Yeah, that one spun me out too. I know we all have to pretend that anyone who serves in the military is a saint and can do no wrong.

But unless I'm missing a major nuance on this policy, theyr'e talking about taking people straight from the military and making them teachers without having to get qualifications? (Okay, I'm sure I'm missing something there--maybe he's talking about a streamlined teacher's college, or counting some particular kinds of military experience towards the educational requirement.)

But, look: A lot of people in the military (not everyone, but not an insignificant number either) are there quite frankly because they didn't have the grades or the education or even the brains to do anything else.

Does someone want to take me on on that point? Does someone want to look me in the eye that being in the military and seeing action, ipso facto, and notwithstanding your own educational background or achievements, is a qualification to teach school?

If I'm being kind of belligerent on that point it's because I'm sick of having to preface everything I say with "Of course we honour the sacrifice of our brave troops," as if we've ever implied anything else. Invariably trotted out against liberals like me, as if we were the ones who sent them to Walter Reed or skimped on their body armour.

That line sticks in my head and I can't remember who said it but I think it was in response to the U.S. getting into World War II.

That's what this is like. Watching a force that has lain dormant, supine, passive, cowering and letting itself be kicked around... and now finally it's getting up and fighting back, not in fits and starts, but consistently and firmly.

Or, maybe another analogy... this election has been where George McFly finally punches Biff.

"traitor" and "terrorist" it is entirely reasonable to play it safe and assume that the words that sound like "kill him" may in fact be "kill him."

Also, while Smurf is quite right in pointing out that people routinely yell out murderous things at sports events, this is a bit different since, as far as I know, no one has ever assassinated a referee with a high-powered rifle or blown up Yankee Stadium with a van full of fuel oil and fertilizer or crashed a plane into Candlestick Park.

In sports, murder is a metaphor. In politics it can turn real, quickly.

"And you have in America a lot of people who said, why should you ask the Indian people to resign the pattern of the castes that belong to their culture? Why should you oblige this or that tribe, people in Africa, to resign the excision of the clitoris of the little girl? It belongs to their culture ..."

Excuse me... please find me one person of any significance or influence who seriously believes this. Find me one person who supports female circumcision on the basis of absolute cultural relativism.

Most self-described cultural relativists will begin with a broad statement that cultures aren't inherently better or worse than one another. That's intended to counter the previous assumption that Western civilization is in all cases demonstrably superior--an attitude that demonstrably led to centuries of massive injustice. But when you get into the specifics, most of them will back off a bit. There's no contradiction here. You lay out the general principle, and then you acknowledge as a reasonable person that there are cases where it doesn't apply. Anything else is just "gotcha" debate.

As for antiglobalization, the overwhelming majority of "anti-globalists" I've ever met are not actually opposed to globalization per se, but rather the corporate model of globalization that gives private corporations de facto veto power over local autonomy and rights. And this is the only model that is ever proposed by the G8 and talked about by the mainstream media, so that's the only one we ever get to talk about. We would love to have a long and nuanced discussion about the various forms globalization can take, and how a much better globalization that more fairly balances the needs of local populations against corporate profits could be developed. But you can't fit that onto a placard at a demonstration, nor between two commmercial breaks when you're lucky enough to be the token lefty invited to discuss the matter on CNN. And since those are basically the only media (besides the internet,which has its own problems of credibility i.e. there's just too much to sift through and there's no quality control--you never know if you're reading something from an informed party or a troll in his basement) we have to discuss the matter, of course it gets oversimplified. Don't blame us for that, blame the corporate media structure.