Identify the stupid.

There are two things I do not want to hear again (and New Republic writers, that goes to you too.) And, were I disciplined enough to stick to a plan, I would document on here each occassion these pet-peeves of phrases come across my computer screen. It so happens, Gregg Easterbrook in TNR dollops up an article providing gleaming examples of both now-condemed utterances.

1) X Hates America

Unless X is a sworn enemy (Hussein and Osama come to mind), spare us this inflamatory and grade school line. Hating America is living here for a year, meeting your neighbor, eating the barbeque, and awaiting paradise as you pilot a plane into a big building. Hating America is not releasing a documentary critical of an administration. Hating America is not disagreeing with federal policy. Hating America, even, is not disliking beloved national public figures. Hating America is wanting the destruction of the country dispite any policy, current administrations or favored celebrities. Disliking America is wanting to move somewhere else because the culture or policies so aggrivate. It seems neither hate nor dislike encourage political involvement or political dissent. Spare us, Mr. Easterbrrok of the "Michael Moore deeply, deeply hates the United States" lines.

Or, perhaps, share with us the definition of "hate" that attaches to Mr. Moore.

2) Fahrenheit 9/11 does well to remind us that U.S. forces have killed the innocent in Iraq; unlike the attackers on 9/11, it was not our intent to kill the innocent, but kill them we have, and to the dead it's all the same.

This also comes from Easterbrook's column. And I would consider it fair if in reference to the Afghan war or an attack on Osama's crew. It is stupid, dishonest and misleading, though, in the context used. It implies tit for tat, when there was no Iraqi tit for the 9/11 tat. Sadly, though, the same rhetoric finds its way into far too many talking points. Stop it.