Upon learning that the perpetrator of the Ft. Hood killings was a Muslim gentleman, I immediately predicted 2 things:

1) right-wing talkers would start ranting about the pernicious threat of deep-cover Muslim terrorists who have infiltrated our military to wage jihad from within

2) liberal outlets like Salon would spin frantically in attempt to identify causes other than ideologically-motivated Islam that led to the shooting (deployment stress! culture of violence!)

I was mostly right, although this particular article was admirably balanced.

I was a US Army officer who thought the Iraq War was stupid. Not just stupid, but wrong. I spent many, many a weary hour in internal debate about what my obligations were, as an officer and a moral human being (at least, a human being who tried to be moral). My ultimate conclusion was that, having accepted a commission and a free education from a democratic society, I was obligated to participate in the wars that society chose (through its elected leaders) to wage, regardless of my personal beliefs; my responsibility as a junior officer was wholly in the realm of *jus in bello* (fighting wars justly, i.e. no war crimes and the like) rather than *jus ad bellum* (whether or not wars were on behalf of a just cause).

The reality, however, of ordering young men into harm's way for a cause I did not believe in, however, was hard to take. I served as a platoon leader in combat, at a definite cost to my mental health and spiritual well-being. For reasons I won't detail, but having to do with a mission that I consdered in violation of the moral principals of warfare (proportionality, specifically) I eventually reached my moral limit, and asked to be relieved as a platoon leader. This, for all intents, and purposes, ended my career (as it probably should have).

During all of this emotional turmoil, I occasionally considered self-harm or suicide. One thing I never, ever considered is taking my rifle and shooting up my fellow-soldiers.

My point here is that all officers--or at least, any officer who gives a fuck about his own humanity--grappled with queistings of the utmost moral gravity. It's not an easy process. I can understand coing to different conclusions than I did, in both directions--"I will obey lawful orders, regardless of my personal sentients, no matter what" and "This is a vicious, immoral business. I won't play ball, and I'll go to jail for what I believe in." I can't understand coming to the conclusion "This is an immoral business, so I'll 'snap' and start shooting up fellow-soldiers." Nothing the Army can possibly throw at you--especially if you're a field-grade officer--is so horrible, so relentless that it can justify this kind of behavior. If, however, you've become convinced that your religion calls you to kill infidels and go out in a blaze of glorious martyrdom, then doing what Nidal Hasan did makes some kind of sense.

For sure, the system failed here. It failed the victims of this murderer, by not identifying Maj Hasan as a major (so to speak) problem.

So when does the brain of an infant form? During labor, or when the umbilical cord is cut?

Too swamped doing what? Dashing off poorly-thought-out thousand-word essays, then going out clubbing in NYC?

Aside from the general mediocrity of the essay, that is. I mean, some "reporter" posts some dumb-ass thing on Politico; Joan responds by saying, "This is stupid--just because someone donated money to Obama's campaign/the DNC and defended Polanski doesn't mean Obama is a Polanski defender!" No, really? This is a high-school level of analysis; surely the salary you command ought to merit more cogent and insightful prose than this.

Anyway, *problem* is your reference to Kate Harding's essay as "brave." While Ms. Harding's was excellent, and surely the best piece to appear on Broadsheet in a long time--a very long time--to describe it as "brave" is thoroughly absurd. Taking a stance on an issue, then writing about it, is not a "brave" act for an essayist; indeed, it's what essayists are *paid to do*. She took no particular risk, either to her person or her career; it wasn't even psychologically brave in the sense of exposing some traumatic aspect of her own past and writing about it, a literary act sometimes referred to as courageous.

Only in the self-congratulatory world of liberal intellectual writers can an opinion article condemning a convicted child rapist be construed as "brave."

Did they ever worry about getting 60 votes, instead of 50? No? Then why should the Democrats?

I agree with every single one of the self-congratulatory liberals who have posted on this thread about the unquestionable superiority of their region, their unassailable enlightedness, and the hopelessly retrograde and bigoted nature of the South. Bill Clinton, Mike Beebe, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Beverly Perdue, and Tim Kaine are excellent examples of the inability of the Southern electorate to vote in anyone with remotely progressive or liberal ideas. Bobby Jindal, meanwhile, is living proof that Southerners remain unable to look past skin tone and ethnic background when inside the voting booth.

Meant to say "to the family and friends of PVT William Long," of course.