Skip to main content

Jackie Chan! Jet Li!

Oh, Rapturous Joy!

Fixed link?

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Something special about this?
Synova said…
Infidel!

Oh, okay. Not everyone is a kung fu junkie I suppose. And our differences make the world a more interesting place. ;-)
Ymarsakar said…
I have nothing against Bruce Lee, I admire him actually, but these kung fu movies just take too long in fights. It don't take that long to kill somebody and even hardened warriors get tired of swinging the sword against a horde of enemies eventually.

There's always that delicate balance between style and efficiency. Lawfare, for example, is a style and is the system by which a style is maintained. That style being self-deterministic and totally arbitrary. Efficiency, however, deals completely and only with the facts on the ground and with the situation as both what it is and what you want it to be.
blake said…
It got yanked. :-(
Synova said…
NO!!!!
blake said…
Maybe it's just me?
Synova said…
OH, you meant the trailer.

I thought you meant the movie!!

I'll see if I can find a new one that works.
blake said…
No, I meant Jackie Chan and Jet Li! Completely vanished!!
blake said…
Well, did you see it?

We liked it!
Synova said…
It was great.

I thought the American kid did a very good job as well, despite the complaining about him. I think he was cast because he *can* do martial arts and not because he's a great actor but I thought his acting was fine.

Sparrow was great.

Jackie Chan and Jet Li were wonderful, as always. I didn't recognize their alter-egos at first and didn't know the one character was Jackie until the end. And I didn't see the "twist" coming at with the Monkey King even though it was established quite well before hand.

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...