Arguing with Dennis Prager is not a good idea

Dennis Prager is certainly one of the most wise of Americans. While most radio talk show hosts entertain their listeners with rants about the hot topic of the day, Mr. Prager guides his listeners through thoughtful discussions guided by his motto "I prefer clarity to agreement". In striving for clarity he allows long phone calls from those who disagree with him, and during those conversations he guides the caller logically down a path leading to the destruction of their argument.

Recently Dennis made the point that you can't "support the troops" and be against the war. He pointed out that though "I support the troops" is the cliche of the day, it is only true when you actually support them in what they are doing. Seems pretty straight forward.

Bruce Ramsey writes in the Seatle Times that Mr. Prager is being "disingenuous" by defining the term "support" in such a way.

The following is a copy of the e-mail I sent to the Seatle Times................

Mr. Ramsey sure uses the word "disingenuous" alot. It
seems everyone is disingenuous except him.

Yet he is the one who needs to re-define a term in
able to win an argument. In fact he admits that by
Mr. Prager's definition of "supporting the troops" Mr.
Prager wins the argument. So Ramsey redefines what
"support" means.

Mr. Ramsey claims supporting the troops does not in
fact mean supporting what they are doing, but instead
means attempting to stop them from doing it (bye
bringing them home before they complete the job).
Since he and Prager use baseball as an example, so
will I. Ramsey's game would go like this..........I
support the Padres (our local team), but don't think
they should pound the daylights out of the poor
Mariner's pitchers, so the coach should forfeit the
game and sit on the bench until some pitchers who
deserve to have home runs hit off them come to Petco
Park to play.

It's really quite silly isn't it.

That however is not the biggest mistake Mr. Ramsey
makes. He says we supporters of the war don't have
the guts to say "support the war!". Where has he been
for the past three years? That's exactly what we have
been saying. It's what Bush said when he campaigned,
and WON the election in 2004.

And Mr. Ramsey, I'm sorry I had to hit your pitch out
of the park, but really, you deserved it, and I don't
care whose ballpark you are in.

Regards
Geoff Milke http:/senorlechero.blogspot.com

Update on 1st Sgt Brad Kasal

The 1st Sgt has postponed the removal of the External Fixator Devise from his leg. He sought out and obtained a 2nd opinion (from civilian orthopedic specialists) on both the status of his leg and the direction his treatment should go from here. After that consultation (which took place yesterday) and phone consults with his two military doctors (Gerrard in San Diego and Mcgwigan in Bethesda) he decided to leave the devise on for another two months or so. While he really wants the devise off, he wants to make sure the bone is healed enough that he can put weight on the leg. It's all very complicated, but Brad is comfortable with this path of treatment, and happy that the end is in sight.

Reporters are not above the law

When newpapers use "unidentified sources" in reporting on issues critical to national security they should not be protected by so called "Shield Laws", which allow them to keep the identities of their sources secret, even fron Grand Jury investigations into the leaks. This issue has been in the news alot lately, with the identity of "Deep Throat" (the vietnam era jerk who leaked secrets about Nixon's white house) being made public, and with the investigation into who "leaked" the fact that Valerie Plame, wife of national disgrace Joseph Wilson (a current jerk who lied about Bush during the election cycle last year), was a CIA agent.

This is a controversial issue which should be discussed publicly, so here's my two cents worth.

I read this New York Times article yesterday, about the Cleveland Plain Dealer not publishing an "important" story, because their lawyers say they will have to reveal their source or go to jail. It seems that the media types think the main point of all this is "If newspapers are afraid to report stories because they may go to jail, the public suffers" I think the main point is........If the story is SO IMPORTANT to the public, and the "source" is going to LEAK NATIONAL SECRETS, then why won't they do it publicly? If someone in the government does something wrong, why not speak out? If telling your story means leaking secrets and you arn't brave enough to do it publicly, then don't do it. I think newsrooms around the country should be asking themselves "What axe does this person have to grind" before they go public with secrets.

Personally, I wouldn't print something unless the "source" was willing to go public, at least where national security is concerned.