Moe_Syzlak

So just saw this and I thought it was good. I heard comparisons to Heat (which i can see) and Godfather II (which I can't). I think it was great that it attempted to explore deeper and darker themes than is typical in this sort of movie. Also that it largely avoided the heavy-handed dialog of the first one. I liked Batman Begins quite a bit but that dialog killed me. That said, these are the only comic book movies I've ever liked. I actually wish they would have gone further with it though. The themes were so overt.

Weird. A friend just sent me an IM saying he'd picked this up. How is it? I have Emotionalism and I think it's alright, but I can't get past lyrics like "Love writes a letter and sends it to hate."

Meh, music criticism is pretty stupid in general, in my opinion. No two people agree on all music. Even some of the folks I agree with the most like music I think is shit and vice versa. So a review is accurate to exactly one person: the reviewer. Let alone the notion of distilling the "quality" down to a tenth decimal grade. That said, I still get turned on to a lot of music through Pitchfork and some of the writing is so "indier-than-thou" (stole this expression from a friend) that it makes me laugh and forget I'm not reading the Onion. A good "review" is one that gives me a feel for what the music is like to give me an idea of whether or not I'd like to check it out for myself. I rarely, if ever, allow one reviewer's opinion sway me.

Anyone live in Colorado and know of some cool live shows next week? We are road tripping to Colorado for some camping friday august 1st-the 5th. Mainly around the Boulder area.I love anything live.

Any particular kind of music? I am seeing Yonder Mountain String Band with Keller Williams at Red Rocks (you should go just for the Red Rocks experience if you've never been) on Saturday, August 2. Also catching Robert Earl Keen at the Boulder Theater on August 5th.

It's really remarkable how many people have what I can only assume to be an underdeveloped appreciation of music since so many rank the band's less mature music so highly.

YHF

AGiB

SBS

ST

BT

AM

That seems like a specious argument. This is a scientific issue and that documentary has been roundly dismissed as misleading and not employing peer-reviewed scientific evidence (or misrepresenting good scientists). The same could be said about any number of liberal propaganda pieces, BTW (Michael Moore anyone?). But saying that not seeing the documentary makes me (or any that have considered scientific evidence on the subject from a variety of sources) afraid of opposing views seems on par with arguing that those that have not seen Bambi couldn't possibly understand the subject of gun control.

I love Gordo. Why don't more places employ their method of melting the cheese in the tortilla while steaming?

I'd just like to point out that most reputable scientists will talk about this issue not as "global warming," but as "climate change." The warming is only one aspect of the overall issue. However, it does sound scarier so journalists and politicians will exploit it. The fact that people don't understand the issue (and the term is misleading to the overall issue) leads people to roll their eyes when we achieve record cold temperatures. In fact, these cold temps are predicted by climate change models and reinforce the research. As with the oil issue where price at the pump is the most simplistic and visible symptom it, at the very least, doesn't tell he whole story. So you shouldn't use a really hot day as proof of "global warming" any more than you should use a really cold day as reason to dismiss it.

Look, there is massive consensus on the issue. BUT any good scientist will still tell you they could be wrong. Therein lies the rub. Politicians can exploit that natural, REQUIRED skepticism of the scientific community to delay action until we have "proof." Proof that., for scientists, will never truly come. We should be acting with the best information we have available to come up with the most responsible plan. I can't help but think that had W stood up after 9/11 -- when the country was desperate to do SOMETHING -- and done a Kennedy like "we can be off fossil fuels by the end of this decade" we'd be a lot further down a road that, regardless whether climate change is human-caused, is inevitable.

ETA: I think it bears mention that "global warming" has become a big issue for the Christian Right as well.

The documentary is called "The Great Global Warning Swindle". I downloaded from 'vuze'

Yeah not the most responsible piece of journalism, that one.

But I agree that, while global warming is very real and an issue -- just as terrorism is -- politicians and media will sensationalize the issue for personal gain. An ex-girlfriend of mine is a PhD studying climate change and she will not speak to the media. Most of her colleagues that I have spoken with also feel politics/media and science don't mix all that well. Science, by definition, doesn't operate in absolutes and politics and the media seem to ONLY operate in black and white.

Still my favorite of the year, I think.

Youkilis? no. AJ Pierzynski? Absolutely!

Except for Miguel Tejada.

 

But, you're right. He didn't cost them the game.

Agreed. But in the extra innings, he was the worst looking at the plate of the bunch. I think he may have struck out on three pitches... TWICE! Just not a good night for Uggla any way you slice it.

I

speculation, no?

Well sure. I don't have a crystal ball, but this is ECON 101 and a major tenet of the fiscal conservative beliefs, right?

I don't see that 'B' is true. There is a lot of work going into these other "innovative solutions".

There sure is. T. Boone Pickens for example. BUT that is because it seems a wise investment now DESPITE the subsidies. Less unfair advantage to some technologies = more incentive to develop others. I wasn't saying in "B" that it eliminates competitive technologies, merely that it decreases the investment in them.

Talk about a blow to cocaine's reputation.

Ha! I thought THIS was the post of the day.

A rock star arrested for drugs!?! Shocking!

'oil = the horse drawn carriage industry' is the new 'oil = heroin' .

Not just oil, ethanol and any other technology that gets an unfair advantage. I think the best solution will rise to the top if the government didn't fuck it up.

To answer your question yes I would still be in favor, as long as corn based ethanol producers receive subsidies and protection from competition in the form of import tariffs, oil subsidies are a non factor in my decision. Remove these subsidies from one side of the argument and I will re-think my position taking this imbalance into consideration.

See this, to me, is like the old woman who swallowed the fly. The solution is worse than the original problem. There aren't just two sides to this and as long as lobbies are able to successfully fuck things up, new, potentially more effective, solutions' development will be stifled... technologies we perhaps haven't even thought of. We are a nation of innovation and allowing drilling as long the subsidies remain: A) won't solve the problem; B ) will likely inhibit solutions from being developed. It seems sort of akin to subsidizing the horse-drawn carriage industry to the detriment of the emerging auto industry of the early 1900s.

I'm not saying further drilling is necessarily a good idea, that is an unknown. I'm saying that removing the option completely is a bad idea within the context of an open market.

As long as that market is free, open and fair, then we are in violent agreement. I suspect, however, that you would still be in favor of drilling even if the subsidies remain. Add to that the fact that no politician has the balls to propose removing the subsidies because most people would believe the propaganda that the politician would be responsible for higher gas prices. Once again illustrating why this is my favorite quote:

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

ETA: Just to be clear that quote was not directed at you. While we may disagree on some things, you seem to do your homework.

Even though I feel it is my job to provide a voice for the poor, underrepresented oil interests in this debate, I have no problem whatsoever with removing subsidies for these companies. Having said that, we need to remove the subsidies given to domestic ethanol producers and remove the tariffs placed upon ethanol imported from Brazil and other South American countries. I am opposed to any form of corporate socialism, whether it is for oil producers or agricultural interests.

 

I challenge you to find where I said we needed to keep these subsidies in place, the reason I didn't try to refute anything you said is on the surface I find nothing to refute. I'm totally for developing alternatives to fossil fuels but I am opposed to legislating the elimination of oil usage.

Cool. I agree with removing the subsidies for ethanol as well. I posted something in the Election thread about the fact that "red states" the overwhelming beneficiaries of federal spending while "blue states" foot the bill. I found that interesting as the conservative stance would have you believe it is the urban poor on welfare and this seems to dispute that. Instead I posited (with no evidence mind you ) that it is more likely things such as corn and oil subsidies. More drilling (and expansion of ethanol for that matter) are not legitimate fixes and likely wouldn't do one damn thing to help our situation. Rather I view them as money grabs while the getting is good. And the getting is good because of these subsidies. Remove them and I predict this debate goes away.

I merely took issue with you believing that further drilling is a good idea. I can't see it as a good idea for anyone other than those that stand to profit from it.

Anyone willing to send me a PM?

So, have you heard? Josh Hamilton used to have a drug problem.

Why can't we do both?

We can. But get rid of the subsidies and charge the oil companies fair market value for the public lands they will drill on and see if they are still so eager. It amuses me that the same conservatives that tout free trade and no "redistribution of wealth" seem in favor of corporate socialism of this nature. I want an even playing field to promote the economically most sustainable technology.