Vote For Kodos
Shortly after Election Day, I was listening to The Diane Rehm Show and heard a caller accuse, in a polite and friendly manner, Mrs. Rehm of having a liberal bias. Mrs. Rehm replied that of course she had a liberal bias, as long as one defined "liberal" to mean open to all points of view and willing to consider any reasonable proposal. One of the sections of a personal profile on Friendster.com is "Who I Want to Meet." As I have explored by second- and third-degree connections, I have encountered "Not Republicans" listed quite frequently in the aforementioned catagory. I suppose at this point I qualify as confused. From the rest of the information gleaned from the profiles of these people, it is safe to assume that a number of them would best be described as liberals. Yet, they find it reasonable to renounce en masse associations with any and all Republicans with whom they are not previously acquainted. Perhaps the failure is one of imagination, and therefore mine, but I cannot make this round peg fit into the square hole of Mrs. Rehm's definition of liberalism. I can only then assume that though liberals sincerely wish it to be true, they are in fact not the open-minded, tolerant people they imagine themselves to be. You could say that statement is a harsh oversimplification, but before you do, please consider this: I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, though my political allegiance is to the Right. I would estimate that a small majority of my friends are Democratic voters; furthermore, I would never entertain the suggestion of typing "Not Democrats" under "Who I Want to Meet."

If you are less open-minded and fair than I, much maligned as inflexible and incapable of admitting error or suffering disagreement, then perhaps you should take a moment to pause and reflect on how truly tolerant or intolerant you may be. Are you more intolerant that The Last Angry Man?

This is a serious matter that deserves your attention and consideration. The IDF officers involved find themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the "refuseniks" who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but practicing the same disturbing behavior. Simply put, if military personnel refuse to execute the orders given to them by their civilian superiors, democracy as we know it cannot survive. Even if the directives of the civilian authoritites are ludicrous (take for example President Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamara personally picking the individual target and payload for every sortie over North Vietnam), soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines must either execute their orders or resign in protest. When an officer refuses an order, the civilian government is no longer in control of its military. There is more than a little truth in Tennyson's words, here quoted without irony:

"Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die."