unixknight

I didn't ask for your views on marriage. I asked "Do you really equate simply having a different approach with being offended?" In response to your remark "I am sorry that this sacred belief and respect for marriage so offends some of this forum." In other words, what makes you think people have been offended by respect for marriage?

That's a fantastic book. Good choice! And welcome!

Well, it's been about a month and I think I've found the balance. I can pick and choose what news stories I pay attention to. I don't need to dive headfirst into every outrage, every drama, every fool on TV grabbing their 15 minutes. I'm not going to immerse myself in political podcasts, not gonna watch hours and hours of political commentary on YouTube, not gonna engage in every political thread that even remotely interests me. My outrage doesn't make the world a better place. My lack of outrage makes my home a better one. It's just so easy to get sucked into the outrage machine. It doesn't matter what side you're on politically, everybody gets outraged at the same incidents. Maybe that's the one thing we all have in common. We get outraged for different reasons, but we always get outraged at the same time. We can rise above that, guys. We can be informed without being manipulated. We don't need to derive a sense of righteousness by being mad at every injustice. Don't fall for the clickbait. I used to think I was being better informed by watching videos or listening to commentaries by multiple people on the same subject. What I learned is that all it did was make me obsess over things that aren't even important in my life. It also meant that I was picking and choosing from a menu of opinions, rather than just forming my own. I'm all done with that. Maybe I don't NEED an opinion about every little skirmish between ideologies on the streets of our country. Maybe I don't NEED to follow every little story blow by blow and I can afford to wait and see how it turns out. Around the time I decided to take that break was when the big story was the high school kids who were accused of harassing some guy in D.C. For a few days there, it was all I could think about. I was so angry at how unfairly these kids were being treated by the media, by their own church... But now, I understand they've filed lawsuits for defamation against the media outlets who attacked them. Well good. I hope they win huge. That tells me we still have a working system. Did I really need to hear commentaries on it by every political talking head on the Internet? Am I more edified? Not really. Am I supposed to be all fired up over Jussie Smollett? Meh. He's probably not going to do prison time but the damage to his reputation and personal credibility go far beyond any of that. He cried wolf, he got eaten. End of story. Sure, I could get all mad because on some level he's a symbol of what's wrong with the whole anti-Trump movement, but it's not like we learned anything new from this. Leftists hate Trump. In other news, water is still wet. Some reported hate crimes are fake. Tell me something I didn't know. If I really want to know more, I know where the news sources are. So yeah. I'll pay attention to the news and stuff, and I'll chime in on politics threads here too, but I'm done letting the outrage media live rent-free in my head.

That would be LEGENDARY.

That doesn't answer my question.

Right there with you. The only thing that gets my butt into a theater seat these days is a Star Trek movie and on rare occasion, a superhero film. (I used to get up for Star Wars movies, but Episode 9 has ensured that I'll be catching Episode 9 on home video. Eventually.)

That's laying it on a bit thick, brother. Do you really equate simply having a different approach with being offended?

I kinda want to share my list, but I feel guilty about it... Oh well, maybe confession will help... I have SO wanted to... Laugh out loud when being asked to take on a calling that "won't take much of your time." On Fast Sunday, stand up and point at the clock when the meeting is almost over, two people are waiting to talk, and one person had been droning on for 10 minutes. Go around the chapel and physically drag all the parents with unruly kids out of the room so I could hear the talks Yell "I don't care" when someone introduces themselves, in detail, complete with life's story, as a way to burn up the clock when giving a talk Play games on my tablet (all meetings) Watch Formula One races on my tablet (all meetings) Read Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks (all meetings) Let my kids play games on my tablet so I can pay attention to the talks After Sacrament meeting, tell everybody who isn't staying for Sunday School to get out and stop chitchatting and holding up the start of the meeting (Borrowing this one from @mirkwood) Say "amen" to cut short a really long prayer Slip out after taking the Sacrament

I think the problem with these discussions, in general, is the notion that somehow the 1st Amendment means "The Government shall do absolutely nothing whatsoever that can even be remotely construed as supporting anything religious." This is based on a certain interpretation of the phrase "separation of Church and State." The intent behind the 1st Amendment is to protect religious freedom by preventing the Government from establishing a religion (or none at all) which would then have power over other religions. People squawk when any Government institution spends money on items of religion as if that were the same thing. Paying a Chaplain in Congress isn't establishing a religion. Supporting a landmark or art that is religious in nature isn't establishing a religion. Holding prayer at public events isn't establishing religion... IF One belief system isn't favored over others. So the Peace Cross isn't a violation provided that a Peace Star of David or a Peace Crescent Moon aren't being denied on the grounds that they aren't Christian. This is why military chaplains have to represent a variety of different systems, no matter what their personal religion is. Every single piece of artwork, every single monument, every single memorial represents some sort of belief, whether religious or not. That's by definition. If you're going to put up a statue of a person it's because you believe in what they stood for. (On the flipside, wanting to rip down statues because of what they stand for is also an example of this.) The very fact that only overtly religious monuments are under attack on Constitutional grounds is an inversion of the entire point. I don't agree that Civil War statues in the South should be torn down, but at least the motives are understandable and clear. In trying to rigidly enforce notions of "separating church and state," religious history, belief and the representation of religious people is actually being sanitized away, and that's the opposite of the intent of the 1st Amendment.

...but having a butt double to make a woman's backside look more appealing in a movie isn't. Apparently. At least, not sexist enough for her to say 'no' to that paycheck.

Fair enough, though I wish I'd known that before revealing my location. I could have told you in PM.

I live in not carlimac's stake. (Not too close to the Peace Cross anymore) You?

Just to provide a little context to the Peace Cross. It's built in the middle of a traffic circle, near the border with Washington, D.C. (That isn't evident from the photo in the article, which also makes it look a lot bigger than it is.) That part of MD could use a little urban renewal. It's in a relatively low income section and industrial area. I've driven by it about a thousand times and it really doesn't attract that much attention. To be honest, I didn't know until now that it was even associated with WWI. Fun fact: It's also not far from the location of the house where the real life case the movie "The Exorcist" was based on took place.

He was when he was running for Senate. Now that he's been elected, he isn't.

Sure. Amendment X of the United States Constitution Simply put, the Federal Government has no authority one way or the other. Nowhere in the Constitution do the words "Separation of church & state" appear. Therefore the Peace Cross cannot be removed on Constitutional grounds. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, but the presence of the Cross does not impede anyone's rights. Now, if a group from a different religion wanted to erect a similar monument and were denied - that would be a violation.

And don't forget the flipfloppery. That man will say whatever it takes to get elected.

And Romney never lied?

I haven't seen it yet but I do plan to... ...after I finally get around to watching Justice League. I love me some Jason Momoa. He rocks. Except when he's playing Conan the Barbarian. Oof.

Obama didn't cheat on his wife either. I guess by that standard he's worthy of a vote too.

I think the fatal flaw in our system of Government is this: A certain level of corruption was assumed when the Constitution was drafted. The idea was that enlightened self-interest would keep a representative on track even if his own personal motives were not so good. That can work, but it assumes that people with voting power would remain informed, and would vote based on the issues. When the voting population is ignorant (either through a lack of education or media disinformation, the system will fail.) (Side Note: Anyone else see a conflict of interest there, in having the Government be the entity that decides what "education" looks like?) Believe it or not, I support the idea of restricting voting rights in a manner similar to Heinlein's ideas in Starship Troopers. (The book, not necessarily the film.) This is why I think it was a mistake to widen voting rights to include non-land owners. WAIT! Hear me out. A land owner, or someone who has demonstrated a willingness to perform service for the community, is someone who has roots in the community, awareness of the issues, and a vested interest in promoting the common welfare. If the only qualification to vote is a pulse for 18 years, then people's motives and priorities can be skewered. They vote their own self interest even if it harms the community. They'll vote for a baloney sandwich if someone's willing to offer them one and a bus ride to the polling place. By giving power to people with -zero- education or incentive to use it to benefit the community, you effectively defeat the system. You get chaos. Look around. Am I wrong?

This is the *one* time when DC got it right where Marvel fumbled. They just let Wonder Woman be awesome. She was one of the best parts of Batman v Superman and her small appearance in that movie generated more interest in her movie than all of the trailers, billboards and hypetrains combined. She appeared in that movie and was awesome every second she was there. She didn't play politics, she didn't represent intersectionality and she didn't have to be the one to kill Doomsday. She proved she was just like the guys... by being just like the guys. Then, the actress stayed out of political pandering. It probably helped that she wasn't American, meaning she didn't have to be tied to American points of view either way. She did plenty of interviews, yes, and invariably the discussion came around to her being a role model for girls, etc... But it wasn't about bashing men, other races, etc. It was just saying "hey, we can prove that a female superhero CAN be the feature of a good superhero movie." All it took was a good story, good writing, good acting and good production value... just like every other movie. And it WAS good. Was it the best superhero movie of all time? No. Was it way better than most? Yes. It certainly proved its point. A good superhero movie doesn't have to be about a male hero. (Which most of us knew already. Previous examples, like Catwoman, Elektra and Supergirl sucked because they were poorly made, not because of the sex of the protagonist.) TLDR; Wonder Woman was not steeped in all this controversy because it didn't go out and directly attack the majority of its own audience. Wonder Woman was a movie meant for everybody. Captain Marvel is not, and the people involved in its production, the star in particular, have made that clear.

Got a checkup at the doc today. Overall, everything's good, though my weight is the same now as it was the last time I went... Meaning I'd ballooned up and then lost it again. A couple of my test results were slightly off, but she chalked that up to the weight gain and re-loss and will keep an eye on things. So yeah. Overall good I guess. Still feeling defeated. Am I the only one who feels like the scale at the doctor's office is always calibrated to be higher than the one at home?

If it's anything like the other Marvel films, sexual content will be at a minimum, language will be mild. It's the violence that's the big thing with those.

Kinda? The thing is they'd added a section where you could post whether or not you were looking forward to seeing the film. That was the section that tanked. It wasn't the part where you review the film after having seen it.

You know what the hilarious hypocrisy is of the whole thing? Even as Disney/Marvel makes 3rd wave feminist noises out of one side of their mouth, they're looking to hire a butt double (yes, you read that right) for either Captain Marvel or Black Widow in an upcoming film. Nope, not sexualizing female characters here... Oh, wait....