• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Ran

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Blood of Dragons
    Balerion (Admin), Aidan Dayne, Rhodry Martell

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Westeros! History (ancient and medieval), SF/F, adventure and strategy gaming, MUSHes and MUXes (but not MUDs), Linda.

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

110,706 profile views
  1. There's no physical consequence, so it's not a use of force. It is a very bad thing, of course. I'm just saying that the United States has some very tight definitions of what constitutes war, an enemy, and treason, and there's a reason behind that. Maybe the definitions need to change, but what we have right now is what we have.
  2. "Could" being operative. When it happens, we'll cross that bridge. Until then, Russia has not crossed the "use of force" line, is not an enemy as defined by law, and no treason can happen. I'm not opposed to changing the laws on these things, but isn't the whole point of protesting Trump that we are a nation of laws, a fact that he and his enablers and cronies flout? That is the sort of rhetoric I'd expect from Infowars.
  3. "Act of war" is more a political term than a legal term. International law doesn't really use the phrase "act of war". It's "use of force" or "armed attack". I recall some years back when there was anxiety that Stuxnet was a "declaration of war" against Iran, preparing the way for a military invasion. As of a few years ago, here's what a State Department representative said on the subject: Clearly, Russia's intervention in the election does not rise to the level of being a use of force.
  4. We have other laws that can be brought to bear. Espionage, for example. But treason really requires open warfare, and for good historical reasons, namely that the framers of the Constitution had witnessed how treason was broadly applied by British monarchs to silence political enemies, and they did not want to repeat this in the United States. At this point in time, no one in the White House or its campaigns have committed treason, as the U.S. is not at war with Russia (or Turkey for that matter, re: Flynn). I'm fine with this. There's a host of other crimes the scoundrels are likely guilty of, crimes that would put them away for a very long time if it comes to that. (It's also worth noting that no one has been _executed_ for treason since the Civil War; most found guilty of it in relation to WWII had their sentences commuted or were pardoned after a period of time, even; in general, the trend of modern governance has been away from treason as being something given extraordinary weight.) It is not. The President can legally declassify whatever he wants. It was monumentally stupid at best, malevolent at worst, but it was legal.
  5. “Cyberwar” is not “War”. Per the Supreme Court, you need assemblages of people using force. Treason has a nice ring to it, but for extremely good reasons the laws of the country make it very, very specific and with a very high bar.
  6. Robert Hansen got his pension despite almost two decades of spying for the Soviets, for that matter. The McCabe situation stinks to high heaven.
  7. It's not treason per the laws of the United States. Treason is making war on the U.S, or "adhering to its enemies". However, "enemies" is defined in law as fairly narrow: nations that have declared war on the U.S. or are involved in open warfare against it. We are not at war with Russia by any conventional sense of the word, no more than we are at war with China. It's certainly disloyal, but it's not treason.
  8. That sounds bizzare to me. Yes, there's a few script calls as an ad is served, but this should not under any circumstances be taxing your computer. Have you tried clearing out your caches? It may be you've a corrupted cache file that's getting called on.
  9. You're absolutely right. I have to assume this is a Netflix or Marvel mandate to the show runners of the Marvel shows, but if so, it's clearly the wrong move.
  10. I think if they had moved into The Pulse, they could have done quite a bit more. Anyways, they just seem to stick themselves into a rut trying to spin out a 13-episode storyline.
  11. Windows or Mac? It is very strange, certainly.
  12. Oh, Disney has known the film has been a problem for a lot longer than its release date. Pretty sure they got the same negatives from internal viewings as they did from the public. I'd say it's likelier that Disney was having doubts ... lets see, filming wrapped March 2017, they probably had a cut with some VFX and scoring by September. Maybe DC decided to throw her a lot of money to woo her away from the Disney family and the rumored Star Wars project, but then I'd say Disney wasn't likely to have put up much of a fight. Will be curious to see what more rumors come out of this regarding fallout with Disney. I do agree trying something totally new is probably an idea for them (the Vertigo titles still strike me as richer territory, and more relevant too), but DuVernay does not strike me as the person to depend upon. I can understand taking a gamble on an unknown -- Patty Jenkins basically did TV work after Monster, and WW was definitely something of a leap for her -- but with DuVernay they _know_ she failed to deliver on a big budget VFX-driven film, so why bank on her to do another one especially if there's a hope of finally finding some territory they can build on successfully since they've repeatedly failed on the standard DC superhero front? I'm mystified. Then again, I was mystified that Colin Trevorrow was picked to handle Star Wars IX, but naturally unsurprised when he was ditched. Hollywood works in mysterious ways.
  13. Warren Ellis needs his day in the sun, re: adaptation. Planetary could be amazing, Also, I'm late to this, but I see last month Ta-Nehisi Coates was moving from BP to Captain America. I'm excited by this, given Coates's remarks on his wrestling with the character and what he means without falling into the mental trap of simply assuming the worst. Certainly will be better than Steve Rogers, Secret Nazi.
  14. There was this rumor or theory that Disney handed A WRINKLE IN TIME to DuVernay to set her up for a Star Wars film or films... and she jumps ship to Warner Bros. If the rumors were credible, then the only conclusion is that Disney realized DuVernay was a much chancier bet than they had thought after seeing how that film shaped up given its poor reception. I don't trust WB's instincts at all when it comes to the DC properties post-Nolan. They've struck gold just once since, in WW, and have mostly made a variety of bad choices (Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder, Zack Snyder, losing Affleck, throwing Whedon into the grinder of trying to finish Snyder's disaster when there's simply no match visually between them, canning Whedon's Batgirl). So at both ends, the studio and the director, I've little hope for NEW GODS at this stage. And, frankly, chances are better than 50-50 that it never sees the light of day given how much WB vacillates over its enormous envy of what Marvel accomplished and what it has so far failed to replicate. IMO, DC would be smarter to agree to kick a lot of money to the Vertigo creators to adapt some of their works, to take an approach to heroes radically different from what Marvel offers.
  15. I'm refreshing my memory on the original Brian Bendis comics, and they definitely had storylines they haven't even come close to touching -- a couple of which would be, I think, pretty readily adaptable. It's funny, actually, that they basically used only the barest-bones of Bendis's original comic -- the Purple Man, a relationship with Luke Cage, a car accident leading to her powers (very different circumstances, though) -- and while it worked fine the first season, I'm much less convinced by this season. I'll put it down to the creative team, and whatever reason they're stuck making 13 hour movies when pretty much each and every one of their shows has had serious problems with having to stretch out a story that far.