JanYpe

Incredibly tragic event. Not sure you can blame them for having a missile fired at the plane.....not exactly something they can prevent. I do think you can question the wisdom of routing planes over such an unstable area, though Malaysian Airlines isn't the only airline flying over/near that part of Ukraine. Reportedly the ICAO had declared the route safe, but as I understand it individual companies do have some discretion to avoid suspect areas.

Yes, they are. What a completely mindless equivocation. The only evidence you even have of violence is a statement by some modern day KGB scumbag. Well done for that display of critical reading from all of you. I look forward to your other no doubt brilliant views on Russia. I imagine the dead gays and minorities piling up in Russian streets just threw themselves at the knives of the poor innocent neo-nazi's according to the brain trust on display here.

Protest = terrorism. Welp, thanks for that helpful input from the land of the free, home of the brave.

Vandaag - Bakermat I have a dream...

Dark but good, I thought. Watched Enemy of the State last night. Those NSA guys seemed a bit over-eager, but I'm sure they're not like that in real life.

Mathematics - Mos Def

Member for ten years and a day today. Only active for half that though.

Since you're one of the more venerable movie goers here, I was wondering if you've seen The Artist (2011)? It's an homage to the silent era, in black and white, and great fun to watch.

I watched the entire run of House of Cards, and now I desperately need more of Kevin Spacey Machiavellin' it up.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." --Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Even if Obama signed it, the chances of the Senate ratifying it is slim to none anyway. It's not up to the UN to tell countries what to do about guns anyway!!! Dude, how hard is it to take five seconds and actually read the article?

Clement Attlee created the NHS, gave independence back to a boatload of countries that the Empire had taken over, introduced policies on housework and welfare reforms to help women and families, and made free secondary school education a right. He's pretty much at the head of the pack when you're looking for best post-war UK prime ministers. Also, Mrs. Thatcher was very definitely not against anything to do with the EU, given that she fully supported Britain's EEC entry in the seventies and had the UK join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism ERM, a precursor to the Euro. And yes, her very witty socialism quip. Of course the quickest way to run out of money by giving away public institutions to private interests for laughably low prices, deliberately gutting industries, deregulating financial markets in a wildly irresponsible manner and instituting deliberately regressive tax policies. But well done her, and you, for that very funny comment.

Too bad the old bird was a vulture. Yes, a female Ronald Reagan, i.e. a godawful leader who's only legacy is leaving their country a far worse place than they found it.

I'm two episodes away from finishing a Deadwood rewatch. A great show cut short.

Better to have "off topic chat" than "creepy theorizing about racial purity chat".

Well that's some mighty valuable input there Bill. No hang on, what I mean to write was "deeply pathetic". And your post is just bizarre. Were you high when you made it?

Truman, Nixon, and George Bush sr. all held the VP spot before successfully running for the main gig. I think the same goes for Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge, as well as Adams and Jefferson. :edit: ...but why go by memory when someone on Wikipedia will obviously have compiled a list.

That is a fantastic theory though. Most embarrassing extinction event ever.

It's not like the man goes around dressed like a clown tossing pies at his public. For example, Biden on rape, or on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geTRT27jJ94. Anyone faced with Paul Ryan is going to struggle with their appearance. The guy is a weasel, and Biden deserved a standing ovation for being able to do anything other than stare in contempt at what had slithered onto the stage.

Of course what you can't see in that picture of the 1980 ceremony is the noise of helicopters overhead and sirens in the street. There'd been a growing housing shortage since the '70s, leading to the rise of a squatters movement. In Amsterdam the shortage was compounded by the large number of empty properties held by speculators. Unemployment was on the rise and many were less than pleased with the fact that the ministry responsible for public housing was spending money renovating royal palaces instead of tackling the shortage. So the day of the investiture was also going to be a day of protest, with the motto "no home, no crown!" Across the city centre there were protests as well as the party. And once the riot police, squatters, students, protesters, football hooligans and Hell's Angels clashed there was indeed some kind of blow-out, which lasted well into the night.

There are a few possible "better words". Investiture, inauguration, enthronement and coronation. Investiture and inauguration are general terms for taking office. Enthronement is more technically accurate if a crown is not involved but a throne still is; coronation is the traditional term for monarchies and (in common usage) does not necessarily require a crown. Investiture is the word used in the official background information. Good grief! No public ceremonial at all? Not even a church service? BTW, there are photos somewhere in the archive of Queen Juliana shopping in Montreal at the outdoor markets during WW II. We were glad to have her, and thanks for the tulips. There'll be a ceremony in the Nieuwe Kerk, next to the Royal Palace in Amsterdam, in the form of a joint session of the two Houses of the States General and in front of an army of guests in their classiest suits and silliest hats. As seen here at the last ceremony in 1980: "During the investiture the new King is confirmed in office and swears to be faithful to the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office. In return, the members of the two Houses swear or affirm that they will uphold the doctrine that the ministers, and not the King, are responsible for acts of government and that they will uphold the rights of the monarchy. ... In addition to the Dutch constitution, the credence table beside the throne bears three regalia, symbols of the dignity and authority of the monarch. These are the crown (symbolising sovereignty and dignity), the sceptre (authority) and the orb (the territory of the Kingdom). The other two regalia - the sword of state (symbolising power) and the standard of the kingdom bearing the coat of arms of the Netherlands - are carried by two senior military officers. These regalia have been in use since the investiture of King Willem II in 1840."

For a minute there I thought that said Horace Rumpole.

Is the pope Catholic? Water, is that wet at all? How much do we really know about what bears get up to in the woods?

If I were to be driving along and suddenly had to swerve to avoid hitting an obstacle in the road, and my action caused some other person to start swearing as a result, that would be an unintentional sin. I would have sinned by inducing another to sin. The historical Jesus is of significance. Christianity holds that Jesus was both God and man. If Jesus had children, those kids would literally be half-gods. By what reasoning would they be half-gods? I mean if this was like the Greek pantheon then fine, god + mortal= demigod. Always room for more gods in polytheism, just pull up a chair. Even if you're holding to a very literal Jesus and the historical guy matters as much or more than what made it into the New Testament, God would still be God and not grandpa YHWH.

But "the U.S.A." didn't make the movie. Some crazy person did. People seem to be making the assumption that the government approved it. That is not the case. The government does not approve movies here. People just make them and distribute them however they can. That's all true. But do you expect everyone in societies that have been on the nasty receiving end of US foreign policy, or who've been stuck with leaders who painted the US as the bogeyman (which doesn't take much of a leap), to give you the benefit of the doubt? Or would you expect a lot of them to just file it away under Look What The US Did This Time, the same way a lot of people are filing the protests and this attack away under Look How Sensitive The Muslims Are? But, if all violence is wrong, why is it happening so frequently? and why does it happen over "nothing"? That is what it looks like to people here. Over here, a two-bit movie made by a crazy person isn't worth watching, much less getting upset about. How about a selected and particularly offensive bit of movie, in a foreign language. With a translation and color commentary helpfully provided by, oh let's say, Fox News. Would that still not upset anyone? These are not standalone events that happen, these are symptoms of an ongoing issue. Egypt took to the streets. Libya melted down in violent revolution. Revolutions can get rid of dictators, but they can't instantly deliver a functioning country. And they don't deliver a consensus on how to become a functioning country again either. The people in that consulate didn't die because of a movie, they died because an armed group saw their deaths as a means to a political end.