I gave up hope a long time ago on sci-fi/fantasy movies offering a semblance of rational science.  Unless your name is Michael Crichton, the best they can do is to make it vague and brief enough that it doesn't offend my sensibilities for so long that it ruins the movie.  Case in point:  I hated Armageddon because of the entirely senseless psuedo-science they continuously injected for no good reason.  The prime example being a couple of NASA-types saying that their newest rocket was fueled by pure oxygen.  I just shut off at that point.

The latest Avengers movie was a good example of what to do: keep it brief and vague, provide a reasonable rationale for suspending the laws of physics (alien science/magic), and be consistent. 

-E

Thank you for this!  Magnum Mysterium is a sublime composition; one of my favorites.  How cool to know some of the backstory!

-E

In fairness, Fury stood his ground in that scene reasonably well.  Sure, he was no Ronald Reagan, but he didn't just acquiesce to the consensus that "weapons = evil".  The scene could have been much worse.

-E

Don't feel bad; we can't all be Richard Feynman.

-E

I could say the same about "tad astounded" ;)

-E

Any marriage counselor worth his salt will tell you that at the root of most failed marriages is money trouble.  Looks like that will be the cause of the eventual dissolution of this Union as well.

-E

I'm with Mis in that it matters which countries we're talking about.  I have a brother-in-law who has dual citizenship Ghana/US, and I won't be surprised if my sister ends up the same in a few years.  I think it's perfectly appropriate in their case as there is no current conflict of interest and they have both lived much of their lives in both countries.

However, in the case of a sitting Congressman/woman, especially one who just finished running for president, it's inappropriate.  One reason the constitution limits eligibility to those offices by duration of citizenship is so that loyalty is clear.  I think dual citizenship is a violation of the spirit of that law, if not the letter.

-E

Point well taken.  Allow me to expand that thought a bit.  It seems to me that winning trumps principle when it comes to foreign policy endeavors.  That's not to say that we shouldn't have principles, but that the US people are very forgiving to the victors and very hard on the losers.  So every care must be taken that every action has a clear idea of what victory looks like, a clear path, and plenty of padding for contingencies.  The first desert storm and invasion of Grenada are good examples, while Vietnam and Afghanistan are bad examples. 

An additional factor that future presidents will HAVE to consider is cost/benefit.  I see the costs of war becoming a big hurdle  as the fiscal crisis worsens, and conservatives must be able to make the case to the American people that everything they do is worth it.

-E

We've colluded to suggest the following items (in no particular order):

1. Know how to hold your tongue
2. Know how to pick your battles
3. Know how to read music and play at least 1 musical instrument
4. Know how to pack light yet still be prepared
5. Know how to be kind to everyone, love many, and trust few
6. Know how to take lemons and make lemonade (literally and metaphorically)
7. Know when to quit

On that note...

-C and E

Welcome to Ricochet, Neo!

Thank you for your first 2 posts; they mirror to some extent the questions I have about what conservative foreign policy is or should be.  Using history to establish a baseline is tricky because presidents from both parties have had successes and failures employing a broad range of policies.  Nevertheless I submit the following principles as a place to start:

First, winning is essential. Eagle Claw would likely be just as popular today as Grenada was, had it been successful.  Bay of Pigs would have been praised much like the Bin Laden killing had it worked out.  The Iraq war was initially popular but then became a millstone for the administration when it started going sour.

Second, meeting the requirements of US law is of higher importance than complying with international law.

Finally, whatever the particulars of the administration's policies, be clear, consistent and committed.  Not like the Obama administration regarding Iran/Honduras or Libya/Syria.

-E

In an official capacity, I don't think many Mormons, including Mitt, would avoid signing a check just because it included booze.  More would be uncomfortable with paying for someone else's drink in a casual setting. Everyone has their limits based on their own squeamishness, which is how I would describe your friend's reaction.

I would like to note that the original revelation concerning our health code is actually pretty subtle; it doesn't come out and say that alcohol is evil.  Rather it's a warning against certain substances (including alcohol, tabacco, tea and coffee) due to "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days".  It includes promises of temporal salvation, health, wisdom and knowledge, energy, and protection to those who obey.  It's a fascinating document, and all the more so considering it was received in the 1830s.

-E

I think that you're slightly misrepresenting Church doctrine in your first sentence.   In order to be baptized, converts  must be living the Word of Wisdom [Mormon health code].  Likewise, in order to perform priesthood ordinances, men should comply.  While the Church hardly ever imposes disciplinary measures for breaking the commandment, it certainly does limit privileges.

-E

This should be hammered on throughout the cycle, especially in congressional elections.  House candidates too; they can show how much they work in comparison to the Senate dems.  Oh, and I really hope that the libs try the whole "Party of No" tack, just for contrast.  Finally, Harry Reid should never be mentioned without referencing the last time they passed a budget: April 29, 2009.  Coming up on the big 3rd anniversary!

-E

I've heard a lot of reasons to put off marriage indefinitely, but one reason in particular makes me sad: "I have so much I want to DO before I get married!"

To this I would say that married people get to do important things and experience life together. They learn, grow, change, and enjoy life's ups and downs together, sharing each other's burdens, successes and joys along the way. Why wait to get married until after you've done everything you want to do in life? Don't you want to share each day with your best friend?

This may sound naive, but it's true. Along with marriage's difficulties, compromises, sacrifices, etc. comes that added element of having a partner in all your sorrows, your triumphs, your memories. That's a priceless gift.

----C

I lived in 6 different states and a foreign country before I was 10, so I was naturally curious what accent I may have:

The West

Your accent is the lowest common denominator of American speech. Unless you're a SoCal surfer, no one thinks you have an accent. And really, you may not even be from the West at all, you could easily be from Florida or one of those big Southern cities like Dallas or Atlanta.

Soooo.... mutt.  Figures.

-E

Aaron, did you listen to the same midnight talk show that I listened to last night?  The host mentioned this story and another about how he and his boys rescued some folks in Lake Winnepisaukee after their boat sank.  I had never heard them before, and was amazed that they are just barely surfacing.   They definitely bear repeating.

-E