And more people die in the US of kidney disease than in terror attacks -- by several orders of magnitude -- every year, including 2001.

This message was brought to you by the Department of Useless Statistics.

Let the War on Nephritis begin!

-(A note on style: I practice news writing style. If I were to put the word president before George Bush's name, I would capitalize it, out of respect for the office. It is his title. Having said that, another bit of protocol holds that members of the uniformed services salute people of higher rank, only on the basis that they are acknowledging someone above them in the chain of command....-

Point taken and no disrespect for the office intended. Disrespect for the 'man' (small 'm') intended.

Republican ideology so perfectly reflects movies and TV because that's what it's designed to do. Look, if you were trying to appeal to someone whose entire education is centered around the Bible, you would try to use the Good Book to back up your point of view. When you are dealing with people who have spent more time watching the media's depiction of reality, than with reality itself, well, you have to use the melodrama (which unites almost all of our popular entertainment under its rubric) which they mistake for real life as the basis for your claims and comparisons.

Since American media was made and honed to a high degree of effectiveness in presenting the melodramatic narrative and contexts the media is just better, and much more eager to, present a viewpoint which is tailored to melodramatic presentation.

I have often postulated (we sit around and postulate a lot up here during the long, winter nights) that any Neo-con or Republican speech could be footnoted, not with references to policy papers and factual studiesm but instead with the particular film or TV show from which any particular "fact" or context was gleaned.

Usually, when someone says :"You're just niave about how the world works" (or words to that effect) they mean:"You and I have not seen the same movies"

A lot of them are killed by their own than by anyone else

I know this is an unpopular fact but Arabs and Muslims are, have been and will continue to slaughter one another in greater numbers than Salon's Great Satan aka the USA.

--Anonymous

So we have nothing to fear but fear itself! Thanks, FDR.

One of Steyn's fears is that white Christian North Americans and Europeans aren't breeding fast enough:

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It is a New York Times bestselling nonfiction book by media and film critic Mark Steyn, published in 2006. The book is credited with catapulting Mark Steyn into the mainstream U.S. political circuit, leading to national television and radio guest hosting spots for the author. President George W. Bush has been cited as recommending the book.

America Alone covers topics surrounding the Global War on Terror and centers on issues of demographics in Muslim vs. non-Muslim population centers. It makes the case that both demographics and will-power are on the side of the Islamists, with many Western populations reproducing at or below sub-replacement fertility level, and Muslim countries/Muslim peoples within Western countries reproducing at a drastically higher level. According to Steyn, this will lead to civil unrest and the potential fall of democratic institutions as rising numbers of Muslims vote in Islamic laws and spread Islamic culture to the mainstream. The causes Steyn identifies are a post-Christian nanny state, welfare dependency, and cultural agnosticism. Steyn asserts that, as the title suggests, America Alone bucks the trends and remains the last outpost of classical Western culture and Enlightenment values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_Alone:_The_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know_It

Conservatives still think that preaching abstinence is an effective method of dealing with teen pregnancies and STDs. Shouldn't they be urging us to have more unprotected sex?

Any volunteers? Not you, Shooter. No thanks.

I care why the right might ease off the "war on terror".Please, tell me.-- walter_map

Hmmmm. Try this instead, If the right eases off on the "war on terror", do you care what the reasons might be?

"Conservatives still think that preaching abstinence is an effective method of dealing with teen pregnancies and STDs. Shouldn't they be urging us to have more unprotected sex?"

No, just less abortions. :)

Dirks: that guy jawa guy is almost as nutty as Arne and Bucky.

Sure.

Jesus fucking Christ, Shooter, just spit it out.

Blue Meme, that explanation of the Republican brain is something every American should read. Excellent!

However, what is IMDB?

Other letter-writers use acronyms that mystify me as well, and I am well-read. What is OT? RMP (or was it RFP?) UFW?

Please, writers, don't play this insider's game on everyone! I dont sit and read blogs all day--is that where these are used? They are real stumbling blocks. I know what FISA is and other acronyms commonly used in the press, but internet/blog acronyms should be spelled out because Salon and its readership are not necessarily all blogger types. Thanks.

Spit it out, we haven't heard this one. I found your Obamicans post the other day pretty interesting, I think if this one is a similar glimpse of something we liberals aren't aware of, it will also be interesting.

If the right eases off on the "war on terror", do you care what the reasons might be?

-- shooter242

But the only reason the right does anything is political expediency and for some political advantage over their political opponents. Maybe that's why you are fast becoming irrelevant.

I would say that in the mane, you are correct.

Since I used it, OT means "off topic". Sorry. The @-sign above means I'm responding to a post written by you.

Make It Liberal Fascism!

http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1811025

Shooter - If the right eases off on the "war on terror", do you care what the reasons might be?

Sure.Jesus fucking Christ, Shooter, just spit it out. -- Paul Daniel Ash

Hmmmm. All right, let me try it this way. It is my contention that Steyn is conceding that the war on terror is getting old, tired, misunderstood, whatever.
In response, Glenn writes a hystrionic rant piece about how people like Steyn need this and that to feel superior, TOTALLY missing the point that Steyn has agreed with him.

Now, should you folks actually have it sink in, that someone like Steyn is ready to cede ground on the argument, are you going to pick at him abut why he is relenting, or be pricks and insist on a public confession of sin? I ask, because if you are pricks about the whole thing, this step forward will be withdrawn.