what a quote: "One colleague said to me, "I studied in the U.S. I loved and learned from your country. But you've given peace a bad name, democracy a bad name - what else will you destroy?""

Is that not exactly it? That is exactly how I feel too, with the one difference that I was born here. I loved and learned from my country. But now? What is next?

Someone or other up the thread mentioned folks being so negative. But an accurate asessment of a bad situation is not negativity for the mere sake of it, but represents a fine sense of reality. We must accurately gauge our situation and face up to it if we wish to have of chance of doing some good (even if the only good we can do is to refuse to be a part of something monstrous). Silence really is a form of complicity. The smallest thing we can do is speak up when we have the chance--of course not just here on blogs, but at work and in our everyday lives. There have been times like this before, and we can look back at them. Take a look at the congressional records on the debate on the Indian Removal Act (which lead to the Cherokee being displaced from Georgia). There were those who spoke up against it, and those who spoke for it, and those who were merely silent. I would rather be dead then to have been one of those who spoke for it, or one of those who were silent. The littlest, the least we can do is not be silent about all this. We will at least continue to remind ourselves of the truth and help hold on to our humanity.

that is really so very well said:

"Anybody who isn't bitter in 21st century America is either in the top 1% or else they've not been paying much attention to what's been happening to this country under Republican rule, with Democratic acquiescence."

"bitterness" these days equals the mindset of someone with a fine and balanced sense of reality.

that resonates: "expressive of severe pain, grief, or regret"

I would be worried if I were not feeling like this about my country today.

could do justice to how America is today, so full of so many Panglosses, all reveling in this best of all possible worlds.

is one in which you respond to the interlocuter's argument by attacking his character instead of addressing his argument. Though it has many variants, the central point is that the argument is not addressed at all, but some flaw in the person's character is highlighted instead which has nothing to do with the argument in question.

If someone is arguing that I should listen to them because they know the right way to live, are paragons of morality, etc., then it would be relevant to point out that the way they were actually living contradicted that, thus undercutting their moral authority. That would not be an instance of an ad hominem.

Just a little more to make it clear (the teacher in me): If President Bush was arguing for the surge, and giving various reasons for his conclusion that the surge was working, I would commit an ad hominem if I then said: Your argument is worthless because you flaked out on military service in Vietnam. Whether or not he flaked out on service in Vietnam is irrelevant to whether or not he gives good reasons, or bad reasons, for the surge. I would need to address his premises to address his argument.

Just a quibble.

You wrote: "A logical fallacy it may be, but it can also be valid"

But a logical fallacy by definition is an invalid argument, so it is as if you wrote: An invalid argument it may be, but it can also be valid, which makes no sense.

Perhaps you meant "valid" in some other sense than the logical use of the term? Perhaps you meant to say it can also be an effective tactic, or something to that effect, and were not using the term "valid" as a logician would use it? Because clearly an invalid argument cannot also be valid (A cannot be equal to NOT-A, etc.).

would probably be a good indication of how you would govern. I would never trust someone who campaigned like Johnson did to govern well.

Really, in general, how you live is all you are, I think. And to play around with who you are as if it were something that could be traded and bartered to me would be a terrible thing.

What profit if you gain the whole world, etc.?

Yes, that to me is the real puzzle, too: not why the democrats don't adopt Republican tactics (which I don't think would be worth it), by why they don't fight like hell in the right way on the things that matter at all. Why Gore didn't fight the election results in 2000, for example, casting that heartbreaking vote of his in the Senate, and so forth--not why didn't Gore attack Bush's character.

this is just the point where we disagree, I guess:

"Saying, you're a drunk, or you're a liar and letting it go at that may indeed run the risk of not considering all the available evidence, but it's hard to deny that nine time out of ten your argument against the man will reflect a correct judgment of his argument as well."

It is the that tenth possible case in the nine out ten that I am considering. I am saying we should act in light of the tenth case, we should honor that possibility. The fact that it might save time, as it were, does not enter into my calculations.

I find the principles of rationality to be of most use in the rough and tumble, of which I have some experience; that it can be hard to employ them correctly, I do not deny.