"Land of the Spree": Grand Theft Auto IV was finally released and gun-wielding crazies took the streets in droves and... very politely waited in line in an orderly manner. Senior Virtual Correspondent Aasif Mandvi reported live from Liberty City to giddily talk about the chaos and loss of life throughout the game. There is nothing better than wreaking havoc in a virtual replica of the city you live in, apparently."Justice Scalia" (What? No fun puns that rhyme with "Scalia"?): Justice Anton Scalia recently appeared on 60 Minutes in an in-depth interview. After telling the nation to "get over" the Bush v. Gore case, he went on to claim that torture is not actually fair to refer to as "punishment." Even Senior Virtual Correspondent Aasif Mandvi, speeding through Liberty City, was annoyed enough to chime in and scold Scalia for shrugging off this violence. He then returned to cutting up cops with a machete.
"Sex and the Kiddies": The government has spent over $1 billion trying to keep teenagers from having sex. Abstinence-only programming has proved not nearly as effective as previously hoped. The Daily Show team, always concerned for the health and well-being of their teenage viewers, shared some "Words to Grow By" and informed us on the magical world of "dry humping". And of course, any excuse to bring out Samantha Bee and her increasingly round tummy is fantastic.
The night's guest was Newt Gingrinch, promoting Days of Infamy. The majority of the discussion focused around the media's treatment of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy. The interview was genuinely fascinating, with Jon getting multiple opportunities to remind us that he's not just some comedy monkey who can read headlines. Topics ranged from whether or not Barack Obama should be blamed for knowing someone like Wright and the issue of race and other crazy pastors. Jon totally schooling Newt Gingrinch on John McCain's pastor by promptly bringing out a quote off the top of his head was also pretty nice.
Moment of Zen: Anton Scalia doesn't think torture is punishment. That's just his opinion... which also happens to be correct.
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-30-2008 @ 12:17PM
Adam P said...
"Antonin" not "Anton". It's like a subtle effort to make the readers equate him with Anton LaVey, author of the Satanic Bible. Not cool.
Next up, torture versus punishment. Punishment is reactive and punitive... as in "a response to being naughty." By definition, torture COULD be A punishment, but should not be lumped as such.
For example: bacon is pork, but not all pork is bacon. Case by case, my friend.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 12:52PM
Bash said...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture%20
Torture:
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony
b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining
===
I guess Merriam-Webster is a better source than you, Adam... and if you didn't bother to read above text look under 2: near the words "to punish"
4-30-2008 @ 1:03PM
Adam P said...
I *guess* that having a word be *part* of another word's definition is strong enough of a case for you. And that's okay. But when you order bacon, and get ham, don't complain to the waitress. Complain to Merriam-Webster, because to her, it's all pork.
As is evident in definition 2, punishment is one cause of torture, however coersion is another. He wasn't asked about "cruel and unusual coersion." He was asked about cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, you can be punished without be tortured.
4-30-2008 @ 1:49PM
Bash said...
I think you just ran your pork-analogy into the ground.
The judge was being asked whether torturing is punishment. In its definition (which I now handed to you) torture means acting violent towards a person without that person having stood trial. Otherwise it wouldn't be torture, it would be a _sentence_.
Sentence = punishment after trial
Torture = punishment without trial
I understand what you thought was the judges point and I understand why you think you were right with your analogy.
But you weren't. And guessing won't help because you now guessed two times what it could mean and you were wrong both times.
4-30-2008 @ 2:05PM
Adam P said...
Is torture punishment? According to the definition handed to me (Thanks, Bash), it *can* be. It can also be a means of coercion. Another form of coercion that is not torture could be blackmail. So, it is possible for torture to also *not* be punisment.
Justice Scalia's job is to decide on nitty gritty definitions such as these. Thankfully it's not ours! Thank you for the discourse.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 3:56PM
Jose said...
You could punish someone by torturing them. But torture could be done not to punish, but to extract information or to coerce someone into doing something (like giving information).
A judge sentencing someone to be tortured as a punishment for a crime would be using torture as a form of punishment.
This is why Scalia is a supreme court justice and John Stewart mugs for the camera on a TV show.
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 4:48PM
Bash said...
He Jose. Imagine the following situation:
Interrogator: Tell me where your friends are
Perpetrator: No
Interrogator: If you don't tell me where your friends are I will torture you.
So what if not a punishment is torture then? Torture is punishment.
I know what you two are thinking: the suspect isn't being punished - he doesn't answer so we HAVE to torture him to make him give up the information. But it will ALWAYS be a punishment for NOT ANSWERING.
Gawd. Is it THAT hard to understand?
4-30-2008 @ 7:36PM
Spencer said...
It really shouldn't matter since the US "doesn't torture" so why is Scalia trying to justify it anyway..... hmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Reply
4-30-2008 @ 10:13PM
Karen said...
I'd love to see Adam P's and Jose's opinions of the distinction between torture or cruel and unusual unpunishment if they themselves were being waterboarded. I suspect that they might not wait to parse the difference then.
Incidentally, the OED does give the #1 definition of "punishment" as a sanction for a crime. But it goes on to note "More widely: rough physical treatment; battering, maltreatment; injury, damage; rough handling or excessive wear of materials or equipment." Of course, we can't go letting the Brits tell us what's constitutional, can we?
Personally, I find the notion nauseating that someone who sits on the highest court of justice in our land would go in for the kind of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin hairsplitting that says waterboarding is neither torture nor cruel and unusual punishment because it's not done in the cause of executing a sentence.
I might add that of course it's not being done in execution of a sentence--the government won't bother to give any of these prisoners trials in order to reach sentencing.
Simply nauseating.
Reply