You are one of the last people in this comments section who I would consider applying that term to.

Your post does, however, raise the related consideration that when one (over)uses such terms inappropriately, one has sorta prematurely 'shot one's wad' (if you'll pardon the adolescent expression),in that you're left with nothing to fall back on for those times when you really do need an appropriately offensive epithet. ;-}

"I never had a desire to go higher: it looked too strange up there with the brass, to dangerous to one's soul."

Ok, I have to ask. This is not meant as an insult or some such. (pity one even needs to say that beforehand)

I have trouble with those who chose military service. That would be 95% of my family for several generations. However, how does one not become guilty of the war crimes we commit if one joins? I mean this both legally and morally.

I have no problem with a man who joins in to fight off an invader to his homeland, but how does one justify serving in the army of the invader?

Note: Do not feel that you must answer; do so only if you want to. I myself have struggled with that question for a long time and have given different answers at different stages of my understanding. I expect I may never settle on an answer.

He's so sensitive....

Now I'll be expected to send a pony to help him recover. :-D

I'm not so much hypersensitive to the word itself. After all, I possess said equipment. ;-}

But the (most) common usage of it as a term to somehow demean men is, I think, insulting to those of us who are rather fond of ourselves and our natural accoutrements.

With that, I'm off to other commitments. Have at it boys!

Jebbie, I hope you didn't hurt yourself too much when you tripped over my comment. :-)

This should be just what Jebbie needs:

http://tinyurl.com/5zztyy

TV in particular can't cover this because reporters would be interviewing their bosses' or their own media lawyers about what's legal and illegal. And their own media lawyers would kill the stories because wouldn't it be kind of foolhardy to explain exactly how your own people (analysts) broke the law, right there on TV?

In the world of newspaper journalism, nothing is illegal until a prosecutor says so. That's a knee-jerk formulation designed to avoid getting sued (either successfully or frivolously) for defamation (slander and libel).

Sure, this military propaganda program could be covered as though it were criminal. But ... the reporter would have to interview a legal expert on each side. One would say it was criminal. Somebody from the Heritage Foundation would offer a contrary view. And the analysts could all put forward lawyers offering explanations for how these analysts broke no laws. And the analysts could sue those journalists who said otherwise and the shaky nature of libel law or the threat of interminable appeals would probably require the journalists' bosses to settle the case and pay their own lawyers.

At least, that's the fearful scenario continuously playing in editors' minds as they decide how fierce to be against uncharged criminals.

In that sense, Glenn's blog isn't journalism. He can declare something is illegal based on his own expertise, knowledge and experience. Newspaper journalists are not accorded that much authority by their masters. That makes Glenn more like Nancy Grace than David Barstow.

Even here in Glenn's blog, it's hard to gauge what's really wrong with this Pentagon program. Golly, if it's illegal, maybe it shouldn't be. Gosh, the military was just trying to make sure it achieved success. That's what we expect from our military: success. We let them kill people to achieve success. What's wrong with letting them lie as well? What's worse really: killing or lying?

Of course, if the people's killing machine can lie about who it is killing, and why, and who else died in the process, and why, then the people maintain no control over who is killed or why. And when the military is not under the control of the people, then the people are under the control of the military.

Both, and he thinks everyone else is also.

"Oh, I believe I just injured Jebbie.

He's so sensitive....

Now I'll be expected to send a pony to help him recover. :-D"

Bless your heart, Pedinska!

I have not yet recovered from when I first heard the actual words to "There once was a man from Nantucket".

All that time, I was thinking they were talking about JFK.

Oh, the whorers of it all.

I'm not so much hypersensitive to the word itself. After all, I possess said equipment. ;-}

But the (most) common usage of it as a term to somehow demean men is, I think, insulting to those of us who are rather fond of ourselves and our natural accoutrements.

With that, I'm off to other commitments. Have at it boys!

Jebbie, I hope you didn't hurt yourself too much when you tripped over my comment. :-)

-- Pedinska

I am not around anyone who uses the word in a demeaning manner. I go to the movies some, so I am aware of how it is sometimes used. But, as you point out, it is a word that represents the ultimate goal of most boys and men. How can that be a bad thing?

My wife's favorite cartoon of all time is a scene of a seedy old couple with a room full of cats. The wife is saying something like, "go to the store and get the pussies a surprise; pussies love surprises!"

"To blame the media silence on an 'uncaring public' is just a ludicrous false-flag argument meant to shift responsiblity from where it truly belongs."

Perhaps I haven't followed the argument closely enough, but - though the responsibility ultimately clearly lies with media - the public has a responsibility to inform itself properly, and once anyone from the public gets a whiff of any of the propaganda issue, they have a responsibility to stand up. At that point non-action is culpable, if to a lesser degree.