The most revealing part of the interview was his acknowledgment of the greatness of Mozart, Kafka, and Picasso... and the fact that he couldn't compete with them.

Unable to match their artistic skill, he expresses himself with shit.

There are craftsman who built cathedrals more than 800 years ago that still inspire awe.

But how will our generation be remembered? Will our feces be proudly displayed alongside classical Greek statuary?

Many have asked, whether anyone was hurt by this... but when considering art, the question should rather be what does it say about our culture? No culture can be saved by putting "artists" on trial. But there can be no doubt that such art deeply impoverishes us as a society. It enervates our creativity, and creates a world without beauty or virtue. But sadly, some of you are already too jaded by these works to see this.

Finally, we've crossed the uncanny valley... but in the wrong direction

The ANC was a terrorist organization... Apartheid was wrong, but Mandela's original approach was to use violence against innocents at a train station by planting bombs. That's why he was sent to prison. (He obviously shouldn't be on the list any longer)

Violence was not what ended Apartheid, it was ended through peaceful means. But for those who think that everyone in the ANC has renounced violence, you should think again.

Most likely the next president will be Jacob Zuma, a man already under suspicion of rape and corruption. One of his famous slogans during the struggle was "one settler one bullet."

Moral clarity requires us to recognize that the response to evil is not more evil to balance things out. We can be opposed to apartheid and equally opposed to the opportunists who are exploiting the current situation.

Mugabe is a good example of a leader fought injustice with injustice. If you can't resist tyranny with character, what's to prevent you from becoming another tyrant once you have the power?

Are you all deliberately misunderstanding the argument Stein made?

What about Eugenics? Or Hitler's desire for racial purity, or Stalin's acts of "animal husbandry", Or Darwin's explicit call for weaker people to be killed like farm animals?

Calling Ben Stein an idiot or pointing out that religious people also do evil things is not a valid argument.

But here is an argument:

If man evolves through natural selection, then when weak are culled the health of our species is improved. (or am I missing some mysterious component of Darwinism which commends compassion?)

Time after time the vast majority of commenter's talk about what's right and what's not right as if morality just falls out of the sky. Well how about doing some of the philosophical homework for once?

Most of you may despise Christianity, but the fact is that our culture is so steeped in the Sermon on the Mount that we just take it all for granted, as if everyone just knows we should all play nice.

Given evolution, genocide, slavery, and rape are the most natural and logical acts in the world. The strong propagate their genes and the weak are prevented from doing so.

So the animals have changed over time... not sure that was ever a question.

The findings relayed in this article, if anything, undermine Darwinism. If these creatures are evolving that quickly, then there must be some other mechanism operating then natural selection, because there haven't been enough generations for this level of mutation to arise.

So the task is not merely to recognize change, but to explain the mechanism behind it.

One thing to bear in mind is that the only evidence of abuse was a single anonymous phone call which was the pretext for the entire raid.

As a member of the American Anthropology Association let me just say that not having been formally trained in anthropology is probably advantageous.

It means he's less likely to get sucked into the fads that Anthropologists sometimes confuse with science.

For example, Dostoevsky was probably one of the greatest anthropologists of all time.

At the risk of sounding like a "rat fucking, hypocrite Nazi bastard"... what about people who don't want to live in a culture were everyone gets off from eating each other's shit?

It's at least worth considering this from an anthropological perspective.

Cultures can only survive through the promotion of the sacred and the enforcement of taboos. This has always been true and it's no less true of the culture of Boing Boing then anywhere else. For example, here personal liberty is sacred, and DRM is taboo. Granted we don't use the law to enforce these taboos, we rely on social pressure.

But one thing worth bearing in mind is that humanity has both individual and corporate identity. It's not always wrong to enforce cultural norms, no cultural can survive without them. But finding the balance between personal liberty and corporate identity has always been a challenge.

The real problem is not whether or not the earth is warming, but whether or not it's a catastrophe that we need to be rescued from.

Bureaucrats the world over are salivating at the possibility of taxing carbon emissions so they can "save us". Can someone remind me what was the last global problem the bureaucrats were able to solve? (Hint: it the eradication of AIDS, global poverty, malaria, nuclear proliferation, genocide, or anything else these international bodies have been tasked with) But if we just give them power over this... they will save us all!

From what exactly? Rising temperatures will ramp up the hydrologic cycle... more rain, and more C02 will accelerate plant growth. Global warming could halt desertification and turn the Sahara, the Gobi, and the American Southwest into gardens.

All this discussion about rights and gender has me a little confused. On the one hand we have an emphasis on gender that is so strong that people are traumatized by it. But at the same time we maintain that gender really doesn't make any difference.

So what about the gender identification needs of children? Is it such a radical idea to think that kids need both a mother and father? If someone wants to make their own lifestyle choices that's one thing.

But to insist that gender is so essential to your identity that surgery is the only answer and then to claim that gender is so irrelevant to your children that it makes no difference seems like trying to have it both ways.

No your right. I would find a crowded marketplace kill as many other loved-ones as I could. It's not pacifism, it's an aversion to murder.

@ Nixar

What would I do? I wouldn't remote detonate a woman with down syndrome in a crowded market. I wouldn't smear fecal matter on rusted nails to cause festering wounds. I wouldn't decapitate people, or take up arms against a rival political party when I wasn't bombing Israeli civilians.

What would I do? I would peacefully lobby for concessions. It would accomplish FAR more. The palestinians are their own worst enemy. FYI, who are they killing at the moment? Each other. But I suppose that's also Israels fault?

Weinstein is such a hypocrite... yes let's get Clooney and Pitt to tell us "Stealing isn't cool"! Maybe they could air the PSA during Ocean's 14?

@Gerta

Most biologists do not consider viruses to be "alive" because they lack both metabolism and the ability to reproduce.

This research is incredibly significant for many reasons. First, science is based on empirical evidence, and abiogensis (a fundemental requirement of evolution) has never been observed. To recreate this event is a major milestone.

Although its a bit curious that it would be so difficult to create a simple cell when we know that they just randomly come together.

I'm curious, is a saline or partial birth abortion also torture? The fetus feels the pain.

I respect those who take an ethical stance against torture, provided they are consistent.

@ Brian Damage

I agree... unfortunately atheism hasn't fared well in the arena of rational debate lately:

D'Souza,a reasonably skilled advocate of Christian Philosophy, has defeated Dennet, Shermer, and Hitchens in recent debates. And Dawkins has refused the invitation.

The fact is that theistic philosophy is far more sophisticated than most atheists realize, since they typically confront religious people who have no foundation in philosophy...

And so FSM is the atheist corollary to ignorant fundamentalism... it seeks to accomplish through ridicule, what can not be established through reason.