News Stories

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

At this point, from reading internet comments, I suspect that there is, if not a conspiracy, a convergence of interests in making people look like lunatics.

Every side has its morons and extremists. But I suspect they somehow get an overwhelming, disproportionate amount of exposure.

So you can't be a feminist without being a man hating crazy, you can't be against man hating crazies without in turn being some kind of rapist, you can't be a muslim without being an ISIS terrorist, you can't care about animal welfare without being an eco-terrorist. And so on.

Oh, and of course, every movement you're against is monolithic, so as a whole they're hypocrites, because it's the same people criticizing his shirt and praising Kim Kardashian (do the latter even exist?).

Or maybe the world really is full of lunatics and I should be getting out more. Or less. Yeah, definitely less.

I really think so as well. How is it even possible that something as stupid as the shirt caused a commotion, even a LITTLE commotion. How come a simple 'maybe that shirt wasn't in the best taste, but dont worry about it too much m8 just keep it in mind for the future' wasn't enough? And so much of Kim Kardashians ass.. are we increasingly just getting baited into reading articles that we know we'll find stupid? I certainly have been baited quite a bit if that's the case

[Ithekro]

The "future". You know. The one with Captain James T. Kirk. Excellent relations with women.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

are we increasingly just getting baited into reading articles that we know we'll find stupid?

Of course we are. At the end of the day... we like getting angry (it releases pleasure chemicals, or so I've read). We like feeling superiors to all those morons out there. I said I read internet comments. It's certainly not to educate myself.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The "future". You know. The one with Captain James T. Kirk. Excellent relations with women.

I'm sorry, I didn't get the reference., don't know much about star trek. Were you offended by the shirt?

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

I'm sorry, I didn't get the reference., don't know much about star trek. Were you offended by the shirt?

The original Star Trek show was kind of sexist which is of course rather natural given that it was done in the 1960s (doesn't make it right though). The overall image of the show was that of a womaniser Capitan that slept with every good looking alien babe and bashed the head of any ugly male extraterrestrial. I think that's what he was referencing. Sarcasm doesn't really work on the internet though

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Dextro

The original Star Trek show was kind of sexist which is of course rather natural given that it was done in the 1960s (doesn't make it right though). The overall image of the show was that of a womaniser Capitan that slept with every good looking alien babe and bashed the head of any ugly male extraterrestrial. I think that's what he was referencing. Sarcasm doesn't really work on the internet though

Oh ok. I guessed it was sarcastic but I really didn't get the reference

Great! Finally, someone who can explain it to me. Itherko, could you elaborate a bit? (just to clarify, ' keep it in mind for the future ' = 'dont do that again in the future') Would that not be enough? Is wearing a shirt like that discouraging women joining STEM?

[Ithekro]

As mentioned sarcasm doesn't always work. Star Trek is the fictional utopian future, yet it was a product of the 60's, based slightly on the age of sailing days for style, were it was natural that a ship captain might have a woman in every port. Kirk would generally either get the main guest woman of the episode, though that was not a given. Sometimes he resisted when the alternative was losing his ship....His ship being his true woman. Or at least the thing he was devoted to the most outside the safety of his crew. Star Trek was about as progressive as possible back then, but still retained its 60's era plot lines.

The actual future from Star Trek seems a lot better than that, but going by just Kirk bedding or at least flirting with all the ladies, it would seem slightly backwards, even in the 2009 version, where the younger Kirk would hit on just about every woman he walked by, regardless of species.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The actual future from Star Trek seems a lot better than that, but going by just Kirk bedding or at least flirting with all the ladies, it would seem slightly backwards, even in the 2009 version, where the younger Kirk would hit on just about every woman he walked by, regardless of species.

I see it as the exact opposite. WHY should he care about the species of the woman? As long as the woman is capable of giving legal consent, and she responded to his advances willingly, it is hardly inappropriate. If anything, to not care about the species is what made 60's Star Trek ahead of it time. After all, Kirk kissed a black woman on TV when no other show dared.

This reminded me of the GotG film. Starlord is a Kirk type character, who is open-minded with his sexual adventures. But there is no suggestion that he forced himself on anyone. Sure, he might not always remember the name of the woman he beds, but it's not like he ever lied to anyone about the temporary nature of their liaisons. And the fact that he was willing to try sleeping with an A'askvarii means he really doesn't have much prejudices.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

As mentioned sarcasm doesn't always work. Star Trek is the fictional utopian future, yet it was a product of the 60's, based slightly on the age of sailing days for style, were it was natural that a ship captain might have a woman in every port. Kirk would generally either get the main guest woman of the episode, though that was not a given. Sometimes he resisted when the alternative was losing his ship....His ship being his true woman. Or at least the thing he was devoted to the most outside the safety of his crew. Star Trek was about as progressive as possible back then, but still retained its 60's era plot lines.

The actual future from Star Trek seems a lot better than that, but going by just Kirk bedding or at least flirting with all the ladies, it would seem slightly backwards, even in the 2009 version, where the younger Kirk would hit on just about every woman he walked by, regardless of species.

thats not at all what i asked, i got the star trek reference, dextro explained it. and, as the poster above me mentioned i don't necessarily see whats wrong with it either. I'm sure the portrayal was slightly sexist because it was made in the 60's, but to be sexually adventurous doesn't mean being a misogynist. It's pretty shallow to think that because a man 'hits' on women a lot hes seems them as sexual objects only. Look at the flip side, by that same logic you're condemning women who would have a lot of sex with men. So what? We're all supposed to wait for our one true love, and put sexual purity on a pedastel for men and women? Isn't that kind of backwards?

Anyways, it doesn't matter, and it isn't what I asked, so we can probably stop the star trek discussion, and the shirt discussion, unless you want to comment on why you thought the 'future' looks so backwards.

[SaintessHeart]

How banks traded lending for oil, gas and nukes

A simple bank service fell victim to financial ‘innovation’

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — A U.S. Senate subcommittee investigation into bank commodities trading has produced some eye-popping findings:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS, +0.24% owned a uranium business that carried the liability of a nuclear accident.
J.P. Morgan Chase Co. JPM, -0.79% operated as if it were Con Edison. It owned multiple power-generation plants, exposing it to potential accidents there.
Morgan Stanley MS, -0.27% played the role of Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM, +0.19% stockpiling storage, pipelines, and other natural gas and oil infrastructure.

Together, the report found that banks not only were out of their comfort zone, but put the financial system at risk because they turbo-charged these investments with derivative contracts. They ended up with “huge commodity inventories and participating in outsized transactions,” the Senate Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations said. “The three financial holding companies chose to engage in commodity-related businesses that carried potential catastrophic event risks.”

The overreaching foray into commodities underscores how bank “innovation” can take simple services for clients and create massive risk. Banks entered the commodities markets to provide hedges for providers, traders and other market participants. They ended up with huge stakes and, according to the committee, were able to corner at least parts of the market.

This is a far cry from simple brokerage services and investment banking. It is a quantum leap from deposit-taking and lending institutions that are backed by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And it all took place in a market supposedly regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which should have at least raised red flags, even if its powers were limited by Congress.

While many banks have either left, reduced or signaled they want to exit commodities, the pattern in which simple banking and brokerage products become suddenly dangerous and enormous quagmires may be the larger problem. Regulators can’t put a cop in every division and office on Wall Street, much less every power plant across the country.

Banks may feel pressured to compete with rivals who offer new products, but they should resist the temptation, lest they have a Fukushima on the books and on their hands.

[germanturkey]

Its gone beyond funny how much obama has ruined this country. @immigration reform speech.

[Sugetsu]

^ That is one very uninformed opinion indeed. Please do some research, dont just repeat the GOP's strategic rethoric, which is aimed at the american who is unable to think critically or the one who is far too lazy to find answers on his own.

Now sit back and watch the fireworks come January. I wonder if they'll stick to their guns and continue to ignore immigration reform regardless of the long term consequences to the party.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

^ That is one very uninformed opinion indeed. Please do some research, dont just repeat the GOP's strategic rethoric, which is aimed at the american who is unable to think critically or the one who is far too lazy to find answers on his own.

Now sit back and watch the fireworks come January. I wonder if they'll stick to their guns and continue to ignore immigration reform regardless of the long term consequences to the party.

You know, there's a term for people who like to label those whose opinions differs from their own as "lazy" or "unintelligent", and I can assure you it's not a flattering term.

BTW, merely claiming you're right actually doesn't qualify as research nor make your opinion any more "informed" than the one you just bashed, from what I can see you have offered exactly the same amout of reasoning for your stance as the other guy - a whole lot of nothing.


On the issue, i don't think this serves as anything more than a political stunt and a bandaid, given the non existent staying power of executive actions across administrations. The real solution ultimately has to come from congress, but I'm not holding my breath for that one.

[Hiss13]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You know, there's a term for people who like to label those whose opinions differs from their own as "lazy" or "unintelligent", and I can assure you it's not a flattering term.

BTW, merely claiming you're right actually doesn't qualify as research nor make your opinion any more "informed" than the one you just bashed, from what I can see you have offered exactly the same amout of reasoning for your stance as the other guy - a whole lot of nothing.

Here's the thing. Lazy and unintelligent are absolutely fitting for the target audience when you have a party that lies to its constituents and audience purely because they know they're not going to fact check. Like with the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oRoG8SqChE
Cruz's audience ate it up and will likely never question him on it. That's the reason why people call people who listen to and parrot the GOP's strategic rhetoric "lazy" or "unintelligent". Is it harsh? Yes. Does it generalize? Yes. But it's still a valid point.

[Urzu 7]

I agree with Sugetsu and Hiss13. What germanturkey said...that is exactly what the GOP want many Americans to believe. That things are so bad now because of Obama. That it is all his fault. But that isn't true. A lot of problems in the country and the world at large are the fault of the GOP, not just Obama and his administration. Yes, Obama hasn't been good on some things, but the GOP has been very destructive to the country (and beyond) since George W. Bush's first term.

Now unfortunately, a lot of Americans do think things are so bad now all because of Obama. Shit, we are still going through some very negative consequences from George W. Bush, but I've seen GOP apologists try to shoot that down and be like "Come on, it's been six years since Obama has been president, stop blaming Bush". Yes, it has been six years, and we are still reeling from errors, mistakes, and corruption from the Bush administration. And the negative consequences will be strong for years more to come.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

I agree with Sugetsu and Hiss13. What germanturkey said...that is exactly what the GOP want many Americans to believe. That things are so bad now because of Obama. That it is all his fault. But that isn't true. A lot of problems in the country and the world at large are the fault of the GOP, not just Obama and his administration. Yes, Obama hasn't been good on some things, but the GOP has been very destructive to the country (and beyond) since George W. Bush's first term.

Now unfortunately, a lot of Americans do think things are so bad now all because of Obama. Shit, we are still going through some very negative consequences from George W. Bush, but I've seen GOP apologists try to shoot that down and be like "Come on, it's been six years since Obama has been president, stop blaming Bush". Yes, it has been six years, and we are still reeling from errors, mistakes, and corruption from the Bush administration. And the negative consequences will be strong for years more to come.

Not the point kyp was trying to make, on the contrary I agree with him completely. He just pointed out that what was said was childish, and possibly equally uninformed. What's the point of dismissing someones opinion (especially, particularly on an online forum) by saying that they should do more research and basically 'lol get smart' , without providing any evidence themselves? I agree that germanturkey is guilty, but you can't just be biased like that. If you want to dismiss someones opinion, there should be something to back it up, and im NOT saying there isn't either.

This is coming from someone who isn't even american, (though I was living in the states a few years ago, but I don't really have an opinion on 'whose fault it is' because, frankly, it's too complex for me to devote significant time to understand). Not that I disagree with you, you're absolutely right, there are momentum effects that last much longer than 6 years, those that are positive and negative. All I'm saying is you can't support posters bashing others by saying they're lazy and uninformed when said posters didn't contribute to the discussion either

[Urzu 7]

Well, to make things more clear, I wasn't really agreeing with the sentiments of "lazy" and "unintelligent", but with Sugetsu and Hiss13, I was agreeing with some things they said, in addition to the sentiment of "uninformed". That I agree with, and I find that germanturkey had an uninformed opinion and I find that many Americans are 'uniformed' about a lot of things pertaining to political happenings these days.

But I'm not really one for mudslinging and I don't personally think of many uninformed Obama haters as being "lazy" or "unintelligent".

[Ithekro]

Historically it takes about two full presidencies to fix the mess of an administration. So we are basically just getting the messes of the Clinton administraton fixed. We aren't even to the Bush administration fixing yet.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Historically it takes about two full presidencies to fix the mess of an administration. So we are basically just getting the messes of the Clinton administraton fixed. We aren't even to the Bush administration fixing yet.

It's different this time, though. There hasn't been a republican president for six years now, but the GOP has still been damaging to the country in that time. The GOP has been creating problems for America (and again, the world at large) since 2001. Thirteen years straight now. : \

[Haak]

UKIP gets its second MP: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ictable-tories

Every time I hear more about UKIPs success, I lose a little more faith in humanity...(or just English voters rather)