Newsweek using sex on its front cover to sell magazines? Couldn't happen at Salon! Front page, first column (substituting names):

"Salon has resisted the allure of Sara Palin ever since we started our Sexiest Woman Living awards. Sure, she's gorgeous, but she's also the poster girl for People magazine's celeb-heavy, pretty-girl list. It's not that we don't find Palin hot -- we do, believe us, we do -- ..."

I'm surprised Salon didn't cover the Content mag cartoon, labeling Palin as the "TWILF" ... the Tweeter I'd Like to F**k" ... or, is it "Follow"?

The fact is that Palin is sexy and she flaunts it, like any Beauty Queen, as a cover for her frivolous and vapid intellect. She's an unabashed clown and shouldn't take offense when someone else uses her HOT image to sell magazines.

"The tribalistic narcissism and depraved refusal to accept responsibility for the consequences of one's actions on vivid display here is hardly unique to Brooks."

Of course, Brooks has taken no action beyond urging others to act. He is nothing more than a pompous shill for a perpetual expansion of the military-industrial complex.

He is certainly an apologist and facilitator for the bloodthirsty politicians who insist on a forever crusade in support of "American values" everywhere in the world.

He is a "conservative" only in the sense that he channels the barbarian warriors of the stone age. He is a "liberal" only in the sense that he champions the pragmatic self-sacrifice of Americans for glorious and destructive ends.

For this, he is dubbed a "Serious" commentator.

Whatever else we might say about the attack, it wasn't "politically motivated," unless he somehow imagined that killing unarmed soldiers would stifle the terrorist fanatics in Congress. He would have to be very insane to harbor that fantasy.

It's pretty clear to me that he was exposed to a large assortment of "Muslim haters" among troops returning from war, stressed by the things they were obliged to do for the "crusade" against Islam.

Why would it be surprising that he made every attempt to avoid deployment to Afghanistan to kill other Muslims ... primarily because they were Muslim? Failing that, why would it be surprising that he harbored hatred for the soldiers that were going there to kill more Muslims?

It seems to me that - if anything - he rationally responded to the terrorism being perpetrated by our military against Muslims who don't support our military occupation of another country.

Not long ago [link at sig], I had paraphrased a quote from Al Gore, to the effect: "Of course it's illegal, that's why it's secret. Do it."

Since the quote is apropos to this column, I wanted to identify the source, which is Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies, p.143, relative to extraordinary renditions:

Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

As long as the government (not just the executive) has the power to arbitrarily declare anything "secret" - and the courts presume it needs to be secret - any law can be broken at any time, for any reason.

"... bigotry in its purest and most dangerous form.

If you relish unclaimed intellectual territory, this is certainly it.

The Serious Commentator can rant all day long about politics, race, or culture. Pointing out the strident sectarianism and intolerance of religious zealotry is extremely dangerous. No logic goes there: you either have blind faith or you don't. You are either on God's side ... or the Devil's. There is no rational middle ground.

The only argument in that territory is from "inspired" authority, written centuries ago by nomadic tribes in pursuit of the spoils of conquest, blessed and aided by their contending Almighty Gods.

Christianity does lay claim to "the Western way of reason", usually via Thomas Aquinas, but it's a gratuitous gesture to sanity. The fundamental beliefs that drive religion are pure faith in the "hand of God" being on the side of personal cultural biases in a war against all other cultures and authorities. All religion is prejudicial and necessarily bigoted toward every other faith, particularly against those with no faith in the dictates of ancient prophets at all.

You won't find any reasoned arguments there, but if you are inclined to create a ruckus, you've found the place. Don't even try to draw a map. There are no roads to rationality in the unclaimed territory of faith critique.