Dr. Frank's What's-it

Boorish? Huh... Well, count me as a card carrying member of the "boorish" left for having the audacity to refer to anyone with the temerity to !FUCKING KIDNAP! me, or any person, as an "asshole". Oh, I'm sorry, "a** hole," as that is the accepted (as far as such a disgustingly offensive word can be accepted in a polite and enlightened society,) printed spelling of said word...

Y'know, in all seriousness, this kind of trite, common-sensically offensive crap is really only indicitive of the pervasive attitude in western, overt P.C.ism that implies, that, while it is acceptable to sympathize with the "enemy" in that they are usually horribly outgunned and technologically overwhelmed, (which implies, that, while their cause(s) and reason(s) for action 'may' be just, justifiable, or at least, in a very liberal sense, morally defendable, their chosen course of action was the result of their state's inability to effect a 'Globally' acceptable plan of attack/defense and they had to do what they did because it was the only technologically, or, more to the crux, economically viable option for them to combat the percieved threat from the imperialistic west), because we, the west, are generally more advanced, be it in technology, application or in moral geometry therefore, states that a nation that indulges in "beastly" tactics is an unthinkalbe concept, because, our own "enlightened" viewpoint is supposed to dictate that it is an impossibility for us to do as is done to us, this concept stretching as far as the inability in our popular leftist opinionaries to accept, or at the very least, examine, that we are capable of even aknowledging any kind of inhumane treatment at the hands of an "enemy", because that would be nothing short of an indictement against "us", as such, that we are capable of and, ultimately, culpable in the horrific treatment of prisoners. Implying that, because, there is a percived and widely accepted viewpoint that the west is in the wrong concerning any type international involvement, we are the reason that hostile nations behave in a manner opposing our (populations) "humanitarian" goals.

Man, oh, man... I need to stop posting after the whiskey sets in. Any way you cut it, I didn't like what the featured article had to say, so, sorry if the post was long, rambling and made less sense than the conflict that was the impetus for the situation that led to the the eventual article itself... It'll all be better soon...

After I saw this post I went to read through some of the Age's archived articles on the subject. Did you know Wood "does not believe that he should repay Australian taxpayers for his rescue"? The nerve. The paper also made a point of letting us know that

"The 63-year-old, who was in Iraq for business purposes, also revealed he was tricked into his kidnappers' clutches while trying to land a lucrative new contract.

But Mr Wood dismissed suggestions he was turning his experience into a profit-making exercise."

"But"?! I can't comprehend the logic that makes that first sentence necessitate a "But" to begin the second.

from the btw:

http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/26/1119724523146.html?oneclick=true

A comma would've sufficed. But, then again, I've never understood the english language...

Every time I think that I've seen the looniest that the left has to offer, something like this comes along to leave me slack-jawed with amazement.
I give up. I don't even WANT to understand these douchebags anymore.