Pangloss

There are actually a few movies that don't get subtitles on DVD. I saw one last year, noticing it just by chance. I think it's pretty rare, though, because it's an easy way for the studio to help out those with hearing problems without disturbing regular viewers (since they're turned off by default). I don't know what the situation is like in Pakistan but it wouldn't surprise me if they see a hodgepodge of DVDs from other regions on their markets, and thus may need other kinds of language support. I really have no idea how that sort of thing might be done, though. You'll have to check some DVD-related forums.

He hasn't dropped out of the race (yet), he's just asking people to caucus for Omaba if they won't caucus for him. It happens every now and then but it's generally considered poor strategy. You'll rarely see a top-tier candidate do something like that because it more or less acknowledges the fact that they're not going to win, and you want your candidate to not sound defeatist. It will also cost him voters who were leaning in a different direction, such as Edwards.

And yet that's okay because they're Democrats. People "feel more comfortable" with Democrats expressing those kind of illogical, anti-scientific beliefs. But when Republicans express them, even with the same caveats, watch out! Doom and gloom! I think the Bush administration has given people valid cause to be concerned about the advancement of science under government tutelage. I just don't think they have a valid reason for being concerned about its advancement under Republicans, per se. That's Hollywood talking, not reality. All those bad guys in the movies, you know.

Good luck!

Is there any indication that the military dictatorship of Pakistan has fanatical followers willing to blow themselves up? I don't think I've ever heard anything like that from the media, but you never know what we get after it passes through a few wire services. Getting real info from the news media is like watching little children playing "I've Got a Secret" sometimes. The idea of working in secret cohoots with Al Qaeda might be a little more believable if it didn't pretty much fail the stink test. Still, if you'd told me that my own government would negotiate for hostages by selling arms to one group of terrorists and give the money to another group of terrorists in our own back yard I'd never have believed that either. But of course we did exactly that.

IA is clearly a member of the conspiracy to end this thread. Get him!

I got the Colbert book as well. I actually kinda liked it better than Stewart's, which I got a couple of years ago. Usually I think Stewart is the funnier of the two, but Colbert's book was more focused.

Remember, someone actually blew themselves up to make this happen. Is it really likely that that person was a follower of the military regime?

I didn't look for global warming humor, I looked for Al Gore humor, because I think he's funny. And my new applicance from yesterday's cookout!!!

It's how long it takes to read this thread!

We discussed this on the mod board and got permission to reopen this, we just have to make sure we keep the discussion focused on the political angle and not stray into religious discussion. I will be monitoring the thread closely. Thanks.

You know what, if he inspires someone to write a song that great I'll eat my words.

Lol, I'm gonna have iNow ressurrect the "definition of 'Christian values'" discussion just so you can explain to him how we're all celebrating your holiday, no matter what it may actually mean to us. I missed the fireworks last night, and I need my fix!

I was pondering this the other day, and let me just expand on what you're asking me a bit before I answer it. There are basically three questions here: 1) Does waterboarding acquire information? 2) Is waterboarding torture? 3) Should it be used? (Should we be "leading by example"?) My answers are as follows: 1) It sounds like it probably does (though I agree not in all cases, just as normal police techniques don't always get the right answers). 2) I don't know. I've never made up my mind on this. I believe at one point I had more or less decided that it was (in part because John McCain became convinced and stated as such). But I've read reasonable points of view suggesting that it is not. 3) IMO if it's torture it should not be used, but if it's not torture AND it produces results, then it should be used. So I don't have a clear answer to this question in my mind at this time, because questions 1 and 2 have not been answered to my satisfaction. I think that answers your question, but if not please tell me, because I think it's an excellent question. In part the problem is what constitutes torture. So there is a position that says, in essence, that that whether it constitutes torture or not, it should be banned, because of any combination of the following reasons: 1) The world views it as torture and objects to its use. 2) The majority of Americans object to its use. 3) The science is unable to tell us any more about psychological damage or quantify this damage for us. (Quite likely, really. Psychology can very vague about things like this.) 4) We (as a society) are unable to agree upon what constitutes torture. (Referring back to 1.) But if that's the case then it becomes more a matter of politics than human rights. And on that playing field I'm quite comfortable playing a tactical game, and in that game you keep waterboarding on the playing field for the time being because they don't call them "progressives" for nothing -- we all need to know we're not just playing a game of whack-a-mole here. I want to know ALL the forms of coercion that are used and ALL the ones that are objected to before ANY are removed from the table. Then I want a decision made, and then I want it to be agreed to and stuck with, until (at the very least) legitimate new science tells us otherwise.

Oh absolutely. Anything to get the jaded, TV-watching public back in the voting booths, I suppose. But in the overall scheme of things.... nah.

I think if you want to discuss religious socio-political history you should start another thread on that. It sounds like it could be interesting.

I think it most likely to be the extremists behind it. But I can certainly understand the doubt and mistrust the people have for their present leadership. Both sides seem to have valid reasons for pinning this on the other. But I think Al Qaeda is just as stupid as the military leadership if it thinks it can just walk all over such an intelligent, motivated, thoughtful and educated populace. It's never really worked for the military, and it would never work for the Muslim extremists either. Pakistan is not Afghanistan. (Isn't THAT amazing? Right next to each other, and yet so different!)

I agree, but IMO the basis for defining "these practices" has been validly called into question. Actually my question about nuking Baghdad was not a strawman because it was in response to this statement: I'm not trying to nit-pick you, I just think your statments come from an exaggerated position. However: That's fair enough, I have a high regard for your opinion in general and I can understand how you came to it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do agree with this.

I agree with this, though I don't think it makes us more like Al Qaeda. Less like the people we purport to be, though, definitely. Hmm, I don't think I can go along with that one. I think we attacked Iraq because of a misguided and poorly reasoned belief that Iraq was the root cause of a significant number of problems in the Middle East, not out of frustration or impotence or random flailing about in our anger. And what you're saying seems to me to be inconsistent with any published analyses I've read (though I certainly haven't read them all!), such as Bob Woodward's three books about the Bush administration. And Woodward is certainly no friend to Republicans or Bush! I've never seen any indication of an intent or policy to kill non-combatants in the war on terror. There have been many non-combatants killed, but so far as I know that was not the intent, nor were statements made expressing such a desire. Or am I misreading you somehow? Ditto the above, I don't believe that to be the case. Churches bombed due to incidental damage, certainly, but not due to any ill intent towards the Muslim faith. Just never seen any indication of this at all. We nuked Baghdad? Ok, they do this, but IMO you're equating us with Al Qaeda on such a level that any reasonable person would have to include all criminal investigators in the civilized world. I realize you don't agree, but let me ask you this: If there had not been any waterboarding would your opinion be any different? And if it isn't, is that really a fair generalization, or would it be more accurate to say that they simply screwed up on waterboarding? A perfectly reasonable point of view, IMO. I empathzie with a lot of what you're saying here, and I can understand where you're coming from. I guess I just don't see that fine a line between right and wrong. I think we have to bash these things out and figure out where the lines are.

I don't believe Ron Paul will have any significant impact on the election. Of course, I've been wrong before.

Do you feel more like Al Qaeda since 2001?

This is a joke that's been floating around the Internet that was apparently included in the Time "Man of the Year" article on Vladimir Putin, but I heard it from EJ Dionne on "This Week" last Sunday: ------ Stalin’s ghost appears to Putin in a dream, and Putin asks him for help running the country. Stalin says, ‘Round up and shoot all the democrats, and then paint the inside of the Kremlin blue.’ ‘Why blue?’ Putin asks. ‘Ha!’ says Stalin. ‘I knew you wouldn’t ask me about the first part.’

Wouldn't that definition allow ANY application of force to a subject so long as no pleasure was taken from the act? I'm not sure I agree with that definition.

I'm afraid I don't know nearly as much as I think I should about Pakistan's socio-political landscape. Every time I do read something it strikes me as a fascinating example of interworld politics -- a unique mishmash of vastly differing cultures. But I digress -- tonight's Lehrer report mentioned the jobs angle as well (that young men felt she would get jobs for them). That, obviously, would work against Al Qaeda's purpose (keep them unemployed and angry). And of course Bhuto was even more west-favorable than the current government. And she was a woman. And she was winning in the polls. Extremists, needing only one good reason, instead were given several. And a job that seemed incredibly difficult is now infinitely more so. I actually find myself looking back on the horrors of the previous weeks as being infinitely preferable -- a time of actual optimism in comparison with what her country now faces, and I wonder how this can possibly have been allowed to happen.