In a rare case of me being with the winning team, the winner of THE VICIOUS INSTAPUNDIT BLOGROLL CONTEST at MaxSpeak has been announced, and the winner is: InstaPundit. Let us first ponder the utter depravity of the winning comment, made by a tenured law professor:
Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger.
You see, the American Indians were just “barbarians.” We didn’t want to slaughter them, but they were on land we wanted, so what choice did we have? Particularly amusing from someone who regularly assails others for lacking the appropriate moral clarity.
As a bonus, Max sums up the rhetorical strategies of Prof. InstaHack:
InstaPundit is a horse of a different color. His style is passive-aggressive, the way of the weasel. The attack is not direct and forthright, but delivered by innuendo, often through third parties. Criticism is more in sorrow than in anger. Plausible deniability shrouds his posts. If harm should befall the objects of his disapproval, it’s really too bad but really their fault. They should have known better or somehow rejected bad leaders.
The quote submitted in the contest typifies this logic: genocide is a misfortune, not a crime. A crime has perpetrators, but for the enemies of America to be victims of genocide, the criminals would be the West, or the U.S. But that cannot be. By definition, the U.S. is good and cannot commit crimes. All references to crimes committed by the U.S. Government bespeak hatred of America and alignment with the Enemy.