[Sushi]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jADf7Acwh1ozkVvkjNQ9dkk7GQuQD97RPCCO0

I find this idea fascinating. It lets Mr. Hannity put his money where his mouth is, and between Olbermann and everyone else who's offered to contribute would raise a legitimate boatload of charity cash.

On the other hand, no matter how it was done, someone would complain that it wasn't "authentic" or sufficiently representative of the real thing. Also, I think it's a legitimate concern that this could simply trivialize and desensitize the whole torture issue. Is making a spectacle out of it going to make people take the whole issue less seriously?

[Blue Lion]

Is it still torture if you consent to it being done?

[Sushi]

Yeah, that's one of the criticisms. Apparently, though, the nature of waterboarding is such that it really really sucks even if you know exactly what you're getting into. A reporter who volunteered to try it had a modest goal of ten seconds and only lasted four.

Your body decides it's drowning and shuts down logical thought.

[karajorma]

I always love it when people publicly call someone's bluff and reveal them for the bull****ter they really are.

Reminds me of the spat between Robbie Williams and Liam Gallagher. After Liam threatened to break Robbie's nose, Robbie suggested a charity boxing match instead only to watch Liam **** himself and claim that it would "set a bad example for his fans"

Personally I reckon that more people would pay to watch Hannity. They might want to put that on pay per view.