@Scott, Then why is Marlboro getting rid of the design? I'm hating on them - I think the original restriction is ridiculous. In fact, I applaud Marlboro for finding such a clever way around it.
Can I just mention that Ridley Scott has been making bad historical epics since Gladiator? I mean, Kingdom of Heaven was just awful. Russell Crowe has the gravitas to pull off these roles, but it's painful to watch when he's saddled with bad scripts ("Master and Commander" is one recent exception).
Also, if Errol Flynn or Disney's animation department isn't involved, I'm just not interested in Robin Hood.
@Max Socol, I recognize my experience with this sort of thing is limited, but is casual anti-Semitism still prevalent in the United States? I don't think I've ever encountered anything beyond a few bad jokes.
@BCChase, I don't mean to suggest allegory can't be divinely inspired. It's just that stories allow for a bit more interpretive leeway than "here are God's commandments; obey or be punished." And if certain parts of the Bible are allegorical or otherwise open to interpretation, how do theologians distinguish between timeless commandments and things that are up for debate? At least, that's what I was trying to get at in my old post.
@Rufus F., Which begs the question: How do Christians distinguish between allegory and the timeless, unadulterated Word of God? Back when I first started blogging, I tried to tease this out in a post on Young Earth Creationists. John Schwenkler had an interesting response in the comments section:
Yeah, I'm really surprised that Taibbi takes such a black-and-white view of this. There's plenty of evidence that the financial industry is quickly accommodating itself to financial reform:
@Schofield, Thanks for the link (we've been arguing about Red Toryism for some time now), but I think Blond could fairly be described as a conservative left reactionary under Millman's schema.
@Dave, We can quibble about the Court's reasoning, but I think we'd both agree that Fish's proposed "cost-benefit" test for free speech is a really bad idea.
@Pat Cahalan, That's an interesting objection. But if I was to weigh the harms of, say, prosecuting protected speech versus the hypothetical proliferation of "crush videos" at some point in the future, I think I'd err towards protecting speech now. I also think you have to take a look at how Roberts would implement a narrower ban on "crush videos" before arguing that enforcement would be rendered obsolete within a few years.
@Patrick, I think that's exactly right. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Post's coverage:
"Roberts' opinion said the court was not passing judgment about whether a narrower statute limited just to crush videos and "other depictions of extreme animal cruelty" might be constitutional.
But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."
Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines. He said the law's exemption for works of "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value" was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government's argument that prosecutions were rare.
"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly," he wrote."
On “Patrick J. Deneen at Cato Unbound”
I'm telling all my friends I came up with this topic, even if that's not *strictly* true.
On “World Cup Pool”
@Publius, Good call with the pool, Publius.
On “Guerilla Marketing”
@Will, I'm not hating on them*
"
@Scott, Then why is Marlboro getting rid of the design? I'm hating on them - I think the original restriction is ridiculous. In fact, I applaud Marlboro for finding such a clever way around it.
On “Is Tyler Cowen autistic?”
@Jason Kuznicki, Rent "Tropic Thunder" and then talk to me. I hate to defend Ben Stiller, but that movie cracked me up.
On “Are Jews the new WASPs?”
@krishna109, I believe the pingbacks (below) are counted as comments.
On “Not the Robin Hood you were thinking of”
Can I just mention that Ridley Scott has been making bad historical epics since Gladiator? I mean, Kingdom of Heaven was just awful. Russell Crowe has the gravitas to pull off these roles, but it's painful to watch when he's saddled with bad scripts ("Master and Commander" is one recent exception).
Also, if Errol Flynn or Disney's animation department isn't involved, I'm just not interested in Robin Hood.
On “As American as Passover”
@Max Socol, I recognize my experience with this sort of thing is limited, but is casual anti-Semitism still prevalent in the United States? I don't think I've ever encountered anything beyond a few bad jokes.
On “Was Jesus a Canadian?”
Sigh. If only he was an American.
PS - For the record, I have a lot of "baller status" post tags floating around.
On “Desire and Deviance, again”
@Jason Kuznicki, So in the nature/nurture debate, do you fall somewhere in the middle (at least with respect to sexual preferences)?
On “Disch, the Tea Parties, and the City”
@Mike Schilling, Good catch.
On “Plato, “Gorgias” & ‘epistemic closure’”
Great post, Rufus.
On “Answers in Genesis”
@BCChase, I don't mean to suggest allegory can't be divinely inspired. It's just that stories allow for a bit more interpretive leeway than "here are God's commandments; obey or be punished." And if certain parts of the Bible are allegorical or otherwise open to interpretation, how do theologians distinguish between timeless commandments and things that are up for debate? At least, that's what I was trying to get at in my old post.
On “Girls and boys and Weezer.”
@William Brafford, It may be a generalization, but it rings awfully true.
On “Answers in Genesis”
@Rufus F., Which begs the question: How do Christians distinguish between allegory and the timeless, unadulterated Word of God? Back when I first started blogging, I tried to tease this out in a post on Young Earth Creationists. John Schwenkler had an interesting response in the comments section:
http://bestelectionever.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/biblical-literalism-faith-and-sarah-palin/
I'd call this shameless self promotion, but I was a pretty bad blogger back then. But Schwenkler's comments are pretty interesting.
On “Palibbinism: Or The Financial Servile State”
Yeah, I'm really surprised that Taibbi takes such a black-and-white view of this. There's plenty of evidence that the financial industry is quickly accommodating itself to financial reform:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/94735-blankfein-supports-financial-reform-legislation
On “Millman’s Taxonomy ctd.”
@Schofield, Thanks for the link (we've been arguing about Red Toryism for some time now), but I think Blond could fairly be described as a conservative left reactionary under Millman's schema.
"
@Jason Kuznicki, But it's so much more precise than calling you "libertarian."
On “Free Speech and Killing Kittens”
@Dave, We can quibble about the Court's reasoning, but I think we'd both agree that Fish's proposed "cost-benefit" test for free speech is a really bad idea.
"
@Pat Cahalan, That's an interesting objection. But if I was to weigh the harms of, say, prosecuting protected speech versus the hypothetical proliferation of "crush videos" at some point in the future, I think I'd err towards protecting speech now. I also think you have to take a look at how Roberts would implement a narrower ban on "crush videos" before arguing that enforcement would be rendered obsolete within a few years.
"
@Patrick, I think that's exactly right. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Post's coverage:
"Roberts' opinion said the court was not passing judgment about whether a narrower statute limited just to crush videos and "other depictions of extreme animal cruelty" might be constitutional.
But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."
Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines. He said the law's exemption for works of "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value" was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government's argument that prosecutions were rare.
"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly," he wrote."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042001980.html
"
@Freddie, Agreed.
On “Pot Culture Watch”
@Jaybird, HA! This is the best comment thread we've had in a while.
On “Millman’s taxonomy.”
I can't decide if I'm a liberal right reactionary or a conservative right reactionary. Or a liberal right progressive. Curse my indecision!
On “The Great State of Jefferson”
@Jason Kuznicki, I want the name of my secessionist state to be American, damnit!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.