Maybe they're jumping the gun on the Democrats winning on Tuesday?

how does one actually write a letter in this day. is it a comment, a personal revenge, an editors responsibility or a community? in this particular case its a personal revenge.

dear charles mudede,
i dont know you, but i know some smaller words under your bigger name.
above your name are bigger words, "Father of Desi Hiphop"
below your name below the biggest words
"(However, it would have been marvelous, a real breakthrough, to hear Jay-Z warning American girls to keep their skirts long and protect "that thing" - to use the words of Lauryn Hill-from the wolves of the street"

dear charles mudede,
you are famous, watch.
you are wearing a new professionalized hanes t-shirt that reads, "girls, keep your skirts long" on the front, and "protect that thing" on the back
you will get slapped a few times and you'll like it too i bet
but in the long run i bet you win
as long as you copyright
and as long as you live your days in seattle
and as long as you live your days in brooklyn
and as long as long lines happen to be
for kicks, you might even get a coffee date with lauryn hill.
cheers.

Of course they have to lie now.

Vanity Fair online has a preview of an article slated for December about all the Neocons suddenly changing their minds about the war they so badly wanted:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=2

Every single person who so hysterically argued for this war--in the government, and in the media--should be sent to Iraq and left there. How sad that shame isn't horrifically, unspeakably painful...

Chi Town Man:

-Dan Savage is one of those people you seem to be advocating to have "sent to Iraq and "left there."

-Read closely. The neocons in that vanity fair article aren't admitting that the idea to go to war in Iraq was wrong. They are not even admitting that they lied. They're just blaming the Bush administration of incompetance in carrying out a supposedly noble goal. It's a sure sign that they're on the ropes when they start shooting at each other. But it is sadly no change of mind. Even more sadly, this seems to be the argument that many Dems are more or less making as well.

Get a good education, study, follow current events, or you'll believe the lies recruiters tell you and get stuck in Iraq.

Were the recuiters really lying? Wasn't the war over AGES ago when Bush had his Top Gun moment?

Isn't "Peace in our time" (however misquoted) the watchword for pre-WW2 appeasement?

So if the right-wingers are distressed that people are trying to ban military recruiters from schools, will they be equally as indignant with the fact that they lie to 17-year-old kids to turn them into cannon fodder?

If these kids are stupid enough to believe the recruiter's lies, then they're perfect for the military. After all, the military is looking for people who will do what they're told, no matter how stupid, immoral or foolhardy.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The military has no use for idiots. The military is looking for people who can think on their feet and make good decisions quickly in unimaginably difficult circumstances. Your average dumb grunt soldier has a better grasp of history, and the whys and wherefores of what he's doing, than your average college graduate, and it's not close. Most soldiers can tell you more accurately what the hell is wrong with Iraq than most war protesters.

When recruiters send them criminals and mouth-breathers instead of real candidates, the military isn't cheering. And neither should you be.

Just wait. nNxt the Bushistas will put out press gangs, and dragoon people into serving. I'm surprised the Rethuglicans haven't decided to force illegal aliens into the armed forces, too, as cannon fodder, offering them freee citizenship if they survive...

Fnarf, you've been watching too many Army ads on tv.

Yes, they want people who can think on their feet, but not people who question what they're told or what they're supposed to be doing. If you have any doubt, see how the military has treated whistle-blowers that have objected to illegal/immoral acts, or for that matter, military attorneys who have done their job and defended suspected terrorists.

The idea that the average grunt has a good understanding of history is insane. While there are certainly some highly educated officers serving in Iraq, it's still a common belief among US soldiers that Saddam planned 9/11. Don't believe me, check out this poll of US soldiers in Iraq (by a Republican pollster no less)

"While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,� 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.�

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

I suppose, if you accept the assumption that understanding the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda is the only kind of history that means anything, and if you accept some random poll as the fount of all wisdom, you're right. Otherwise, no. Talk to a soldier sometime. Read something about soldiers and war. They're not that dumb. They may sound like hicks, but you'll find a higher percentage of military personnel who Most Stranger readers know less about why Iraq happened than most soldiers. You'll find far more people in the military than you will on your average college campus who know anything about history at all.

Fnarf -

Your post doesn't even make sense. You claim that the average military person knows more about "why Iraq happened" than the average Stranger reader when I've just presented quantitative data (from a fairly reliable pollster) to the contrary. And your proof is that you've talked to some military personnel who know something about history. Wow, strong argument. So if they're weak on recent history, what are they strong on, the Spanish Civil War?

Anyway, you're assuming I don't know anyone in the military. In fact I went to high school in the south and know plenty of people in the military or who used to be in the military. I'm not claiming they're dumb as rocks, they're not. But in general they (and I'm excluding some fairly educated officers I know) tended to have the simplistic worldview that the US has an untarnished history of doing good for the world.

Don't assume by this that I'm claiming most college students have a good understanding of history, many of them are clueless as well.