A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky

That is possible but I doubt it. You often make this claim that people take positions contrary to yours because they have not "read enough" or not “read the right things". What is interesting is that these assertions are not usually backed by specific examples of what you read and what the other person missed. They are just nebulous assertions of if you read blank, you would think different. Instead of telling the other poster to read something (in my experience you are the only poster that uses this tactic) why don't you explain what you have read and how what you read supports your position or does not support the other poster's position. I believe this tactic would be more useful for everyone involved and much less pretentious.

The guy who taught me to try cases would explain you have to listen to everything, even stuff you don't want to hear. About lawyers he saw plowing blindly along sticking to some script he would say "he hasn't tried 100 cases, he has tried 1 case 100 times."

That said, I do think it is safe to say Ty has read more than all of us, if you judge solely by total word count, and don't discount for repetition.

[Spanky]

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Moral imperatives can often be classified as the lesser of two evils.

True.

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe that most people who study and discuss epistemology would agree that there is no such thing as an immoral imperative (hi SAM). Morality concerns what actions ones should or should not take, and whether such actions are just or unjust. One should always act morally. By definition, if an act is imperative, it must be just and moral. That is why the idea that in order to do the right thing you must do an immoral act is, I think, is an absurd position. An immoral imperative is an oxymoron.

This sounds reasonable and may be correct as a matter of definitions. I would ask a close relative with an advanced degree in such matters, but that isn't the topic I want to discuss during our Christmas gathering.

I guess then that the key dispute then is over what/when/if torture is an "imperative." In the discussions here, I think most people have signed onto the idea (in one way or another) that torture would be an imperative in the mythical "ticking time bomb" scenario.

Its more general application poses big problems however -- i.e. if other means of interrogation work, even if more slowly and perhaps less effectively, when do you switch over to torture (if at all) in the absence of certain knowledge of an imminent threat? And how certain must you be? And what happens when you're wrong, which you will be sometimes?

Originally posted by Spanky
The times when torturing the innocent is moral is an extremely rare occurrence, but sometimes it might be a moral imperative. If the only way to save a plane load of children was to torture an innocent child, then I would say you would have to torture the innocent child.

However, I can't imagine this scenario ever arising.

Ehhh -- In the spirit of the season, lets just agree that we cannot imagine a scenario arising in which it is a moral imperative to torture innocent people. There! We have reached agreement. Feliz Navidad.


S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you see my comments about an immoral imperative? I see that as an oxymoron. If you should do something to serve justice, in my understanding of the terminology that means it has to be moral.

How do you see it?

My last post answered some of this, and I understand your thoughts on the moral imperative. In my gut, not using any particular technical definitions, I think that I see a real difference between concepts of "morality" and "justice" -- but I can't articulate that difference well.

For me, justice implies a sense of people being treated as they deserve, while morality has to do with treating people according to a certain code.

Thus, I think that our basic morality often constrains/limits our ability to do true "justice"

You can probably tell that the toughest course for me in college was freshman philosophy. I took the required semester and never went back -- stretched the brain too much, and I am not facile with these terms.

Originally posted by Spanky
If the act of torturing the terrorist to save the innocent people is immoral but you should do it, does that mean it is immoral but just? Immoral but the right thing to do?

How does moral differ from Just and Right (as in acting in the right and not in the wrong)?

See above. I would say that, in those circumstances, torture could be immoral yet just and/or the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Spanky
If the act of torturing the terrorist is not right, unjust and immoral, then how do you differentiate that act, which you should do, from torturing an innocent child for fun, which you should definitely not do? What makes one something you should do and the other something you shouldn't do?

While you've picked an extreme example, it seems to me that this answer inevitably falls back on people's subjective views of objective morality. Thus, it is a pretty dangerous evaluation without some bright line rules.

S_A_M

P.S. Now I am done with torture for the holidays.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
True.


This sounds reasonable and may be correct as a matter of definitions. I would ask a close relative with an advanced degree in such matters, but that isn't the topic I want to discuss during our Christmas gathering.

I guess then that the key dispute then is over what/when/if torture is an "imperative." In the discussions here, I think most people have signed onto the idea (in one way or another) that torture would be an imperative in the mythical "ticking time bomb" scenario.

Its more general application poses big problems however -- i.e. if other means of interrogation work, even if more slowly and perhaps less effectively, when do you switch over to torture (if at all) in the absence of certain knowledge of an imminent threat? And how certain must you be? And what happens when you're wrong, which you will be sometimes?



Ehhh -- In the spirit of the season, lets just agree that we cannot imagine a scenario arising in which it is a moral imperative to torture innocent people. There! We have reached agreement. Feliz Navidad.


S_A_M

Again, as I said, I don't think there can be an immoral imperative. I think moral, just and doing what is right are all the same things and you can't draw a distinction. I think your desire, and Taxwonk's desire to draw a distinction somewhere is correct, but I think you are drawing it in the wrong place. The distinction should be between what is legal and what is moral. In other words the legal code should not always mirror the UMC.

Sometimes what is just, you don't want to make legal. Even more importantly what is unjust, you often don't want to make illegal; like lying, adultery or stealing your brother's French fries.

Sometimes torturing a suspect might be a moral imperative but I would argue that you wouldn't want to write an exception into the domestic legal code to cover these limited times torture is just. The times that it would be applicable are so rare, and the abuses used by the loophole would be so often that the cost benefit is just not there. Yes somewhere along the line an innocent person is going to die, but that in my opinion that price is worth paying for keeping torture out of our domestic legal system.

However, when it comes to the war on terror, I don't think this same logic applies because the facts are so radically different. I think Taxwonk has argued that the same logic that applies to our domestic legal system applies to the war on terror. However, I believe that this policy against torture is and will be disastrous in the war on terror if continued, so our the policy in our domestic legal system needs to be different that our policy when it comes to detiaining terrorist in the war on Terror.

When you make something illegal that most people see as necessary, and so everyone is breaking the rules, then the consequences can be very dire. For example, telling a coed army that all sex among any service people is illegal. Although, for unit cohesion and morale, it might be better if no solider serving with each other had sex, if you made that a rule, everyone would be breaking it all the time with the results would be that one 1) you would be putting a lot of good people in the position of violating the rule, which might force you to kick out good people 2) you make all rules less legitimate when you create ones that everyone breaks.

The ban against torture in the war on Terror in my opinion has similar characteristics (but of course, they are obviously very different issues). From everything I have read and seen (including the Looming Tower- hi Ty), because of the unique situation of this war, most interrogators are going to end up torturing inmates. No matter what rules you have.

Why? Are all interrogators sadists? I don't think so, I think it is because, as I said, the unique facts surrounding this conflict. Unlike most wars, in this war the enemy's key asset is keeping its secrets, without its secrets it can't operate, we have captives that have these secrets and they won't want to give them up, if they do give up the secrets you can save hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives, and torture is the quickest and most effective way to get this information. We have never been in a war before with these special circumstances. I think this situation is reflected in the military's, intelligence services' and administration's incredible efforts to keep the torture option open; claiming certain things are not torture, setting up special prisons in foreign countries, denying access to observers etc. Is this because these people are all thugs, sadists and like to torture? Although many people on this board would argue that that is true about the administration, I don't think this is reasonable position to hold. They do it because the use of torture is a key and important tool in the war on terror.

For the interrogators with a conscience, they do use torture but they try and minimize the permanent damage and minimize the physical pain. That is why things like water boarding, sleep deprivation, etc. are used. But in my opinion all these activities are clearly torture. But if you continue the ban on torture, you get what is already happening. People say the policy on banning torture is correct (like a few military guys that have written books on the subject), but claim things they are doing are not torture.

Many conservatives on this board have fallen into this trap. They have tried to label sleep deprivation, water boarding etc. as not torture, because of the general idea that torture should not be used. The danger of all of this is, if eventually these things are not considered torture then they could creep into or domestic legal system. If water boarding and sleep deprivation are not torture, then why not use it on suspects in our domestic legal system? For many the reasoning for banning all torture is so it doesn't creep into our domestic legal system. However, I see this reasoning could very well backfire. Most people do not have a problem with water boarding and other such activities being used in the war on terror. But if in order to keep those policies legal they are considered not torture, you and I may end up being water boarded the next time we end up in policy custody.

In addition, if you ban something everyone is doing, you end up making it so in order for interrogators to do their jobs effectively they must break the law, face possible legal consequences, and jeopardize their career. I don't think you want to create a situation where people to be effective in their jobs face problems. That is incentivising the wrong stuff. I believe that would also encourage the sadists to stick with the job and decent people to walk out. The exact situation you don’t want if you are going to be torturing people. A sadist is the last person you want to see overseeing coercive interrogation techniques. In addition, if it is going on, but you must pretend it is not, that makes it much more difficult to oversee it and regulate it. So by banning torture in the hopes of preventing the abuse of prisoners the end result may be the prisoners are abused even more harshly and unnecessarily because of the policy.

Like I said, it would be nice if torture didn't work, or if there were just as effective means to get information. As I said, if either of these assertions were true, there would be absolutely no reason to use torture. But I think all evidence clearly establishes that neither is true. Does this mean I don’t want them to be true? No, I wish they were true, but I believe I just am facing a harsh reality. I am firmly convinced that the conventional wisdom that torture does not work, and there are other means more effective, are the product of denial and wishful thinking. I believe that torture is being used because it is effective and interrogators will continue to use it in the war on terror no matter what the policy.

I see the main reason for banning torture in the war on terror is to prevent its abuse so prisoners are not treated more harshly than they have to be and so torture does not end up creeping into our domestic legal system. But the ban on torture in the war on terror may just have the opposite effect on both these goals, and at the same time, cost innocent human lives.

In addition, the argument that banning torture because it is always immoral (and therefore always violates the UMC) is, if you really think about it, is clearly faulty because there is no such thing as an immoral imperative. Since people almost universally think that torturing is a moral imperative in the ticking time bomb case that to me clearly demonstrates that torture is not always a violation of the UMC.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky, I'm overwhelmed by the length of your posts, so I'm not going to try to respond point by point. I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth when I say that you take a utilitarian view of torture -- that it's not something to be done lightly, but that it is acceptable when the benefits (the prospect of saving "innocent" lives) outweigh the harms. Thus, you would be OK with torturing, say, an innocent child (e.g., the infant daughter of a terrorist) if the prospect of saving other innocents was real.

One can't argue against this view on its own terms. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would approve. However, it raises some questions:

- how do you weigh the harms of torture against the benefits? to some degree, they are incommensurable. also, there's this question of the uncertainty of the benefits. the "ticking time bomb" scenario asks one to accept as a hypothesis that you know that you'll be able to find the bomb, but in real life we have been torturing people without knowing (ex ante) what they know, and whether it will help.

- why do you not seem concerned about the abuse (i.e., overuse) of torture? in a conversation about the misuse of torture, you popped up (again) to argue that torture is sometimes ok. if you were motivated by a straight cost-benefit analysis, one might think that you'd have a little time for the prospect that our government is torturing too much, but it's not something you seem to notice.

- why is this sort of cost-benefit balancing not the way you approach other social problems? e.g., why not tax the very rich to pay for food for the poor? a cost-benefit analysis surely suggests that a few rich people need the extra money less than the poor need food. and so on.

- what does "innocence" have to do with it? i keep noting that you refer to "innocent" victims of terror and implying the "guilt" of terrorists, from which i infer that you seem torture as a sort of punishment, but this is hardly clear to me.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, I'm overwhelmed by the length of your posts, so I'm not going to try to respond point by point. I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth when I say that you take a utilitarian view of torture -- that it's not something to be done lightly, but that it is acceptable when the benefits (the prospect of saving "innocent" lives) outweigh the harms. Thus, you would be OK with torturing, say, an innocent child (e.g., the infant daughter of a terrorist) if the prospect of saving other innocents was real.

One can't argue against this view on its own terms. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would approve. However, it raises some questions:

- how do you weigh the harms of torture against the benefits? to some degree, they are incommensurable. also, there's this question of the uncertainty of the benefits. the "ticking time bomb" scenario asks one to accept as a hypothesis that you know that you'll be able to find the bomb, but in real life we have been torturing people without knowing (ex ante) what they know, and whether it will help.

- why do you not seem concerned about the abuse (i.e., overuse) of torture? in a conversation about the misuse of torture, you popped up (again) to argue that torture is sometimes ok. if you were motivated by a straight cost-benefit analysis, one might think that you'd have a little time for the prospect that our government is torturing too much, but it's not something you seem to notice.

- why is this sort of cost-benefit balancing not the way you approach other social problems? e.g., why not tax the very rich to pay for food for the poor? a cost-benefit analysis surely suggests that a few rich people need the extra money less than the poor need food. and so on.

- what does "innocence" have to do with it? i keep noting that you refer to "innocent" victims of terror and implying the "guilt" of terrorists, from which i infer that you seem torture as a sort of punishment, but this is hardly clear to me.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between an individual acting in technical violation of the law, but nonetheless appropriately under the extreme case? It seems to some extent to have been implied in other of your posts, but you have never to my memory expressly endorsed the concept.

I also have to second your scepticism regarding the notion of "innocence" v. "guilt." in the above hypothetical. How can the infant child of a terrorist be "guilty" inder the example of anything other that being born to the wrong parent?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
i infer that you seem torture

Originally posted by Taxwonk
inder the example

I certainly do not claim to speak for the Lord in all things. I do believe it safe to say, however, that drunkeness is not something he would equate with acceptable celebration of the birth of his Son.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I certainly do not claim to speak for the Lord in al things. I do believe it safe to say, however, that drunkeness is not something he would equate with acceptable celebration of the birth of his Son.

Here in the Western Hemisphere, it's still December 24, and a glass or two of an Italian red wine is entirely appropriate.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I certainly do not claim to speak for the Lord in al things. I do believe it safe to say, however, that drunkeness is not something he would equate with acceptable celebration of the birth of his Son.

I do not believe that Hashem, would have much of an opinion at all on how a jew would choose to pass the day prior to the deemed birth date of the talented, albeit exremely liberal, self-appointed rabbi of which you speak.

I do note, however, that the rabbi in question was known on occasion to make copious quantities of wine for his congregation to enjoy. I also believe that inebriation may have played a part in his subsequent arrest and unfortunate death at the hands of some over-zealous Italians.

In any event, I am afraid my typographical error is due not to a celebratory glass or two of wine or spiritous beverage, but rather to the effects of narcotic pain relievers presxribed in the wake of an extemporaneous drilling adventure in my femoral artery.

Will you be dining on fishes this evening, or do you swing strictly MOT?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, I'm overwhelmed by the length of your posts, so I'm not going to try to respond point by point.

Why not just address a few points instead of trying to make a blanket summary? In the past, you usually do these summay posts because you are claiming you are saving time, and want to get to the heart of the matter. However, whatever your intent, it has been my experience that when you take this tactic you miss the point completely, repeat statements you have already made that I have addressed (but since you don't address my statements point by point you can conveniently overlook that fact) and turn the whole conversation into a nested loop. I hope this time this "summary" post is different, but my hopes are not high.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth when I say that you take a utilitarian view of torture -- that it's not something to be done lightly, but that it is acceptable when the benefits (the prospect of saving "innocent" lives) outweigh the harms. Thus, you would be OK with torturing, say, an innocent child (e.g., the infant daughter of a terrorist) if the prospect of saving other innocents was real.

I take both a utilitarian view and a moral view, not just a utilitarian view. You stated I just take a utilitarian view which I reject. I think the utilitarian view revolves around whether torture is effective and if it is; is there another means that can be used.

The moral issue revolves around whether or not torture is always immoral. To me the moral issue has to revolve around the UMC which is an instinct we all have. Like I said before, the use of the term moral, immoral, just, and unjust implies there is a UMC that we all agree on. Just like the term legal and non legal assumes that there is a legal code we all agree is valid. Without a legal code that we agree on the terms legal and illegal are meaningless. Or if we use two different legal codes we can argue all day but get no where. If there is not a UMC, then what is moral to you may not be moral to me, and we can argue about it all day but get nowhere. If morality is subjective it is useless to argue about it.

When it comes to the moral issues we simply turn to our instincts. When you give the ticking time bomb example most people will say that in that case it is moral to torture the terrorist. The question of “what most people would say” is relevant because you are talking about the UMC and therefore peoples instincts. If there is an internal UMC inside all of us, then the majority of us should come down the same way on the issue. If that were not the case, then what the majority thinks is irrelevant. The logic of the position would trump majority vote, and you wouldn’t care “what most people think”. In my view, if most people think that it is OK to torture the terrorist in the ticking time bomb case, that is the end of the discussion. It is clearly moral to do so. Other people may try and argue that it is an immoral imperative, but for reasons I think are obvious, if there is such thing as an immoral imperative then we can never agree on what is moral and immoral. The whole morality argument becomes fruitless and irrelevant.

Now there is an issue of how the obvious morality of the situation should be translated into the legal code. There are arguments on both sides. This issue is where the issue of abuse becomes central to the argument. But until you agree that torture is moral in some circumstances, then you can't address the times it can be used, and you can't address the issue of abuse.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One can't argue against this view on its own terms. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would approve. However, it raises some questions:

- how do you weigh the harms of torture against the benefits? to some degree, they are incommensurable. also, there's this question of the uncertainty of the benefits. the "ticking time bomb" scenario asks one to accept as a hypothesis that you know that you'll be able to find the bomb, but in real life we have been torturing people without knowing (ex ante) what they know, and whether it will help.

At this point, once you enter the realm of doing a cost benefit analysis you are assuming some times torture is OK. Once you do that then you have to develop a policy of when or when it is not OK to use it. But why would I get into that discussion when you and I haven't even agreed that it some point torture is moral?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop - why do you not seem concerned about the abuse (i.e., overuse) of torture?

Where do you get that? Of course I am concerned about the abuse. I already stated I don't think torture should be allowed in our domestic legal system, even if in some circumstances its use would be moral, because of the potential for abuse. Do you think I said that because I am totally unconcerned about abuse? And why does my "concern" matter. Is this a discussion on "The View"? Either the potential for abuse is relevant to the issue at hand or it is not.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop in a conversation about the misuse of torture, you popped up (again) to argue that torture is sometimes ok. if you were motivated by a straight cost-benefit analysis, one might think that you'd have a little time for the prospect that our government is torturing too much, but it's not something you seem to notice.

“one might think that you'd have a little time....." This statement is a perfect example of where it seems to me that your legal training leaves you and you enter the irrational realm. If the subject is relevant to the issue, I will address it; if it is not then I won't address it. On the subject of whether or not the use of torture is moral, the issue of whether it will or can be abused is irrelevant. On the issue of whether or not it is OK to incorporate the use of torture into policy, the potential for abuse is very relevant, and in that regard I have addressed it.

But this statement above seems to me to be an argument for me to recognize and address subjects that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop why is this sort of cost-benefit balancing not the way you approach other social problems? e.g., why not tax the very rich to pay for food for the poor? a cost-benefit analysis surely suggests that a few rich people need the extra money less than the poor need food. and so on.

I do cost benefit analysis all the time when I address all sorts of issues. This is really ripe. I was just arguing the other day for a progressive income tax citing both the moral and utilitarian reasons for having one. In fact, I even went into a cost benefit analysis. However, to directly address your point, using the cost benefits analysis doesn't mean you grossly simplify the subject and then do an analysis. Taxing the rich (and taxation in general) brings up a very intricate cost benefit analysis. The example you use here is a gross oversimplification, and therefore would lead to faulty and poorly based conclusions.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop what does "innocence" have to do with it? i keep noting that you refer to "innocent" victims of terror and implying the "guilt" of terrorists,

You accuse me of lack of values before and then you ask me what innocence has to do with it? Do you not think that people have to take responsibility for their actions? Do you not think people have to be taken to task for their actions? Isn't that the basis of our entire legal system? If a terrorist sets up a ticking time bomb shouldn't they have to account for that? Should the innocent be punished or made to take into account for something they didn't do? If a terrorist sets a ticking time bomb, should another person be punished?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
from which i infer that you seem torture as a sort of punishment, but this is hardly clear to me.

This is why a discussion with you is only productive if you are forced to address my specific points. I have said again and again that torture is not to be used as a form of punishment. Torture is solely used as a means to elicit information. But whether or not you can use torture to elicit information depends on the innocence or guilt of the victim. The guilty person has participated in events that have made the torture necessary. But for their actions and inactions the torture would not be necessary. This is not true of the innocent victim. That is why, in the ticking time bomb case, if the proposed victim of the torture set the bomb the decision is so easy for most people to make.

In the future, if you want to discuss this issue:

1) Answer the question if you think it is moral or immoral to torture someone in the ticking time bomb scenario (and if you complain again for me asking this question "because you have already answered it", fine, at least answer the question after you express your indignation).

2) when stating something point out whether or not you are addressing the moral or utilitarian issue. But of course if you think torture is always immoral then a utilitarian discussion is not relevant (unless of course you concede the point for sake of argument)

3) Don't assume I have taken any position that I have not said I have taken.

This will somewhat prevent the discussion from going in circles and positions having to be repeated endlessly.

[Spanky]

These questions seemed directed at me eventhough you quoted TS. If there were not I apologise for answering them.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Wouldn't you agree that there is a difference between an individual acting in technical violation of the law, but nonetheless appropriately under the extreme case? It seems to some extent to have been implied in other of your posts, but you have never to my memory expressly endorsed the concept.

Absolutely. I think breaking the law sometimes is a moral imperative. And even if it is a moral imperative, that doesn't necesarily mean the law should be changed to account for such situations (but usually it does because you don't want to encourage people to break the law, or make is necesary to break the law to act mmorally). But this same rule does not hold for morality. It is never necessary (in my view) for someone to act immorally.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I also have to second your scepticism regarding the notion of "innocence" v. "guilt." in the above hypothetical. How can the infant child of a terrorist be "guilty" inder the example of anything other that being born to the wrong parent?

As I told TM, a child is never guilty of the sins of the father.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I can stop drinking anytime I want to. Can't I?

Top Ten Signs you're Closet Alcoholic on Shabbos

10. To enhance mitzvah of Kiddush you replace your shot glass with a Super Big Gulp cup

9. Suddenly found yourself in the yeshivish clique after three weeks of consistently slurring your English words

8. Two words: Flask Yomi

7. At the annual "Get rid of your Chametz" party you bring a keg

6. You told the rabbi his speech was "bitchin'"

5. You've gotten all ready for shul when suddenly realized, it's Wednesday

4 When you wish people good shabbos, they tell you they don't have any change on them

3 You found yourself in line for shul candy man hoping to score some breath mints

2 You have no clue what a haftorah is

1. It is the real reason you don't drive to synagogue

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I do not believe that Hashem, would have much of an opinion at all on how a jew would choose to pass the day prior to the deemed birth date of the talented, albeit exremely liberal, self-appointed rabbi of which you speak.

I do note, however, that the rabbi in question was known on occasion to make copious quantities of wine for his congregation to enjoy. I also believe that inebriation may have played a part in his subsequent arrest and unfortunate death at the hands of some over-zealous Italians.

In any event, I am afraid my typographical error is due not to a celebratory glass or two of wine or spiritous beverage, but rather to the effects of narcotic pain relievers presxribed in the wake of an extemporaneous drilling adventure in my femoral artery.

Will you be dining on fishes this evening, or do you swing strictly MOT?

I don't think there is any question that Jesus was Jewish (or at least half Jewish). So assuming Jesus is God (or part of God) which most Christians do, then most Christians think God is Jewish.

Is there any other historical fact that is as ironic, inane and perplexing as the fact that so much misery and abuse has been heaped upon the Jewish people (and we are talking pretty extreme abuse, like the Holocaust) by a people that think the only omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Supreme Being is a Jew?

And on that happy note,

Feliz Navidad

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here in the Western Hemisphere, it's still December 24, and a glass or two of an Italian red wine is entirely appropriate.

Why isn't it appropriate on the 25th? Are you telling me that if I crack open a Pinot tomorrow I am going to hell?