The killer directly compared himself to Jesus.

So, if he was inspired by Islamic terrorists in any way, this would make him strikingly similar to GW Bush, who, inspired by Islamic terrorism, declared a Crusade, with himself at the head.

Krauthammer's ability to block all of this out is indicative of severe psychiatric problems with ego defense mechanisms raging out of control.

Whoever his analyst was/is, they have a lot to answer for.

Wesley_Powel:

Both right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are based on the premise of an us/them dichotomy, with different standards appropriate for each.

Hence, there is nothing hypocritical in the right's embrace of double standards. Indeed, their belief in double standards is actually a core belief. It is--at a level deeper than professed ideology--one of the central things that defines the right.

The fact that you share Krauthammer's double standards doesn't mean they don't exist.

Drinking this early in the morning is never a good idea--whether its booze or kool aid.

Stick to coffee, tea and fruit juice and you'll be fine.

I fully sympathize with those who are aghast at Krauthammer as a figure of respect. I have always regarded him as crazy uncle material, at best. Yet, the social facts are clearly on Glenn's side, though I lack the interest--and just now, the time--to set out and prove it.

I can, however, cite at least three kinds of indicators: (1) His psychiatric background has been repeatedly been invoked over the years. (2) He has flitted from one august post to another. (Glenn has mentioned his current ones, but he's been at this much longer than others one might superficially compare with him.) (3) He regularly addresses "important topics," an indication that he is regarded as particularly sage by those who give him a platform to pontificate. (This is particularly difficult to quantify, but particularly hard to ignore qualitatively, if you've been reading opinion columns for 20 or 30 years.)

If one really wanted to prove such a point, however, I think the starting point would have to be anthropology, rather than sociology. Because I see Krauthammer's status of respect as primarily a tribal matter, amongst the savage punderati.

orbitboy:

That's why I wasn't critical of Bush's handling of the VT shootings. He bothed Katrina horribly, he wasn't going to ignore the next tragedy.

You're ignoring the obvious, ob: This was the rarest of all things in the BushCo years--a national tragedy for which Bush could not be blamed. Of course he was going to be there like white on rice.

orbitboy:

If he [Bush] was to blame or not didn't seem to be the point to me--Bush seems oblivious such realities anyway.

But Rove isn't.

In all this discussion, we seem to have ignored the obvious, not to mention the most simple: as a rightwinger, Krauthammer may simply be dumb as a post.

Over at Firedoglake, for example,

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/20/frenzy/

Jane Hampshire notes "that our friends at the Corner just grow dumber and dumberer," linking to a post where her criticism of the media obsession over the goriest details of the VT massacre is contrasted with her producing credit for Natural Born Killers--as if to reveal hypocrisy on her part.

Jane patiently continues:

There is in fact no inconsistency between making a movie critical of the media's unhealthy obsession with mass murderers, and then being critical of the media when they actually, you know, do just that.

It's a fundamental fact of rational argument that you can't win one against someone who is not, you know, rational... much less someone whose IQ is exceeded by that of their lunch.

Which is why our primary task is not to win arguments against these jokers. It's to demonstrate conclusively and repeatedly that they are not rational.

Or even, in many cases, smart enough to tie their own shoes.

Paul Dirks:

@jack

I respectfully suggest that you quit digging.

See my post above. How can we study them if we tell them to stop???

Arlo Figg takes the cake!

He leaves Jack, shooter and all the other wannabees in the dust!

A superb performance!

Just to be clear, prunes. I was not suggesting in any way that we fail to respond to these jackbooted jokers. In fact, what you are saying is perfectly convergent with what I was saying. The point is to turn them into what they rightly are: objects of ridicule and scorn.

Arne:

Both Cuba and Venezueala have requested that Posada be turned over for trial there.

Actually not. Cuba knows how a request from them would be spun, so they've bowed out.

Venezuela, however, has a long-standing extradition with us. And, since we all know what Bush thinks of the rule of law, that's an obvious non-starter.

This bold-faced return to the good terrorists/bad terrorists paradigm is how you know that "9/11 changed everything" has officially expired.

Except, of course, when the subject is changed to NSLs, or Guantanamo, or the Prisoner Formerly Known As The Dirty Bomber, etc., etc., etc.