Thanks. I actually think there is useful stuff in that speech, not least in the relatively combative approach to Congress, but especially in the overall tone. He also did face the drone issue head-on and in some detail. You may disagree, but I think you owe it to yourself to read or listen to what he says. Too many people (not necessarily you) attack what they fear rather than what is there. Obama’s ad-lib response to Medea Benjamin is better than we’d get from most public figures, too. It was an important speech; now let’s see what happens …

Emus? That one’s easy: Four legs good, two legs bad. Hard to argue with that sometimes.

I’ll outsource the answer to a monarch

Two things? Really? Which of those topics you mention includes GITMO as a sub-section? How about the AUMF? Benghazi? The speech was about 6000 words long, and I for one have not fully absorbed it, but that word “basically” you use — I do not think it means what you seem to think it means. Which rather undermines your credibility.

Oh man, you in big trouble now. Paulites, Joneses, and Chemtrailers. Hold onto your hats, the site’s gonna crash.

TBogg bats his eyes and others reveal themselves. He’s an eleventy-diminesional chess master!

Thanks. Evidence of motives not entirely necessary, but always useful. See also the “Balls” comment in his tweet, above. Equal-opportunity kinda dud, really.

I thought TBogg was only allowed to comment on Tebow if he signed for the Chargers?

See my comment at 14, which links to the thesis itself.

Indeed. Major backfire, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving person.

I confess I do like Murray’s tweet about the firing: “Thank God I was working for Chris DeMuth and AEI, not Jim DeMint and Heritage, when The Bell Curve was published. Integrity. Loyalty. Balls.”

They’re so cute when they start scratching each others’ eyes out.

Richwine’s thesis was signed by George J. Borjas, Richard Zeckhauser & Christopher Jencks. The acknowledgments start with a nod to AEI and then state that “no one was more influential than Charles Murray … I could not have asked for a better advisor.” That’s the Bell Curve Murray. In other words, this was not an oversight. With the possible exception of Jencks, who was a “late addition” not actually credited with helping much, they knew what they were approving.

A point of interest is that within two days of his thesis being posted and widely ridiculed, he got fired from Heritage. Evidently some opinions are now considered toxic.

Acceptable to whom? Think about it …

You’re welcome, PW, and thanks to you too.

The phrase “not an acceptable position” is less than acceptable. Seriously. I could — I’m not, but I could — make a case that even a significant number of human deaths would be worthwhile if that action saved hundreds of thousands or millions more over the long run. Neither your opinion nor that one (nor mine, which is much less extreme) is definitive, but perhaps we shall approach the most effective answer by considering them all.

The “endless war” part you could sensibly argue we have had since 1941. The “military-industrial complex” was made famous by outgoing President Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, in a nationally televised address. In general, I support whatever brings these issues to public notice. In the specific, I suspect that the Gay Pride March is unlikely to be the best way to do that. But the discussion about whether to have Manning up front in absentia is actually quite useful.

Fascinating. You’re all doing it wrong, from our host down to the lowliest commenter, which would of course not be me. I love the concept of “expanding the pale” (@168), and indeed the late lamented Warren Zeven (but not that song frevvinsake) but see also Phil Ochs.

To review: The original post has a point, and an interesting one, and so do many of those who disagree with it. I’m with Whitman on this one: See the latter part of Stanza 51 of Song of Myself, but read the whole damn thing, it’ll be more useful.

I’d love to lose Maureen Dowd, but I keep finding her in the NYT. Will no one rid me of this turbulent columnist?

Alas, that seems to have vanished into the aether. But perhaps it will return! Magick, this place is under the spell.

No. You are just wrong. Start with this wikipedia page, follow the links from there. And while you are about it, try to learn to think in generalities rather than personalities. Abstract thought is very important, and you need practice at it.

Let’s try this again. You said:

Once signed, treaties cannot be repealed.

This is incorrect. See my comments above.

They become law and trump the US constitution.

This is incorrect. See my comments above.

These little nations can in effect the wag the dog of the 7 billion people only the globe.

This is incorrect. See my comments above.

There is nothing unconstitutional in the UN small arms treaty. … O will have appointed people to find it constitutional anyway.

This appears to be self-contradictory. It is also by no means a given that Obama will have enough appointments to change the Supreme Court drastically, and a virtual certainty that the Senate would not confirm any radicals.

It is ludicrous to believe this Admin’s delegation to the UN would veto.

Excuse me? You made a series of sweeping statements about the impossibility of abrogating, modifying or withdrawing from treaties; I described a mechanism by which this would happen. Of course I do not think that this administration would veto its own policies! Why, no one but an idiot would suggest such a thing. But then you also seem to think that the Obama administration consists of Fabians, or “Fabian socialists,” to which I can only reply … I wish.