[CJFusco]

Um. I think Mr. Nason is unofrtunately missing the point. No, the point isn't even in the same area code as his conclusions. It doesn't read like Vonnegut is defending the actions of the terrorists, but rather he is taking a roundabout way of refuting the inevitable claim that terrorism is cowardly (the same refutation that got Bill Maher kicked off of ABC in a slow death of ratings). Vonnegut's claim is that any warrior that dies for his cause, no matter how wayward that cause may be, has died bravely.

I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Vonnegut and his writer-doctor son, Mark. This would have been about three or four years ago, I suppose - he was about to turn 80. His physical appearance was aesthetically similar to Mr. Nason's description, but the effect it gave was not, as Mr. Nason seems to think, a disheveled street person, but an eccentric-but-wizened old sage.

His personality reflected his appearance. He said very wise and very funny things, and contrary to seeming like he'd "gone around the bend," he seemed far wiser in his old age than he ever did in his middle age (see the collection "Interviews With Kurt Vonnegut"). But here's the thing: he was a grouchy old man. If someone disagreed with him, he became dismissant (think about Clarkson dismissing May and Hammond for their positive views on Porsche). This is just his personality: his views are strong, and, to him, very very right.