The strawman are flying all over the place here in this thread!
Pakistan is a country of islands of modernity, surrounded by an ocean of the dark age. It's definitely neither uniform nor unified. It has little control over its own mountainous regions, barbarians operate with little repercussion, and even in the civilized areas the government, even the military, is corrupt and purchasable by extremists.
Also, Ms. Bhutto probably has much better protection than the poor murdered girl.
In my entertainment choices, I prefer women like Princess Leah (tactician, soldier, leader), Ripley (skilled worker, fighter, protector), Kaylee Frye (engineer), Motoko (marksman, police officer) etc., because they represent women who have and cultivate real skills and use them to good effect under trying circumstances....rather than women who's primary contribution to the plot is her physical desirability (or perhaps her happenstance noble birth). I am just distressed that women like these are more common in fantasy than in reality.
Well, most of those shabby scripts are written by men who don't know how to write women (hey, you write what you know best), but they do know how to target the teenage boy market. One of the feminist blogs I actually have a little regard for made the good point that women can't complain TOO loudly when they don't get into screenwriting and instead expect everything the men will write will reflect their ideals.
The ancients invented Flubber.
Not a fan of the Ice Ice Baby (with the baseline he stole himself from Queen), but I'd probably back him over Knight. Of course, a good outcome would be the balcony collapsing, sending them both tumbling.
Was the undercover cop Suge Knight?
I didn't want to take the time to search for it. But now I have this handy link! Thanks, xkcd posters!
As the XKCD reference cannot be repeated to often, no harm done.
I feel sorry for the second person who posted the xkcd comic. His score is still at 0, while the first and third posters were modded up to five. Some people have no luck!
Just have to ask.. do you think folks with military and intelligence experience don't read slashdot like any other nerd does?
Ok, granted, maybe they've moved on to Reddit or tech-site-of-the-day like others. But maybe they just enjoy reading the site because they have for 15 years.
Sorry, I fail to see, how mere racism [forward.com] or sexism [femitup.com] can lead to a boycott, while abuse of a suspect gets a pass. And not just once either!
Because, in the US, many Americans are fine with the idea that doing bad things to bad people in pursuit of a good goal is a-ok.
Jack Bauer could get away with torturing a guy because Jack Bauer was right, he was not corrupt, he fighting for the good guys, and the guy he was torturing was trying to hide details on some terrorist attack. That's easy to screenwrite for. The problem is that in real life, often the people who think they are right and good actually aren't, they torture the wrong person, and there are unintended consequences.
and from recently released documents he was 100% correct
It's shocking exactly how easy it is to verify this fact and how little difference that has made to the narrative.
Clearly the people who continue to verbally attack McCarthy aren't attacking him for being incorrect - they're attacking him for being right.
Because it was witch hunting. No one is saying that witches/communists didn't exist. But he used that as a cover for using the federal government to attack political enemies and plenty of people who just got in the way.
Oh, and let's not forget the main champion for gay marriage was this guy
One of many strong champions. I'm not sure why you don't think he can be a man who has principles. That he would partner with Boies only reinforces the theme of greater freedom over time.
Every generation starts out more liberal and open-minded, and ends up more conservative and bitter.
I hear this weird disconnect every time talk about pot use comes up. I'll always hear people from the 60s talking about how it was ok when they used pot, but how it's terrible/awful/dangerous if young people use it today. There is always some desperate attempt to cling to some BS argument, ANY argument to show how they're right and not hypocritical. Frequently the most compelling was "the marijuana was normal when I as young, but it's so much stronger and more potent today! It's much more dangerous." This is, of course, all nonsense, a way for them to have their cake and eat it too.
I don't know, some states have flat-out legalized it, and more just look the other way now.
I suppose we should really limit the survey to people who know what the words STD and Congress even mean.