User Profile: KPEdwards

Member Since: August 31, 2010


  • March 6, 2012 at 1:54pm

    That’s exactly what I mean. In a certain sense this acts as a companion to her grandfather’s work (which I am sure is not by accident). On the one hand they are working at opposite ends of the spectrum, but on the other they are both taking the good elements out of the subjects and displaying them. In order to get the most out of these paintings the audience needs to acknowledge the horrible actions these people have taken, and then remind the viewer that these are human beings. It makes you think about how someone could in one breathe exclaim a desire to kill, but in the next worry about the care of a cat.

    As to her choice of style … Meh. It’s nothing to write home about. I’d prefer a more realistic rendition with some great facial expressions. Something like what Kubrick would do. But I could see the idea to have a more impressionist/modern rendition.

  • March 6, 2012 at 11:14am

    You make an excellent point. I would then reshape my argument in framing that what makes the world unrealistic is that they don’t ever evoke a sadness that is present in real life. Like in the runaway, you don’t get the sense of a troubled youth who has reason to run away from bad conditions. Instead you get the impression of a “boys will be boys” and youth indiscretion. I mean, you have the counter worker smiling at the situation.

    This could be my cynical nature coming through, but when you look at his breadth of work you have the an unrealistically positive sense of what life is. Like watching an episode of Leave It to Beaver.

    In my opinion, this is what was needed at the time. The country just went through two world wars and a depression. To me it always contained this hope that there is this ideal happiness that seems to be easily achievable.

  • March 6, 2012 at 10:51am

    I wasn’t really talking about his intentions, but rather what effect it had on people (which is definitely open for debate and interpretation). However, I’m open to listen to what you’re supposing his intentions were.

    From his four freedoms series to the problem we all live with I would argue that the images show people at their idealized best. It shows us not what we all are, but what we can be. It gives us the notion that there is such a thing as a “simpler time.” His later work definitely shows more of the uglier side of life, but the subjects are elevated even higher because of it.

  • March 6, 2012 at 10:06am

    Really? Look at what Norman’s paintings did. They showed an unrealistic world, but an ideal world. One that we could strive for. He raised the image of people into larger than life ideas.

    What his daughter is doing with these, is taking down people who have been elevated to such heights that they don’t resemble humans anymore. She is specifically showing us that these people who are considered pure evil, are just people. They are mortal. They’re lives aren’t just this horrible ideology.

    Also, yes I have sympathy for them. I pity that they are people who have gone through whatever events that would lead them to think terrorism is the right choice. I regret that as part of a great nation, and as party of humanity in general, we share some blame for not helping these people and at times, i can only hope unintentionally, hurting them.

  • March 2, 2012 at 11:13am

    First off, and I don’t think it can be stressed enough: *IT’S NOT ABOUT SEX*
    You can quote all the 2.74′s, and ‘oh I found this on the internet prices you’d like. The pill is real medication for real medical conditions.

    Secondly, none of you are paying for this. She’s paying for this – all of the students are paying for this. Either directly or through their tuition. Where did this even come from that it was money coming from you? Is the very idea of health insurance too collectivist for you guys? Have you gotten so obsessed with the individual that you can’t stand the idea of pooling money together to benefit the individual in times of need?

  • March 1, 2012 at 2:48pm

    I’m sorry, are someone’s doctor? Are you writing out prescriptions? There are many different types of “the pill” – that react differently with a woman. In order to get onto birth control, women usually need to go see a doctor and get a prescription. Now basically, what you’re saying is that, ‘hey I’ve found a generic brand that isn’t really what your doctor would prescribe you. But, hey, who cares if you need to go through bad side effects, and possibly not even treat what your getting the pill for?

    Now the reason you can’t just get any generic drug equivalent is because of something called a patent.

    Also, stop making this about sex. When did she ever mention sex in her testimony? I mean, Beck and his crew decided they were going to call her a sl_t and a sk_nk – which can I add, I believe I remember somewhere that someone important hung around with at least one famous prostitute. You’re just being ants following a hive mind going around in a death spiral round and round thinking you’ll eventually find food.

  • February 29, 2012 at 5:06pm

    You small, pathetic ants. From what most of you put down, you couldn’t be bothered with listening to the whole testimony. About how birth control does more than prevent pregnancy. How it is used to prevent ovarian cysts. How it is used to help regulate a women’s menstruation cycle. How it is used to reduce the risk of various cancers.

    Instead, you assail this woman with some of the most horrid insults you can think of. I watched the entire Beck clip, and was absolutely disgusted that they felt it necessary to edit out the section where she talks about the person who had to get an ovary removed because she couldn’t afford her medication. And why is it she couldn’t afford it, because people just like you decided that her condition wasn’t the reason she wanted her medication.

    You couldn’t care less for your fellow man.

  • February 29, 2012 at 4:18pm

    Many people seem to be saying, oh the lady should have just not gone up.

    First, in the same exact token, I really think the priest should have gone over to her and explained his moral convictions. Instead, I think he caused a scene that could have been avoided. He started giving out communion (sorry if that is an incorrect phrasing) knowing full well he was going to refuse her. Just be a grown up and explain to her beforehand.
    Secondly, it sounds like there was more than just refusing communion – in that he just left the altar during the eulogy, and didn’t show up for the burial. Whether or not you think he was morally right in performing or refusing to perform an action, he was acting like a schmuck.
    I’m not sure if that’s removal worthy, but that’s not my call. It’s up to the parish or the church or whoever. It doesn’t affect me one way or the other. So frankly, I couldn’t care less which course they decide on.

  • February 29, 2012 at 3:59pm

    … or it could be pointing out the difference between the two.

  • February 23, 2012 at 3:08pm

    Thanks Godfather
    I understand some people might not like the product for whatever reason, but this is tax credits designed to have a product made in America and purchased in America. Guess what – that’s what it’s doing. Now, your dislike of the product might be enough that you’ll just leave money on the table, but hey – that’s your choice.

    If you want to say that we shouldn’t be picking winners. Well, then let’s take away some subsidies, have power generation operate and pay without any tax benefits, and pay the inflated costs of energy because we all kind of like it.There are reasons this car is subsidized whether you like it or not (one of them being it decreases demand for gas and allows the price to lower through market forces).

    And if you want to say that GE is trying to influence the market and force the car on employees – well, so what? They’re a company, and are allowed to buy whatever company car they want. Do they have an interest in driving up demand? Yes. So, why should they act against their own interests? GE wants GM to continue making volts. So, they buy them.

  • February 7, 2012 at 2:35pm

    I would say that analogy doesn’t quite fit. What about this angle:
    Yes, when you are ordered by court you are to give them access to a safe. However, if they find a letter containing a seemingly random assortment of letters, number and symbols – they cannot order you to tell them what that piece of paper means. It could be a confession written in code – a detailed description of the crime, but you are not forced to give them the information they would need to read it.

    Likewise, they can look up phone records, but they cannot force you to tell them what was said on them.

    The courts have complete physical access to anything that could be evidence, but it is their job to make sense of it all.

  • February 7, 2012 at 2:09pm


    Oh, most definitely they could break the encryption … in something like a decade. Oh maybe a couple of years if processors have a huge leap, or quantum computing shakes out (there are algorithms that can factor in polynomial time: Shor’s algorithm).

    Don’t just take my word for it. Here is a quote from the Wired article linked above:

    “Full disk encryption is an option built into the latest flavors of Windows, Mac OS and Linux, and well-designed encryption protocols used with a long passphrase can take decades to break, even with massive computing power.”

  • January 4, 2012 at 4:06pm

    First @burnman
    When did the Big Bang theory become a left wing idea? Has everything, but a literal interpretation of creationism become left wing?

    secondly, @smithclarence
    While you’re right humans don’t have claws and the sort, what you seem to ignore is that the biggest advantage we have is our ability for abstract thought, and the ability to bring that into practical objects. Sure we don’t have claws, but we sure have a lot of guns that we thought up and built.

  • December 15, 2011 at 7:43pm


    I think it’s important to note that in this particular case, it is talking about the government, not any individual within it, declaring a reliance on a religious principal. I think one’s faith (NB: I’m an atheist, and as such I have faith that there is no higher power) is important, and shapes an individual – and these individuals shape our society. I think it’s important to have these individuals form the foundation and support of our government, and not the religious principals directly.

  • December 15, 2011 at 7:34pm

    First, RICKY, it wasn’t the motto from the founding – it was 1956. It’s younger then some citizens.

    Secondly, I, personally, think it’s really incorrect to believe that a religious belief should be at the center of our government. I really believe that we should have our people as the center of our government. In my views, our legal rights come from the government, but it is up to the people to make sure that our legal rights line up with what they individually believe are our natural rights.

    The government should not have a reliance on any deity. No deity created the government. We did.

    Of course, this is assuming you don’t believe in predestination. In which case, why would you be complaining about anything as this is what is supposed to be happening since it literally could not happen any other way?

  • December 9, 2011 at 4:05pm

    But at the same time, Corolla gives the argument against his case.
    Could we not say the, in general, more paved roads/better maintained roads is a net benefit to an individual? So, as he’s trying to show he gets no new benefits, he shows how he does get benefits in the particular example of this metaphorical road.

    In addition, he seems to say that he doesn’t actually have a problem getting taxed more – just that he has a problem with the efficiency of the government. He says he’d give “all that [he] has” if he thought it was going somewhere useful. Unless you are trying to make the argument that any form of government is inherently inefficient – which does not sound like what is being said.

  • December 2, 2011 at 5:00pm

    Have a little more respect for our soldiers. You‘re saying that some of them might just kill other soldiers because they’re homosexual. Not only that, but in the most cowardly way – shooting them in the back while they are fighting alone side them.

    You are a schmuck.

  • December 2, 2011 at 4:59pm

    Have a little more respect for our soldiers. You’re saying that some of them might just kill other soldiers because they’re homosexual. Not only that, but in the most cowardly way – shooting them in the back while they are fighting alone side them.

    You are a schmuck.

  • December 2, 2011 at 4:50pm

    Why were they two acts even in the same law? Sodomy is not just homosexual intercourse. Heterosexuals engage in sodomy extremely often – oral sex is, by definition, sodomy. So, as crass as it sounds – I’m all for any solider that would want to get/give a b—j–, engage in c—-l—–, or engage in a— s– and not get discharged.

  • December 1, 2011 at 12:17pm


    … are you really supposing that anyone had anything to gain from how this, in my opinion, useless study came out? I don’t believe the area of faith-sports relations is an active area of research, and if it is, it really shouldn’t be. But people get degrees for all sorts of odd things. Anyways, this just produces a relatively shaky statistic that I put in the coincidence category that people will bring up as if it means something. Like when people pull statistics on which gender does statistically better on the SATs or some such non-sense.