"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
S. Maizlich wrote:
S. Maizlich wrote:

Tim Rutten had a great column in today's L.A. Times, about John McCain
and the bill to outlaw torture by U.S. forces. Full article is he
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnis...a-news-columns

The best part is Rutten describing what C. Wright Mills referred to as
"crackpot realism". Some highlights:

The tough guy wing of the American media's commenting class always has
been prone to what C. Wright Mills once called "crackpot realism."

It's a little difficult to define precisely, but since its relationship
to serious thinking is rather like that of pornography to art, you
generally recognize it when you see it. A crackpot realist usually
assumes an air of weary patience while instructing you on how their
superior grasp of the "real world's" exigencies demands that you accept
a morally preposterous conclusion.

By the way, Rush Limbaugh is the "crackpot realist" par excellence.
Here's an unlearned, uneducated crackpot - really, a *fruitcake* - who
always tries to affect a world-weary, seen-it-all (*know*-it-all)
condescension. His audience of obese red-staters, of course, just gobble
it up like pigs in slop, morally preposterous conclusions and all.

I thought Rush's excuse these days was that he was a drug addict, and
therefore not responsible for his comments...


I thought you told Wayne you were going to stop this?

Despite the name calling, you do not seem to have answered the issue at
all. In this case of the a-bomb, would the person who ok-d the torture
be legally liable? Of course he would. So, what is the solution?

In article .com,
says...

Despite the name calling, you do not seem to have answered the issue at
all. In this case of the a-bomb, would the person who ok-d the torture
be legally liable? Of course he would. So, what is the solution?

Context? Are you the king of non-sequiturs?