the stuff. he who controls the fuel supply controls all the economic power. it's plain and simple. they don't call it "black gold" for nothin'. we've been dukin' it out in that area long before saddam invaded kuwait, but you're probably a little young to remember anything regarding iran. not a dig on your age, just stating a fact.
to put it lightly, the peoples of the arab world are a little more than pissed that they have what they call "american aggressors" polluting their homeland. justifiably so, i might add. how would you like it if you had a sovereign government and someone came in, said that something you had was their's, and then systematically (for more than 50 years) kept trying to destabalize your entire region to get what they want? you'd be a little pissed, as well, my friend.
as to why the whole iraq thing has popped up recently, so far after the whole 9/11 thing: the "war on terrorism" wasn't going very well. they still haven't killed bin laden (or even know where the fuck he is), terrorist acts are still being carried out across the globe, and frankly…americans haven't been feeling any safer. so they need to generate another war. crank up the machines. give the american people something to watch 24 hours a day on CNN.
second actual question: why do you think any government would want to overthrow the leader of another government? simple…to get someone else in power that they like better. we not want to "take over" iraq, but we certainly want to do the next best thing: put one of our buddies in charge of the place.* so when you want to go in and whup someone's ass real hard, especially on a global scale, you better have some convincing "evidence" to back you up, hence powell's dramatic speech before the UN. i'm not saying any of the photos were faked. don't get me wrong. i'm just saying take everything with a grain of salt. i want to point you to MS. Jackie's comment on the roosevelt pact. you have the internet at your fingertips, man…do some research.
on the research tip, check out a few other news sites, including some english language arab forums, with polls on how neighboring countries who also have no particular love for saddam do NOT want us in there dropping bombs.
and yes…those bombs would be getting dropped on innocent women and children. you really need to study up on the "art" of warfare.
*on the subject of putting our buddies in power, haven't we had enough of that shit blowing up in our faces? we financed bin laden in the late 70s in afghanistan to help against the russians. we've supported numerous other regimes, only to have them come back and bite us in the ass.
jimmy: i find it hard to believe that you jumped into such an intense debate, delivered a very good counter-point, and then decided to be anonymous. maybe you're afraid of tom ridge…who knows?
Javan said:
Yes, I agree (and know) that there will be death (military and civilian). That is war. I don't like war, or want there to be war, unless it need be.
Question #1: Why do you guys criticize the American government for even considering a *justified* war yet you seem to have no problem with Bin-Laden destroying the world trade center for one terrible reason: their hate of us and our lifestyle.
Question #2 Of course the terrorists were not aiming for one certain person. They were just aiming for a whole lot of people. There is a word for that. It is MASS-MURDER. No one can justify that. And don't ask me how war is any different, because in war, there is a good reason. So how can you justify that?
It would be nice to not have to have war. Yes, a utopia would be nice. But ask the former communist countries and read "Animal Farm". It can't happen.
scott said:
Javan,
You've made some good points in your argument, but I guess what I don't understand is why you think this war is "justified". There are a lot of reasons people go to war and I think few of them are ever really justified. War is historically almost always about a power struggle. It's no different in this case.
As Brian pointed out, the "Iraqi incedent" has been ongoing for quite a long time. It is a serious issue, and has been for years. The only, and I mean *only*, reason it has become priority numero uno now is because our President decided that it was. Not much has changed in Iraq post 9/11. We've had a stalemate there since the early '90's and could have tried to take care of this anytime since. But we are doing it now because Bush says so. And why does he say so? I leave that for you to decide. But I fear his intentions might not be as noble as you want them to be. There's a long list of reasons the American government wants this war and if you dig deep enough, you just might find that "protecting American citizens" is not at the top of that list.
One last question to you: Once we wage/win a war against Iraq, overthrow Sadddam and spit in the face of most foreign countries who oppose this action… then what? Do you think our problems will really be over, or just beginning?
I would implore you research conditions in Iraq over the last decade. For a lot of their citizens, the war never really ended. We never stopped bombing them, we impose sanctions and numerous other actions against the Iraqi people. There are cities with sewage running in the streets because they lack the ability (by way of being blocked from importing chemicals neccessary) to properly treat and sanitize their water supplies. Medical conditions are horrendous… just research it.
scott said:
I realize that I spelled incident wrong. And I also wanted to say that: Javan, your comments toward Jackie (conservative as they may be) were way out of line.
outta the ashtray/into the ashtray said:
The only potential silver lining to a war effort in Iraq is that Timmy Sr. wound up being a one-term president because of it. By focusing on oil and NOT the American economy (remember that recession?), some lawyer from Arkansas with little recognition in the public eye previously was able to Rock the Vote with such simple catchphrases as "It's the Economy, Stupid."
I think a large part of the Dems' downfall in the '00 "election" had to do with the fact that Gore didn't learn from his boss and reach out to the youth (Joey L. was a prime example of that), and a lot of us wound up voting for Nader. Granted, the Supreme Court bought and sold that election, but if the Dems had played their cards right, there *NEVER* would've been any of this "too close to call" business, and it really proves how too close to center the Dems have moved.
Something else you've got to realize is that a) a possible Iraqi connection was almost instantly hinted at after Sept. 11, and b) there's no president who wouldn't have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan.
Timmy has been itching at the bit to "finish" his father's job like so many bumper stickers across the country have been reading for the past year+, and he's been looking for any excuse to go over there. Now we're on the verge, with the American public not wanting sonds and daughters to die so some POLITICIAN can get his own chapters in the history books and try to secure a re-election.
Javan, Scott's dead on about the conditions in Iraq. The sanctions have not stopped anyone in power in Iraq from getting supplies, and the INTENTIONS of the sanctions weren't to stop anyone in power from getting what they wanted–the embargoes were intended to create anti-government resistance and inspire people to revolt–which has backfired, because the Iraqi government has easily spun that into "look what America is doing to YOU."
And it's not exactly "communist" to not want war (I would take a moment to point out that most of the traditional "Communist" countries are not actually communist, they're Totalitarian governments with pretty much Capitalist economies. It's kinda hard to develop an alternative economy when there's a global capitalist economy.), Communism is a mode of economics, not government.
As for the "love it or leave it" implication made earlier, any citizen who's being critical of this country is being a patriot in my book. I love my country. That's why I'm critical when I feel that it's necessary. I want to be able to keep loving it. If I didn't care, I'd be up in Canada or somesuch. Every citizen's responsibility is to ensure that your country represents you, and not JUST corporate interests, or foreign interests, or "the economic elite's" interests, etc. etc.
Get your democracy on, son. The essence of this country depends on people to be able to speak their mind and make a difference in how the government acts. Otherwise, all that "for the people, by the people" rhetoric is just empty claptrap.
This wasn't intentionally just a rebuttal to what you've said, Javan, but there's a lot of things you're gonna realize as you grow older and experience more things in life.
Here's to the futile hope that we won't see a war in Iraq in the next week or so.
john "pants party" king said:
hi everybody! i am really happy to everyone interested, i just worry that all of us leaping on javen, won't help him understand. or maybe, i am just reluctant to realise that it doesn't matter what we say, he won't hear it anyway. but that is our biggest problem, each side refuses to listen to the other, but honestly, i just don't understand the repubs. maybe it's becouse i have learned long ago that they don't give a fuck about our well being. and thats my whole sadness. all this war talk bothers me, becouse i feel so strongly that things are bad bad bad at home, and they are blanketed by looming war discusions. kinda like the coulmbine insident. it striaght shocks me that in the past 2 months our civil liberties have been murdered. we can be detained without any reason. our phone lines, emails, land mail, and our homes can (and will so says Homeland security) be monitored. that is insane. "information begins with you" is the federal slogan for the ministry of homeland security. we are all suspects, not just muslums, i mean middle easterners. you and me and republicans, and javen. we could find our selves in a tribunal tomorow, without any legal repersentation, for what we are talking about. and death is still a legal punishment. (some might say we are sympathizing with the enemy) and no one will know, mom, dad, javen, no one. well, maybe javen.
alright, i know i said i didn't want to harass javen, but really that 'go back to africa' crap gets on my nerves. in wich case i am refering to the 1920's movment saying that if black people didn't like segregation they sould just leave. we are all intitlled to our opinnions,(atleast for now) and jackie seems more concerned with the wellfare of the u.s. than javen who blindly wants to do what his leader says without noticing what his leader is doing to him. "those who would sacerfice liberty for security, deserves nether liberty nor security" maybe you should leave, if you don't give a fuck about your wellfare as an american, javen. really jackie deserves an appolgy.
fuck, really, war is needed sometimes, but not this one. look at the facts. N. korea admits to harboring wepons of mass destruction, a violation of U.N. treaty, and we arn't doing anything. al Quida, did work for the U.S. they were paid millions just months before 9/11 by us. we are terrorists. or rather they are only terrorist when they arent terrorizing the people we want them to. and we kinda stopped looking for them becouse we used them as a ralley for revenge and then were blindly told they real problem is husane. it was all a ploy for the gov. to get its people pissed and ready for action even though it's not what we initally were after. stupid sheep are the only ones that would fallow that scape goat.
this is getting so long i don't think anyone will read it. but my big worry is that our wellfare is getting destroyed by this. the economy is leaving town quick, or civil liberies are gone, health care costs are rising,and everyone is preoccupied with blowing up husane. is that gonna restore my civil rights and asure me and my family of basic heath and s.s. needs? fuckity no! hell no! this is not the land of the free. now we have to register every place we intend to visit when leaving the u.s. we have to give the exact adresses and dates. this is iron curtian stuff. i feel like i am living in the movie "brasil". i don't wanna "go back to africa (korea, europe, russia, ect.)" i want my country to care about me. but if they only way to live a decent life is to leave, than what choice is there? here i am a suspect, in another counrty i am a murderer, i am fucked. i'll just move to fucking iceburg.
john king=in all forms said:
javen,
hey buddy, i just found out tonight that you are a teenager. so i commend you on keeping up with all this touture. i sort of feel bad now, about all the shit we have been slinging at you. i didn't know you were so young. but thats not a crack on you, buddy. when i was 15, i hated people telling me that i was young, but man, it's not a bad thing, secretly, the rest of us wish we still were, dude. but look we are all ganging up on you becouse your an easy target. your an easy target becouse you are flat out wrong. real wrong. but it's not your fault.
i grew up in the ole' ghetto man. i spent sometime as a boy homless, still both me and my father live under the poverty line. but we are both hard working, educated people. it's not my parents fault that it turned out this way, they wern't lazy, or stupid, or teen perents. they just had the missfourtune of being born poor. as soon as you go of to college, and you meet a more diverse crowd, things will change. you will meet people from all sorts of social, and political standings. and you will notice you will have lots in common, regardless of where or how they grew up, and regardles of their political standing. once you have to start fending for yourself, and paying all kinds of stupid bills, i think you will start to worry less about Bush leading a world power into world domination, and care more about problems at home. you maybe more passionate about how others are treated. you know? you gave Jackie a hard time about her saying the 9/11 attack was not at people but at a situation. when bush attacks IraQ, he is defending his stand point, but, he will be killing inocent people too. just like the inoccent people killed in the twin towers. and if they get pissed at that, and want to go after us, we can't really blam them, really. its all so twisted, thats why i wish we wern't a super power, so we can just live decent lives, like denmark. or france, or holland, or most of social Europe. when you have lived your whole life whith out health insurance, and try to live on $150 a week, you seem not to care about whats going on outside our walls. but the truth is, iraQ isn't a threat to us, except that all our tax money is going to go to shooting his ass, instead of back to us. thats wrong. by condoning a war under these circomstances, is condemming the underprivaliged in america and abroad.it's crazy, if you love your country, you should love everyone in it, not just the ones with your same party reference. and you should fight to make life here better, not hate the people who have it bad here and want that to change. but i am losing my point, which is, i am proud of you for keeping your ground, when i was fifteen i couldn't have even formed the first sentence. and i am a little ashamed at straight attacking you. now i have faith that you will see this all in a differnt light in a few years, considering we all havn't blown each other up.
kingbot********
Javan said:
I think that you all think that I want war just to blow people up. That is definately not true. War is sad, and violent, and seldom needed. Sadly, it is near unavoidable.
And don't worry, I do listen to your points, and I consider them all. However, I still do not think that I am an easy target or wrong. I am just the only person on this post with my views! Flat outnumbered, it is.
And I am not going to give anyone an apology, because of twisted information. I don't mind discussing this current incident, but when it is said basically that the terrorists meant no harm and just wanted to make a statement, I simply can't listen to that. What was the reason for them to attack us? If anyone can inform me, please do.
Perhaps there should be no war. However, in my opinion, the real reason we should use force in Iraq is because they deny inspections. They have been given their options for peace.
I don't doubt that in the back of little Timmy's mind is the folly of Timmy Sr. Let us just hope that isn't the only reason.
I know that the money could be going to better places. The government could always do things better in everyone's eyes.
I don't know about you all, but I am getting tired of talking politics. Obviously we are not going to agree any time soon, but at least we have heard eachothers opinions.
Peace.
brian. said:
javan:
we're not condemning you for your views, i'm just flat out saying that you were way out of line in your comment for jackie to go back to korea. that's that old 50s segregationist, racist, white hood bullshit talking. i don't want to see that kind of crap in an informed political debate, especially not on a website that is half mine. i'm disgusted.
as far as the innocent people dying in the twin towers…we all grieve for them. their deaths were senseless. but the point jackie was making is that they weren't aiming for all those people, they were aiming at symbols of american society. our strength. our power. hence the attacks at the pentagon and the failed attempt on the capitol. i'm sure in their sick, twisted minds, the terrorists didn't mind killing all those people, but they were aiming specifically for the symbols, not caring about the people inside. that was the point she was trying to make.
ash. said:
Javan,
You do realize that there's another country in the same region that has unapproved nuclear weapons, has long used tactics like torture even on it's own people, and has seized land and randomly attacked her neighbors, right? All with our backing, even. The same country refuses to completely disclose her arsenal as well.
Justification all depends on what side of the fence you're sitting on in some circumstances. (By the way, to make myself clear, I'm NOT JUSTIFYING the terrorist attacks, I'm trying to show how hypocritical and illogical attacking Iraq is when Israel is sitting a few miles away doing the same thing.)
Javan said:
Perhaps my comment was a little rash… but I still feel that the statement made is incorrect, but I do understand your points. Of course terrorists were not aiming for one person… but in my opinion, their statement was more in the people they killed than in the places they destroyed, anyway. People, in my mind, are more important than buildings (NOT saying that the same isn't true for everyone else).
I hope that sates you all for an apology.
And of course all of you are older than I, so I can't really hold a finger to you as to knowledge pre-gulf war. But that is not bad, I suppose.
Nate said:
Javan, bum a book from Matt the next time you hang out with him. He's never going to read it anyway, it's called "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since 1953" or some such thing.
I have a handful of mildly conservative views myself, and I definitely think this group is slamming Powell more than is merited by his actions alone. Keep in mind Maddie Albright's tenure under Clinton when you think of retributive Secretaries of State.
Don't underestimate your need to understand the last Gulf conflict more. If you really want to have a well-informed opinion on this, you should seek out more history. It's readily available from both sides of the fence.
As intelligent and informed as you already are, it would only do you service to dig farther for the truth. And I don't think it'll necessarily change your opinion.
Last things last, don't buy that age makes you better at understanding these things. Just being informed is what it takes. I guarantee you've got a more solidly justified and formed opinion than 70% of the adults in the U.S., these cats are a somewhat select sample (though some of them may still not be as informed as you… ooh… who could that finger be pointed at…).
Good on you.
Nate said:
Oh, and Ash, don't forget the representation of Jews versus other minorities in the voter population of the U.S. There's a perfectly good reason they don't go after Israel, it's just an egregiously self-serving one (that and the fact that the Allied forces were the ones that created that mess years ago… aren't parting gifts great?).
Opinion poll:
1)Who thinks China's going to feel the diplomatic heat soon?
2)Who'll give me 2:1 odds on Piongyang spontaneously combusting within a year?
3)Who thinks the current U.S. intelligence estimate of a 6-day campaign in Iraq might be a slight underestimation?
brad said:
Look at what you've gotten yourself into, Brian!
You should know better than to mention our great president in your forum. He can do nothing but lead to mass confusion and argument.
I hear that he can also down a six-pack in seconds flat…
brian. said:
and don't get him anywhere near a bag of coke…
Nate said:
Just make sure he's not eating pretzels…
(Oh… you know it begged it…)
scott said:
I hereby declare this thread of replies dead. Time for an update.
Anonymous said:
post something you big skinnny dumb ass.!!!!
christ!!
Anonymous said:
anything!
brian. said:
no.
Anonymous said:
"no"
"um, no"
that's real good, dumb shit.
forget this blog people.
kelly said:
For those of you who have expressed opposition to war on Iraq, I thought I'd pass along information about tomorrow's march downtown. I'm going, so if any of you would like to join me, call me or email me. I'll probably be leaving the house around 11:30 for it. Info below:
This Saturday, February 15th, there will be a peace rally and march in solidarity with similar actions this weekend in New York, San Francisco, London, Paris, and over 300 cities around the world. We will begin gathering at Central Park at 12:30. Around 1:30, we will begin our march–in a mock New Orleans funeral procession–to the Federal Building. The march route is on a bus route, so it will be easy to get back to your cars if you park at Central Park. There will be drums, signs, speakers, puppets, "coffins," and "tombstones." People will be coming from as far away as Cincinnati, Lexington, and Frankfort. Please plan on attending, and please help us promote this event. Sponsored by C-SAW.
More information about US and international protests: http://internationalanswer.org/.
Javan said:
well, that really killed it, didn't it?