chucK

Hey KkkKkk what do you think about stuffing someone hands-tied, headfirst into a sleeping bag, then sitting on his chest and punching him until he dies? I guess we have not heard the president saying, "we do not murder." As far as psychological torture, what about Jose Padilla subjected to years of sensory deprivation. That could fuck you up more than pulling out fingernails ever would. Here's the picture of when they brought Padilla out of his cell for dental work. I'm sure he needs those blinders and ear-muffs for security reasons, eh? And he was subjected to all of this before he was even tried in a court. Scary shit. Face it. We've got a torture operation going on out in Guantanamo, and a an unknown number of secret prisons, as well as a program that sends guys to places where we know they will be tortured (probably in ways that even you would agree is torture. It's amazing that you call a bunch of Senators publicly condemning an individual's words Stalinism, and on the same day defend our government's detention and torture of individuals with no legal due process. Calling Rush names = Stalinism! Bush running a Gulag = uncomfortable? Fuck!

ouch! note to self? cc: entire world

Hey Sudoku geeks! Here's a couple of 'em (attached Excel file). One is pretty damn hard. See if you can tell which. 3805-sudhard.xls

Yeah that Nobel Prize committee certainly did not do their homework on vetting that guy. They should have known that that guy would make a stupid statement 45 years in the future. Sheesh, what an embarrassment! (psst...I think someone is suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome.)

Agreed. There are obviously many factors in play in these complicated world events. Why are you compelled to believe that anytime someone makes a point about one of these factors that they are implying it is the only factor?

Gosh thanks for that info. Did you get any farting data? Why do you hate cc.com? (and America)

Yeah, and ban all bean exports to China!

Underworld, Your argument that we need to do every bit possible basically leads to the conclusion that we can't satisfy your demands until we all kill ourselves (and take as many with as possible). It would be a good idea to minimize our impact for global warming issues as well as lots of others (pollution, dependence, etc.), but I think you would agree that don't have to go as far as obliterating our methane producing bodies from the planet. There is some reasonable middle ground. From the data that's out there now (as I understand it) we are not at that middle ground (sustainability). Until we have a target for what we really need to do, it seems reasonable to preach conservation. It also seems reasonable to try to light a fire under leadership's ass in terms of agreeing there is a problem to work on and to allot resources towards working on it, instead of making shit up and distorting the issue.

Yes, sadly "creating a commission" (or blue-ribbon panel of industry experts), is usually as big a lie as "the check's in the mail". But also sadly, it's amazing that we haven't even come to the delay stage on this one yet. We're still in the deny and distort phase. I think that's gonna change pretty soon though.

Yes that is a good idea. Right now, it is unclear to me, what the cost-benefit analysis would say. That should be done. Obviously, this is a little bigger than the cc.com braintrust, and our leaders with their resources should be working on this intelligently. Unfortunately our leaders right now are avoiding any thoughtful examination of the issue not just by avoiding research but actually muzzling it. Quoting some right-wing whacko blog saying we're powerless because the Chinese fart too much is a lame cop out, and it supported by no more data than any left-wing whacko end-of-the-world tirade.

Two posts in a row by using the now standard argument of "It won't do any good unless EVERYBODY else helps out" (in the classic "you first" vein). You guys are all gungho about going it alone cowboy-style with respect to invading any damn nation we please. But when it comes to carbon emissions we (the biggest per capita contributor on Earth) are totally powerless to do anything unless everybody else helps out. What a load of shit.

Crass lasses pass massive ass gasses.

Assess classic mass passive agressive access issue.

classic comic critic

With respect to the bolded question, it is very relevant to address the deniers of what is supposedly clear scientific evidence. Thus part of the "real" debate is confronting idealogues on the right who are just making shit up for whatever reason. Though Feck's post didn't elevate the level of discussion, it is a somewhat relevant point.

This is a great thread. Very thought provoking. I appreciate all of your hard work. I find it fascinating that whenever someone gets a good thoughtful post in, JayB almost invariably responds with some version of, "Interesting theory. I wonder though how you would explain the events happening on the Moon?"

Perhaps I should make this my new avatar img

I wish people would more honestly start talking about what it's gonna cost us (in terms of money, convenience, etc.) to actually do anything about it. It's easy to say, "global warming is bad, mkay", and everyone's more than happy to give away the majority of Exxon's profits, or for that matter anybody else's stuff. But it seems like the conversation might get a little more intelligent if people started realizing exactly what nice things the destruction of our environment brings us, and what we will have to start doing without if we want to do anything about it. Unfortunately with our entire society turned into an adversial dispute (accentuated by the polarizing political strategies employed by the GOP I might add), a reasonable solution will probably not occur if only one side becomes more reasonable.

You don't think Bush's support of torturing prisoners of war is evil? I think this has set us back a long way. I think it will end up (already has) hurting our nation. And if torturing is not evil (I think it is) it is, at best, messing with something very dangerous. Perhaps it is the evolution of warfare, the next slip down an ugly path. Maybe history will consider Bush to be an innovator, a la our revolutionary solders and their adoption of guerilla warfare tactics. But it will still be a step closer to evil in my mind.

This condemning Turkey thing is completely baffling to me. This is out-Bushing the Bushies. When you look at the headlines with us actively pissing off the Russians with our ABM's, the Chinese with Dalai Lama, the Turks with this stupid resolution, it's scary. Throw these guys on the heap of every other nation we've alienated in recent history, and you gotta hope we don't have some economic or other collapse that will weaken us to the point of needing help, or even more scary, weak enough to fuck with. Ugh. Well at least it seems like good news has been coming out of Iraq the last week or so

Yes it is a little funny. I often joke about all sorts of insane stuff being Bush's fault, like global warming, the vietnam war or that goddamn traffic light that has been red for the last five minutes. First of all it's surprising how many people actually "agree" with me, and the other good percentage of people who think I'm serious. Yes KkkKk, there are a lot of people out there who are mired in extreme rhetoric. But this is not unique to a certain political persuasion or this time in history. There have always been people of extreme beliefs and there always will. And there will always be those who find it a bit too tiring to get too nuanced. Often the extreme rhetoric gets across the desired tone, and it's considered close enough. You do strike me as not very self-contemplative when you place yourself above others with your frequent rants about others using the mindless rhetoric of their persuasion. But perhaps the frequent mindless political one-liners you contribute are all jokes? Which brings my post back full circle.

Headline and teaser from NYtimes.com Turkish Premier Plays Down Threat to Iraq By ALISSA J. RUBIN 10:36 AM ET Parliamentary approval of cross-border raids would not necessarily be followed by quick military action, he said. ........... Where have we heard that one before?

In a similar vein, "Kramer vs Kramer" springs to my mind when thinking of "Best Picture". I think Al Gore is now a virtual lock for Time's "Man of the Year".