summerbronze

Sleeping Beauty

I disagree. Religion is often part of political rhetoric, but this is more of a reflection of what the audience wants to hear than imposed ideals. I think the problem exists with the majority of the population citing religion as a reason for being intolerant rather than the government enacting or maintaining policies that uphold religious morals.

I'm shocked that only one other person included Sort of a Protest Song in their top 5. It would be my number 1, and before I read this thread, I assumed it would be within the majority of ppl's top 5. Hmmm that's really interesting.

I don't mean to single out Kayriss (even though I guess I am). I've heard this so frequently and I find it incredibly reprehensible. The implication (possibly not intentional?) is that only when American deaths in Iraq exceed a certain number will the death toll be "somber". WTF??? ;) A life is a life, regardless of nationality, and it's inexcuseable that the government and media suggest that American life is more valuable than any other.

I think there's a productive way of addressing problems associated with religious doctrines and/or institutions, but branding such a broad category of 'religion' as inherently more bad than good is not one of them. Yes, there are certainly numerous examples of religious texts being used to propogate discrimination. There is also substantial evidence that religion has increased tolerance. The issue is obviously too complex to dismiss religion as a negative influence on current society. To some extent, there exists an anti-religious sentiment that embodies some of the very qualities religion is accused of: harmfulness and unacceptance. Clearly, futher discrimination and lack of tolerance is not the way to approach this issue.

In theory it sounds reasonable. Something to consider though: Mental illness affecting someone's judgement in deciding to kill themselves. In this case, most would say that the right to make a decision should be revoked upon diagnosis of mental illness. But what if someone with a mental illness genuinely, rationally decides they want to die? Should they no longer legally be allowed to choose this option? On what grounds can they legally decide (severity/type of mental illness?)?

I think perhaps the intent was to convey a dissatisfaction with referring to the United States of America as simply America. America = North America + South America (according to this argument), so referring to citizens of the US as American is acknowledging that they are superior and the others are inferior. Disclaimer: I personally am not a proponent of this argument. I'm also only guessing this is what wentwj68 was suggesting.

My last post - and I think 'no yu begin wher I end's last post - are in response to this statement by 'Kayriss'. I wasn't questioning whether the actual civilian casualties where being counted. But that is a whole other issue - accuracy of even independant counts is questionable for reasons largely outside their control.

What about Iraqi fatalities? Do they not somehow count - not being American = not as somber that they die needlessly?

I don't understand how you can assert that any source reporting "facts" can be unbiased. And it's not just you, far from it. Most people seem to divide sources into two camps: the biased and - miraculously - unbiased. As long as a human being is writing the article, there is going to be traces of that person's culture, religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, SES, age, etc that are going to influence what they write. Sometimes these traces are extremely subtle. Often good writers proof-read their work, consciously evaluating word choice and phrasing in order to remove as much bias as possible. But it will always be there to some extent, even, perhaps especially, in the independant press. This does not mean any chance of knowing the "truth" is shot to hell. I just think that a consideration of possible bias is important with respect to all sources.

If you're looking for historical information with a high degree of accuracy, here's a huge hint: you will definitely not find it on political sites. Other than that, I would imagine there would be a wealth of articles on sociocultural factors prevalent in Victoria during the particular time frame you're interested in. You have tried the library, haven't you?

"Thats the point unles you are over there experiencing the election you dont know the truth." -jhark I thought you were hellbent on arguing that there's no way of obtaining any reliable information about any event unless you are personally there - you called me naive for attempting to comment on the iraqi election when I could not know anything about it due to insurmountable bias in the media.

As stated ; of course it would be naive to think the media is objective and unbiased, or to ignore the role of propaganda in all news sources. This is where consulting as many sources as possible and critical reading of these sources comes in handy. You have to rely on the media for information - so you have to be able to make sense of what you read, sift through it and combine the most educated and objective picture of the situation as possible. And it's never going to be 100% objective, even though in an ideal world it should be.

Today or 3 weeks from today I would not rely on a specific statistic : 60% vs 72% - in that sense, you're right, we would be naive to think we'll get the objective "true" number. However I think it's naive to think that there is not a shred of truth in the media and write it off completely. This is just as dangerous as taking everything you read as absolute truth. Yes - it's amazing that so many people risked their lives to excercise a right we take for granted. I didn't mean to downplay that this must be recognized. I cannot bring myself to use the word 'success' to describe it because of the loss of life. Any event that leads to the unnecessary loss of life is by definition a tragedy.

What it is, is downright embarassing. We take democracy for granted. We take such a basic right for granted, and so many of us don't take the time to get off our lazy asses to participate in elections. The turnout for the Iraqi election puts us to shame. Every single one of the 8 million or so who voted risked their lives in order to cast their ballot. There was absolutely no way of knowing if there may have been a suicide bomber outside the polling station they were going to. Unfortunately at least 20 people did not return alive from the polling stations. Relatedly, I was shocked and offended to hear Bush describe the election as a "resounding success". If anyone was wounded or killed in the US as a result of simply going out to vote, it would be deemed as a national "tragedy". Such language seems so inappropriate it's almost unbelieveable. An Iraqi election during which no one is killed, if and when that day comes, will be a success. Then and only then.

You raise a lot of interesting topics there, and if I try to respond to all of them, this post will resemble a thesis (only in length, not content) because succinctness is not my forte. The drug I think you're referring to was thalidomide which was administered in the 50s and 60s as a sedative/tranquilizer. It was deemed to be 'safe' in that it was not thought to have any negative effects on the developing fetus. There was a huge range of consequences from no perceivable effects on the child to, as you said, incomplete limb development. The amount of damage depended mostly on when the mother was taking the drug, in combination with all the other factors that affect prenatal development. One of the contributing factors to this drug being prescribed to pregnant women was the opinion at the time amoung the scientific community who were gung-ho about the prominence of genes as a driving force of development (and consequentially low role of environmental factors like drugs). Personally I feel that drugs should undergo the most rigourous testing possible before being passed by the FDA. I also find it reprehensible if a drug that could help sick people is not passed because of beaurocratic bullshit. Basically if those in charge are holding off on approving a drug for the right reasons - to ensure it won't do more harm than good, vioxx comes to mind - than I think it's unjust to condemn them for not "saving lives" by approving the drug faster just for the sake of speed. Those some people condeming them are the same ones who are quick to jump on the bandwagon of lawsuits when a drugs' side-effects come to light.

I think JM perfectly illustrated why this issue is so complex. The law is quite vague with respect to when police have just cause to conduct a search of your person or property, and how they must go about doing so. The 'line' is subjective, and something like this being subjective is unacceptable. Giant x-ray tunnels would indeed be invasive. It would also violate the law, vague as it is, because there would be no just cause to search everyone's cars in this fashion. I think this 'just cause' business is part of how we can figure out where to draw the line. Having a dog on hand for routine traffic stops such as speeding is questionable. While the dog may not necessarily enter the car, it's behavior is still a form of search in my opinion. Just because someone was speeding, or ran a stop sign, is not enough of a reason to 'search' for possession of narcotics. I think knowledge of the law - what police can and cannot do - is a responsability of the citizen being stopped. Obviously the officer has to follow procedure, otherwise s/he would be at fault, but knowledge of your rights is your responsability.

If there's a time to see the movie, it's within the next few years. It's amazing how some things never change...

His character made me appreciate the value of words. I'm a person who thinks the more I say, the more people will form a good opinion of me. So I end up babbling most of the time. The movie made me want to think carefully about what I say.

I take the title suburbia less literally. Think of utopia, dystopia etc. The use of the suffix "ia". The title isn't "suburb" it's suburbia. Utopia, dystopia, and suburbia are all imagined places that are created out of human intentions, ideals, and values. The idea of a suburbia connotes a place where the ideals are mundaneness, non-uniqueness, status quo, easy, safe, but also boring and severely lacking in anything profound. The song alternates between present tense (description of suburbia - "there ain't nothing here at all")and future tense (I will, someday, they will, etc). "someday this place is gonna burn" - I take this to mean that the idea of suburbia will become undesirable - will be destroyed. Suburbia is an imaginary place - an internal state ("is your whole life in there waiting?"). Your life is suspended in this suburbia, this mental state of doing the same thing everyone else is doing (like in the suburbs where every house looks the same, and everyone lives the same lives), but someday it will cease being an "ia" - will be revealed as a sham that prevented you from really living your life. "I will know what this is for" - a projected wish of coming to terms with this inevitable mundane-ness that is part of life - part of reality. It's important to note that it's in the future tense - he's not yet realized this goal. "there ain't nothing here" - he's still in suburbia (metaphorically) and looking forward to a time when he won't be anymore - "you'll realize I'm missing". There seems to be a more personal element, in the "I'm missing" and "you're missing" sections. He's imagining a time when they are both missing, so one way to interpret this is that they've both overcome their mental state of suburbia and therefore are no longer missing to each other, just missing from suburbia. Does the song end with an optimistic tone (they'll finally be together and escape from suburbia)? Or, does the fact that this desirable state only exist in the future tense suggest it may not be attainable, but can only be dreamed of?

With most albums, I can determine what songs will be released as singles. With Matt Good (Band) it's always been different. I can never really predict which songs will be released. It's always a surprise. And I like surprises. Except tubgirl.

i think 'the future is x rated' is brilliant. (although many of my favorite mg(b) songs were not singles)

My favorite scene of the movie was near the end, when they're in the bathtub, crying. And she says something like "this is it [meaning life], this is real". And he begins to realize that feeling is better than not feeling, in fact that feeling is the only reality. Not feeling = not being. It made me appreciate that you don't have to necessarily enjoying yourself to be appreciating life, that even if you feel awful like he did in this scene, it's all part of the package.

Recently saw the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/ Even though the movie was made in the late '70s, I felt the implications with respect to government and culture had amazing resonance today. Hilarious in parts, saddening in others, and mostly just insightful without being obvious. I thought it was amazingly well done, and I question how many recently made movies are able to pull off subtle implications so well without being condescending. Any thoughts?

I honestly do not know. Perhaps people with interesting things to say intimidate him?