The Koran is a book. Made up of words. Words which, like all words, are subject to interpretation. "Fight" "War" and even "Kill" are words that are, in fact, often utilized in a metaphorical, non-literal sense. This is because they are powerful words, and often the user wants to tap into their power without invoking them in a literal sense.

Jews (and Christians) have managed to take a metaphorical, non-literal view of the more violent and antisocial commandments in the Old Testament. As I have previously stated, the nonviolent, peaceful behavior of the vast majority of the world's Muslims is an indication that they are not mindless automatons either, and that they are just as capable of recognizing metaphor and symbolism as their fellow monotheists.

...but by not stocking NC-17 rated movies, they create a big incentive for the studios to create censored versions of their films for Blockbuster to stock. That's at least the way it was in the 90s. They had a censored version of Showgirls on their shelves, if I recall.

Their refusal to stock NC-17 movies is also, given their share of the rental market, a contributing incentive for studios to censor their movies prior to release in order to avoid getting the dreaded NC-17 rating in the first place. Thus, in the end, Blockbuster's refusal to stock NC-17 movies contributes to, and creates, censorship in the film industry generally.

Thank God for Netflix. May it live long and prosper.

By framing Edwards positions and challenges on lobbyists and campaign finance as, somehow, a betrayal of his party, Scherer has turned what might have been an interesting examination of Edwards and his campaign strategy into a not-so-subtle hit piece.

Weak.

Lame.

I hadn't heard of Michael Scherer prior to his coming to Salon. So far, he has posted two articles (this, and his one shortly after Virginia Tech calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment) that have not impressed me with regard to his ability to handle nuance and subtlety, and to keep his own bias out of the way of his reporting.

I am assuming that, given the hypothetically legal context in which he puts it, Herbert intends "illegal prostution" to mean underage prostitution and forced prostitution. Given that, how does he figure that legalization would encourage "illegal prostution?" Isn't the whole point of legalization (other than the inherent value of freedom over one's own body) that it will reduce such incidents of "illegal prostitution" by bringing the whole industry into the public sphere, subjecting its practices and practitioners to public scrutiny, and drawing distinctions between the legal and illegal practices within it? Isn't it self evident that if you criminalize the whole industry, you thereby equalize all forms of prostitution in the eyes of the law, and therefore can neither encourage nor discourage such "illegal prostitution?"

I haven't read the article - I assume that it is off limits to me, as a non Times Select subscriber. Am I missing something here?

...of what Bollinger said to Ahmadenijad. Frankly, I agreed with it, and I am glad he said it. I don't care if hospitality to your enemies is a part of Middle Eastern culture. Speaking truth to power is, and should be, a proud part of ours. Iranians viewing this exchange are seeing the best of what the Western Enlightenment tradition has to offer. If it resonates with them, that will be the best of cultural exhchanges we can hope for.

Has Bollinger ever had an opportunity to question George Bush in this way? If not, than George Bush, and his hypotehtical reaction to something like this, is a moot point that need not be brought up. This moment in time was not about George Bush, it was about Lee Bollinger and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.

"Is this any way to conduct diplomacy and persuade other countries to behave moderately and decently? Or was the purpose of this incident to help provoke war any way you can?"

Newsflash: Lee Bollinger is not a diplomat. He is, as he says, "only a professor, who is also a university president." An academic, in the undeferentially skeptical tradition of the Western Enlightenment - the movement that brough us freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of lifestyle, the scientific method, modernity, etc. This ideally uncompromising forum - western Academia - was the forum that Ahmadenijad was asked to participate in. Like they say, if you play with fire, don't be surprised if you get burned.

Read the transcript. Bollinger did very little in the way of trashing - the intellectual courage part was about the extent of it. The rest of it was all just unflinchingly hard questions of the like that nobody else has had the courage to pose to Ahmadenijad in his presence - like I said, the best of what the Western Enlightenment tradition has to offer.

Your objections to my comments about the mootness of GWB comparisons don't make any sense, and at any rate don't contradict my point that Bush's hypothetical reaction to a situation like this is, in fact, a moot point. As for your cheap and baseless comments about me having no friends - noted and ignored.