bob tarantino

The Tuesday Discussion 07.10.07

One US senator has made a public apology for his involvement (in some as yet unspecified fashion) with an escort service in Washington, D.C.  So, a terse question - should prostitution be illegal?

[For previous Tuesday Discussions, see here.]

The Tuesday Discussion 07.03.07

A brief explanation of the point of The Tuesday Discussion can be found here.

This week: Following on reports that "Zimbabwe's leading cleric has called on Britain to invade the country and topple President Robert Mugabe", at least one response has been "Can't somebody just bump [Mugabe] off?"  (Which, to be clear, is the same plaintive query I raise.)  Which prompts the question: what, if anything, would justify the killing of a government leader? Presumably there are some objective criteria or thresholds which can be identified (e.g., mass murder, mass imprisonments, etc.) which would justify the taking of violent action against a government.  I can't imagine that anyone would seriously argue agains the murder of, say, a Stalin or a Hitler, but that just means that they were so far past whatever criterion we would use that the answer had become obvious.  But let's not be coy: what are the incidents, if any, which would prompt you to take up arms against a government which was no longer legitimate?

The Tuesday Discussion 06.26.07

And so the inaugural edition of what will hopefully be a regular feature: The Tuesday Discussion.  Having coming to the conclusion that I'm actually more interested in hearing what you guys have to say about most issues than what I think, each Tuesday will feature a topic for discussion.  I usually won't be participating, except when I think I have something especially insightful to add.  The basic rules should be obvious: nothing defamatory, racist or otherwise illegal; ignore the trolls; try to stay at least vaguely on topic; there's a premium on thoughtful, respectful rhetoric.  I decide, in my sole, absolute and utter discretion what, if anything, gets deleted - those who have spent time at Let It Bleed or here know that I have a pretty high threshold for what goes on in comment threads, so something needs to be pretty out of line for me to step in - but I may decide to change that standard on a whim.  The topics will usually be matters about which my own thoughts are not entirely settled, but will hopefully range the gamut - I'm thinking next week will involve Neil Gaiman's Sandman.  Suggestions always welcome.

This week's discussion topic: the morality of using communist imagery as a marketing device (cf. Toronto's Pravda Vodka Bar), with particular reference to how your answer would differ, if at all, to the question of using fascist imagery instead.  To the extent it matters, my own views on this have changed over the years.  While I think that the use of both types of images is morally reprehensible, there is value in countenancing, say, selling CCCP t-shirts: first, it helps identify the historically illiterate, and second, can you imagine how pissed off, say, Dzhugashvili would be to find "degenerate" Western fashion houses hawking these wares, rather than them being a threatening symbol of triumphant Soviet armies?  In short, while it's blameworthy, I'm not sure it's worth getting worked up over.