Cause I ain't got a dog-proof ass: Well, maybe "Michael Kelly" is trying to be a serious, albeit lame, pundit, and not the brilliant leftist satirist that I heretofore thought. Tonight's topic is on the now-dated topic of "chickenhawks", and their disproportionate leadership behind the President's imperial designs in Iraq. He too disapproves of the term, but for reasons different than what I expounded on earlier in the month. Raising the canard that people who use the term believe that only veterans should have the right to decide when a country goes to war, he manages to dis Lincoln and FDR (both of whom would have been too old to fight against Mexico and Germany, respectively, and both Lincoln and Roosevelt did perform some legitimate reservist duties in their lifetime), while at the same time arguing that it was the Founding Fathers' desire that life-or-death decisions always be made by a clique of middle-aged men who went out of their way to avoid military service in their youth. The thing that makes Kelly, and other neo-conservatives, so disagreeable, is the manner in which they demean all those who disagree as twisted and evil, without having to make any effort to empathize with the positions others might take (ie., like Sen. Wellstone). Kelly would have been much more comfortable living in another century, say, the sixteenth century, where he could have worked with the Inquisition, and followed a calling where he could pull the tongues out of "pacifists" and "heretics" for their own salvation.