Who is Hugh Hewitt and Why Doth He Fuss So?

Quick, hide the good china before the HH-heads arrive!

I've been looking at this for several minutes, and there are still no comments, so I guess I'll go first (or second, if someone else is commenting as I type this).

Sorry, Joel, but you seem to be just the latest victim of the drive-by twist-and-shout, where the wingers twist what you actually said into something they can shout to the heavens. Remember, you are still stuck in the Reality-Based world, where things like facts actually exist. When you are able to transcend this Earthly plane, you will see that it doesn't matter what anyone says or writes, you can just claim that they said or wrote something offensive, and go on the attack.

cranky

RE the comment: "Achenbach and his fellow travelers on the left are the lowest types of scum we have here in the USA"

The way things go on this blog/boodle, JA and the science geeks will soon be praising the virtues of scum. I'm sure pond scum is some very rich biota.

Scum starts some of the best food chains in the world, so...

:-)

Why are so many people equating analysis of the situation with being unpatriotic? I thought your piece just pointed out the tactical differences in killing enemies without any moral commentary. There was mention of a dead child, which always makes me think of my own two little ones. But it was just a mention. Interpretation was up to the reader.

Why are so many people equating analysis of the situation with being unpatriotic? I thought your piece just pointed out the tactical differences in killing enemies without any moral commentary. There was mention of a dead child, which always makes me think of my own two little ones. But it was just a mention. Interpretation was up to the reader.

HH must have failed his reading comprehension SOL.

Sorry that went twice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_J8UBEwOg

"The Post accepts comments at Achenblog. They make for interesting reading."

Man Joel, almost sounds like a compliment. And he plugged your blog. I think he thinks highly of you.

Quite alright, a bea c. As another blog noted, apparently Joel wasn't sufficiently happy about what happened, and that somehow meant others were being prevented from enjoying the victory. So they attack that which they don't care to understand.

I love pond scum! I have suggested that ScienceKid #1 consider a pond scum-based project for science fair for next year.

JA:

I understood your post to mean what you, apparently, meant it to mean, but it's true that it's a bit difficult to untangle the rhetoric. Granted, your use of "opposite" does go a long way toward making clear that you're contrasting, not drawing a parallel, but the language is convoluted/thorny enough that a rabid idealogue, hypothetically, could probably manage to disingenuously "misconstrue" it to mean that you hate America or something.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, have a great weekend!

>The way things go on this blog/boodle, JA and the science geeks will soon be praising the virtues of scum.

I like the blue-green stuff. Oh wait, that's algae...

As for Ben Bradlee being on the Achenblog? I had that initial surprised reaction, Mudge, at first read, but if you reread the post, ask yourself, "Have you ever heard of a famous Washington Post reporter by the name of Woodstein?" Now, have you?

I have plans for writing a scientific paper presenting the results of an Agatha Christie novel or similar work of mystery-writing craftsmanship. I think it could be used as a primer for how wingnuts would like to see their journalism presented; or at least, so they claimed in material that JA reprinted on The Tempest Blowback kit.

"An investigation was performed to deduce probable causes for the observed property of deadness detected within the person of one A. Boddy. An initial working hypothesis was pronounced, to wit, the Butler did it, providing a guiding framework in which to collect and interpret data."

And so on. I gotta get to work.

Places where something like this is celebrated in the streets very often have large murals of their rulers splashed on walls of building everywhere.

Joel took a fair and measured approach, precisely right for this subject.

Its what makes him an interesting writer on such a borad range of topics. Be it science or politics, the same standard applies.

Haha, Lindaloo, I noticed that (Woodstein) too! I'm glad Joel posted his gentlemanly, professional, high-road response to the HH diatribe. Some things you just can't let pass. And I detect a sense of pride JA has in his boodlers. Now I'm just waiting for Mudge to come up with a song parody - something along the lines of "Scum to me my melancholy right wing talk show host.."

SCC And a darn good thing it is too, that he writes on such a 'borad' range of topics.

Broad.

I am experiencing a small Loomisisian moment. The writer of one of those stories on the exhibit has a name that appears in my family tree. Its not a common one either.

I'm getting dizzy from switching between three Boodles...

:-)

Curm-dungeon--since that is where I assume you'll be tonight...

How are you holding up in the bunker? Need clean sheets? How is the Dinty Moore holding out, or is Slyness bringing in some Chef Boyardee? Are you in such an undisclosed location that the rest of us can't join you?

I'm not for equating "us" with "them" but I don't think I've ever heard more calls to rejoice and enjoy the death of a person in my life.

Isn't this what they do? Isn't that what we're always being told?

I'm not a liberal, but as a Christian--hell, as a human--it's absolutely disgusting. The Posts lead Editorial this morning is titled "A Good Day In Iraq."

Yes, a few more deaths, another destroyed building, and I'm sure the sun is shining brighter, the birds are singing sweeter in Iraq.

Sickening.

Reposted from the Z. Boodle:

tribehooker, did it occur to you that the writer may have been implying that Zarqawi, knowing he was a target, intentionally put children in harm's way, thinking that the US would be hesitant to strike in that situation?

One could infer that Joel is calling Zarqawi a coward.

But that would require thinking, and not just doing the bidding of your Masters.

Gads, the Right's got us building Adobe Curtains, making protectivist laws that penalize minorities, prosecuting a highly destructuve war that was started on false pretenses or just being plain wrong, submitting to reductions of freedoms that our forefathers bought for us and that thousands of Americans paid for with their lives, with foreign policy that has just about every nation in the world hating us, was utterly ineffective in dealing with the worst (yet predicted) natural disaster in decades, with an economy in barely checked inflation and energy costs skyrocketing, propagated the most damaging American social divides in 40 years, and engaging in the worst kind of transparent pandering to their conservative religious power base on moral issues that are light-years away from dealing with *real* problems that this country is facing, and these guys are still on the offensive?

Go back to your cesspools of paranoia and hatred, you scoundrels!

The Bush Administration has not proven themselves competent to lead the honorable men and women in our military. Period.

They've broken our trust, demonstrated repeated incompetence, and are showing signs of corruption in the Executive and Legislative branches.

They SHOULD expect to be questioned at every turn, as a small price for their untrustworthiness.

It's my duty as an American to shine the light of truth up to our government, and to demand justice for wrongs where it is warranted.

I will not be silenced by herds of drones cloaked in the security of illusory righteousness, that seek to obfuscate by regurgitating the moral pablum they've been fed, rather than seriously thinking and considering other people's points of view.

I will continue to think, and to question, and to hold those that wield the powers we've given them accountable for their actions.

Narrowmindedness and parochialism stemming from fear and distrust and a desire for control has brought us to this point in American history. But lordy, why would anyone want to keep doing the same thing when it's so clearly NOT WORKING?

I and my kind are watching you, and will *not* shut up and roll over. Our founding fathers didn't, and we aren't going to either.

bc
P.S. I'd rather have Democrats that can't seem to find their a$$es with both hands, than Republicans that have one hand on my throat and the other reaching for my wallet.

P.S.S. For those of you Red Heads who don't understand the use of humor as a political tool, go read some friggin' Benjamin Franklin. And if you still don't get it, consider a G0DDAMMED sense of humor implant.

Whew, I feel better.

Mudge, this is all your fault.

bc

Sorry to disappoint, Nani, but I'm just so bummed out by those people.

Loomis, I don't get your point about Woodstein. That was the nickname Bradlee himself coined for Woodward and Bernstein. So why wouldn't the "real" BB have used it? And it makes perfect sense for Bradlee to tell Joel to get back to work and get "real" news like Woodstein (used to do). (Though I didn't quite get the "costing me money" part--but assume Bradlee is a stockholder.)

But I could be dense and missing something. Time to test my blood sugar level.

The Archbishop of Canterbury made this point, according to a critic of Joel's Kit, as posted at HH's website?:

"And the guy in the plane dropping the 500 pound bomb has more understanding of the common humanity that links us and the Iraqis and all peoples on this Earth than Zarqawi does."

Now I am laughing since a distant gret-uncle *was* the Archbishop Of Canterbury! Those archbishops have to be so careful, you know. And what's the Archbishop saying on his own blog as a clarifiction, I wonder?

It's okay Mudge. You deserve a rest. Were I there in the bunker with you, I'd pour you a tall glass of homemade lemonade with a sprig of fresh mint, crank up the old record player and put on Ms. Piaf's Le Vin En Rose. Dang, I love you so much.

Have a great weekend everyone.

No, Mudge, if you know Bradlee's nickname for the duo, they you are far more the East Coast news biz insider than I! (Why aren't you on Jeopardy?)

But your blood sugar testing gizmo away--blood sugar levels are normal.

SCC: La Vie En Rose (I yam beneath contempt)

Usually I just lurk, but today I'll come out of the shadows to comment...I love how the comments here stay above the fray, and opposition stays polite ("I have to say that I didn't read it that way.") The blog attracts intelligent debate, and by and large, a battle of the wits with the unarmed is just no fun. Maybe the occassional well-spoken goofball catches us off guard, but the boodle definitely rebounds quickly...to win.

Nicely done, Joel. OF course, civility and reason seldom win the day, but they should. I think some of the let-us-rejoice crowd missed the memo: the official Administration line here is restrained triumph -- very careful not to gloat or imply in any way that this wins (whatever that means) the war.

Nicely done, bc, but how is it Mudge's fault? He's comfortably ensconced with snacks and drinks and the new Mr. Stripey novel in his undisclosed location.

I could use some Vin en Rose. It is 97 degrees out and our whole state capitol is without AC. The privileges of working in an historic building are endless.

i don't think joel is what HH says he is. but when i first read that para it kind of seemed odd. it is because joel is actaully comparing the two methods even by saying opposite. you can compare far left and far right by saying they are opposite but still there is a similarity (in extremeness) between the two. here joel is saying both are murders and by saying he is equating them at a very very small level. that is what it seemed odd to me but if you consider the whole blog, one can see that joel is not saying they are similar at all.

Posted before I saw your 3:54, LindaLoo. Yes, plenty of room in the bunker, plenty of Dinty Moore, but the Chef Boyardee will be a pleasant alternative. Sheets are clean, air purifier working, plenty of gin. Oops, shouldn't have mentioned that part, or the whole gang will be here any moment. (And you know what boozehounds the BPHers are.)

I truly had expected all this crap on Joel's Hillary thing, and wouldn't have expected it on this. But then, I keep picking the wrong numbers of the lottery, too.

I feel bad for Joel; he really should have gone to the waterpark, and spent the day with the girls.

Purely as an intellectual exercise, I wonder if those people truly don't know how to read, and their literal-mindedness and lack of sense of humor distort what they read, and the political overlay is purely coincidental--or the other way, that the political overlay is SOOOO thick it distorts what they think they read. I mean, Buckley and Andrew Sullivan and even George Will are conservative, but they have senses of humor, too, and generally understand what they read (maybe Will less so than Buckley and Sullivan). But you can debate with them (most of the time) on reasonably civil and coherent terms, even if you disagree strenuously. So part of me want to reject ideology as the reason. Sometimes I honestly think it's the complete, total literal-mindedness that does it (because I know completely block-headed, humorless, literal-minded people on the left and in the middle who are equally clueless).

Basically, I need a drink.

As a limpwristed, (but not limpwaisted)whatever of politically obnoxious flotsam...
I plan to slink away, whimpering to the Kingdom of Loathing www.kingdomofloathing.com to comfort myself with awful puns and worse spelling.

I thought this boodle should have its own free RPG game, but I can't write one, so here's just a link for those in a homicidal frenzy or those in their alternative realities.

Cheers!

Nani,
I liked En Vin en Rose better! *W* The appt. with Dr. Singer, retina guy, will proably be the last week of the month, btw.

As far as the Archbishop of Canterbury, a little reporting from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2048249.stm

Rowan Williams' views:

Liberal socially but conservative theologically
Backs separation of church and state
Accepting of homosexuality
Backs ordination of women priests
Has criticised any invasion of Iraq
Has criticised the war on terror
Says divorcees can remarry in church

That's it, Mudge. Some people cannot allow the possibility of humor infecting Important Topics. Politics is one, religion is another. For some people, sports and parenting are there too (read that Mommy Blog lately?) They seem unable to grasp or accept the idea that humor is (a) a good in itself and (b) may provide another, sneaky way to look at an issue or problem. This makes it difficult to recognize, much less tolerate, the use of anything other than passion (notice I didn't say reason) and belief as aids to discussion. Pretty soon there is no debate among respectful antagonists, just name-calling and derision. I agree, this is not just a reactionary thing. All kinds of people are, as you say, literal-minded, block-headed and humorless. Perhaps we could give them T-shirts or gimme caps with that slogan, so we'd see them coming and know to smile and wave as we back away.
I think Joel did the best he could with them, but since he remained witty and civil, some people will still miss the point.
Remember Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and the "I thought you saids"? That's what we have here. Folks are still responding to what they thought Joel said, even when he explains what he said. Again.

I can't type worth beans. I can't see worth beans. I don't know Ben Bradlee worth beans. My French stinks. Mudge, pass me the gin, wouldja? Gin, wine, vin, it's that kinda Friday.

Is there still room in the Bunker? I'll bring the Shiraz.

Re: "Woodstein"
Although it's been decades since I've seen it, "Woodstein" was burned in my memory of the film version of All the President's Men. My other memory is that Jason Robards (as Bradlee) steals every scene he's in from Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford (Woodstein).

All I want to know is, in that "erudite but least understood" speech is whether he kept dropping Welsh place names in combination with heavy theology terms.

Wiki him!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams

Well, I'm back. Was it in "On the Beach" that the sub crew surfaced to find that everything had been blown up?

Ivansmom, you're never going to get the literal-minded humorless blockheads to wear logo-wear that says "literal-minded humorless blockhead", because they don't recognize how appropriate the clothes are. They consider themselves to be warm-hearted persons rich with personality and intellectual ferment. You need to fool them with sarcasm, a foreign language that they'll never learn. You need logo-wear that says "There is absolutely nothing funny about (your passion here)." That's something they would wear, proudly.

Robards acting - just like Bradlee in real life. Right Ben ?

ScienceTim, you have a thought there. Actually I'd probably just sell logo-wear that says "Proud to be..." that would probably tip people off that they probably have no flexibilty on the subject.

"Proud to Be a Stay at Home Mom"
"Proud to be a Ditto-head"
"Proud to be a limpwristed Liberal"

"Proud to be a Limpwaisted Conservative"
(On the back: Support Dole! Buy Viagara!)

And so on...

Hmmm, Wilbrod, I don't know if the "Proud to be..." line will be a sufficient indicator. For instance, I would definitely get "Proud to be Breathing" or "Proud to be an Ignoramus" or "Proud to be a Eukaryotic Organism." The "Proud to be..." construction offers too many opportunities for irony, so it makes a shaky indicator of extreme tiresomeness.

Yeah sure, it doesn't matter what you say; I can't believe you would draw such an equivalance between... *ahem* oh, you meant opposite?

Never mind.

Joel asks "Who is Hugh Hewitt and Why Doth He Fuss So?"

According to the blog ranking site The Truth Laid Bear, HH is a "Higher Being", meaning he is one of the top 10 bloggers the site tracks.

http://truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php

He gets over 30,000 visits a day and has more than 2000 other sites linking to him. This puts him in the company of Michele Malkin and Little Green Footballs on the right and DailyKos and TPM on the left.

So the answer is that he is a professional blood presssure raiser, the blogging equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. He has to be indignant over something on a regularly scheduled basis and it was Joel's turn in the barrel.

At TTLB, I find in interesting that there are no non-political blogs in the top 10. This distorts the perspective of the fans of these blogs because they are unaware of blogs that are not polarized screamfests. Note that HH does not take comments himself, although many large political blogs do. Instead he sics his pack of braying {fill-in-meaphor} on us poor Boodlers.

Thanks, ScienceTim. I needed that. And think of the marketing possibilities.
Actually, the literal-minded humorless blockhead shirt may be snapped up by those who recognize the humor in it, and thus irony would triumph over zealotry once again.

Wilbrod, the "proud to be" wouldn't go over here very well, because there are a whole bunch of "proud to be" [insert your state college here] fans around these parts. Some of them actually have humor about their teams, though. Okay, only the ones who root for the usually-losing one.

May I join you for that drink? I find a brandy julep can be very restorative, and is also a good way to use up leftover brandy.
Doesn't everyone have leftover brandy?

Okay, we are going to do better than Chef Boyardee. I'll make my famous shipwreck (think spaghetti with meat sauce, only with shells) and bring brownie trifle. Mudge, bc, RD, handle the drink thing. Linda and Nani, can you do us a good salad and bread? What else do we need? I think time in the bunker will be well spent!

I'll bring a couple of decks of cards and the ace duce board.

How about some books and a few dozen white truce flags, a coat of arms, and a PC w/ printer to hammer out the details of the constitution and trade treaties of our new independent Bunkerity of Achenbogrovia?

Oh, and a dog or two as a mascot?

;).

Literal-minded Humorless Blockhead is available as a boodle handle.

A little long winded though IMHO.

If I bring beer, can I hunker in the bunker with the cool kids?

I'm thinking Chimay Grande Reserve- we can raise our chalices in thanks to the Trappist Brothers who make this amazing Belgian ale possible and reflect upon their cloistered life of peace and brotherhood.

Never forget: Living well is the best revenge.

StroytellerTim, could you possibly prepare some stories for the bunkerers?

I will once again bunker from miles away, in spirit. It will be a non alcohol-free event.

If there is going to be brownie trifle you may need to look into some sort of security force for protection from the hordes.

Joel's words were fine. And I'm very glad that Zarquawi is dead, as well as the terrorist the Israelis just took out. But that doesn't mean we should gloat. I'm tired of seeing the photos of the dead Zarquawi & the video of the bombing, just like I'm sick of the WTC destruction video. The fact that Zarquawi and his "spiritual advisor" deserve death doesn't change the fact that we are all God's children, made in His image, and we can be relieved that a murderer is finished without celebrating. That is one of the things that differentiates us from those who were partying in the streets on 9/11 and whenever there are suicide bombings in Israel.

No white flags yet. Now I'm steamed.

This has been festering, and I couldn't let it sit any longer, so I investigated, and found what I believe to be a major piece of vindication for Joel.

One of the blockheads, tribehooker, wrote: "Joel also diplays a profound lack of undertanding of air military operations. The use of the word "pondering" is so absurd that it makes me cringe. I can only guess that Joel just be in some way associated with Naptional Public Radio, because you just can't be this stupid otherwise. Fighter jocks don't "ponder". They have missions which they execute."

I went back and looked at the briefing video given by Maj. Gen Caldwell, and guess what? It appears fighter jocks do, in fact do some pondering up there. Here's the transcript I made of Caldwell's narrative of the film of the airstrike.

Caldwell, beginning at exactly 30 seconds into the video, and about two seconds AFTER the first bomb has hit: "At this point they [the pilots] are making an assessment whether or not the target has been fully engaged, or whether or not they need to re-engage one more time...[briefest pause] the decision has been made now by the commander, the pilot in charge up there, that they are going to do a re-attack, and you'll see the second 500-pound bomb go off shortly...."

The first bomb explodes at 21 seconds into the video. The second comes at 53 seconds--call it a 31-second pause. But Caldwell says "the decision has been made" at 38 seconds. So we know pretty reliably the "pondering" phase lasted approximately 17 seconds more or less. Not a lot of time, but it clearly shows some people were doing some thinking (and that's good, in my view). In no way am I criticizing--just pointing out the methodology. They could just as easily popped two (or more) bombs in there simultaneously--and they didn't.

So you know what, tribehooker, turns out it appears those fighter jocks did indeed DO do some pondering up there after all. (Unless, of course, the general giving the briefing was lying or full of crap, in which case Joel's off the hook, but somehow I think the general pretty much got it right, since we already know from watching a dozen or more similar videos from Operation Desert Storm et al. that there are ATCs and bomb assessment people also watching their monitors for the sole and express purpose of...er...pondering...what they've seen and deciding whether or not a repeat strike is called for.)

Unless, of course the difference between "pondering" and "assessing is "so absurd that it makes me cringe." In which case, somebody needs to smack you upside the head with a heavy Roget's Thesaurus.

Sphincter.

Yes, you have put it in one, "no gloating."

We cannot know our ends, all we can know is that we do end, eventually. Vengance is mine, saith the Lord. Judgement is his, too.

I hope this does in fact advance our cause and deal a serious blow to one factor against peace in Iraq and helps Iraqis live in less fear. That would be good.

SCC: not two seconds, but eight seconds after the first bomb.

Wow, just went back and "boodle-skimmed" the Zarquawi kit. The hostility was pretty overwhelming. I'm kinda glad I missed it, even though I would have like to chime in and help defend Joel et. al., not that y'all need help. I think that if everyone could remember that no matter our differences, we all want whats best for our country, even though we have different ideas of what the "best" is. To call someone an "America hater" is ignorant, belligerant, completely uncalled for, and extremely purile. Grow up.
To all the regular members and lurkers: have a great weekend everybody, enjoy your friends and your families.

SCC: Approximately.

Mudge, perhaps he confused "ponder" and "pander". That would be an insult, though so wildly inappropriate for the topic that it is hard to believe anyone could make the error. Maybe I'm just feeling generous this afternoon, as Boodle Bunker Hour rolls around.

I would delight to join the Boodle Bunker, but no white flags, please! Joel ceded no ground and neither do we.

Mudge, I like "Cloaca" myself for the thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Mudge, I like "Cloaca" myself for the thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Mudge, I like "Cloaca" myself for the thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Mudge, I like "Cloaca" myself for the thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Mudge, I like "Cloaca" myself for the thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Mudge, I like "Cloaca" myself for the thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Mudge, I like using "Cloaca" myself for these thesaurus-impaired sphincters.

Pixel, grab the brewski and c'mon! We'll keep the light on for you.

I'm outa here. Have a good weekend, peeps.

Achenbach could you delete my surplus postings? It seems like AchenHOG had a hiccuping fit.

I cannot join you in the bunker, as I am going forth tomorrow to tell stories to children and adults and any other stripe of human that will listen at the Maintain Your Brain Challenge. It's some kinda Alzheimer's Association fund-raiser. Truth is, I haven't really examined it too closely yet, nor am I certain of when I am supposed to arrive, when I leave, exactly where I'm going, and so forth. Tonight, I need to discover all that stuff, as well as preparing 16-or-so new copies of my CD for sale (as if anyone buys CDs at this sort of event). Life is an adventure, even more so if you fail to prepare for anything.

Wilbord, I kinda liked it that way.

Curmudgeon, did you catch that? Boodle Bunker Hour. For those occasions when a BPH just won't do.

Tim, if your stories are as good as the stuff you say here, they NEED to buy your cd. There are few things harder than living with someone who is slowing losing themselves.

A toast from under the bunker or the distant bunker, but I salute you.

Joel, it's a bum rap, and Instapundit noted that.

But Glad Stone is onto something. There was something in the wording of your piece that suggested that the objectives of the pilots and Zark were parallel; only the means were "opposite."

The objective you had in mind was killing in either instance. But,if one is disposed to take offense, as HH was, one could suggest that the objective of killing as many people as possible, civilian and otherwise, should not be equated with the objective of stopping same. Even if both involve killing.

OK, end of deconstruction. It was still a bum rap.

I find it absolutely hilarious that tribehooker thinks we have no sense of humor, and that we need to watch Monty Python to get some!!!

*ROFLPMP*

:-)

Have a great weekend, all!!

I don't know how much I should bother to weigh in. I see that the Zarqawi boodle is still ongoing.

I do have one point to make, on a point made by another and quoted by Mudge I will call "no pondering, just execution".

tribehooker's comment suggests that he thinks the military is not a place where thinking is allowed. I reject that out of hand.

I paraphrase a very, very old saying that I learned when I was an infantry officer. This uniform tells you I know how to follow orders. My [officer's] commission tells you I know which orders not to follow.

Overall, the fallout from the Zarqawi kit reminds me of The Tempest kit. It would be nice if people could read and understand the article before they fly off the handle. It is a perfectly legitimate issue to ponder (there's that word again) as to whether Zarqawi is anything significant or just the latest mole to whack.

PS I'm glad that Joel decided to reply.

PPS I for one am not adding to HH's hits on his website.

appell8, thanks for the intelligent appellate review. The sentence in question isn't going to win any prizes, I admit.

Hmm, reminds me of the letter to the Economicist mentioned in Chatological Humor..

SIR- Please do not mention George W. Bush. And Winston Churchill in the same sentence, even if you have to break all the rules of grammar to do it.

But that would be poor journalistic reporting to omit information about either the target or the targeter in an entire essay. I think Joel did a fine job mentioning them in entirely separate sentences.

So here's a hypothetical essay that refuses to mention the two leaders together in one sentence.

"President Bush visited a grave today, of the greatest wartime leader England has known.

The leader's name was Winston Churchill, who gave the infamous speech about blood, tears, and glory. Churchill was also a proficient writer who battled depression during his life.

Mr. George W. Bush became the president of The United States of America, an former British colony, in a hotly disputed 2000 election."

There. I wonder if the people who objected to Achenbach's essay also are blind to the implications of this lede.

if joel was trying to say that the pilot is somehow morally superior because of the professionalism of his bombing, i have to wonder if he succeeded, or if he would not have been smarter to not try to delve into such deep moral waters.

I suppose it is cleaner, nicer, and so on, to drop a bomb on someone and not cut someone's head off, but the person dying still ends up dead and perhaps, as a result, cannot appreciate these finer points.

On the other hand, mr. Z was a killer himself, while the pilot is merely the instrument of policy set by someone else. Perhaps that is what Joel meant? I find it somehow not consoling that killing can be done professionally and cleanly, if not unemotionally.

If I must be killed I suppose I want it done right,both legally and morally, but I still, somehow, find myself hoping that it is not done at all. If someone wants you dead they can always find a way to justify it. Lord knows, history has more than a few examples of that, but the opinion of the dead is never added to the accounts.

Odgen, Utah... I think people complained because Joel's essay clearly showed it wasn't a heroic battle, but a professional job by an army with overwhelming force.

An execution is also a professional job, and I speak of, for instance, our justice system for convicted murderers.

Whether that's moral is up to you or not-- but war isn't moral, so why try and trump it up as a moral act as the Achenhaters were doing? I just don't get it.

Bush has ordered strikes on terrorists before, I remember his gloating over the terrorist who was killed in Yemen a few years ago. I found that pretty chilling myself.

I'll be on Hewitt's show at 7:30 EDT tonight, in case anyone wants to tune in.

...the other day america's president was
going on about "islamismfascistcommiered
crescentskunkism" in front of some newly
minted american military careerists...
...our leader who has acquired a notable
reputation regarding his intellect and
desire to take in information compared
the current state of world affairs between
islam and the west as somehow being the
new cold war...
...granted that doing so in front of all
these military oriented humans was little
more than pointing out that demand for
the skill sets they had gained would
remain high...no points gained telling
these guys..."sorry,we are cutting back
on war,downsizing the pentagon and going
with increased emphasis on seeking non
violent and less military-industrial
styled american engagement with the world"
that would have been news...
...instead the american president seems to
have resurrected the kind of thinking that
made the 1950's,60's and 70's a swell time
to be in the american military...
...endless funding,bases all over the
planet,constant drumbeating of the "red
commie menace" to ball up more rational
or reality based takes on global events...
...ultimately this all led to pulling out
of vietnam in 1975 just barely ahead of
the victors...
...well...the good old days are back...
now it's not the hammer and sicle but
the crescent that will be cartooned into
a bugs bunny nightmare of threat...
...it will be endless and ultimately prove
pointless as it will have a solution only
found thru backing off on the warmaking and
ramping up the cultural interaction...
muslims have children and families and are
trying to stay safe and make a life more
often than not...they are entitled to some
space unmolested by outsiders who may see
islam as some sort of global threat...
...zarqawi was not a nice person and would
have qualified as one nasty gangster in
any elliot ness comicbook story...
...that he should be killed by the dropping
of a dime and then a 500 pound bomb points
to how reality in iraq goes these days...
...growing up in the american midwest i
never saw such a thing happen...i can only
speculate how the iraqi common people must
view such acts of american killing methods.
...too bad for iraq that it has become so
unstitched...too bad for the americans
that they are currently led by a guy who
is running fast towards the new fear and
threat bogeyman when he should be trying
to calm and cool things down...dropping
500 pound bombs to kill one guy does seem
like a roadrunner/wily e. coyote routine--
...like maybe send in 500 well equiped
and backed up troops to get this one guy?
...well...when you are demonizing an entire
part of the world as being a big -ism pit
i guess that justifies any and all means...
i am sure if d.rumsfeld were to be killed
by having a 500 pound bomb lobbed in on
him and then have his after-event photo
sent out for mass distribution his family
and supporters would be thinkiing payback
plenty...
...zarqawi supporters...and there may be
a few hundred ...just got the best reason
to go out and raise more hell on earth...
the bigger question will always be...how
long is the killing line to a bush2 styled
"victory" in iraq?...how many do you kill
until the line ends?...creating a "islamo
fascist" fear frenzy leads to a long line.
...too bad for the americans and then
also too bad for everyone else who has to
live on this planet...or try living.

who says war isn't moral; would it have been moral to let hitler's germany and hirohito's japan ?

tell me why war is necessarily immoral, especially after saying execution may or may not be immoral.

Well, Joel, I don't know if that is
brave or foolish, but good luck either way.

War is not moral. By definition it breaks the "Thou shalt not kill." The cause may be just, but the means are not the most moral.

Just ask a Vietnam vet what they think about war.

Of course, America did not enter WWII until it was attacked by Japan.
Then it became a matter of national self-defense.

Self-defense is well documented as a reason in Jewish religious law as well as in zillions of civil laws. Suicide is the greater sin, and it is NATURAL to protect yourself against an aggressor.

Europe let Hitler take Poland with a blind eye, because it wasn't THEIR problem. Then it became their problem.

Now, from "Odgen's" comments, I was not sure if he was pro-death penalty or not. Some people are, some aren't.

I've known war hawks Vietnam vets who would talk about nuking Iraq cold... and yet, who happen to be anti-death penalty.

They know war is different. It does not play under normal social rules. When somebody attacks you, you gotta reply. I myself supported Afghanistan.

I did NOT support "pre-emptive" strike in Iraq. That wasn't a moral reason to go to war. I know some people-- BRRR. Do I get to do a pre-emptive strike and take 'em out before they do me bad?

Now, by war rules, I certainly think it was fine to drop the bomb. I just don't think it should painted as super-heroic and daring. It was planned. It was done.

War is not moral. By definition it breaks the "Thou shalt not kill." The cause may be just, but the means are not the most moral.

Just ask a Vietnam vet what they think about war.

Of course, America did not enter WWII until it was attacked by Japan.
Then it became a matter of national self-defense.

Self-defense is well documented as a reason in Jewish religious law as well as in zillions of civil laws. Suicide is the greater sin, and it is NATURAL to protect yourself against an aggressor.

Europe let Hitler take Poland with a blind eye, because it wasn't THEIR problem. Then it became their problem.

Now, from "Odgen's" comments, I was not sure if he was pro-death penalty or not. Some people are, some aren't.

I've known war hawks Vietnam vets who would talk about nuking Iraq cold... and yet, who happen to be anti-death penalty.

They know war is different. It does not play under normal social rules. When somebody attacks you, you gotta reply. I myself supported Afghanistan.

I did NOT support "pre-emptive" strike in Iraq. That wasn't a moral reason to go to war. I know some people-- BRRR. Do I get to do a pre-emptive strike and take 'em out before they do me bad?

Now, by war rules, I certainly think it was fine to drop the bomb. I just don't think it should painted as super-heroic and daring. It was planned. It was done.

Joel - HH site says you "declined" and I have no idea where to hear this show. I hope they allow you to control the meaning of your own words. Good Luck!!

if anyone needs a link:

http://www2.krla870.com/listen/

you'll need microsoft media player 9

I've only been listening for the past 10 minutes or so, but this Hewitt guy is about as typical of conservative radio hosts I've ever heard. He's not only the host, but trying to be the guest, too -- hardly letting Joel get a word in edge-wise.

They've also got the "studio magic" going, where Hewitt's voice has that rich electronically induced basso, whereas Joel is on a phone and they've turned down his volume and upped the treble.

That said, Joel's holding his own.

Well Joel, you did great. Unfortunately, it seemed, as such "debates" often do, that he was interpreting your words in a way that fit his agenda, and not yours.

And thank you martooni for the link. I agree about the studio magic.

I missed the show but tuned in for a couple minutes anyway. Hugh said, in retrospect, that Joel is "a nice young man." So at least we boodlers have SOMETHING we can agree with him about! Common ground, it's a beautiful thing.

From a regular Hewitt listener:
Hugh regularly invites guests on his program from all over the political spectrum and gives them all the time they want to express themselves. He invited Joel on the program the same day that he flagged Joel's column. Joel was unable to come on the program until today, and I thought Joel was awfully defensive. And perhaps that is understandable, as his piece was being criticized in strong terms on Hugh's blog. But the transcripts of Hugh's program interviews are typically carried on his producer Dwayne's blog, radioblogger.com. I suggest Joel (or martooni) read through them. Hugh said repeatedly on his show yesterday, "I don't know what to make of this guy's (Joel) blog post. What is he saying?" He added numerous times, "I don't want to be too quick to blast this guy." He then read portions of Joel's post to Mark Steyn, Christopher Hitchens, James Lileks, and Victor Davis Hanson. All but Lileks had an unfavorable reaction. I think that Joel, and his unflinching defenders should take a moment to consider why this should be. Maybe he didn't make his ideas clear, but Hugh had him on the show today to clarify his opinions. Hugh also posted James Lilek's defense of Joel. I think he is being as fair as he can be, while taking exception to what he FELT Joel was saying in his column. He only wrote his criticisms after careful discussion of Joel's blog content with several thoughtful men of letters. What exactly does a "typical right wing radio host" have to do? He invited Joel on to explain what he meant by his blog post comments, didn't question Joel's motives, and invited him back to continue the discussion. I think Joel should review the transcripts of yesterday's show, try and determine WHY no one understood his ideas, take a deep breath and go back on the show. I for one was extremely happy to hear the things he had to say, when he actually took the initiative to answer Hugh's questions. I'm sure most of Hugh's regular listeners would agree that he sounded like a good guy who simply wrote an unclear statement or two.

michael croy - You make good points. But read the comments put on the HH website. Read the comments posted here. And you wonder why Joel seemed defensive?

Why would you not have a "finger-pointing shriekfest" JA, I'm kind of taking it personnally. A shriekfest would be nice, I can shriek with the best of them.
You provided fodder for the shouters JA. The war on Christmas is over, homosexuals can't marry their their illegallay immigrated Mexican lovers in most states, so new subjects must be found.

I'm going to vanish for a week. I'm going to a mysterious place called "San Francisco" on business. Please all you boodlers, do not stoop to the level of Joel's critics. Good ideas will always win out. I apologize for being an Achenhog, but when you talk about those gassy planets,you shouldn't be surprised when Science Tim weighs in.

And Joel. You have more heat in your corner than you realize. Hang in there.

Tough day, a very tough day.

The Nats scored 3 runs in the second inning, and now 3 more in the 3rd, and lead the Phillies 6-3. Is baseball slow and boring? Well, let's just say, after a tough day, it has a very pleasant, tranquilizing effect. So if it's boring, then yeah--but it is just what the doctor ordered.

>it has a very pleasant, tranquilizing effect.

It does. I was never much of a fan myself, but I find it very relaxing to have a game on in the background. (My childhood memories of baseball mostly include being picked last for the team, dropping balls, and getting hit in the head with a bat.)

@ Curmudgeon June 9, 2006 05:44 PM

Yeah, that's why the phrase:
"a lightening-quick ponder"
is as ubiquitous as it is.

THE SEVENTEEN SECOND PONDER
A Monty Python bit?

Whew!

american in siam, as usual you have said what I am thinking from the "opposite" side of the world, as it were.

kb, thanks for finding the common ground. Glad to hear Joel did well (we knew he would!).

RD, have fun in Frisco! Interesting place (I suspect it's full of lefties, old hippies, subversive types). Watch out for a young guy in a yellow sporty car if you go to the East Bay area (my kid). KCSF is a great jazz station (I think those are the right call letters).

Hoping the weekend will be warm so I can listen to Dave Niehaus and the hapless Mariners on the radio. Have a good weekend, everyone!

Of course, it doesn't *have* to be warm weather to listen to the radio here in Seattle. What I meant was, I hope I can be listening to baseball in the background as I work in the garden. Just to be clear.

RDP,

Good show.

Did anyone catch this line from Peter Marks' review of Spamalot in today's Post?

"...the silliest romp to hit these parts since Wilbur Mills played the Tidal Basin."

Marks can't think of anything funnier that happened in, say... the past 30 years? My guess is that he made a bet with someone that he could get Wilbur Mills mentioned in the Washington Post in this century.

Oh my God.... I sound like a finger-pointing shriekfest. So sorry for my snarky tone above.

Good night all. Have a great trip, RD.

TBG

I have a six pack of Mike's Green Apple left over from Memorial Day. Will that get me in the bunker?

Guys? Anyone?

Come ahead, yellojkt, you just said the magic password.

Nats blew their lead, trail 8-7 in the 7th. Majeski gave up a 5-run inning. Bummer. But it ain't over.

michael croy:

What I meant by "typical conservative radio host" actually applies to MOST radio hosts, liberal or conservative. The "conservative" nomer slipped in because this whole debate (for lack of a better term) had me in what I would call a "vexed" state. It seemed that everyone coming to Joel's blog from Hugh's "alternative reality" show was armed only with the same old talking points the West Wing interns posted on the White House website three years ago and had nothing new worth considering.

I get just as angry at "liberal" radio hosts who pull this b.s. as I do at "conservative" ones. If you're going to invite someone on your show (or open your phone lines to to the public), give them a little respect -- and time to formulate responses -- without interrupting them, rushing them, or otherwise slapping them across the face with red herrings, quotes out of context, or ad hominem attacks.

If Hugh wants to be taken seriously by anyone other than his ditto-freaks, he needs to shut up and give his callers/guests more than 1.5 seconds to respond to his rehearsed attacks. Same goes for those on the liberal spectrum. Otherwise, they're nothing more than ratings s1uts who place themselves and their shows above the "national debate" they profess to encourage.

Did you happen to catch that CNN Crossfire with John Stewart? He did a fine job of telling both sides where to stick their charged rhetoric. I have a feeling that Hugh wouldn't last 2 seconds in the same room with him. He might last longer with Colbert, but only because it would take him a week or two to figure out he was being ridiculed.

btw... i found a new no-no for the filter.

a word that rhymes with more and starts with "wh" sends your post to the "must be reviewed" file.

>Will that get me in the bunker?

I have actually considered a proper bunker. Or at least a cheap made-for-TV imitation. If you ever see a red British phone booth in what appears to be the middle of a field, stop on by.

"You know, Joel is a very pale emanation, reflection of the kind of poison that I've seen elsewhere."--James Lileks, on the HH show.

It's full moon tonight, or maybe tomorrow, so maybe JL was a bit moonstruck. Maybe it's a good night to seek out the mysterious nocturnal fulvous whistling-ducks that arrived in Florida fairly recently.

http://myfwc.com/bba/FUWD.htm

More seriously, I looked over William Arkin's post on headhunting with a colleague, a former Ranger.

Less seriously, a friend, while a lab technician at Bethesda, spotted Wilbur Mills when he arrived from the Tidal Basin. As such things go, it was a rather innocent way to leave Congress.

And if Science Kid #1 does well at pond scum, the appropriate reward might possibly be a visit to the Everglades, where the scum (periphyton) cling to bladderworts and deposit lime. The inhabitants of the scum are extremely productive, and they feed nearly everything else in the food web. The sawgrass and waterlilies are just scenic decorations by comparison.

I'm coming to this very late, but Hugh Hewitt started as an LA version of George Will. Similar appearance and the same glasses give it away. When public TV out here started having multiple viewpoint commentary programs, they needed to find somebody like that. He looked like he was fresh out of business school, all that mattered was what gave the maximum total output according to his models, pay no attention to how it's distributed or any other side-effects; wealth had no side-effects to anyone other than the person who gains the wealth and is always good. I'm afraid I haven't watched him (or that PBS station) for a long time, except for the BBC News which seems to has enough breadth to be worth watching.

Some grammatical errors in there.

LOL. Hewitt systematically disemboweled the pathetically under-resourced WaPo gossip blog hero.

I'm so ticked off I can hardly stand it. I so want to blindly lash out at that anal outlet but I know it would be fruitless. Thanks Joel for saying it the way you did in the first place being an adult about it when those jerks tried to swift-boat you. Nice work on the Tempest thing as well. Well, back underneath my rock ...

I wonder if there's an agency that assigns people to the various blogs, in rotation, to monitor continuously and let nothing that implies less-than-support of the Conservative Viewpoint go uncontradicted, not matter what it is.

Hewitt does seem to have a sort of accountant-banker hair style, and no sign of anything like Joel's fearsome incisors that lethally bite the necks of fleeing deer on snowy days. Or is it snowy moonlit nights?

It seems that the only people who wear glasses anymore are the ones who want to look accountant-ish.

Not to miss the smart, sensible, competent business-school types I've known (and usually liked better than law school types). This stuff reminds me of Jacksonville, Florida, twenty years ago. The place was infested with banks and insurance companies, whose young male employees mostly seemed to want to look like Navy pilots, so none of them wore glasses, even if they had to squint.

On every corner was a laundry that did white shirts.

These woulda-been pilots drove BMWs if at all possible, equipped with the expensive cell phones of the day.

My bright young BMW salesman neighbor emulates the look.

Good morning, friends. I see I missed a lot yesterday. The anger and the hate still here in some form, and those spewing that filth trying to clean it up on a high moral ground. Pleeeeeeeeeeez. I guess the thing that really bothers me is that when talking to folks with different points of view, one always seems to feel defensive. And what I mean by that, is that one is made to feel un-American and traitorous(?) because of a different point of view. I don't believe that is okay. Why is it that because I don't believe in killing and war, am I made to feel like I'm a traitor and someone that does not love my country? Can I not express an opposing view, an intelligent opposing view, without being hanged? I believe the commandment is "thou shalt not kill". And some of the folks that are participating in this hateful dialogue, call themselves Christians.
Glad to hear from you, american in siam, and as always you expressed the situation much better than I did. RD, I congratulated you on Mr. Stripey, and the bloom, I guess you didn't see my post. Take care in SF, and hope you get back soon.
I'm not feeling like I need to be in the bunker with Mudge, but I will contribute something, perhaps some coffee. After the drinks, coffee might be needed, you think?
Enjoy your weekend everyone. Kiss your wife, and your children, give God some of your time, and know that God loves you more than you can imagine through Him that died for all, Christ Jesus.

I'm off for the walk this morning. I love my country, yet my hope is for a country that does not relish and enjoy killing and the acts of war. Perhaps I am being childish and naive about these things, but I believe it offends God much that we relish killing one another. And not just people here in this country, but all over the world. The Bible calls our life a vapor, a thing that is here today, and gone tomorrow, like that beautiful flower that rises in the morning and is cut down in the evening. With our lives being as fragile as they are, must we kill? Won't we be gone soon enough? I pray for America, and I ask God forgiveness of our national sins, and then I ask that He bless our country with good blessings. I pray for our soldiers and their families because so many times they are the unseen. Everyone looks at those in high places and does the dance for them. War and its attributes have to be looked at through the eyes of those that it most impacts, and so many times we just don't do that. I believe if we did, we would not have wars. Yet I'm sure many will find my thoughts childish and naive, but I do not apologize for that because in the end, Heaven is full of those with hearts like children. And in this life, I seek to please Him that gave me this life, God through His Son, Jesus.

Good morning Cassandra--and everyone! Just sent my son off to take the ACT test; he took the SAT last Saturday. We're probably the only family who says, "have fun!" when preparing for a standardized test.

So whatever you're stuck doing on this beautiful Saturday, just remember that you're not inside a classroom with your #2 pencils for 5 hours.

I was just on the WaPo site and there is "Below the Beltway" but no "Rough Draft." I'm going to boycott the Washington Post for the rest of the weekend. So there. (I can imagine the editorial staff interrupting their Saturday activities to hold an emergency meeting when they hear about my drastic action.)

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion, Cassandra. I agree with you completely. I have stayed out of the discussion because I get a little too wound up on the subject of war and killing. To me, if you believe in war and killing, you need to choose some other religion than Christianity, because Jesus is so clear on this point. I think you would have to be a very careful Christian, and not let Jesus too much into your heart, because once He is truly there, you could never bear to be a part of a war effort.

And what my heart tells me about this is seconded by my intellect: war is a colossal waste of resources, and an ineffective tool for social change.

And with that, I am offline and into the three-dimensional world.

P.S. Thanks to all who stood up for their beliefs in the last couple of days--regardless of what those beliefs are.

And boodlers, you know I love you all, but I just feel like saying it once again... <3

Good morning to you, TBG. That's a good way to send one off for what some may consider torture. Hope he does well on the test.

Wow, JA, I'm sorry I missed your bit on HH, but I read the transcript this morning.

HH: "and the most important issue of all, which is whether or not we're involved in a just and noble cause, upon which much depends, including the future of this country. Do you agree with that?"

Whew. Heil Hugh! "Just and noble cause", indeed.

I applaud you for not taking the bait and for remaining civil. Are you really going to go on again next week?

Whoa! I haven't been back here for a few days - it's like a black hole has developed. ... For what it's worth - I think Achenblog is a great thing - not so much because of the community that has developed for some of you in these postings but because Achenbach is a guy with a brain, a conscience AND a sense of humour. (Actually, is he married?)

I am one of those who would be described by the HH crowd as a member of the loony left. That's ok - I believe what I believe and I say it - as far as I know still nothing wrong with that. I also know from reading this blog fairly regularly that Achenbach and his regular readers are not, I repeat NOT, loony leftists. The vast majority of them are very much middle path people. It is really kind of funny that you guys are getting beaten with the loony left stick. If you are leftist loonies, I must be like Karl Marx or someone! ...

In fact, what I really think is that there is no honour to be found in war. That it is to be avoided at all costs. That it turns normal people into animals and that is unavoidable. I think that no death in war is to be rejoiced over. I think none of us are qualified to say who deserves to die. I think that a lot of people who profess to believe in Jesus don't really because if I tell them Jesus said - Turn the other cheek, they counter me with - Yes, but he didnt tolerate the money changers in the temple. Jesus wrecked the temple, they say! Well, yes it's apparently true that Jesus wrecked the temple. But that's a far cry from bombing it to smithereens and killing everyone within a fifty yard radius whether they were involved or not.

I thinking killing terrorists is like trying to slay the Hydra - for every head you slice off two more grow in its place.

As a hardcore veteran and middle-class Republican, I found nothing wrong with your blog. Hewitt is not representative for me, no more so that GWB or JFK or HRC.

I am pleased that AZ is gone, just as I agonize over all the innocents' deaths, both as collateral damage and at his hands.

Only the dead have seen the end of war. Was that Soh-crates, dude? Or the other dude, Plato?

Whooaaa, awesome High Explosive Enemas for Jihadist Mass Murderers, say moi.

You did no wrong. Fughedabowtit. Hewitt No-wit Nitwit.

Joel's Rough Draft column is up and very funny--about the pretension of wine-drinking and wine descriptions. Until it gets posted here, it's at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600936.html

Darn Nats kept me up well over an hour longer than I wanted to--they went into extra innings, 8-8, against the Phillies, and finally won it with 2 outs in the bottom of the 12th, when their very last player, Bob Fick, whose own mother isn't aware he's on a pro baseball team, much less anyone else being aware of it, singled in a run from second base on a split-second play at the plate, to win 9-8. All in all, a really excellent, exciting game from the 1st inning on. (Ironically, Soriano, who has been hitting like crazy lately, went 0-6 at bat. So beating Philly two in a row without Soriano's help is even more impressive. They are tied with Atlanta.)

OK, enough boring baseball talk--you can go back to discussing REALLY exciting sports, like restrictor-plate curling, tossing the caber, WC fusbol and NASCAR (prediction: the winner of today's 4-hour left-turnathon will have two first names. You heard it here first.)

When I was younger, I had a speech impediment, and it was very painful for me. Thus, I take great offense at Joel's use of the word "Doth" in the title to this post. The man is making fun of the alternate-pronouncing community.

And my interpretation of Joel's words is just as fair as Hugh Hewitt's earlier interpretation.

I expect an apology.

DULCE ET DECORUM EST

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! - An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime9. . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering,11 choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.

-Wilfred Owen
-8 October 1917 - March, 1918

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - it is sweet and right to die for your country. In other words, it is a wonderful and great honour to fight and die for your country.

Where's the transcript, kb?

Sorry if I missed the link, but I've been hiding in the bunker.

And Michael Grunwald has an excellent column in Outlook about the Democratic Party and its two factions, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901977.html

How Doth the Little Crocodile . . . Lewis Carroll's poem is unsuited for kids. It even portrays fish as victims.

Thinking of this weekend's Rough Draft, northwestern Oregon has a proliferation of wineries, some of them very small. Plus lots of tiny breweries. And Portland supposedly has the nation's highest per capita ice cream consumption (including brands like Tillamook and Umpqua). Ice cream companies like Dreyers (a.k.a. Edy's)tried out new flavors on discering Portlanders. Lets critique some Blue Bell ice cream to see if it has baby fat.

Pixel! You never cease to amaze. I'm a big Wilfred Owen fan, too. He figures prominently in some stuff I've been working on.

I'm strongly tempted to sound the all-clear and let everybody come out from the bunker. Lost all my lunch money playing pinnocle with Slyness.

Transcript is here:

http://radioblogger.com/

yellojkt, I changed my mind and read HH's site and the transcripts since there was so much discussion about it. Here's the link:

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001685

Hewitt should be ashamed of himself for this line:

"I'm glad...and you're a very patriotic and loyal American, and I'm glad you came on to celebrate the 1st Amendment with me.

Who does this guy think he is? It reads like he's handing out a pardon for a treason charge. Still, smart for Joel to confront him and defuse this.

Sorry for prodding the embers, but this is going to be open until we get a new kit.

Mudge, anytime someone starts spouting off about "just and noble" in the context of war, I think of that line, "Dulce et Decorum Est, Pro patria mori." And then I need to go re-read the rest to remind myself about the lovely realities of war.

Thanks for posting the radio transcript link. I looked for it, but couldn't find it. Yikes, what a bunch of "personalities" they have. I'll read it in a bit - have to watch the French Open (tennis) women's final that I taped before I hear who won. I've been watching it on ESPN2, which means I also get to see the promotions for the World Cup, which is using U2 songs, so that always gets my attention.

Yay, Nats! I saw Fick's name on the "crawl" last night, and I thought, what an unusual name.

Mmmm, Tillamook. Love their cheese and ice cream.

(Proud to be a loony lefty.)

ja: did you at least catch some graduation festivities or did this mess interfere? if it did, well, damnit.

i've been thinking about the negative reaction to the zarqawi blog. the kit does subtlely raise the question of whether our military actions are moral. there is an implied moral ambiguity in the whole situation - not an equivalence, but a question mark. some people just can't handle that. they have to be the good guys. they have to be right all of the time. a joel-type question like "is it even good that humans exist on this planet?" would probably never enter their minds.

well, happy weekend everyone.

Agreed, Pix. The "just" part makes me nervous, but then "noble" really compounds it. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do, but even then "noble" just doesn't seem appropriate.

I think the most sickening line in Hewitt's interview, though was when he said at the end that this was going to be the start of a friendship. Yeah, right. (And never mind that it was bad "Casablanca" on top of it.) Joel's about as likely to become best buds and bosom companions with ol' Hughie as he is to give Ann Coulter away at her wedding.

Joel,

I think you've got Hugh Hewitt all wrong. I read the transcript of his interview with you and I encourage you to do so, too. You kept on leaping to the conclusion that he was "questioning your patriotism" and calling you anti-American, and it's just not so. He even made sure to refer to you as a patriot in the last moments, in case anyone had misunderstood (like you!). He was also sincere when he, again at the end of the interview, invited you to return to the show and expressed hope that you'd become friends.

I don't think the meaning in your original blog entry was at all clear, as much as you keep on quoting the word "oppposite." The context was "It was an impersonal obliteration. You could argue that it was the opposite . . ." First, the preface of "[Y]ou could argue" can easily be interpreted as "One could argue [though I certainly don't]." Second, saying that A is the opposite of B does not, of course, address which one is better. You're right that "opposite" does not suggest moral equivalence, but neither does it make clear which of the two is morally superior. In addition, many of the comments in that blog thread suggested moral equivalence, or worse.

Please read the transcript. Like Lileks, Reynolds, and, yes, Hewitt; I am more than happy to believe that the misimpression was created by ambiguous writing (along with antecedents such as the Bill Maher incident). Hewitt gave you every opportunity to explain it that way. He also gave you several opportunities to clarify your (positive) feelings toward "our side" and your satisfaction that Zarqawi had been eliminated.

I enjoy reading your humorous columns in the Washington Post Magazine and recently bought one of your books. I think, however, that it is you who is distorting, jumping to conclusions, and mischaracterizing here--not Hugh Hewitt.

In going through the comments, I realized that I had gotten the chronology wrong. (Joel was on Hugh's show AFTER this blog entry was made.) I think most of my comment (above) still stands, but I apologize for the mistake.

Dave of the Coonties,

Small wineries, tiny breweries, and ice cream. You are giving me more reasons why I should move back to Oregon!

"Hugh Hewitt doth protest too much, methinks."

--From Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

Sorry, Joel. I heard you on yesterday's show and went back to read your piece and if you were rejoicing over the success in knocking off Zarqawi, I couldn't tell. I've heard you on NPR and seen your blog before and I don't consider you a liberal sourpuss.

Actually your piece was uneven and confusing. That second paragraph doesn't exactly sound like a paean to our military's professionalism or prowess. It sounds like you think there's something unmanly or unfair about using stand off weapons instead of taking this guy on mano a mano, as if we should have given him a chance to kill a few more of our Marines.

I accept your statement that you didn't mean it that way, but you put it into text and posted it online. You should be a better writer than that.

Hugh Hewitt does come on strong, but I think he's fair. You came on angry, claiming he was attacking your patriotism and that you are really rooting for us to win. Fine, if you say so, but read the second graf again. It repeats points about the video images we got used to during the first Gulf War, which I've only seen before in connection with complaints about the fact that they don't show the gore the bombs and missles cause, as if that makes a moral difference about our cause. It sounds like we ought to apologize for not fighting fair, or the fact that we're a superpower.

I can see where you might have been wondering why, with our vaunted technology and air power, we haven't gotten this creep before, but it certainly wasn't clear.

I think this was a case of misunderstanding, but it's not the first of last time it will happen, because what you post is fair game for anybody who reads it, including talk radio hosts, and other bloggers. I guess you just have to be humble, like the rest of us, and be glad that Hugh gave you the time to explain yourself and resolve the question.

It's a real time world now. Good luck.

The Zarqawi Boodle is cranking away, up to 294 posts by now. The most recent was just 2 hours ago, roughly.

O Fellow Boodlers: rise above the muck! Abandon the Boodle of ancient provenance! It's, like, so two days ago. Let not the concrete-brained and blinkered-eyed berate nor trouble you, but rest easy, here, in the lap of this calm and tranquil Boodle. For I say unto you, the cranky do not reload their browsers, neither do they rise to the main Achenblog page, and so they rant on, blissfully unaware that they speak (if "they" they be, and not just one big blabbermouth of many handles) to no one but "their" own squawking choir.

The Squawking Choir might be a good name for a rock band. Better than Itchy Groin, I'll wager.

A BRIEF SUMMARY

Cassandra loves the baby Jesus,
Padouk and Nuke lean more to wine and cheeses
It's Joel who loves us all, however, more than we'll ever know

The system works like this: When Joel farts--
I beg your pardon--let us say when Joel sneezes
Many say "Yes, well-done," the others "O what a wicked scuzz".

What did great Joel mean? Words fly. Big names. Buzz buzz.
The fuzzy buzz for Him who signs the checks on payday.
God has a hundred names, and one of them is Buzz, and one is Pagehits Brady.

O it's Pagehits Brady and his Man,
I know its the WaPo but a sham's a sham.
A fart's a fart for a' that.

This is a horse that will not die. He keeps getting revived. KB, hope we'll hear from you soon. It is hard. The rhetoric is maddening, and the war is even worse. Prayer is my answer, and that is what I do. Perhaps if we all come together as a nation and offer prayers, we can find peace for our soldiers and our nation.

When I made my comments this morning at 6, I had not read that transcript between Joel and Hewitt. I must say not having read it, I came pretty close to identifying the discussion. When we differ in our opinions about the war, those that don't support war are made out to be traitors and unpatriotic. The conversation seemed as if Hewitte was trying to draw Joel into some kind of fight, and Joel seemed to feel the need to apologize. I felt uncomfortable reading it, I can only imagine what the feeling was like actually being there. It was like being called in the office and given a good talking to, and told not to do it anymore. These folks don't want to talk details and specifics or even do comparisons. They only want to carry their point at all costs. One gets the sense that the only satisfaction these folks would settled for concerning those that oppose them is violence. A verbal beating or a physical beating, it doesn't matter. Take your pick. Somewhere in history there an example of this, and the only circumstance I can think of right now is the KKK. Fear is the tactic the Klan used, and in some way, this feels a lot like that. Don't hang me for the thought. I could be wrong, I usually am.

Lots of wallowing in the mire over there. Jim Morrison might be impressed.

I've gotta go out and give the grass a haircut, then plant a couple of palms--we've already got some cloudiness associated with Tropical Depression #1.

I wondered at reading your article and reading Lileks so-called "defense" is the best you can offer; that Lileks doesn't think you are the kind of fringe hack that would say the U.S. pilot and Zarqawi are "moral equivalents", but instead you merely stumble when trying to write clearly and decisively about the differences between the two?

It reminds me of The Mary Tyler Moore Show when Ted struggled to tell Georgette he loved her (I know others who read your piece felt the same way but were fearful of backlash if they were to voice the sentiment).

"But no human beings are visible in that jet-fighter footage. I actually couldn't tell what I was looking at -- it could have been a warehouse demolition in Tulsa. It was an impersonal obliteration."

In the future would you like cameras mounted on the coalition aircraft so we can see the pilots faces like in the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora" so we could see if they appeared to be enjoying it or not?

C'mon Joel, say it:

"I love you Georgette."

AP reporting this afternoon. Sad. Not only the suicides but the death of habeus corpus as well.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three detainees at Guantanamo Bay apparently committed suicide amid protests of the U.S. military prison by inmates, the Defense Department said Saturday. They were the first reported deaths at the detention center where suspected terrorists have been held for as long as 4.5 years.

Two men from Saudi Arabia and one from Yemen were found "unresponsive and not breathing in their cells" early Saturday, according to a statement from the Miami-based U.S. Southern Command, which has jurisdiction over the prison. Attempts were made to revive the prisoners, but failed. ...

The United States is holding about 460 men on suspicion of links to al-Qaida and the Taliban at Guantanamo Bay, which has become a sore subject between President Bush and U.S. allies who otherwise are staunch supporters of his policies. ...

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith are among those who also recently have urged the United States to close the prison.

On Friday, after the prison came up during a meeting with Fogh Rasmussen at Camp David, Bush said his goal is to do just that. ...

Bush said his administration was waiting for the Supreme Court to rule whether he overstepped his authority in ordering the detainees to be tried by U.S. military tribunals. "We're waiting on our Supreme Court to act," he said. ...

There also has been a hunger strike among detainees since August. The number of inmates refusing food dropped to 18 by last weekend from a high of 131. The military has at times used aggressive force-feeding methods, including a restraint chair. Force-feeding is performed through tubes inserted into the nose.

Mudge, I think I need to be in the bunker. Need anymore Dinty Moore? You're not asleep, wake up.

C'mon in, Cassandra. My sounding the all-clear seems to have been premature. You can bring the Dinty Moore, if you want, but this afternoon I made a giant pot of corn chowder with crabmeat, lobster meat and mushrooms (and of course Old Bay seasoning), plus three slabs of baby back ribs, and a plate of sliced tomatoes drizzled with Russian dressing and sea salt. It was yummy, but there's plenty of leftovers. (Also, I seem to recollect a giant pitcher of frozen margaritas made with key lime rum, so don't expect me to stay awake too much longer.)(There were no leftovers of the margaritas, unfortunately, Cassandra, but it wouldn't take much to talk me into making a new pitcher.)

Dinner was going to be on the table shortly, but wasn't quite yet ready (thick steak rubbed with red wine vinegar and dusted liberally with garlic powder--garlic probably originally from Gilroy, Calif., fresh and sweet yellow-white corn-on-the-cob from Tracy, Calif., and fresh domestic asparagus, in all likelihood from Stockton, Calif., or the delta-environs or thereabouts) and we happened to turn on the NBC Saturday news program.

The Pentagon is now calling these three suicides that took place at Guantanamo "an act of war." How sad that some P.R. person dreamed this up this twisted phrase and the Pentagon is floating this spin. The suicides are not "acts of war" but "acts of desperation."

What did the NBC talking head who reported the story say? About (more than?) 700 people held at Guantanamo over the last four years, and only 10 were ever charged with any offense. I can't recall how many were brought before military tribunals? Does anyone have the number?

Sick. Very sick. A George Bush-gulag nation. The detainees and we as citizens have rights to know of their alleged crimes. Is these prisoners are so dangerous, as this administration maintains, why aren't we Americans given an inking as to why?

Erik, we're not afraid of a backlash if we criticize JA. His piece raised the moral ambiguities of inflicting death, and left them ambiguous. An exercise for the reader. Zarqawi was despicable and monstrous, but that doesn't change the moral weight of OUR decision (as a nation) to kill him. Even if we all agree that it was the right thing to do, it still should not be a trivial decision to do it. The death of a child in the process, someone unable to make a choice about whether to be there and to support Zarqawi, adds to the distress of the decision in hindsight.

I feel like the decision to kill an individual person because of his identity is different somehow from the decision to kill unnamed enemies for tactical reasons. Assassination leaves me squeamish, regardless of the merit of capital punishment for the target. I'm still thinking about my moral sense of the legitimacy of seeking out enemy leaders, distinct from their forces, even more so when the enemy is a semi-organized mob whose leadership is decided by the will of the mob.

I think we prefer, here, to come to our own conclusions about things. We may even conclude that we don't have a clean conclusion. We don't need a spiritual leader to give us the definitive moral meaning of every act so that we can chorus "Amen, Brother! Testify!" There's a place for that sort of call and response, but it's not everywhere, and it's not here.

We've had some mention of exactly what is this blog like? What is its nature? I'd guess that its nature is the nature of a conversation in which people who disagree strongly can talk with each other and each learn something new from the experience. Maybe more than that, they can walk away disagreeing with each other, and still respect each other as principled persons.

And that's why we like Canadians so much. :)

SCC: inkling

Let the questions begin. For a start:
If these prisoners are predominantly from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, what links do or did they have to al Qaeda? Did they train with bin Laden in Afghanistan? How did we determine the affiliation to terrorist activities, if any? Are the Saudis in custody in any way connected to opposition to the Saudi ruling families, with whom the Bushes--41 and 43--have had on ongoing cozy relationship? How did we go about rounding up the current detainees? On what evidence? Did they have previous criminal records? Were we assisted by foreign governments in placing them in detention? Why do we continue to build incarceration facilities at Guantanamo?

What do we know about the prisoners (how many thus far?) who were released, since we declared war on Iraq, from Gitmo and their alleged crimes?

Whew! I'll be back soon, Mudge, I gotta go get some more margarita mix! Let's play go fish tonight, whatta ya say?

Spent my day driving to the welcome center on the Virginia side of the NC/VA line, to give my van to the older kid. She's got a new job and had to give the company car up. Charlotte to Chapel Hill, drop off couch to younger child in new apartment. Chapel Hill to Virginia welcome center, eat lunch and celebrate older kid's 24th birthday (How the he11 did THAT happen?) Back to Chapel Hill to drop off younger kid. Home. It's sooo nice to be back.

Now, gotta shop for a new car. Oh boy.

Just got in after a busy day, to a hear some wonderful news there is such a thing as key lime rum, best news I have had since I discovered raspberry vodka.

Also saw the news about Gitmo, what is the legal proceedings for those prisoners, will there be trails?

One more note to dr and SoC, you Westerners showed incredible class tonight, one of the most touching and proud moments I had as a Canadian in a while. Go Oilers.

yeah dmd, probably there will be trails eh? except for the three that were not responsive. Probably Tim will have more on the moral ambiguities.

dmd, the stuff is called Island Breeze Key Lime Rum, by Bacardi. The best part is, it has only half the calories of other rum or wine. Well, that's not exactly the BEST part. By the third pitcher, calories are usually pretty far from my mind. Usually I am more concerned with staying vertical, at that point.

Good stuff. Of course, I only drink it because of the lime, which is antiscorbutic and prevents scurvy. I'm a VERY staunch advocate of fighting scurvy at every available opportunity, which is why I like a wedge of lime in my Corona. Or a slice of lime in my Tom Collins. You can never have too much antiscorbutic, say I.

And here I was thinking Key Lime Pie was the only way to benefit from the antiscorbutic qualities of limes. Pitcher of drinks and key lime pie could life get any better. A close second would be the first of the local strawberries are in the stores here now, fresh strawberry dacquiries (sp)with Key Lime rum sound good, must check that out.

Excuse the spellings, my mind just won't focus on spelling tonight I think I need to have a drink.

Why is it that dogs can manufacture Viatamin C in their livers and we can't?

So, do salty old sea dogs require antiscorbutic?

http://inspectorclouseau.com/d_seadog.html

"Jist an old salty sea deawg here"
"Pump'n up de bird'n.."

"Ohhhhh sixteen chests on a dead men's rum,
yo ho ho and a bottle of de chest.."

Frequently, Loomis. Frequently.

'All hands on deck, we've run afloat!' I heard the captain cry
'Explore the ship, replace the cook: let no one leave alive!'
Across the straits, around the Horn: how far can sailors fly?
A twisted path, our tortured course, and no one left alive

We sailed for parts unknown to man, where ships come home to die
No lofty peak, nor fortress bold, could match our captain's eye
Upon the seventh seasick day we made our port of call
A sand so white, and sea so blue, no mortal place at all

We fired the gun, and burnt the mast, and rowed from ship to shore
The captain cried, we sailors wept: our tears were tears of joy
Now many moons and many Junes have passed since we made land
A salty dog, this seaman's log: your witness my own hand

"A Salty Dog" - Procol Harum

I can't tell if I'm blushing from Tim's nice comment or red cheeked from the game tonight. A big one. We got ourselves a playoff series! Thanks to dmd too.

Loomis [re: Dogs/Humans/Vitamin C] -

It's been a LOOOOONG time since I read anything about this, but I think the standard explanation (by people who believe in this sort of secular humanist claptrap) involves the different ancestral lineages of wolves -vs- humans, and the different climates = different diets with which they evolved.

Joel - I heard both days of Hugh Hewitt. Hearing the 2 paragraphs alone it did sound rather like Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect statement. I am so glad you came on Hugh's show and corrected what I felt to be an abhorent philosopy.

I thought the segments you spent on his radio show were great radio. - Hoping you will come back soon and share more with Hugh. - I hope also that you consider his words at the end of you interview, "This is the beginning of a long friendship". to be true. I know you will fit right in with The Beltway Boys and James Lileks.

Looking forward to hearing you again. - Paul - prying1 -

P.S. - I wonder if Bill Maher has recanted.

(I have to apologize in advance. This is gonna sound cranky, and it references a remark by someone whose comments I've always enjoyed thoroughly. It's actually intended as wry humor! I wrote the following, thought about it, considered withdrawing it entirely, and decided to put it out with this preface.)

I spent a while tonight catching up on a couple days worth of very interesting commentary. I regret that I didn't get a timely opportunity to let a couple of folks ('tribehooker' comes to mind immediately, 'don'/'Don' & others probably qualified as worthwhile recipients of this advice also) know that they were shooting at the wrong target.

To (badly) paraphrase Sean Connery's Malone in the 'Untouchables', "You dumb clockmaker, you've brought a pendulum movement to an atomic clock fight!" This is a humor blog, no matter what you and your fellow Rove-stormers (of course you don't understand what that means, thanks for proving my point!) want it to be. So long as you think that self-righteous indignation is a viable substitute for witty rational thought, you will continue to be a subject of ridicule in this forum.

Of course, Malone died very shortly after that line, I think. Oh, well, you can lose and still be right!

I also noted that, in response to a sweet hurricane story from Nani: (Posted by: Nani | June 8, 2006 03:38 PM)
Short version: In the wake of hurricane, store owners say,"Please don't steal. Pay if you can, otherwise you can give us an IOU."

that Kbert shared what I initially thought was an equally sweet & uplifting story: (Posted by: kbertocci | June 8, 2006 04:36 PM)
Short version: Muslim neighbor feeds elderly Jewish retirees in time of need. Tolerance and friendships ensue.

Upon further consideration, I realized that the moral of this story is: People are childish, bigoted morons who only learn compassion lessons in the aftermath of tragedy. I find that now I'm actually looking forward to the great meteor strike, since the few of us (or them. Whatever!) who remain alive should get along better, right?

I really can't sleep now, since I've probably left the impression that I'm not well aware that meteoroids, when striking the atmosphere and becoming brightly-glowing meteors, are actually METEORITES if they ever get around to whacking the surface, and causing us all to love one another!

I got a little feedback from Hewitt & the minions, and they are (quietly, grudgingly) acknowledging that they lept with both feet into a pool where they hadn't really judged the depth beforehand. On the other hand, they still maintain that they own the "big issues", and reserve the right to thrash JA & the regulars when we intrude upon their turf! (Until the big one strikes. Then we'll see who cares about what, won't we?)

SCC:
I reckon that's "LEAPT with both feet ...", isn't it? (sigh..)

Bob S says: "People are childish, bigoted morons who only learn compassion lessons in the aftermath of tragedy."

That is a well-constructed sentence, Bob, and had me nodding my head for a while and then saying "Huh."

The reason I know that story about the hurricane aftermath is because I belong to an organization (I'm the membership chairman, actually) called JAM & All--the JAM part stands for "Jews and Muslims" and as a Christian I'm part of the "& All." We learn our compassion lessons in discussion groups and community service projects, not waiting for disasters. So I thought JAM & All was an argument against your sentiment. But then I remembered that the organization was started after 9/11/01, so it actually supports your point.

But to your "glass half empty" philosophy, I would still reply, from over here the glass looks half full. I like to say God can use anything, even tragedy, even disaster, for good.

Here's a blog item I did, just a short description of the attendees at a JAM & All women's group meeting.

http://readthinklive.blogspot.com/2006/04/some-women-i-know.html

Good morning, friends. KB, you're back, glad to hear from you. Bob S enjoyed your comments. I believe Scripture says that God uses the wrath of man according to His Holy will and good pleasure. I believe that. I'm up so early, but will not walk today. I take Sunday's off. I want to go to Sunday school and church. We celebrate our church anniversary today. Mudge, I will have to come out of the bunker. Once again I must say that I believe this blog to be the greatest. It's a beginning. We can talk about anything I believe, and still like each other. I think that is so great. It feels like a community to me. We have different ideas and different thinking about a lot of subjects, but when all is said and done, I'm still crazy about you guys. And that doesn't change. I pray for you all everyday, and I want your lives to be good and happy. Joel, I'll say this again, you do what a newspaper guy does, don't back away from that, stick to what you believe, in the face of whatever. I hope I see my grandchildren soon, I'm missing them something awful. And I know when they get here, I'm going to get tired just looking at them, but oh, folks, it is so worth it. Please know this if nothing else in this life, God loves you more than you can imagine through Him that died for all, Christ Jesus.

Hi, kbert & Cassandra! Like I said, I was in "somewhat cranky wry humor" mode. Sometimes I notice the hidden agendas, sometimes I don't, usually I notice them but don't point them out. Nothing changes the fact that people are very often extraordinarily kind to each other, disaster or no. God, Darwin, or the Great Spaghetti Monster built a beautiful altruism into most of us, and I try to deserve it every day!

(I'll briefly note that it isn't "my" glass half-empty philosophy! I'm regularly, although usually lovingly, criticized for being a romantic idealist)

I should have added:

The list of kind acts that I've been lucky enough to receive from total strangers would exceed all of the L.Loomis posts combined! I do my best to build on my list of kind acts for others every day. I'm something of a skeptic, but I stopped being cynical long ago. (Smile!)

Bob

bc, Thank you for your reference to the founding fathers. Every time I hear someone being accused of having a "pre-9/11 mentality" I take a moment and commune with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Then I think, yeah, I'm proud to maintain my pre-9/11 mentality.

I'm with you, bc.

Wow! I guess I haven't been called so many names for leaning to the left since arguing with the David Duke supporters in Louisiana. Hmmm...Maybe we should ponder that (for longer than 17 seconds). It says something about the way the country's going.

Pixel, thanks for the poem. I'd never read that.

Mudge, would you like some homemade potato salad at the bunker later today? We're celebrating our first year in our house today. As a good Jewish mother always does, I'm overplanning and there will be leftovers for everyone to take home. I can save you some.

Lots more to comment on, but I'm going to feed my kids breakfast after saying a prayer for the three "unresponsive" detainees. Poor guys.

...and Bob, I'm glad to hear you're not terminally pessimistic about the human race. I don't argue with the pessimist viewpoint, because the evidence is there to support it. But I think it's been scientifically proven that gratitude and hopefulness lead to better health and a more productive existence. So I'm happy for you.

Enjoyed your posts, Bob, but to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "I know cranky. Cranky is a (very close personal) friend of mine, and you're no cranky." Take it from a pro. :-)

ABC, is that potato salad with mustard and egg? Or the creamy type? Or the Penna. Dutch type? Or... (Why the heck am I even asking? Sure, I love potato salad, ABC, so all leftovers are welcome!) (I had leftover corn/seafood chowder for breakfast this morning, along with the sliced tomatoes. Yum.)

I once wrote a newspaper column dividing the entire world into two camps: those who love and admire leftovers, and those poor, misguided, gustatorily-challenged people who disdain eating leftovers of any kind. (My wife's first husband was one such, and she says she married me because my last name was much easier to spell than his, and I ate leftovers. Though there were probably a couple hundred other reasons why she ditched him as well, he being a total *%#@&%$#&.)

A prayer written by Marianne Williamson from her book: Healing the Soul of America

Dear God,
We come together,
different perspectives,
different politics,
different cultures,
to ask that you heal our country.
We surrender to you
the thoughts and attitudes we now hold,
and empty our minds that they might
be filled by You.
Show us to each other,
as You would have us see each other.
Show us the world,
as You would have us see the world.
Guide our listening,
as You would have us hear each other.
Teach us, and inspire us.
Use us on Your behalf.
Amen

Two grafs today from Robert Kaiser's op-ed on freedom of the press and his discussion of very current issues related to this First Amendment-given right.

(I admit to being fascinated by the mention of Erwin Griswold and his role with the Pentagon Papers and his WaPo op-ed/reversal-of-position 18 years later--also, dean of Harvard's law school for years, and Solicitor General for the last years of the Warren Court. I believe Griswold, from East Cleveland, must be descended from the Windsor, Conn. Griswolds, who arrived in Windsor in the same boat as the Loomises in August, 1639.)

On to Kaiser's rich op-ed:

The Bush administration has been publicly toying with the idea of using the Espionage Act, passed by Congress in 1917 when the country was swept up in an emotional response to our entry into World War I, to prosecute journalists for disclosing classified information. The legislative history of the act convinces me that its authors never intended for it to be used to censor the press, and since World War I it has never been used for that purpose. Numerous legal scholars from right to left say that doing so would violate the First Amendment. But Attorney General [San Antonian] Alberto R. Gonzales said recently that invoking the Espionage Act against the press "is a possibility."

I heard Gonzales's remark as an attempt at intimidation. Intimidation by classification already seems to be a hallmark of this administration, which has created classified secrets at an unprecedented pace -- 14 million in fiscal 2005, compared with 8 million in 2001, according to the National Archives. The Bush administration has encouraged the use of more than 60 new categories ("sensitive but unclassified," for example) to control the distribution of millions more facts and documents.

>Show us to each other,
as You would have us see each other.

Ever consider that's exactly what He's done? That a good deal of "us" cannot understand any verbage other than "US Good, Them Bad"? That we're now subject to verbal drive-bys by people bent on being vigilante thought-police, sent by their aggrieved affluent white male leaders to enforce proper social order and thought?

Terrific. I moved the tiki bar into the bunker this weekend, and I'm going back in. I don't come here for this kind of aggravation, I come here to get away from it.

Cheers...

Good morning all...

I've been reading back over all the recent hoo-hah and am now feeling somewhat foolish about my own participation -- not my opinions or beliefs (I still stand by them), but the fact that I allowed myself to be goaded into pointless argument with people who are unable and unwilling to hear (let alone consider) any side but their own. Reading my own posts, I see that I stooped to their same level of blind, self-righteous rhetoric and resorted to the same use of ad hominems, red herrings, straw men and other dirty tricks of debate.

Oh, boodlers, please forgive my transgressions. My heart was in the right place, but my indignation (coupled with the moonbat suit in the closet) got the better of me. For that, I apologize.

I will now go mow the lawn, then build another adirondack chair (one for the Mrs.), spend some time on the swingset with my daughter and hopefully reunite with my inner Buddha in the process.

Have a great and peaceful Sunday everyone.

Martooni... we know your heart is in the right place and appreciate your indignation. Sometimes you just can't help yourself--we've all been there.

Enjoy the beautiful Sunday! We're glad you're here.

Good God, Error Flynn--
It's just a prayer trying to open up some kindness. lighten up.

After what I've seen posted here for the last few days your're telling ME to lighten up?

The other people "who own the big issues" are probably praying we get hit by terrorists to teach us a lesson.

So please, pray harder, and let me know how that works out for you.

EF--
you're right. i guess we all need to step back a minute, including me. apologies.

Regarding: ScienceTim | June 10, 2006 07:51 PM

Science Tim said:
"(Joel Achenbach's) piece raised the moral ambiguities of inflicting death, and left them ambiguous."

So are you a member of the camp that agrees that the U.S. pilot is potentially a worse war criminal by potentially creating MORE Zarqawis, and hence bringing about the deaths of more innocents then Zarqawi himself?

Science Tim said:
"An exercise for the reader."

Wow. Most of the people I know are not so sophisticated as to play little mental exercises with the lives of innocent Iraqis. I have never considered those people to be little rhetorical devices, but rather, actual human beings just as deserving as freedom and democracy as you.

Science Tim said:
"Zarqawi was despicable and monstrous, but that doesn't change the moral weight of OUR decision (as a nation) to kill him."

Outside of yourself and a handful of the ladies auxiliary of the Workers of the World I don't think the nation struggled with the decision at all. Now if you happened to be conflicted, and were kind of hoping the U.S. would suffer more casualties, or more Iraqi school children would be butchered so you can say that this is further proof of the folly of imposing democracy on the Iraqis, then you might be struggling with this decision.

Science Tim said:
"Even if we all agree that it was the right thing to do, it still should not be a trivial decision to do it."

It seems that you are being quite cavalier in your belief that it was considered to be a trivial decision.

Science Tim said:
"The death of a child in the process, someone unable to make a choice about whether to be there and to support Zarqawi, adds to the distress of the decision in hindsight."

So the fact that he personally murdered or had murdered thousands, maybe tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children and would have seen to the brutal murder of as many more as he possibly could have, in hindsight, causes you "distress" when you think of the decision to kill him? You are a member of the "our constitution is a suicide pact" lobby.

Science Tim said:
"I feel like the decision to kill an individual person because of his identity is different somehow from the decision to kill unnamed enemies for tactical reasons."

So do you believe we should have killed just any old Iraqi, or some Jordanian on a holiday? Funny, that is what the "No War"/A.N.S.W.E.R./Air America crowd has accused the U.S. forces of and said is why Bush should be impeached and tried as a war criminal.

So you are advocating a random killing as a response? Maybe you could be more precise as to how specifically killing Zarqawi is different - do you mean it is better or worse? (I know making such basic moral distinctions is tough for such civilized people as yourself)

Science Tim said:
"Assassination leaves me squeamish, regardless of the merit of capital punishment for the target."

I don't suppose that would be because you find you are more closely aligned politically to someone like Zarqawi that the U.S. would tend to want to assassinate?

Science Tim said:
"I'm still thinking about my moral sense of the legitimacy of seeking out enemy leaders, distinct from their forces, even more so when the enemy is a semi-organized mob whose leadership is decided by the will of the mob."

You are so civilized! How barbaric am I for thinking the July 20 plot to kill Hitler was a noble cause!

Science Tim said:
"I think we prefer, here, to come to our own conclusions about things. We may even conclude that we don't have a clean conclusion. We don't need a spiritual leader to give us the definitive moral meaning of every act so that we can chorus "Amen, Brother! Testify!" There's a place for that sort of call and response, but it's not everywhere, and it's not here."

I honestly don't know what you are talking about here, but somebody once said: "God is not merely interested in the freedom of brown men, yellow men, red men and black men. He is interested in the freedom of the whole human race."

You may not believe in God or any infinite justice, but our democracy and all of our freedoms were defined by men who believed that these things were bestowed upon each one of us by the creator.

Science Tim said:
"We've had some mention of exactly what is this blog like? What is its nature? I'd guess that its nature is the nature of a conversation in which people who disagree strongly can talk with each other and each learn something new from the experience."

I have only learned from such meaningless dribble that some people are so insulated and separate from their fellow man that they lose the ability to distinguish between good and evil. You are not the impartial observer you imagine yourself to be if you cannot draw distinction between Zarqawi and the pilot who dropped the bomb that killed Zarqawi (and also inadvertently killed a child).

Science Tim said:
"Maybe more than that, they can walk away disagreeing with each other, and still respect each other as principled persons."

I have an abiding respect for the sanctity of life and consequently I will not stand by and allow Zarqawi and Saddam to murder thousands and threaten to export that brutality, and I will not respect your "principles" anymore then I would respect someone who said there was moral equivelence between the KKK and FBI which stopped the KKK from lynching blacks in the Jim Crow south.

Science Tim said:
"And that's why we like Canadians so much. :)"

You like them, but not so much that you would proactively stop a terrorist attack on them? How do you imagine the terror plot in Canada was revealed; and please do tell me how come it was so heinous for "children" to be held at Guantanamo Bay, but the Canadians that you like so much are perfectly justified in arresting and detaining "children"?

>EF--
you're right. i guess we all need to step back a minute, including me. apologies.

No problemo, and thank you. Now I'm going to lighten up with the help of the race and a few brewskis!

Cheers...

wallflower, love the poem.

Back from church, and I'm so full. Bought dinner home with me. Banana pudding, the old fashion kind, and pineapple cake. That was the best part of the dinner. I'm hooked on sweets, and I don't need them. I'm really sleepy now, but don't want to do that right now. My tomatoes have little tomatoes on them, very small, very green. And so many roses. And they're so beautiful. I hope everyone is enjoying their weekend, and getting some much needed rest. Looking over the comments this week, it has certainly been a tough week, and that's putting it mildly. Wouldn't it been nice if all the soldiers were coming home this week, victorious, and the situation in both countries much better?

Loomis says:

"Intimidation by classification already seems to be a hallmark of this administration, which has created classified secrets at an unprecedented pace -- 14 million in fiscal 2005, compared with 8 million in 2001"

I just went upstairs and asked my eldest son if anything had happened between 2001 and 2005... hmmm...

The only thing we could think of was that Bush the fascist pig came into office and started intimidating by classifying.

Here's further proof of the fascism of classification during the darkness of the Bush years:

* A new species of monkey in Tanzania Lophocebus kipunji (Science May 11, 2006).

* Israeli scientists have discovered an ancient underground ecosystem containing eight previously unknown species (note the neo-con/Israel nexus).

* 2006 discovery Europasaurus holgeri lived 154 million years ago in what is now northern Germany.

If Hitler had been so savvy as Bush we'd all be lampshades or wearing monocles.

Let me reiterate, I'm glad AZ is dead. I'm all for the philosophy of "He needed killin'."

The reason I'm glad, though, is that now there is at least the chance that we may have saved many other lives by killing him. I think that sometimes immoral acts are necessary for the greater good, and the world is definitely a better place without AZ.

I'll rejoice that the actions of the USAF may have made the world a little bit safer. But I refuse to celebrate the fact that someone-even an evil person-had to die for that to happen.

I think the contrast that Joel pointed out is good news for our society. When the opportunity presented itself to kill AZ, we simply did the job--in sharp contrast to what AZ did. Unlike the terrorists, we don't revel in killing.

But then, when I read the "guest" postings by some people, I wonder what America is turning into. Have we descended so low that, like the terrorists, we have to celebrate death? Are we supposed to dance in AZ's blood to prove our patriotism? If so, what kind of country have we become?

I'm reminded of a line from the new "Battlestar Galactica" (as I remember it) "You were so busy fighting to survive, you didn't stop to consider whether you deserve to survive." I want desparately for our country to survive, but I want it to be the country we've had over the last 200 years. Our respect for life and our commitment to freedom is what sets us apart from the terrorists. If we end up killing without any shred of regret that it was necessary, or without any consideration or knowledge of why it was necessary, that distinction could disappear.

New kit (the Sunday column) with a brief comment about the Hewitt matter.

There has been some great, great soccer this weekend. I know hockey and baseball seem to be the sports of choice around here, but give me "futbol" anyday. Some pretty sick goals (the Germany game? the 35 yard rocket, upper 90?? anyone?) and the fans have been on their good behavior too. The "beautiful game" has been beautiful thus far...hope the U.S. doesn't choke too badly.

(I'm kinda tired of talking/reading about Z...just thought I'd throw that out there)

tangent;

I agree, there have been some wonderful plays so far. Although all three Argentinians were clearly offsides on that one "perfectly timed" run and goal.

That being said...

martooni;
You're entirely within your rights being passionate, and you at least made the effort to be rational, unlike Erik, who sticks to the build-a-straw-man-and-throw-labels-at-it method of refusing to discuss the points someone raises. As just one example, Erik:

You couldn't bother to read Tim's record on this -- as part of his views towards the whole affair, Tim raised the issue of attempting to capture instead of kill AZ, perhaps with Iraqi forces, and show that even a "terrorist mastermind" has to face the sort of secular justice he despised. No, you had to suggest Tim was somehow comparable to AZ and chould himself be considered for assassination. Lovely debate technique. If you're so certain of your viewpoint, certainly you can muster real arguments, can't you?

SCC: "could be considered"

SCC redux: "could himself be considered"

*turning to the World Cup channel*

Scottynuke, thanks for the defense, but I think that was someone else who raised the point about capturing Zarqawi. That's a tactical decision that I don't feel I have the information to judge.

Erik, "an exercise for the reader" is a phrase that often appears in college textbooks. It is commonly understood as a joke, meaning that the author of the book has chosen to avoid the serious mental effort and suggests that you, the reader, should do it instead.

I would continue the discussion, except that you aren't discussing, you're braying. I said what I said. You quoted what I said, then proceeded to deconstruct and get angry about a lot of nonsense of your own wording that only peripherally resembled the quoted sentence(s), and which had even less to do with the actual meaning of those sentences in the context of my whole posting. So, to heck with you.

Tim;

In all this confusion, I've lost track of how many straw men we've had to deal with and which of the regular Boodlers offered which coherent attempts at discussion. My apologies.

Dooley wrote:
"You were so busy fighting to survive, you didn't stop to consider whether you deserve to survive."

Your quote Dooley, very much makes the point about how much of the leftist view is guided by a deep seated self-hatred.

Does it occur to you that maybe myself and most of the rest of the world do not share your nihilistic world view and think we actually do deserve to survive? And we don't even have to ponder it long and hard.

Scottynuke said:
"You're entirely within your rights being passionate, and you at least made the effort to be rational, unlike Erik, who sticks to the build-a-straw-man-and-throw-labels-at-it method of refusing to discuss the points someone raises."

Now if I had said this, I would be accused of trying to oppress a voice of opposition. So I don't have the right to express myself, is that correct?

I am exactly discussing the points raised, and you are of a mind that when someone makes ridiculous and indefensible statements anyone who questions them is somehow violating their freedom of expression - what a hypocrite!

Scottynuke continues to rhetorically blow ME up with a 500 lb bomb (mind you I am making fun of you there):
"as part of his views towards the whole affair, Tim raised the issue of attempting to capture instead of kill AZ, perhaps with Iraqi forces, and show that even a "terrorist mastermind" has to face the sort of secular justice he despised."

I think that is a great idea! And maybe they could have had Donald Rumsfeld standing on the corner ready to light a cigar when he was able to positively identify Zarqawi walking along next to a woman in a red dress (ala John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis).

Now think about it you well intentioned but deeply niave people - he has access to tons and tons of explosives - he has escaped numerous entrapments - AND he is ideologically and religiously predisposed to using suicidal attacks to kill his enemies -- and you think we can take him down using a taser?

Or maybe he could be lured under a giant box trap by porno magazines and bite-sized Mr.Goodbars?

You see, I really question whether any of you want him stopped at all.

I think if we attempted to to capture him alive, as you suggest, a whole bunch of our soldiers would be killed. Have you not read much about the conflict?

I think it may be that in the back of your mind you think this would create many more cynical, negative narratives about how the Iraq war was not worth the loss of life, yatta-yatta and that if they had just dropped a 500 lb bomb they would have saved many more lives.

You seem to have a jumble of conflicting thoughts and want the news to be as bad as possible, probably because in your twisted (but well-intended) world view you think that the war will be ended sooner that way (if we cut and run) and more lives will be spared in the long run (I'm giving you credit for that, but not much else).

Scottynuke says:
"I've lost track of how many straw men we've had to deal with"

Scotty, that is because you never actually said what those straw men are. So does that mean you are using the concept of a staw man as a straw man?

Detail your arguement if it is so evident!

Cassandra S. says:
"These folks don't want to talk details and specifics or even do comparisons. They only want to carry their point at all costs. One gets the sense that the only satisfaction these folks would settled for concerning those that oppose them is violence."

You see Cassandra, I am talking specifics and this is what I get in response:

SciencTim says:
"You quoted what I said, then proceeded to deconstruct and get angry about a lot of nonsense of your own wording that only peripherally resembled the quoted sentence(s), and which had even less to do with the actual meaning of those sentences in the context of my whole posting."

So in other words Tim wishes to be protected from any critical analysis - the very thing they insist as being the Holy Grail of our democratic form of government.

And Cassanda gets to invent threats of violence out of the ether!

Cassandra, a threat of violence is just that, a threat of violence. Of course you can't actually show where anyone has threatened you, but don't let that get in the way of your feeling like a martyr.

What a bunch of intellectual fascists! You can't argue the facts for one sentence without making ad hominim attacks on the other side. You have to constantly divert the issue from your empty and inhumane arguments.

What happened to the most important thing being that we should be 'challenged'?

I guess we need to be 'challenged' by pictures of the Holy Mother splattered with elephant dung.

We need to be 'challenged' about whether our beliefs and values are any better then Sharia law.

Children need to be 'challenged' at the earliest age to question authority (except for leftist professors).

But a bunch of spineless, self-hating leftists, they feel threatened by violence if you 'challenge' them...

ScienceTim says it best:
"I would continue the discussion, except that you aren't discussing, you're braying. I said what I said."

It really is a profound truth that the fascists will return in the guise of the anti-fascists.

I'll say it again, I'm proud to be a lefty. I don't hate myself, I don't hate America (and as far as I know, none of the other folks here do either). I don't support terrorism, but I see no reason to celebrate when some terrorists are killed. I'm not mourning Zarqawi's death, but I'm not sure yet what it will mean in the long run. Bush wasn't celebrating, at least not in public. Look at the Israelis - they have killed many terrorists, and I'm not sure it's actually helping. As Gandhi said, an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. We have to find other ways to solve these problems, not just engage in shriekfests.

IvansMom had a good point:
"Pretty soon there is no debate among respectful antagonists, just name-calling and derision. I agree, this is not just a reactionary thing. All kinds of people are, as you say, literal-minded, block-headed and humorless."

Let's see, who could she be talking about? What festering fringe has called every government official down to the level of dog-catcher murderers, liars and war criminals? Hmmm?

In our house it has got to be funny, regardless whose ox is gored - we hardly ever find a giggle from anybody left of Leiberman anymore. Anger and hatred aren't funny. Just repeating a bunch of nasty, bitter cliches has made the Democratic Party and the fringe left not funny.

Chomsky/Michael Moore/Mike Malloy and other such loons who are harvested for their ideas (a sign of what kind of rocket scientists inhabit the DNC these days), but then are disparaged by Democrats when their conspiracy theories and anti-semitism become too obvious are a far greater source of revelry.

My son and I were going to write a generic anti-war letter so the "What-Would-Wellstone-Do" crowd could just fill in the blanks excoriating Bush using a list of suggested pejoratives & crimes-against-humanity.

Erik, I think you need to take a deep breath and settle down. We're not out to "get you". We're not supporters of the terrorists. I personally admire the way President Bush (notice, I even capitalized "president") proves day in and day out his competence, intelligence, and command of the English language.

The only reason you're here is because Hugh Hewitt read more between the lines of Joel's blog post than what was there, and then blew his misinterpretation of what was between the lines of Joel's post completely out of proportion. Now you (and three or four others) are picking apart every comment from every poster here as if you've got the market on truth cornered. That, or you get badges or something for insulting strangers for their beliefs and opinions.

If you can't be bothered to consider our viewpoints with respect -- and there are many differing viewpoints here -- what makes you think anyone here would give yours any thought? Further, if you can't change our minds and your mind is already set, what is the point of arguing if only to hear/see your own words?

I suggest you drink some warm milk, take another deep breath (if you haven't already), and really try to get a grip.

Mostlylurking says:

"We have to find other ways to solve these problems, not just engage in shriekfests."

Where are these great "shriekfests" happening? Maybe I missed something.

I have a friend here in Minneapolis whose 11 year old daughter was shot by a gang-banger.

When they caught the guy we were happy he was captured and nobody hesitated and said: "Oh, but maybe the guy who takes his place in the gang will be worse."

Where's the eye-for-an-eye in this? Did this guy have ten thousand eyes? No, he killed God only knows how many people and was planning to kill so many more -- what super-humanitarian rehabilitation did you have in mind for him?

Honestly, please tell me, I'd like to know what other options were over-looked?

Martooni continues to avoid the issues:

"Erik, I think you need to take a deep breath and settle down. We're not out to "get you".

Really? Where did I say you were out to get me?

Of course if you are incapable of actually joining the issues I'll understand why you will rather use ad hominim attacks.

Answer the issues, not what you imagine to be my motivations.

Oh, and by the way, Erik...

I see you've brought up the same old gotchas (Chomsky/Michael Moore/Mike Malloy) that are supposed to make every liberal put on a hair shirt and flagellate themselves to appease our conservative lords.

Does that mean we can assume you back and support every word uttered by Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, et.al.?

That would really clear things up.

(I will not stoop... I will not stoop... but... oh it would be sooooo easy...)

Erik, please quit being so difficult. It makes your ass look big.

I was trying, politely, to say to you that I am not in the mood to waste time arguing with a bucket of rocks. Especially a bucket of rocks who already knows everything, so he has no room in his head for alternative viewpoints. Or facts, even.

Now I have a daughter to tuck in, a book I've been meaning to read ("Serendipity" by Umberto Eco), a Sunday crossword puzzle to, err... puzzle over, and I have to get up early for work tomorrow.

To my boodler friends: good night and sweet dreams.

To Erik: sorry dude, but you're too bitter to play with. And you know... if you don't loosen up all that stress is gonna kill ya (unless you're one of Cheney's hunting buddies, of course).

Marttoni tells me what to do:

"Erik, I think you need to take a deep breath and settle down."

Martooni needs to make a clarification:

"We're not supporters of the terrorists."

I cannot imagine being in Martooni's position of making so fine a point that he needs to clear up a misunderstanding like this.

Martooni slays 'um:

"I personally admire the way President Bush (notice, I even capitalized "president") proves day in and day out his competence, intelligence, and command of the English language."

Only Martooni is capable of free will:

"The only reason you're here is because Hugh Hewitt read more between the lines of Joel's blog post than what was there, and then blew his misinterpretation of what was between the lines of Joel's post completely out of proportion."

Martooni makes a statement of impeccable logic:

"Now you (and three or four others) are picking apart every comment from every poster here as if you've got the market on truth cornered."

The other option you may not have considered is that I am correct and you are too used to making such metaphysically unarguable statements as this without being questioned.

You forget, I am the one who believes in the concept of truth. For you to question my belief in the truth means that you must have knowledge of just what is true - which you just told me is insulting my beliefs and opinions.

Now I am an admitted primitive on such matters as this, you are the sophisticated, civilized one, show me how you agree unquestionably with me so I'll know how to agree unquestionably to what you believe.

Martooni tells me what to do:

"Erik, I think you need to take a deep breath and settle down."

Martooni has to make a clarification:

"We're not supporters of the terrorists."

I cannot imagine being in Martooni's position of making so fine a point that he needs to clear up any misunderstanding like this.

Martooni slays 'um:

I personally admire the way President Bush (notice, I even capitalized "president") proves day in and day out his competence, intelligence, and command of the English language.

Hilarity!

Only Martooni is capable of free will:

"The only reason you're here is because Hugh Hewitt read more between the lines of Joel's blog post than what was there, and then blew his misinterpretation of what was between the lines of Joel's post completely out of proportion."

Martooni makes a statement of impeccable logic:

"Now you (and three or four others) are picking apart every comment from every poster here as if you've got the market on truth cornered."

The other option you may not have considered is that I am correct and you are so used to making such metaphysically unarguable statements as this without being questioned.

You forget, I am the one who believes in the concept of truth. For you to question my beliefs and opinions is insulting my beliefs and opinions - I know that because you just told me.

Now I am an admitted primitive on such matters as this, you are the sophisticated, civilized one, show me how you agree unquestionably with me so I'll know how to agree unquestionably to what you believe.

Shockingly Martooni runs away unable to make a coherent arguement:

"To Erik: sorry dude, but you're too bitter to play with. And you know... if you don't loosen up all that stress is gonna kill ya (unless you're one of Cheney's hunting buddies, of course)."

How is it such supercivilized civil-libertarians can engage in little mind games entertaining a fair chance for a mass-murderer, but with me he has to make insulting comments.

Shockingly Martooni runs away unable to make a coherent arguement:

"To Erik: sorry dude, but you're too bitter to play with. And you know... if you don't loosen up all that stress is gonna kill ya (unless you're one of Cheney's hunting buddies, of course)."

How is it such supercivilized civil-libertarians can engage in little mind games entertaining a fair chance for a mass-murderer, but with me he has to make insulting comments.

Terrific example of the incredible hypocracy of the left.

By the way if any of you phony civil-libertarians were wondering:

What-Would-Wellstone-Do?

He would start out in 1990 as a lowly prof at Carlton College struggling to get tenure, and by 1996 he was worth $12 million.

What-Would-Wellstone-Do?

Become a corporate hypocrite just like all the other anti-corporate phonies in the Democratic Party.

Erik, maybe it's because you whine and complain and take issue with absolutely everything that is said -- even more so than my ex-wife -- and you've shown absolutely no sense of humor here (this *is* a humor blog, y'know).

You also seem to have more time on your hands to drag out pointless arguments than I do. So I'll say to you what I used to say to my ex-wife when she refused to shut her big yap and I was trying to go to sleep...

Whatever. You win. Feel better? No? Well please shut the hell up anyway and turn out the light.

Sphincter. (sorry Mudge, may I borrow that line?)

Erik,
Paul Wellstone is dead. I'm not sure why you're invokng his name, but thank you for reminding us about someone who seemed to care about the "little guy". I didn't know he was such a terrific capitalist - good for him (hope his heirs didn't get hit too hard with the "death tax").

Republicans hold all the power (and aren't they doing a fabulous job?). Perhaps if you shriek at them, you will get some action.

And just to respond to the point I think you were asking me about - I certainly don't want to rehabilitate terrorists. What did I say to give you that idea? Frankly, I don't have the answers for world peace, but surely it doesn't include shouting at your fellow citizens. The shriekfests I refer to are on cable TV and talk radio - I prefer not to listen.

Have a nice day.

"He would start out in 1990 as a lowly prof at Carlton College struggling to get tenure, and by 1996 he was worth $12 million."

I was a student at Carleton when Paul Wellstone was teaching there, and during his first Senate campaign. He was actually one of the most popular and respected professors on campus, by both students and other professors. I considered him a friend.

Thank you so much for your blind-side, off-topic, unjustified attack on a dead man. It's good to be able to see what kind of person you are (as if there was any doubt...)

Nobody ever answered any of my questions.

So what were the options to dropping the 500 lb bomb?

I asked if you thought he should have been lured into a giant box-trap with porno mags and bite sized Mr. Goodbars (which doesn't count as humor in the world of the super-civil-libertarians, I guess).

Here is what Cassandra says:

"The anger and the hate still here in some form, and those spewing that filth trying to clean it up on a high moral ground."

She takes the low road to invoke the high road. I don't hate any of you. The way you could know if I did would be if I wrote that I did.

Cassandra, I thought there was room for all points of view under your big tent, but you are creating a hostile environment and it wrinkles my heart (one of the quaint little sayings my daughters brought home from school once).

Loomis says:

"Sick. Very sick. A George Bush-gulag nation. The detainees and we as citizens have rights to know of their alleged crimes. Is these prisoners are so dangerous, as this administration maintains, why aren't we Americans given an inking as to why?"

Here is a great example of completely muddled thinking. The Gulags were the prison camp system of the former Soviet Union that supported Castro and murdered somewhere between 20 and 50 million of their own people, you know, the "evil empire". The democratic Party bought 500,000 DVD's to give out to donors as a premium made by a guy that said "One evil empire down, one to go."

Now I would not be a fair-minded multi-lateral non-denominational civil libertarian if I said the guy did not have the right to say that, but was the DNC obligated to endorse and send out these DVD's advancing that anti-American rubbish?

Wait! I am assuming that calling America an evil empire is disparraging of America, please put me in my place, sometimes I fall back under that hypnotic Karl Rove/Hugh Hewitt spell that causes me to say things I couldn't really mean.

And with the deep thought of the blog, Wilbrod shines down with:

"War is not moral. By definition it breaks the "Thou shalt not kill." The cause may be just, but the means are not the most moral.

Just ask a Vietnam vet what they think about war."

Lets ask Representative John Murtha, he's a decorated Vietnam vet, before any investigation had been done Murtha declares the Marines at Haditha guilty of atrocities.

The wonderful fair-minded loyal oposition, eh?

Clang says:

"I thinking killing terrorists is like trying to slay the Hydra - for every head you slice off two more grow in its place."

Well, then the only logical response to the killing of Zarqowi would be to bring the pilot that dropped the bomb up before a war crimes tribunal for creating more terrorists. It logically follows.

If the rest of you disagree please tell Clang, he's the one suggesting this. I am merely trying to take your well-intended thoughts to the next logical step.

Mostlylurking says:

"Paul Wellstone is dead. I'm not sure why you're invokng his name, but thank you for reminding us about someone who seemed to care about the "little guy". I didn't know he was such a terrific capitalist - good for him (hope his heirs didn't get hit too hard with the "death tax")."

Too funny! Do you imagine he was running a small business out of his Senate office?

How do you get $12 million in 6 years when you are a member of the U.S. Senate, answer: You are corrupt!

Mostly,
Do post exerpts of your rebukes of the endless criticisms blogged by leftists of Ronald Reagan. I pine awaiting your rationale why you will not, and cannot provide these.

Dooley rebukes:
"I was a student at Carleton when Paul Wellstone was teaching there, and during his first Senate campaign. He was actually one of the most popular and respected professors on campus, by both students and other professors. I considered him a friend."

Dooley, I too knew the former Senator from when he was head of the Minnesota Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988.

I was an alternate delegate for JJ and met with the Senator numerous times, I volunteered for his campaign, he was an exceedingly gracious person and I was quite saddened when I heard of his death; but like the gutless idiologues that you are you cannot admit the Senator was as corrupt - worse - then anybody else - which is why I respect Republicans more - at least they are not huge pretend-anti-corporate hypocrites.

Dooley the 'harpy' (Ann Coulter reference) says:

"Thank you so much for your blind-side, off-topic, unjustified attack on a dead man."

It must seem off topic, since only liberals get to be off topic (usually then it involves the word 'Haliburton') but I have recently seen several WWWD bumper stickers.

So having wooven the WWWD demographic into the fabric of your looniness I thought I should answer the question: What would Wellstone do?

A bunch of hypocrites wouldn't find that funny and of course it wouldn't track. I know you are all so concerned about "Intimidation by classification". Boy, I would be intimidated too if I was incapable of writing a column about the Iraq war that actually came out and clearly said that terrorism was bad and that killing terrorists is a good thing.

I would be afraid of being classified as someone who hates the President more then the terrorists.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe it's because you all are incapable of drawing any moral distinction between the U.S. and al Qaeda ('freedom fighters, no different than Americans during the revolution').

Just how many spokesmen/women are left in the Democratic Party or among their fringe hacks that you haven't disavowed?

The Republicans may be bumbling clowns (I have written that in a variety of ways, more then a few times) but at least they err on the side of not getting us killed!

Best of electoral luck to you with that twisted world view.

Please, let me hear one of you phony civil-libertarians argue on my behalf that I have as much right to hold my views as anybody - I would drop over in a dead faint.

Release the detainees from Guantanano and replace them with the truly evil Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

Sharia law demanding death and disfigurement to women who violate it is just an alternative perspective, which we have no right to question -- but if you are a Republican, prepare to be decapitated!

Phonies one and all!!!

Joel, I love your kit and your boodle (I hope I'm getting the vocabulary right) but when I read your post I did think that one paragraph was equivocal in its moral judgement of the bombing. You said that "you could argue" that Zarqawi's style of killing is the opposite -- as if it were not necessarily your opinion (in my interpretation) -- and the "contrast" you made is a comparison in the sense that you put his acts and the American military's on an equal footing (somehow). I assumed it was the fact of killing that linked them, and I was surprised to see you make this implicit connection -- I find it incredibly brave -- morally brave, and unpatriotic, in the sense that it showed a greater humanity. In this sense, I don't think the bloodthirsty crowds that attacked you were off the mark, if you share their passion and limited logic... I am sorry that you had to suffer it, and I support you airing your always funny opinions!

Joel, I love your kit and your boodle (I hope I'm getting the vocabulary right) but when I read your post I did think that one paragraph was equivocal in its moral judgement of the bombing. You said that "you could argue" that Zarqawi's style of killing is the opposite -- as if it were not necessarily your opinion (in my interpretation) -- and the "contrast" you made is a comparison in the sense that you put his acts and the American military's on an equal footing (somehow). I assumed it was the fact of killing that linked them, and I was surprised to see you make this implicit connection -- I find it incredibly brave -- morally brave, and unpatriotic, in the sense that it showed a greater humanity. In this sense, I don't think the bloodthirsty crowds that attacked you were off the mark, if you share their passion and limited logic... I am sorry that you had to suffer it, and I support you airing your always funny opinions!

The only rational thing Hewitt had to say was that this is the post's most popular blog. Or Joel is the most popular blogger. Right on.

http://www.insurance-top.com/company/ car site insurance. compare car insurance, auto insurance, insurance car. from website .

insurance auto