minority report

i saw it a few days ago; pretty good movie

dont be surprised if those eye scanner things are actually implemented in the (near) future

the only part in the movie that was weird was him being normal after eating and drinking all that toxic stuff

[Omega]

I saw it...but it was kind of bad quality (I'll say no more than that). I don't remember which part he ate/drank toxic stuff, though...

I do, however, agree that it was a good movie. I'm not sure how much any of y'all payed attention to "the making of the movie" trailer stuff, but apparently they actually got a panel of "futurist experts" or something together and conceptualized what the future might look like (with the weird car things, and whatnot).

[vee_ess]

I don't like futuristic cars. The Past and the Present are the ones I like.

[Uranium-235]

I just want cars that don't kill our planet, please

[jadison]

I personally thought it was a good movie (mainly because that's one of my favorite genres of movies), but I think they put too much hype b4 its release. I thought they (the "futurists") did a decent job of conceptualizing what the near future would be like and what the environment would entail.

I liked the Lexus...I hated the new advertising.

Minority Report was good, especially compared to a lot of the crap we're getting - for higher priced tickets. I thought the story was a little weak, however. At least it wasn't well told. I liked Blade Runner better, although that was literally darker. You couldn't see so much. Yet, What was presented was effective.

The future? For those of us who make it there - We won't all do so - it'll be pretty much what we want it to be. However, There will be rules. Not the way there are rules now, which are made by the rich to crush the weak and poor.

I don't believe there will money in the future. Money exists for one reason only, namely so that some can have more of it, and more of what it can buy, than others. I don't believe in capitalism, nor do I believe in democracy, which capitalism comes from.

True, Capitalism wasn't always in it's current neoliberal (no rules for the capitalists), 'socialize the costs, privatize the profits' mode. (After WW2 there was a pact of sorts between labor and big business. That was broken by macho, too powerful capitalists.) But it's also my belief that there can't really be 'different' kinds of capitalism. The present unfettered capitalism, in which major thieves, namely folks who actually destroy lives (think pensions) via their thefts (Kenneth Lay, John Roth, etc) is merely the expression of capitalism's true colors.

Do I wish we 'were not' seeing capitalism's true colors? Of course. Until God removes this mad, demonstrably irreformable (the ruling class and it's spokespersons claim we're dealing with bad apples, not a bad system) system, I will always desire to see less cruelty and suffering rather than more.

40 million Americans don't have health coverage because neoliberal political leaders (who, wrongly, are 'capitalists' first and leaders second) tell us they can't afford social spending. But is 'that' affordable?!!! Let the corporations who aren't paying all of their taxes - in a myriad of ways - pay their taxes, for a start. Accelerated Depreciation rules allow corporations to 'legally' steal many billions in dollars ('deferred taxes' here in Canada) by simply lying about the status of their assets. They keep two sets of books, and in one, they are allowed to artificially accelerate the rate at which assets depreciate, affecting their taxation. The less the value, the lower the tax, if I understand this correctly.

Also, There's something like 5 TRILLION dollars (American) in offshore accounts, untaxed. Can you imagine what can be done by governments that actually represented the interests, not just of the capitalists (owners of capital), but the entire society? The UN has said that the only reason for offshore accounts is to avoid paying taxes. As Ghandi said when asked what he thought about Western civilization: 'What a wonderful idea'. In other words, Where is it? Together we might agree on rules that enable a functional, if imperfect, civilization, and so it was. But the powerful capitalist ruling classes (a minority) added their own rules, turning this civilization into a jungle in which the strong devour and enslave the weak.

Good deeds, fine rhetoric and even socially useful products, by corporations won't cut it - when they're 'also' ripping off the majority, some of whom are really hurting, in ways such as I've indicated. So get politicized, not used! You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution.

If you want to see a free world in which our human potential and creativity can be unleashed, but not at the expense of others, then you will want to not inadvertently give the scammers any more political power than they have. Getting wise to them is simply a matter of putting your 'politically smart' horse ahead of your 'wonderful world' cart. You have to first care. Then put your head up, look around and see what's going on. That's all, really.

When you aren't sure, Ask! (That's cryptic, because I don't feel I can say more.) But before you can even have a clue that questions need to be asked, you have to have a clue about what's going on.

[Omega]

I'll begin by saying that I began skimming your post at the end, Arby.

I disagree that there won't be money. It sounds a whole lot like communism. I think that communism is a plenty good idea, but I don't think it will ever work. Human nature seems to be striving for success...or being better than _____. I'm having trouble picturing how you intend on eliminating money, and still having a functional society. The rich and upper middle class aren't going to magically agree that it's better if they give away their money and nice house and big TV and nice computer. It was an easier transition in the U.S.S.R. because everyone was in poverty to begin with, so they didn't have to worry about giving up their nice things. Those who did have money and nice things, didn't give them up...they were simply above it all.

The majority of our society is based on the idea of a consumer. Hell, one of the big concepts of the U.S.A. is the land of opportunity. A prominant philosopher claimed the unaliable rights of humans were "Life, Liberty, and Property." Someone later changed this to "Life, Liberty, and Happieness," because they didn't like the idea of giving pesants or slaves their own proprty (well, they felt imoral denying them property, so they simply had the moral changed).

I do agree, however, that something needs to be done to stop tyrannical practices running rampant under the guise of capitalism. I think it's bad that people truly are getting into a loop in the lower class where they truly can't get out. Similar to after slavery was abolished in the U.S., African Americans weren't significantly better off at all. They were still segregated, discriminated against, and in many cases treated as slaves (under the sharecropping program). Although public schools were required, they didn't give the lower class an education that could truly help them get out of the lower class (many parents even refused to send their children to school, because they were necessary as workers to try to keep the debts liveable (the whites/upper class had effectively managed to prevent any movement out of the lower class).

I think this is still the case somewhat today. Although not as severe, schools are still worse in the southern U.S., which is prominent areas for agriculture and factories (as it has been throught history). I don't think money should be abolished, nor do I even see that as a possibility in the next several centuries (without some total catastrophie interfering). I do see that social reform desperately needs to take place to turn the phrase "Land of Opportunity" into a reality, rather than a phrase people throw around to make themselves feel better.

Although I'm confident this would never happen (in the US), it would be cool if K-12 schooling was truly standardized, and everyone was required to graduate high school, passing also standardized tests. Private schools shouldn't really be allowed (in my ideal scenerio), meaning that everyone would really have the exact same opportunity, and the children of the rich wouldn't be privelaged with a better education. This train of thought reminds me of some European institutions. For example, some countries will pay for college for citizens.


Anyway, I'm not really sure if I made a point or not, but I'm done for now.

i saw it week before last (again not very good quality... someone coughed in the last few minutes as well )... i thought it was quite good, would definately watch again (though not the same exact quality)

Omega wrote: "I do agree, however, that something needs to be done to stop tyrannical practices running rampant under the guise of capitalism."

Me: It begins with caring. I appreciated your reply.

I'm not advocating communism. That would be more democracy, which is the problem. Democracy means 'humankind without God'. Most of those who advocate theocracy are still advocating democracy, in fact. If it's man made, and it involves a 'rejection' of God, then it's both democratic and faulty. Faulty is faulty. Stalinism was faulty, and a bad system. So is capitalism. And both came from imperfect humans dreaming up ideas about how to run their societies and the world. Human limitation is not the problem, when we aren't trying to work without God. But we weren't mean to be imperfect the way we are. This imperfection makes allowance for all kinds of folly, including serious folly such as Stalinism, past and present.

I agree with a lot of what people say democracy means, actually. But I am a theocrat. As for money, I think if it was gone tomorrow, everywhere, we'd do just fine. For one thing, they'd stop making guns, eventually, with no one to sell them to. The focus would be on what we need to do to survive, and that would involve doing other things. And everyone - not just 'wage' and 'literal' slaves - would have to pull up their sleeves and pitch in.

When you don't have a boss (nice or nasty) who is going to withold your money/life from you if you don't work for him or her, that's a pretty compelling reason to work for yourself, especially if the alternative is starvation or freezing in the cold because you don't have shelter or heat. And neighbors would have to help each other out, not with exhortations to spend and make the economy work - something that millions can't do now, making such a general exhortation perverse - but in real, practical ways. There would be no more of this centralization and hierarchy, with a few making decisions, behind closed doors, that have consequences not just for them, but the wider society. (That's your typical 'democratic' corporation. Look at agriculture in our developed democracies, and in all places where the capitalists call the shots. It's highly centralized and vertically integrated, and the farmers are mere serfs without any economic security and with no freedom to manage their farms the way they see fit. - What do the farmers own, now that Monsanto et al, have claimed everything, including all crop seeds etc, as their own?! - That's exactly how it was in Soviet Russia. The only thing that's changed in agriculture from the model we saw in Soviet Russia, is the boss.) If your (former) boss lives next door to you in such a suddenly moneyless world, then he's going to help you with whatever he has that you don't have, and vice versa, because if he doesn't, then he won't get the help from you and others, when you all have what he needs to keep warm and not starve.

Money is a part of this system of things. It's not just money that has to go, but this entire system of things, including the perverted capitalist idea of private property. (I believe in private property, but not the capitalist kind. Look at the bio-prospecting and biopiracy going on. Look at the way patent law is being extended to areas it was never meant to be extended to.) If you are trying to imagine money disappearing, while the rest of this system remains, then, yes, that's going to be difficult. On the other hand, It's not hard to see that money just doesn't work. It's there to enable greed and slavery, things you are either for or against, in my opinion.

But it's a free universe. And it's nice to be able to talk to people about these things, agreeing and disagreeing freely and without rancour. And I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. That's because the world, and it's future, doesn't depend on Arby's own efforts. Yes, We are meant to manage ourselves. But we are not our own savior. At least that's my view.

**RIAA: I Am Most Definitely Interested In Hurting Your Revenue Stream. Pay Your Artists And All Of Your Taxes, For Starters.**