And then there’s this screechingly stupid Hitler analogy from a New Yorker writer:

“Probably there should be a rule against [journalists donating to campaigns],” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. “But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

Yowza. So, there should be a rule against it, unless the journalist in question really, really, cares and thinks it would make the world a better place, in much the same way as killing Hitler would have improved the world. This is a wellspring of asininity. Is Singer saying that giving $250 bucks to America Coming Together is an act of courage like killing Hitler? A moral imperative like killing Hitler? Or is he saying there should be a rule for journalists except when the journalist really disagrees?

Update: A reader asks:

Does this mean that Mark Singer endorses the doctrine of preemption? Or is Hitler the only historical
figure who it is morally acceptable to kill once mankind tracks down the “Guardian of Forever?”