Pangloss

Then why don't you apply the same reasoning to both sides, iNow? Why do you only hold the opposition to that standard? Would you like me to give you an example of how you've failed to hold your side to your standard within this very thread?

This question came from Dan Rather to his panelists in his HDNet show on separation the other night: If a student in a literature class asks about a passage in Shakespeare that comes from the Bible, should the teacher be allowed to explain the story behind that passage, so that the student will better understand what Shakespeare was trying to say? I'm paraphrasing that a bit because the question came in a certain context that doesn't translate here, but I think it's a great example because I really don't think anyone here would disagree with the teacher being allowed to explain that biblical story in a secular manner, right? But that makes it a perfect example of how the "wall" isn't really a wall at all. It has exceptions that BOTH sides (or most of both sides) agree to.

High school football games are an old establishment clause battleground. More or less forgotten today; I believe the secular side won that one.

That's not a straw man, it's an observation and statement of opinion. It may be off subject, but if it's not intended to refute anything specific, but just expand on his point of view, then not only is it valid, it's WELCOME. We INVITE that sort of thing here, iNow. This is what I mean by the SFN Talking Points Memo and ideological ostracization on this board. This right here.

Yah I don't think it was appropriate either. I do think the establishment clause is overinterpreted by the secular left. The "wall" is passed through by millions of religious Americans every day. Recognizing somebody's religious beliefs is not the same as establishing them or harming someone else's. There's no harm or establishment in blessing a football game or opening a meeting with a prayer, unless you're forcing everyone to participate. The far left doesn't want equality or fairness, they want an anti-religious agenda pushed forward. The word is "progressive", after all. We did X one year, so next year we need to do X+1. Just like, you know, those evil corporations and their profit margins (we made X last year, next year we need to make X+1). Progressives, capitalists, everyone's in it for something. That having been said, the hysteria going the other way has been ridiculous as well, and portraying this thing as a war has been counterproductive. Was it okay for people to come to government hearings and state their opinions? Absolutely. Was it necessary to fight against the "war on Christmas", no. This is the down side of the great awakening brought about by conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel, etc. But I still believe that over the long haul we're going to be better for it. Now people have an opportunity to see that the battle itself was a waste of time and the divisiveness it brought about did more harm than good. Let's help them see that instead of fighting this pointless battle again. (And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster grant all of your horrorday wishes!)

Looks awesome!

Awesome job on the logo!

Is there an official definition of torture legally associated with the Geneva convention? And is waterboarding on that list?

Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel! Such an overlooked album. I was just listening to that a couple weeks ago. Bah, he's no Roger Waters. He is one of the all-time great guitarists, though. Have you ever seen the "Dark Side of the Moon" documentary? It's a new feature made just a few years ago with some great interviews and some great parts where Gilmour goes over some of his solos in detail for the camera. A must for any Floyd fan. You can rent it from Netflix. I briefly dated one of Water's g/f's back in the '80s, btw. Ain't I somethin'?

I do agree that the Wikipedia is not an academic source, but when the entire purpose of the page is to promote a specific concept, the page is record-locked and about as peer-reviewed as any academic source, then it is, at least for our purposes here, perfectly citable. That page is the central rallying point for everyone who promotes that cause, and they wouldn't let inaccurate data on that score last 13 picoseconds without somebody smacking the Revert button. That having been said, you might have been best served by just answering his question. The source for that information is stated on the Wikipedia page as the IPCC report. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf (Warning: PDF)

That actually wouldn't surprise me though if a vegan did have an adverse reaction to McD's. I've noticed that whenever I make any kind of major change in my regular dietary habits there's an adjustment period, during which time my body goes a little nuts (especially in the digestion), so I can imagine that in a more extreme change you might see more extreme results. I wonder if anybody's ever done a study on that.

That's a great list. Why no ELP?

I am having a hard time believing that that's why you want him to present that reference. I am concerned that you may be asking him to present that reference because you know he's in a beleaguered minority here, and you want to make things as difficult for him as possible. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17601364/led_zeppelin_the_full_report_from_david_fricke

They aren't, unless Dick, Harry, or you took out a loan you couldn't afford (or as Bascule properly points out, if someone ripped you off). It's just necessary for some on the left (especially Democratic presidential candidates) to portray that everyone is harmed if we don't bail out every single person who took out a home loan mortgage who cannot afford to pay it back. It's nothing more than a blatant attempt to present a false dilemma and thereby purchase votes. I agree with iNow. You're always going to have "Joes" failing to pay their debts. Sure, those failures always "ripple" through the economy, at least in the sense that somebody doesn't get paid because someone else made a bad decision at loan time. But what's far more important is that we avoid allowing some people's bad decisions to harm others, and by that I mean allowing banks to fail en masse because of poor regulation decisions and poor banking decisions. We can smooth over this bump, and that's exactly what the Fed is doing (correctly, IMO). Mind you, if I were a laissez faire capitalist I wouldn't do that either, I'd let those banks rot and come what may. I'm all for strategic bailouts and a carefully managed (but not overmanaged) economy, because it benefits most Americans while preserving our right to choose our fate, extend risk and (sometimes) fail without hurting others in the process.

"Only Sith Lords speak in absolutes." - ObiWan Kenobi (hehe)

Oh I see, you read the same stuff I did, you just think he's lying. Fair enough.

I think it's unfortunate to see Lomborg casually dismissed in this thread. He clearly does not deserve the Official Scientific American Global Warming Denier Badge(©2007 SciAm Inc All Rights Reserved). And it looks like the SFN Politically Correct Talking Points Memo has been distributed on Bjorn Lomborg. No further discussion allowed, nothing to see here, move along.

From Page 1 of the written version of the ABC News story: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3978231&page=1 On a primal level I don't really "get" it either, and that may be part of the problem here. I suspect that once you actually went through it you would find out very quickly how awful it is. I could just see myself sitting there, picturing everything from electricity to steak knives, and finding out that I'm only going to be "waterboarded", and there's just no way I think I would have the same kind of fear going into that event. But there's a quote in that story where the CIA man says that the terrorist in question lasted about 36 seconds, and the ABC reporter said something like "that's a long time" -- I was surprised by this. If it induces that much torture in only 36 seconds it must be one hell of an awful experience. Kinda like tasering -- just looking at it, it just doesn't seem like it could possibly be that big of a deal. But of course it is, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

The way I see this is that putting ourselves in other people's shoes, trying to step above our various angers and torments, that's a luxury, not a responsibility. Sometimes we can afford it, other times we cannot. But it's never required of us to behave that way. It's not something we owe anyone. It's a privilege and usually the right thing to do. But that's it. Sometimes -- not always -- I'll settle for forcing other people to obey the more basic rules of existence, even if I'm hypocritical in doing so, and that includes stopping them from killing my fellow countrymen and exacting the ultimate price in retribution when they do so. Over time, when the dust has settled, I'll be happy to step back and put more civilized rules back in place. Not only am I okay with that, but I'm not really interested in whether other people see that as hypocritical. They're not perfect either, and if they're incapable of seeing my pluses on balance then that's a failing in THEM, not in me. The wonder of the world right now is not that Americans have made themselves unpopular in the world, but that the world has made America unpopular. They're wrong. Not us. NOT that we haven't made mistakes, I'm talking about on balance here. They're wrong to condemn us on the balance for those mistakes. Hypocrtically and wrong. Look around this thread and tell me who the extremists are. Here's a suggestion for making that call: Which amongst us think this is an easy call? Which think it's a hard one? We talked recently in another thread about how the founding fathers created this country as a nation of argument and debate, not resolution and unity. I think that was never more obvious than it is with this subject right here.

Well that's true, and if there's anything Morgan Spurlock HAS proven, it's that you CAN survive on McDonald's!

Ok, that could be, it's a really long article with an 8-part video series, and I don't know if that information is reflected in the written component. He talks about it in the video portion.

That was BEFORE he was waterboarded. Afterwards, according to this analyst, he gave up key intelligence that directly lead to saving lives. Yes, if you read the article I linked that's exactly what this analyst did.

I think the lead-by-example argument is probably the most persuasive one I've read here. That's just my personal opinion, of course, but it seems like the most compelling argument. I agree that this is nasty stuff and being a compromise-oriented person I'm not opposed to banning it and having done. I guess my concern, like many of those opposed to this, is at a higher level -- are we going so far in banning coercive measures that we're making it too difficult to defend ourselves against these kinds of extremists? Germans would sit down with their captives and build a rapport with them over time. How well do you guys think that would work with an Al Qaeda dude? You think he'll have a little tea, play a little chess, and spill the beans? These are not normal people caught up in a war beyond their understanding or control. They're zealots, and they're not going to tell us anything while they are comfortable and safe. As I said, I'm not willing to stoop all the way down to their level just to fight this thing. If this is to be a war of principle, then we should certainly stand by ours, and not exchange them for theirs. But I'm okay with doing something more than simple imprisonment, and I don't think that fact alone distances us from our principles. But in this case apparently it worked. Do you have any evidence that this CIA analyst is lying?

And anybody who suggests otherwise is a Torture Denier, and will be featured in the next edition of the SFN Politically Correct Talking Points Memo. Oh believe me, I get it. But I think you can do better than that. Take another look at the posts above that share my doubt.