Please stop misquoting Orwel, he was talking about war not about abusing prisoners.
First of all, whoever Orwel was talking about, I did not "misquote" him — the quote is perfectly accurate.
As for who he was talking about — you are attempting to make a distinction without difference. The idea remains the same — you can abjure waterboarding as "stooping low" all you want, but you are only able to do that, because others are waterboarding your enemies on your behalf.
Hope you're feeling all snug and cozy under your blanket of US exceptionalism.
Yes, thank you, the only drawback of the US exceptionalism is the nasty butthurt it is causing among citizens of lesser countries...
Christopher Hitchens changed his tune afterwards.
I'm sure, Mr. Hitchens, whoever he is, did not like it — by all descriptions, it feels horrible. It does not change the facts I stated: waterboarding works by fear, rather than pain. That sets it aside from "torture".
It may still be "bad", or even "outside any civilized standard", but that's not what I was saying: it is not torture.
Your opinion in the matter is completely irrelevant
Why, thank you, why didn't you say so from the beginning? Until now I labored under assumption, that I'm facing a good faith opponent...
That you happily put yourself there
Happily? Where did you get the "happily" part? Of course, I'm very much unhappy, that we — the US — had to apply the questionable procedures to the captured enemies in order to save ourselves from actions of their still-at-large comrades. But we had to — broken spirits of the handful of bona-fide terrorists aren't worth the lives of Americans, civilians or otherwise, and I'm glad, the Bush Administration had "the minerals" to act as it did.
makes my point in highlighting how far the US has fallen.
You are displaying a fantastic naivette, if you believe, the US — like all others — have not used this and similar methods in the past. That we are now more open about it, rather than being "shocked, shocked, waterboarding is going on here", is a good sign.
what was breaking Kosovo from Serbia than? "use of out-of-this-world-force"?
Kosovo was torn away from Serbia to become independent — not to be annexed by one of the powers doing the tearing away. That's the major difference.
NATO fucked up when it broke sovereign state by use of... flowers?
NATO intervened in Yugoslavia after the Belgrade regime committed serious crimes against humanity — and only after the UN-forces demonstrably failed to end the abuses. Now Russian propaganda keeps repeating the same accusations against Ukraine's current government — except Russia is obviously lying.
But, no doubt, Putin will thank you for this rhetorical cover. He needs every sympathizer (or even a neutral) in the West he get...
Kosovo did not vote to join the US — nor any of the others, whose military was occupying the land.
Finally, would the British Empire accept a referendum by residents of it's colonies in the new world
As a matter of fact, India left the British empire without war. Look up Ghandi...
Those sorts of things are not achieved by throwing roses at your enemies.
We'll never know, what roses (or stones) Crimeans would've thrown at Kyiv on their own — had it been so clear-cut, Russia would not have had the need to occupy the peninsula before the referendum — nor would they have had the need to shut off Ukrainian TV rebroadcasts over it, replacing them with Putin's lying propaganda.
What we do know is that the fraudulent vote took place under the guns of the occupiers.
And yes I think if Texas voted to join Mexico the USA would accept it.
American Constitution does not provide for territories leaving the Union. At the least, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Interestingly, Ukrainian law does provide for such border-changes — they can happen by nationa-wide referendum...
I can't imagine the USA holding millions of people and hundreds of square miles of territory by force.
You have a very limited imagination then.
Now try imagining Russia letting Kurils Islands go... However hard you may try, you'll see only the same reaction, Russia has shown to Chechnya's vote for independence 20 years ago. We know, how that played out, don't we?
in due time all websites will list it under Russia.
Only the Russian websites will do so. The rest will list it as "Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation". Unwieldy, perhaps, but reflecting the truth.
Or, as they keep saying about Jerusalem, it will go something like this: "Annexed by Russia in a move not recognized internationally."
Russia annexed the province by use of force. Any and all counter-arguments like "but they voted" are meaningless: first, the voting took place under the "gentle" guidance of Russian military. Then, even if you think, it is legitimate for a referendum on whether to join a foreign power to take place while under occupation by that same power, the vote was fraudulent. For example, in Sevastopol the number of people showing up for vote was 123% of the eligible voters.
And, finally, even without the above two arguments, would Russia accept a referendum by residents of the Kuril Island, for example, on breaking away from the Motherland and joining Japan? Would the US accept the results of Southern California (or Southern Texas) voting to break away and join Mexico?
Neither would, of course. The Crimean referendum is a joke. A sad joke perpetrated by Russia-the-bully on Ukraine weakened by internal strife and years of mismanagement (to which Russia heartily contributed just for this purpose, BTW).
Some of the nastier conflicts saw their share of atrocities, but there was never an attempt to redefine and legalize torture.
And how do you know, that there was not? Because foreign democracies aren't as open as ours?
But, for the umpteenth + first time: waterboarding is not torture. Torture works via pain. Waterboarding causes not pain, but fear. Calling it "psychological torture" does not make it "torture" any more, than a guinea pig is a pig.
Stooping low is bad
Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf. —George Orwel
Yeah, I see that argument a lot. I am a heterosexual man in a 28 year marriage in which we have not, and never intended, to "produce children".
So by your logic, my marriage is no better than that of two men.
Yes, indeed, your "marriage" is a fraud — had you honestly declared your intentions to whoever issued you the marriage-license, they would not (or should not) have issued one to you.
You are, of course, entitled to love, cherish, and have sex with whoever you please, but for the rest of the society to consider your union as something particularly noteworthy and privileged (such as marriage), simply living together and having sex is not enough. If the State has any legitimate reasons to recognize unions, instead of simply considering the union-members individually before the law, the unions must be producing children.
Go read about the origins of marriage
No, why don't you present the points you wish to argue, rather than send me collecting them for you?
which is more like slavery and men's property rights
That may be (or has been) the contract between the partners. Our argument here is about the society's recognition of the partnerships — whether or not to bestow the respect and the legal privileges traditionally granted to children-producing unions to all other cohabitating couples (and why not groups, BTW? or will that come later?) having (or having had at some point) sex?
But, see, I am not trying to do business as the owner of said file copy and profit therein.
A distinction without difference to the point I was making. You copied a file created by someone else. That someone else's own copy is still in place and just the same, therefor, the prevailing logic went, your copying can not be called "theft". What you do with the copy your created after you created it (enjoy it yourself, show to others, attempt to profit) is completely irrelevant to whether your act is eligible for the sordid title...
Now, I had always held the opinion, that if the 10 Commandments were the same sort of "living and breathing document" that certain folks would like our Constitution to be, the Scripture would've by now included an injunction against such file copying together with the more general "Though Shall Not Steal". Unfortunately, mine was not the prevailing opinion — not around here. Not since the Napster infamy — until now, when, suddenly, the majority is realizing, the victims of such thefts can be perfectly relatable humans.
According to TFA, the terror attack included snipers shooting at the electrical equipment. That's not "imaginary", that's as real as it gets.
A hard-working and benevolent (as opposite to "lazy and greed") corporation would've been just as helpless against a determined group of attackers like that.
the criminally shoddy work of a corporation that managed to explode an entire neighborhood.
I don't think, it is fair to accuse a corporation of "shoddy work", when it took an armed group — sophisticated enough to be still at large — to cause the mayhem.
Or do you want each power-transmission mast to be guarded by soldiers? What about fiber-optic cables, which were cut — should that too be patrolled by the military — the alternative to "corporations" you despise so much? To me the "cure" you are implicitly proposing — nationalization of power- and Internet-infrastructure and heavily armed guards for all facilities — is worse than the disease.
Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday was brought before the Senate Energy Committee to explain why the FERC disseminated via insecure media a sensitive document describing where all the nation's power grids are particularly sensitive to a physical attack. FERC responded with assurances that databases are currently being scrubbed and procedures being implemented to safeguard critical data."
A little late to be scrubbing them now that the information is out there... Better begin addressing the enumerated problems ASAP instead.
For years highly-moderated posts on this very site kept repeating, that, because by copying a file one has taken nothing from the owner of the original, such copying can not be called "theft"...
And now this... What happened? Could we really be so shallow in our convictions, that they change to opposite as soon as the victim of a crime is someone we find easier to relate to? A small-time photographer vs. a large studio or a music label? Why is it Ok to steal from the latter, but not from the former?
For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture. At most, it is "torture-lite" — anything, from which the subject walks away without bodily harm, does not qualify.
Sorry, but pretty much anybody from the Bush era (and quite honestly a bunch who are still in Washington) has no business working at a place which has a privacy policy.
First of all, Obama's era is only worse in this regard. I understand — and share — your contempt for all government officials, because, regardless of the party they all tend to buy into the "government knows better" concept. But a company with a privacy policy must be able to balance users' privacy with the government's requests (and demands) for cooperation.
Whats worse, a AG who doesn't know or AG who knows and ignores it anyways.
Definitely the former. Absolutely. Because the law-enforcer ignorant of the law is likely to violate far more laws — in a worse manner — than the knowledgeable one, who'll only break those he must.
And, BTW, it remains rather arguable, whether Gonzales has broken any laws...
My thoughts exactly. How can the same people, who answer every criticism of a Black President with deep and loud suspic..., nay, accusations of racism, boycott a Black Secretary of State?
Not only are they racist themselves then, they are sexist too.
However there is a serious problem of pesticide producing crops
Regardless of how serious this problem is, it does not affect consumers — not directly, not even the "first-level" indirectly — unlike Comcast's shoddy practices. Whey then did Monsanto not only appear on the list run by an organization called Consumerist, but also made it to the close second among the worst?
The only explanation is that Monsanto's competitors are behind the hysteria.
Comcast narrowly edged out Monsanto in the finals with 51.5% of the vote.
The only reason I can see for Monsanto even appearing among "contestants" is the serious negative PR work by its competitors. Despite years of trying, anti-GMO crowd is yet to find a provable bad thing to say about GMO in general and Monsanto in particular.
All they have is FUD, but, apparently, very powerful FUD...
Andrew Sullivan — a prominent Illiberal — has drawn some fire upon himself by claiming, "we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
While Andrew's employment remains secure, I take an exception with this statement. Though there surely were (and remain) anti-gay bullies, I can not find a single case of a CEO being fired (or forced to resign) simply for being either a homosexual himself, or for supporting a homosexual cause. The only thing, that comes close is the US military — but even they stopped doing it over 20 years ago, when "don't ask don't tell was implemented".
This makes today's Illiberals not "no better", but worse than the "bullies of the past". Much worse...
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, whoever Orwel was talking about, I did not "misquote" him — the quote is perfectly accurate.
As for who he was talking about — you are attempting to make a distinction without difference. The idea remains the same — you can abjure waterboarding as "stooping low" all you want, but you are only able to do that, because others are waterboarding your enemies on your behalf.
Yes, thank you, the only drawback of the US exceptionalism is the nasty butthurt it is causing among citizens of lesser countries...
I'm sure, Mr. Hitchens, whoever he is, did not like it — by all descriptions, it feels horrible. It does not change the facts I stated: waterboarding works by fear, rather than pain. That sets it aside from "torture".
It may still be "bad", or even "outside any civilized standard", but that's not what I was saying: it is not torture.
Why, thank you, why didn't you say so from the beginning? Until now I labored under assumption, that I'm facing a good faith opponent...
Happily? Where did you get the "happily" part? Of course, I'm very much unhappy, that we — the US — had to apply the questionable procedures to the captured enemies in order to save ourselves from actions of their still-at-large comrades. But we had to — broken spirits of the handful of bona-fide terrorists aren't worth the lives of Americans, civilians or otherwise, and I'm glad, the Bush Administration had "the minerals" to act as it did.
You are displaying a fantastic naivette, if you believe, the US — like all others — have not used this and similar methods in the past. That we are now more open about it, rather than being "shocked, shocked, waterboarding is going on here", is a good sign.
Kosovo was torn away from Serbia to become independent — not to be annexed by one of the powers doing the tearing away. That's the major difference.
NATO intervened in Yugoslavia after the Belgrade regime committed serious crimes against humanity — and only after the UN-forces demonstrably failed to end the abuses. Now Russian propaganda keeps repeating the same accusations against Ukraine's current government — except Russia is obviously lying.
But, no doubt, Putin will thank you for this rhetorical cover. He needs every sympathizer (or even a neutral) in the West he get...
Kosovo did not vote to join the US — nor any of the others, whose military was occupying the land.
As a matter of fact, India left the British empire without war. Look up Ghandi...
We'll never know, what roses (or stones) Crimeans would've thrown at Kyiv on their own — had it been so clear-cut, Russia would not have had the need to occupy the peninsula before the referendum — nor would they have had the need to shut off Ukrainian TV rebroadcasts over it, replacing them with Putin's lying propaganda.
What we do know is that the fraudulent vote took place under the guns of the occupiers.
American Constitution does not provide for territories leaving the Union. At the least, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Interestingly, Ukrainian law does provide for such border-changes — they can happen by nationa-wide referendum...
You have a very limited imagination then.
Now try imagining Russia letting Kurils Islands go... However hard you may try, you'll see only the same reaction, Russia has shown to Chechnya's vote for independence 20 years ago. We know, how that played out, don't we?
Only the Russian websites will do so. The rest will list it as "Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation". Unwieldy, perhaps, but reflecting the truth.
Or, as they keep saying about Jerusalem, it will go something like this: "Annexed by Russia in a move not recognized internationally."
Russia annexed the province by use of force. Any and all counter-arguments like "but they voted" are meaningless: first, the voting took place under the "gentle" guidance of Russian military. Then, even if you think, it is legitimate for a referendum on whether to join a foreign power to take place while under occupation by that same power, the vote was fraudulent. For example, in Sevastopol the number of people showing up for vote was 123% of the eligible voters.
And, finally, even without the above two arguments, would Russia accept a referendum by residents of the Kuril Island, for example, on breaking away from the Motherland and joining Japan? Would the US accept the results of Southern California (or Southern Texas) voting to break away and join Mexico?
Neither would, of course. The Crimean referendum is a joke. A sad joke perpetrated by Russia-the-bully on Ukraine weakened by internal strife and years of mismanagement (to which Russia heartily contributed just for this purpose, BTW).
And how do you know, that there was not? Because foreign democracies aren't as open as ours?
But, for the umpteenth + first time: waterboarding is not torture. Torture works via pain. Waterboarding causes not pain, but fear. Calling it "psychological torture" does not make it "torture" any more, than a guinea pig is a pig.
Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf. —George Orwel
Yes, indeed, your "marriage" is a fraud — had you honestly declared your intentions to whoever issued you the marriage-license, they would not (or should not) have issued one to you.
You are, of course, entitled to love, cherish, and have sex with whoever you please, but for the rest of the society to consider your union as something particularly noteworthy and privileged (such as marriage), simply living together and having sex is not enough. If the State has any legitimate reasons to recognize unions, instead of simply considering the union-members individually before the law, the unions must be producing children.
No, why don't you present the points you wish to argue, rather than send me collecting them for you?
That may be (or has been) the contract between the partners. Our argument here is about the society's recognition of the partnerships — whether or not to bestow the respect and the legal privileges traditionally granted to children-producing unions to all other cohabitating couples (and why not groups, BTW? or will that come later?) having (or having had at some point) sex?
Perhaps, it could. But it did not, by all accounts, happen to the four or five thugs, who were subjected to waterboarding.
Only until they find it necessary to use it in order to defend their citizenry.
Insults... Ran out of arguments so quickly? How pathetic, yet how typical...
Citation needed.
You can not do even that (whatever it is called) to POWs, Geneva Conventions are quite explicit about it.
A distinction without difference to the point I was making. You copied a file created by someone else. That someone else's own copy is still in place and just the same, therefor, the prevailing logic went, your copying can not be called "theft". What you do with the copy your created after you created it (enjoy it yourself, show to others, attempt to profit) is completely irrelevant to whether your act is eligible for the sordid title...
Now, I had always held the opinion, that if the 10 Commandments were the same sort of "living and breathing document" that certain folks would like our Constitution to be, the Scripture would've by now included an injunction against such file copying together with the more general "Though Shall Not Steal". Unfortunately, mine was not the prevailing opinion — not around here. Not since the Napster infamy — until now, when, suddenly, the majority is realizing, the victims of such thefts can be perfectly relatable humans.
According to TFA, the terror attack included snipers shooting at the electrical equipment. That's not "imaginary", that's as real as it gets.
A hard-working and benevolent (as opposite to "lazy and greed") corporation would've been just as helpless against a determined group of attackers like that.
I don't think, it is fair to accuse a corporation of "shoddy work", when it took an armed group — sophisticated enough to be still at large — to cause the mayhem.
Or do you want each power-transmission mast to be guarded by soldiers? What about fiber-optic cables, which were cut — should that too be patrolled by the military — the alternative to "corporations" you despise so much? To me the "cure" you are implicitly proposing — nationalization of power- and Internet-infrastructure and heavily armed guards for all facilities — is worse than the disease.
A little late to be scrubbing them now that the information is out there... Better begin addressing the enumerated problems ASAP instead.
For years highly-moderated posts on this very site kept repeating, that, because by copying a file one has taken nothing from the owner of the original, such copying can not be called "theft"...
And now this... What happened? Could we really be so shallow in our convictions, that they change to opposite as soon as the victim of a crime is someone we find easier to relate to? A small-time photographer vs. a large studio or a music label? Why is it Ok to steal from the latter, but not from the former?
So did Abraham Lincoln...
For the umpteenth time: waterboarding is not torture. At most, it is "torture-lite" — anything, from which the subject walks away without bodily harm, does not qualify.
First of all, Obama's era is only worse in this regard. I understand — and share — your contempt for all government officials, because, regardless of the party they all tend to buy into the "government knows better" concept. But a company with a privacy policy must be able to balance users' privacy with the government's requests (and demands) for cooperation.
Definitely the former. Absolutely. Because the law-enforcer ignorant of the law is likely to violate far more laws — in a worse manner — than the knowledgeable one, who'll only break those he must.
And, BTW, it remains rather arguable, whether Gonzales has broken any laws...
And I am going to install their app on my parents' phones too now, whereas before I only had it my own.
I'll certainly take Mr. Gonzales over Mr. Holder, who, without being much of an expert in anything (not even manners or sense of decorum), presided over dramatic expansion of warrant-less surveillance.
My thoughts exactly. How can the same people, who answer every criticism of a Black President with deep and loud suspic..., nay, accusations of racism, boycott a Black Secretary of State?
Not only are they racist themselves then, they are sexist too.
Being recognized by the rest of society as "married" is not a human right.
Regardless of how serious this problem is, it does not affect consumers — not directly, not even the "first-level" indirectly — unlike Comcast's shoddy practices. Whey then did Monsanto not only appear on the list run by an organization called Consumerist, but also made it to the close second among the worst?
The only explanation is that Monsanto's competitors are behind the hysteria.
The only reason I can see for Monsanto even appearing among "contestants" is the serious negative PR work by its competitors. Despite years of trying, anti-GMO crowd is yet to find a provable bad thing to say about GMO in general and Monsanto in particular.
All they have is FUD, but, apparently, very powerful FUD...
Andrew Sullivan — a prominent Illiberal — has drawn some fire upon himself by claiming, "we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
While Andrew's employment remains secure, I take an exception with this statement. Though there surely were (and remain) anti-gay bullies, I can not find a single case of a CEO being fired (or forced to resign) simply for being either a homosexual himself, or for supporting a homosexual cause. The only thing, that comes close is the US military — but even they stopped doing it over 20 years ago, when "don't ask don't tell was implemented".
This makes today's Illiberals not "no better", but worse than the "bullies of the past". Much worse...