Fuckit

can't sleep, shorters.

Ask the blogger:

When I say that war crimes are an inevitable byproduct of war, am I trying to excuse the Bush Administration?

No. The point is that when you choose war, you choose war crimes--and that this is true regardless of why you are choosing the war.

So, Megan, you chose to support war crimes. Well done.

The hidden benefit of veganism:

Last night, at Matt Yglesias's book party, I was chatting to a couple of friends about my recent conversion to an animal-free lifestyle. The one thing I didn't expect was that it actually reduced the amount of time I spend thinking about food. This surprised the hell out of them, and it also surprised the hell out of me, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

If I were going to write a parody post in Megan's voice, I would begin it with precisely these words.

Fundamental attribution error:

Another mistake I think people make when they discuss police brutality, or war crimes, is to attribute them to some characteristic of the population that joins the military or becomes a police officer. One of my commenters says:

I think a lot of folks who join the military (not to mention police officers and prison guards) have authoritarian or sadistic tendencies which in turn increase the probability of war crimes being committed, especially given the stress of being under fire, in a strange land, among hostile locals.

What would you expect from people who sign up for a job where you maim and kill people you don't even know, just because someone else told you to do it?

(sorry if I offend anyone; I know a few of you just signed up for the tuition support or needed the money and got more than you bargained for)

Maybe this is so, but I'm skeptical. I've known a lot of quasi-pacifists with aggressive, domineering personalities and a startling lack of empathy. Give them slightly different political beliefs and an M-16, and I sure wouldn't turn my back on them.

Sorry for the extended quote, but I wanted to make it clear I'm not being unfair when I say this is the stupidest thing Megan has written since at least Thursday.
Positions that obviously attract sadists mean hippies want to beat you up. That's her line of reasoning, folks.

Fight the conventional wisdom:

I'm going to join Ross in defending the debate. Not because I think that the questions were useful; I think they were vacuous nonsense. But I really wonder if any of it matters.
...
[The candidates are] just saying whatever they think will make us like them, so why bother with it? Look at their voting record and call it a day.

Dear Megan, it's too late for me to bother Googling for you, but Obama and Hillary have damn near identical voting records in the Senate, as everyone but you knows. That's the whole fucking justification for the petty bullshit that dominated the debate. Have an intern put together some info for you on it, eh?

Why aren't the superdelegates committing?:

As Matt points out, they undoubtedly already know which way they're going to go, so why are they subjecting us all to this painful ordeal?

Working theories:

1) They are afraid of retaliation by a vengeful Senator Clinton

2) They are afraid that she will somehow get the nomination, and retaliate from the Oval Office

3) They need the Clintons to fundraise for the general

4) No one wants to be the guy who put the last nail in the Clinton campaign's coffin.

Or they're still trying to milk influence and promises out of the candidates, and are media darlings so long as they don't commit, which means these powerful politicians have extra chances to get in front of a camera. Or they're positioning themselves as wise elders who can broker a compromise. Or they don't want to alienate either candidate or their supporters and are waiting for a clear winner's bandwagon to jump on. Puzzling, innit? Must be cuz Hillary's a beeee-yotch.

Just cuz I'm busy don't mean you get a pass, Megan.