The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Paul:

Show all comments by Paul.

Posted on entry Big talk. ::: July 02, 2003, 11:04 PM:
re: "flag burning lefties"--a figure of speech there and a sloppy one at that. I've never seen a flag burned either and everything I've ever read suggests that the practice as dissent is largely (if not entirely) apocryphal. So I probably shouldn't reinforce the myth by associating the two. Feh.
Posted on entry Big talk. ::: July 02, 2003, 10:13 PM:
"donate some more money to Howard Dean."

We are. I've just returned from a Dean meet-up this evening (my 3rd and the largest yet--over 50 people). There were a few ex-McCain supporters there who like Dean and I talked to a veteran of Afghanistan (so not exactly flag-burning lefties). The conversation turned to Bush's remark and there was unanimous disgust that an American President would so carelessly invite attacks on American servicemen and women for nothing more than a soundbite or his own macho kicks.
Posted on entry Well-chosen symbolism. ::: June 23, 2003, 09:43 AM:
Cheer up, Damien. I'm confident that millions of people still hear Wagner performed in concert every year. But if the average semi-musical man or woman thinks of it at all, "Ride of the Valkyries" probably does remind them of Apocalypse Now. Talk to the 124th Infantry Regiment if you're distressed by this use of Wagner. They chose the soundtrack.
Posted on entry Bush vs. God: ::: June 16, 2003, 09:03 AM:
The word has two meanings. You chose one of them to fit your view of things.

Since by choosing the least offensive definition of two, you're guilty of this, too; why should anyone accept your definition over Patrick's? If we must have a constitutional amendment to curb the armies of savage flag-burners that roam this great land, why not write it in language that avoids such ambiguities? Is it because the authors can't or won't? The latter, I'll bet. As usual, this congenitally dishonest administration is relying on semantic quibbling to sell its otherwise intellectually impoverished ideas.
Posted on entry The admirable Jeralyn Merritt, ::: June 11, 2003, 08:37 AM:
for whom the distinction is frequently of overwhelming importance.

No, not really. :)
Posted on entry Cato guy, reprobate, and frequently funny libertarian ::: June 11, 2003, 08:29 AM:
why finding WMDs in Iraq is not and never was the sole justification for the war

Perhaps not. But the "imminent threat" of Saddam Hussein's alleged WMDs was the most frequently voiced, indeed even the primary, reason given for the necessity of immediate belligerent action. The Bush League even stated that they knew where some of the WMDs were. Now the world is seeing just how hollow that "imminent threat" was.
Posted on entry John Quiggin ::: April 15, 2003, 09:26 AM:
But the looting of the museum was not, pace Messrs. Nielsen Hayden and Quiggen, deliberate policy.

The looting of the museum wasn't deliberate policy, except perhaps by a few looters. But no one--neither The Times story, nor Messrs. Nielsen Hayden and Quiggen--ever said it was. The Times story says that commanders urged "local residents to loot buildings belonging to the Iraqi Army and the ruling Baath Party" and it's not farfetched to believe that this encouragement emboldened some Iraqis to loot offices, hospitals, museums, and libraries as well.

That's the deliberate policy. Not encouraging looters to specifically loot museums. It's a fine point, but a pretty clear one.

Comment statistics for Paul on the Electrolite blog

YearNumber of comments posted
20037

Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.