casual_observer asks:

"OK, how about "you". "Your" armed forces, expending your libertarian tax dollars. Is that more suitable?"

Suitable for what? Being cute?

Ken Rogers

Glenn wrote:

"It's a good point, and one I've thought about. Ultimately, I think all American citizens bear some responsibility for the actions of their government, and I use "we" in order to emphasize that, and to highlight the fact that "we" - including those of us who despise what our government is doing - have both the obligation and ability to change it."

The extent to which we identify with the Warfare State, aka the US Government, is a very serious decision that each of us has to make.

I divorced the US Government in 1966, the divorce is final, and I am no longer responsible for any debts, financial or moral, that the Government Family incurs.

It and its feral conduct are their sole responsibility.

They and it feckless apologists, sympathizers, and enablers are on their own.

This applies in spades for the Bush Junta.

(For an introduction to a fuller explication of my sentiments, should you be interested, see Robert Jensen's "Citizens of the Empire" and Rudolf Steiner's "Individualism in Philosophy.")

Ken Rogers

Paul Rosenberg writes:

"Bucky1 can't get that we are not bound together by ideological purity, but by recognition of quality insights and arguments. "Quality" not meaning that we agree with them, necessarily, but that they contribute to the ongoing fruitful tension perspectives."

Regarding ideological purity or the lack thereof, what articulation of a coherent political philosophy can you provide me or direct me to, concerning what you and your referenced "we" believe?

I certainly appreciate "Quality insights and arguments" as much as the next person, but to what ideology, i.e., philosophy or coherent system of beliefs, do you and those who comprise your "we" subscribe, as concerns the nature of man and his relation to his fellow human beings in associative or societal arrangements?

If you and the others constituting your "we" have no common political philosophy per se, what, then, constitutes the nature of your bond?

Thanks in advance for your explanatory response.

Ken Rogers

Glenn writes:

"That has been the real point here all along. The real injustice is that prison is simply not the place for the most powerful and entrenched members of the Beltway royal court, no matter how many crimes they commit. (Emphasis added) There is a grave indignity to watching our brave Republican elite be dragged before such lowly venues as a criminal court and be threatened with prison, as though they are common criminals or something. How disruptive and disrespectful and demeaning it all is."

Glenn is at his best (and his most relevant) when he's excoriating the stupidity and the perfidy of the stenographer/pundit class, whose major function is to apologize for and to enable the Ruling Class.

Attacking the machinations of the Corporate Media is to strike at the root of the overall public relations program of the Ruling Class. It is how they, the Few, control the Many.

When prioritizing one's political actions on behalf of

the commonweal, one does well to bear constantly in mind the enormous role played by the Corporate Media in molding public opinion for the benefit of the Ruling Class.

Exposing the functioning of the Corporate Media as the PR firm of America's Ruling Class is work of the highest priority.

PR = Public Opinion Control = Electoral Control = Legitimized Augmented Power

Ken Rogers

Glenn writes:

"There's something about her writing voice that just makes people think she's male. It's an interesting question as to why that is. I still haven't really figured that out."

I suggest that the primary reason that Digby's writing voice seems male rather than female is that she has transcended the rather common psychological tendency of female writers to address phenomena as though they are personal affronts to them.

The male writing voice, on the other hand, tends to address phenomena as viewed through the lens of universal applicability.

Relatedly, women are more inclined to see the concrete ramifications of the behavior of others.

What is clearly needed is the integration in each of us of our male and female tendencies.

Ken Rogers

Michael57 writes:

"Calling a psycho a psycho

Really, this is the only response Podhoretz's remarks deserve, and until reasonable people band together to shame and shun the psychopaths who control our discourse, their ideas will continue to enjoy respect and credibility."

The problem is that for a large number of Americans, atrocities supported and committed in the service of nationalism are not manifestations of psychopathology, but of patriotism.

Militant nationalism is the mask of respectability worn by psychopathic presidents acting in concert with and on behalf of true believers in American Exceptionalism.

Ken Rogers

Robert59 writes:

"If we had continued to take the war to the Sunni strongholds, actually leveled a few cities, imposed martial law, sealed the borders, confiscated all weapons or shot on sight those with them, Iraqis would behave more like post war Japanese and Germans."

Gee, Robert, any other humanitarian advice?

As there's no indication in your post that you're anything other than serious, let me ask you this: What is your rationale for the US Warfare State's invading Iraq in the first place, and your recommendation of the mass murder of Sunni or any other group of Iraqis?

Are you some cold-blooded, unpaid advisor to the Bush Junta, or are you just trying to pick up where Charles Manson left off before his unfortunate incarceration?

Ken Rogers