I don't watch "reality teevee", but I infer that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" haven't yet been demonstrated on "Survivor", or "Fear Factor", or that wildly popular "Lord of the Flies" ripoff.

I think these practices ought to be intentionally incorporated into these shows-- including "American Gladiator" if it's been revived as rumored. After all, the participants sign on knowing that pain and discomfort-- even injury-- are part of the bargain. So they ought to be up for it.

Then at least we'll get a feel for whether the target demographic-- low-brow Yahoo masses-- are appropriately revolted and outraged by such practices, or whether they're enthusiastically applauded as Good Clean Fun. If the masses rebel, the political elite might react constructively-- clearly, politicians are incapable or unwilling to act on mere principle.

Frankly, I can't predict what the response would be. But if there isn't a tsunami of public righteous indignation, we might as well stop trying to slide further down the slippery slope of 21st-Century barbarism.

Trite pseudo-populist rhetoric about the "high costs" of litigation might work when it comes to lawsuits against small businesses or individuals.

_________________________________________________________________

Trite pseudo-populist rhetoric of this kind works perfectly for comments trolls who fasten onto these comments pages in futile attempts to draw blood.

It's like being gummed by toothless ticks.

When Pete Stark was excoriated by the wingnuts for stating that President Unitard was sending US troops to die in Iraq for the president's "amusement", it was clear to me that this remark was defensible, if the Democratic leadership was willing to back him up instead of buying into the Stark Raving Mad condemnation.

I believe that the Democrats had a handy "talking point" to support the general truth of Stark's impassioned comment, while still putting some daylight between them and the controversial word "amusement" that triggered all of the faux-outrage: the Dems, when confronted by teevee infotainwhores like Russert, Stephanopolous, etc., could/should have blithely assented that they could see how Stark's use of "amusement" may have been unfortunate, and perhaps misunderstood-- but after all, politicians speaking in the heat of the moment sometimes don't use the best wording.

Then they could/should have politely and respectfully referenced any of a thousand Unitard clips, e.g. "peeance freeance". See? It happens to the "best of us"! the Dems could/would have earnestly declared. I think this approach might've successfully nullified the infotainwhore's stock feigned astonishment or skepticism.

I mention this tangent in response to those who are surprised at Boylan's crude and fractured writing. Whether he was sober when he wrote it is beside the point. The point is that if such boorish, inarticulate, provocative, and even nonsensical utterances are tolerated in a Commander-in-Chief, it's no surprise that standards of conduct and capability for subordinates would sink to that level.

If this story has legs, and I think it ought to, I'm sure that wingnut bloggers will champion both Boylan's sending the e-mail to Glenn and Boylan's incoherent, snide, and captious message. True Believers and Patriots, operating with maximum cognitive dissonance, will disregard or discount the suggestion that Boylan's words and style evidence dangerously irrational and hostile thinking unacceptable in a truly professional military officer.

When military forces in an autocracy are politicized to this extent, "professional" standards slide to the lowest common denominator of amorally Defending the Boss (and his policies) and battling the designated Enemy(ies). I'm sure that to Boylan, Glenn is an irritant equivalent to an al-Qaeda terrorist who Hates Our Freedoms.

I guess I'm just pointing out that Boylan's e-mail is further proof that military officers currently in charge of "handling the truth" aren't required to be of good character, and to think and express themselves in a rational, dispassionate, civilized, enlightened manner. It's another of the depredations wrought by the criminal cabal in power.

PS: I expect that Nancy "Miss Manners" Pelosi will publicly apologize on Glenn's behalf.

Whether I agree with what the email says or not is not an issue I wish to discuss with you, as I decided after our last exchange that I would not take the time or efforts to engage with you.

Is there a reason why you posted this?

___________________________________________________________________

It's probably wiser to refrain from further comment on the content of the e-mails until the controversy surrounding its authorship and authenticity is clarified to the extent possible.

But since that might take a while, and because I can only skim through the technical issues raised by the knowledgable commenters here, I'll simply note the acute passive-aggressive character of the closing excerpt: after stating that he can't be bothered with you because he deems you a dishonest interlocutor who has neither legitimacy or standing to engage in professional correspondence with him, he leaves you with... a question.

Classic pathological, passive-aggressive, abusive control freak personality tactic-- slam the door in your face, then leave it open a crack to (further) throw the victim off-balance.

Assuming that there isn't a sudden development that renders this story a "false alarm", it deserves being investigated and reported beyond Glenn's personal published accounts here.

To the extent that Alan Colmes may get involved, fine. But I certainly wouldn't want to leave the ball in Colmes' court very long. He's not exactly Seymour Hersh or Jeremy Scahill or Greg Palast. Or Joe Conason.

Even if one believes that Colmes' day job as Hannity's eunuch/beanbag is a "role", and that there's more to Colmes than meets the eye, this "role" must take a toll. Like career heavyweight boxers, all those kicks from Hannity must eventually cause permanent brain and soul damage. Colmes may have a constructive role in advancing this story, but not as its principal investigator and reporter.

There's always "Sixty Minutes".