I also think that the liberal cantankerousness about it is not only because is it a BAD philosophy, it is also because Bush, and the people who support him, are too lazy minded (or perhaps too politically shrewd) to state this philosophy plainly and categorically. Nobody likes to do one's enemy's intellectual work for him.

But since, without it, we cannot rebut the charge of "intellectual snobbery", I'll take it on. The George W. Bush philosophy is as follows:

The rules of law and reason apply only to people who are not inherently evil.

"Terrorists" are inherently evil.

THEREFORE: We can do anything we please and need follow no rules whatever when we deal with "terrorists".

I use quotation marks around the word "terrorists" because you can insert ANY noun you don't like in there and the logic remains the same: enemy combatants, Islamofacists, baby-killers, marriage-destroyers, feminists, secular humanists, ect. ect. ect.

The moment you deny the rule of law and reason to any group of human beings, you have potentially denied it to any or all of them. THAT is why it is a bad philosophy.

We are under no illusion that there aren't many Americans who think this philosophy is just fine. There are many Americans who believe in all sorts of extraordinary things.

But we don't think its fine. We think it is a contemptable abandonment of basic American values. And that is the true souce of our rancor with George W. Bush.

And then, of course, there is the actual state in which for years of his arbitrary and capricious rule has left the country....

Look, if James had made the point that the ad was merely meant to remind everyone of the famous SNL bit, that would be one thing. But why the gender distinction? It is just a simple fact that qualifying something as "manly" is the same as saying "not womanly", at least from a logical perspective. And frankly, I've always felt that "wussy" was the PG way of saying a word that ascribes to a woman's sexual organ (pussy), especially so when I accused a dude of being one. I can't prove it, but I think its another gender distinction. I would be more receptive to the argument that gender distinctions based on stereotype are less important than most people think, but I think that, in this argument, they clearly exist.

I'm stunned that your thought processes.

While I'm sure that you don't mean that women are whiny and absent of honor and self reliance, your defense of the ad reads more like an endorsement of Matt's POV on the matter.

It shows that he's more secure in his fallibility than ... others I could name.

The original intent of the joke was to make fun of air-headed Austrian bodybuilders. The fact that Arnold's willing to use this term shows . . . . balls.

Exactly, much as the gay community co-opted the terms queer and dyke to reduce the effect of those words.

I don't deny that those are components of the term's etymology. I just don't think that's what's behind its current use. It was originally used on Saturday Night Live to make fun of Arnold and he's now turning it around as a joke. But to call someone an economic girlie man isn't to imply that they're tantamount to homosexuals.

The term is homophobic and/or misogynistic in the same sense that the use of the words "balls" or "cojones" to describe courage is.

If he's going to be snotty about high school dropouts he probably shouldn't rite like one.

Arnold's co-opting of the phrase *does* imply an endorsement of traditional masculine virtues.

Women might choose to be offended by the term, arguing that little girls have their own challenges growing up, and need to show perseverence, patience, and fortitude as much as little boys do. But they'd be wasting their time and thought on a joke. A joke.

And the term has *nothing* to do with homosexuality. Anyone who sees homosexuality in the phrase "girlie men" has a problem with homophobia himself.