...he'd be just another dirty hippy. But it's a silly question to ask, like, "What if Michael Jackson were alive, and a child. And white?" or, "If peanuts were people, does that make Jiffy genocide?"

This character is hard to channel in real time.

So, let me guess, Teresa? You're another slutty whore protecting her "right" to use abortion as a means of birth control. Sounds like you need a strong man to keep you in line. Presuming you aren't some sort of nasty dyke or unmarried old crone, if you like, I can send your husband a handy pamphlet on Biblical means of correction. In the end, you'll thank me (or, if you know what's good for you, you will). Your life obviously would benefit from a little discipline.

Enjoy!

...but I'll be the one laughing in the end as I stand in heaven and get to enjoy watching your soul writhe in agony in Hell.

Are you that depraved and inhuman?

...you want an option that allows you to go straight into Satan's waiting arms without having to hear all those pesky calls to repent and live a just and righteous life?

The Democrat party is a hellbound train, and the LORD will punish those who have supported such iniquity. Now bow and scrape to your new Nigger God, but it won't save you from the Fire.

DWG, you should plan for the future, my friend. Know that the LORD will punish you for your sinful support of the abomination of abortion. The LORD made woman that man might have pleasure and and a help-mate, and the psychotic notion that murdering babies to further the blasphemous project of undermining the LORD's divine plan in the name of "women's rights" (a heresy which seeks to overturn the God-granted dominion of Man over Woman) must be stamped from this earth by any means necessary. You have marked yourself as one bound for the flame.

Repent in the name of Jesus, and perhaps the LORD will have mercy upon you. If not, his chosen instruments will certainly destroy you, and then you will burn. Perhaps he will even send Scott Roeder? It would certainly be poetic justice.

Typically, it executes them. The killer just did the taxpayers of Kansas a huge service, saving them millions AND doing the Lord's work.

And who cares anyway, the "victim" deserved it.

What about all the murdering honky scum?

They remain few and far between. This is the third dune coon to turn his weapons on his comrades in arms in 6 years. So, tell me again why we tolerate the existence of the ragheads?

Why do we tolerate the existence of these subhumans, again?

But as messed up as Pulp Fiction is in ways, it really is a masterpiece. WHy? Linear narrative is a drag, and Tarentino busted loose from it, and besides, the sound tracki is amazing

Filmmakers have been 'busting loose' from "linear narrative" for virtually the entire history of film (and, for that matter, the entire history of narrative art, period (Iliad, in res media, duh). There's nothing daring or inventive about Pulp Fiction: the film's great "innovations" boil down to the smugly glib faux-ironic dialogue and a marketing campaign that was all about turning huckster cinema into a social event for status conscious yuppies/hippies/art fags.

...not for victims. The wishes of the victim are immaterial, here.

Stable?

Afghanistan?

Has ever there been such a thing?

Afghanistan was quite stable up until infighting between liberals and socialists in the governing party led to Soviet intervention. The central government's power was of little account much beyond Kabul, but the provincial regions weren't hotbeds of militant fundamentalism and the treasury wasn't wide open for the use of terrorists, either.

In any event, the idea that we can pursue a "counterterror" strategy in Afghanistan without addressing the insurgency there is ludicrous.

Any strategy that hopes to succeed in suppressing terrorism in Central Asia has to start with securing a stable Afghan government and society. You can't do that with special ops guys and drone strikes: it takes boots on the ground.

While atomic arms are note quite trivially easy to manufacture, the only real barrier to their construction is the availability of fissile material. Any nation-state that can acquire the necessary plutonium or U-235 is capable of constructing nuclear weapons. As the author rightly points out, nuclear arms allow smaller nations a cheap parity with the great powers, at least within their own regions. And, unfortunately, the only meaningful deterrent to nuclear weapons are...nuclear weapons.

Whether the media consensus is accurate is totally irrelevant to the point I made. The Right will not be upset -- and might even be pleased -- by this development, because the media consensus (the absurdity of the Prize) is on their side.

And is it a bad thing to embolden the right to take up a position that could very well put them at odds with the American people as a whole yet again?

I'm so honored that a George Orwell character comments here.

So you're saying you really believe that we can have real "peace" simply by making an accommodation with injustice? That, as long as there is no active combat between nation-states, that is enough to label our condition "peace"? Really? If Munich hadn't been followed by the Second World War, and only by the destruction of German Jewry, would that have been peace? If Lincoln had simply accepted secession and the indefinite continuation of the institution of chattel slavery, would that have been peace?

In the end, the surest means of securing a just and meaningful peace is to effect the destruction of those who seek injustice. Often, that can only be accomplished by main force, and pretending otherwise favors no one but the iniquitous.