The Wrath

I'll be seeing it tomorrow. I am quite sure I will disagree with its explicit philosophy, but I'm going to let myself get lost in the visuals and characters that, from what I hear, are very well-developed.

Can you put this in layman's terms? Afraid I'm not much of a Constitutional scholar.

The thing about Hitchens is that it's very difficult to figure out what he actually believes about anything. He does a great job debunking religion, but he doesn't overtly replace it with anything. I'm sure he has his own beliefs, but no one seems to know what they are. I have heard him talk about Ayn Rand with a certain degree of respect, but I feel certain that he disagrees with much of her philosophy.

Why is someone's view on Ayn Rand so often used as a litmus test on these forums? Imagine all the people in American history that you admire. Many of them held beliefs that were diametrically opposite of some of Rand's positions. Yet you do not condemn them. Let's not apply a different standard to people who happen to have lived during her lifetime.

Unlike Obama's bow, which verged on prostration, kissing on the cheek really is just a friendly gesture in the Middle East.

Her Royal Hiney?

You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Mental illness is not a requirement for self-immolation, and I challenge you to find a single psychological study that will argue such. Willingness to commit self-immolation or suicide terrorism is, if nothing else, a demonstration of the malleability of the human mind, such that people can be brainwashed into committing such acts. If it were mental illness, then we should expect to see similar rates of such behavior across all societies, since "mental illness" is not something under our conscious control, but is caused by a number of deterministic factors. The facts are otherwise. It isn't even true across different eras of the same culture. Last time I checked, Japan didn't still have kamikaze pilots or people committing sepukku. The argument that terrorists must be crazy is essentially a circular argument...it's the same as saying that all people who commit suicide are crazy. You say "terrorists are crazy." When asked how you know, you say "because they commit acts of self-immolation." When asked why that makes them crazy, you say "because self-immolation is crazy." You are ignoring the cultural context. Within certain cultures suicide terrorism is not necessarily irrational. Before anyone accuses me of saying that suicide terrorism isn't irrational, what I mean is that--given a strong religious belief as a starting point--if you believe that eternal paradise awaits you for blowing yourself up, then (within the context of that belief) blowing yourself up is not an irrational decision. What you have is an irrational starting point, but the train of thought that leads from that starting point to the ultimate result can be entirely rational...and it can be done by a sane person. I recommend the US govt study "Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why" for a more detailed discussion on why mental illness does not go hand-in-hand with terrorism.

What I find most worrying about this movie is that NASA is actually having to devote some of its time and resources to disprove idiots who think the world is actually going to end in 2012 because of the Mayan calendar. Nevermind that the Mayan calendar doesn't actually predict the world will end but, rather, a new calendar cycle will begin. Jesus Christ, people are fucking gullible.

Will there be a video available to watch, for those of us who live far away?

Give me a break. Nothing in the quote you just provided could even possibly be taken as a sanction for this type of behavior, except by a mindless conspiracy nut. Judging by your posts in this thread, you fit the bill. What would I take as evidence? How about Obama calling for jihad against the infidels? Or saying that it was "society's fault." Or saying that it was America's fault for fighting wars that forced him to choose between his country and his religion. I haven't heard of any comparable statements made by Obama. And, sorry, but you're wrong when you say it was an act of terrorism. I'm not usually one to be a Nazi about using proper definitions, but it irritates me when people use the most derogatory term they can think of, just to underline their disdain for whoever they happen to be speaking against. See my previous posts regarding use of the word "savage," if you need another example. So, here it goes...terrorism is by definition committed against civilians. Call it evil if you wish. But calling it terrorism is factually incorrect, and I strongly suspect that neither you nor anyone else would be using that word had it been a Christian who yelled out "In the name of Christ" before he opened fire. Was he an Islamic radical? The answer to that question is muddled, at best. Admittedly, some of the evidence is pretty damning. But some of it just doesn't add up...why would he spend enough time in the Great Satan's military to achieve the rank of major, if he were an Islamic radical? It also looks like there was a good chance that he was mentally ill.

I'll see it when Netflix gets it. I'm not just not willing to pay $10 to see Roland Emmerich's latest formulaic popcorn showcase for special effects. In terms of utter lack of artistic merit, this guy rivals Michael Bay.

For once, I agree with Jake. Where is the evidence that Obama sympathizes with crazed gunmen? Or Islamic terrorists? Whatever flaws Obama's foreign policy has, I don't think you can genuinely accuse him of sympathizing with the cause of Islamic terrorists. At worst, he just opposes America's involvement in the current military actions abroad.

I generally find that The Onion is very South Parkian in its take on politics. Like South Park, it doesn't overtly express libertarian viewpoints so much as it lampoons all the people who deserve it. ...plus, who doesn't laugh when they read the title "Kitchen Floor Conflict Intensifies as Rival Housecats Claim Same Empty Bag."

There's bowing as a sign of courtesy and bowing like you would bow to an emperor. In my limited experience, a courtesy bow--that is the equivalent of shaking hands--is little more than a slight inclination of the spine and a tilting of the head. Obama, instead, nearly made a right angle with his spine. And, if you'll notice, there is no reciprocation, suggesting it was more than a courtesy. If he has to bow to a monarch, however, I'd rather it be one from a modern, more-or-less rights-respecting country like Japan, rather than that relic of the medieval world known as Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, he's done that too. Paine and Jefferson are rolling over in their graves. ...though to be fair, John Adams did bow to George III, upon becoming ambassador to England.

It never ceases to amaze me how popular this topic is on this board. Tread carefully.

Can you briefly describe who these people are? I'm afraid I've never heard of them.

This is good news...too bad the ruling will only have effect in DC.

I was in downtown Washington for unrelated reasons (i.e. I live there) and happened upon the protest, not even knowing it was going to be happening. I took some pictures and will post them, if I ever manage to fix whatever's wrong w/ my internet.

Uhh...he's not being banned. He's being fired. And the radio station has every right to do so.

I tried that, at first, then realized that it makes more sense to continue arguing with him. He seems dense enough that using rational argumentation isn't likely to make him see things any differently but, hopefully, fence-sitters who read the conversation will be less apt to be taken in by his ignorant, simplistic view of the situation.

For someone who likes to accuse others of evasion, this is rather ironic. You never even attempted to address my arguments, except by reference to ethereal concepts which you utterly failed to connect to any concrete reality. Then, when called on to do so, you declare that you don't feel obligated to consider them. Genius. I can't argue with her, because she's dead. Even if I could, we'd be talking about different things...the Middle East has changed in the past 30 years.

No, it's not. Using "savage" to describe the society of pre-Columbian native Americans might be accurate. A better term for Middle Eastern political systems might be antiquated, backwards, or medieval. Even so, Israel has one neighbor (Jordan) that is--if not by Western standards, certainly by Middle Eastern ones--relatively modern and progressive. The use of the term "savage" to describe modern Arab political systems is just a way of using the most derogatory word you can think of, despite the fact that it is not accurate. If you want to use "savage" to describe Middle Eastern politics, I suggest you come up with a new word to describe the actual savage societies of pre-Columbian America. In fact, the phrase "savage political system" is pretty much an oxymoron. If your society has something that can rightly be called a political system, it has--by definition--progressed beyond the definition of "savage." Every discussion I've had with you on the topic of the Middle East has proved that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have principles--in and of itself, not at all a bad thing--that you try to apply without even a basic understanding of the situation. As such, you don't know how to apply those principles. It would be like trying to apply the "do not initiate force" principle against the Allied Navy, for showing up on the beaches of Normandy and shooting up the Germans, seemingly without provocation. It's only when you have a basic grasp of the surrounding context that you can begin to apply principles and realize that, yes, maybe the Allies had a point when they decided to attack the Germans. You don't have that, as has been proved by the several times I have asked you the most basic, factual questions I could think of regarding the modern history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The questions I've asked have not been ones where principles or values will change the answer. They have been factual, and you have been utterly unable to answer them. In fact, when I have asked, you have, instead, gone on to criticize my "unprincipled" stance, as a way of avoiding having to reveal the fact that you didn't know the answers. Had you known the answers, you would have simply answered, and then gone on to criticize whatever weaknesses you found in my arguments. Lesson: learn something about the conflict before trying to discuss it.

I think a better question is to ask why he proclaims to effectively worship Ayn Rand.

Con Te Partiro

I remember seeing part of Excalibur when I was younger, but don't remember much about it. I'll have to add it to my Netflix queue. Still, it would be nice to see it redone with 21st century production values. I actually liked the Clive Owen version, but that was more about the historical basis for the Arthur legend, rather than the legend itself.