kimmy

One thing that surprised me was Alister Thorne opening the gate, and his comment to Snow. I fully expected him to go mutineer rather than let the wildlings through. He'd have had plenty of support. I know that the dragon is named after his late "daddy" Khal Drogo, but I have to wonder if GRRM actually ever said that out loud before writing it. Drogon the Dragon. Really? She won't bail on the city. -k

Once again, the fatal injuries to Freddie Gray were inflicted after he was already restrained hand and foot and locked in the back of a police van. You don't find that problematic to the narrative that you're promoting? -k

Yes, that was and always has been the intent of the thread. -k

The "Tea Party" types believe that Bush is too moderate and that they need to nominate a hard-core right-winger like Ted Cruz if they want to win the 2016 election. The Tea Partyists are a small but very loud segment of the Republican party. Even though you hear a lot from these people you shouldn't assume that their views represent the party as a whole. -k

What crime wave? The whole premise of a "national crime wave" (an "Obama crime wave", according to the article cited in Sharkman's opening post) rests on some deceptive cherry-picked stats. This "crime wave" story from the Wall Street Journal was penned by Heather MacDonald, a senior member of a right-wing think-tank that promotes a law-and-order agenda. And it's not surprising that the biggest fans of her column have been police unions. It's a theory being promoted by, and for, people who have a vested interest in convincing the public that there really is a crime wave rising in America: -k

We've had two pretty extravagant episodes in a row. I'm thinking the next one might be even bigger. Usually the last episode of the season provides some denouement, wrap up some odds and ends, and set up the next season... but we should get the clash between Stannis and the Boltons, some significant development in the Sansa story in one direction or another, possibly involving Brienne and maybe the return of Littlefinger. Plus! There's also the events in King's Landing to settle. Will Cersei manage to weasel out of this? Will Tommen sic Ser Pounce on the High Sparrow? Will Jaime and his "niece" return to King's Landing to find civil war or total chaos? There's two major storylines that will need to be addressed and just one episode left. I expect it will be eventful to say the least. Dany's face as she watched Jorah on the brink of getting killed, several times, said that she cares about him, and that she probably always knew in her heart that he wasn't a traitor. Tyrion's reaction was interesting, urging her to stop the fight to protect Jorah. Considering Jorah abducted him and punched his face in, and wouldn't give him wine, and was a miserable traveling companion, "long sullen silences and the occasional punch in the face: the Mormont Way." Tyrion's compassion for Jorah was ... I wouldn't say surprising, but pretty magnanimous. Tyrion is a shrewd judge of character, and I think he quickly gauged that Jorah was a good guy. I think from watching Tyrion's face as he tried to process what he was witnessing, he probably understood the awe Jorah described earlier this season when he recounted the day he watched Dany walk into the fire and emerge unscathed with baby dragons on her shoulders. I assume that Dany is going to implement some sort of putsch against the noble houses of Mereen to settle this once and for all. As Dr Bashir said earlier in the episode, "I believe in second chances... but I don't believe in third chances." I can't remember the names of these characters. I can only remember them as "Dr Bashir" and "Indira Varma". Dany gave them a 2nd chance on the day when she didn't feed them all to her dragons. They repay her kindness with a terror attack and assassination attempt. I suspect she has run out of patience with those guys. I somehow doubt we've seen the last of Indira, or Oberyn's daughters. I did like the resolution of the Bronn situation. I'm surprised that Jaqen didn't smack Arya's face when she told him "the thin man wasn't hungry". I'm wondering if Trant's taste for "younger" women will prove fatal. Arya could surely come up with a suitable disguise... -k

Stannis is an honorable man who is willing to do horrific things to become king. The Boltons are horrible people who are willing to do horrific things any time and all the time. It's hard to feel good about Stan after what he just did, but if I were a citizen of the North, there's no doubt who I'd prefer to have on the throne in Winterfell. -k

Well that was predictable and a little cheesy, but by golly I still thought it was cool. -k

Wowzers. Would Americans vote for a known speeder? Meanwhile, Donald Trump has apparently made his decision!! (!!!!!) but he won't tell us what it is until later this month. I am sure everyone is anticipating what a monumental effect this political juggernaut could have on the campaign!!! (!!!!!) I imagine folks at the RNC are facepalming at the prospect of this bozo turning the campaign for the nomination into an even bigger circus. -k

I think I get what you're saying. They could have told this story without Max at all. They could have called it "Furious Furiosa: Fury Road" and told it in a way that Max is an expendable character or not there at all. However, I think there's a long literary tradition for this sort of character. From TV series like "The Pretender" and "The A-Team" and "The Littlest Hobo", to cowboy movies like "Pale Rider" and "Josey Wales", to Japanese stories about ronin who wander the land seeking a worthy cause. And we do see Max evolve. He starts as an animal who's concerned solely with his own survival. But later we see him fighting tooth and nail for a cause that isn't his own. And it happens so organically that it seems completely natural. When he consoles Furiosa, saying "you know, hope is a mistake... if you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane..." he's telling us what happened to him, and the voices in his head make him spend the last half of the movie ignore his own advice. I think it would be great to spend more time in this world, and I think there are stories that could be told that don't involve Max at all... a Furiosa back-story for example. If they did make a Mad Max movie that didn't have Mad Max in it... would it still be called "Mad Max"? I imagine they'd want to put Mad Max in the title just to get the attention of franchise fans. Kind of like how they called the Agent Carter miniseries "Marvel's Agent Carter", even though it had only the most peripheral connection to the Marvel franchise, or the series is called "Game of Thrones" even though that was only the first book. -k

I watched Fury Road again this week, this time by myself and in 3d. It's the first movie since Watchmen that I've paid to see twice in the theatre. There were a few details I caught this time that I missed the first time. The imaginary girl calls Max "Papa" at one point. Watching Furiosa's face in the moments before she takes the rig off-course, you can see the doubt in her. "Am I going through with this? Am I really doing this? Ok, I guess I'm doing this..." And Max's vocal mannerism of interjecting a "hrm" into his dialogue, at moments where it seems like he wants to say more, but can't find a word. I also enjoyed the quieter moments in the film more than I did the first time. The look on Max's face as he watches Furiosa in the moment where her dream has been shattered. The scene where the young women meet the old ladies for the first time. The passing of the satchel of seeds from the old lady to The Dag. Nux introducing Capable to his friends Larry and Barry. Things like that, that somehow flesh out these characters, even in a movie where very little time is spent directly explaining any of the characters. I really liked Nux. So many movies-- including this one-- are full of these expendable mooks who are just cannon-fodder for the heroes. With Nux, they put a human face on one of those mooks, explain his point of view in a way that makes perfect sense. As one of Immortan Joe's War Boys, Nux is part of the elite in his society... he's kept fed and watered, he has a place of honor in the Citadel. And yet, he's as much a commodity as the breeders. Their only value is as a uterus, and Nux's only value is as a cog in Joe's war machine. All Nux can hope for is to die in such a way that he gets to "walk shiny and chrome" in Valhalla. He's much like a suicide bomber. He's got no hope in this life but he's been promised great things in the next life, provided he dies for the cause. Only once his dream of getting his 72 virgins is crushed does he find some meaning in his life. -k

But the studios are pretty much the same, making art by committee. I recall reading about Guillermo del Toro's experience making "Hellboy". He talked about being pressured to add in things like a cute animal sidekick named "Helldog", and a "Hell-mobile" for Hellboy to drive around in. They wanted him to put in stuff that would appeal to little kids, and they wanted to put in stuff they could license out as action-figures. He told them that if they insisted on Helldog, he was quitting. There are lots of movies where studio meddling compromises the art. They screen movies for focus-groups. "The General's Daughter" got a fake-feeling ending because focus-groups found the original ending depressing and the studio thought it would make more money with a happy ending. They replaced Tim Burton on the Batman series because they thought his movies were too dark and gloomy, and replaced him with Joel Schumacher. There's plenty of examples... pretty much any movie where there's a "Director's Cut" is an example of a movie where the studio over-ruled the director on what made it to the theatres. Studio execs have strong opinions about what's going to make money, and they're willing to over-rule and even fire directors who won't co-operate with them. -k

So apparently they're saying that when he turns around (at around 35 seconds into the video) the officer was justified in believing that Dillon was attempting to take a weapon out of his pocket, and therefore the shooting was self defense. huh. -k

Defense attorneys still have access to the documents as evidence, they just won't be in the media. So the "kangaroo court!" and "they're being railroaded!" stuff you've been saying doesn't fly. Speaking of the defense attorneys, weren't they the ones who said they wanted this case tried in the court and not in the media? -k

There have been rumors about this for months; I had already assumed it was a done deal. From what I gather from looking at magazine covers as I wait in line to buy groceries, the family has been concerned that Bruce becoming a woman would harm their TV empire and were going to kick him off the show if he did. Is he being exploited for publicity? Is he doing this in spite of his family's wishes? Honestly, who cares. I hope their whole reality TV empire collapses. What a sad indictment of our society that people actually care about the Kardashians. The Cardassians were an adversarial alien empire on the long-running Star Wars: The Next Generation series; Jean Luc came into conflict with them on many occasions, including a memorable episode in which he's held prisoner. His captor gives him an easy way out of the psychological torture he's enduring: simply agree that there are 5 lights. But Picard knows there are only 4 lights, and refuses to yield. After he's rescued, Picard tells Troi, in a quiet moment, that he was starting to believe there really were 5 lights. -k

I wasn't really a fan of the series before this new movie. I wasn't even aware it was happening until a few weeks ago, and I wasn't really interested in seeing it until the incredibly positive reviews started coming in. I've never heard of an action movie getting such enthusiastic reviews. I think it's almost unprecedented for an action film to get such an overwhelmingly positive response. I suspect the original movie was mostly a cult favorite. It probably influenced a lot of movies that came after. Is it the first "post apocalyptic" setting that attained mainstream popularity? I don't know. I doubt there were legions of fans sitting at home thinking "when are we going to get a Mad Max reboot?!" until it actually happened. I think it probably happened because George Miller wanted to do it, not because some studio exec was thinking "there's a massive demand for this that we need to cash in on." Which is cool. Like, you just know they're going to keep rebooting Batman and Spiderman and Superman and James Bond over and over, because people keep going to see them. You knew that as soon as Christian Bale hung up the cape, they'd be searching for a new Batman; you know that as soon as Daniel Craig hands over his martini shaker they'll be casting a new James Bond. And not necessarily because there's a new story that just needs to be told, but because some movie studio holds the rights to a popular franchise. I'm all in favor of movies making money, and some of these franchise movies have been terrific-- Skyfall being a prime example. But sometimes they feel incredibly fake-- you can tell that the whole thought process started with "let's cash in on this franchise" and everything else followed. The worst examples I can think of are the GI Joe movies and Transformers. With Mad Max, it might be a brand with some name recognition, but I'm not sure anybody thought there was a massive public demand for a reboot. I expect that there'll be a lot of interest going forward, because this was a lot of fun. I'm certainly interested in spending more time in their world. -k

I'm kind of more thinking that Thorne and his allies will bar Jon and the Wildlings on the wrong side of the Wall. If that happens, Sam will be hard-pressed to find some way to get them through. Perhaps Ollie will play a role. Sam's oratory skills have been something of a secret weapon for Jon. -k

YEAH! YEAH!!! That was massive! Wow! I guess we know what they did with all the money they've saved by not paying for dragon CGI, catnip for Ser Pounce, or Scooby-snacks for dire-wolves this season. How devastating... all those people dead. Jon had the right idea, just wasn't in time. So this is another reason to buy Valyrian steel. Also really liked Dany and Tyrion's interaction. One thing that sets Dany apart from the other heavy hitters is that she has the humility to bring in advisors and actually listen to them. Early on, she had Ser Jorah to help her navigate her relations with the Dothraki, and she had the handmaiden who taught her about sex and winning Drogo''s heart. Ever since, she's had people come and go from her leadership group. Adding Tyrion to her circle is her best move yet. If Robb Stark had quality advisors, and the sense to listen to them, he'd be king right now. I think Tyrion recognizes that she's a good kid at heart. He's an extremely shrewd judge of character. I'm a little surprised that she's so quick to bring him into her circle, but I think his responses to her questions about how she should deal with Jorah told her everything she needed to know about what kind of man Tyrion is. I also liked that he asked the question I asked last week, about why she even wants to go to Westeros when she's done so much good where she's at. -k

"An Obama Crime Wave". What a hilarious headline. You're aware that Freddie Gray was shackled hand and foot in the back of a police van when the fatal injuries were inflicted, right? Seems like that's stretching the "resisting arrest" narrative pretty far there. So what are you actually arguing here? Should the media have not reported Freddie Gray's death? Should the media have been obliged to put some kind of police-positive spin on the circumstances of Gray's death? Should it have ignored the riots all together? -k

I'm not against the idea of plea bargains in principle. Generally charges are laid when prosecutors have a very strong case, and both prosecution and defense understand that a trial is likely to result in a conviction. In a case like that, why not make an agreement to save everybody the time and money. But the idea that prosecutor can just arbitrarily pile on more and more charges to increase potential jail time to almost any degree they wish is absurd. This is particularly the case in computer-related crime where the overlap between outdated computer laws, old-fashioned property crime, and other mail and telecommunications laws can give a creative prosecutor almost limitless possibilities. As to forfeiture ... it's becoming quite farcical. In some places, sheriff's departments operate almost like privateers. I think there are legitimate applications for forfeiture laws, but it seems like they're being abused in a way they were never intended. -k

The key point you guys seem to keep missing is that the police themselves have undermined the public trust in the system. Baltimore, like Ferguson Missouri, has a history of bad relations between the police and the people they're supposed to be policing. Freddie Gray is not the first person who was put into a Baltimore police van in one piece and emerged crippled or dead. While people keep shouting "it's just a few bad apples!" The old adage is "don't let one bad apple spoil the whole bushel". That doesn't mean ignore the bad apple and pretend it's not there. It means throw out the bad apple before the rot spreads. That onus is on the police. They've failed. They've proven again and again that they'll protect their own, whitewash complaints against them, try to hide the rot. There's no better example of this than we saw in the Robert Dziekanski death, in which the Braidwood inquiry uncovered the depths the RCMP stooped to to whitewash the incident and lie to the public to protect its own members. Maybe that used to work, but now in the age of instant information and cell phone video there's no way for the police to sweep everything under the rug anymore. People have lost their trust in the police because the police have failed to address the issue of accountability. -k

This thread is 11 years old. -k

The one tactic we see again and again from NSA supporters, be they the US government itself or the so-called "conservatives" here at the forum, is to try to shift the focus from the NSA to Snowden himself. If I just concede that Snowden is no Gandhi, can we get to the part where we actually discuss the NSA programs? -k

I think the prosecution of Aaron Swartz is a better example. They filed 10 years worth of charges against him and said they'd go easy if he plead guilty. When he refused, they went back to the books and concocted another 25 years worth of charges and said "how about now? Feel like pleading guilty yet?" When he still refused they went back to the books and came up with even more charges. He was facing over 50 years of potential jail time, when he killed himself. The whole strategy was simply to increase the potential jail time until the risk of going to trial became so high that he would have to accept a plea bargain. If you have the choice between accepting a plea deal that gets you maybe 6 months to a year in jail, or rolling the dice on a trial that could get you locked up for 50 years, then you might choose to plead guilty even if you did believe you were innocent. -k

So if women just quit their jobs en masse, wages will jump? Manufacturers will come back from Asia? Industries will mothball their computers and machines and hire humans to do work again? Companies will stop importing foreign workers? -k