A sniper killed Maj. Andrew Olmsted as he was trying to talk three suspected insurgents into surrendering, relatives confirmed Sunday.

A sniper's bullet also cut down Capt. Thomas J. Casey as he rushed to Olmsted's aid during the small arms firefight in Sadiyah, Iraq, on Thursday.

"They were pursuing some insurgents," Casey's brother, Jeffrey, said. "Major Olmsted got out of his vehicle and was pleading with these three individuals to stop and surrender so that the team would not have to fire upon them and kill them."

"Unfortunately, there were snipers in the area, and apparently that's when Major Olmsted was hit," Jeffrey Casey added. "He didn't want to kill these individuals. He was trying to save their lives."

After the gunfire erupted, Thomas Casey went to help Olmsted, thinking that the three suspected insurgents were responsible for the shooting, his brother said.

"That's when he took his bullet," Jeffrey Casey said. "The fact that a sniper round caught him in the neck . . . that's just one of those fluke one-in-a-million shots."

Army officers relayed a brief account of the gun battle after they informed Casey's father, John, that his son was dead. Olmsted's father, Wes, also confirmed the account.

The fact that Olmsted tried to talk rather than shoot first wasn't surprising, his father said.

"That's him," Wes Olmsted said. "As a warrior - as my wife would call him - he never really wanted to fire his weapon as his first option. Now, I kind of wish he did."

Olmsted, of Colorado Springs, had been writing a blog, "From the Front Lines," about his experiences in Iraq for the Rocky Mountain News.

He and Casey were part of a team that was responsible for training Iraqi police and military forces.

Olmsted, 38, and Casey, 32, were the first two U.S. casualties of 2008 in Iraq. A third soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Will Beaver, was wounded in the neck during the gun battle, Jeffrey Casey said.

Casey said he and his father were golfing in Albuquerque on Thursday when his father let out an anguished howl after listening to a voice-mail message on his cell phone informing him that three Army officers were waiting at his door.

In stunned disbelief, Jeffrey Casey e-mailed Olmsted, hoping against hope that the officers who had come to the family's door were somehow mistaken.

"If you get this and the information turns out to be false, please have Tom contact us as soon as possible," Casey wrote, unaware that by then Olmsted also was dead.

On Sunday, the younger brother said the Army's account made sense, based on what he knew about Olmsted through his blog and what he knew of his brother.

"Absolutely, from what I know about Major Olmsted, I firmly believe that's the way it went down - and from what I know about my brother, I absolutely know that was the way it went down."

"Tom was just a stand-up individual. He always had his family's back, and in this case, his family was his (Army) team."

Wes Olmsted said the unit in Iraq had a memorial service for the two fallen soldiers Sunday.

"They're going to send us a tape of it," he said. "That will be difficult to watch."

In the wake of the deaths, readers have posted more than 125 comments on Olmsted's Rocky blog, some from as far away as Australia and New Zealand.

One comment came from Capt. John K. Thompson, who served with Olmsted and Casey.

"They both displayed tremendous courage under fire," he wrote. "I am proud to have served with them. They will be greatly missed. We were all blessed to have known them. They will always be my brothers in arms."

Wes Olmsted said the outpouring of sympathy from around the country has been "incredible" and that he is proud that his son's life touched so many.

He said his son really enjoyed writing a blog for the Rocky and another one called "Obsidian Wings." He said comments from people who read them have helped the family through their grief, though they are still in a state of shock and sadness.

Services for Olmsted are pending. Services for Casey are scheduled for Friday in Albuquerque.

"I consider myself a warrior for Christ. Microsoft don't scare me. I got God with me.

"I told them that you need to work with me or we will put a firestorm on you like you have never seen in you life because I am your worst nightmare. I am a black man with a righteous cause with a whole host of powerful white people behind me."

Microsoft, he declares, will be just the first company targeted in an escalation of the culture wars between evangelicals and corporate America.

"There are 256 Fortune 500 companies alone pouring millions upon millions of dollars into pushing the homosexual agenda**."

1. "Rather than scold the players and let them absorb their due obloquy, they have decided to sanction them for their political speech. The sign did not explicitly violate any rule, apparently, but the club will suspend them for conduct unbecoming a member. In doing so, they have transformed these women from immature, sniveling examples of BDS sufferers into First Amendment martyrs." (You know, I remember when "Bush derangement syndrome" was used to mean "Someone who criticises Bush". It now seems to have morphed into "Someone who didn't vote for Bush and isn't afraid to say so". Wow. - The author of that particular gem, btw, also says that not voting for Bush means "partially disclaiming membership in US citizenry". Double wow.)

2. "These bridge players in Shanghai like it or not are representatives of America, first, and the bridge association second. Their trite little demonstration did nothing to enhance or even temper the perception of Americans for all who witnessed their little demonstration in Shanghai, and one can be assured that this was picked up by a wire service or two and will be played again and again overseas. Boorish behaviour. Makes all of us look a bit less in the eyes of many. As for the First Amendment issues raised...there are none. They were offshore, in a foreign country, and were representing not themselves but the United States, and an organization. A private organization. Any fallout that clings to them is of their doing. There are costs and consequences of 'free speech.'" (I was particularly amused by this one: the author really, truly seems to be deluded enough to think that people who aren't American will admire Americans who vote for Bush, and disrespect Americans who didn't.)

3. "People around the world are NOT clones of the left-wingers who run our MSM or teach on our campuses. Talking like the Dixie Chicks DOES demean your country. If you don't understand that, that's your loss."

3. "I must disagree. If the USBF is acting wrongly, they are under-reacting. If they do nothing, they leave their functions open to be used as platforms for whatever religious or political statement any player or coach might wish to make in the middle of play. T-shirts reading "Death to America" or "Behead the Infidel" would compete with pictures of Che, Marx and Mao. Certainly many players would have strong feelings about Israel, global warming, African debt, globalism, neo-cons, free trade, drugs, religion and fur."

4. "What on earth got into their heads to even try such a lame stunt?"

5. "I refuse to check the link out, to give them more of the notoriety they so craved. Can anybody tell me if all three women are Cindy Sheehan kind of old hags or Code Pink kind of clueless young-uns?"

6. "These women had every legal right to do this, and no legal right to avoid the consequences of having done so. They're just discovering that the position they assumed everyone held, probably because everyone they knew held it, is, in fact, offensive to a large number of people." (Not voting for Bush is "offensive to a large number of people"? Wow.)

7. "People afflicted with BDS seem to lose a sense of irony. The fact that they made their protest in country with China's human rights record shows that they little understanding of the world beyond the bridge table." (And, with jawdropping irony, 4. responds "You are correct, sir. And who on earth cared about who they voted for?" (er, 6. obviously cares: 6. thinks that people who don't vote for Bush are offensive.)

8. "The Bridge team, representing our country, while listening to the National Anthem of our country, held up a sign against our sitting President. Not only are they idiots, but they're behavior is appallingly seditious to freedom fighters every where in the world, including those currently locked up in Communist China prisons." ... "This is not a free speech issue. And it does not do us or our children any good to be weak on these issues. There are consequences in life if you take inappropriate actions. At least there use to be. But maybe we can all behave like liberals now. Say anything, do anything and be anything without any responsibilty. We can then look down upon the responsible with disdain like uber psuedo-intellectual elites. Oh gosh, you do make a big show about nothing. Burn the flag, tear our President down in a Communist country where millions of girls are murdered each year simply for being girls. Sure... why not, lets lift up the Communist nutjobs over our President and tell those fighting for freedom their fight is meaningless and so is our President." (Triple wow.)

9. "One more thing: these "women" feel they have the right to say whatever they want without criticism. Like other liberals, if you call them on it or criticize them you will be accosted with cries of "fascist". (One definition of fascism is a tyranny of the majority by a minority. Pretty much describes political correctness, doesn't it?)"

10. "No need to do more that print the ravings of the idiots. They shamed themselves, their families and their country. It will come back to bite them, hard." (omg! They didn't vote for Bush! They shamed themselves, their families, and their oountry, by not voting for Bush. How is this to come back to bite them, hard? ...)

( Open Letter from USBF Board of Directors )

( like Olympic events: the 2002 Utah Winter Olympics )

Why does Dumbledore have to be gay? And why, since it wasn't obvious from the books, did Rowling feel compelled to out the beloved Hogwarts headmaster now? Are sales waning?

Since invisibility would be a godsend to US forces, and since it's known that if you put a living black cat in boiling water until the flesh is boiled off its bones, one of those bones will, if held in a person's mouth, render that person invisible, it's only sensible to keep boiling black cats alive until there are enough of those bones to make it possible for any US battalion to become invisible.

“The one image that’s been causing a lot of discussion is one image that I shot of a man falling head-first from the building, before the buildings fell down. He was trapped in the fire, and decided to jump and take his own life, rather than being burned. I don't know. I have no idea and that has caused a lot of controversy among readers of newspapers that used the picture. There are two newspapers that have had their ombudsman write stories about the picture, explaining why they used the photograph. The Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Fort Worth Star Telegram. They received a lot of complaints, and that is only two I know about that were complaining about the picture. Our readers e-mailed and phoned, and complained that they didn't want to see this over their morning corn flakes. This was a very important part of the story. It wasn't just a building falling down, there were people involved in this. This is how it affected people's lives at that time, and I think that is why it’s an important picture. I didn't capture this person's death. I captured part of his life. This is what he decided to do, and I think I preserved that. A reporter from the Toronto Globe and Mail thinks he has traced down the family of this guy, and some people in his family don't want to believe that it is him. Other people, according to the article say it is him. Others won't even look at the picture in his family, and they are still handling their own grief about it, but that is what I like to say, I didn't capture his death, I captured part of his life. That has been very important to me.”

And while I would be the first to argue that most of the men looking to get it on in toilets and other public sex environments are discreet and don't bother anyone—and I argued just that on CNN last week—some are not discreet and some do bother people. (I also argued that most of the men getting it on in toilets are straight-identified, just like me and Senator Craig.) There were complaints about that particular bathroom at the Minneapolis airport, and the police did what the police are supposed to do when there are complaints—they responded. If straight men, like me and Senator Craig, had been fucking women in the toilets at the Minneapolis airport, the police would no doubt have responded to those complaints, too.

Dear Dan,

"the police would no doubt have responded to those complaints, too."

Oh, the hell they would.

If a woman is being signalled by a straight man that he wants to have sex with her, and she reports this to the police, the police reaction may be sympathetic, but they will not put an undercover policewoman
on duty to wait in the airport lounge, or wherever this happened, to arrest any straight man who signals that he wants to have sex with her.

(Otherwise, great column, as usual.)

There were two double-standards on display in that airport arrest, not just one. The homophobic double standard I think you've already picked up on. The sexist double-standard:

When straight men complain that men are annoying them by showing sexual interest, the police take that very seriously: undercover policemen are sent to wait for men making advances so that arrrests
can be made, etc.

When women complain that men are annoying them by showing sexual interest... that's just something women are expected to put up with. (The most common reaction from Nice Guys(TM) when a woman explains exactly what she had to say to convince a persistent man to go away and leave her alone? "Oh, you didn't need to be so MEAN. You could have turned him down NICELY.")

It's at root the same double-standard, of course: straight men feel entitled both to express sexual interest however they like, and to be shielded from any sexual interest they find annoying.