It sounds like far too heavy sarcasm to me, not a new variant on Bush Derangement syndrome.
Arnold | 02.27.07 - 6:39 pm | #

Have you accepted Bush as your personal Hitler?
Erik Keilholtz | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 6:46 pm | #

Mark - I think the person in question was trying (much too hard) to be sarcastic.

Erik - ha!
ShortRound | 02.27.07 - 6:53 pm | #

Translation from Mark: I don't know what "sarcasm" means.
Sydney Carton | 02.27.07 - 7:46 pm | #

I think Mark clearly understood that the quoted person was being sarcastic. Otherwise why catalog BDS² as a disease of the Right? I think you all have failed to recognize Mark's sarcasm.
Publius | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 8:39 pm | #

To make things clearer:

BDS: A mental disorder causes "mere mention of Bush's name. . . sufficient to make lefties fill the air with dire predictions of Martial Law, Enabling Acts, concentration camps and cries of Hitler Redivivus"

BDS²: A mental disorder that causes non-insane criticisms, such as calling out "GOP politicos for their failure to provide for the welfare the wounded soldiers they profess to care about," to impel righties to sarcastically imitate lefties suffering from BDS.
Publius | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 8:44 pm | #

BDS: A mental disorder causes "mere mention of Bush's name. . .

Okay, let me rewrite that:

BDS: A mental disorder that makes "mere mention of Bush's name. . .
Publius | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 8:48 pm | #

Though, I should say, that I'm not sure the commenter quoted has BDS². Mark's comments in that post about the GOP using soldiers as "human shields" was very arguably at least in the BDS Neutral Zone (BDSNZ for short), which means that the commenters sarcasm was not totally unjustified. Let's just put Mark's post in the BDSNZ and the commenters comment in the BDS²NZ (BDSNZ²?)and leave it at that.
Publius | Homepage | 02.27.07 - 8:54 pm | #

A couple of things:

First of all, everybody who wants to blame Bush for our being in Iraq should use a search engine with the following...

1998 Iraq Clinton

...then get back to me.

Furthermore, this nation has a history of inept care for its war veterans. Remember reading about the Hoovervilles in DC in the 1920s? You know who broke up the protesting vets demanding payment? General MacArthur. Then the WW2 vets ran into some of the same red tape problems. And no one old enough has to ask about how Vietnam vets were treated. We tend to invest much more in fighting wars than in cleaning up afterwards.
David L Alexander | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 8:27 am | #

David, it looks to me like the BDS2 infection causes victims to react to phenomena like administrative cogs acting like administrative cogs everywhere and of all ideologies to break into rants about those dreadful "righties" who are "using our soldiers as human shields"... and apparently also brings on aggravation of sarcasm impairment.
Will | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 1:01 pm | #

You know the 'sarcasm' that Mark was referring to sounded simply stupid and nasty. Sarcasm should be funny and have a touch of irony to work. What Mark quoted was a rant of a goofball, similar to the rantings of a say Rush or Sean Hannity.

(in other words, not very funny)

pax
Dale | 02.28.07 - 5:51 pm | #

I don't remember where but a long time ago I read that "sarcasm is irony's lowly cousin." I think that's exactly right. Of course there is a whole spectrum, groing from gentle irony to crude sarcasm and plenty in between. When irony is done well, even the target often appreciates it and this increases the chances of true dialogue. Sarcasm, however, by definition is meant to hurt the target. If sarcasm is successful, it draws emotional blood and, just like in pagan Rome, circus spectators go wild. Not a pretty sight. Mark Shea, in my opinion, is usually in the side of angels, but his main weakness is his enjoyment of using sarcasm as a weapon--it makes him much less persuasive.
Phil | 03.01.07 - 12:06 pm | #