I'm wondering how Kufir, McCain, Brooks, and all the people espousing the "don't negotiate until preconditions have been agreed to" argument think that the preconditions will be agreed to? How will the other party even know what they are?

See, as I see it, the act of communicating the pre-conditions for a face-to-face meeting is negotiating. Even if this is only done in the press, it is negotiation.

Negotiation is not a bad thing. Negotiating poorly is a bad thing, as is refusing to negotiate altogether. These days in the US, we are far more guilty of sins of hubris than of over-appeasement. The fact that anybody could accuse any other American of "appeasement" when the US government spends about $4 in military spending for each $1 spend by the rest of the world requires serious narcissism.

The entire discourse is idiotic. And the worse thing is that the People In Charge appear to believe in this juvenile nonsense.

for finding a completely novel way to be offensive!

Ozzie Guillen is a manager and swore in an interview!

Now you might note that Jim Leyland did exactly the same thing last month, but, um, I'm sure there's a difference here.

It couldn't possibly be that the media are more deferential to Leyland because of his race.

Hey - Leyland won a World Series! Oh rats, so did Ozzie.

And why is it important that Clinton has fared well in states after a certain date? It really is too bad that 2/3 of the states had their contests decided before that date, and that Obama had such a huge delegate lead by March 1.

Perhaps Kate TeX thinks baseball games should be decided by who scores more runs in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings?

(Why would any editor consider such intellectual gibberish worth of note? Do weak arguments require equal representation??)

Sorry, but I think anybody who says that booing W is equivalent to "booing the office" has gone mental. And I've heard the argument used before that a President should be respected solely because he's holds the office of President.

In my mind, that makes about as much sense as feeling obliged to sit quietly in one's seat on a bus while a drunken bus driver careens towards a cliff.

I only respect individuals based on how they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, not based on the implied status of the office itself. A priest who molests children does not get my respect. A judge who is on the take does not get my respect. A doctor who doesn't maintain sterile procedures in the operating theater does not get my respect.

And a President who pursues a strategy of deception to start a war which leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands for no valid or reasonable purpose that I can discertain...well, he gets even less of my respect than the aforementioned doctor, priest, or judge. And I think anybody who thinks there is anything remotely questionable about booing him is mental.

jschultz cites Wikipedia!

I guess that is an equally authoritative source as the Constitution and the Federalist letters. !

!!!

This part is pure malarkey, FWIW.

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States.

Um, no, neither the President nor the Department of State nor the Department of Defense is "responsible for the protection of Americans abroad". I should know: I was in London on 7/7/2005 when a bus blew up two blocks from my office.

Americans who live abroad are subject to local laws and part of what that entails is that you are living outside the protection of US laws. And what that entails is that the President and the various federal agencies are not responsible for my protection, should I choose to live abroad.

Next lesson: if you are abroad and, like countless Americans, have your bag stolen, I challenge you to try to bring the matter up with the local US embassy or consulate. Tell them that, according to Wikipedia, they are supposed to protect you.

If you are lucky, they will show patience as they refer you to the local police.

I realize its been fashionable in recent decades to expand the definition of the purpose of the military from "defend America" to "defend Americans" and now to "defend American interests", but can we at least point out that this expansion of definition has nothing to do with the original intent of the Constitution?