Comment

Comment by cat on March 9, 2013 at 6:04pm

I don't really like Keira Knightley in period pieces and especially in book adaptations as I never feel like she makes an effort to become the character. Never Let Me Go, Pride and Prejudice, Atonement, etc. I will probably catch Anna Karenina on DVD for the costumes but I'm not expecting a lot from the performances.

Comment by Juan on March 3, 2013 at 9:59pm

Life of Pi was easily the only film that was nominated for best picture that had a message and tried to have strong themes. Most oscar films dont have balls 

Comment by English Motherfucker on March 2, 2013 at 11:15pm

fuck you brian, life of pi deserved that Oscar

Comment by Chaos Jumper on March 1, 2013 at 5:10pm

OK, fair enough, AI Luo. But there are a lot of things in Objectivism that I still will never agree with. The main reason probably stems from the fact that the rich were the primary examples Ayn Rand used for "enlightened self-interest"; people we should look up to and nearly worship because they are so rich. Why I disagree with that is because 80-90% of the rich inherit their wealth from already rich families (Bush, Clinton, English Royal Families, Romney and you get the point) rather than achieve it through merit.

Other ideas in Ayn Rand's thinking, mainly disowning all emotions, encouraging dogma and throwing away benevolence for "enlightened self-interest" are stuff that I just can not see myself becoming involved in. Again, some of this stuff can work on paper, but not in the real world. 

Comment by Al Luo on February 28, 2013 at 9:34pm

@Chaos Jumper.  That's what I'm not getting with some people's perceptions of Ayn Rand.  It has nothing to do with wealth.  

If you actually read the books you'll see that there are plenty of rich people in those stories that are most definitely the villains.  In fact I'd venture to say that about 90% of all the "rich" and "powerful" people in the Rand books are in direct opposition to the protagonists.  And the only protagonists in Rand books, like Dagny Taggart and Gail Wynand who could be considered rich and powerful, are portrayed as people who have their hearts in the right place, but on the wrong path.  By the end of the stories, they are only saved by giving up their massive wealth and power.

I really don't understand why people think Rand = rich exploiting the poor.  It makes no goddamn sense.

Comment by Crazypants on February 28, 2013 at 7:24pm

@Cyrus, whether my sources are biased or not is irrelevant. If that was a basis to disregard arguments I could just disregard The Jungle as Upton Sinclair was blatantly biased. And if you actually read up on what the Meat packing companies reaction was to this law you'll see that they welcomed it as like I've said they realized that they could much more easily cartelize markets if there's even more barriers to entry than there already are and that they can leave the tax payer with the bill when it comes regulation.

I also never said that fiction can't influence public perception, that's again irrelevant of The Jungle's validity as a real life account of what actually went on in the Chicago meat packers. And again, most of the terrible things describe in The Jungle did not match reality. Again, annually there were about two million people that toured the stockyards and the meat packing companies, yet it wasn't until a blatantly politically motivated writer comes around that these supposed unsanitary and immoral acts get attention.

And again where my argument sound like they came from is once again completely irrelevant. Most of this info I've just memorized but I'll post some links I can find here.

The Jungle was very succesful at doing what it set out to do, but that does nothing to add to the validity of the book as an actual account of what went down there at that time. Also, again, what is "rightly condemned" is by every indication just stuff that Sinclair made up.

It's pretty much factual that The Jungle is not what you describe it as, even granting most of your arguments as valid, since there was already state regulation before the Meat Inspection Act which the book played a big part in getting passed.

Here I'll post some of the stuff I found on this topic.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Meat_packing

http://www.mackinac.org/4084

http://libertymaven.com/2010/06/08/the-truth-about-the-jungle-by-up...

On a different note, just finished the podcast, good work guys keep it up.

Comment by Chaos Jumper on February 28, 2013 at 4:31pm

@AI Luo, that's just about EVERY philosophy since the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, it's just a matter of how Ayn Rand achieves it, which I do not agree with. As I said before, it's like Communism (To an extent); works on paper, but shouldn't be taken to such extreme levels, mainly letting the rich take control and doing whatever they want.

Comment by Sweet Sam on February 28, 2013 at 3:12pm

hahaha Co-Host, you're talking about Passions!! That was my ish back in the day...what a terrible, terrible soap opera.

Also, Cyrus or Brian, have you read the A Song of Ice and Fire series? Either way, we're all in for a hell of a season this coming March...I hate to put my expectations up, but at this point they are through the roof!!

Comment by Cyrus on February 28, 2013 at 10:41am

Crazypants, you must be getting your information from some pretty heavily biased sources. Yeah, people tried to discredit it. People WORKING FOR the meatpacking industry who were so affected by the book. Fiction has been known to affect public perception and even political realities in no small fashion. To say otherwise is...disingenuous or just plain naive,. The Jungle is truth set inside a fictional story, That made it no less impactful. Your arguments seem like they came from a extreme right-wing sector of the libertarian party newsgroup desperately trying to defend something long since rightly condemned.

Comment by Dr. Detfink on February 28, 2013 at 8:51am

The only thing I can add to Anna Karenina, "Jude Law, embrace your hairline..."

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page