- Last Active
I really don't get the "you are too negative, i quit" posts. I listen to bald move because i value their honest opinions. What's the point of saying that and not even addressing their criticisms? "Paint a positive picture or else?..."and 2 others.
They are hardly alone in noticing the mess that the story has become. Hbo was the one that chose to end the series in 6 episodes.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a lot of people liked about the books and early series. Ned dying, Robb dying, etc. all subvert fantasy expectations by following the actual logic of the world. It was never subverting expectations for subverting expectations. It's that the righteous moral guy will be bad at politics, that following your heart in a medieval world means betraying alliances.This one subverts expectations by going against the logic of the world. We expected Dany to be merciful because as recent as 8.02 she was willing to sacrifice herself for the good of the realm. We expect Jamie to be over Cersei because he was ok with staying in Winterfell when she had 2 dragons and a bigger army, and then went south when it was a close fight.It's one thing to subvert fantasy expectations by introducing real world logic. It's another to subvert real world logic by using fantasy logic.
I think BCS has become underrated at this point. Yeah, I know Gilligan et al get a ton of hype. But the fact is that we've come to expect so much from them that anything that isn't mind blowing gets analyzed to death. Not to pick @DrKen , but take this last post, for example, where "jump off a building" is already being called too specific for something that hasn't happened yet, because we've come to expect so much in terms of how everything ties together. And for the record, unlikely to happen, since the likely scenario is Kim marrying Jimmy and later divorcing (he has 2 ex-wives in BB, but only one so far).
As for this episode, I thought it continues being freaking great. First, I like that it shows that Kim is into Jimmy just as much as he is into her (the whole "we" line, the playing footsie bit, etc). Second, I love the symbolism of even minor things. Like the cup that Kim gave him not fitting into his new car. If I had to guess right now what would happen between them, it would not be Kim breaking up with him for his lying, but for her not fitting in with his new life, based on that scene.
Finally, since some people seem to have an issue with Kim being ok with the lying but not the fabricating evidence, I found that to be VERY realistic. I don't know if people know any lawyer types, but that is precisely the sort of distinction that most of the lawyers I know do. A lawyer telling a story to the cops on behalf of his client is no big deal, while submitting false evidence is not only a much bigger deal, but also by itself evidence of wrong doing. It would be impossible to prove that "Playuh" has never done squat cobbler videos, while it would be very possible to prove that the video they turned in was shot after their talks and therefore made specifically to fool them. Also note that Kim doesn't tell Jimmy not to do it again, just that it was stupid and he shouldn't tell her about it.
In fact, I think it is interesting the way they have set up Chuck, Kim and Jimmy as different approaches to the law. Chuck sees law and practicing law as a serious and worthwhile pursuit in itself, something that should be done by serious people with noble intent. Jimmy is a risk-loving, self interested hedonist. Bend and break the rules as long as it pleases him. While Kim is a rational pragmatist: Jimmy's behavior is a problem not because it offends her sensitivities with regards to doing serious law, but because it might come back to bite him, and her, in the ass. I also think it is interesting how that is unrelated (and frequently opposed) to their personal morals. Chuck will lie and betray his brother to keep the law serious and pure. Jimmy will bend and break the rules all because he decided to do the good thing and return the Kettleman's money (which is the snowball that leads to Playuh). And Kim is the self interested one, following the law to climb up that partner track ladder.
I too hated John scamming people reading palms. Seemed like a real jump from him in season 2 to now. But a lot could have happened in the those three years.The idea is not so much that he is scamming them (see him destroy the money) but that, at least in his mind, he is giving people closure that they would not otherwise have. It's like when Laurie had Tommy act like Wayne.I took the ending as being a flash forward, and the question being posed almost as someone who is trying to spread the word of Jesus would have asked. But I could be projecting, because I didn't even know who that was initially lol.
Part of the issue of the democratic party is their base is largely composed of younger voters. And younger voters are notably fickle. I teach college, and the number of students who didn't vote or even register and are now super upset that Trump won is incredible.
People misunderstand American elections completely. If you want to make a difference in 2018, the thing to do is NOT getting into these crazy political arguments with Trump supporters like many people think. The thing to do is to make sure that that friend of yours who considers him or herself to be apolitical, but is generally socially liberal, that their vote matters a lot.
cdrive said:The ‘92 Dream Team beat Angola 116 to 48 in their first game as “The Dream Team.” At the end they were still doing shit like bouncing alley oops to themselves off the glass, hot dogging and laughing about all the globetrotter shit they were trying while decimating this team. They were heralded. Just throwing that take out there for some perspective. I think if the US Men’s Soccer Team wasn’t a heaping pile of dog shit and were instead this dominant, it wouldn’t surprise me if the narrative was a little different (reference point USA Men’s Basketball)This isn't true. Just one example:There were a lot of stories about the "ugly Americans," and Barkley complained incessantly about the way the media talked about them.
Regarding the latest podcast: if anyone wants to understand the more intricate details of the debate over the gold standard and fiat money at the end of the 19th century, I highly recommend the article "The color of money and the nature of value: Greenbacks and gold in postbellum America."But the short of it is:the gold standard limits currency to gold held in reserve, obviously. But that constrains the money supply. By simply supply and demand, if the amount of money out there is limited, and increase in the demand for money means an increase in the price of money, which in this case is the interest rates on loans. So the gold standard was disliked by farmers and industrialists because it raised the cost of loans (farmers by necessity have to invest before they can collect), but loved by finance because it increased profits for simply being lenders.The idea is that in wizard of oz the farmers, industrialists, etc are heading to the emerald city, the end of the "yellow brick road" (the gold standard). But that the emerald city is both a fantasy based on a lie, but also the way home.
I am sorry, but you know very little about healthcare. In Canada, like in many other places with universal healthcare, you can buy supplemental health insurance. So your very common sense reform has been reality for decades.Instead of listening to partisan spin, people should really ask themselves why no country who has ever implemented universal healthcare has ever moved to repeal it.
And for the record, cancer outcomes in the US are only better in those cancers with an average onset age of 65+. I wonder why.