Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, also saluted a uniformed soldier in the crowd.He had no right to do that. Neither does George Bush; neither did Reagan when he was president.

I think that they all did have the "right" to do that. Just as anyone has the right to salute anyone else. If the person saluting is not in the military, there is no requirement to return it, as far as I understand it.

It [Romney saluting]is, in fact, a lie.

"A lie?" What is he lying about? As a civilian salute conveys no specific meaning, what is the specific lie?

You continue to say the civilians saluting is "wrong". Do you mean just for Leftists who do not care for the military or do you mean that there is a specific law or other custom that states that this practice is "wrong"?

American political candidates have got to stop playing dressup solider. It's disgusting.

That is why we have elections. If a majority of the population agrees with you then they will stop doing this to get elected. It's call a democracy.

It's not now and has never been a "majority of the population" that determines a political winner. It's a majority of only those who voted and in which states that have the most population. My fourth grade daughter and first grade son new that 30 years ago. But it seems a difficult concept for NeoCons.

Thank you Father Tyme. Yes, our so called democracy is decided by the less than half of the less than half of the population. My point was that if enough people (1/8, 1/16, 1/2...) vote against people acting in a certain way, then those looking to be elected will not act that way in the future.
Elections are a pretty simple concept.
Was is "new" when the "knew" it 30 years ago?

the returning of salutes by the president was begun by ronald reagan. it really has no place in military protocol. the miltary saluting the president and other civilians in the goverment like secdef et al, was done to emphasize that our military is controlled by civilians and as such are subordinate to them. the proper way render such a salute is to display it and hold until the official has passed or a superior officer gives the order "two." next time, watch when bush or any of those bogus he men return a salute. the marines ignore it. they do that because it is meaningless.

to understand the genesis of the salute one merely has to imagine the motion involved with tipping a corinthian helmet back from one's face to show the other who you are. it's that old a custom.

What is he lying about?

As I explained, a salute means that you are part of the military. Romney is not and never has been. For him to salute is to knowingly imply something that is false. That is a lie.

Do you mean just for Leftists who do not care for the military

Nice talking point. Did you dream it up all by yourself? Look, Newbie, if I had no respect for the military I would not object to Romney et al playing dressup soldier. But I do, because their doing so is inappropriate and dishonest. It is a blurring of the important line between military and civilian, and it is an attempt to exploit the image of an old and honorable institution for crass political gain. I also, BTW, ****ed when John Kerry gave his salute and "reporting for duty" line at the Dem convention in 2004. He was not at that time in the military, nor was he doing anything military. He shouldn't have done that either.

I don't know why a non-vulgar word just got bleeped by the comments bot here, but it did. Anyway, the word that got bleeped was a synonym for "winced."

...Romney's answer. "He told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a Winnebago and ride across Iowa and help him get elected."


___

Was is "new" when the "knew" it 30 years ago?
by: Newbie - 08 Aug '07 @ 18:06

Pot, meet kettle.

general washington is the one who began the custom of civilian authorities not returning the salutes of the military. because he was ignorant of the way the miltary really works (he used to tell war stories about making training films) reagan didn't know, and didn't care. i figure if real soldiers like jackson, taylor, roosevelt, grant, and eisenhower understood enough to make the statement of power by not returning the salute it is something that should come back.

it's something that bugged me when clinton did it, and it drives me nuts when that smirking punk bush does it.

it cheapens the sacrifices made by brave men to be led by the likes of him.

i get fuck, shit, and motherfucker through all the time on this board.

(Tsk.)

New and Knew is kinda like
"It's call a democracy"

I guess that's a bit picky. But rather than admit a mistake, spin it on someone else.

You rpoi nt w as tha tyo uwer etrying tosoun dmore intel ligentth anyoua re.

Ba-bye

FT,

Good afternoon, Chet.

The comment word censor is on only for a few character strings related to BBC-to-HTML parsing, as well as for protecting identities. I do apologize for this; but other than a few odd inconveniences from time to time, I allow for even the most outrageous of words here, although I truly hope that such words would not constitute an entire, say, five-line paragraph. On the other hand, I have no problem with the occasional comment like this:

----------------
"Look, Newbie, save your constant sneering for some other place where you can better feed your persistently deprived, mean-spirited, phony conservative, chickenhawk mentality. Where in the name of the saints do you get off taking exception to military tradition just so your AWOL boy-in-chief can show off like he's a big-boy soldier, or even was one at some time in the past?

"And while we're at it, do you salute soldiers in uniform? Do you salute the flag? If you do, you're laughable. People die to defend your right to pretend you'd die to defend theirs. You wouldn't, and you know it. You and the College Republicans would defecate your drawers at the sound of a mortar shell landing 30 yards from your SUVs.

Old Glory flies over battlefields of blood and thunderous explosions so everyone from pissing, hate-everything Leftists to swastika-tattooed, micro-dick Righties can disrespect it. That's the price of freedom: in this country, we have to give it to those who hate it the most."

"All I ask is that you not make the people who have made that all possible die ingloriously, laughing themselves to death at your pretend patriotism."
----------------

There. I think I actually used some vulgarities in there someplace.

The Dark Wraith has thus torn his ass.

MB, I couldn't remember whether Clinton had done it or not. If he did, he shouldn't have either.

I posted a little winking icon just after the new/knew comment. I didn't check to verify that it had posted. I intended humor. Who am I to pick on mistakes? I am the king of typos.

Dark Wraith - 08 Aug '07 @ 18:53

Upon reading the Wraith's comment, I committed an indelicacy and soiled myself. "...defecate your drawers..." Man! That's a real weeper.

clinton did do it. again, it was something he did from ignorance or from not wanting to seem like he hated the military, it might have been a little shamed based from his tap-dancing around being drafted. g.h.w.bush did it because he probably didn't want to offend reagan's legacy.

bob dole actually brought the issue up during his campaign. it was a beautiful moment when he said

"i lost the use of my right arm in combat, serving this country. if i simply nod to acknowledge their salute and their service as i pass by i believe that the marines will understand me soldier to soldier."

he then elaborated on the unseemlyness of civilians saluting. john-john kennedy's salute was touching, reagan, bush, clinton, bush saluting is stupid.

"People die to defend your right to pretend you'd die to defend theirs."

Yeah. Too many did.

enuff

Dark Wraith,
I said nothing about military tradition. I just corrected Chet when he said, "He had no right to do that." In reality, Romney and the others have every "right" to salute whoever they like. It may be offensive to you or Chet, but they have the right to do it.

And while we're at it, do you salute soldiers in uniform?

No, but I have the right to do so if I choose to.

Do you salute the flag?

I have in the past, when it was called for. I generally just stand at attention with or without my hand over my heart.

If you do, you're laughable.

That is your right to laugh if I did just as it is my right to salute if I so choose.

People die to defend your right to pretend you'd die to defend theirs. You wouldn't, and you know it.

I will not volunteer to join the military. That is my right just as it is everyones right. If drafted (chosen by selective service), I would do my duty. That is called following the law.

You and the College Republicans would defecate your drawers at the sound of a mortar shell landing 30 yards from your SUVs.

I do not know, but I certainly would be very scared.

"All I ask is that you not make the people who have made that all possible die ingloriously, laughing themselves to death at your pretend patriotism."

I have no "pretend patriotism" I truly love this country and do not want it to be degraded or eroded by anyone from the Left here at home to those extremists around the world that would have us all dead, liberal and conservative alike.

Meanwhile back on planet Earth, those of us with a modicum of common sense recognize that it is the intent of the speaker (or saluter) that provides one half of the meaning of the salute. It would be insane to assert that Romney INTENDED to insult the soldier. The other half of the meaning is supplied by the "reader." If you are insulted by a salute given with proper salutary intent, that's your problem not his. And as for Romney having no "right" to salute, oh no - he has every right to salute or turn a cartwheel or whatever. Again, if that p's you off, then whine away. I would have no small amount of concern about fielding a soldier so dim as to not understand that when Romney, or Reagan or whoever salute, that the context of the salute is a reasonable ground for determining insult or tribute.

Maybe, just maybe, the old rules no longer apply. I'm far from a fan of Romney, but hand-wringing over symbols which can ONLY POSSESSS MEANING IN THE MINDS OF THE SENDER AND RECEIVER, makes you look like you're begging for offense.

Guess my salute.

Newbie troll,

We don't want our country, OR our rights, degraded or eroded by ANYONE, especially by your PNAC war-mongering extremist neo-cons on the right.

You are in no position to "correct" anybody, especially if you aren't willing to lay your own ass on the line to defend America, you coward.

Typical right-wing troll... always willing to let somebody else sacrifice for your rights.

Hey Stan, guess MY salute.

Chet said As I explained, a salute means that you are part of the military.

This is not fully accurate. Salutes are used in the military, but also in other organizations from the police department, marching bands and boy scouts. I am not making fun of your comment, I am just filling it out so that it is more correct. i.e. all military salute, but not all salutes are military

Well said, Semiotic Stan

"I have the right..." "That's my right.." " I have rights..." "It's everyone's right..." -Polly want a cracker?

Rights? Where are you living, the Sci-Fi Channel or Disneyworld?
You have the "Right" to shit in your hat and wear it.
You have the "Right" to tell the president of the United States he's an asshole.

You mistake privilege with "Right."

You don't even have the "Right" to be stupid or an asshole yourself, that's a privilege others grant you.

You only have two "Rights"; the "Right" to failure and the "Right" to die and nobody can take those away from you.
Everything else is a privilege that can be taken from you.
You're welcome.

You are in no position to "correct" anybody

Sorry, I already did and was supported by others here.

I did not say that I am "unwilling to lay my own ass on the line to defend America. If you can read you would see that I said that I will not volunteer, but would follow and draft orders. It is everyones right to choose or not to serve when there is no draft. So, you are semi correct.

Typical right-wing troll... always willing to let somebody else sacrifice for your rights.

If that someone and everyone has the freedom to serve or not, then yes. I am willing to have a VOLUNTEER MILITARY. If we have a draft, I would serve, I would not flee to Canada and then expect a Left-wing president to give me amnesty for my breaking of the law.

Father Tyme, are you saying that I do not have the "right" to salute what or whoever I want? If so, what is the law in question?

Just because you say "already did" still doesn't give you any particular right on this blog to correct anybody - especially when you are on the wrong side - even if supported by another troll.

The topic (that you've obviously missed, again) is civilians (that is, non-military persons) giving salutes to military personnel, and you know it. As usual, you're trying to spin it into something else.

Yeah, sure, if drafted (i.e. forced) you'd serve. (Maybe.) Volunteer? Oh, no way. Bruck, bruck, bruck.

If, if, if. Pffft. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass every time it croaked.

The Dark Wraith will not even so much as try to visualize that frog thing.

I do know it, foiled goil. The topic is "civilians (that is, non-military persons) giving salutes to military personnel" Chet said that civilians have to "right" to do this. I see no such restriction in any law. I think that civilians do have the right to salute what/who and whenever they like. No spin, just a fact.

I was not the one who brought up the question if I would volunteer to join the military. That was actually Dark Wraith (contact) - 08 Aug '07 - 18:53. Have you been reading this thread?

You make make all the fun of me as you like. It is my choice to join or not join the military. We have a volunteer force at this time. No body is forced to join. You do not like me saying that I would follow the law when drafted. Is it somehow wrong of me to say that I would follow the law?

correction to the above... Chet said that civilians have no "right" to do this.

Newbie, "You do not like me saying that I would follow the law when drafted." You are spinning. Again.

Yes, I've read the thread. What's your point?

---

Wraith,

I'm sorry. It's an old family expression.

How is it spinning for me to say that I would serve in the military if drafted? It is a fact Please explain this.

First, you spun and said, "You do not like me saying that I would follow the law when drafted." (Which, BTW, I never said.)

Then, you twisted it into, "How is it spinning for me to say that I would serve in the military if drafted? "

I'm not the one who needs to explain things.

Well, if bolstering the Winnebago, styling gel and whitening strip markets isn't helping to fight terror, then I don't know what does.

My former governor. Let's give him a hand (or a carefully-chosen finger.)!

You keep saying that I am spinning when I say that I would serve. I am making the assumption that you do not like me "spinning". Am I wrong?

It seems quite clear to me. I have stated it over and over. I will not volunteer, but I will serve if drafted. Take that as fact of spin. You may choose to call it what you like. I do not care.

You said, "You do not like me saying..." I said that I never said that. Another point you've missed in your spinning twisty world of alternate reality. No, I don't like your spinning. Take some Dramamine, you're making yourself dizzy.

Hey, JP, we've got an icon fer that! The one finger salute.

You don't like spinning, but you also don't not like me not spinning, but you do like when I don't spin or is it you do? At least I keep saying the same thing, whatever you call it.

You don't like spinning, but you also don't not like me not spinning, but you do like when I don't spin or is it you do?

WTF are you smokin'?

You're like a stuck needle, Newbie. Over and over, on a broken record. Find another bone to gnaw on.

Look, Newbie, save your constant sneering for some other place where you can better feed your persistently deprived, mean-spirited, phony conservative, chickenhawk mentality.
~ Dark Wraith - 08 Aug '07 @ 18:53

Newbie, please stop pretending to be stupid. You know perfectly well that I never said there was a law against Romney making a complete ass of himself by inappropriately saluting that soldier. When I said he had no right to do that, what I meant was that he had no standing to do so, anymore than I have any standing to call myself "doctor" when I'm in a hospital, even though I do have a (non-medical) doctoral degree. In ordinary language, most people would say that I have no "right" to call myself "doctor" in a hospital, even though there's nothing in the US Constitution forbidding me to do so. If you prefer to say "no standing" rather than "no right," then fine. But stop pretending that you didn't understand a perfectly ordinary expression. You're smarter than that.

Stan, you really should also stop pretending to be stupid in exactly the same way. If Romney meant respect by a disrespectful gesture, then he was what we on planet Earth call wrong. You may use the word "bacon" when you mean to say "eggs," but the word doesn't suddenly get redefined simply because you say so.

I see that you were unable? unwilling? something else? (spin as you see fit) to prove how exactly civilians to not have the right to salute. That is the topic after all.

Newbie, just as you wouldn't call the Queen "baby-cakes" to her face and give her a high five, or call the Pope "big-daddy" to his face and chest thump him, there are certain manners of protocol and conduct that should properly followed.

It's a more a matter of common sense etiquette, and that shouldn't require a specific law.

Chet, no standing to do it and no right to do it are very different things.

Actually, your degree grants you the title of doctor no matter where you are. Not only that, but you have the right to say it anywhere you are.

In your example above, when you say "In ordinary language" perhaps what you should have said was "in incorrect usage".

there are certain manners of protocol and conduct that should properly followed. Yes, but that list of things that "should properly follow" is wide open to opinion I'm afraid. (on my so-called favorite topic... I would say that is would be manners of protocol and conduct not to screw around on your wife with an employee at work. But we all know that I would be "wrong" for thinking that )
If you are claiming something to be common sense etiquette, does that by default mean that someone has "no right" to do otherwise?

Newbie, the commenters on this thread have explored this whole topic in significant detail by now. More than one of them is a military veteran. They have explained the relationship between civilian command and the military; the meaning and history of the military salute going back to Roman times; an explanation of its appropriateness in administrations going back to Washington; the meaning of ordinary words and expressions; the scope of the topic and what lies outside it; and an analogy to think about. If none of this helps, then I can only conclude that the only thing that will satisfy you is if I come up with some Constitutional clause that forbids civilians from saluting soliders, which is not something I ever claimed existed. Again, as you know perfectly well and are pretending not to, I was talking about tradition, standing, and propriety, not the US Constitution. If you don't care about tradition, standing, and propriety, well, I'm afraid I really can't help you.

Foiled -

Good one. Did you come up with that yourself?

Salut.

Semantics Spam -

F/O

Sláinte!

Nobody here has yet shown that civilians "have no right" to salute.

Chet -

You said, "Stan, you really should also stop pretending to be stupid in exactly the same way. If Romney meant respect by a disrespectful gesture, then he was what we on planet Earth call wrong. You may use the word "bacon" when you mean to say "eggs," but the word doesn't suddenly get redefined simply because you say so."

Take a breath and try to follow my argument.

I'm not at all disingenuous about my statement that Romney meant respect. You say that if he meant respect, that he was wrong. That would be the case if there were some objective, absolute, meaning to the salute that rendered it exempt from any interpretation except yours. That is, you have here subtly set your own interpretation up and presented it as the "correct" interpretation. This is the mode of textual analysis one finds in religious fundamentalist semiotics, by the way. You are in effect announcing that your reading of the salute is de facto correct. And that those who interpret the symbol differently are simply, inarguably wrong. In the real world, things simply do not work that way. For example, Nixon, travelling in Central America received a drastically different response to his "peace sign," which in that culture, is an effective "middle finger." Was he wrong? Insensitive, certainly, and insensitivity could certainly be proffered as a criticism of Romney's salute. But to say that he was wrong to salute, and that your understanding of the import of the salute is somehow more intrinsically correct, is an argument I must reject. You know as well as I what was his actual intent. Was putting flowers in the barrels of National Guardsmen's rifles a sign of peace? Who's to say? A hippie would say yes, the poor long-suffering guardsman might disagree. Welcome to America. The offense in this case originates in the reader of the symbol.

Perhaps Romney should respect the traditions of the Military vis a vis saluting. Military traditions, I should hasten to add, are notoriously subject to change over time. For example, I remember as a child, when my father would drive us to our home at Laurel Bay, SC, the Marine at the gate had an elaborate, highly formal salute. To my four-year-old mind, it looked funny. Seeing it in home movies four decades later, I understand the intent, and recognize the value of formality, but I still feel comfortable calling it at the least, precious. That;s how I see it. It is nothing else but how it is received, however many different ways that might be.

By the way, the official protocol for the salute is to be found in AFMAN 36-2203, section 3.6 EXCHANGE OF SALUTES.

I am not in the military, and have thus not voluntarily submitted to the rules and regulations contained therein. The significance of the salute BETWEEN MILITARY PERSONS is objectively defined in that section. It does not apply to me. I am not subordinate to military protocols. I do not salute anyone. If I encounter a soldier, I show respect by thanking her verbally for her service. But to say that I would be wrong to salute would be to tacitly impose AFMAN 36-2203, section 3.6 EXCHANGE OF SALUTES on me. Non Serviam. Civilians are not in any way subject to these rules, and to impose the significances contained there is simply inapt.

Your analogy, speaking of inapt, is, well, inapt. Eggs and Bacon may be symbolic of many things, high cholesterol, Americana, or what have you. But they are not merely symbols per se, as is a salute. An egg is an egg. It is an objective entity existing independent of speakers and readers, talkers and listeners. To call an egg bacon is wrong to be sure, but to analogize a purely symbolic communicative gesture whose meaning is completely interpretative with a physical object having a nature and existence separate from persons-in-communication is an empty analogy.

Here's a better argument for you which, while not packing the blogtastic rhetorical heat of your original fuming, looks a bit less hysterical.

Romney's salute belies a basic lack of understanding of the traditions and values attendant to our proud military tradition. If he cannot learn basic cultural values within our own culture, how can we expect him to intelligently attend to our myriad interactions with the other cultures sharing the planet? Knowledge of the salutatory protocols should be something any public servant possesses as a part of his or her basic cultural literacy, and here Romney shows himself illiterate. That is where we can condemn his lack of respect. Someone pretending to the office of Commander-In-Chief should know better.

To try to portray him as contemptuous, is to employ heated rhetoric which makes for exciting and possibly successful blogging, but not particularly admirable political discourse.
... Just took some time to read through the regulations. NOWHERE does it say anything regarding when a civilian should or should not salute anyone. Under the rules of military regulatory construction, the absence of a limiting regulation on civilian behavior is to be interpreted as permissive. That is, civilians may or may not salute whomever they choose, and if their intent is respect, then it is the soldier who resents the salute whose attitude is deserving of criticism. The brave, self-sacrificing men and women of the United States Military deserve our eternal thanks and deepest respect, but never our submission. The Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, and should ever be. If he chooses to salute, a soldier who takes offense stands in contempt, if only in her heart. Where else is it real? The physical gesture?

Please.

One more thing and I'm done.

Draft me, and I will swear to uphold all the applicable regulations regarding the salutatory protocol. Of course, if we get to the point where my wretched frame is a military necessity, we are all in a lot of trouble.

Foiled Goil,

Caed Mil Faulte, and have a nice day.

It's: Céad Míle Fáilte ( Kayd MEE-luh FAHL-chuh )

Good evening, Semiotic Stan, and welcome to Big Brass Blog.

First, do not lecture the writers here at Big Brass Blog: they have uniformly demonstrated their writing, thinking, and life skills. And don't condescend to a writer here with "Take a breath and try to follow my argument" sneers. The writer of this article is a professional educator who knows exactly when he's being handed a pile of flunk bait. You won't get by with that sneering in a reputable college classroom, and you surely won't get by with it here. If you want to go to a place where your flawed reasoning gets passing grades, try Regent University.

Second, claiming that Mr. Scoville has "...here subtly set [his] own interpretation up and presented it as the 'correct' interpretation..." is outrageous on its face. You can make up your own rules, traditions, and rituals, and you can declare the existing standards invalid for yourself; but do not presume your scrawls to be declared the latest entry in the Western Canon. I am forever having to explain to students that, unlike what Barney told them, they are not perfect just the way they are. Barney's a dinosaur; he's dead; right now, he's a lube and oil change at the JiffyFix on the outskirts of the south side of Memphis.

Ditto for your undisciplined here's-what-I-just-spattered-onto-my-coloring-book inventions.

Finally, you are, like Newbie, a marvel at showing the bleakness of the landscape of Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers. At one time, I was hopeful that Newbie was here hoping to be brought from his world of daring, argumentative bitterness; but I was wrong about that: he serves as documentary evidence of the flaws of Right-Wing extremism, and he does so in real time. You, too, will serve that purpose until such time as you cross my own authoritarian line, at which sad juncture I will ban you for rendering evidence that you have served your purpose and have shown that you are a risk to the safety and well-being of the people who, with honest, decent intentions and strong intellects, choose to better the world by contributing productively here at Big Brass Blog.

You are not being warned, Semiotic Stan; you are being told. Now, try standing up to me with your sneer.

The Dark Wraith has thus laid down the law.

Foiled -


My somewhat lighthearted but sincere apologies! I will not pass go and will go directly to Gaol!

Darth,

I see. Good thing I didn't go to Regent. I would have felt sneered at. Also, having always considered myself an extremely liberal Democrat, I'm quite surprised to find out otherwise. Perhaps you can further illuminate me as to my error. Working, as I do, daily and for 15 years in a reputable college classroom, I believe I can provide a particular positive rebuttal to your universal negative assertion. The rules of logic dictate that your proposition, therefore, fails.

You make me smile Dark. Thanks for the chuckles. Ban Away.

As you wish.

And if you come back under an anonymizer, you'll find out just how fast those services roll over when they get a letter from legal counsel.

The Dark Wraith tolerates only so much.

And to all now waving at the smoke slowly dissipating (even to you, Newbie), I do extend my apology for disrupting the comity of this online community with the harshness of my rhetoric and the swiftness of my judgment.

By my nature, I am not an authoritarian; it has come with experience.

It is one of the few blessings for which I can thank God as He (or She, as the case might very well be) takes gleeful pleasure in making me, with each passing day, further suffer the enfeebling effects of getting pig-butt-ugly old.

The Dark Wraith should probably take this thread out now and put it out of its misery... unless Newbie wants to try to get me annoyed again.

No apologies needed, Wraith, as far as I'm concerned.

{{You}}, my friend, are awesome.

Semiotic Stan, Those here do not often care for a coherent argument that does not support their own views. I have found over the years here that My own opinion is if constantly discounted as wrong even though it is an opinion. I have also found that quoting and linking to references and law that supports what you are saying does nothing but inflame the situation rather that support your point. I must say that I think that you made a very valid point.

It is quite sad that in the open forum that opposing voices that make a valid point are banned. Quite sad indeed.

Newbie, I have not banned you. That you have not noticed this deeply concerns me.

That you did not notice the banned troll was using a strawman argument to attack a writer concerns me, too. For the most part, you just nitpick and annoy with scripted replays of Right-wing talking points, declining the invitation to, first and foremost, read what's being said and therefrom stay on point. You are not, however, displaying the critical threat factors at sufficient level for me to contemplate you dangerous.

Besides, you are not commenting on the recent game of Right-wing trolls going to progressive sites and claiming they're "lifelong liberal Democrats." That could mean you're unaware of this new thing, which is a good sign; it means you're not part of that silliness, and you're just being annoying for your own benefit. It could also mean that you know all about that game and you're being disingenuous, but I don't think that's the case.

And quite honestly, Newbie, I don't think you have anything to do with my POP3 server, since shortly after that troll was banned last night, being the subject of an e-mail flood attack, which is both a criminal and a civil offense. I don't think you're stupid, and I certainly don't think you're hateful enough to commit offenses just to try to cleanse the world of expression with which you disagree.

As a final note, it doesn't bother me that you dismiss my years of learning and experience, but understand this: I use what I know to assess risk; and if you think my judgment is caprious, so be it.

This morning's attack confirms for me, once again, that my judgment is sound.

The Dark Wraith has lived too long to pretend the world isn't full of people of ill will.

Thank you for judging me to be no threat. That should be quite clear from my long time here. I will always state my opinion and also point out posts that are lies, mis-statements and errors regardless of the writers' intent. That is the extent of me. I was not part of any attack. I would have no idea how to do such a thing if I wanted to. Thank you.

Good news, folks. Santa is coming this December!

Now for the tough part; is that statement a lie, mis-statement or error? And how do you prove it?

It's the truth, I tell you!

How do I know that, Father Tyme? Easy: I have to dress as Santa every year to do some special Holiday events.

Most years, the Santa outfit, the beard, and the pillow under my red Santa shirt make me so overheated that I've nearly blacked out. Literally.

And several years ago, I had a dog get so freaked I though he was going to maul me. It would have been less than a good experience for kids were they to have seen a fat man in a white beard using his big, black snow boots and going "Ho-ho-ho" as he kicked the crap out of a medium-sized Jack Russel terrier.

Other than that, falling down the stairs one year was pretty exciting. Had it not been for the giant pillow I was wearing, I wouldn't have been much fun afterward.

Rode those stairs like a toboggan master.

Now, you might be asking yourself, "Why would someone with a persona like 'Dark Wraith' do Santa gigs?"

The answer is rather apparent: penitence and stupidity. That, and having nothing better to do on Christmas Eve than make a total ass of myself.

The Dark Wraith wonders when he will finally get too old to do the inane for the benefit of the unthankful.

Of course they and their children never serve. As Mr. Cheney so boorishly said, they have better things to do.

And yes, it is positively revolting to see one like Romney rendering a salute to a Soldier. It is "phony b.s.", and I have been sickened of the dress-up soldier bit for some time. You have hit the nail on the head.

How could anyone not have been sickened by the blatant Aimee Semple McPherson theatricality of Top-Gun Bush all those years ago?

Yes, Lisa, revolting. But at least he does have the right to do it.

"Good news, folks. Santa is coming this December!" -- Father Tyme

Which reminds me, Father, of the reason why the Clauses don't have any children. It's because Santa Claus only comes once a year, and that's down a chimney.

Perhaps Father, you await as I do, to see if the Dark Wraith will award us the "Thread Hi-jack of the Year" award.

Good evening, Peter of Lone Tree.

I might very well hand out awards at the end of the year, but "Thread Hijack of the Year" will have to be better than that one.

On the other hand, I do have a couple of contenders right here for the "Commenter in Most Dire Need of Butt" award for 2007.

Come to think of it, I might have to confer that one as a Lifetime Achievement Award.

The Dark Wraith is still working on the gala event guest list.

I can't speak for anyone else since I ain't quite as positive about other's facts and such or whether comments are lies, mis-statement and/or errors (I'll leave that to the "expert(s)" but,
if some freakin' flag-draped, quasi-patriotic numbah 10 saluted me in uniform, he'd get an earful that his grandkids would remember! Especially if it was someone that pretends to be concerned but offers every possible excuse for not enlisting when he feigns care so much now.
Spare me the false pretense of concern now that he wants to be in a position of power and needs my support.
I didn't hear ANYTHING out of his mouth when I needed help and he can dismiss that with a meaningless gesture?

His privilege to salute? Maybe. But degrading as hell coming from a typical draft dodger. He hasn't done anything to deserve the honor of being able to "salute" anyone in uniform.
I wonder how many others in uniform he's "saluted" in the past? Bet you can count them on one finger.

Maybe Santa will bring him a conscience; or at least an award.