Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from the future defined smart asses as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came.":D

BTW, have you heard the rhetoric from some of our supposedly 'religious' conservatives? At the extreme end, the only thing that seems to be keeping them away from the explosives is a strong government, rule of law, and a firm belief that when Judgment Day comes, all of the people they disapprove of will be screwed. This doesn't seem to stop them in spending an inordinate time messing around in other people's business.

Not sure if this is apropos of what's gone before -- until I reread some of the thread -- but it seems to me a fine remark nonetheless:

Fruitful, tho'. :D Giggles aside, my thanks for the chance...

Neither those who target the innocent, nor those who target those who target the innocent, are innocent.

And that one sentence, Bruce, tells the world why you aren't a hero, and never will be. You don't understand the difference, neither in your forebrain nor in your heart. You may not be a stupid man, but tell me: is it intelligent not to have any values?

So heroes, by definition, never consider repercussions? That requires a certain lack of values doesn't it?

No, that is not so. And you're trying too hard to find evil in my heart. Maybe you should look in my pancreas, I dunno.

UG, I don't think you're evil. Certainly you're on the opposite end of the spectrum from me, politically, but you seem a good sort (with qualities I insist upon like honesty and conviction and forthrightness.)

But to say things like someone doesn't have "values" and would never be a "hero" is ludicrous. Your definition of values and hero surely differ from mine, but that doesn't make my definition any less worthwhile. I know you believe that my definition is less worthwhile, and your way is the only way. That, I can't agree with...whether it's me or him or her or it or them or they or who.


And, I'll have you know, bruce threw himself in front of a bus to save my dawdling ass just last week!

Which of course would be heroic, albeit rather crushing if the bus didn't stop soon enough. Oooch eech ouch.

Don't try moral relativism with me either, Shawnee. Not only is it an altogether hopeless tool for assessing moral merit -- it's designed not to, in point of fact -- it's used to disguise shameful evils, not to remove them. I gave it up decades ago and haven't missed it even once since.

I hew to the worthwhile, and get hollered at for it. Some folks are willing to stay happy with the less-than-worthwhile, and they loudly express a preference that I join them in this.

Eh, I'm not telling you who to be, UG, dear. I wouldn't expect you to come down to my level, but if you ever did, I daresay you might enjoy yourself. ;)

Come on in, the mediocre waters are fine.

Now now, cutes (I looked at your profile, cute pic. Not bad a-tall...), "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent. . ." Well, check up on it yourself and see the rest of the quote. (Mwahahaha)

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." -
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Like.

Shouldn't the Afghan people be more upset about this image than us?

Reaction to such disfigurement probably knows no political boundaries.

I heard about Petraeus' forthcoming press meetings last week, but I did not expect him to be so explicit about continuing the military effort in Afghanistan beyond next July.

Maybe someone needs to remind Petraeus about what happened to McArthur a few years back, and to McCrystal just a few weeks ago.
By next summer, the public may be even less supportive of US involvement in Afghanistan.

THE GUARDIAN article