That's telling the old windbag Kasi!

And if Mr. Greenwald wants a crash course in writing a clear, concise, well-substantiated, free-from-prejudice, in-context epistle, he could do no better than study your anti-Muslim polemic. That's some real convincin' writin' there, Kasi, baby.

So tell me, Kasi, what'er you doin' to delay or belay the Muslim Menace? Are you just gonna sit there and throw Cheetos at 'em? Yell "Halt, or I will despoil this Koran"?

I mean, what? You aren't the type to just sit there and wait for a big strong man to protect you, are you?

Or are you not scared of those Muslims? Are you that brave? Tell me about it Kas. What should I be doing to balk ending up in a burkha?

This passage from Glenn's post:

This is the greatest Enemy that exists on the planet, the most cunning and nefarious and evil force the world has ever seen -- not just now, but for all of human history. There is nothing remotely like the depravity and power of this particular Enemy -- and there never has been.

reminded me of the wonderful New York Times Op-Ed by Susan Faludi, published on September 7, 2007. I highly recommend reading the entire piece, but Faludi provides excellent background on the passage from Glenn quoted above:

In the weeks and months after 9/11, many commentators described the “dream-like” mindset that the disaster had induced. They attributed our fugue state to the “unimaginable” unreality of the event. Nothing like this had ever happened before. But essential to our understanding of what that attack means to our national psyche is a recognition that it did happen before, over and over. And its happening was instrumental to the formation of the American character. The nation that recently imagined itself so impervious to attack at home was gestated in a time when such attacks were the prevailing reality of American life.

The assault on Lancaster came several months into King Philip’s War (or Metacom’s Rebellion, for those who prefer the actual name of the Wampanoag chief). That fearsome and formative confrontation between white settlers and the New England tribes remains, per capita, America’s deadliest war. In one year, one of every 10 white men of military age in Massachusetts Bay was killed, and one of every 16 in the Northeastern colonies. Two-thirds of New England towns were attacked and more than half the settlements were left in ruins. Settlers were forced to retreat nearly to the coast, and the Colonial economy was devastated.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2n44ec

Also inherent in Faludi's column is a part of the psycosexual drama William Timberman alluded to much earlier in this thread. Faludi notes a recurring theme of male shame at females being captured by the enemy and comments on the evolution of literature describing some of these events moving toward a male hero story that defies the actual events. For example:

Early American male defenders had suffered the further mortification of hearing female captives (Mary Rowlandson among them) disparage their protective efforts gone awry or, worse, recount how they managed to defend themselves. Rowlandson negotiated shrewdly with her captors and named her own ransom. Hannah Duston, abducted as she lay in bed recovering from childbirth (while her husband fled), escaped after killing a family of Indians with a hatchet and taking their scalps.

In response to this shame, the new model exaggerated iron-clad valor on the part of white men and crinoline helplessness on the part of white women.

Mark Steyn and his cohorts certainly fit into this model. Only the manly followers of Commander Codpiece are worthy of understanding the exceptional dangers our women face by the hordes who would rape them all and put them in burkhas. Greenwald and Faludi threaten their entire world view by demonstrating that our country has faced much greater dangers in the past (and overcome them without abandoning our principles) and that the proper response has included more than simple manly bluster saving helpless women. Our military now has many brave women fighting alongside men and exhibiting daily acts of courage. We even face the credible option of electing a woman to lead our country and to assume the mantle of Commander in Chief against these very hordes.

The world as they know it very well could come crashing down for many of these sadly deluded people, once their is a widespread understanding by our society that the current enemy is weak and dispersed and that women are fully capable of fulfilling the highest leadership roles.

Dear Glenn,

So the extremists drive the conversation and most people don't care at all so where do people like you and, if I am not being presumptious, me fall in this jumble.

Spent some time trying to post to Frank Rich's NYT opinion about how Obama is new blood and Clinton and McCain are the past. My first more sharply worded entry asked the simple question who of Clinton or Obama would do more to investigate and punish criminals from this hopefully soon to be over era. They would not and still have not posted even the second and third watered down versions of that post. Is it that inflamatory to ask in criminal behavior will be punished and if so then who is best to accomplish it? Maybe, or at least to the NYT moderators for Frank Rich.

Seems to me some of your faux warriors might have something to worry about in this regard. I mean it is illegal to scream "fire" in a crowded movie house so maybe it would be wrong to scream "horrible threat deserving pre-emptive war" in a shell shocked and paranoid country.

At any rate, thank you for all your good work.

Conrad Elledge

Shooter, Let's exchange Steyn's ambiguity for some straight talk here if you don't mind:

"It is my contention that Steyn is conceding that the war on terror is getting old, tired, misunderstood, whatever."

Who exactly is misunderstanding the war on terror? Is there a war on terror the way the president and most of Congress are selling it by their retoric and actions or isn't there?

What's instead of the "old, tired" war on terror? A change of outlook on the world? A change of policy? A change of domestic political strategy?

Does that mean McCain is old and tired?

"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."

Well I'm just gonna brave it and pick at him about why he is relenting even if it's gonna amount to a demand for a public confession of sin. Why is Steyn relenting, Shooter? Which step forward is it he's taking? Nay, tell me why should "we folks" give a shit about Steyn's one step forward, or two steps back, in the first place?

It can't be a step towards maturity and independence, since you are single-handedly promising us the noble gesture will be withdrawn if not met in the right coddling spirit.

If the step forward is withdrawn, what will happen? A rejuvenation of the old tired war on terror? Permanent orange alert?

Who exactly are you to step forwards and backwards on behalf of Steyn and the Swivel Chair Warriors? Dick Cheney?

I'd really like to know WHY!!! you are relenting from that position of power of yours.

Regardless of what Steyn meant by by his "confession", do you agree GG nailed somebody real f-ing good in this Post?