Time Reporter "Can't Wait" To Justify Drone Strike On Julian Assange 490
First time accepted submitter Tuck News writes "A reporter for TIME Magazine sparked a Twitter war when he said that he 'can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange'. Michael Grunwald deleted his tweet after a follower argued that it would only encourage Assange supporters.Grunwald's employer distanced itself from the tweet, saying 'Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views.'"
Journalists licking Obamas boots (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How is that legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Journalists licking Obamas boots (Score:3, Interesting)
Why revoke it? The actions of the Nobel peace prize committee and Obama's subsequent conduct as president are a perfect microcosm of the unbridgeable gap between progressive and left-wing aspirations and reality.
We should award the Ignoble peace prize to the Nobel peace prize committee for making this point so clearly.
Re:Know how you can spot an irrelevant "journalist (Score:2, Interesting)
The depressing thing is these drone strikes are effectively the same thing as the car bomb in Washington DC that was used by the Chileans to kill off a political enemy some years back. That's what the US can turn into if it keeps going down this path. Don't get me wrong, it's a long path and the US has barely set foot on it while the Russians are happily running down it killing people with rare poisons as a calling card, but the path leads to the sort of horrors we associate with the worst bits of the third world.
Re:Journalists licking Obamas boots (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, since Kissinger got to keep his, I guess a LOT more is necessary than what Obama did. Le Duc Tho at least had the guts to be honest and say "nope, thanks. I prefer to win".
And don't make me start on Arafat.
The usual test balloon? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Let's see how the population reacts, if they just shrug to it, let's see how much else we can get away with. If it causes an outcry, we can always say it was the idea of a solitary lunatic"
It's not like it would be the first time...
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:4, Interesting)
Any illness requires a pathology. An idea or a belief is not pathological unless it causes significant distress or impairment in functioning (social, work, personal, etc.). Children who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa don't have mental illnesses. People who are communists don't have mental illnesses. Nor do religious people. The point it becomes a mental illness is the point where you can't function or are in too much pain. Believing you have the Holy Ghost inside of you doesn't do that, but believing you are covered in bedbugs will cause significant distress. And believing that you are always followed and snooped on will impair your ability to function.
A mental illness isn't a judgement, it is a need to fix a behavior that is causing distress or inability to function. Political beliefs don't do that. The Nazis weren't mentally ill--not even the ones in the death camps. What so many people forget is that a mental illness is not distorted thinking--it is pathological thinking.
Re: Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:4, Interesting)
However, telling inconvenient thruths seems to be illegal there. Even if you're not American and don't even live there (Assange).
Re:Try claiming "Death to the Great Satan". (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm religious because I think the advice in the Sermon on the Mount is generally good advice.
I'm religious because the parable of the good Samaritan was spoken two thousand years ago and a lot of people still aren't with it. Until people realise that the person who would help you in a pinch is your neighbor and the blood relative who wouldn't is not, we have a whole bunch of people who are more than 2,000 years behind on the news. Yes, there are older books that say much the same, and it shows up in Indian traditions, arts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on. I've read a lot of them and like the idea there just as much.
I'm religious because 'sin' really does look like it's 100% omnipresent in human beings of normal mental capacity, over about the age of 2 1/2 at best, and I think that things that are absolutely, always, 100% fundamental phenomina for a certain class of entities need an especially deep and appropriate explanation, in the same way that the problem of black-body radiation was a strong clue to the way things work in physics and I'm glad Max Planck followed through on that. I don't particularly claim to be a Christian, or not just one, but one area where I particularly respect the mainstream Christian churches is they have taken the fact that EVERYONE of normally sound mind fails to live up to the best within them, has quite justified regrets and moral failings and can't always keep their promises, even ones they make to themselves, and realized that says something quite fundamental about reality.
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians and why people's faith should be based on such evidence and how he wouldn't advocate such a radical thing as life after death upon just blind faith. Yeah, I know the bible doesn't always live up to such a standard, and Paul himself didn't always say things I agree with or admire and could really be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but that argument stands even now and people have debated and elaborated it for 2,000 years, and I still haven't heard anybody logically refute it.
I'm religious because there's a mathematical proof of the existence of God, by Kurt Godel none-the-less, and his math looks good.
I'm spiritual because of personal experience, and that exceeds any particular religious practice. If you haven't had Gnosis, go ahead and be an Agnostic, it really won't hurt anything, least of all yourself.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How is that legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
But will they actually do something? Can they do anything?
Can a nuclear power do anything? Yes, I think we can.
Whether we would is a more interesting question. It would however rapidly become dangerous to be American in the UK.