I do understand that the purpose of Godwin's law is to reduce the worst kinds of hyperbole, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

Whatever you think about Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians, referring to it as extermination only shows that you haven't taken the time to understand anything about the current conflict and you are just reacting emotionally to the terrible horror of war. Extermination is the total elimination of a certain population by killing, and such an action is so far beyond the state of oppression we see in Gaza today that I just can't take your comparison seriously.

The only way you bother to support these outlandish statements is by telling me that death is death - no matter what the cause - as if that mindless tautology is enough to render two wildly different sets of circumstances and tactics equivalent.

Should we also call all murders murders and not bother to make distinctions between first degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter, etc? Should we treat the serial killer the same as the drunken brawler who hit someone too hard in a bar fight?

Of course not. As thinking people we analyze factors such as intent, quantity, severity, remorse, and perhaps most importantly, we consider what measures can possibly be taken to correct the underlying cause. All of these elements are wildly different in the different degrees of murders, and having an honest grasp of these differences helps us understand how we as a society should react to each degree, both in terms of punishment and rehabilitation.

To similar ends, it is very important that we consider analogous distinctions in the different degrees of atrocities between nations or ethnic groups. The fact that it is obvious that I would much rather be in Gaza today than a concentration camp in 1943 is very much so relevant to this sort of analysis. The fact that there is no Israeli intent to exterminate the Palestinians is also relevant.

But if you want to leave the depth of your understanding at "dead is dead" then I guess that's your choice.

human garbage.
Sorry, no justice for someone so far gone-
Britain has quite a reputation for brawlers, yobs...Would most eyewitnesses there immediately call 999 if they witnessed this? I know if this happened in Texas there would be at least 3 people chasing this asshole down to throttle him, before the police got him....The constabulary once he'd been arrested would not treat him much better.
He'd be handcuffed to a hospital bed.

Personally, if I had seen it, I would have stalked the guy after finding scrap metal or a 2X4 had I no aeresol can and lighter.

For those that would like more insight to the myth of the liberal media, I present several books on the subject. there are of course books that look at it from the opposite angle (that the media really is liberal). I'll post about those books when the video comes up on VS.

Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
by David Edwards (Author), David Cromwell (Author), John Pilger (Foreword)

________________________________________________

The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
by Edward S. Herman (Author)

Book Description
The Myth of the Liberal Media contends that the mainstream media are parts of a market system and that their performance is shaped primarily by proprietor/owner and advertiser interests. Using a propaganda model, it is argued that the commercial media protect and propagandize for the corporate system. Case studies of major media institutions?the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer?are supplemented by detailed analyses of "word tricks and propaganda" and the media's treatment of topics such as Third World elections, the Persian Gulf War, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the fall of Suharto, and corporate junk science.
"Edward Herman's invaluable studies of the media in market-oriented democracies find their natural place in the broader sweep of contemporary history. Herman quotes James Madison's observation in later life that 'a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.' The observation is apt; formal guarantees of personal freedom do not suffice to prevent the farce or the tragedy, even if the guarantees are observed. These issues, explored and illuminated in (these) essays . . ., should be at the center of the concerns of those who seek to create a society that is more free and more just." From the Preface by Noam Chomsky

__________________________________________

What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News (Paperback)
by Eric Alterman (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. Much of Alterman's argument comes down to this: the conservatives in the newspapers, television, talk radio, and the Republican party are lying about liberal bias and repeating the same lies long enough that they've taken on a patina of truth. Further, the perception of such a bias has cowed many media outlets into presenting more conservative opinions to counterbalance a bias, which does not, in fact, exist, says Alterman. In methodically shooting down conservative charges, Alterman employs extensive endnotes, all of which are referenced with superscript numbers throughout the body of the book. Those little numbers seem to say, "Look, I've done my homework." What Liberal Media? is a book very much of 2003 and will likely lose some relevance as political powers and media arrangements evolve. But it's likely to be a tonic for anyone who has suspected that in a media environment overflowing with conservatives, the charges of bias are hard to swallow. For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion.

Hm. How to say this:

- Kicks work in MMA, even against grappling specialists. The kicker just has to be very good at kicking, takedown defense, and escaping from ground to standing, i.e. be a good sprawl-and-brawler. Kicking has proven to be a very important part of MMA, and anybody who doesn't train to kick and defend against kicks is an incomplete fighter. Anybody who doesn't think so is wrong.
- TKD is an art with many different variations, it's how it's trained that makes the difference. Because most tournament TKD is trained crappily with tippy-tappy kicks not intended for damage, and because no punching is allowed, tournament TKD sucks for self defense. Then again, most Krav Maga sucks for self-defense too because it caters to wimpy civilians who are looking for any easy way out rather than pay the sweat, blood, and pain in training, so who's counting?
- Martial arts are all about fighting. Anybody who's practicing a martial art that isn't about fighting isn't practicing a martial art. That's just my opinion, but I'm right.
- Boards don't hit back. Seems pretty smart to single them out to fight, then, right?

People, just appreciate this for what it is: an amazing example of athleticism and skill intended for crowd-pleasing, board-breaking, kick-flipping action, not for combat ability. I highly doubt anybody would think throwing a tornado kick in a fight is a good idea, and whoever does deserves the surprise that Darwin's got coming for them.

As an MMAer myself, I don't quite understand what's so mindblowing about MMA making it onto the cover of SI. It's a terrific sport, albeit somewhat misunderstood, and is quickly becoming one of the leading sport draws. I men, it's fighting for pete's sake, how can that NOT appeal to young adults?

As you may know, mixed martial arts, in the form of pankration, was one of the most popular sports in the original Greek Olympic games, back in the 600s B.C., and is currently under review for admittance as a demonstration sport in the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.

Contrary to popular belief, mixed martial art fighters are not mindless brawlers: in fact, to reach a high level in the sport requires excellence in not just one martial art, but many arts, in order to adequately cover the three ranges of combat (standing, clinch, and ground) as well as both striking and grappling. For example, Fedor, almost universally considered the best fighter in the world, draws his base as an international champion in judo and sambo, and usually trains in submission grappling, boxing, and Muay Thai. He has, among many other feats, thrown and submitted an Olympic gold-medal judoka, hip tossed an Olympic silver-medal Greco-Roman wrestler, submitted some of the world's best Brazilian jiu-jitieros, and knocked out high-level Muay Thai fighters and kickboxers.

MMA has become a proving ground for martial arts, in what I believe is the spirit of Bruce Lee's philosophy of Jeet Kune Do: take what works, discard what doesn't. Arts that are effective are proven in the ring, and ones that aren't are dropped quickly - people can't make excuses when they get hit in the face. And the arts that work have coalesced into an overarching view of fighting, making for basically the most effective method of training and preparation for unarmed combat.

As for homoerotic overtones....well, I guess one can see what one wants to see.

Sifters interested in learning more about specific aspects of MMA can check out my Fighting Arts playlist, which includes sifts covering an expanding selection of martial arts practiced and used in mixed martial arts competitions.