SOCL

Wookieepedia has its uses, but I feel like it kills a lot of the mystery and mysticism, acting as a sort of encyclopedic Star Wars, but following the same buzz-kill as the prequels. Funny, I know the founder personally, too. He rarely reads the novels and when he does, he only does it to take notes in order to update the articles.

What? What are you talking about?

I can follow everything else your saying, even if I disagree, but I really, really, really dislike the fact people claim to be able to know what the Founding Fathers believed. You can't be sure, Rob, and nobody else can. These sort of claims, which I have heard before, really get under my skin. I still think this is a personal, bias opinion. Nothing presents it to be undemocratic, no more so than the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush, much less second-term presidencies. Actually, no elections in the United States can be suspended. They are scheduled to be held at a certain moment, no matter what. The United States, as Rob states it, was lucky that the people in general reelected Roosevelt time and again. In the case of the Second World War and FDR, I believe that it was a good move by the American people, but I do not buy into the notion that a change of president would have been an inherently bad situation.

That, unfortunately, does not surprise. Karen Traviss is the author...

Scathane, are you not feeling well? I noticed a lack of "Jar-Jar Binks" on that list...

That happens to me every so often, too, Rob, but with mine I've noticed a pattern: if I mention social!sm a few too many times or democrat!c principles, it locks up. No, I'm not kidding.

BadSamaritan, I seem to recall you are a great writer. Have you considered writing a "pure" version of the prequels...?

I still don't see why not, especially since the First Spouse is not an official institution mandated by the Constitution. It would quite literally require two Constitutional Amendments: first to acknowledge the status of the First Spouse, and second to do as you say, Rob. I think your saying that FDR "did what he had to do" for the Second World War is a bit of a stretch. He was a politician and was quite keen on getting elected for four terms; this isn't a matter of some holier-than-thou policy to see a war to its conclusion. The country, much the same way it did in 2004, went with the old policy of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", which was, of course, what the GOP essentially said in that campaign over and over again. It's apparent that didn't go over so well since everyone this time around is in favor of "change". In any event, saying FDR "did what he had to do" implies he had some control over the elections; "the people did what they had to do" would be a much more accurate statement. Right. I never said anything about a third term. A third term would require an election to the Presidency for a third time, which is unconstitutional. That being said, in the same way a Vice President can assume the Presidency for the remainder of the last President's term (at two years max, of course, given the rest of my statement) and then serve two terms, there is nothing to say a former two-term President becomes Vice President and then in the event the President can no longer serve, is made President. If the remainder of that particular term is more than two years, then it'll likely require either an election to be held out of order (which there is absolutely no law against) or the resignation of the VP-turned-President at the end of the two years with the Speaker of the House assuming the Presidency for the remainder of the term. That, Rob, is a scenario I think you should be weary of.

I still stick to the notion that the concept of a nation is rooted in the concept of a peoples united by a common culture and (usually, but not always) a common language or language-group. Russia is called "Russia" because it contains Russians (yes, I know, that's an oversimplification of extraordinary proportion, but just bear with it) and Germany is called Germany because the people speak German. In fact, I think Germany is a great example of what defines a nation and what defines a state. Germany, until 1870, was a geographical expression that encompassed a variety of states, but these weren't nations unto themselves int that the people of this geographical expression were, in fact, the actual nation; Prussia, for instance, was a state, but not a nation (or at least with regard to totality). In 1870, with the unification of the German states under Prussian leadership led to the German Empire under the Kaiser, forming the first German nation-state; that is to say, a nation (people of who share a similar culture and language) under a single state (i.e. system of government). This is, of course, an old definition, but one that should, in my opinion, be used more often, though hardly so since the emergence of most states are nation-states and, in the postmodern world, the emergence of cosmopolitan states. In this regard, though a common language is not required, the de facto nature of all this makes the United States a nation-state in that common cultural beliefs and language are generally shared (there are always exceptions in all instances of example). If we go back to the ancient concept of the city-state, you'll note the term does not make use of the "nation". In this regard, as far as the ancient Greeks go, the concept of a nation encompassed the whole of the Greek people, from Athens to Corinth to Sparta, and yet these people had vastly different world-views and systems of government (states) centered around single cities; thus the concept of city-state. Not even the Romans were a nation-state as they at no point only encompassed all of the peoples of Latium exclusively; indeed, the Romans were bred from the same city-state concept I cited above and though they did come to control the Latin people, it would only be with the addition of other, non-national (i.e. non-related or "foreign") peoples including Samnites, Oscans, Umbrians, etc. Thus, the Romans in many ways skipped the nation-state entity and went from city-state to imperial-state, though this is generally inherent in the concept of empire as a whole. One would hardly say the British Empire of the 18th and 19th Century encompassed within its nation the peoples of India and South Africa. Yet the concept of nation evolves over time as overtime the barriers of integration collapse. Great Britain is perhaps a great example of this in that the national entities of Great Britain were once divided between three primary groups: English, Welsh, and Scottish. Though indeed this differentiation is still known and acknowledged, the common language and culture resounds quite heavily so that national entities defuse to what can nearly be described as nostalgia and cease to function in the way they once did centuries ago. This is the same in the United States because, though it is noticeable who is Latino, who is white, who is Asian, who is Black, the diffusion of cultures continues. Indeed, the reason I didn't capitalize "white" and yet did for the all the others is the diffuse of these primarily European peoples into a single, dominant majority-group who have a tendency to share the same culture and language despite some being of English descent, others of Irish descent, or German descent or French descent, they have diffused far enough that the state's nationality becomes more important than the cultural nationality. I'll stop there for now.

Sorry, but RL?...

I think a discussion beyond just the facts is most appealing, and by this I mean using facts to back analytical claims. Intellectually stimulating conversations: It sure is good to have you back, Scathane.

Rob, there is, of course, no law that permits what your suggesting. In fact, I'm pretty sure what you're suggesting borders on illegal. No offense, Rob, but I think you're just using the reasoning your giving because you have a clear and obvious dislike of Hillary, and no other real reason. Besides, it could be worse. President Clinton could have taken a page from Vladmir Putin's book and run for the House of Representatives and be the Speaker of the House right now, or he could be the nominee for Vice President. The Presidential term limit is set at 10 years, not two terms, so he could potentially be Vice President and come to office for two more years. So being First Spouse is hardly that much of a deal. Besides, don't you think Hillary was the true power during his administration? It's a dual presidency by way of their personal dealings, but nothing is actually illegal about it. Besides, all First Ladies have had some influence on their husband's policies, some more than others. Take Woodrow Wilson's wife--she all but run the country after he had a stroke in 1919. Or Nancy Reagan. Or FDR's wife. Or Martha Adams, wife of the second president. Or Kennedy's wife. I could go on.

Interesting. Cartoon Network picked up the broadcasting rights, but more interesting is that TNT, of all networks, will also be airing it. I would have expected ABC or NBC... Well, good news all around! Anyone else have a hard time adjusting to the anime-style animation? I don't have a problem with what I've already seen, but every time I see another character rendered in this 3D CGI format, it kind of freaks me out. I'm only saying this because the first time I saw Anakin, Dooku, and Yoda rendered, it made me freak out, but I got used to it. Now I see Shaak Ti rendered...and I'm having the same reaction. I guess I'll get used to it.

I think a great deal of it has to do with the near-complete lack of Star Wars material coming out these days. The only new material with the name "Star Wars" on it are novels and comic books, and seeing as most people don't read either one of these, it's difficult. We could always get into another analysis of the Battle of Endor, but I think there's at least one thread where we beat it into the ground with (amazingly) everyone in the discussion agreeing on the same conclusion. Heck, we've even analyzed why the prequel movies appeal to younger audiences and not the older generation, and there, yet again, all parties came to a consensus on why. If there was some original content to discuss and analyze, or if someone brought a new idea of looking at an old topic, you might see more people talking. Then again, a lack of Star Wars makes a lot of people bored with discussions of Star Wars as whole...

Not so much the others, but I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, but I thought it hadn't started production or even pre-production... I've also heard that Peter Jackson will be directing a second film alongside the The Hobbit which will act as a filler between the events of that novel and The Fellowship of the Ring.

To fill you in on Mitth, he's now engaged to his girlfriend of a year or so, I believe. I see him all the time on social networking sites, but he rarely has contact with most of us these days.

Not that I disagree with you about the case of Presidential dynasties, but what makes it unhealthy for a republic like the United States? You've had the Adam's (father/son) and the Roosevelt's (cousins) and nobody seems to think they were bad choices. I don't see a reason to say it's bad for the country.

I'm 110% with you, Jahled. Afghanistan would be secure and stable had we not invaded Iraq. Heck, the example of Afghanistan may have even led to a revolution in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein without American and Coalition decision. I just President Clinton (that's Bill Clinton, the President before the incumbent) speak at George Mason University, my alma mater. He was, of course, pitching for his wife, but I must say, I rarely hear such clear, precise, and excellent words come from a politician, especially not from this administration. The man is a genius when it comes to speaking in front of crowds. He addressed hecklers when they needed addressing and ignored them when such action was called for. He never flinched or tripped over his words. For the love of God, the man can actually speak an entire paragraph without pausing to think awkwardly between every sentence and/or word, like a certain important chief executive I know... Seriously, though, he was quite inspirational. Everything he said about what Hillary Clinton is running for I agreed whole-heartedly with, but if it wasn't because I see the Democratic Party in danger of losing with her as a candidate... Well, let's say it's not what she stand for or even who she is, but the perception far too many people have of her that prevents me from casting my lot with her. I only wish we could have Bill Clinton in the White House again, and though a lot of people say that will be the case if Hillary wins (and I among them), I'm not sure it's the direction needed. If she does win, though... Well, I won't exactly complain.

Well, since the release of Revenge of the Sith (were on the forums then, or had you already disappeared? ), much of the Star Wars conversations have stagnated and only occasionally rekindle with newbies passing by and posting some discussion we years ago started, pounded into the ground, and finished. The Force Unleashed seems to be about the most exciting forum coverage in some time... Eck, but that's just the way I've seen it.

Not that I find it a contradiction to be adamantly against most, if not all of the GOP's policies and platform, and then defend one of their candidates, much less the leading one, but I don't think McCain is really that much of a hawk, at least when you compare him to the members of the current administration. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Rice: those are hawks. McCain, in my personal opinion, has only taken on this nonsense about 'staying until the job's done' (whenever that is, and by whose ever decision it is decided...) in order to gain certain votes among the GOP constituency he wouldn't regularly have got. Remember, McCain opposed, if only nominally, going into Iraq at its outset, but going into an election he realized that wasn't a particularly popular line to take with the Republican electorate, so he took that line. Remember, the first stage of the Presidential race is to win the party, and only after that does one need to worry about winning the country. In order to win the GOP nomination, McCain severely needed to change his outward appearance (and I don't mean his physical form), namely by supporting the wars and most of the Bush Administration policies concerning them. I doubt he truly believes much of what he's spouting at the moment, but politics are politics and they require a certain level of doublespeak to get one through them. Once he has the Republican nomination, and I'm rather certain at this point that he will, we'll likely see his rhetoric change, if at least moderate, for the sake of the general electorate, but more so for the sake of Electoral College. It will be interesting to see what sort of rhetoric he uses about the war after he has the nomination and see if he sticks with the hawkish bit, or if he goes back to the more peaceful, use-of-diplomacy McCain that used to characterize him. If he wins the presidency, it will be even more interesting to see what sort of rhetoric he uses then, too. If he goes back to his old self, then he did sell-out like a typical politician, but suppose he doesn't, eh? Suppose he continues his current policy of 'staying the course' and so on about Iraq and Afghanistan? What then? Will Republicans still dislike him? I have the feeling that the answer is yes, but I don't think they'll be justified at that point. This concept of 'flip-flopping' seems to at times extend conveniently so that President Bush can say in a debate with Al Gore in 2001 that he doesn't believe in using the military for nation-building, but does that very same thing at the end of the year and again in 2003. 'The situation changed'; yes, I'm quite well aware of that, but are Republicans willing to let the situation change for McCain? Perhaps McCain truly did have a change of heart. Has that been considered? If his rhetoric doesn't go back to his moderated policies of the past, doesn't that mean he's simply solidified his opinions? After all, not everyone (and certainly no one) can make up their mind at the age of twenty about everything and then never change their mind again. Or I suppose they could, but then they're proving to have never matured their thinking. As for the Obama/Clinton race, I've noticed something interesting with the more typically Republican voters I've spoken to: when given a choice between the two, most of the moderate Republicans and the overall independents prefer Obama over McCain, and in most instances Obama over Clinton. What I think most don't realize, though, is that McCain does not have the sort of popular movement behind him that the leading Democratic candidates have and will not win the General Election in November. What needs to be realized is if the current poll numbers continue the way they are, the general race will come down to a Clinton vs. McCain. This will alienate many of the hardliner Republicans to vote--like Tex--for somewhat obscure and otherwise 'spoiler' third parties, like the Constitutional or Libertarian parties. The independents will likely find themselves stuck between the (conservative) old-order and the (liberal) old-order, for which they'll likely weigh in favor of Clinton if only for a weariness to the conservative old-order, which is associated heavily with the Bush Administration--indeed, people are seeking change in nearly any form it shows. Moderate Republicans will likely be split between casting their lot with a disliked Republican and a disliked Democrat, many probably voting for McCain, though, if only out of spite for Clinton and not necessarily in favor of the former. In the end, this will not be enough votes to carry McCain to the White House and will likely result in a second Clinton Administration, a prospect many people--Republican and Democratic--do not want. (Yeah, Republicans, remember when the Democrats didn't want a second Bush Administration? Now the shoe is on the other foot!) If they want to avoid this, I encourage many independents and moderate Republicans to cast their primary lots with Barack Obama, a person seen as favorable when given the choice against both Clinton and McCain. This will act as a spoiler vote against Clinton (Republicans, you needn't think you're voting in favor of Obama as much as you are against Hillary Clinton) and perhaps result in Obama winning the Democratic presidential nomination. If this happens, then come November, you may cast your votes as wish, secure in that Hillary Clinton will not be president. Granted, Republicans may not want a President Barack Obama, but would you prefer a President Hillary Clinton, who seems apparently going to win the General Election? I think most Republicans can put up with a minimum of four years of Obama, perhaps eight--they made it through eight of Bill Clinton and the Democrats made it through eight of Bush, so I think we can work together on this one.

Whatever.

This ought truly be in the Outside Interests forum... And there it shall go. My favorite bosses: -the Nihilanth from Half-Life -the Kusanagi "clone" in Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex -Darth Malak in Knights of the Old Republic

Nationalism is as individual as every human being and thus evolve along different lines--increasingly so at distance. I think it would be a serious mistake, as already expressed by other members, to consider there being one "correct" form of nationalism or even one correct line of evolution for nationalism. What has clearly worked out for American society has not worked out for most other countries. Not to say that nationalism is government (though it certainly is an important aspect, government being one way nationalism is expressed), but a Presidential system of government like the one in the United States virtually untenable for what we in the Western countries term "third world countries" as it leads to dictatorships which in many instances are the result of personality cults around those powerful individuals within the state. Parliaments have been, in fact, more successful, but each country arrives at the decision for parliament in a different order or under different circumstances, and even then each parliamentary system is unique and individual in its own way, a characteristic of that specific individualism I mentioned before, they aren't all just modified Westminster systems.

You missed my point. I didn't say a nation had anything to do with government. What you're referring to is a nation-state.

Well, well, old friend. I'm very pleased to see you back. As you already know, I'd taken you for dead (and the same goes to Trejiuvanat!). I have the same sentiment as Eagle, concerned that you'll disappear soon after saying hello... By the way, Scath, before your sudden disappearance you mentioned some vague things via Evaders about something "new" for the website. Um...do you have any news about this? If the plan was axed, can we know what it was? Do you even remember? To catch you up: Jahled and I are Moderators now. Elvis pops in and out occasionally, and wormie recently dropped by to say hello...and then disappear. Oh...and some sad news... I certainly hope to see you around more often, old friend.