kokigami

Do you believe movies, (tv shows, etc...) should not be allowed to portray truth and/or fantasy? Have you ever been around while a movie is being made? Do you know many people are around, running cameras, sounds equipment, lights, directing, ready to redo makeup and hair, costume people as well as parents and child advocates when a child is involved? What you see in the final movie is far from the actual filming segments. well, I don't put to much stock in the child advocate in the film industry. At least, in the past, we have seen some pretty messed up child stars. But, you are correct that the process of filming is usually pretty abstracted from the subject being filmed. On the other hand, the wrong director ( I won't mention any names, but Hitchcock comes to mind) will play mind games on the actors to get results they want.

Sure about that? One of the traits that make for a good actor is the ability to mimic the actions of others. Is she mature, or does she simply act mature? And when the chips are down, would you rather err by thinking her more mature than she actually is, or by thinking her more vulnerable and in need of more protection than she actually is? well, it is ultimately not my decision, but that is an interesting point. I shall revise to say, I certainly hope she is as mature as she seems. Brilliant actress. reminds me of Jodi Foster.

I think they backed off on the CG stuff, though I am not sure about this. Typically, the definition for pornography includes prurient interests, and excludes art and political speach, but, with the witch hunt mentality surrounding child porn, this could get messy. Ms. Fanning, I would say, is fully capable of dealing with a scene like this. She is scary mature for her age.

my wife doesn't want to go - she is both catholic and didn't like the book which she read while reading two debunking books - so I have to wait til I can go with out her. A weekend showing when there are movies she wants to see would be very bad mojo..

I would have voted for lucy lawless..

hmmmm... scabby monkeys....droool

Jon is an equal opportunity satirist. He is always moderate. If he seems liberal to you, it is because you are conservative. Course, the term Hollywierd would probably have hinted at that anyway..

Can't promise that will end it thoug

oopsi.. my bad. once I got to typing it, and it looked right, I never thought to question it... edited to say, i dint fine it insalting. I though it was funny.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.but she isn't robbing a bank.I never said she was. I guess you didn't understand the point, so never mind. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> then you didnt make a point. you think she is what she is doing is not right. But you dont' have authority or capacity to determine that for her. You may only say that, in a similar situation, you would not do the same.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> but she isn't robbing a bank. She is making a legal objection, based upon her estimation of what is right. She is capable of making that determination. There are no restrictions placed upon the process she uses to make that determination, save that she not break the law or interfere with the right of others to make their own determinations. In fact, I would say that "Do that which is right" does give you exactly the freedom you claim it does not - with the caveat that it violation of the law is specifically exempt. I see no reason that a member of ULC could not argue that they had a religious objection to paying Union dues simply because their personal understanding of what is right is to keep all the money they earn for themselves. She has the right to make the challenge. If she can prove her allegations of corruption, or even support them, she might have a chance of winning.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.no, a case can still be made based upon the tenants of ULC. Which is irrelevant since her sole objection is to the way the union operates and has nothing what so ever to do with her religious beliefs - AS SHE STATED HERSELF! Here is the exact quote: That's the point; she is espousing NO theology but a dislike of the union. There is nothing in the ULC tenants about disliking a certain union. She's just looking for a ploy to get out of joining the union. It would be wrong of her to abuse the ULC in an attempt to twist her dislike of a union into a religoius tenet she claims is backed by the ULC. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The ULC tenant says that every individual is both capable and responsible to determine that which is right for themselves. If she has done the work, and come to the conclusion that paying fees to the union is not right, by our creed, "do only that which is right" she is obligated to fight the requirement. The case is not impossible. It is unlikely, more because our society does not agree with the the tenant that each individual is capable and responsible for their moral compass. That is a societal problem.

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, a case can still be made based upon the tenants of ULC. It will be a difficult case to win. Most people dismiss ULC outright, and moreso if the person is not espousing a christian based theology. Then there will be questions as to previous union involvment, and there you will need to establish that union action since that time has impacted your moral stance. Personally, I agree with the advise that you should start seeking other work. According to other ULC tenants, once your challenge has run it's course you are still bound by whatever the law finds. But it will be a good court case anyway, and you might establish some legal precedents, even if they find against you..

I am objecting to be associated with the union, due to its behavior. This union is not presently working in the interests of the line staff level employee. It is tyrannical, and tells workers what their best interests are. I am not anti-union. I am deeply committed to individual liberty and fundamental human rights. I am agreeable to pay non-association fees to charity. I was a member of the offensive union. And then they pulled some shennanigans to get union security, but denied non-members due process to vote on the new contract that had a union security clause. In August last year, they told non-members only members could vote. A couple weeks before the ratification vote in September last year, the union conceded to the state that all bargaining unit employees could vote. No communication occurred from the union to non-members of the bargaining unit of the change of eligibility to vote. I could go on and on, but basically, the union is demonstrating values seriously inconsistent with how I am. So I simply do not feel that I would be doing the right thing by maintaining association with the union. Union security requirements for employees that have been there for decades is a dramatic change in working conditions, a change over which those employees had no voice. Cheryl <{POST_SNAPBACK}> how big is the union. could you run for office'? your biggest problem when presenting the case will be that you are not opposed to unions as an ethical stance, just this one. I suspect that might cause your case to fail. But, do what is right.. good luck.

And that is because you still get the good pay, and the other benefits. Kinda like you pay taxes, even if you stay home all the time.

as it should be. The point of the union is to provide labor with leverage so they may stand on an equal footing in negotiations. The individual employee has no leverage. BH, It seems to me that you don't object to being associated with unions so much as object to being associated with THIS union, which you represent to be corrupt. To me, addressing the corruption is the correct path, but, I am me, and you are you. Good luck.

Neither of those are objections based on religious grounds, but on political or legal reasons.Semantics, dear Watson.I am anti semantical. It's not semantic, but reality. Your objections cannot be construed as religions - as several here have tried to explain - but personal. The ULC has no prohibition against unions. They will laugh, and throw your case out of court. Then stop creating the "negative energy." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. In order to prevail in court, she only needs to establish that ones personal religious guideposts do not, of necessity, come from or coincide with the teachings of an organization. As for ULC, we have a doctrine, do only that which is right, and each person has the authority and obligation to determine what that is. If a person finds, after due reflection, that contributing to a Union is not within the scope of what is right, then our doctrine effectively prohibits contributing. But, I don't think it is completely unreasonable for the union to ask for an explaination. What is unreasonable is for the union to imply that the only authority for religious doctrine is someone other than the person espousing the doctrine. Bearhugs, I am sorry that you felt offended by my first post, because I did not mean offense. I am serious concerning my offer to write a letter to the Union. Though, I doubt they will take me any more seriously than you, based upon your background with the union. They should be taking your objection more seriously.

I felt it was only fair to give you that information. It would be duplicitous for me to offer advise, thinking your decision was foolish, and not say so. The motivation would be suspect. I started this reply a while back, and since then you have listed some reasons for your decision. If the allegations are correct, I can understand your motives. I still can't agree, but that is not important. I would say that, if this is how you want to make the stand, I would encourage you to fight it through to the end. Chronical everything you know, and submit a copy to the union. Ask them if they really want to fight this fight. good luck.

While I think you are foolish for not simply joining the union, I agree that the unions position is unreasonable. I would submit a letter stating the basis for my objection, and leave it at that. Does the contract between the union and the employee state a procedure for religious objection, and if so, what is that procedure. If not, then I would think you would only need to submit your objection, and you will have met the requirements of the contract. May I ask you to PM me the union information. I would like to drop them a letter in your support. Honestly, more because I think they are making a bad PR move than because I think you are making a good decision, but, I would still like to send them a letter. There is a valid reason for this kind of clause in a contract. A union is obliged to represent its members in the most effective manner possible, and, in a case where it is sole the sole bargaining body, it must also represent those non members for whom it bargains. The exception for religious objection is standard boiler plate on these agreements, but it can create some ugly situations. First, there are those who use it to scam the system. They get the full benefit of union representation without the cost. This is the situation that the union is trying to address, as there is very little traditional theological justification for objection. That statement should generate some interesting counter claims.. . Then there are those who actually do hold some moral or ethical objection to membership. They are often harrassed because most don't believe the claim. I am curious as to why you object to membership. The only thing you really succeed in doing by not joining is eliminating any voice you have in what the union sets as goals for negotiations.

Me and mine will probably see it.. nope, never heard it..

just finished "Freakonomics." very interesting.

I agree with all that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, let me take another position then..

I thought the movie was passable. The first half was weak, in many ways. Character motivation for Anakin, primarily. Too much time consumed by fight sequences. Killing Dooku was too much a throw away. At some point, after Anakin allies with Palpatine, the movie came together a bit more. But, there were still major characterization flaws. My biggest problem was the end of the fights between obi wan and anakin and yoda and palpatine. I found it hard to accept Obi wan simply standing and watching anakin burn. Anakin should have landed somewhere difficult to reach. Otherwise Obiwan should have put him out of his misery. Personally, i wanted anakin to make one more gesture of goodness, and ask obi wan to go get padme to safety. And I felt Yoda should not have given in so easily. I think they should have broken his back. He should have lost use of his legs, and had to crawl his way out. Simple explaination for his later walking....his kind regenerate like frogs... If they do make episodes 7-9 I really want to see yoda's people explored more fully.. And damn George, he just had to sneak Jar Jar in again didn't he.. that made me wince..