Range_This11

I totally forgot about this one! I watched it this fall, very very good film!

One that I have not seen yet, but I have been meaning to. Now that I'm done with classes until August, I plan to watch a lot more films.

Andrei Tarkovsky had a huge influence on Miyazaki!! The bath house is a direct reference to Metropolis (1927) and the train motif is a direct reference to the train in Stalker (1972). The train in both films is representative of the spiritual journey and transformation the protagonist(s) have to take. Also, there is a scene--if you remember--after Chihiro removes the splinter from the giant river god and all the muck explodes, there is a very quick top-down shot of the bath house floor showing items covered in water. That is the exact shot that Tarkovsky uses at the end of Stalker. Both films are about the spiritual journey, not necessarily the spiritual destination. Just a little bit of film trivia for you :razz:

Django Unchained. 5/5

Well, since this will no doubt turn into an American films circle-jerk, I'll add some international films that anyone who is as snobby as I am about films would enjoy. Directors are in [brackets]. Russia/USSR Stalker [Andrei Tarkovsky] (1979) One of the most profound films I have ever seen. Tarkovsky's influence is unmistakable in so many great directors. Solaris [Andrei Tarkovsky] (1972) Ivan's Childhood [Andrei Tarkovsky] (1962) The Return [Andrey Zvyagintsev] (2003) The Banishment [Andrey Zvyagintsev] (2007) France Breathless [Jean-Luc Godard] (1960) Contempt [Jean-Luc Godard] (1963) Jacquot de Nantes [Agnes Varda and Jacques Demy] (1991) Leon: The Professional [Luc Besson] (1994) The Artist [Michel Hazanavicius] (2011) There's a reason it is the first French film to win Best Picture at the Oscars and have the first French Best Actor AND the first silent film since 1929 (the 1st Academy Awards) to win Best Picture. It's that good. Germany The Lives of Others [Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck] (2006) Metropolis [Fritz Lang] (1927) The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari [Robert Wiene] (1920) Turkey Once upon a Time in Anatolia [Nuri Bilge Ceylan] (2011) Distant [Nuri Bilge Ceylan] (2003) (Turkey has a rapidly expanding film industry, and Ceylan is a huge part of it. His films are bleak but full of redemption) Israel The Band's Visit [Eran Kolirin] (2007) A film about an Egyptian military band lost in the middle of nowhere in Israel on the way to a cultural event. One of my all time favorite films. Very funny and also has a serious Jewish-Arabic cultural commentary. Footnote [Joseph Cedar] (2011) Italy 8 1/2 [Federico Fellini] (1963) Really any film by Fellini is a treat to watch. We Have a Pope [Nanni Moretti] (2011) Canada The Fly [David Cronenburg] (1986) A History of Violence [David Cronenburg] (2005) Spain The Skin I Live in [Pedro Almodovar] (2011) And to end the list, I'll put some American films in that I really enjoy. I enjoy many more movies by each director, but I'll only put one by each to try to get as many directors out there as I can. Casablanca [Michael Curtiz] (1942) Escape from New York [John Carpenter] (1981) The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou [Wes Anderson] (2004) Magnolia [Paul Thomas Anderson] (1999) Lawrence of Arabia [David Lean] (1962)--I know it's British. Mulholland Drive [David Lynch] (2001) Reservoir Dogs [Quentin Tarantino] (1992) Days of Heaven [Terence Malick] (1978) Same guy who directed the controversial 2011 film Tree of Life Apocalypse Now [Francis Ford Coppola] (1979) Goodfellas [Martin Scorsese] (1990) Black Swan [Darren Aronofsky] (2010)

I've read it, it's very very good just like all of his work.

On a school-related note, I failed AP History miserably in high school. I'm now applying for History graduate studies at 10 different universities across the nation and received the largest History scholarship the department offers to undergraduates. I never tell anyone I failed AP History.

I don't really see the point in taking a side. Its outcome does not affect me directly and it should be settled by the people in Gaza.

Debates about Israel and Palestine whose belligerents have no first-hand experience in Gaza and only get their information from Western media sources. That's what annoys the hell out of me.

Redistricting kept a lot of congressional Republicans in office this election. Michelle Bachmann being one of them.

The federal reserve is apart of the government... Technically speaking, I think It's its own entity, but the leaders of it are appointed by the U.S. government.

I agree with everything in this post, especially the last line.

The fact that you posted a clearly partisan political cartoon instead of a well-formulated argument just to troll the thread was my point. States should be able to opt out of anything. You won't hear any argument against that from me.

You're comparing an opinion-based magazine review of a form of popular entertainment (video game) to issues of environmental protection and business ethics. I think I'm just going to leave my response at that.

I agree that a "stamp of approval" is a legitimate incentive, but disagree that they are less likely to be corrupt than the government. Every person or entity is susceptible to corruption and bribery. I find the historic comparisons you provided to be at least somewhat irrelevant. Epochal comparisons are difficult to justify. The economic, political, and cultural conditions of twelfth-century Ireland are vastly different than those of twenty-first-century America. They're not even close to comparable. I'm not just a skeptic. A discussion on the nature of law and how it applies to twenty-first-century corporatism is highly relevant. Claiming you can't be bothered to justify the legal nuances of your argument means you are (a) too lazy, or (b) don't have a leg to stand on.

Essentially this is the justification for everything else in your post. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. You're entering some tricky territory when you talk about the nature of law. Law placed in the hands of individuals (who are, by the way, accountable to no one but themselves) is a very dangerous thing. It is equally dangerous in the hands of any government of any kind. In America, however, there is at least some accountability for lawmakers and enforcers alike. It is the responsibility of the citizens (by staying engaged and voting) to keep an eye on government, politicians, and judges. You talk about individuals enforcing law. I'm very confused about this. Are you implying that there should be some sort of private vigilante enforcing ethically bad practices by businesses? Or do you mean that businesses are supposed to be self-regulatory? Furthermore, where will the CEOs or other business leaders go once accused of environmentally harmful business practices? I'm guessing that you don't want to set up a private Kangaroo Court, because that would be a return to barbarity and Old West style law. No, they would land in government courts just like any other case. Also, these sorts of laws cannot simply be made up on the spot by individuals. They have to be codified and universally applicable to ALL businesses, written down for all the country to see. Without a central authority (i.e. a government), this would undoubtedly lead to wrongful convictions. So where does this leave us? If I'm following the semi-comprehensible intellectual thread of your post, you want private enforcement (and perhaps development) of law because the government is incompetent in catching all cases of ethically wrong business practices. Not only that, but businesses of all types should be self-regulatory and you believe that they have the incentive and accountability to do so. Again, I cannot in good faith agree with the idea that businesses will not cut corners to profit.

That cartoon is the first image that comes up in a search for "obamacare cartoon" on Google. Congratulations on adding to the discussion.

Randox, Often you will find that the lobbyists are actually sought out by politicians. Politico ran a very interesting story this summer about it, but I can't seem to find it. I oppose the "free" market (and capitalism in general) on one basic principle. That business entities--large or small--will always seek to make the most money in the most efficient way. I don't have a problem with people who are rich or business entities that make huge profits. However, the means by which entities or people accrue profits is often harmful to both people and the planet. For the most part, consumers are naive to the harm that business entities inflict upon them or the planet. I refuse to believe that if things like the EPA or other regulating government entities were eliminated, that any company would adhere to pollution regulations. The financial system is just as bad. Those controlling the game from the top will almost always escape with tidy profits. All you have to do is look at the hedge fund guys from about five years ago. They made millions--if not billions--by trading and betting on bad loans. They let people take out loans they could not and would never pay back, and then called them in in order to profit. The lack of ethics in that is truly disgusting. That is what no regulation will get you.

Pesky formalities. The election outcome is satisfaction enough.

Obama reelected, Ban on Gay Marriage is defeated in MN, and the MN legislature is now Dem from top to bottom. I'd say it's a good night. I won't make you change your avatar sees_all :wink:

I'm not sure I can come up with an arbitrary list of things that need to happen before our government is labelled a total failure. I don't know if anyone can in good faith--although I bet some Tea Party activists would say we are in the days of Armageddon. Besides, if the situation is bad enough for total overhaul, it must also be bad enough for small reform. I believe more in small reform than wholesale change. By the way, I got to see former president Bill Clinton speak at my University last night. I waited two hours in line to see him, but he was absolutely exceptional. One of the last great orators left.

For the most part, the people I run into that are apathetic because they don't like the R or D candidates complain and never actually do anything about it. Essentially they say, "yeah it's [bleep]ed up," and leave it at that; coming out once every two or four years to express their disdain for the electoral process. Every political system is flawed and I don't think that ours is broken to the point of total overhaul.

This is not a two-party system, it's just that the majority of people do not vote for other candidates. In the 2012 election, we have the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties as well as the Democratic and Republican parties. The ideologues in those parties scare me more than most Democratic or Republican candidates.

If it was a sure thing then there wouldn't be any point in betting. Anyhow, you don't have enough confidence in Obama to risk it? I would bet on an Obama victory in the electoral college, but would not bet one cent on the popular vote. I don't support Ron Paul and I smoke pot.