Moon
I saw this film on the weekend, not only because I like the title (it’s so fun to say!), or the poster.
Overall it’s great. Sam Rockwell does very well with challenging material. And it’s engaging not so much because it’s original, but because it makes its homages in ways that make you feel worldly :).
But there are still so many unanswered questions! Sort of like the opposite of Lost in Space, I hope someone fulfils the setup and makes a sequel soon.
PS. Moon moon moon moon moon moon moon!
“ If my ups and downs, our ups and downs in our marriage can help young couples sort of realize that good marriages take work… [The image of a flawless relationship is] the last thing that we want to project… It’s unfair to the institution of marriage, and it’s unfair for young people who are trying to build something, to project this perfection that doesn’t exist. ”
Michelle Obama, “The Obamas’ Marriage,” NYT (via somethingchanged)
bowfolk:
robotlove:
bowfolk:
thousandflowerettes:
(via moonrat)
this is what i’ve got: “i am the very big (something) of the village because i (collaborate?) with the gemans! the croats!! and (something) the swiss!!!(?)”
I am the fattest pig of the city/town/village because I collaborate with Germans! Croats! (And now the Swiss!!!)
I could read it, but I don’t understand it!
“
Instead of comparing this year’s rate to previous years (e.g., five boats arrived during 2007), here is my reaction: so what? Even if there is an increase in the number of boats carrying unauthorised arrivals to Australian waters, why should I be so concerned about that?
In particular, why should I think it is better to have a policy with mandatory detention for all – even kids – that reduces the number of arrivals than to have a policy that treats people reasonably and humanely, even if it did mean that some more people might attempt to come here illegally?
For any unauthorised arrivals who have a legitimate claim to asylum, then I am happy if they find safety, security and prosperity in Australia. For unauthorised arrivals who do not have a legitimate claim, then they will be returned to their place of origin. For unauthorised arrivals who are a genuine security risk, they should be detained while their claims are assessed. I would prefer a system that achieves these appropriate outcomes over one that achieves the absolute minimal number of unauthorised arrivals.
My primary concern about the number of boats that attempt to bring people to Australia illegally is the safety of the passage – I would imagine that the last thing anyone wants to see is another SIEV-X. But attempting to prevent it by adopting a policy of locking up every man, woman and child who survives the trip makes no sense to me.
”
Notahedgehog about a year ago. The arguments against welcoming asylum seekers always seem to rest on seriously shaky assumptions to me.
A hiatus. Or maybe a lull.
squashed:
My post volume has been down a lot.
I’ve been … busier. And, most importantly, I’ve been busier in ways with funding that restricts (for much of my time) anything that could be considered political lobbying, religious proselytizing, and certain unauthorized legal practice. What have I got left?
Anyway, I’m not dead yet. But I haven’t figured out how to use this space going forward.
Sorry to hear that Dan. I thought something was odd when you posted a piece on Afghanistan that looked half-finished.
I recommend you just post your material as extended comments on other blogs and news sites :).
“ A person of good intelligence and of sensitivity cannot exist in this society very long without having some anger about the inequality - and it’s not just a bleeding-heart, knee-jerk, liberal kind of a thing - it is just a normal human reaction to a nonsensical set of values where we have cinnamon flavoured dental floss and there are people sleeping in the street. ”
George Carlin (via crowth) (via soupsoup) (via asprettyasasong)
I think we are all upset about this. At least, most of us. Many of us have different ways of coping. And different possible solutions. I think that bleeding heart liberals often think they’re the only ones who care about inequality. It’s simply not true.
(via mikehudack)
Of course not; but the people against whom the criticism “bleeding-heart liberals” are often levelled are often the only people advocating a solution that directly addresses the cause of concern. Too often the concern expressed by compassionate people is weighed against the structural factors that may prevent the best resolution.
“Moderation in all things” is fine as far as it goes, but it’s certainly not the only ethical precept that any person should follow. And in fact it’s completely incompatible with the ethical system advocated by Jesus, as well as others.
Platitudes cost nothing; it’s when you start showing the consequences of a given change that people really start getting upset or uneasy.
