the simple fact there are mountains of evidence toward evolution and very very little against it. Which is why we now consider evolution a scientific principle not just a theory.
My point is, are you able to talk knowledgably about those mountains of evidence? Or do you take them for granted? If the latter, science education has fallen short.
(I have to admit, any time someone says "just a theory," I realize just how low scientific literacy is in this country -- my former colleagues and I have failed miserably. A theory already has mountains of evidence; a hypothesis is "just" a working idea.)
In Utah, financial literacy is a required class for graduation. As far as reforming the education system goes, I would like to see more money for vocational programs, so that the students that are in a science classroom. for example. are the ones who want to be there. Those that don't do well in a traditional environment could then prepare for a career while taking a few basic classes and get jobs out of high school that don't involve "pull around to the second window."
Hallelujah. Why are students not allowed to envision a career as an electrician, or a mechanic, or a plumber, if that's where their aptitudes and iterests lie? Pushing a lot of book stuff on them, and totally neglecting practical stuff, always seemed silly to me. My wife never had to take a shop class or a HomeEc class. Ever. As a result, she can't cook, she can't sew, and she has no idea how a wrench is different from a drill.
|
*quietly backs away from the thread*That's good, because you were wrong anyways... I'll always change my opinion based on the evidence and nothing you can say will change my mind about that.Now if we can just get someone to bring up 4e in here, my work will be done.
Did you hear that? It sounded like Teter sliming down the hall.
In before Teter!
And you're wrong about 4e in the same way you are wrong about me changing my political opinions, it is clearly a much better system than hero (if callous jack won't step up to the plate I will:).
|
That I can agree with you about, financial classes should be taught in high school, and made mandatory. Like it or not most of them after high school they enter the real world and have to start taking care of themselves and most have no idea what their doing.Where are the parents?
In many cases the parents are in the same boat financially as their children are. You can't teach what you don't know.
And you're wrong about 4e in the same way you are wrong about me changing my political opinions, it is clearly a much better system than hero (if callous jack won't step up to the plate I will:).
My hat of d4e nose know bounds!!!1!!one!shift+1¹!!¡!
|
|
the simple fact there are mountains of evidence toward evolution and very very little against it. Which is why we now consider evolution a scientific principle not just a theory.My point is, are you able to talk knowledgably about those mountains of evidence? Or do you take them for granted? If the latter, science education has fallen short.
(I have to admit, any time someone says "just a theory," I realize just how low scientific literacy is in this country -- my former colleagues and I have failed miserably. A theory already has mountains of evidence; a hypothesis is "just" a working idea.)
I can too a point it's not my field of expertise but I have taken some biology courses and I try to make it a point to keep up to most scientific news. Would you like me to start listing said reasons, I think that would take an incredibly long time.
Would you like me to start listing said reasons, I think that would take an incredibly long time.
Like 4.5 billion years! But, seriously, you obviously don't owe me a thing -- I asked those questions just as things to think about, not as things that needed answering right away.
|
The reason you should take the time to look into who your voting for is the simple fact that we live in a Republic and we don't make every decision that faces the country, we vote people in to make these decisions for us. You need to know who your voting for. If you don't know much about this person and they get voted in and make decisions totally antithetical to your sensibilities it's on your head, you didn't check them out, so it's partially your fault.
"Don't blame me, I didn't vote."
The odds of my one vote deciding an election are zero percent. I don't waste my time.
|
I personally don't agree with it being taught in school, unless it is in a philosophy class. I was mearly commenting on what I saw as the hypocracy of saying essentailly "I'm more open minded because I don't support people who don't think like me."
I have no problem with that either, as a Philosophy course... Not as a Science course. It should not be taught as an alternative Scientific solution to Theory of Evolution.
I took Philosophy of Religion in College, it taught about Mythical Heroes and Creation Myths and the similarities between them all. That would be a good place for Creationism.
Though Some people seem to forget that Evolution is a 'Theory' Not 'Fact'.
|
|
Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?
funny, most of the liberals i know in houston are fairly to quite well off, but they're still pretty miserable. most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know...
|
|
In Utah, financial literacy is a required class for graduation. As far as reforming the education system goes, I would like to see more money for vocational programs, so that the students that are in a science classroom. for example. are the ones who want to be there. Those that don't do well in a traditional environment could then prepare for a career while taking a few basic classes and get jobs out of high school that don't involve "pull around to the second window."Hallelujah. Why are students not allowed to envision a career as an electrician, or a mechanic, or a plumber, if that's where their aptitudes and iterests lie? Pushing a lot of book stuff on them, and totally neglecting practical stuff, always seemed silly to me. My wife never had to take a shop class or a HomeEc class. Ever. As a result, she can't cook, she can't sew, and she has no idea how a wrench is different from a drill.
china can sew (and crochet), but she'd burn the kitchen down if i ever let her cook. and she's clueless about tools as well...
|
|
"Don't blame me, I didn't vote."
The odds of my one vote deciding an election are zero percent. I don't waste my time.
That's why I like our system here in Canada. I'm not sure how it works where you're located, but here, your vote at least provides a bit of funding to the party for which you've voted (OK, so it's like, $1.50 or something like that, but that adds up!), which is why I've never felt that my vote didn't matter at all. It just matters very little. ;)
When you look for it, it is easy to see we are emotional creatures and not rational. I see it in myself all the time and I probably do not see all of it.
I've been driving a lot lately, for a variety of reasons I won't bore you with; so, I picked up some lectures from the Teaching Company (I can dig up the exact lecture series if someone's interested, but it should be in their catalog). One of them was on the modern study of rhetoric. Very interesting, stuff I thought, that speaks right to this.
Basically, what I gathered is that much of modern rhetoric involves running studies on the content and effect of rehtoric in practice. And what they found was that three characteristics of speeches & speech makers tend to persuade. Regardless of a whole bunch of factors.
The things the studies tend to agree make a speech persuasive are:
1. The audience believes the speaker is 'on their side' and looking out for their best interests.
2. The audience believes the speaker is competent.
3. The audience finds the speaker is dynamic.
In short, when a speech maker has these characterstics (on your side/just like you, competent, and dynamic) audiences tend to believe the speaker regardless of the content of the speech.
Now I'm not a rhetoric professor, and I didn't write the study. I just heard a lecture about it from a dude like that. But yes, they take a wide variety of factors into account: age, stated beliefs of the audience, education levels, the works.
The degree to which those three things were the determining factors weakened a bit the more educated an audience, but still tended to hold true. Wierd, right?
Kinda scary, I thought.
Here was another phenomenon modern rhetoric studies have measured: when two persons debating state opposite things (farmers are poor vs. farmers are middle class, for example), most audiences throw out both statements as if they'd never been made. Well, almost as if they'd never been made -- audiences report that they now trust both speakers less than before the contradictory claims had been made.
This then becomes a tactic in debate. If you think you are more trusted than your opponent on emotional grounds, then contradict your opponent even if you've got no facts, because the bare fact for your contradicting him/her will get the listening audience to toss out the point. You'll both be trusted a little less, but if you think you're ahead that's some attrition you can afford.
I plan to re-listen to the whole series on rhetoric before Friday's debates.
Anyhoo, thought you'd find that interesting.
Frankly if creationists would take the time to come up with some facts, quantitative measurable outcomes, and JUST ANY SCIENCE behind their assertion of creationism then I'll take it more seriously. I won't agree with it, but I'll take it seriously.Honestly, like I said to Kith, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. However, I also don't find it to be the least bit open-minded to say that everyone who supports creationism is a Republican, that makes them close-minded, and as a result I will not support them. I see that as being equally closed-minded.
Frankly if creationists would take the time to come up with some facts, quantitative measurable outcomes, and JUST ANY SCIENCE behind their assertion of creationism then I'll take it more seriously. I won't agree with it, but I'll take it seriously.Honestly, like I said to Kith, I don't think that creationism should be taught in schools. However, I also don't find it to be the least bit open-minded to say that everyone who supports creationism is a Republican, that makes them close-minded, and as a result I will not support them. I see that as being equally closed-minded.
Not that you said this, David, but bare disagreement can't be the criteria for being 'close-minded' just like accepting all opinions willy nilly without a critical eye can't possibly work as a definition of 'open-minded'.
I've never actually heard anyone say that all creationists are Republicans. I wholeheartedly believe there are non-Republican creationists.
But I will argue that anyone who supports teaching creationism as an alternative explanation for the origins of intelligent life on this planet that is scientifically equivalent and as equally valid (in the technical sense of the word) as the theory of evolution is wrong to do so, for the reasons stated previously. It just ain't science. And insisting it is, does strike me as the beginnings of a definition for close-minded, because such a position denies the definition of science while arguing for the inclusion of something not scientific as science.
Also, while my failure to meet such a person is not proof they don't exist, I've never met nor heard nor read a person who believed creationism was as scientifically valid as evolution and should be just as welcome in earth science class who wasn't also a political conservative.
If we did a survey, I genuinely wonder what the correlation between creationism-in-science-class and political conservative camps would turn out to be?
|
|
Not that you said this, David, but bare disagreement can't be the criteria for being 'close-minded' just like accepting all opinions willy nilly without a critical eye can't possibly work as a definition of 'open-minded'.
I've never actually heard anyone say that all creationists are Republicans. I wholeheartedly believe there are non-Republican creationists.
Now, if we could rate which party is more close-minded, then it would be the Republicans. Conservatives are naturally more resistant to change their minds, even if the evidence is overwhelming. Just show a group of Creationists scientific evidence that proves the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. They would find ways to dispute it, and then they would offer up their own "evidence" that proves their belief.
Obviously, they are wrong, but it is pointless to debate them (the Earth was not created in 4,004 B.C.). I know of no Creationists who belong to the Democratic Party...maybe there are a few...but the percentage would be less than 1%. There are large numbers of Creationists who are Republicans, and their current VP nominee (Sarah Palin) is one of them.
In this particular statement, the poster uses creationists and Republicans interchangeably, along with conservatives. The problem is that there are Republicans who are not conservative, conservatives who are not Republican (ala Blue Dog Democrats), and both who are not creationists. To me it is the fact that the poster thinks that all three groups are interchangable that makes him close-minded, not just the fact that he disagrees with a certain veiwpoint.
Here is a site dedicated to liberal evangelicals. Furthermore, I found this quote in an article written about how liberals and evangelicals can and should work together.But I will argue that anyone who supports teaching creationism as an alternative explanation for the origins of intelligent life on this planet that is scientifically equivalent and as equally valid (in the technical sense of the word) as the theory of evolution is wrong to do so, for the reasons stated previously. It just ain't science. And insisting it is, does strike me as the beginnings of a definition for close-minded, because such a position denies the definition of science while arguing for the inclusion of something not scientific as science.
Also, while my failure to meet such a person is not proof they don't exist, I've never met nor heard nor read a person who believed creationism was as scientifically valid as evolution and should be just as welcome in earth science class who wasn't also a political conservative.
To the skeptical eye of anthropologists, religious story, religious ritual and religious theory all make astonishing claims about the ultimate importance of a human life. Liberal secularist critics of "creationism" sometimes seem oblivious to the assault which they are making not upon a theological theory, but upon the sense of worth that evangelicals derive from profound meanings associated with the biblical story of creation. The great God of so vast a universe, focusing divine attention upon the human creatures of earth? It is possible to make it seem an absurd claim. But the very essence of biblical religion (and some other world religions as well) has to do with just this apparent absurdity. People need to think that their lives amount to something.
More and more evangelicals are actually moving to the left, and even more would if the ID/Creationism debate was set aside. Dr. Shriver rightly points out that for many people creationism is more about the worth of humanity than it is about how the Earth came about. To them, if God created mankind then perhaps we are worth trying to save. Otherwise why bother, since we seem hellbent on our own destruction as a species. That is the key to understanding the Creation debate.
On the Conservapedia site, the founder, Andrew Schlafly, uses amusingly unique definitions. "Open minded" means "agreeing with him, even if he makes no sense." The opposite, "close minded," means "refusing to agree with him."
People who lack the knowledge or wisdom to perform well are often unaware of this fact. That is, the same incompetence that leads them to make wrong choices also deprives them of the savvy necessary to recognize competence, be it their own or anyone else's.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."—George Carlin
Mike
|
|
On the Conservapedia site, the founder, Andrew Schlafly, uses amusingly unique definitions. "Open minded" means "agreeing with him, even if he makes no sense." The opposite, "close minded," means "refusing to agree with him."
To me, that is a very closed minded veiw point, and he should not call himself a conservative.
To me, that is a very closed minded veiw point, and he should not call himself a conservative.
He should call himself an ambulance to take him to the asylum. Check out that site some time, when you get a chance. Great headlines like, "LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD VALUES STRIKE AGAIN!" if there's a story about California wildfires somewhere they can link to. Their evolution article is all about the Holocaust, and has a big picture of Hitler, "the poster boy for evolution."
To me, that is a very closed minded veiw point, and he should not call himself a conservative.He should call himself an ambulance to take him to the asylum. Check out that site some time, when you get a chance. Great headlines like, "LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD VALUES STRIKE AGAIN!" if there's a story about California wildfires somewhere they can link to. Their evolution article is all about the Holocaust, and has a big picture of Hitler, "the poster boy for evolution."
Did you see their article on professors' values? I bet you just LOVED that one(LOL!).
Did you see their article on professors' values? I bet you just LOVED that one(LOL!).
Since the foundation of the modern university system, they've found AT LEAST 23 professors who have committed crimes (or at least been alleged to have maybe committed them), and another 10 who have exhibited "Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior!" Scandalous! Can you BELIEVE those evil professors! I'll bet there aren't anywhere near 23 creationists who have ever committed crimes!
Here is a site dedicated to liberal evangelicals. Furthermore, I found this quote in an article written about how liberals and evangelicals can and should work together.
Well, now I've read about some. Thanks for the link. It'll be interesting to read more about these folks.
|
|
In many cases the parents are in the same boat financially as their children are. You can't teach what you don't know.
Exactly right. Expecting parents who can't balance a checkbook to teach something like that to their kids is silly. If the schools aren't supposed to teach kids anything useful, why even send kids there?
Somethings, like auto shop or whatever, should be as mandatory and reading, writing and arithmetic. It's not enough that a student can list the fifty states and their capitals, or knows who Watson & Crick are, or why Archduke Ferdinand's death led to the first World War, he should actually be ready to *work* after high school, and not just relegated to jobs that involve saying, 'Welcome to Burger King, may I take your order?'
America doesn't have a shortage of unskilled labor.
|
|
The great God of so vast a universe, focusing divine attention upon the human creatures of earth? It is possible to make it seem an absurd claim. But the very essence of biblical religion (and some other world religions as well) has to do with just this apparent absurdity. People need to think that their lives amount to something.
How ironic that science has taught us that we are unique in the world, for having risen above all of the animals to occupy a special place, instead of being just made from dirt by the same guy who made the animals. Also, we learn that *our lives* have meaning, and that they aren't just a tribulation and series of tests and challenges that we are meant to endure during the wait for Heaven. Also, that our world is important and precious, not just some 'vale of tears' that we should celebrate escaping from to 'a better place.'
Anyone who thinks that science is soulless, might want to look in the mirror and find the source of the emptiness staring back at them. It isn't in science.
Science is full of wonders. And the complexities (and many amusing flaws, such as the tailbone, appendix or vonemerasal organ) of humanity are just one of them.
Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?funny, most of the liberals i know in houston are fairly to quite well off, but they're still pretty miserable. most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know...
I think that's because you're in Texas. In a more left-leaning state, liberals, in my opinion, are very different.
I personally don't agree with it being taught in school, unless it is in a philosophy class. I was mearly commenting on what I saw as the hypocracy of saying essentailly "I'm more open minded because I don't support people who don't think like me."I have no problem with that either, as a Philosophy course... Not as a Science course. It should not be taught as an alternative Scientific solution to Theory of Evolution.
I took Philosophy of Religion in College, it taught about Mythical Heroes and Creation Myths and the similarities between them all. That would be a good place for Creationism.
Though Some people seem to forget that Evolution is a 'Theory' Not 'Fact'.
I can agree with this up to a point. I don't think a short discussion of "Creationism" has to be separate from the science class room. Is it science? No. So why include it? Galileo. Huh? What the hell am I talking about?
How many science classes include a discussion of the historical perspective of what they are teaching? I would suggest alot if not most do to one extent or another. Talking about gravity, then you hear about Newton. Talk about genetics, you hear about Mendel. If we are going to bring up issues that aren't directly related to the topic at hand (what the hell does Galileo's problems with the church have to do with orbits?), then let's not say historical topics are ok, but contemporary topics aren't.
I think that's because you're in Texas. In a more left-leaning state, liberals, in my opinion, are very different.Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?funny, most of the liberals i know in houston are fairly to quite well off, but they're still pretty miserable. most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know...
Is this code speak for racial differences?
Here is a possibly interesting read.
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?
|
|
For another take about why people vote Republican, I would like to share with you the reason Howard Dean said people vote Democrat.
If you’re in Texas, Mississippi, or Tennessee, and you’re a hardworking guy and drive a pickup truck, maybe the gun rack in the back, you vote Republican, unless you’re a member of a union. And why is that? Because if you’re a member of a union you still believe the things that those hardworking folks in those states believe, but you have a guy talking to you every month about why it’s important to vote for a Democrat.
So according to Howard Dean, you vote Democrat if people tell you to, but you vote Republican if you think for yourself.
Is this code speak for racial differences?I think that's because you're in Texas. In a more left-leaning state, liberals, in my opinion, are very different.Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?funny, most of the liberals i know in houston are fairly to quite well off, but they're still pretty miserable. most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know...
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he's saying a liberal would be miserable and angry in Texas because the culture here is conservative and it would clash with his values. That's understandable.
|
|
Here is a possibly interesting read.
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?
I chuckled at this line;
"America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together,"
He obviously knows nothing of the unofficial national holiday that is Superbowl Sunday. :)
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he's saying a liberal would be miserable and angry in Texas because the culture here is conservative and it would clash with his values. That's understandable.Is this code speak for racial differences?I think that's because you're in Texas. In a more left-leaning state, liberals, in my opinion, are very different.Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?funny, most of the liberals i know in houston are fairly to quite well off, but they're still pretty miserable. most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know...
Precisely. I'm not talking from a lack of experience here. I have moved from Texas to California and California to Massachusetts. By far the biggest difference in attitudes came when I moved from Texas to California. Not so much going from Cal to Mass.
As an addendum, I applaud CourtFool for the original post.
Here is a possibly interesting read.
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?I chuckled at this line;
"America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together,"
He obviously knows nothing of the unofficial national holiday that is Superbowl Sunday. :)
You're right about that Set. I don't know if soccer mania holds countries together either. The animosity between rival countries during soccer can be quite intense. Soccer fans make the Raider fans sitting in the Black Hole section of the Oakland Coliseum look like boy scouts.
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he's saying a liberal would be miserable and angry in Texas because the culture here is conservative and it would clash with his values. That's understandable.Is this code speak for racial differences?I think that's because you're in Texas. In a more left-leaning state, liberals, in my opinion, are very different.Could it be that the Haves, which would likely be conservative, will be happier than the Have Nots, which would likely be liberal?funny, most of the liberals i know in houston are fairly to quite well off, but they're still pretty miserable. most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know...Precisely. I'm not talking from a lack of experience here. I have moved from Texas to California and California to Massachusetts. By far the biggest difference in attitudes came when I moved from Texas to California. Not so much going from Cal to Mass.
As an addendum, I applaud CourtFool for the original post.
Ok, sorry. I focused on the "have" and "have not" part earlier on and thought that was what the comment was in regard to. Since derek was saying how the liberals in his area tend to be well off, while many conservatives are not (or at least that is how I took his comment of "most of the poor people i know don't seem nearly as angry all the time as the far left people i know", left =/= poor in his area).
|
|
I don't know if soccer mania holds countries together either. The animosity between rival countries during soccer can be quite intense.
That's actually his point. Not that 'soccer hooliganism' beings multiple different countries together in some happy brotherhood, but that it inspires a nationalistic fervor and sense of pride, that quite often sets them at each others throats, along nationalistic lines.
It's a sublimation of mankinds innately territorial nature.
We are possessive, and find people 'on our land' threatening, but shooting wars have become unpopular in Europe (I blame Germany). :)
Shouting epithets at teams from other countries replaces the regularly-scheduled wars between England and France that had otherwise been going on for the last 1000 years.
Shouting epithets at teams from other countries replaces the regularly-scheduled wars between England and France that had otherwise been going on for the last 1000 years.
Well that and chasing down their refs.
I don't know if soccer mania holds countries together either. The animosity between rival countries during soccer can be quite intense.That's actually his point. Not that 'soccer hooliganism' beings multiple different countries together in some happy brotherhood, but that it inspires a nationalistic fervor and sense of pride, that quite often sets them at each others throats, along nationalistic lines.
It's a sublimation of mankinds innately territorial nature.
We are possessive, and find people 'on our land' threatening, but shooting wars have become unpopular in Europe (I blame Germany). :)
Shouting epithets at teams from other countries replaces the regularly-scheduled wars between England and France that had otherwise been going on for the last 1000 years.
Yeah, he could be right. If "soccer hooliganism" did replace wars in Europe, I think it was a fair trade.
I have no data to back my statement up; just my own (flawed) reasoning. If someone is a Have they would be content and want things to remain status quo. Is that not the definition of conservative? And if someone is a Have Not they would be unhappy and want change. Is that not the definition of liberal?
My definitions could be off. I have never been very political because I am too much of a fence-sitting, flip flopper. A curse of being able to see both points of the argument.
Also, my theory can not be absolute. I am sure there are Haves that are not content who always want more and Have Nots who could be completely content and appreciate what they have.
I have no data to back my statement up; just my own (flawed) reasoning. If someone is a Have they would be content and want things to remain status quo. Is that not the definition of conservative? And if someone is a Have Not they would be unhappy and want change. Is that not the definition of liberal?
My definitions could be off. I have never been very political because I am too much of a fence-sitting, flip flopper. A curse of being able to see both points of the argument.
Also, my theory can not be absolute. I am sure there are Haves that are not content who always want more and Have Nots who could be completely content and appreciate what they have.
I don't think you could really call someone like Obama a "have not", by any stretch of the definition.
EDIT: though your comment does bring up a thought about why some people dislike who are "haves" but are not content, some feel like they are ungrateful.
I don't think you could really call someone like Obama a "have not", by any stretch of the definition.
When did I call Obama a Have Not?
I don't think you could really call someone like Obama a "have not", by any stretch of the definition.When did I call Obama a Have Not?
You didn't, it was just a logical inference.
And if someone is a Have Not they would be unhappy and want change. Is that not the definition of liberal?
Assuming being a "have not" is being a liberal and Obama, or so people have said (not you necessarily), has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, ergo Obama is a liberal and thus a "have not".
Clear there is a flaw there, so being liberal and being a "have not" are independent (or only very loosely dependent) on one another.
Yeah, he could be right. If "soccer hooliganism" did replace wars in Europe, I think it was a fair trade.Heh.
That was the background concept of the original Rollerball.
:-P
A very good movie btw. Much better than the remake.
Much better than the remake.
Heh. How often is a remake better, or even half as good? Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans beats all its predecessors, of course, and I personally liked Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert (Lolita) a lot better than James Mason. Past that, I can't really think of another example.
EDIT: Belay that; I liked Fistful of Dollars and Magnificent Seven better than Yojimbo and Seven Samurai.
You didn't, it was just a logical inference.
I was thinking on the inference, assuming all politicians are Haves since it takes a lot of money to finance a campaign, and assuming Haves do not want change, are there any truly liberal politicians? Or do we have conservative conservatives and liberal conservatives?
This is all very confusing. I think I will just sit on the couch and lick myself.
Much better than the remake.Heh. How often is a remake better, or even half as good? Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans beats all its predecessors, of course, and I personally liked Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert (Lolita) a lot better than James Mason. Past that, I can't really think of another example.
EDIT: Belay that; I liked Fistful of Dollars and Magnificent Seven better than Yojimbo and Seven Samurai.
Imho, the reason why remakes are not as good is because modern acting and directing have gone down the tubes. The only good thing about modern movies is that special effects are better than in the old days.