Showing posts with label "Star Wars". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Star Wars". Show all posts
Why does the government want us to worry about who is doing the speaking?
There's an American tradition of speaking pseudonymously, most prominently exemplified by The Federalist Papers. Why not listen to what is being said and apply your judgment? Have we lost the ability to judge without seeing who's saying it? If our critical thinking is that poor, what's the point of letting us vote?
And listen to how desperate Obama sounds here:
They're fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.Why not just argue on the substantive merits of the issues? He's inviting us to think in stark good versus evil style — straight out of fantasy movies. You need to know who is saying something, not what is being said, because you should side with the good guys — his government — not think in any detail about the issues.
I hope you notice that Obama is not talking about the identity of campaign donors. He's talking about independent speakers who don't want to reveal the names of all their donors.
Labels:
"Star Wars",
free speech,
history,
law,
Obama rhetoric,
pseudonymity
Obama to Bob Woodward: "We can absorb a terrorist attack... even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
From Woodward's new book.
Obama also said that of course, he's trying to prevent any attacks, but his point about absorbing whatever hits us and getting stronger... it's true, isn't it?
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
It's true, right?
Classier version of the same: "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
(Hey, check it out: "Twilight of the Idols" has a Facebook page.)
AND: Make the Althouse blog stronger. Use this link if you buy the Woodward book.
Obama also said that of course, he's trying to prevent any attacks, but his point about absorbing whatever hits us and getting stronger... it's true, isn't it?
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
It's true, right?
Classier version of the same: "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
(Hey, check it out: "Twilight of the Idols" has a Facebook page.)
AND: Make the Althouse blog stronger. Use this link if you buy the Woodward book.
Labels:
"Star Wars",
Bob Woodward,
Nietzsche,
Obama's war on terror
The Emily's List "Mama Grizzlies" ad — is it funny/good/accurate?
Ace hates it, but Ace is not in the category of people/bears the ad is trying to win over. I thought the ad was charming and well done. Ace does a "Top 10" list of problems the ad, and the #1 thing wrong with the ad is: "Wicket just emailed me to say only one was worth 'nutting on.'" Nutting on, i.e., ejaculating on. Yeah? That's how you criticize women? They aren't good enough for you to ejaculate on? Despicable.
ADDED: Ace participates in the comments and is very gracious about it:
I can't say the Wicket joke was *funny.* It was obligatory, and it had a funny set of elements behind it, but in the end it was... not a good joke. Best I could do. (I had to do the whole list in 10 minutes ....)Lots of commenters seemed to think I didn't get the Ewok joke, but did they get my Daffy Duck joke? I'm kidding, but really: Guys, when women don't get you and your explanation has "Star Wars" in it, you probably should think again about making wisecracks about women not being sexy enough.
So I concede it wasn't a strong joke....
But despicable?
At some point I think the objection here is something that can't even be expressed without sounding lunatic -- the idea that men cannot take notice of women as sexually desirable, at least not publicly, even as a joke, even as an *Ewok* commenting upon another *Ewok's* sexual desirability.
And because that idea is so transparently absurd as to dissolve upon first contact with sunlight, it's hidden within the conclusory word "despicable."
Labels:
"Star Wars",
Ace of Spades,
advertising,
bears,
bodily fluids,
dirty words,
feminism,
Sarah Palin,
slang
I never even saw "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace."
In fact, I stopped watching "Star Wars" movies after "The Empire Strikes Back," but I'm nevertheless fascinated by this 70-minute video review of "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace."
[T]his isn’t your usual fanboy rant, this is an epic, well-edited well-constructed piece of geek film criticism. In fact, the way I learned about the video was from Lost co-creator and Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof, who said “Your life is about to change. This is astounding film making. Watch ALL of it.”I haven't watched ALL of it, and I don't know if it could work for someone who has never had to sit through the horrible movie that is its target, but I loved the first 30 seconds and I love the idea of a film about another film and the idea of a work of art that is entirely about how bad another work of art is.
Labels:
"Star Wars",
art,
movies
Anti-Jediism.
"Daniel Jones, founder of the religion inspired by the Star Wars films, says he was humiliated and victimised for his beliefs following the incident at a Tesco store in Bangor [Wales].... Jones, from Holyhead, who is known by the Jedi name Morda Hehol, said his religion dictated that he should wear the hood in public places and is considering legal action against the chain.... Tesco said: 'He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods. Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.'"
The store is going to debate religious doctrine with the founder of a religion? I guess that seems okay because it feels like a pop culture trivia contest. But either it's a religion or it's not, and if it is, it's not up to Tesco to say what the religion requires.
The store is going to debate religious doctrine with the founder of a religion? I guess that seems okay because it feels like a pop culture trivia contest. But either it's a religion or it's not, and if it is, it's not up to Tesco to say what the religion requires.
Labels:
"Star Wars",
law,
religion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)