This is what worries me about the whole altern-815ers storyline. Last episode it was great. Locke and Jack might have been friends? Touching, in a way. Sun and Jin wouldn't have been married? Interesting. Hurley would have been lucky instead of unlucky? Good for him! They were all poignant and, better yet, none of them took up too much time. But then we get to Kate and the writers go, "I know what you really want to know about the alternate timeline---how did Kate escape from the authorities in this version? Oh, wait, you don't care about that? Well, too bad, we devoted 40 minutes to it!"
I'd say go for it considering all the episodes are free online and the show is endlessly addicting. But I should give you some warnings first. First off, characters on Lost ask a lot of questions and a lot of what happens on Lost begs for questions to be asked. You should probably know ahead of time that 80% of these questions served no purpose and, unless each episode of the final season is four hours ago and written like an encyclopedia, won't have answers. In fact, it's safe to assume that nothing on Lost actually has an explanation, so that when a handful of questions actually start to have answers around episode #100, it will be actually be exciting for you!
The second thing you should know is that Lost has a sadistic habit of killing off its most interesting characters and leaving its worst ones. So if a character actually has a personality and an interesting backstory, I wouldn't get too attached. On the other hand, if a character causes you to ask yourself, "If the entire purpose of this character is to essentially be a human trophy for the other 2 characters, why did they make her so annoying and unlikeable?" then it's safe to assume that not only won't the writers kill her off, but they will actually kill other far more interesting and likable characters off just to give her more screen time.
Especially when these characters claim to know a lot about the island, but conveniently refuse to talk about it unless it's to ask a vague question that always happens to happen 10 seconds before a commercial break and is immediately followed by ominous music, and then have a complete 180 turnaround in their personality to make their death easier for the audience to take, and then, again, conveniently die before answering anything about anything. Yes I'm still bitter! Fuck you Lost!
No, but it's a great show. I love it. Enjoy!
The nerd in me appreciates that there were at least 10 quotes taken from the Star Wars prequels. Passive-aggressive attacks on George Lucas will never not be funny.
Oops, before I ruin any credibility I had left, I realize I put, for some ungodly reason, "When I Disappear Completely", when I meant "How To Disappear Completely". Embarrassing.
In regards to that Rolling Stone list, here's my question: how the hell did those two Radiohead albums get on there? I mean, the rest of the list makes sense for RS readers: they are all hugely popular Top 40 records supported by hugely popular Top 40 singles (except for The Boss, but you know, he's The Boss). It's the records that will fill a VH1 "I Love The 00s" someday. Then you have Kid A and In Rainbows just wedged in there. In Rainbows, maybe, because Radiohead played at the Grammys the past year, but Kid A at #3? What?
Are you honestly telling me that the majority of RS readers listen to "When I Disappear Completely" in between all those tracks by Avril Lavigne, Green Day, and Beyonce? It doesn't make sense. Radiohead has had plenty of accessible singles, but none on Kid A. And if enough hipsters invaded the site to get those 2 near the top, why wasn't, say Funeral or Kala able to knock off a middling Mariah Carey record? That list seems to represent a demographic that I can't, for the life of me, see existing in the real world.
Here's the thing, though, I actually am more upset by Barack Obama's homophobia than Sarah Palin's. I actually understand Palin's: she's a homophobe because she represents homophobes (hey, white supremacists aren't going to lead themselves). But the fact that we liberals and gay people in particular voted for Obama and he's still spewing this "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" bullshit is a 100 times worse. And why? Because he thinks if people don't think he's a homophobe that he's going to lose the 4 or 5 Religious Right members that actually voted for him? What a coward. That's where our outrage should be. If the politician we like the most can't even bring himself to say gay people should be treated like equals, what chance do we have to convince anyone else?
Can I just say it? Why are liberal blogs (or blogs run by liberals) so obsessed with Sarah Palin? Can't we end this shit already? I don't get it. We all agree that this person never has anything good to say? Then why do we spend so much time talking about what he says? I can't visit a liberal blog anymore without coming across 3 new Sarah Palin articles (The Daily Beast even has its own Sarah Palin section, which, I shit you not, has literally around 50 Palin articles written in the last couple months alone). When she was a VP candidate, it made sense. When she lost and was simply a Governor again, it made less sense. Now, it makes no sense. She isn't anything. Which means it's very easy to pretend she doesn't exist at all, so why don't we? The most infuriating thing about this is that at this point, every anti-Sarah Palin article only helps Sarah Palin. The people that hate her aren't going to change and the people that love her aren't to change, so any article bashing her just fuels her "they are all out to get me!" victimization. So, for the good of humanity, can we stop this insanity already?
The thing I never understand about political correctness is that it seems to be something that is hated only by people that it really has no control over. Like the article made it seem like when one of Jeff Dunham's puppets talks about wanting all Mexicans to learn English, it's a "moment of catharsis" for the audience because it's something they could never ever say. Huh? Have they ever heard a conservative talk show host before? It's all they ever fucking talk about. They literally spend about 2 hours every day complaining about Mexicans learning English (in the South, it's about eight hours) to the point where you'd think it'd be a "moment of catharsis" if they, you know, just stopped giving a shit about it. And those people are on the fucking radio, not on a porch in Louisiana. So, basically, what they are saying is Jeff Dunham says what his audience can't, but definitely has, ad nauseum, for as long as they can remember.
See, I think the opposite. The theme of the movie is essentially a lesson for all of us. People keep bringing up Saw fans, but the fact is, we don't hate the Saw movies because of the violence, we hate them because they are just really terrible films. On the other hand, I'm sure there are are film buffs out there that could go on for pages about this movie's lesson of accepted violence, but would also claim to enjoy something like Audition, which is ten times more disturbing and violent than any commercial horror film and doesn't seem to have any reason for that violence and gore except that it makes the film really fucking scary (which is the whole point). Violence in movies has become so common place that there's probably not a person out there that could watch this movie and claim to not count a violent movie as one of their favorites (with even films like The Godfather and Goodfellas following under the "violence-as-entertainment" umbrella). Which could be the actual biggest problem with this movie: it's preaching to the choir because everyone watching wants to believe they are part of the choir.
This is a little off topic, but why do Obama haters simultaneously claim that Barack Obama is a radical who is making sweeping changes to every single thing in the country....and that he is doing absolutely nothing? For having a President that apparently just sits around all day, Rush Limbaugh sure spends a lot of time bitching and moaning about all the changes that are being made (or non-changes, I can't tell which).
I love how Fox News has an OPINION section. I'd love to see how they decide what stories to put in the "news" section and what stories to put in the "opinion" section. I'm guessing the difference is the level of involvement Shepard Smith has in them.
See, I disagree about Glenn Beck (though I completely agree with everything else you said). I think Glenn Beck knows what he's doing more than any of them. The fact that he recently went back on his whole "don't get flu shots because the government is trying to use implant chips to read your mind!" lunacy, shows that there is some distance between what he actually believes and the crazy conspiracy theories he claims to believe.
The crying thing is actually a very effective ploy that conservatives have used for a while (and it sends me into a fit of rage every time they do it). It's the bully/victim ploy that Sarah Palin uses so well: say vicious things about your opponents and then when they say anything back, act incredibly hurt and naive about it. This is a guy that accused FEMA employees of rounding up people into concentration camps and then, after people complained, he said "I'm just a dad doing this for my kids." It's absolutely disgusting, pathetic, and idiotic, but it works. I remember overhearing some of my relatives, who are hardcore conservatives, talking about how mean liberals were to people like Rush and Beck, who were just fathers wanting to speak their mind. These guys might be amoral bigots, but they are geniuses when it comes to manipulating their audiences.
Oops my bad, That One, you beat me to it. Anyways, I don't know why people are debating this, Rush Limbaugh isn't exactly hiding the fact that hes a racist. In fact, in seems to actually enjoy it.
"I mean, let?s face it, we didn?t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I?m not saying we should bring it back; I?m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
Gabe, can this please be the first, last, and only time you link to something Rush Limbaugh said? Please? I mean, trust me, the joys of completely ignoring this guy far outweighs any witty counterpoint that can be made. This is a guy who said that we should have kept slavery because umm, it helped build a lot of shit and it kept black people from being all violent and stuff. To put it in perspective, Glenn Beck is still sane enough to fight with. This guy just isn't. That's how completely insane, racist, and utterly incompetent he is.
The problem with your argument that it is a perfectly sound argument for you, but not for them. You act as if they didn't give reasons why they wanted him released, so you must interrupt for them. They wrote a whole petition spelling out their reasons, and "He won't get a fair trial" wasn't one of the main ones. "Raping a woman isn't a real crime, it's simply a question of morals" was one. "Arresting a rapist is the same as arresting a civil rights director who protests his country" was one, but not "we want a fair trial." In fact, they don't want a fair trial. At all. They want no trial, no questions asked, and can you also apologize for arresting him because he did make Chinatown? Also, I hate to break it to you, but this is America, unless you are a white, heterosexual man, chances are you aren't getting a fair trial. And hey wait, Polanski is all three of those. And if this goes to trial, he will be tried in a city where practically everyone in power is apparently a close personal friend. And he's rich enough to hire the best lawyers. So, you know what, it's hard for me to find sympathy that the rich and powerful, white straight guy who actually did the horrible crime he was accused of (and spent the first 31 years of his sentence in a state of comfort 99.999% of the world will never know) might not get the first ever completely unbiased trial in American history.
Well the stuff about OJ and MJ is just basic law. They were acquitted, Polanski was not, so he should go to jail and they should not. Does that mean that they don't deserve to go to jail? Of course not. But that's our system and sending them to jail after being acquitted because we totally think they deserve to is obviously impossible. As far as this argument, these things tend to be one sided for a reason. Murder, rape, hate crimes, these are things that tend to not drum up a lot of sympathy for the people that are guilty of them. Also, this argument is one-sided for another reason: The facts are one-sided. The majority of the counterargument hinges on the "judicial misconduct" of the courts. Not only does The Daily Beast have an article shredding this argument, but the very person who was the "whistleblower" for the case as admitted he made the whole thing up. So, this guy raped a little girl and got a completely fair trial, then ran before he could be sentenced. If you can still say the argument is too one-sided after that, I got three words for you: "criminal defense attorney". You'd be perfect at it.
This is why its so frustrating arguing with Polanski apoligists. They are just like Truthers or Birthers. They come into an argument preaching "getting the facts straight" and "providing balance" and then subsequently dismiss everything that doesn't follow their viewpoint, even when those things are basic facts. And so far, on every website I've seen, they all end just like this. They bring up obvious misinformation (like a judge "backsliding" on a plea agreement, even though that's physically impossible in our legal system, and its laughable regarding this case if you even know the basics of this case), someone else rationally explains them why it is wrong, and their reaction is "Oh, well, ahh, believe whatever you want morons, I'm outta here!". Your flippant reaction to having someone point out the basic, factual flaws in your argument shows that you've already heard it. You KNOW you are making an argument that is completely wrong and yet you don't seem to care at all. In fact, you seem mad that people are pointing it out. That's the polar opposite of objectivity. There's the old (or I guess, new?) saying: "If you have to make up stuff to prove your argument, your argument couldn't have been very good to begin with."
I think you are a little confused. I'm guessing you either saw the documentary or read a news source that was getting their information from that documentary? It's wrong. Judges don't have anything to do with plea agreements and they don't have to obey them. He made a deal with the DA because he feared he would lose if it went to court (you know, because he actually did the horrible crime he was accused of). Before he entered into the agreement, the judge made him say, in court, that he understood that the judge had nothing to do with the agreement and would throw it out if he didn't think the punishment fit the crime (like if the agreement was 40 days in jail for raping a child). And Polanski basically answered, "Yes, I understand, but is there a third option where I can rape a little girl and not go to jail? Oops, nevermind, I found it, see you later!"
Comments