Pangloss

That's a valid concern, I agree.

Unfortunately I can't actually answer your question yet, because it still hasn't come out on home video. We built a home theater that beats most movie theaters in sound and picture quality, so we don't go to movie theaters anymore -- I haven't seen a movie in a theater in almost ten years. I believe it's slated for release in November, but it'll probably have an extra short feature and look really amazing on Blu-Ray, so I'm sure it'll be worth the wait. The Cars and Ratatouille Blu-Rays were awesome -- I use Cars as a demo when I show off the system. I think the reason they look so good is because they're never transferred to analog form -- they stay digital from production to output, so every color is perfectly represented every time. Pretty slick. But I digress. I wasn't "outraged". My point was simply that people shouldn't be ridiculed based on stereotypes. It's not acceptable just because the thing being ridiculed is unhealthy and unpopular. However, I think it likely here that the intention was entertainment and not "message", at least judging by Pixar's earlier films that I have seen and the posts in this thread. But this is a good example to bring back up, because it's a good illustration of our difference of opinion of whether the ends justify the means. I know you don't laugh at overweight people (or religious people) for humor value, but as with Religulous, you see value -- a means to a higher societal goal -- in the use of ridicule and derision. I do not. (But I don't mean to make it sound so evil; I know it's well-intentioned.)

Lol! Well look, iNow, Bill Maher has a stated position on religion and the reviews and summaries and statements from Maher himself appear to support the idea that this movie is an extension of those views. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to comment on those views, just as you have, even as I keep an open mind about his movie. I am not in agreement that the comparison with Ben Stein is invalid, and I think you're attempting to dismiss my argument from public view because you don't like it, so I'm going to drag it back in the forefront again. Only ParanoiA has responded to my response to john5746 yet, and I have a response to his point below. John's argument was this: Which I refuted with this: To which ParanoiA responded (in a nutshell): Which I think is true, but it's really more of a technical difference than a real difference in approach. Both Maher and Stein are still appealing to ridicule, and this is the central method of their works (as I understand it through the reporting and their own comments). Also, even if Maher softens the blow with the occasional look at the "nice side" of Christianity, does that invalidate the comparison? It seemed like a couple folks were hinting in that direction earlier in the thread.

I don't think Maher stops there, though. I've heard Maher argue that religion is a lie and that it "stops people from thinking". He feels it's an actual detriment to society. I really think Maher's problem is the way religion is sometimes used to oppose specific political issues, such as abortion and scientific education. I happen to agree with his positions, but I think he's using a logical fallacy, and it's one that is causing more harm than good through the propagation of intolerance and separatism. He's also profiting off that fallacy and its resulting harm. Doesn't that make him just like Ben Stein?

Correct, it's a subset and an illustrative example.

iNow clearly it's a message film, not a comedy experiment. I guess the question I have is whether it's about demonizing all organized religion, or if it's just saying that people do stupid things sometimes, some of which happen to be religious in nature. Maher's split this hair before, and sometimes he appears to do the latter while saying he's doing the former. I agree with his pet peeve about how there's been a lot of positioning of religion as a morality crutch, implying that it provides one with a "path to moral behavior", and trying to convince people that you can't be moral without religion. That's a pet peeve of mine as well, since long before Bill Maher came to fame. But that says nothing about religion per se, it says something about people's misconceptions and misunderstandings. Ultimately I think iNow is wrong, and that intolerance is a MUCH greater problem for society than religion, or in fact any other single issue facing society today. Partisanship is what's produced the current untenable political environment, in which we cannot celebrate any success or achieve any greatness anymore without one half of the country or the other turning red with rage, not because of what was achieved, but because of who achieved it.

Not to rehash what seems to me to be a closed issue, but I am a bit surprised at all the articles about Gwen Ifill today. The questions over her integrity regarding her book were pretty light before the debate, but after the debate ended the issue suddenly heated up, even though all the mainstream accounts I've read gave her pretty high marks for fairness. Neither party has anything to complain about, so why all the rhetoric? Is it possible there was so much ammunition prepped for auto-launch that the operators just didn't get a chance to shut it all down after things went surprisingly well? (lol) Here's an odd bit from the Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine that I normally find pretty interesting: Translation: "Sen. Biden, why are you so fiercely standing up to those fat cats? Gov. Palin, why are you heartlessly stomping on the poor?" Talk about looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses! I mean I guess you could say that her question kinda baited both candidates, but it's really kind of a softball -- those red-letter phrases are really easy for interviewees to dismiss. Some of the hoopla today is the left firing at the right for attacking Ifill in the first place. But I think this is either a case of unchecked automatic weapons fire or perhaps some degree of racism and race-baiting run amok in our present over-charged partisan atmosphere.

Wow. They must have stolen a Segway from a tourist to get it down Pennsylvania Avenue that fast.

I noticed that as well, and I wondered if it's related to the outrage expressed by the people towards government over the previous week (and in general lately). I also got a bit of a "Hey, I can play the big-smile game too" vibe from Biden.

No, I get it, I'm just saying it's a pretty fine line. Guns pointed one direction can be pointed another pretty quickly. Who needs a change in law?

Well for what it's worth I had an interesting opportunity this afternoon. My friend who works for a congressman asked me to submit a written opinion on the bill, and I took the opportunity to point out the potential loophole in the executive compensation issue. I was told that it was bumped up to senior staff, so who knows, maybe we alerted them to something that hasn't been widely noticed inside the beltway just yet. I passed along many of your concerns as well, from this thread. As busy as they are it all probably went right into a recycling bin, but hey, you never know.

Rofl! I thought Palin did a whole heaping lot better than she's been doing in those interviews lately -- clearly she's been doing her homework. But let's face it, she's just not playing in the same league. Biden could write a dissertation on just about anything they discussed tonight. I often disagree with the man on basic ideologies, but he's smart and he knows his subjects. And I'd trust him if he had to run the country. Ifill seemed fine to me as well, but Bascule, you may be right; I wonder if she was avoiding that kind of follow-up because of those accusations earlier in the week. You guys caught Biden's "bridge to nowhere" quote, right? (chuckle) I think Palin even got a little dig in there as well, though it was pretty congenial overall. Phi, on that pronunciation thing, I'm betting that was a deliberate holding-back on Biden's part, so as not to appear patronizing.

Right, thank you. But I was still at school when I wrote that a little while ago, and I really did not represent my opinion very well. I'm actually a Gwen Ifill fan, mostly from watching Jim Lehrer, and I happen to think she's one of the best interviewers on the planet. I think she has a way of listening and paying attention to her interviewees that's nothing short of amazing. I've seen her pick up on things that just blew right past me. The woman is just plain sharp. And let's face it -- even if she IS biased, that doesn't mean she can't moderate a debate. I believe that as well. You may have a point there about "commentator neutrality", but if she's observing the rules of the debate then it's pretty hard to cross the line too severely. But even so, I'll be watching for bias. I don't personally put a lot of stock into that bit about her book coming out (even though I brought it up here, I don't mean to bait-and-switch you guys but that's just how I see it). IMO she'll sell that book whether Obama wins or loses -- if he loses he may even be a BIGGER hero to the far left, for example. Um, you guys know who started all that, right? It was Jimmy Carter. Who, ironically enough, actually majored in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech (though I don't think he finished that degree). line[/hr] I haven't watched this yet, btw, but the unofficial score from my wife is "she's kickin' his butt". (lol)

I can understand that. I just got a message back from a friend of mine who actually works (as a civilian) directly with the brigade in question, the 1st BCT of 3rd ID. He tells me that these guys have been training for civilian rescue and disaster relief operations, and that's why they're not going back to Iraq with the rest of 3rd ID. The word on the military grapevine is that this is a direct response to Katrina criticism. Northcom's mission is disaster relief and domestic counter-terrorism. Obviously that doesn't speak to the Bush administration's intentions, but that's the word on the street. (I thought about emailing my nephew over in Iraq, but decided against it. He's got enough to deal with. But I do know other people I can ask if there's further interest.) We could probably talk some more about the domestic deployment of military forces, but I really think there's a misconception here about how often that happens already, and why. The CIA (I know, it was a joke) is specifically prohibited from operating domestically by law. No such law has ever existed for the military -- that "illegal" comment by the author was completely out of the blue so far as I can tell -- nor would that make any sense. Have we really gotten so used to fighting our battles overseas that we've forgotten that the primary purpose of the military is domestic defense? But yes, I do understand and acknowledge the legitimate concerns over repression-of-opposition, etc. But this strikes me as no different from the stories that say Bush will use the military to stay in power after his term ends, declare this to be a christian theocracy, or a dozen other similar things. I do agree that the Bush administration is partly to blame for people's fear, and we do have to pay attention. But when it's just nonsense, then we have to kill it. Hard. Fear mongers deserve a particularly nasty level of hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Friend of mine just sent me this, it's straight from CNN's web site, though. It's a list of pork items from the bailout bill. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/bailout.pork/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Anybody see this yet? I think it's only out in New York and LA this weekend. It's Bill Maher's documentary about the idiocy of religion. Here's the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous I guess the thing I wonder is, why is this better than the same stuff from Ben Stein on Creationism? Isn't intolerance a far greater problem facing society than religion?

Use for discussion on tonight's Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. What did you all think of the debate? Just to sorta kick things off, what did you all think of Gwen Ifill? It hasn't aired yet as I write this, but one thing that I'll be watching for is any sign of bias. Conservatives have suggested before the debate that she's biased because she has a book about Obama coming out early next year. I don't know about that, it's a biography, not an endoresment, but I guess an argument could be made for profit motive. What do you all think? (Here's an article on that.)

True enough. Padren, I didn't mean that post above to sound so snotty (not to mention RevPrez-like, ugh). I was in a rush with students walking into our open house and I had to hurry. I do understand where you're coming from with your concerns, and I really should know better than to post under time pressure. Maybe I'm being too harsh about this in general; I'll reconsider my thoughts on this. I'm utterly convinced that it's worth it to maintain a certain level of decorum in the subject matter, but I do realize that it's not always easy to decide what falls into that category.

Great, then you won't have any problem with these. The Guard and Reserve cover each of the states. Many tens of thousands of troops fill that role. This is one brigade being asked to help cover that role for the entire country in emergencies because (a) it's what they're trained for (they're trained for this, not for combat), and (b) the Guard and Reserve are busy and incorrectly trained because of years of war. Bear in mind that the Guard and Reserve are still fulfilling that role as much as they can. The states are complaining constantly, such as after Katrina, that it isn't adequately covered. This is part of the military's response to that demand for assistance. We're not discussing Iraq. If you mean why can't we bring back a smaller group if we're already bringing back a larger one, then you have it backwards. The Guard is something like 100x as many people. And finally, they're not talking about bringing anybody back, they're talking about not sending a unit over. Then you need more facts about military training. And there is no precedent here, so far as I'm aware, except for the wild accusation that "it may be illegal" without any substantiation whatsoever and directly in the face of history and normal operating procedure. It isn't. That's the point. What it seems like? I thought we were taking a look at facts.

Oh really. And yet in normal times those roles are carried out by the National Guard and Reserve. And where are the National Guard and Reserve at the moment? Carrying out combat roles in Iraq. So, gee, I guess combat troops really can carry out disaster relief roles. This thread is one of the most disappointing I've seen on SFN in years. I'm seriously regretting my support for you on this board, Bombus. I defended you and avoided shuffling you off to Pseudoscience and Speculations because I thought you would have something to contribute here and that people would see through your baser tendencies. I am seriously re-thinking that decision.

Right, they're throwing in the kitchen sink in a last-ditch effort to get it passed because that's what they think the people want. I think they were very disturbed by the fact that the polls showed the people didn't want the bailout and then when the bailout failed the people called to complain even further. They don't understand that; it doesn't make sense to them. And they don't like things they don't understand happening a month before the election. It scares them. And when they get scared, they spend.

We already have a thread on this. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35479&page=5

You're correct, those weren't earmarks. I believe the word I was looking for there was "amendments", but really any number of terms would suffice.

That was my honest opinion, Phi, not an attempt at spin. I spend a considerable amount of time reading about military matters. You're certainly welcome to feel otherwise, but I felt that was somewhat dismissive of my opinion (though perhaps deserved after my "revolution postponed" comment). I just think this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in operational matters that this one particular author decided to see if he could turn into something that would help him sell his new book, which he has a track record of doing in the past. But we can certainly agree to disagree. I did answer your question "What's wrong with our National Guard for this job?", but I think you blew by it (and ParanoiA too, apparently). You might want to reconsider it.

Just as an aside, tonight's bill going before the Senate includes incentives for alternate energy, breaking the earmarks (or at least "unrelated incentives") taboo for the first time, as far as I can tell. Well that's already the status quo. I think we need more info on this. GovTrack has a line-by-line comparison of the current House and Senate bills here: http://www.govtrack.us/special/econstimbill/changes.xpd?id=4 This section seems to be the one we're talking about: "Sec. 111. Executive compensation and corporate governance." There's also a clause in there about recovery of such assets later, but only if they are proven to be "materially inaccurate", whatever that means. Bear in mind of course that I'm no lawyer and haven't read the entire document. line[/hr] In case anyone missed it, the Senate passed the bill tonight by overwhelming majority. Both McCain and Obama voted for it, but I haven't seen the rest of the votes posted yet.