If molesting children best served the interests of the American people

“If molesting children best served the interests of the American people, then it would neither be moral or immoral.”

Think that would be fair game?

In my initial post on Max Borders, I wrote that his standard operating procedure is to

(1) make assertions so outrageously stupid and/or vicious that they far surpass the worst caricatures of right-wingers;

(2) whine that those who either recoil in horror or laugh their asses off aren’t addressing his arguments.

Now that he has been so kind as to make my case for me (“If you read something you don’t agree with [or more likely, something you just don't understand]“), I’d like to note that the misunderstanding of Max Borders has now reached epidemic levels:

For the last time: I didn’t call for Borders to be fired, in part because I’m not such a grinch, and in part because the lousy advocate of bad policies is always preferable to the skilled one. I don’t think there’s anything improper, however, about letting an organization know that one disapproves of statements made in a public forum by its employees. I seem to recall a lot of grumbling about Dan Rather over the last several months, and Dan Rather never posted an essay on the web arguing that Bush should be defeated — why is it inappropriate to give IHS an earful about the arguments its program director makes on his weblog? This is not repeating a private conversation, or the details of Borders’ personal life. It’s commenting on his friggin’ blog, for Pete’s sake.