TPOJ comments

Castration, amputation of their weapons (i.e. hands), and being forced to live as slaves are all punishments that I would happily inflict on those who hurt kids.

Look, child abuse angers me to the point that I get goosebumps, but do we really need to become animals in retaliation?

Castrated people can, and likely will, still abuse kids. Sexual abuse is not just about getting your rocks off. Same with amputees. And slaves? Come on.

Other people's failings do not excuse your personal degradation. I agree the punishment should be harsh, but you don't need to sell your soul in the name of revenge.

So Michelle stayed with the kids in Chicago. What, couldn't find a sitter?

Is she running?

Wait, YOU? Complain about a Democrat?!?!?!?!

Holy crap. Let me mark my calendar.

There's a lot of brilliant stuff in the past, and a lot of avant garde stuff as well.

I'm actually in Japan specifically to research Jrock. I started a site as a reference:

http://www.jrawk.com

It's still pretty new, but it's growing...

HAHAHAHAHAHA...

Damn, the country could use a few more hundred thousand of her.

Those like Obama that may try to score some political points from this are just weak.

Almost as weak as people who make stuff up.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/01/obama-back-palin-family/

sorry, but even though...

Is this some new trend in political discourse? Ignore the other side's points, then ramble on with so many logical fallacies and bizarre assertions that the opposition simple surrenders out of frustration?

Enough with the hypotheticals. Deal with what's actually happening.

Look, if you people are going to judge who you vote for because something their adult in many places kids are going to do, then I pity you.

Don't be disingenuous. She's pushing a method that she couldn't get to work in her own family. It's not Bristol's actions that are the bone of contention here.

If find myself judging candidates lately but what I read from bloggers.

That's...not a coherent sentence. I THINK you're trying to say that you're judging candidates by what bloggers say about them.

Now, if that's true, then you have no room to judge :P

I wasn't arguing anything.

Oh, come on. You're telling me you had no point? Do you know what the word "arguing" means?

Barack Obama was. And his words followed, logically one could say, from his documented actions - his indisputable support for infanticide while he was still in the Illinois legislature.

...which you interpret in a certain way, and which you presented to us with the clear intention of proving something.

His stance on abortion is not relevant to this discussion.

What. Did. You. Think. He. Was. Trying. To. Say? Why is this question so...challenging for you?

And there's nothing wrong with the word "abortion." Use your words.

"Infanticide" is when a child is killed after birth.

Facts do not become optional or irrelevant just because you've convinced yourself of something.

Barack Obama on video, explaining that he is all about ethics and morals but wouldn't want one of his daughters, if still a teen, to be "punished with a baby". You know, like his own mother was...

Y'know, I'm trying to give you credit, but that was flat out moronic.

The consequences of mistakes are punishments. If I drink and drive, I may be punished with permanent injury (or death) from a car crash. If a teenager makes a stupid decision, the punishment may be an unplanned, unwanted child.

There is nothing wrong with making this point.

Are you arguing that he intended to say that a pregnancy is necessarily a punishment? Because that's unsupportable, childish, and logically unsound.

Astonishing how quickly down the Memory Hole went John F Kerry's disgusting...

You have legitimate questions directed at you in this thread. Enough with the distractions.

What is wrong with teaching people to abstain?

If it works, nothing.

It doesn't work. Hence, there's a LOT wrong with it.

Teaching it in conjunction with other information is fine. It's that "only" thing that sticks in people's craw.

Additionally, you all know if it were the Obama's and blah blah blah

Don't be a child. There's plenty of real life situations to deal with. There's no need to create something to feel self righteous about over what some vague group of whoever might do if some similar situation were to occur...

Contrast the coverage this is getting with the mainstream media's reluctance to cover the unplanned pregnancy of John Edwards.

The Edwards incident still has quite a bit of doubt. Andrew Young has taken responsibility for the pregnancy. The lack of reporting is most likely due to this, and concern over libel.

Do 'liberals' actually think that young, media-savvy American voters don't notice the hypocrisy?

Frankly, most of them are so used to alarmist, poorly informed, partisan BS like this that they roll their eyes at the "liberal media" whine.

Groups like PETA, Greenpeace, etc. have good ideas at heart. But the blatant lack of emotional maturity in those groups undercuts their message so thoroughly that they're stuck preaching to the converted. There's a similar problem with the "oh noes LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!" crowd. Things aren't as clear cut as you'd have us believe. Sorry.

Question: If it had been one of Obama's daughters who'd become pregnant as an unmarried high-schooler, would any of you, on the right or left, change the statements you've posted above?

Well, do Obama or Biden have a history of pushing laughably unworkable plans concerning teen pregnancy, even in the face of complete failure in their OWN FAMILY? If yes, then my above point would still stand.

If no, then it would be irrelevant.

Not every point is based on partisanship.

Because her daughter did not practice the morals her mother advocates, does not mean Palin is a hypocrite.

Fair enough.

It DOES leave the door wide open for a perfectly valid criticism, though. If she can't make these ideas work within her own family, she clearly possesses neither the aptitude or the moral right to push it on other people.

Abstinence only education is laughably ineffective. As pointed out, Palin is a strong advocate, and there's a failure right under her nose, by a kid SHE RAISED. If you think this is insignificant, there's no getting through to you.

If you can't make something work privately, you have no ethical right to take charge of it publicly. This is common sense so blatantly obvious it makes my teeth hurt.

No sitting U.S. president or vice president has ever visited Hiroshima.

OK, that's screwed up.

Seriously? At no point did ANYone visit? I know that Presidents, et al can't just go galavanting around for the Hell of it (current US President notwithstanding,) but NOBODY?

ASbsolutely disgusting that he is on TV. Where is the outrage?

Sorry. Too many adults.

Gender and sex are two different things. But, of course, a guy like you knew that already.

how does a 2 year old go missing?

Never spent much time around a 2 year old, have you?

This is, quite literally, blaming the messenger for the message.

I have no idea how anyone can ethically claim this guy has any responsibility. It's an open forum. Are they seriously suggesting the website has some responsibility for the guy that went nuts and stabbed people? Hell, why not blame the company that made the car he drove?

I know scapegoating is a natural impulse, but don't these people THINK at all?

It's clear she and Bill despise the guy.

supporting =! liking

Is McCain unaware that people are supposed pick what they consider the best candidate, and that they're not under any obligation to choose someone just because they took part in the race? Is he suggesting that Clinton would make a better VP than Biden? WTF?

Ok, before I get nailed, I got this in my mail the other day.

(By the way, this is directed at the email, not you)

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It's unnecessary (and, frankly, a waste of time) to refute it point by point. Just ask yourself:

Why do the points with sources not compare themselves to anything? Why do the points that compare themselves to other things not have sources?

I don't have time to go through and research every bit of "information" there. But bullst tends to smell like bullst, and damn, does that email stink.

Let me put it this way: if these things are true, I'll wait for someone to explain it in adult language.

Let me give you an example:

The Democratic candidate will return to the higher tax rates: It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.

Yes, because taxes are the only possible way you can screw someone. Everyone really is that shallow.

cough

What you have here is a gigantic, infected case of what is called confirmation bias:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Could some of it be right? Sure. But as I said before, "right" will out eventually, and since I don't have unlimited time to research spam emails which are obviously written by laughably biased individuals, I'll wait until a grown up tells me.

It's unrealistic to expect people to have every fact at their fingertips, just as it's unrealistic to have a rock solid interpretation of every single fact. I'm human, I have to rely on my (possibly) faulty judgment. As as a professional writer, I'm telling ya: whoever wrote that was REAL careful when they put it together, and I don't mean about the integrity of their ideas.

Agreed. But who decides when the threat is credible?

Well, it's really a case by case thing. There's no perfect system here, but basically, the best way to figure it out is...what we're doing here. Talking about it, making sure there's actually a problem, making sure it's not just the whining of people losing an advantage they were used to (but weren't really entitled to.)

And thank you for being less of a dick than I was ;)

Exactly, its okay for a minority to be proud of who they are and to wish to remain united and to live amongst their own kind, but Japanese or whites are racist or ignorant if we want to defend our culture and solidarity.

No, we're not. The difference being that there's no need to "defend" our culture. Our culture is the dominant one. When you "defend" something that doesn't need defending, it reads as a superiority trip. Sorry, that's the price of being the majority. Fair? Maybe not. Too bad.

Nobody calls anyone racist or ignorant if Germans celebrate German culture in America, or if Irish celebrate their culture in Australia. That's pride. "White" culture is a hodge podge of vastly different European cultures, and is far too generic a term to take seriously. It also has a long, unambiguous history of being used as little more than a superiority trip and a power grab, usually with profoundly racist overtones and actions.

Solidarity is something totally different. Solidarity is something that is necessary under duress, but if you're in charge and start talking about "solidarity" and "defending" a culture that's on top, people get (quite rightly) nervous. The dictionary definition of solidarity does not have superior overtones, but if you think the common usage doesn't you're delusional. 99% of people will read racism into the phrase "white solidarity," and they have extremely good reasons for doing so. You really should know this already.

When people in charge start complaining that they don't get enough respect, history has shown that bad, bad, BAD things happen. CELEBRATING a dominant way of life is, and always has been, just fine. Do people get cranky over celebrating the 4th of July, Easter, The Super Bowl? No. You do get a few people who are upset about Christmas, but they're very few and far between, and the criticism tends to be focused on Christian demands to control the situation beyond what they're entitled to expect.

Let's say you have 10 people. If 2 of them decide to see a movie and don't invite the other 8 along, who cares? But if 9 of them decide to exclude one for whatever reason, that's discrimination. Sorry, but that's what the word means. Now, that discrimination may have a good basis (i.e. the one guy doesn't behave himself, etc.) Not all discrimination is bad. But saying "we're going because it's a white guy thing," well...what's left for the one? Sorry guys, if you're in charge, you do have an ethical responsibility to make sure people different than you aren't bounced out of life due to things beyond their control. It's called "society," and what's right is not always fair to the most technical degree.

"Defending" a way of life that is not under credible threat is NOT about pride, it's about control. Nobody's calling the Japanese racist just because they celebrate Obon, and nobody calls the Irish racist because they celebrate St. Patrick's.

You can have an identity as Ainu, but we Japanese don’t know what we can be proud of

Yikes. Are they serious?

I guess this is an unexpected consequence of pushing conformity. When people who grew up in a conformist society see someone with an individual identity, they assume that they don't have one themselves.

These people need to get out of Japan and see other cultures for contrast. Yes, Japan has a lot of nastiness in its past, but that's hardly specific to Japan. Do these people really think they don't have anything in their culture that would be a counterpart to whatever they see in Ainu culture?

JetBlue isn’t charging extra because it wants to make money - perish the thought.

Oh, come on.

If the basic goal of PR pisses you off that much, leave civilization. This has been going on since before any of us were born. It's not the height of integrity, no, but "perish the thought?"

Nevertheless, candor is called for in this latest version of pillow talk: namely, acknowledgment that new fees are prompted not out of concern for the health of air travelers but the health of airlines.

Why? Seriously? This is a business, not the government. It's advertising and business strategy, not therapy. I'm as irritated as anyone by goofy business spin, but is there ANYONE who isn't thoroughly aware of why this is happening? Pick your battles, dude...

I'm guessing the whole debate on this centers around deterrence, i.e. will criminals be more likely to commit crimes if they know they're not going to be executed.

My answer is this: if you're the kind of person who's going to kill someone, chances are that degree of logic is not your strong suit.

If they can actually figure something out by studying them, great. If not, they're not doing a whole lot more than thumbing their noses at the victims.

Progress is important, and revenge might not be the most admirable trait, but there does have to be some sense of justice for the victims. My ultimate point is this: it really needs to be treated case by case, but frankly, I don't think the Japanese system can handle ANYthing case by case: murder, assault, jaywalking, anything.

And undecided continues to show that he simply doesn't get it. No one is asking anyone to 'observe outdated Birtish(?) ideas about decorum'. No one is complaining about a long yell or even yelp after victory. No one is putting down the victory lap.

Did he say they were? I'm seeing comparisons to things that people aren't criticizing. If they WERE criticizing them, there wouldn't be much of a comparison to make.

Still waiting for an answer on this question:

Is there some support for this statement other than the victory yell?

No, that's wrong. It really would be more surprising from a Brit, since they have a better reputation for not being arrogant.

In sports, perhaps. But saying something like that when criticizing arrogance is pretty much undiluted hypocrisy.

Oh yes, and having done a bit of research on this...this is not typical behavior for Phelps. There's a clip on YouTube of him breaking a World Record and barely registering emotion.

What was different this time? Well, I dunno, how about coming in from behind and defeating someone who has been talking sh** about you and your country at the last possible second in front of millions of people?

Some people need to stop being all right about stuff for a bit and think about the second to second mechanics of what they expect from this guy. Olympic competition, millions upon millions watching, competing with someone who has been taunting you, last second snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, insane amounts of adrenaline running through your body. Oh, but make sure you're nice.

It's very easy to have, uh, "standards" when you're on the other side of the TV. Judging this guy for that reaction in those circumstances belies a lack of understanding of human nature so overwhelmingly complete that I'm amazed we're part of the same species.

Would some people react differently? Yep. People are different. Thinking that a situation like this is a useful indicator of personal integrity is so utterly removed from reality that I don't really know what else I can say.

If you can't tell the difference between confident and arrogant, I think that says more about you than it does about any of the swimmers.

Is there some support for this statement other than the victory yell? Because there's a bit of difference between genuine arrogance and a momentary, adrenaline fueled burst of celebration.

And no, what someone does for a couple of seconds in the heat of the moment is NOT an indication of the kind of person they are.

I haven't been watching the olympics, am generally irritated by my fellow Americans' boorish behavior, and have a basic distaste for cocky sports attitudes. But this is ludicrous. This guy has spent his entire existence building up to this moment, beats out an arrogant opponent that had been talking trash...

...and people judge him because he didn't make an appropriate noise when he won.

Good lord.

Yes, it would be nice if everything was rainbows and kittens, if everyone bowed politely when they won, and modeled their behavior on whatever will make the average chump happy when sitting in their armchair drinking beer.

I know people have differing opinions, but this is pathetic. There's armchair quarterbacking, and there's this. It's petty, small minded, and frankly, I'd say it's a window into a person's character. How old are you people? At least when Phelps acted foolish, he had a spectacularly good motivation to do so.

Sometimes I feel like I'm surrounded by nothing but bitter, cranky retirees.

*However, there are also right-wingers in the church, and some of them go so far as saying that Catholics not only can, but should visit Yasukuni because of something a Vatican cardinal said in 1936.

(snip)

Therefore, the Vatican said Catholics could visit shrines, since such visits were a matter of patriotism rather than religion.*

Um, yes, this was in 1936. The reasons people have for not visiting the shrine are a bit more, uh, recent than that.

Before the flame war starts:

Honoring war dead: good. Honoring war criminals: bad.

That is the issue. It is not xenophobic, arrogant, soplistic, or otherwise anti-Japanese to think that keeping convicted war criminals in a place of honor is wrong.

That said, the point that this will fade away is, I think, valid:

About 40 make-believe militia in blue fatigues showed up. Apparently, the aging of Japan is hitting the rightists: most of the “troops” were in paunchy middle age

Translation: the only people who care are the kind of aging cranks that every country has.

Concerning democracy, it is not the President's job to keep the US a free democracy, but the citizens/voters.

So that whole "presidential oath" thing is just for s**ts and giggles, huh?