Okay, kiddies, today’s exercise is multiple choice and with the added pleasure of a limited number of questions.

You are going to be murdered. there’s no escaping it and you will not know when that moment will arrive. A frightening thought to be sure, but to provide some comfort I am going to offer you some choices to give you some control over your demise. Please follow closely and choose wisely.


  1. Strangulation with your own pantyhose after suffering a brutal rape with the perpetrator carving into your chest.
  2. Having a double-barreled shotgun placed against your face and then your killer pulls the trigger.
  3. Being kidnapped, taken to a remote location in your car, being placed in the trunk, shot in the head, but still being alive as you and the car are set on fire.
  4. Being a young child strapped in your car seat and then having the car be pushed into a lake.
  5. Sitting in a movie theater when someone with a semi-automatic weapon opens fire, killing several others before getting to you.
  6. Being forced to take part in a bank robbery with a home made bomb enclosed around your neck that detonates as you are surrounded by police officers.
  7. Being stabbed with a kitchen knife or scissors over forty times in your chest, side, back and genitals.
  8. Being lynched by a rabid mob.
  9. Standing on the balcony of your motel when someone with a rifle puts you in his sights and fires.
  10. Viewing the end of a marathon race and having a bomb explode sending deadly shrapnel into your body.


  1. Your spouse
  2. Your child
  3. A man
  4. A woman
  5. A stranger who breaks into your house.
  6. A Christian
  7. A Jew
  8. A Muslim
  9. A Buddhist
  10. An atheist


  1. Revenge
  2. Revenge but mistaken identity
  3. Racism
  4. Religious differences
  5. Road Rage
  6. Gang wars
  7. Your money
  8. A jealous ex
  9. Impressing Jodie Foster
  10. Bank robbery gone wrong

Do any of these choices make any difference whatsoever? Dead is dead. Your demise is the same no matter the method, perpetrator, or motive. Or no motive at all.

The grief thrust on your surviving family and friends is the same.

I haven’t even begun to list all the horrific methods of murder. Many of the ones I did list you can find in news stories every day of the week.

You can be a doctor or lawyer, a teacher or a butcher, an architect or a mechanic, a child or a retiree.

Your murder can be covered by the media in a routine manner or be the subject of blaring headlines.

None of these distinctions matters. The fact a human being has been murdered, as millions of human beings have been murdered through the ages, is neither magnified nor diminished by who that human being was or who commited the crime. We pretend it does, but if you believe in the admonition that “Thou shalt not kill”, then all these deaths are the same.

That admonition does not read “Thou shalt not kill but killing certain people for certain reasons with certain methods makes those killings  worse”.

End of lesson. You may move on to your next class.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Deke James  On April 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    UMOC, you have shown discrimination to the sadomasochists many of whom would like to slide down a gigantic razor blade into a vat of iodine.

  • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM

    I choose:

    Method of death-anything but 10

    Killer- anyone but 8

    Motive- any one but 4

    Reason(s)- I’m concerned about how my fellow Americans, and those around the world, will feel and react to my murder. I want them to see my murder as a singular happening and not one that will put them and their loved ones at risk from a world-wide (though loose as it may be) network of madmen (read that Muslims).

    Did I pass?

  • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM

    Method of death 9, because I’m a coward.
    Killer 6 and Motive 4 — so, as a non-believer, I could die for a cause.

    • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM

      Actually, Maybe 10, 8 and 4 would be better so that even the excusers/deniers would finally recognize the reality of the threat. My sacrifice !

  • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM

    Everything after the third list is false – basically the claim that “none of these distinctions matter.” That Devildog and Minx, so far, have made choices indicates that the distinctions matter to them. Do they not count? Minx does not what to know, be frightened or suffer. Tell her, please, that it doesn’t matter if she does. Devildog prefers to sacrifice for a cause. Painless, horrible, heroic, the reaction of the community – these make no difference to surviving family and friends? Why does “why” seem to be everyone’s question after any of these things? Was it preventable? Can we prevent another? Are these risks we take? Why do punishments vary if distinctions don’t matter? If distinctions don’t matter, why do we make them?

    • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

      Is there NOTHING you hold so dear that you’d be willing to die for it? In my case, stamping out the promotion of ignorance is a worthwhile cause. And while I’d rather not have to die for it — and I’d hope my family and friends would miss me, because they love me — at least then I’d get the consolation prize of their mobilizing to continue my mission.

      • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM

        Stamping out the promotion of ignorance? Hmmm. I’m not going to post this. Oops, I accidentally hit the send key. Sorry.

        • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 5:43 PM

          Promoters of ignorance, most notably those who seek to suppress scientific knowledge.

          • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM

            “Scientific knowledge”? Are you, perhaps, referring to “social” science and me? I plead guilty! Be my guest and believe all that b.s.

            • Little_Minx  On April 23, 2013 at 7:59 PM

              Am referring to the scientific method for testing, refining and proving hypotheses.

              • Devildog  On April 23, 2013 at 9:01 PM

                Well, then minx, you are referring neither to the social sciences nor to me. Thank you for that clarification.

                • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 12:42 AM

                  One judges any science (social science or otherwise) based on whether it passes muster WRT the rigor of its scientific method.

    • umoc193  On April 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM


      I maintain none of those distinctions matter because, in the end, what is the difference to you? You are dead, lifeless. That ain’t gonna change no matter the method, no matter the killer, no matter the motive.

      You don’t get a do over. If you suffered at all as your demise neared you will still be dead afterwards so that pain is ended.

      These choices matter only to the living and thus are subject to the prejudices and biases of human beings. Whatever one’s belief in any kind of afterlife the details still will not matter once you are dead. If you’re going to heaven, you’re on your way. Likewise going to hell. If you simply feel you return to dust, that process has already started.

      Remember, these choices are based on the notion that you are going to be murdered and will be dead, kaput, kicked the bucket.

      By the way none of those choices lend nobility or honor to you. You are simply murdered, you being the target. You were not killed as collateral damage such as by trying to protect or save someone else. It is you against your killer.

      • Tourist  On April 23, 2013 at 8:45 PM

        UMOC, that death does not matter to the dead is correct. I had a sentence in my comment to precisely that effect and took it out because it didn’t seem necessary or much of an insight.

        If that’s the point, two things: (1) You say: “These choices matter only to the living and thus are subject to the prejudices and biases of human beings.” Yes, they matter to the living; I gave a few ways. But “prejudices and biases”? Perhaps values, along with imperfections.

        (2) This is related. Although you say you are talking about murder, “it doesn’t matter to the dead” applies to all deaths. What’s the objection to murder itself, other than perhaps breadwinning, if the victim is beyond knowing and the survivors are merely prejudiced and biased? In the end, we die. If that’s all it’s about, then those who proclaim the law of the jungle are correct. Why should anyone care about anyone or anything other than themselves, or not act accordingly? What more should they do?

  • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM

    On the social-science theme — or probably not.

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 2:34 AM

    À propos of an earlier post in which UMOC discussed poverty:

    Several celebrities are joining the effort, including Oscar winner Ben Affleck:


    “Live Below the Line” online Cookbook:

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 2:39 AM

    And here’s a directory with links to guidance on participating.:

  • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 5:04 AM

    Calling Toadsly, who will know why:

    I recommend to anyone and everyone (Dog, wake up!) the HBO mini-series “From the Earth to the Moon.” You want the DVD 5-disc “Signature Edition” for like $20, plus or minus $40 – preferable to the earlier 4-disc “Collector’s Edition,” not for content but for reformatting, sound, etc.

    Toadsly, this:

    “What if they don’t need seats?” “They have to have seats, John.” “Why? They can fly standing up.”

  • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    Do I have to say anything else other than this post is why UMOC represents everything that is wrong in America?

    It would obviously matter how I died. This is such an ignorant and pathetic post of someone who is completely out of touch with reality.

    He is obviously trying to rationalize and minimize radical Islam.

    It matters going forward as to what plan we implement to stop the next ‘incident’ from occurring.

    The ode to inanity continues

    • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

      anonymous is the poster child for what Albert Einstein said about “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

      • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 5:04 PM

        I ain’t expecting different results. You can’t fix stupid

        • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 5:28 PM

          By your very own logic, then, there’s no point to you posting here, since:
          a) you disrespect those with whom you disagree; and,
          b) you believe you can’t change our views anyhow.

          You’re like the guy who keeps beating his head against the wall because it feels so gol’ durn good when he stops. “You can’t fix stupid” applies so aptly to you in these circumstances.

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Thank goodness, for his own safety, that Mr. Watertown Boat-Owner never got face-to-face, let alone eyeball-to-eyeball with brother #2. And thank goodness he didn’t go all NRA on #2 with an assault weapon and blast him to kingdom, thus depriving authorities of the opportunity to question him:

    “…The Watertown man who found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in his backyard boat was glad to be able to help and feels lucky to be alive, he said Tuesday in an interview aired on Boston’s WCVB-TV. ‘If I help these people that lost people, if I can help them in their mind, then everything is good with me here,’ David Henneberry said.

    “Mr. Henneberry said he went outside to get some air and check his boat Friday evening after police lifted a shelter-in-place order following an intense daylong manhunt for Dzhokhar after the shootout Friday morning. Mr. Henneberry said he did not see any blood on the boat’s exterior but had noticed that two bumper pads he placed between his boat and its shrink wrap cover had fallen to the ground. He thought perhaps the wind had caused it. When he first went to check, he found a loose strap and went back in his house. But he decided to take another look from a ladder.

    “‘I got three steps up the ladder and rolled the shrink wrap. I didn’t expect to see anything, but I saw blood on the floor of the boat. A good amount of blood,’ he told WCVB. He said he then noticed a motionless body. ‘He was just lying there by the engine block and the floor. I couldn’t see his face. I’m glad I didn’t see his face,’ Mr. Henneberry said. The man in the boat still didn’t move.

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    Don’t forget that there are plenty of good observant Muslims in North America.

    “How Toronto’s Muslim Community Uncovered the Would-Be Train Bombers”:

    “After last week’s deadly bombing in Boston, news that Toronto foiled its own terrorist attack might have come as a relief. A plot to blow up a rail line between Canada and the U.S. was thwarted on Monday, and Canadian police have arrested two suspects, Chiheb Esseghaier, of Montreal, and Raed Jaser, of Toronto. But the most surprising part of the story might be how the suspects were discovered: They were turned in, reports say, by leaders of their own community. Muhammed Robert Heft, who runs Toronto’s Paradise Forever Islamic Center, says that one of the suspects — he won’t say which — started expressing extremist beliefs to a member of the city’s Muslim leadership a year ago. ‘They were espousing some views that were starting to ruffle feathers and make people uncomfortable,’ Heft said. ‘They focused on demonizing Western society and suggesting that there has to be some kind of retribution or revenge for the perceived grievances of this individual.’ […] Heft shrugged off the idea that some Muslims might oppose the religious leaders’ practice of turning in militant members of their own religion. ‘The vast majority gets it, they’re proud of the fact that we’re involved in the front lines,’ he said. ‘At the end of the day, they didn’t want anything to happen in Canada either.'”

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM

    NPR’s “All Things Considered” is reporting that the Syrian government may have used sarin nerve gas on Syrian rebels. (That’s the same stuff used in the Tokyo subway some years ago).

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 5:37 PM

    Especially for Tourist, who understands cultural nuances, and surely has tales to tell of gaffes he’s witnessed.

    “Cultural-sensitivity soldiers save diplomats, corporate titans from themselves”:

    • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 6:18 PM

      Tourist, with “your understanding of cultural nuances”, you’re getting pretty close to being da man #1-and I’m getting more jealous. Minx, I will compare my understanding of cultural nuances with Tourist’s any day of the week-why do you think (if you do) that his understanding is greater than mine.? I go to Chinatown for dinner about once a week, a little less often to Thai restaurants and love chicken yakitori- not to mention pizza, escargot and fish and chips.

      • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM


      • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 10:46 PM

        “Tourist, with “your understanding of cultural nuances”, you’re getting pretty close to being da man #1-and I’m getting more jealous. Minx, I will compare my understanding of cultural nuances with Tourist’s any day of the week-why do you think (if you do) that his understanding is greater than mine.? I go to Chinatown for dinner about once a week, a little less often to Thai restaurants and love chicken yakitori- not to mention pizza, escargot and fish and chips.”

        Yeah, and I am thoroughly immersed in German culture ’cause I eat a lot of hamburger and weiners. Add in that I wear shoes made in Indonesia and I’m just a walking internationalist.

        • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 11:08 PM

          You eat a lot of wieners?

  • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    The narrative that the bombers are not enemy combatants is holding less water every day

    • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM

      This is not trivial. “Enemy combatant” is not something one does or is or thinks. Those are what they are and we are in the process of sorting them out. “Enemy combatant” is a designation, like franchise player. Applying it alters otherwise basic principles, like free agency. It allows authorities to treat the person differently. We do that when we think our criminal justice system is not up to the task. We do that when we are *that* afraid.

      • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM

        • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 7:38 PM

          I can’t help you with that.

          • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 7:56 PM

            You’re old enough to vote, right?

      • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM

        All I know Is I doubt that anybody is going to fly a plane into the PPG building. But doesn’t Pittsburgh have a marathon? How many other cities have marathons? Outdoor public gatherings? Other soft targets?

        We got lucky til now. Got the one in NY, the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, the Mounties caught the one up in Canada.

        We better get serious about this war on radical Islam.

      • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM

        Wrong, Tourist, we do that when the evidence shows they are enemy combatants, and entitled only to the protections afforded that designations. Criminal justice system not being up to the job and being afraid are mere liberal b.s.

        • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

          Re “liberal b.s.”

          The starting point is the Constitution, which guarantees due process and other rights to “persons” (not “citizens”). It also grants “executive” power (with historical meaning) to the president, makes the president the commander in chief, gives Congress the power to declare war, and provides separately for habeas corpus, which shall not be suspended unless suspension is required (paraphrased). On top of that, “emergency” is an ancient, recognized exception to everything. The result is that pretty much anything anyone might ever want to do can be grounded somewhere in the Constitution. (That was the genius of the Founders.)

          The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld said the way the Bush administration was classifying bad guys wouldn’t do. Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act, aimed at the Taliban, al-Qaeda and their supporters, defining “unlawful enemy combatants.” In Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court said “unlawful enemy combatants” still had access to the Federal Courts to challenge the evidence on which they were designated “unlawful enemy combatants.” (I’m not sure if the government has to show them that evidence, though.)

          All this leaves the real action within the administration, i.e., what it decides to do.

          Thus, Devildog is correct. We designate them enemy combatants when we conclude that they are enemy combatants and afford them only the rights we decide enemy combatants have. I think that’s what he said.

          No joke. He’s right.

          When and why would an administration do that?

          Well, if it thinks there is information it might not obtain if it had to contend with rights and lawyers, or if it just wanted to pursue the possibilities, quietly, in some undisclosed location, it might deem the criminal justice system not up to the task, which is what I said.

          There was a comment thread somewhere in the last day or so (I do not have it) on charges being filed in Boston, etc., my kind of talk, about the system working, demonstrating American values and so on, and someone interjected: “You guys will feel different when the court house explodes.”

          Granted, that wasn’t from a decision-maker. The decision-maker, the administration, did not even go the “enemy combatant” route. “Enemy combatant” designations are and should be rare. It’s those clamouring for them at every turn – we see plenty of them – who I meant to characterize as “that afraid.” I should have been clearer.

          • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 10:40 PM

            Afraid in the sense that not taking radical Islam seriously will lead to more terrorist attacks by radical Islam.

            If that makes me afraid, OK. Something tells me the bar for treating the little brother as an enemy combatant is much lower for people that have any level of common sense than it is apparently for you

            • Tourist  On April 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM

              Bare bones: When we designate people, we deny them their rights because we decide to. If that is not a power that should terrify us, that should be exercised only when necessary, I don’t know what is. There is nothing in this case that approaches “necessary.”

              • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 10:58 PM

                Enemy combatants receive all the rights they are entitled to under the Constitution.

              • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 11:01 PM

                Take it to court! Argue what we should or should not do-not constitutionality

              • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:06 PM

                What terrifies me is if we allow another radical Muslin blow upo innocent Americans.

                It would terrify me if we treated Lanza and Holmes as enemy combatants.

              • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:33 PM

                You know why I missed this crap about being ‘afraid’ that the criminal justice system is not up to the task. It’s because it has nothing to do with that. He obviously will go to prison for the rest of his life. This isn’t about him. This is about something much bigger than what resulted from him putting an IED in front of an 8 year old.

                That people don’t see this, that O apparently doesn’t see this, is what is frightening.

                • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:15 PM

                  “You know why I missed this crap about being ‘afraid’ that the criminal justice system is not up to the task. It’s because it has nothing to do with that. He obviously will go to prison for the rest of his life. This isn’t about him. This is about something much bigger than what resulted from him putting an IED in front of an 8 year old.”

                  Oh what fucking bullshit. The 8 year old was not specifically targeted, unlike 8 year olds and younger who are targeted every day for vile abusive acts and murder, far too often by their own parents, not strangers.

                  • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 11:36 PM

                    I didn’t say he was

          • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 10:56 PM

            Brilliant commentary, Tourist, but people are declared enemy combatants because they meet the definition. And a decision should be made after there is enough info to do so, perhaps prematurely in this case.

            It is a little boring to hear so many claims of unconstitutionality in so many different situations-you(impersonal you) don’t like it, take it to court. That’s where the real action is, not in the administration. The enemy combat designation is part of the system so why the talk of being afraid the criminal justice system can’t handle it.

            • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:07 PM

              “Brilliant commentary, Tourist, but people are declared enemy combatants because they meet the definition. And a decision should be made after there is enough info to do so, perhaps prematurely in this case.”

              A definition that exists nowhere in the Constitution but is of recent vintage, not existing prior to this millennium. It is garbage.

              • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 11:16 PM

                It is garbage.???? If you say this, it must be true – because you know all

              • Devildog  On April 26, 2013 at 11:28 PM

                Hey, da man, get serious. Exists nowhere in the Constitution? It’s right next to the right of privacy. Anyway, isn’t it up to the opponents to have a court declare government action unconstitutional rather than the other way around?

                • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:57 PM


                  Thank you for providing what is a commonly accepted definition of “troll”

                  My objection to trolls is that they are disruptive and detract from whatever else of value is present in the comments.

                  The one in question here is particularly annoying because he is simply repeating the behavior he exhibited in another forum where he tried to dominate without offering any fresh ideas or any line of cogent reasoning.

                  The same lame phrases appear over and over making claims that are supposition, not fact.

                  His main purpose is to pester me, but he has driven other commenters away from here as several of them have told me privately.

                  I am not annoyed because he always disagrees with me. DD does too and avoids being a troll in doing so, though he has his moments.

                  The main intent for me in establishing my blog a little over three years ago was first and foremost to have an outlet for my own ideas and opinions. Giving others the opportunity to read my scribblings was secondary but important. The fact that I can receive feedback in the form of your comments is also important to me.

                  Having someone here whose sole purpose is to be disruptive has tried my patience. Recall the numerous times on Rob Rogers I told him to go away since he interfered with those of us who had honestly formed opinions but had to often wade through his nonsense in order to engage in discourse.

                  But now the most wondeful thing about maintaining my own blog is that rather than telling the troll to depart, I can force him to depart. I haven’t checked but I’m sure that I have a management function available to block him from further appearances. If so I will act accordingly. If not I will simply move any future comments to trash.

                  I do not do this as a matter of whimsey but only after deep contemplation. I want to enhance the experience of other participants and hope to draw other commenters back in.

                  The rest of you are entitled to your opinions on this issue and may offer them here. Who knows, you might be persuasive enough that I would change my mind if you believe I have made a mistake. Don’t hold your breath.

                  Goodbye, Troll and it has NOT been nice.

        • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:03 PM

          “Wrong, Tourist, we do that when the evidence shows they are enemy combatants, and entitled only to the protections afforded that designations. Criminal justice system not being up to the job and being afraid are mere liberal b.s.”

          “Enemy combatant” is entirely a concoction designed specifically so the government can AVOID recognizing any rights.

          yet, the fact remains that since 9/11 500 convictions for terror acts have been obtained in regular criminal courts and the military commissions to which “ebnemy combatants” have been assirgned have resulted in 7 convictions.

          Oh, yeah, and the four Boston victims are kind of dwarfed by the 3000 killed when Bush was President by an attack the very nature of which he was warned about a month prior.

          • Devildog  On April 26, 2013 at 11:22 PM

            Unworthy of comment!

          • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 11:34 PM

            As much as you can assign blame, 9/11 was Bubba’s fault – WTC1, USS Cole, US embassy bombings. Clinton had several opportuniies to capture bin Laden and chose not to

            The warning was vague. As someone who I am sure hates the Patriot Act, what would you have told Bush to do?

            Don’t bothering even trying to answer it because you know you don’t have one.

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

    Questioning someone in the absence of Miranda doesn’t inherently guarantee he’ll sing. After all, KSM got waterboarded 183 times and still didn’t give it up.

    • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 10:24 PM

      He didn’t. Wow! That’s news to me. You must have a source different from everyone else (that’s EVERYONE ELSE).

      • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 10:36 PM

        And what’s to prevent a waterboarded prisoner from giving disinformation? How do questioners differentiate it truthy-sounding falsehoods from real truth, considering the source? Answer: They can’t always, and disinformation can do more harm than good.

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM

          That’s why you check it. Look at it in context of other info. you have. It is not like the maggot is saying that person A provided us with the resources to make the IED and then we go kill person A.

          We actually do further intelligence gathering and then make an informed decision. Without any info., where do we go?

        • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 10:44 PM

          You don’t have to be weatherboarded to provide disinformation. Snort. O’s own intelligence person said that info provided by KSM helped in finding bin Laden.

          That’s ok, you can back off your statement.

          • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:06 PM

            Then there’s this re waterboarding, from no less an authority than a former POW:

            “Senator John McCain noted that in World War II, the United States military hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war […] McCain who himself was tortured during his 5-1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, has stated unequivocally several times that he considers waterboarding to be torture […] ‘waterboarding, …is a mock execution and thus an exquisite form of torture. As such, they are prohibited by American laws and values, and I oppose them [i.e., forms of torture].'”

            • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:10 PM

              You call him a racist in one breath and then you go to him when he agrees with you r POV on another issue.

              • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:19 PM

                Whom did I call a racist, and where? Oh wait, I didn’t, but you keep falsely claiming over and over that I do. There he goes again…

                • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:23 PM

                  Even “[m]any former senior George W. Bush administration officials […] have seriously questioned or directly challenged the legality of waterboarding. These include former State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, former Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith, General David Petraeus, General Ricardo Sanchez, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and former Convening Authority for the Guantanamo military commissions Susan J. Crawford.”

                  • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:28 PM

                    *you (guys) – my bad

                    If you don’t think O isn’t looking the other way while radical Islamists are being waterboarded in other countries, you have less grip on reality than UMOC

                  • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 11:35 PM

                    Court, which court! Which court has held water boarding to be torture or convicted someone of committing torture under the Bush administration. An opinion is like an asshole, everyone has one.

            • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 11:30 PM

              Okay, Minx, how many times have you included this stunt. I don’t always check out your links but I just didn’t believe your Wikipedia link that said that McCain said we hanged Japanese soldiers for water boarding American POW’s. So I checked it and what came out is we hanged some for using techniques, “including water boarding”. The Wikipedia discussion of water boarding indicated those techniques went well beyond weatherboarding.

              Please be more careful with your so-called facts next time.

  • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 10:50 PM

    Goodness, when even George Will questions the wisdom of those of declaring #2 an enemy combatant, we must be near the end of time!

    “Korematsu and the dangers of waiving constitutional rights”:

    “…The Korematsu decision reflected perennial dangers: panic and excessive deference, judicial and other, to presidents or others who would suspend constitutional protections in the name of wartime exigencies. It is less important that the decision be repudiated than that it be remembered. Especially by those currently clamoring, since Boston, for a U.S. citizen — arrested in America and concerning whom there is no evidence of a connection with al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other terror network — to be detained by the military as an ‘enemy combatant.’ The Korematsu case is a reminder that waiving constitutional rights is rarely necessary and rarely ends well.”

    • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

      ‘arrested in America and concerning whom there is no evidence of a connection with al-Qaeda’

      So I can safely assume that if he is linked ot al Queda (and apparently he is), it would be OK by you if he is treated as an enemy combatant?

      I think Will would say yes

      • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:13 PM

        Not necessarily (our host can discuss this from the Constitutional perspective).

        But as long as there’s NO evidence of it, which is the case so far as authorities know, then he definitely should NOT be treated as an enemy combatant. That’s the point.

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM

          There isn’t?

        • anonymous  On April 24, 2013 at 11:15 PM

          Our host doesn’t know shit from shinola

          • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:17 PM

            You forget, it’s HIS blog, not yours. If you don’t like it, just leave. There, problem all solved!

          • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 11:38 PM

            Anonymous, now you may be going a little too far re what da man knows and doesn’t know. Maybe!

          • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:09 PM

            “Our host doesn’t know shit from shinola”

            Not true. I KNOW you are not shinola.

            • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 11:38 PM

              Good one!

        • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:16 PM

          You’ll also recall from introductory Logic that the opposite of “never” isn’t “always” but “sometimes.”

          • Tourist  On April 25, 2013 at 3:13 AM

            How can “sometimes” be the opposite of “never” when sometimes and never overlap? Never and always don’t.

            • Little_Minx  On April 25, 2013 at 5:59 AM

              The opposite of “never” is one or more times, not all the time.

            • Tourist  On April 25, 2013 at 6:13 AM

              I think “one or more times” is clearly not “never,” but is it “opposite”? More “opposite” than “all the time”?

  • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 11:02 PM

    Or not giving these unfortunates rights to which they are “entitled”,

    • Little_Minx  On April 24, 2013 at 11:36 PM

      Brother #2, a US citizen, is entitled to his Constitutional rights, not “entitled” to them.

      • Devildog  On April 24, 2013 at 11:47 PM

        What? “entitled” may, as the case may be, those rights afforded to an enemy combatant under the Constitution.

        Have you checked out the Wikipedia Waterboarding kink yet and issued a gomenasai?

  • Tourist  On April 25, 2013 at 2:57 AM

    I think this should be here. It’s also to the “A Few Good Men” clip in the previous thread.


    Col. Jessup (in the clip): “You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines.”

    I know the movie pretty well and I don’t recall anyone cursing the Marines, apart from a couple of scenes like this: “The Marines in Guantanamo are fanatical.” “About what?” “About being Marines.”

    Col. Jessup: “You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives.”

    Do you want to try to make the case for that? I’m not asking you to.

    It’s a movie. It’s a very good one. It’s complex and reality can be more so.

    Col. Jessup: “We use words like honor, code, loyalty.”

    So do I. I also use words like rights, protections, and due process of law. I didn’t invent them.

    Col. Jessup: “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank you and went on your way.”

    I’m sure he would. That’s not how we do it.

    Col. Jessup: “Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

    Was Jessup a monster? No. Was he portrayed as a monster? No. Did he do his difficult job the way we are entitled to want it to be done? No. Did he lose sight of that? Yes.

    The case that Santiago’s death saved lives? I could make it. I could make two. I don’t know if either would be Jessup’s, how far he would take it, but I could go dot to dot, from Santiago to lives saved – not merely absolving Jessup of blame, but crediting him.

    Is that how we’d want to do it? Because if Santiago’s death – “while tragic” – was part of a greater good, why should we do anything different the next time? The Santiagos pay a price. When it doesn’t have to be, we do, too.

    Lt. Weinberg: “They beat up on a weakling, and that’s all they did . . . . They tortured and tormented a weaker kid. They didn’t like him. And they killed him. Why? Because he couldn’t run very fast.”

    You: “People are declared enemy combatants because they meet the definition . . . .The enemy combat designation is part of the system . . . .”

    Point taken. You’ve connected the dots.

    • Devildog  On April 25, 2013 at 9:21 AM

      Tourist, I don’t know where to start because it would be a lot easier to discuss this over a beer but I’ll give it a whirl.

      Training saves lives (yes, I know, not going to war saves many more lives but that’s beyond even CMC’s pay grade). Boot camp is tough love (I know, this was Gitmo but training continues, always but I’ll discuss this as if it was a boot camp incident). Do you have any idea what comes into boot camp and must be molded in 12 weeks into a unit working together under the most trying of circumstances. One man can cause the death of many in combat- and every effort is made to change recruits rather that to just “boot” them out.

      This type of traing has gone on for years but been changed since McKeon to no more hands on-but believe me it still goes on one way or another-see Santiago. I get a weekly newsletter where people write in about their experiences in the Corps. Those that discuss boot camp say they hated their DI’s at the time but now have the greatest respect for them-many because they came in as punks and the training they received not only helped them in the Corps but throughout their lives.

      That’s the way we should do it. Shit happens! If you can read, thank a teacher. If you still have constitutional rights, thank the military(not a lawyer).

      What’s the point in prosecuting those two Marines in the first place-following orders or not. They did what Marines did for many years when there was a fuckup in the unit. Try and get him to get with the program and become an asset rather than a dangerous liability. Saved lives? Could be. What’s wrong with what we called it-a blanket party.

      Weinberg’s statement at the end shows how much he didn’t get it. This had nothing to do with beating up a weakling and everything to do with the making of a Marine (that’s why I’m taking it back to boot camp).

      I, for one, want him to do his job that way. A little thump beside the head never hurt anyone. Well, maybe a few.

      Understand? Didn’t think so!

      • Tourist  On April 25, 2013 at 5:32 PM

        Devildog, I appreciate the answer. “Where to start?” I sympathize. “Beer”? Let’s pretend.

        I do understand what you are saying. I agree with much of it but we often disagree on final choices at the end.

        “What’s the point in prosecuting those two Marines in the first place-following orders or not.”

        At the level of Hollywood ending, one of them, Dawson, got it. At the level of Hollywood beginning, they were prosecuted because Jessup hung them out to dry. In the middle, Kaffee says: “Santiago’s dead and he shouldn’t be.” Santiago’s parents also make an appearance. Do we use the system we’ve created for the purpose, or do we go straight to “shit happens”? “Shit happens” is absolutely true and sometimes it’s the answer. Where’s the line?

        Two things about training, and I’m not sniping at the details: You talk about “blanket parties” and McKeon and no more “hands on.” Code reds in the movie are illegal. It’s a movie. Jessup makes a great speech and Nicholson gives a great performance. But Jessup’s speech is about the freedom “he provides” and how he “doesn’t give a damn” about the rules within which he is supposed to operate – our rules.

        The other is that you have made the case that training – Santiago’s death – save lives. This was my enemy-combatant point. Dots connected to a greater good. Shit happens.

        Tom Cruise to Dawson and Downey on testifying before the jury: “From now on it’s ‘Private Santiago.’ You start calling him ‘Willy’ and all of a sudden he’s a person who’s got a mother who’s gonna miss him.”

        For the greater good they are enemy combatants rather than Constitutional “persons.” It’s a little rough, but we’ve done our dots. Greater good? Hope so? If not? Shit happens.


        My favorite uncle, his father, his brother and his son, my closest cousin, were Marines. When I was drafted, before it was a lottery, the Marines were also supplementing enlistments. In the three months I had after receiving my letter, my uncle, who had been a DI, declared that if I was taken into the Marines, he was going back on active duty to square me away, or however he put it. I said if he was in as an NCO, I was going to OCS. He said if he had the chance to train me, he’d have no problem serving under me.

        As for lotteries, fifteen or so of us sat in the induction center, filling out Army paperwork, when a Marine came in and announced that he needed two. After a couple of seconds of no volunteers, he picked up the day’s list, read off two names, and led two individuals away.

        • Devildog  On April 25, 2013 at 10:36 PM

          Tourist, you remember the details of the movie much better than do i (i don’t remember much about any movie) so I defer to you on than score. What did they do to Santiago and what caused his death?

          Galloway/Weinberg what difference does it make-except one I find good-looking. It’s as much how you say it/ what you mean more than the words you say. Fanatical in accomplishing the mission, God, country and Corps. That’s good. I don’t think those swabbies meant it in a good way.

          I’m looking at the bigger picture than the details of this movie (which I don’t remember) and that’s the history of the Corps and what it takes to accomplish that history-besides a good pr department. It’s training-tough training- brainwashing if you will.

          He was talking about the Corps and maybe all military not he himself in the freedom he provides.

          The “supplementing enlistments” happened as was a very difficult thing for the Corps though many of these involuntary Marines turned out to be fine Marines after going through boot camp.

          Have you asked any of your relative Marines their opinion on the movie, their training and what they thought of it and there DI’s? I liked the movie, one reason being that I was not embarrassed for the Corps by the movie.

          Semper Fi, not really appropriate as a greeting to a non-Marine but I’m making an exception in your case because of your many relatives who are Marines. Chesty-please excuse me.

          • Tourist  On April 25, 2013 at 10:58 PM

            Devildog, mi amigo, time zones. It’s lunchtime, I’m a traditionalist, and I have a martini quota. I’ll be back in a couple/few hours, and get back to you before Happy Hour. If you want to wait, or wait till morning, I’m easy.

            • Devildog  On April 25, 2013 at 11:16 PM

              I hope the anticipation doesn’t prevent me from falling asleep.

          • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 11:03 PM

            Another one of my favorite seens from the movie

            ‘Oh Harold…’

            Clip cuts off the end of the seen – here is the dialogue

            Kaffee: The government wants to charge you with murder. You want me to go to the prosecutor with ‘Unit, Corps, God, Country’?

            Dawson: That’s our code, sir.

            Kaffee and Weinberg in unison: That’s their code.

            Kaffee: We’ll be back. You need anything? Ham sandwich, books, papers?

            Dawson: No, thank you, sir!

            Kaffee: Harold, there’s a concept you’d better get used to.

            Dawson: Sir?

            Kaffee: I’m the only friend you’ve got.

    • Devildog  On April 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM

      Furthermore Tourist, try this on for size re cursing.

      The Marines on Gitmo are fanatical about being Marines, all marines are fanatic, check out the definition of fanatic. Cursing doesn’t mean only four letter words. I have known several Marine lawyers who did their job in defending Marines without despising the Corps-in fact Marines through and through. This guy Weinberg a Navy Lt. (why it wasn’t a Marine as the prosecuting attorney is beyond me, as if a Marine lawyer couldn’t do the job) came across to me as someone who despises the Corps (and what it stands for-a group of fanatics).

      Are you awake yet? Get the hell out of your rack and face the world!

      P.S. that’s not the way we do it-how would you like the job done re Santiago. Do you want him alongside you in combat covering your back. Get rid of him. Code red him in hopes of squaring him away. What is your way?

      • Tourist  On April 25, 2013 at 7:21 PM

        You’re losing it, Dog. Either that or you couldn’t wait for me at Happy Hour.

        I can’t even tell if “fanatical about being Marines” is now insulting to you or not. “All Marines are fanatic,” you say.

        You: Weinberg “came across to me as someone who despises the Corps (and what it stands for-a group of fanatics)”?

        Galloway called them “fanatical,” not Weinberg. I think we can assume Weinberg was glad he was not a Marine. Does that sentiment offend you now, too? “Despises the Corps”? Where? He thought his clients were guilty and he was instrumental in getting them acquitted. What a scumbag.

        Despise? Try Kendrick: “I like all you Navy boys. Every time we’ve gotta go someplace and fight, you fellas always give us a ride.”

        This is a gem (you): “how would you like the job done re Santiago. Do you want him alongside you in combat covering your back. Get rid of him. Code red him in hopes of squaring him away.”

        Fine, get rid of him. Santiago wanted out – request after request. That, at the least, would have kept him from being a danger to anyone in combat. Wasn’t that the point? Jessup decided it was not enough. Jessup decided to make an example of him. Example of what, exactly? That Marines don’t believe in divorce? Is that what you mean by “once a Marine, always a Marine”? Abandon all hope, ye who enter here? No one gets out alive?

        Instead of being out, Santiago’s dead. And Jessup let Dawson and Downey take the fall.

        No, that wasn’t anyone’s plan. Shit happens. “Code red him in hopes,” you say. Best intentions.

        This is what we’re talking about. Go beyond the rules if you are convinced that’s the right thing to do. All those Marines you mentioned who now have the greatest respect for their DI’s? Yep. Got it.

        What about responsibility? Collateral damage?

        They did not intend to klll him. They intended to do what they did and they killed him. They killed him in training rather than let him out. Scratch “killed him in training.” They killed him illegally, one of their own – or, if you don’t like that, he was one of us.

        What about this “way” are you celebrating?

        • Devildog  On April 26, 2013 at 12:42 AM

          One more thing Tourist before I hit the rack.

          “Let him out” of what, the Corps or Jessup’s command? If the command, meaning send him to someone else’s command, no Marine officer should do that; meaning send your shit to someone else to deal with the problem before you have cleaned it up.

          If it is leaving the Corps, not that easy my friend. Many a recruit is booted out during boot camp before he is given the eagle, globe and anchor and is “made” a Marine. To remove him after that is not that easy, he would receive a less than honorable discharge (maybe undesirable), it would have to be approved up the chain of command and a huge investment in terms of time and money will have been wasted. The job of the CO is to try and “save” that individual, for his benefit and that of the Corps.

          That effort was made in the same way it has been done thousands of times before but in this incident, shit happened.

          I don’t care about the movie and Jack Nicholson, just trying to explain “the way”, a way in which the cost/benefit of continuing favors its continuance. Just ask Marines, many of whom have been through some sort of having had hands put upon them, whether it should continue.

          Good night!

  • Little_Minx  On April 25, 2013 at 6:00 AM

    Who is this person?

    A nihilist.

    A bully.

    A loser and a failure.

    Has no American friends.

    Jealous of the successes of others, and tries to destroy their work.

    Is rude to colleagues.

    Engages in name-calling and personal insults.

    Heaps particular disrespect and abuse on females.

    Views Islam and Christianity as locked in mortal battle.

    Give up? If you guessed Tamerlan Tsarnaev, you’d be wrong. It’s Tamerlan’s Christian conservative doppelgänger, anonymous the troll. But you’d be forgiven for mixing them up, because the parallels are so numerous and striking. anonymous needs to heed Tamerlan’s ignominious fate now, before he winds up (figuratively) shot full of holes and run over by a figurative brother who’s in a big hurry saving his own skin. It’s no accident that anonymous is driving so many commenters away from this blog, even other (albeit more civil) conservatives.

    • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      driving so many commenters away from this blog?????????

      So many would indicate more than one. This is a lie

    • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 10:57 AM

      Nothing else deserves a response

  • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 1:29 PM

    I almost missed this post by UMOC about Bush’s approval rating on the last thread. It is in quotes so I am not sure if UMOC wrote this or he stole it from someone

    “The reason for an increase in Bush’s approval rating may be a combination of its having been so low at the time he left the Presidency, combined with amnesia (people forgetting just how awful he was — sort of like women who after a while forget just how painful childbirth is).”


    One of the larger jumps was actually among Democrats, with 25 percent now approving of Bush, compared to 6 percent in 2009.

    How would you explain this?

    Obama is everything Bush isn’t. Why would his popularity among them increase so much. It can’t possibly be amnesia. They’re reminded every day that O is everything Bush isn’t. And while approval was low among Dems, what has changed? You still think he and Cheney are war criminals, right?

    Admit it UMOC, you are part of the 19% increase among Dems.

    • umoc193  On April 26, 2013 at 11:22 PM

      “I almost missed this post by UMOC about Bush’s approval rating on the last thread. It is in quotes so I am not sure if UMOC wrote this or he stole it from someone

      “The reason for an increase in Bush’s approval rating may be a combination of its having been so low at the time he left the Presidency, combined with amnesia (people forgetting just how awful he was — sort of like women who after a while forget just how painful childbirth is).”


      You did not “almost” miss it. You made it up. I never posted anything of the kind either of my own origination or quoting someone else.

      Your fucking fantasy world has enormous cracks.

      • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM

        I am afraid for you. I have said it before. I have friends that use certain medications that may help you

        See your post on the previous thread at April 24, 2013 at 6:56 AM

  • toadsly  On April 25, 2013 at 4:23 PM

    From Urban Dictionary: Definition of Internet Troll

    An internet troll is a person who uses anonymity to cause frustration, anger, impatience or to generally be disruptive for no seemingly good reason EXCEPT to be that nuisance.

    Most are souless bastards, touched by daddy/priest, and in the stead of coping with that trauma in a healthy way, take out their aggression, anger, impotence, frustration on others.

    -have problems forming real-life relationships; have a hard time attracting members of the opposite/same sex,generally introverts. Though some are ‘trolls-in-hiding’, most are skill-less loners.

    General troll behavior:disruptive forum posts; the posts are generally off-topic, or unnecessarily combative. Each contemporary popular website has its own sub-genre of troll

    -can be male or female, mostly males, including the popular ‘gender bender’44 yo man that acts like 14 yo girl

    • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

      C’mon, that definition doesn’t come close to describing me. A 14-year-old girl? I have the maturity of at least a 15 or 16 year old girl.

  • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

    When liberals don’t like the message, no matter how true it is, they attack the messenger.

    If there is another by radical Islam related to the Boston bombers, O should be impeached. I am dead serious

    • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM

      *another attack

    • toadsly  On April 25, 2013 at 9:47 PM

      You’re OK, anonymous! I like a man who can make fun of himself.

  • anonymous  On April 25, 2013 at 7:42 PM

    The Boston bombers crystallize why progressivism is a failure. The refusal to acknowledge that radical Islam needs to be treated as such will lead to similar attacks. That these two maggots were on welfare which supposedly is designed to assist people in difficult times was actually obtained by these radical Islamic terrorists to assist in carrying out their attacks.

    How many more terrorist attacks by welfare dependent radical Islamists must there be before everyone realizes that progressivism is as much to blame as any misinterpretation of the Koran?

  • Tourist  On April 26, 2013 at 1:50 AM

    Good morning, all!

    Devildog, we’re talking about the movie now. As you sleep and I write, I’m neglecting important duties, watching it on my computer.

    You said one reason you liked it is that you weren’t embarrassed for the Corps. I can’t see why anyone would be. In addition to whatever other cooperation they got, a retired Marine BG was the technical advisor. The Marines come off well. Colonel Jessup doesn’t. The Marines do come off as a breed apart, but that’s what you say, too. The harshest single line is the prosecutor, Jack Ross (Kevin Bacon), Marine, to Kaffee (Tom Cruise), and his target is focused: “Don’t you dare lump me in with Jessup and Kendrick just because we wear the same uniform.”

    It’s all about Jessup. There are two threads of plot issue with him. The first is what we were talking about, his “I run my unit how I run my unit” attitude, notwithstanding the rules that apply – his attitude, in other words, that they don’t. His star is rising. He’s being fast-tracked to the National Security Council.

    Santiago was a screw up, had been begging for a transfer – from the unit; I just saw your follow-up comment; what you say is Jessup’s argument, too – and finally went outside the chain of command offering information on a fence-line shooting incident thinking he could negotiate a transfer. (That’s referred to in the clip above.) When the men in the unit found out, they wanted to do something about it. The word came down from Jessup that it was to be played by the book: Santiago was not to be touched. The word also came down from Jessup five minutes later to Dawson and Downey privately to do it.

    What did they do to him, you asked? Blanket party. In the middle of the night they put a rag in his mouth (clean rag, for the record), taped it, taped his wrists and feet, and started punching him out. Santiago quickly went into some kind of seizure or medical distress. Dawson and Downey immediately called for help. Santiago died from an internal reaction called lactic acidosis. The doctor could not explain why. Jessup talked to the doctor. The doctor then said there had to have been poison on the rag.

    That’s the second thread with Jessup. Jessup ordered the code red. Jessup then covered it up, and worse, and left Dawson and Downey holding the bag, charged with murder.

    You could build a full movie on either thread. This has both.

    Did I ask any of my Marine relatives what they thought of it? No, but I don’t have to. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, they love it. Have you met anyone who doesn’t?

    I occasionally throw movie recommendations into the air around here. Nobody pays any attention. You don’t pay any attention. You really should watch this one again. I am. It’s pretty good.

    • Devildog  On April 26, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      Okay, Tourist, everything is cool. I think we agree about almost everything, maybe everything. I come down with okay to order code red but not leave his men out to dry. Totally unacceptable! As is perjury-get that Clinton (maybe just the Prez-was Hillary under oath). Maybe Jessup had PTSS, and I’m not making light of that condition. Otherwise, I stand with everything Jessup said.

      The other thing wrong with Jessup is that he’s a Laker fan.

  • anonymous  On April 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM

    There is no such thing as Dem voter fraud!!!!!!!!!!

    Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud

    Read more:


Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: