littletimmy

Saying that the Tsar's death was because he was anti-semitic gives credibility to the notion that Bolshevism had a large Jewish influence. Is that what you're trying to say?

An addition to a system of constitutional law does not make a country a theocracy.

Apparently they reported to the university administration which failed to take action and may even have tacitly accepted the decision of the mob (presumably because of fear of reprisal themselves). But the good thing is now the police can take action against the killers because they took the law into their hands.

This is absolutely false. Pakistan has a system of laws that is based on the British system - it is very obviously not a theocracy.

Pakistan created the Taliban out of political necessity, and the United States is to blame for it. When the USA and Russia fought a proxy war in Afghanistan, it left the country in tatters. Pakistan got millions of refugees (1/5 of the population of Afghanistan was living in Pakistan at one time). Think of how Americans start to hyperventilate even at the thought of accepting a few thousand refugees. Pakistan took in millions - and it had to stabilize Afghanistan to restore order and stop the flow. At that time, Pakistan supported the Taliban so that the mess that the United States and Russia made could be controlled. Blame the Cold War, not Pakistan.

Here's some perspective from a Pakistani agnostic who supports blasphemy laws.

This article is an example of how people in the West really don't get how religious countries in the third world work. Because rule of law is absolute in Western countries, articles like this make it sound like the problem is the unjust law. That is absolutely false.

There are two major problems with blasphemy reform. The first problem is that the PEOPLE want blasphemy punished. There is a significant minority in Pakistan who is OK with a blasphemer being killed. It is not an unjust law imposed on people - the people WANT it. The second problem is that the rule of law in most third world countries is very weak. Which means that if people want something punished, and the law isn't there to punish it, they will take the law into their own hands. We saw this very recently when a huge mob lynched a university student who was accused of blasphemy. So... the people want blasphemy punished, and you cannot stop them from taking the law into their own hands. What do you do in this case?

Consider the options in front of a Pakistani politician who is personally against punishment for blasphemy. He can either revoke the law (at risk to his own life) and then watch as people form huge mobs who lynch people accused of blasphemy at random. He will be unable to control this because the police might empathize with the killers. OR he can impose blasphemy law, and then weaken implementation. When the blasphemy law is imposed, then people are discouraged from taking the law into their own hands. At the same time, he can weaken implementation to the point that no one Really gets punished for blasphemy (as in the case in Pakistan - the state does not execute people for blasphemy). With a blasphemy law, the religious nuts are appeased, and at the same time, with weak implementation, a semblance of freedom is maintained.

That means, the blasphemy law keeps the lid on the monster that is public opinion until it can be reformed. And that comes through education, where the Pakistani government is trying to make strides. (Unsuccessfully, I might add, since it is a poor country.) In any case, THAT is the logic behind blasphemy law - it prevents the country from descending into anarchy. It is easy to sit in a country with great rule of law to say that why are these people in third world countries making stupid laws, but the lawmakers in these countries aren't stupid. The obviously see that their people are backward, and there needs to be imperfect stopgap solutions until the country can implement better rule of law.

We all know the answer. Saudi Arabia is the chief stabilizer of oil price (and therefore the petrodollar) in the world. Therefore, Saudi Arabia can export all the Wahabism it wants.

Thinking like that would be a mistake.

The quality of immigrants that US and Europe attract are vastly different. US attracts mostly high quality skilled labor (doctors, tech workers etc.) On the other hand, EU countries often attract the worst sort (people attracted to EU welfare, unsorted refugees, unskilled labor etc.) Naturally, the lower class folk are unlikelier to adjust to life in a new country, and so they commit more crime. This does NOT happen in the US. It is therefore unreasonable to compare US immigration to EU immigration.

Case in point: immigration from Pakistan. Pakistanis in the UK (as an example of a European country) tend to be poor and are highly represented in crime. Pakistanis in the US, on the other hand, have an average income $10000 HIGHER than the average US income. There is also no evidence to suggest they are involved in crime at a rate remotely comparable to the general population.

I thought my reply relevant to the discussion at hand. It literally addresses the cause behind the name change.

Watching this documentary was a really unsettling experience. The subversion of information has become so institutionalized, and common people are so accepting of it, that it is hard to even think about how we can escape it. My only logical conclusion is that things will continue to get worse as people get more and more distant from the truth. Perhaps a new dark ages.

Why was (s)he so offended by it?

I know it is mean to say, a 5'7" tall man will never be President in this day and age of celebrity elections. The last 5'7" president was John Adams. The last president under 6 feet was Jimmy Carter, and he was 5'10". Almost all presidents have been over 6 feet tall.

How on earth is it even remotely misogynistic?

What about people who have no other options? Like people in poor villages who haven't known anything else?

Social conservatism.

Even if I take your point that big government can be good, one has to concede that it succeeded with social conservatism. Ever since social liberalism took hold, things have gone steadily downhill.

There is much evidence to suggest that exactly the opposite is true: an excess of social liberalism leads to the downfall of a culture. Social conservatism means stable families, strong men, and social cohesion, which translates into a stronger nation. Social liberalism, as it has now, degenerates into identity politics and political paralysis. As Aristotle put it, "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."

The greatest time for the middle class in the United States, for example, was in the 50s, when society was much more conservative than it is now. (That's what the "Make America Great Again" is all about.) The 50s are the last decade that the conservative WASP aristocracy was in power. Every election since, groups like African Americans, women, and Jews have increased their power and brought about with them big government. How is that an improvement? Surely, you agree that big government is disastrous for the country?

There's a book "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin that actually argues (convincingly in my opinion) that a suppression of sexual energies (i.e. control of women) is a necessary (not sufficient) condition for a civilization to succeed. Check it out.

What a bunch of lies.

He talks as if the action against Syria is because Assad is a brutal military dictator. The reality is that the US wants Assad gone because he is an ally to Russia/Iran who can exert control over Lebanon, and he is blocking a gas pipeline from Qatar to EU that would weaken Russia.

The simple solution for there to be peace in Syria is for the US to get out. Stop sponsoring terrorists (yes, the "rebels" the US sponsors are terrorists) in Syria, just get out. Assad maintained peace from 2000 - 2011, and he can do it again.

The saddest part is this: when a Syrian kid learns of the destruction of his country and wants revenge on the US, it will be these same newspapers that will be crying about "Why do they hate us?"

If that is the only reason, why isn't the US also acting against Saudi Arabia? It is a repressive monarchy.

Coming to think of it, the US resembles an oligarchy more than anything else. Perhaps Russia should start arming rebels in the US?

Wait a second, that is absolutely wrong. It is not the case that Apple has paid a tax on the money it holds abroad. In many cases, with complicated tax arrangements like the double Irish, it has avoided taxes in other countries as well. So a big chunk of this money is effectively untaxed.

Ordinary people do seem to like their royalty. The endless fascination that the people of Japan have with their Emperor, the British have with their royal family, among other examples, shows that people do find it comforting to see a familiar face at the helm of the nation. Sort of like a representative of the national will.

And "modern egalitarian society"? Please. The only reason democracy works in the US is that the media brainwashes people into acquiescing to elite opinion. There was not (and will never be) any egalitarian civilization on earth.

Can we just adopt that as a general rule? All things done with a good intention will backfire.

That's actually not true. There's great evidence for the fact that hunter-gatherer societies had a fairly good distribution of gender power. It is only with the advent of "civilization", i.e. agriculture, that we find great power differentials, including the power of men over women.

I add that your indignation seems rather misguided. If "male-oriented power dynamics" could so easily take charge, how on earth can be conclude that women were not "intrinsically inferior"?

Then the awful rules can be challenged in a court of law, which will act as the limiting power on the SEC. There does exist a mechanism for challenging malicious prosecution in our legal system, and if the corporations feel they are victimized, they can use it.

The point, however, is without antagonistic checks and balances in place, you will always run into the "revolving door" problem.

By setting up an antagonistic system, I think. A system of checks and balances in which the interests of the employees of the SEC are OPPOSED to the interests of the banks.

For example, if the SEC successfully fines JP Morgan a sum of $2 billion, let the key employees of that prosecution them keep $500 million and distribute it among themselves. That way the employees of the SEC have an incentive to be antagonistic to banks.

If the US had completely abandoned Pakistan, it would not be able to use it as a proxy base for war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It would not be able to, in Zbigniew Brzezinski's words, be able to "give the Soviet Union its Vietnam."

You should not be moralistic in thinking about international relations, because that is not foreign policy makers think.

Here's a politically incorrect thought: we don't need to develop Africa.

We shouldn't assume that everyone has to be like us to be happy. We shouldn't try to "civilize the barbarians" - to use a colonial phrase. Let them live as they live and let them develop themselves at their own pace.

Over the next decade, Africa's population is poised to explode. The great wilderness of Africa will all but disappear, and Africa might become just another blob of concrete, mining, and agribusiness. Desirable? Good for the human species? I think not.

Saudi Arabia is one of the main US allies in the region. Millions of tax dollars go towards securing the Saudi regime every year through American military bases in the country.

Some allege that parts of Night are too implausible and historically inaccurate. But then again, I think he wrote it as a novel rather than a historical document.

Would it sound more reasonable if we say "Ethnically cleanse at the rate that the international community allows"?

Is this against the law, or just the way things are done now? My gut instinct would be there's more examination that goes into a drone strike but after the Snowden revelations I don't know what to believe.

Cheating on his wife may have been news (I disagree, but just for the sake of argument let's say that's true). The gratuitous porn video was in every way NOT news.

A news organization should not have the right to publish a sex tape to establish dubious morality. It also should not have the right to publish Hogan taking a straining shit if he appeared previously in a hemorrhoid commercial.

There are standards in civilized society.