Regardless of one's moral stance on this, it's a god-awful tactic. Stupid beyond belief.

And frankly, the justifications for this sort of behavior are always secondary and reactionary to the pleasure taken in doling out the abuse. To confirm that just take a step back and think about the likely result, whether pictures get out or not: an intensification of hatred, driving us further and further from any chance of winning without maximum bloodshed, expense, and damage.

What else would happen, unless you plan to kill them all? And anyone who might notice they're gone? And anyone who might notice THEY'RE gone? You think people put through that will suddenly say, "gee--we'd better not mess with the Americans--let's back off"? This isn't a goddamn TV show. If that dead guy packed in ice was your dad you'd be strapping a bomb on yourself right now.

We have the means to revolutionize the world with our wealth, our freedom, and our culture. It's worked all over the globe. Yet this administration used 9/11 as an excuse to put the process back in the hands of the neanderthals among us--not even the regular military, but hired goons--with predictable results.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Every move we've made since 9/11 has made things worse, not better--and made us exponentially less safe.

What's next? A thirty-foot-high concrete fence around the whole country?

Morons.

I don't believe torture has saved any of us from Islamic terorists. I don't believe it because the people saying it are liars. They've lied about everything--everything.

I do wonder, however, how many lives this torture will end up costing. Lots, I suspect.

Who will pay for this blunder, when it's over? Just those who did it? Or will we have the courage to assign proper responsibility to those in the media and on the sidelines who cheered it on?

Start with the answer and work your way to the means.

Read all the hype, including the glowing NY Times review, and finally heard some of it on the radio earlier this week.

Not trying to be "backlash-ist", or contradictory, or whatever--just judging the music as I heard it--and I thought it was unremarkable. Sounded exactly like everything else on the radio (which sounds exactly like everything else on the radio). Mostly reminded me of Franz Ferdinand if a young David Bowie was singing.

Maybe it's the Bowie-ness of the singer's voice that has all the older music writers wetting their pants--who knows. But having read that they pile monster hook upon monster hook, I was disappointed. Even when I cranked the radio way up the riffs didn't seem to have any power of their own; they weren't really saying anything. If that's the point then it's not for me.

As for the lyrcs, I'm probably not hip enough or Scottish enough to get them. Just sounded like normal bone-dry teenage angst to me.

Might have been a case of unreasonable expectations. But nothing about them sounded any different than all the other "out" (by-the-numbers) stuff on the radio.

Sorry. I tried. Didn't say anything to me.

...that only women feel insecure about the physiques of porn actors. 'Cause lord knows, men don't.

most straight men are as horrifed by gay male porn as women are by male/female porn.

There's a reason for this: porn feels very different to many men when they see another male being "used" for pleasure in the way they like to see women used for pleasure.

Um...not to disagree, but I don't think "most straight men" are "horrified" by "gay male porn" for the same reason "women" are "horrified" by "male/female porn"--if indeed they are.

...as I sit here on my couch, watching a "Deadwood" rerun on HBO, I can't help wondering why anyone would be watching the Oscars.

I haven't forgotten the Republican primary debate in which George Bush said that Christ was his favorite "philosopher" -- then couldn't give even one example of any "philosophy" from him.

Theocrat or divisive, opportunistic hypocrite?

This kid is a bum, but...

...do MSM writers never "borrowing" from bloggers?

It's been said twice, but I'll pile on:

Heather, for god's sake. The reason "Dr. Who" has hokey, "poorly-costumed aliens", is "vaguely tongue-in-cheek" and always features a girl half the Doctor's age is that it's made for 13-years-olds.

It's supposed to scare kids that age while amusing older viewers. His companion is always the right age to be a teen boy's wet dream, and in every episode she's captured and wrestles futilely while shaking her head and saying, "no, no..." in a suggestive way. (Porn stars should make noises while being tied up as well as "Sarah" used to.)

And yes, they once had a teen girl's dream, too -- "Adric", the petulant mop-topped teenager. Man, was he annoying.

Anyway, I've seen one episode of the new ones, and I thought they did a pretty good job of getting the tone right. The scary parts were scarier than they used to be, the effects are much better -- I can see kids getting into it.

a cabin of clay and wattles in a bee-loud glade

That Yeats fella sure do talk purty.

...this is a dumb article about a dumb article?

I agree with michaelrudd. Traister is over-thinking this. It's supposed to be stupid humor, not a sexual innuendo.

"You poke it, you own it" is not a phrase men would say or a sentiment they'd endorse, sexually.

The "humor" is that it isn't anything they'd say in regards to fingers in beer, either -- but it's just supposed to be stupid, not sexual.

Seems to me that Manjoo simply restated the assertions from his article without adequately addressing Kennedy's criticisms of them.