Posted on 10/24/13 09:36 PM
Aren't there easier ways to make $$$ for a beautiful girl than:
(1) Wait 4 years for someone you hate
(2) Kill them, in the hopes you're among 1% of those who gets a NGRI
(3) Hope to get out of the hospital in months, rather than years, or even decades as normally criminally insane do
(4) Hope that competitors stock will go up as a result of this incident and that your partner has enough funds and leverage to make a fortune out of it.
(5) Hope that you still find some money in an offshore bank waiting for you when you get out
With her charm, good looks and artistry she could have lured a multi-millionaire with only a few years left to live, and then go back to her lesbian friend. She could have done a zillion other things too before she had undergone this idiotic plan!
I admire turns and twists in a movie, but not when they reach such ludicrous proportions ! But based on the high user & critics ratings, to each its own I guess...
Posted on 10/07/13 12:03 AM
It's strange to hear people defending medieval forms of tortures as "saving lives". But is this all worth if America succumbs to the level of Gestapo to achieve its objectives ?
I happen to have watched recently a French movie called "Army of Crime" where it shows how French Resistance members were tortured by the Nazi Police to attain information. And of course, they were labelled "terrorists", and indeed, in an effort to kill a Nazi high commander French Resistance may have killed innocent bystanders too.
However, my point is not too exonerate terrorists, but to ask how people can be so blase about the use of torture. To paraphrase a popular quote: "Those who sacrifice basic human dignity (yes, even for terrorists!) for some temporary security, deserve neither"
Posted on 10/01/13 11:58 PM
While I am not trying to make direct comparison, there are some ire similarities between French Resistance against Nazi occupation and Iraq Resistance against American occupation and/or Afghan Resistance against American occupation like
....Both Resistances harmed occupying forces
....Both Resistances harmed "collaborators"
....Both Resistances harmed innocent civilians
....Both Resistances were labeled "terrorists"
....Both Resistances were gravely tortured when caught
....Both Resistances were composed in large parts of foreigners (e.g. Al Qaeda in Iraq)
...Both Resistances were guided through a radical ideology (i.e. Communism and Islamism)
Again, I am not trying to somehow justify the commission of Islamist terrorists acts, or degrade heroic acts of the French Resistance. Just to bring some perspective into this.
Of course, in comparison, to the great evils Hitler committed, French resistance acts of terror were trivial. Of course, in comparison to the great evils Hitler committed, Americans transgressions in Iraq and Afghanistan (and even Vietnam) were trivial. But then, everything is trivial when compared with the Holocaust.
And if we were to talk about Jewish "Occupation" vs Palestinian "Resistance" we'll be opening a whole yet another bag of worms.
History is messy. Labels are simple. I wish people and media were more circumspect when labeling.
Posted on 8/14/13 08:35 PM
At the end Charles Wilson states that we *beep* up by not rebuilding the country. But if affluence in a country liberalizes it, shouldn't we have liberal democracies in rich countries like Saudi Arabia, not a cradle of Islamic terrorism? You just can't transform a country into a liberal democracy by throwing money at it !
A rich, highly educated Islamic radical is still a radical. A poor, uneducated democrat is still a democrat. Cultural and religious milieu cannot be quickly changed through economic, or even educational, influxes.
The only way to quickly transform a culture is by force. That's what Mao did during Cultural Revolution. And that's what Soviets did in other Muslim countries, and tried doing it in Afghanistan.
The paradox is how do you instill liberalism by force ? If you let regressive people vote, they'll vote in another regressive (e.g. Egypt's Mohamed Morsi). So to prevent regressive people from voting in a regressive dictator, you need another regressive dictator.
Posted on 6/04/13 11:10 PM
Well I imagine there could be a 2-3 million dollar verdict, which in today money is around 7-10 million. There was a need of just 50K (probably around 200K in today money) to establish a trust for paying perpetual medical care expenses according to the movie. So the rest will go to the sister and her husband. And I am not saying they don't deserve some compensation for their anguish, but this is like winning a lottery !
I mean if the Dr. is negligent, suspend him, take away his licence or jail him if merited. But when so much money is awarded, the rest of us pay through higher medical bills & insurance rates.
Personally, I wish they've established a governmental fund, akin to "Workers Compensation" and use it to support injured patients regardless of the fault of the physician. This will eliminate all these costly trials and direct more money into the pockets of the patient, and less into the pockets of the lawyers.
Posted on 5/28/13 10:03 PM
Death penalty doesn't make moral sense !
If someone is innocent and we execute him, then we execute an innocent person.
If someone is guilty but genuinely remorseful now, then we execute a reformed man.
If someone is guilty but incapable to be genuinely remorseful because he is a psychopath, then we execute someone who is incapable to care about the wrongness of his crime. He may have intellectually known that killing is wrong, but psychopaths emotionally did not feel it was so.
Imagine yourself in shoes of a psychopath - you are told that if you step on an ant it's wrong and you'll be sentenced to death, but you don't feel "wrong" stepping and killing ants. And in the impulse of a moment decided to squash a few. Then the society hangs you for that and you just don't feel why you'd ever deserve that.
Now substitute ants with people for a psychopath and see why, while they have to be removed from the rest of the society when they commit crime, they cannot be put be morally put to death.
Posted on 5/12/13 10:33 PM
While I don't condone rape, especially of the minors, even under such grim circumstances. What Jim has done by killing a bunch of soldiers who previously saved his life, and exposing the women to the infected, is beyond reckless and stupid and arrogant !!
And when the movie makes out of him some kind of a hero, it makes me sick over how pretentiously juvenile this movie is !!
Posted on 4/08/13 10:46 PM
Had he been sober he would have crashed the plane.
And perhaps the flight would not had saved the boy's life too.
And that's because, while drinking may make you reckless, it also makes you more brave - gives you a sense of "bravado".
And while in normal circumstances being cool-headed is much better, in certain extreme circumstances if you aren't mentally impaired you're going to sh*t your pants. And also the survival instincts would have kicked in the flight attendant, so she probably had not rescued the boy. Same as Russian soldiers wouldn't had run into Nazi tanks with the grenade in their hand, had they not been utterly intoxicated with vodka prior.
On balance, would we had been much, much better off if all drivers and pilots were completely sober when operating their vehicles and aircraft. However this is an exception that proves the rule, and we should acknowledge it as such.
Posted on 3/27/13 10:08 PM
He overpaid his debt . I mean the guy he killed might had killed others. But he definitely was a crook. Crooks can be family men too, still they must know that getting killed is an "occupational" hazard.
So if 30k of his ill begotten gains are given for his executioners' son surgery. That's ironic. But I wouldn't consider that unconscionable. As far as karmic justice is concerned, the executioner may had some small debt to the widow, but certainly not his life. He could have continue to carry for her daughter or even repay it eventually. But he chose to die because he was too conscientious of a person for his own good.
Posted on 3/27/13 10:01 PM
Sadomasochists are stigmatized like gay people were decades ago. I mean, different strokes for different folks. Right ? Yet, even in liberal, sexually liberated countries, being into BDSM may label you as a lunatic. No wonder Erika couldn't "come out" as a sadomasochist.
Why is that in our society coming out as a gay is accepted and even increasingly applauded, yet it's all hush, hush about coming out as a sadomasochist?
I believe this marginalization is what drives sane people insane.
And the thing is outright battery as delivered in the final scene is no more gratifying to most sadomasochists, as prison rape to most gay people.
With increasing acceptance of the sexual minorities like gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexuals , it's time to add the sadomasochists to the group (SLGBT ?). Instead of keeping them almost as marginalized and stigmatized as pedophiles.
And that's not right since (1) sadomasochism is not a choice, but your are born that way & (2) unlike pedophilia, sadomasochism between two consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone and it's safer than many forms of gay or even straight intercourse.