I am quite certain that Rudolph Giuliani does not love me. And I am more than okay with that. Matter of a fact, I prefer it this way. I don't have to try and explain his comments to my friends, who may not love me either, but appear to tolerate hanging out with me on occasion or are willing to accept my assistance with this or that task.

Yes, it does pay to know who your friends are. It eliminates the need to apologize for the behavior of that other guy--at least some of the time.

I am not so presumptuous to assume that any news editors read this blog. Nonetheless, I will propose that the term barbarian no longer be used in either noun or adjectival form in reference to those with whom we find ourselves in conflict. The term is currently being used to describe the actions of Muslim extremists and, at times, to label the extremists themselves. One could make a case for this current use of the term, since it has become more-or-less synonymous with cruel and savage. But the term is much more nuanced in its origins and historical usage. The following websites are very insightful, in my judgment, and give credence to my proposal.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/barbarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

I propose that one uses a term like heinous to describe or label the behavior which we find to be so grossly offensive and so diametrically opposed to the commonly accepted notions of human decency. Depraved or wicked or depravity or wickedness could serve as synonyms as adjectives and nouns respectively. Granted these terms do not have the same inflammatory quality as the term barbarian. We don't need to be inflammatory; we need to clearly and forthrightly state our disapproval and disgust. Our own actions must be clear evidence that we abhor such behavior on the part of either foe or friend.