PeterDavid.net

So what it comes down to is this: Bush won't compromise, and I doubt the Democrats will be able to muster the votes to override a veto. Which means that the Pentagon will have to fight the war as best they can.

A Doonesbury this week commented that with no money, the troops simply get shipped back home. If that's the case, then I don't think the democrats even have to worry about overriding the veto.

"A Doonesbury this week commented that with no money, the troops simply get shipped back home. If that's the case, then I don't think the democrats even have to worry about overriding the veto."

Nope. Not true. For starters, the Pentagon could scrape together another $7.5 billion from other programs to keep it going. Bush is already playing to that, stating in a recent press conference, that the Democrats will force "increasingly draconian measures" and "some of our military families could wait long for their loved ones to return from the front lines." What he's implying is that the first thing to be cut would be money spent on recruitment and training, leaving the army no recourse but to keep the troops who are already on site there indefinitely since there's no one to relieve them.

In other words, Bush is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers while excoriating the Dems for allegedly doing the same thing.

PAD

I don't think I'm disagreeing with what your point -- that Bush personally only loses and gains nothing by compromising, and that will dictate his actions -- but if the $7.5B is the neighborhood of what the pentagon scrapes together, then we're talking weeks, not months. My point is I hope the democrats hold fast on this. It isn't their fault Bush counted on a continued republican congress to continue to fund the war with supplimental spending-bills.

Of course, Chuck Hagel won't be handicapped too much by a continued GOP decline, if at all.

Actually, the best thing the Democrats could do is when Bush vetoes this bill, they could give him money for 3 months & continue with short-term bills. Then every three months, he has to keep coming back and asking for more money. Again, they pass bills with timetables which are vetoed, then pass short term bills, and the issue keeps getting put in the news & in front of the voters. That way the troops get their money, the Democrats look to be trying to bring them home which a majority of the voters support, the Republicans keep having to make hard votes, and Bush continues to look like an ass.

Then fox news will just turn around and call the democrats politically-motivated and ineffectual.

"That way the troops get their money, the Democrats look to be trying to bring them home which a majority of the voters support, the Republicans keep having to make hard votes, and Bush continues to look like an ass."

Except every three months Bush keeps getting to say the exact same sound byte: "The Democrats are playing politics with the lives of our troops." Short. Punchy. Pithy. A talking point to be repeated by Condy Rice and every other Bush talking head, and it's the sort of thing that takes root. History shows that if something is repeated often enough, the repetition itself is what people remember, rather than its accuracy.

PAD

Doesn't matter Faux News will continue calling everyone names if they don't agree with their stance.

Actually the Bush doesn't need an attack on American soil, I have long feared since the rhetoric started up on Iran sooner or later there would be an "incident" justifying sending the troops in. With funding cut the chances of that double or quadruple.

The Dems need to cut funding and they need to take control of the message, any troop deaths after funding is cut is the direct result of the white house who refuses to bring them home.

Then fox news will just turn around and call the democrats politically-motivated and ineffectual.

Well, yes they would say that...but Faux News will always say that regardless of the underlying reality. If the Democratic Party somehow managed to end poverty (worldwide), end drug addiction, create cold fusion, and develop an inexpensive immortality serum...Fox News would say that their making it hard for people to get jobs because the immortals aren't retiring.

And Bush is criticizing Pelosi's visit to Syria, saying "Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive".

Here's a guy who refused to use diplomacy with Iraq, then says we have to use diplomacy with North Korea and Iran, and is again saying diplomacy, this time with Syria, won't work.

Is the term "flip-flopper" still about?

Oh, no, it's not that: it's just another case of 'If Bush does it, it's ok. If a Dem does it, it's bad.'

Which just about sums up the Bush Administration as a whole.

As for the war, Bush expects to keep being handed blank checks, both for American money, and American lives. It has to end. Only, Bush is too thick to realize that.

If it was a "mandade of the people", then the House of Representatives would have been able to present a bill that wasn't filled with all kinds of pork ammendments. You know, the same ammendments that Democrats bitched about for the previous 6 years? The Democrat leadership couldn't even get it's own members to vote for the bill without filling it with bribes. Some mandate there.

Just a thought here... The House should try to pass a bill that gives the money needed for the troops, but still puts in it's deadline to leave Iraq. Simple. If it passes the House and Senate, then it's in Bush's hands. That's how the system works.

>Oh, no, it's not that: it's just another case of 'If Bush does it, it's ok. If a Dem does it, it's bad.' Which just about sums up the Bush Administration as a whole.

Craig - Not that I'm a Shrub fan, but let's be fair here. That represents the mantra of most political parties who will be ardently opposed to some initiative of the ruling party, only to find some excuse why "it wasn't as bad as we thought" or "but WE'RE doing it for THIS reason instead" once they're in charge. Hypocrisy, thy name is "politician".

Hypocrisy, thy name is "politician".

This is true, but I can't recall a previous administration using the mantra to the degree that the Bush Administration has.

This Administration has all but accused it's opponents of supporting terrorists and so forth if they don't kowtow to Bush's every whim.

PAD is absolutely right on this.

Anything bad that happens while the Republicans fail to have dictatorial control of all branches of government will be the fault of those lily livered Democrat terrorist sympathizers (but we're "not questioning their patriotism, just their judgement").

Bush is strapped in to Iraq til the end of his term come hell or high water.

Bush? Compromise?

Don't make me laugh!

That way the troops get their money, the Democrats look to be trying to bring them home which a majority of the voters support, the Republicans keep having to make hard votes, and Bush continues to look like an ass.

Then fox news will just turn around and call the democrats politically-motivated and ineffectual.

Doesn't matter Faux News will continue calling everyone names if they don't agree with their stance.

Well, yes they would say that...but Faux News will always say that regardless of the underlying reality.

If you make what fox says true, how much harder then is it to disregard what they say?

The only message the Dems have to put forth is:

If Bush vetoes the bill, he is denying funding to the troops.

That's the only message they have to hammer home. People are already sick of this war and want the troops to come home.

PAD: Every casualty that occurs from that point on will be painted as being the Dem's fault

I don't follow that. I don't doubt that it's what the Reps would say, but then they'd say antything thta goes wrong is the Dem's fault regardless of what it is that goes wrong.

But the Dems tried to pass a bill that would help end the war. Bush refused to sign anything that doesn't authorize the money without any conditions. Seems to me the Dems are in the much better position to paint every casualty that occurs from that point on will as being the Rep's fault.

Jeff: If it was a "mandade of the people", then the House of Representatives would have been able to present a bill that wasn't filled with all kinds of pork ammendments. You know, the same ammendments that Democrats bitched about for the previous 6 years?

I reluctantly concede you have a point. The GOP wasn't blown out in the last election, yes. If they had been, these bills would be veto-proof and nobody would have needed to be bribed with pork to get on board.

What I'm wondering is this: if all that matters to the Republicans is getting one of their people elected to the Presidency in '08, why take this approach? Why not show, a la John Edwards, that they've had a moment of clarity and have seen that they were wrong to back the war in the first place? Then they could say to Bush "if you sign this bill and help end this war, then it will HELP keep the executive branch instead of hurting our chances. So for God's sake, don't take this stand for our sakes! The best way we can win the voters over right now is to be big enough to admit we were wrong."

I won't put what PAD has written past Bush, but I'm more inclined to believe that he isn't compromising because he's just that stubborn and thinks if he holds his breath long enough and keeps on accusing Dems of not supporting the troops, he'll get his way.

I mean, my God, he won't compromise on having his people testify under oath either and they still sent him a proposal where they wouldn't have to be sworn in but would still have to testify on the record. Why did they make that offer when they have subpoena power and can compel these people to testify even if Bush refuses?

I think Dubya believes he can win any game of chicken he gets into. The troubling thing is that, considering the opposition and their track record, he may be right.

And Bush is criticizing Pelosi's visit to Syria, saying "Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive".

And yet, not a peep came out of the White House when the republicans in Congress sent an all-GOP delegation to . . . wait for it . . .

Syria!!!!!

Yes, delegations, even bipartisan ones like the one Pelosi is leading, are only counterproductive when a democrat leads them.

I don't follow that. I don't doubt that it's what the Reps would say, but then they'd say antything thta goes wrong is the Dem's fault regardless of what it is that goes wrong.

This is the administration that has painted every one of their screwups as being Clinton's fault.

The only question is, will the public buy. It's clear from every single poll and the 2006 election results that the American people are sick of this mess and want out. But Bush is the Decider, right? And he's decided that he's going to run out the clock and let his successor deal with the mess he's created. Unfortunately, unless we can get at least 16 GOP senators off the Kool-Aid, we're aren't going to be able get rid of the Decider until 2009.

I reluctantly concede you have a point. The GOP wasn't blown out in the last election, yes. If they had been, these bills would be veto-proof and nobody would have needed to be bribed with pork to get on board.

It's very rare for either party to ever get a veto-proof majority in both houses. That's nearly impossible. There are always going to be a certain percentage of people of people who will always vote for their party even if their candidate was caught feasting on the heart of a virgin. With gerrymandering and the fact that some parties will always dominate certain states, geting 67% control of both houses is nearly impossible. Though this administration seems determined to find out just how unpopular they can make republicans.

I think it's horrible (but not surprising) that the troop funding bill was laden with pork in order to ensure its passage, but that's how the game is and always will be played in Washington (bridge to nowhere anyone?).

Will Bush compromise? What makes anyone think he'd start now?

It could work out well for the Dems:

Dems: Sign or Veto.
W: Veto!
Dems: [tries again]
W: Veto!
Dems: [tries again]
W: Veto!
Dems: Rats. Not enough Republicans support the measure to overturn the veto. I guess we'll have to pass a withdrawal-free budget.
W: Hee-hee-hee!
Dems: Hey, America! We want to bring the troops home but the Republicans in Congress prefer that they stay in Iraq to die. Vote them out of office. [repeat as necessary]
Reps: Shit.

Hmmm. Frankly, I do not think that Bush's strategy is based on trying to maintain the Presidency for the GOP. I believe that Shrub is fighting a battle for his place in history. If he agrees to withdraw the troops, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. Listen, there is a small, very small chance that keeping the troops in Iraq will work. Shrub is willing to take the chance. Who cares how many more troops are harmed or killed? Not Shrub when his legacy is at stake.

What I'm wondering is this: if all that matters to the Republicans is getting one of their people elected to the Presidency in '08, why take this approach? Why not show, a la John Edwards, that they've had a moment of clarity and have seen that they were wrong to back the war in the first place? Then they could say to Bush "if you sign this bill and help end this war, then it will HELP keep the executive branch instead of hurting our chances. So for God's sake, don't take this stand for our sakes! The best way we can win the voters over right now is to be big enough to admit we were wrong."

You've already got a republican senator taking that position named Chuck Hagel -- and the republican establishment does not like him.

Where democratic nominees tend to do badly the december before the primaries, republican nominees tend to be the frontrunners going into the primaries, and -- new Hampshire upset or no -- John McCain learned the hard way in 2000 the republican nomination will not go to someone the republican establishment will not tolerate. Karl Rove's support still seems to be the single most important factor as to who represents the party in 2008.

Peter David: People think that Bush is concerned about his place in history, but I think of more immediate worry to him is the GOP place in the White House, the only branch that they still control.
Luigi Novi: Don’t they still control the Supreme Court?

Peter David: They managed to convince the majority of the public that Saddam was behind 9/11, didn't they?
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but was the quality of the evidence they provided for that as well known prior to the war as it was after it began? (I can’t recall clearly). Things like that, and Colin Powell going before the U.N., lent a certain amount of credence to that. Bush doesn’t have that anymore. What he does have is condemnation from various generals that were in the field (which forced Rumsfeld’s resignation), as well as from fellow Republicans. Bush doesn’t have the same political resources now that he had back then.

Peter David: History shows that if something is repeated often enough, the repetition itself is what people remember, rather than its accuracy.
Luigi Novi: I dunno. Sometimes it is. The “Just say no” anti-drug slogan was certainly repeated, but not because people accepted it. They lampooned it, partially because many felt it unrealistic.

That way the troops get their money, the Democrats look to be trying to bring them home which a majority of the voters support, the Republicans keep having to make hard votes, and Bush continues to look like an ass.

Now that I think further, the democrats holding their guns on the timetable also gives Bush an excuse to bring home the troops immediately, blame the collapse of Iraq on the democrats, and minimize the issue of the invasion come election-time. Todd's idea is the more foolproof way for the democrats to keep the issue alive 19 months from now.

Personally, the whole thing reads like a Warner Bros. cartoon

"IRAN SEASON"
"SYRIA SEASON"
"IRAN SEASON"
"IRAN SEASON--FIRE"

Guess who plays Elmer Fudd?

Have you considered sending this as an op-ed piece to The New York Times? It's perfect!

I agree that the Dems hurt themselves by allowing pork into the funding/withdrawal bill. Totally unnecessary. But I guess, since it's so early in their term that they're a bit eager to spend again. (Make no mistake, both parties are big spenders; they differ only in that the GOP pretends they're not.)

This is why I never joined the Democrats. They don't know how to go for the jugular. A clean bill that offered funds but set a withdrawal date would have given the GOP far less ammo against it. And the Dems could say the bill does BOTH of what they promised: to support the troops and to end the war.

Today Bush used a recess appointment for Sam Fox (Swift Boat financier) as Ambassador to Belgium. Even though he was rejected by the Senate last week. Now that's compromise.

Reminds me of the line from the new David Spade show;

"My wife wanted a cat, I didn't want a cat. So we compromised, we got a cat."

Luigi Novi: Don’t they still control the Supreme Court?

They've been showing a distressing streak of nonpartisan rulings.

It seems that Obama doesn't know how this game is played.

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops,” Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday

You don't make a stand by telling the other person that they'll get whatever they want in the end.

A Doonesbury this week commented that with no money, the troops simply get shipped back home. If that's the case, then I don't think the democrats even have to worry about overriding the veto.

That's the point. One Democrat got caught on tape saying exactly that - they think this is a win-win. If Bush signs, they get the troops home, if he doesn't they run out of money and the troops STILL come home. However, they don't have to actually pull the trigger on de-funding them.

Not particularly a fan of Obama, but he certainly issued some good news this week: came in a close second to Hillary in Q1 fundraising, but since his donations came from twice as many people, it's assumed more of Hillary's donors paid their primary/general campaign donation limits, and if the trend continues not all of the money Hillary raises will match Obama in primary-spending.

Scavenger -
They've been showing a distressing streak of nonpartisan rulings.

Which is to be expected - it's been shown historically that once you make it on the SCOTUS, you're going to exercise the freedom that belongs to the job.

That is, until some moron succeeds in using the threat of impeachment to get a SC Justice removed.

Michael Brunner -
It seems that Obama doesn't know how this game is played.

Which means Bush wins yet another game of chicken with Congress.

GREAT week for Obama, great week for Romney, bad one for McCain, thumbs in the middle for Hillary. She's still way ahead in the polls and one can reasonably expect her money will be wisely spent while Obama may have the sort of money burn rate that bedeviled Dean.

It all comes down to what Team Clinton does--bring out the long knives for Obama or just take him out in a way that still leaves him as a viable ally, maybe even VP candidate (though I think her caution and desire for loyalty will make that unlikely).

Smart money is still on Hillary.

J. Alexander said:
"If he agrees to withdraw the troops, he will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history."
-----
Either way, he is the worst president ever.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at April 4, 2007 08:39 PM
"Scavenger -
They've been showing a distressing streak of nonpartisan rulings.

Which is to be expected - it's been shown historically that once you make it on the SCOTUS, you're going to exercise the freedom that belongs to the job"

I'm sure that the SC ruling carbon dioxide to be a pollutant sent a shiver through his enviromentally friendly heart ;p.

Like it or leave it, Bush will probably not be remembered well in the future. A historian (can't recall the name) opined that accurate appraisals of presidential terms begin fifty years after they end. I guess most of us here will never know, but I'm betting we're providing ammo for the worst in history tag.

It's very safe to say Bush will be remembered as the worst president ever. He got us mired in the new Vietnam under nothing but false presenses. He has shown absolute contempt for the checks and balances of government (signing statements), for the privacy of its citizens (warrantless wiretapping), for the rule of law (enemy combatants), and for international law (ignoring the Geneva Conventions). He even outrages many conservatives with his massive spending and intrusions into the private lives of U.S. citizens. His election in 2000 remains controversial, and his military service has yet to be proven.

I'm usually the first one to say that Bush and pretty much everyone else in DC and politics in general is currently pretty rotten. I don't know that I'd say that he'll be remembered as the Worst Ever. I'm not saying he's a good president, but who knows what might either happen or be revealed in the time he's got left in office? Although, having the leader of the country that has a better understanding of the native language might be nice.

Wiki has a ratings system for presidents. Currently, Warren G. Harding holds the, er, honor of being the worst. Harrison's rated ninth, but how bad a job can you do in a month when you're sick most of that time?

Fifty years from now the sons and daughters of the maimed and killed of this failed war will remember the man that forever changed the life of their mom and dad. I had an uncle I never knew because of Veitnam, suppose to have his temper and other characteristics. I watched how his death affected my parents.

Bush will not be remembered kindly, nor any of his loyal bushies. Fifty years will also see the probable releasing of the documents and memoirs that will tell us just how far this administration went in shredding the Constitution and the ideals America was founded upon. Never a perfect country, but the ideals rested upon the best of intentions, which is why we have strived to be better, until recently.

I still have not counted Edwards out.

I do like listening to Pelosi respond to the White House and Bush. It sounds like she is putting them in time out. What is distressing is how Bush is trying to say Dems are stopping funding when they lead passage of a spending bill giving him more than the money he asked for. The pork, yes it has some, but money that should already have gone to aid in the recovery from Katrina was also in there.

I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that Bush will be remembered as the worst president ever. He differently will not be remembered as a great one or even a good. I'm betting he'll be in the bottom ten at minimum. I know he's banking on being remembered as another Harry Truman, who left office with dismal approval ratings but is regarded much more kindly by history. I think that's major wishful thinking on his part.

I definitely agree with PAD, but I also think part of it is that Bush has to appear "strong" to the 30% of people that constitutes his base. If that support evaporates, he's finished.

So, even though the rest of the country might want to get out of Iraq, he's pleasing his base by appearing tough to Democrats. It keeps him in power by ensuring that he has enough support to override any veto.

"Seems to me the Dems are in the much better position to paint every casualty that occurs from that point on will as being the Rep's fault."

You'd think that, wouldn't you. But in this case, I'm simply acknowledging the frightening, almost Borg-like precision with which the Bush Machine is capable of spinning talking points and sound bytes in their favor. Much moreso than the Democrats. The "Daily Show" nails this every so often when they show a half a dozen Bushies hitting all the news programs parroting the exact same phrasing. You never see the Democrats pulling off anything approaching that kind of organization. Then again, what's the line attributed to (I think) Will Rogers: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

PAD

"Dems: Sign or Veto.
W: Veto!"

Okay, am I the only one flashing on Eddie Izzard?

"Cake or sign!"
W: Cake!
"Damn. He always takes the cake."

PAD

The 30% approval rating for the war in Iraq does raise an interesting philosophical point. Bush is an elected official (we'll just assume that the election was legitimate for the purposes of this discussion). While the 2006 election results can only be interpreted as a strong repudiation of his policies, is he obligated to change course just beause a majority of Americans no longer support it or should he just maintain a policy he believes in so long as he has the powers of the commander-in-chief.

You can look at this as a philosophical/moral question: As a servant of the people, Bush should be responsive to our wishes. On the other hand, his responsibility is to protect us from any external threats. So, if he truly believes that that Iraqi invasion is protesting us from such a threat, should he continue to fight that threat even if the public isn't buying it? What if the threat exists only in his mind? I'm not saying he's delusional, just factually challenged. So, what recourse do we have to force him other than try impeachment.

On the other hand, you can look at the political equation. The democrats in Congress are strongly opposed to an open-ended war. As public confidence continues to erode, many republicans, mindful that, unlike Bush, they still have to face the voters eventually, are starting to call for some kind of benchmarks or timetable for withdrawal. Can Bush effectively govern if he has no support in Congress. Granted, again, he believes he doesn't need support in Congress and will likely do whatever he wants unless Congress votes to stop paying the utility bills on the White House, but we may see soon see what happens when a president's congressional supports can fit inside a small conference room.

Den, you make several good points. However, I think you may have missed the psychological dimension.

Compromise requires not only political calculation, it also requires an acceptance that your side may be wrong. I don't think George is capable of that admission.

He will admit when others make mistakes. He will deflect any responsiblity onto subordinates through intermediaries like Karl Rove. He will stay the course, but he WILL NOT admit he may be wrong.

I think this may stem from his faith. (Please hear me out). Bush has the faith of the converted, specifically those converted by circumstance. He believes his acceptance of Jesus as his saviour saved his life. He must bring others into the fold.

He has brought that same idea to office. He must save America from the heathens. Jesus saved him for this mission, God made sure he got elected (?) twice (??) for this Holy Mission. To doubt would be to doubt Jesus, God, his faith, and every decision he has made based on those ideals.

George's christianity is the unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising faith of the crusader or the inquisitor. "Because God ordained me to this task, everything I do is inspired by Him. Ergo, any who try to deter me are against God, ergo compromise is against God. QED."

Political calculation are the purviews of Rove and Cheney. Bush looks into Putins eyes and sees into his soul. And we all know how accurate THAT'S turning out to be.

His 30% base are either the hyper wealthy who are protected by tax cuts, or his co-adherants who would like to see America turned into a christian theocracy without compromise.

Den, it's funny. Just this morning I was thinking of a story that someone I work with told me. They were shooting off fireworks, a policewoman shows up, they blamed it on some kids that ran off, and the policewoman's about to call it in. So, my co-worker's buddy tells her to be careful, does she REALLY want to do that? And apparently the policewoman then drove off. Now, taking that story as true,(I only half believe it) apparently this guy was counting on his connections to keep him out of trouble. So, even though there was a clear violation of law, nothing happened because of who this guy is. More than ever, there seems to be a "Well, the laws and common sense don't apply to ME" attitude coming out of DC. Question is, is there anything that can be done about it?

"Can Bush effectively govern if he has no support in Congress."
Well, he showed pretty clearly that he couldn't effectively govern with the FULL support of Congress....

Alan Coil: "Either way, he is the worst president ever."

It's nice that you are so optimistic, but I think what you meant was more along the lines of "The worst president SO FAR."

Manny and Sean, I think that's one of Bush's key problems. He's already made it clear that he believes that Congress is not a co-equal branch of government and that he can govern w/o any support. I'm hesitant to attribute it to his religious views. I don't think he has capable of admitting to mistakes when he was a drunken fratboy either. I think it's just something hardwired into his "I'm rich and therefore entitled" mentality.

Besides, I still question how of his conversion was sincere and how much of it is just political expediency.

So, after Pelosi was criticized by Bush for visiting Syria, Republican Representative Darrell Issa is meeting with Assad today.

Will there be any outrage from Bush? Or just further hypocrisy on his part?

George's christianity is the unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising faith of the crusader or the inquisitor.

Bush switched from Episcopal to Methodist, following his wife's lead into a bigger tent. That doesn't sound unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising to me. His religion is as much of a pose as anything else by him.

Fifty years from now the sons and daughters of the maimed and killed of this failed war will remember the man that forever changed the life of their mom and dad.

This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don't they?)

"This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don't they?)"

If he hadn't been assassinated, they just might have. But he was, so they don't.

I'm serious. Once, just out of curiosity, I dug up some newspaper editorials that ran the day before, and the day after, JFK's death. The ones before were scathing of the man, criticial of his opinions, of his foreign policy, of his actions. As soon as he died, the same newspapers did a 180, extolled his virtues, and cried of how America had been robbed of a great man with limitless potential for good.

No, I'm not saying that Bush should keep his fingers crossed that someone shoots him. I'm saying that being seen as a martyr cleans a lot of slates.

PAD

It's also a big reason why Johnson isn't well-regarded either.

Manny: I think this may stem from his faith. (Please hear me out). Bush has the faith of the converted, specifically those converted by circumstance. He believes his acceptance of Jesus as his saviour saved his life. He must bring others into the fold.

Converted? Perverted is probably closer to the mark. I have yet to see a single action out of Bush that actually comes close to a true Christian ideal, or doesn't at least break a commandment. Religious zeal is a great smokescreen for more devious behavior - e.g. Jim Jones, Jim Baker, and the various parade of upstanding omnidenominational religious "leaders" that cross the headlines at least monthly. It's not fair to put 100% of the blame on Bush (ugh! Did I say that?) but 51% of the blame lies fully with the spineless slugs in Congress who do not have the ***ls to stand up and support the constitution as it (was) written, and tell Bush exactly where he belongs.

Alan Coil: "Either way, he is the worst president ever."

It's nice that you are so optimistic, but I think what you meant was more along the lines of "The worst president SO FAR."

I dunno. One of the few useful things Bush has done is provide a Platonic ideal example of who you do not want as President. I suspect it will be a minimum of two generations before people start forgetting that object lesson.

Posted by Mike at April 5, 2007 02:23 PM
.
"Bush switched from Episcopal to Methodist, following his wife's lead into a bigger tent. That doesn't sound unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising to me. His religion is as much of a pose as anything else by him."

The difference is he took the switch seriously. What kind of an Episcopalian he was, I dunno. As a Methodist, I stand by my statement. He credits Jesus for everything good in his life.

My experience is that most born again Christians, or for that matter new converts to any spiritual path, tend to be uncompromising in their belief that they are right, everyone else is wrong, misguided and/or a servant of evil. Bush has merely managed to turn this into a part of national policy.

Bush I was a man of faith. He was also willing to compromise, aswell as being a president who built alliances based on mutual goals and interests. Junior builds alliances based on absolutes of black and white, "you're either with us or against us" ultimatums.

Most religions make very little room for complex issues. Everything pretty much boils down to good/evil, us/them, God/Satan dichotomies. George's absolute acceptance of conservative christian ideals spills into acceptance of those dichotomies when dealing with issues to complex for them.

Bush won't compromise because, as I syted previously, he has said that he believes God put him in the Oval Office at this point in time for a reason. That reason is the war on terror. To compromise at all on the war on terror is to fail to do God's will.

His zealotry merely amplifies his rich frat boy belief that he should never pay. Now God gives him permission to never pay. Because God apparently is a registered voter in Florida.

Am I the only one who finds a pro-life pro death penalty president makes my eyes spin?

Am I the only one who finds a pro-life pro death penalty president makes my eyes spin?

I don't know, but when have we had a President who was not pro-death penalty? I personally can't remember a single president in my lifetime who spoke out against the death penalty. I have my doubts that any (wo)man could be elected today if (s)he did speak out against it.

Posted by R.J. Carter

Fifty years from now the sons and daughters of the maimed and killed of this failed war will remember the man that forever changed the life of their mom and dad.

This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don't they?)

No, it partly explains why so many people tink ill of LBJ, RMN and Kissinger.

While I see Bush's policies as consistant with the principle of expanding the domination of the privileged, I fail to see how his policy to bankrupt medicare, harvest middle-class savings, and place the burden of the Iraq occupation on 150,000 US households can be framed as particularly Christian or religious.

I think Bush just figured it was a no-brainer to make himself a hero by giving the Iraqi's democracy, like restoring vision to a nation of blind-people -- not figuring the Iraqis would find the change in their identities oppressive and reject his gift, and the invasion killing hundreds of thousands of people for nothing.

Bush, like many political leaders who are also religious zealots, can convince himself that anything he does is part of God's plan. Tax cuts are just sops to keep him in power so he can keep doing God's work.

Hitler took a special presentation of the Passion Play as proof of the legitimacy of his ideals. The Taliban used their interpretation of the Quran to justify some of the most oppresive and ridiculous laws and policies passed in ... who knows how long.

This ability for delusion is not limited to religiously inclined leaders. It's just that they claim infallible guidance for their policies.

You haven't cited anything in Bush's behavior that couldn't be attributed to secular motives.

Howsabout he has been quoted as saying that God wanted him to be in the White House at this point in history? His belief that he looked into Putin's eyes and saw into his soul? The establisment of a federal agency for "faith based initiatives"? His defense of intelligent design? His statement that evolution has not been proven? His most socially conservative policies being couched in biblical terms?

Did I miss anything?

Taking him at his word, we must be doing spectacularly in Iraq and history will celebrate him as the best president ever.

Me, I see George's policies as consistant with the principle of expanding the domination of the privileged. You haven't cited anything in Bush's behavior that couldn't be attributed to that secular motive.

"Posted by Mike at April 5, 2007 07:15 PM"

"Taking him at his word, we must be doing spectacularly in Iraq and history will celebrate him as the best president ever."

Maybe he's just delusional enough to believe that everything is just hunky-dory. Maybe he believes history will vindicate his actions.

Doesn'y mean I agree with his delusions.

To doubt would be to doubt Jesus, God, his faith, and every decision he has made based on those ideals.

...I see George's policies as consistant with the principle of expanding the domination of the privileged. You haven't cited anything in Bush's behavior that couldn't be attributed to that secular motive.

Maybe he's just delusional enough to believe that everything is just hunky-dory.

Please explain the tie of George's biggest expenditure -- coercing the white house accountants to lie about the $600B new medicare entitlement as only costing $400B (and actually costing $1.2T) -- to his Christian faith.

Please explain the tie of George's biggest expenditure -- coercing the white house accountants to lie about the $600B new medicare entitlement as only costing $400B (and actually costing $1.2T) -- to his Christian faith.

Render unto Pfizer what is Pfizers?

Howsabout he has been quoted as saying that God wanted him to be in the White House at this point in history? His belief that he looked into Putin's eyes and saw into his soul? The establisment of a federal agency for "faith based initiatives"? His defense of intelligent design? His statement that evolution has not been proven? His most socially conservative policies being couched in biblical terms?

All of which can be explained as pandering to the social conservatives that put him in office.

Me, I agree that his primary religion is actually the religion of money. Render unto Caesar because the rich deserve special favors.

"Me, I agree that his primary religion is actually the religion of money. Render unto Caesar because the rich deserve special favors."

There's a long relationship between money and religion. Religion has been used to justify the social order, usually capitalistic, quite often. There's also a famous book by the 19th century German sociologist (which I've not read) that suggests a tie between certain protestant ideals(maybe calvinistic, I don't remeber) and capitalism.

It's not a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation coincided with the rise of the merchant class in Europe. Both were challenges to the established Medieval order. Religion hasn't been used to justify only capitalistic societies. The Medieval Christian Church strongly justified the feudal states as the divinely ordered society.

Even in states that are officially atheistic use quasi-religious imagery to maintain the status quo. It's not a coincidence that virtually every communist and totalitarian state features gigantic portraits and statues of their "dead leader". During the Soviet Era, weddings were often held at monuments to the state or leaders like Lenin's tomb instead of in Churches.

Me, I agree that his primary religion is actually the religion of money.

I wouldn't phrase it that way -- because he never learned to make money.

When the Saudi's invested in him 20 years ago, they weren't investing in him for a return on their money, they invested in him for his family networks.

I suppose the lesson from this we'll inevitably forget is to dismiss networking when presented as a qualification for president of the United States. The president will have access to the necessary networks to do his job -- as demonstrated by all the advice Bush has rejected over the last 6 years. Please, no more "bring your own networks" candidates.

posted by Mike Weber

Fifty years from now the sons and daughters of the maimed and killed of this failed war will remember the man that forever changed the life of their mom and dad.

This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don't they?)

No, it partly explains why so many people tink ill of LBJ, RMN and Kissinger.

Isn't RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war? (Not that there aren't other reasons to revile Nixon -- but Vietnam being one of them?)

I wouldn't phrase it that way -- because he never learned to make money.

One doesn't need to know how to make money in order to worship it.

Isn't RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war?

Yeah, after he had expanded it into Laos and Cambodia first, though.

"Isn't RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war? (Not that there aren't other reasons to revile Nixon -- but Vietnam being one of them?)"

No that was Gerald Ford. Nixon kept the war going for 6 years after he was elected in 1968, partially because he said he had a "secret plan" to end the war.
He expanded the war into Cambodia, which lead to Pol Pot and the Killing Fields. Under him the US causualties from Vietnam doubled!
Plenty of reason to dislike Nixon over Vietnam.

I think J. Alexander is very close to being correct about GWB. I would just add another factor. The man truly seems to believe that when someone (well, him, at least) is elected President he becomes the Emperor of a single party/single branch monolithic dictatorship. The Legislative Branch's assertion of its constitutionally guaranteed role in government is seen as treasonous, and the Judicial Branch had better keep its opinions to itself, should they disagree with little George. I really doubt the legitimacy of Executive fiat determining that the status and rights of detainees are none of the courts' business, and that national security/exigent circumstances must trump the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

Whatever the source of his beliefs, GWB's central tenet is that the Constitution is irrelevant and the separation of powers is a foolish myth. I have to wonder whether he has considered that under his policies his successors would be free to declare him an enemy combatant, should they choose, and imprison/torture/rend him in whatever manner the new Augustus should prefer - without any access to appeal or oversight. It seems unlikely he would really like that, but how in the world could he challenge it?

If [JFK] hadn't been assassinated, they just might have. But he was, so they don't.

Harry Turtledove is working on an alternate history about a world in which Kennedy survived the assassination attempt in Dallas. The premise of the book? That the investigation into why someone wanted to assassinate the President opened all sorts of doors that Kennedy would not have wanted opened, and all the things that Kennedy had kept locked away came out--from his philandering to his connections to the Mafia and so on. So all the things we know about Kennedy now would have come out during Kennedy's second term, leading to his eventual impeachment.

We have a positive view of Kennedy because of the mythology built around his martyrdom. The reality is, he wasn't as great as we're taught or as we remember him being.

And, wouldn't you know it, Dick is playing up the Al Qaeda / Saddam Hussein link again today on Limbaugh's radio show.

At the same time, the Pentagon has released another report saying that such connections did not exist.

And more "dittoheads" will listen to Flush Dimbulb's show and nod in agreement than will see the Pentagon report.

On a sad note, a brutal review for Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman on Comic Book Resources Buy Pile. ***ouch***

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=22

Joe V.

Posted by: Joe V. at April 6, 2007 12:40 PM

On a sad note, a brutal review for Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman on Comic Book Resources Buy Pile. ***ouch***

Joe V., I fail to understand how that merits posting in a thread about politics. In fact, I think it's kind of rude, if you don't mind my saying so or even if you do.

C'mon, Bill, posting asides about PAD's titles have been accepted non sequiturs in this blog for quite a while now. Or is it only the praising review links that are acceptable? PAD's a pro who's earned his thick skin -- I'm sure he doesn't sweat a bad review here and there.

Here's a fox news clip reporting the "most foolish American poll": http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/fox-news-they-distort-their-own-april-fools-poll

They announced Britney Spears the winner -- even though George Bush's 40% beats her 33%. Un-f*cking-believable.

Here's a fox news clip reporting the "most foolish American poll": http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/fox-news-they-distort-their-own-april-fools-poll

They announced Britney Spears the winner -- even though George Bush's 40% beats her 33%.

There's a long relationship between money and religion. Religion has been used to justify the social order, usually capitalistic, quite often. There's also a famous book by the 19th century German sociologist (which I've not read) that suggests a tie between certain protestant ideals(maybe calvinistic, I don't remeber) and capitalism.

You're thinking of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which spawned the (slightly inaccurate) phrase "the Protestant work ethic." Weber's own take on things is a bit weirder, and amounts to the argument that a particular kind of irrational -- here used as a technical term, not a pejorative -- religious faith happened to produce a profoundly rational economic social order.

Basically, while none of the Calvinists whose economic productivity Weber valorizes are exactly capitalistic in motive, the society that they compose produces tremendous results as if they were indeed committed capitalists.

The book actually ends with Weber describing the already-evident shift from a religious humility and uncertainty of salvation to standard greed in Calvinist-dominated social subgroups as the shift from a powerful work ethis to a society where economically-oriented life and remaindered moralism will form "an iron cage."

Like I said, it's a mcuh weirder book than people who cite it realize, just as I'm endlessly surprised how few of the economists who valorioze Adam SMith have anything at all to say about Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, which Adam SMith himself regarded as a necessary supplement to The Wealth of Nations.

There's a long relationship between money and religion. Religion has been used to justify the social order, usually capitalistic, quite often. There's also a famous book by the 19th century German sociologist (which I've not read) that suggests a tie between certain protestant ideals(maybe calvinistic, I don't remeber) and capitalism.

You're thinking of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which spawned the (slightly inaccurate) phrase "the Protestant work ethic." Weber's own take on things is a bit weirder, and amounts to the argument that a particular kind of irrational -- here used as a technical term, not a pejorative -- religious faith happened to produce a profoundly rational economic social order.

Basically, while none of the Calvinists whose economic productivity Weber valorizes are exactly capitalistic in motive, the society that they compose produces tremendous results as if they were indeed committed capitalists.

The book actually ends with Weber describing the already-evident shift from a religious humility and uncertainty of salvation to standard greed in Calvinist-dominated social subgroups as the shift from a powerful work ethis to a society where economically-oriented life and remaindered moralism will form "an iron cage."

Like I said, it's a mcuh weirder book than people who cite it realize, just as I'm endlessly surprised how few of the economists who valorioze Adam SMith have anything at all to say about Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, which Adam SMith himself regarded as a necessary supplement to The Wealth of Nations.

Posted by: R.J. Carter at April 6, 2007 02:00 PM

C'mon, Bill, posting asides about PAD's titles have been accepted non sequiturs in this blog for quite a while now. Or is it only the praising review links that are acceptable?

I have no say over what is "acceptable" in this blog, and I never said otherwise. I merely expressed an opinion, and it's one that I stand by.

This is the first time I've seen anyone post a link to a review of Peter's work in a thread that is totally unrelated to said work, by the way.

Posted by: R.J. Carter at April 6, 2007 02:00 PM

PAD's a pro who's earned his thick skin -- I'm sure he doesn't sweat a bad review here and there.

I wasn't speaking for Peter. I was speaking for myself.

Speaking of books about Kennedy surviving Dallas, I enjoyed one called Promises to Keep by George Bernau (1988). In it, president Jack Cassidy barely survives an assassination attempt in Dallas. As an FBI agent tries to uncover evidence that the assassination attempt was part of a conspiracy, Cassidy convalesces. Part of that involves not running for re-election in 1964. But four years later, things are a bit different. Cassidy is determined to become president again, but there are those who don't want that to happen, including people at a certain hotel in Los Angeles.

Yes, some aspects of Jack Cassidy's story arc dovetail with Bobby Kennedy's life, though there is a Bobby counterpart in the novel.

As to Bush, just think, somewhere there's an alternate universe that never had to endure his terms in the White House.

Lucky alternate universe people.

Jeffrey Frawley wrote, "Whatever the source of his beliefs, GWB's central tenet is that the Constitution is irrelevant and the separation of powers is a foolish myth. I have to wonder whether he has considered that under his policies his successors would be free to declare him an enemy combatant, should they choose, and imprison/torture/rend him in whatever manner the new Augustus should prefer - without any access to appeal or oversight."

No, I doubt George has considered that. I think those who claim special authority for themselves (or try to undercut the authority of a member of the opposition party) tend to live in the present and not realize that political situations can- and do- change.

Take for example a situation that happened in Michigan when Gov. Jennifer Granholm (a Democrat) was the state attorney general. The Republican-controlled legislature tried to greatly reduce the attorney general's powers. She successfully fought back against that effort.

Today, the attorney general is a Republican who would have also been reduced to a paper tiger had his party succeeded in their efforts against Granholm. What? The Republicans never imagined they might one day lose the Governor's office? Guess not.

Granted what almost happened in Michigan isn't in the same league as Bush's efforts to undermine the Constitution, but the fact remains that people (or political parties) in power tend only to think of their own short-term advantages. Right now this extreme short sightedness seems to afflict Republicans the most, but Democrats are not immune. Hope they realize that.

Rick

I said:
"Either way, he is the worst president ever."

Bladestar said:
"It's nice that you are so optimistic, but I think what you meant was more along the lines of "The worst president SO FAR."
--------
I gotta give you that point, but it's going to take a special type of head case to challenge him.

Who is the greater evil---George W. Bush or Laura Bush?

She knows the truth, yet does not speak up.

As to Bush, just think, somewhere there's an alternate universe that never had to endure his terms in the White House.

Lucky alternate universe people.

Indeed. Link to http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14.mov for an idea of how lucky they are.

:)

Unfortunately, the clip starts late. The bit that leads up to it goes like this:

Narrator: Scientists have long speculated that infinite parallel worlds exist on different planes of the world we know. In these earths, history has taken different paths.

On one, dinosaurs and man co-exist.

On another, the Russians were the first men to walk on the moon.

On another still, Clay Aiken defeated Ruben Studdard.

Now join us as we travel through the fabric of time and space to visit one of mysteries. One of these parallel earths!

Announcer: And now a message from the President of the United States of America.

As to Bush, just think, somewhere there's an alternate universe that never had to endure his terms in the White House.

Lucky alternate universe people.

Indeed. Link to http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14.mov for an idea of how lucky they are.

:)

Unfortunately, the clip starts late. The bit that leads up to it goes like this:

Narrator: Scientists have long speculated that infinite parallel worlds exist on different planes of the world we know. In these earths, history has taken different paths.

On one, dinosaurs and man co-exist.

On another, the Russians were the first men to walk on the moon.

On another still, Clay Aiken defeated Ruben Studdard.

Now join us as we travel through the fabric of time and space to visit one of mysteries. One of these parallel earths!

Announcer: And now a message from the President of the United States of America.

Huh. Maybe this link http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/14/snl-if-al-gore-were-president/ will work better.

"On a sad note, a brutal review for Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman on Comic Book Resources Buy Pile. ***ouch***"

Review? What review? He stood in the store, read the intro page, trashed that, and didn't read the book. How in the world does that constitute a review?

PAD

Well Alan, let's hope we and our descenants never have to find out :)

Posted by R.J. Carter

Isn't RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war? (Not that there aren't other reasons to revile Nixon -- but Vietnam being one of them?)

It was pretty widely seen as a political maneuver to distract people from Other Concerns.

Nixon was seen as a warmonger - there's a reason 100,000-plus people (i was one of them) showed up to protest at his second Inaugural.

And, besides, in politics, it's always (as Bill Cosby said in another context) the fault of the one who had it last.

Posted by edhopper

No that was Gerald Ford. Nixon kept the war going for 6 years after he was elected in 1968, partially because he said he had a "secret plan" to end the war.

Good trick if you can manage it. Nixon took office in Janusry 1969. the last US troops left Viet Nam on March 29, 1973.

Review? What review? He stood in the store, read the intro page, trashed that, and didn't read the book. How in the world does that constitute a review?

Playing devil's advocate, he never actually said he didn't read the book, but rather that the recap page "practically deterred more reading..."

Me, I liked it. I mean, I haven't been following the series from the get-go so I was confused by a few things that might've made sense to those who've read since issue #1, but I certainly didn't consider it a bad story and a couple of the strategically placed Scooby lines had me laughing out loud.

"Posted by: Rob Brown at April 7, 2007 08:59 AM
Review? What review? He stood in the store, read the intro page, trashed that, and didn't read the book. How in the world does that constitute a review?

Playing devil's advocate, he never actually said he didn't read the book, but rather that the recap page "practically deterred more reading...""

If he read it he didn't review it. He only reviewed the intro page.

Posted by: Omar Karindu at April 6, 2007 02:58 PM

"You're thinking of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism."

Thanks. I only heard of it,not read it, so it's good to hear from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

I only mentioned it to strengthen's Manny's good point about Bush's religious attitude, and point out that it does not contradict his capitalistic attitude. Which is not to say that being religious necessarily means being capitalistic. As Den pointed out a fervent religious attitude can be used in support of different economic point of views. But I think it strengthens Manny's point: Bushis as religiously fervent about economics as he is about foreign policy.

"Thanks. I only heard of it,not read it, so it's good to hear from someone who actually knows what he's talking about."

I hope it's clear that the person who doesn't know whay he's talking about is me and not anybody else on this thread.

In other news, not only has O'Reilly completely lost his mind now, but here's a declaration from Keith Olberman that had to have come out of a parallel universe.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/07/geraldo-rivera-todays-best-person-in-the-world/

Me, I agree that his primary religion is actually the religion of money....

One doesn't need to know how to make money in order to worship it.

...

Bushis as religiously fervent about economics as he is about foreign policy.

Greed, indulgence, and/or the worship of wealth describe the modern Gatsbys ("Her voice was full of money") of hip-hop and bling. Those motives as we know them don't cover Bush's motive to arbitrarily invade an oil-rich Muslim nation.

The simplist notion that covers all the bases is that Bush is a class darwinist, who only saw advantages to introducing democracy to Iraq, and couldn't, can't, will never comprehend that Iraq can't alter it's folk-identity any more than southern heritage could have the abandoned slavery of its time without civil war.

If people could change their identities arbitrarily as we expected the Iraqis to change theirs to adopt democracy, we'd have celebrities faking their own deaths to a degree it would support an industry devoted to tracking them down.

In other news, not only has O'Reilly completely lost his mind now, but here's a declaration from Keith Olberman that had to have come out of a parallel universe.

My wife and I watched Countdown last night when they showed the clip of O'Reilly and Rivera. I was just waiting for the two of them to start throwing fists; it was that entertaining.

Personally, I think O'Reilly and Rivera were both wrong on their stances, and I'm not sure Rivera really deserves "Best Person in the World", but I think he got it for showing some stones to 'Bill-O'.

But O'Reilly is certainly getting worse.

The Mayor of Salt Lake City was on recently, and that fellow calmly put O'Reilly in his place. Then just in the last week or two, O'Reilly accused a woman who served in the military for 30 years of undermining the war. She shot back asking him how much of his life he'd given to serving the country.

Posted by: Micha at April 7, 2007 09:29 AM

If he read it he didn't review it. He only reviewed the intro page.

That's true.

O'Reilly has been on a tear lately, claiming he's putting "radicals" on the air to show his viewers how "extreme" they are. In reality, he puts them on and tries to bully them into admitting they hate America and when they don't, he cuts their mikes. That's what he did to the retired colonel.

His other thing lately has been trying to take whatever tragedy he find and try to tie to the illegal alien issue. Geraldo called him on it.

It takes a lot to make Geraldo Rivera look good and O'Reilly did it. Should the guy have been deported? Sure, but Geraldo was right in that the fact that the guy was illegal had nothing to do with him being a drunk driver.

O'Reilly is an idiot, but he's about 1/4 right here.

www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6307948

"Suspect in accident that killed two teens convicted of DUI two months ago

An illegal alien charged in connection with an acdcident that claimed the lives of two teenage girls was convicted of DUI two months ago in Chesapeake.

The accident occurred late Friday night when Alfredo Ramos crashed into the back of a vehicle at a red light. The rear-ending killed teenagers Allison Kuhnhardt and Tessa Tranchant.

10 On Your Side has learned that 22-year-old Alfredo Ramos was convicted in February on DUI charges from November 13, 2006.

The arresting officer commented in his report that Ramos "almost ran him down".

He was given a 90 day suspended sentence, fined $250, had his drivers' license suspended, and he ordered to participate in ASAP, an alcohol awareness program.

Court documents also revealed that Ramos didn' t actually have a valid driver's license (he was caught with a fake one), had paid a Florida company $200 dollars for a "Mexican ID", and he blew a .14 BAC - almost twice the legal limit.

Also, 10 On Your Side has learned that law-enforcement officials in Chesapeake never informed Immigration and Customs Enforcement about Ramos' residence status in the U.S. This contrasts with Virginia Beach, whose authorities notified ICE immediately after Ramos was arrested.

Ramos, who speaks no English, remains in jail with no bond."

Linking these girls deaths to his crusade is about on par with O'Reilly's usual slimey standards. But he's at least right that they shouldn't have been killed by THIS drunk driver. His butt should have been dealt with before.

I'm not sure who is the most at fault in this though. Chesapeake should have called Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they tagged him the last time, but likely didn't because that often does jack squat. We call them and get told to write down the guys information, pass it all along to them and they'll send someone out to talk to the guy in a week or two.

Our immigration laws are great, but the enforcement sucks.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17985314/

AP analysis: Almost no illegal immigrants caught at border are prosecuted

That's the funny thing about O'Reilly these days, he can make himself look like an idiot and turn people off even when he might have a valid point to make. His meltdown with Geraldo only underscores that point. He could have made a good point but chose to be the Big Giant Ego with screaming, finger waving and idiotic talking points.

These girls' deaths were tragic. The fact that the guy who killed them should never have had the chance to do so is even more tragic. Something does need to be fixed in the system.

O'Reilly could have sounded rational with this one. He just doesn't know how anymore. And now I hear that the father of one of the girls has made a not so nice statement about O'Reilly and his dragging the girls deaths into his ratings crusade. Good for the dad.

The girls' families have already said that they want to do stuff about several of these issues. Let THEM do it or start it with some class and dignity rather then O'Reilly's way of the mindless rant.

O'Reilly could have sounded rational with this one. He just doesn't know how anymore. And now I hear that the father of one of the girls has made a not so nice statement about O'Reilly and his dragging the girls deaths into his ratings crusade.

O'Reilly is desperately trying to sound like a crusader for the people, especially after he a took a huge hit last year for saying that the kid who was kidnapped and held for several years by a pedophile "enjoyed" his captivity.

Let's say this guy would have been deported. Odds are good he would have snuck right back across the border within days and driving drunk anyway. It would have made no difference.

As for O'Reilly sounding rational, he is way beyond that. He is, at his heart, a bully. His only debating technique is to tell his quests what he thinks they believe and then brownbeat them into admitting it. He's gone completely around the bend.

I have a sister-in-law who works for Fox "News". Here's a direct quote from her about O'Reilly:

"I don't talk to him. If I want to speak to a bitter, angry Irishman, I'll visit one of my brothers."

Den,

"It would have made no difference."

Maybe, maybe not. Trust me, I have gotten to the point where I hate dealing with INS because it is such a waste of time.

That's problem one.

"Odds are good he would have snuck right back across the border within days and driving drunk anyway."

And that's problem two.

I've nabbed guys that come back tagged as previously deported through NCIC/VCIN lots of times. Now, sometimes, most times, it's because they bought the same fake I.D. that was sold to about a thousand other guys, but sometimes it's because they really were caught before. INS doesn't do anything different there then they do with a first timer.

It should be tougher for someone to sneak over the boarder and it should be way more easy for cops on the street to deal with this. But it ain't.

This is the one time that I can remember of late that O'Reilly actually had a good point to stand on, but he went and shot himself in the foot with his mouth. The talk I've seen on this is that O'Reilly is, as uasual, full of it. But this time, he's not 100% full of it. He's just 100% full of himself (and that other stuff) and acting like a bully and a fool.

He's an idiot. But I'm seeing lots of people (not just here) not just pointing that out but seemingly taking the other side of the argument just because it's dipwad saying stuff the way he usually says it.

He's kind of right here, he just can't act like a rational human being long enough to actually let people see that he might be right on this matter. He's saying stuff in the wrong way, he's using one issue in this way to hard and he's ticking people off (like the girls' families)that he should be showing more respect to right now, but it is some of the right stuff that he's saying this time.

And we can go back to bashing Bush with the odd shot or two over this because it was him (and others)mucking about with Homeland Security funding, immigration reform (that the Dems are screwing up too) and the boardes for the last six years.

I haven't been able to take O' Reilly since the '80's when he was on A Current Affair. Whenever I hear his "Who's looking out for you?" shtick I always ask "Who gave you the job?" But with this, he and Geraldo have done what they wanted, what they LOVE to do. They focused the attention away from the story and squarely on THEMSELVES. They made the story about THEM, not the girls, not the driver, not the families. It doesn't matter HOW right he is on this. By losing it like that, any real message he had was lost in a rant. Like my friend told me once when I had MY Irish up, once you've lost it, you've lost it. It's kinda like certain people that have been posting here over the last few months. Anything worthwhile that they have to say gets lost in the rest of what's coming across.

Personally, I'd love to see O' Reilly, Geraldo, and anybody else in their ilk off the air. Opinions aren't news. Bullying isn't news. "This is what you should think" isn't news.

Okay, rant over.

"Anything worthwhile that they have to say gets lost in the rest of what's coming across."

Yeah, that's kinda my problem with this. There is a point in this that is a good one and should not be overlooked because of this mess.

It's kind of like the flap we went through with Frank Hargrove a few months ago during our General Assembly. A bill came up to make a formal, legal "we're sorry" for slavery and to set up a few other things as well. A number of people were against it and made very good and very reasoned arguments against it.

Then Frank comes along and shoots everybody in the foot with his mouth by asking that if we did this would we then have to draft a bill to make the Jews apologize for killing Christ. He then told a Jewish lawmaker who objected to his comparison that the Jewish lawmaker just had thin skin.

Result?

The argument became about Hargrove and his mouth rather then the point. Even debate in the public square became a knee jerk reaction about what he said and how it was an insult to blacks and jews. People who would have supported his side went against him not based on the merits of their argument, but on what he said and how he said it when making his argument against it.Almost none of the debate after that in any media dealt with whether or not the bill actually had merit or whether or not the bill was even a good idea.

End result?

A version of the bill passed with Hargrove supporting it to make amends for his mouth. I'm kinda not wanting to see this issue clouded in the same manner.

I hate O'Rielly. I don't ever want to be in the position of defending him in any way, but the point he started to make before going off the rails was a valid one and deserves to not be lost in the b******t that substitutes for intelligent discussion on his show.

A bill came up to make a formal, legal "we're sorry" for slavery and to set up a few other things as well. A number of people were against it and made very good and very reasoned arguments against it.

Considering this Hargrove actually did compare something your state was guilty of to something Judaism itself is not guilty of -- and no one of your state was a victim of -- superficially, the bill sounds like proof of something Hargrove demonstrated Americans are prone to committing, and he ultimately could not stand by.

I see no disadvantage to a state acknowledging the precious feelings of those they've hurt.

...not proof of... proof against, as in a state denunciation of...

Posted by Jerry Chandler

Den

"It would have made no difference."

Maybe, maybe not.

The important thing to look at here is that even if he'd been a citizen or a legal, it was his second offence (that we know of).

The real scandal, so far as i'm concerned, is the laxity with which we treat DUI offenders.

Tha bastard who smashed my beautiful cousin's face so badly that they counted something like thirty-eight facial fractures before they gave up counting was on at least his third DUI offence, and he wasn't yet twenty-five.

Jerry, you're a cop, right?

I don't know about you, but more than one veteran cop i've known has said that there are times when he's felt that the best thing for a DUI offender is a bullet in the ditch right there...

Geez, sorry to hear about your cousin.

My thing is that BOTH issues are a big problem. Should he have been given more jail time, had he been legally here, for DUI the first time? Yeah. Should he have still been here in the U.S. after being convicted of a crime and shown to be here illegally in February instead of having been turned over to Immigration and deported? No. Should it be as easy as it is to hop the boarder multiple times? No.

Are those issues equal? Most of the time no, but in this case, yes. He wouldn't have been here to be driving drunk if the system wasn't running some damn poorly.

I want to see the DUI laws made more strict and I want the courts to do a better job with them. I also want to see less pandering and more enforcement on immigration issues and more done to support local enforcement issues. They're both strong issues with me.

"...he's felt that the best thing for a DUI offender is a bullet in the ditch right there..."

A DUI case like this will make me feel like that, yeah. But most DUI stops I get are first time offenders and none of mine have been involved in hurting or killing someone by driving drunk. But normally? No, I don't feel that way. I tend to have the Gandalf view of things. I'll cop (pardon the term) to feeling that way about murderers, rapists and child molesters because they've all either ended or completely screwed up someone's life. But most of the DUI offenders I've come across? Young(ish) idiots that, with luck, grow out of it without killing or hurting anybody. I'd love to see them pay heavier fines and do more jail time, but, if they haven't hurt anyone else, that's about it. It takes too long and is way harder then I ever thought it was to make a life. I'm in no hurry to try and end one or even hope that it's ended.

My deepest sympathies for your cousin, Mike.

Jerry, I see your point about adequate enforcement. I was looking at this issue in the context of O'Reilly's general behavior, which is to dictate to his guests what he thinks their views are, and then to bully them into admitting he's right.

But I guess we can't expect better from a channel like Fox "News", in which Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is equated with treason while the GOP Congressional trip to Syria isn't even mentioned.

No, I don't feel that way. I tend to have the Gandalf view of things. I'll cop (pardon the term) to feeling that way about murderers, rapists and child molesters because they've all either ended or completely screwed up someone's life. But most of the DUI offenders I've come across? Young(ish) idiots that, with luck, grow out of it without killing or hurting anybody. I'd love to see them pay heavier fines and do more jail time, but, if they haven't hurt anyone else, that's about it.

That's a very casual attitude to take for 17,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries a year innocent people are subject to. 17,000 deaths is large enough for the US to invade 5 Iraqs. Where are the protests from the right-to-lifers?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler at April 9, 2007 02:44 AM

I'm in no hurry to try and end one or even hope that it's ended.

Jerry, this reminds me of our recent telephone conversation. We were talking about the occupational hazards of being a cop, and you told me about an officer who shot and killed a suspect. He was completely justified in his actions but the emotional consequences caused him to leave the force nonetheless.

You said something that has continued to resonate in my mind since you first uttered it. I'm going to have to paraphrase it as I don't remember your exact words, but you said something to the effect that the desire to kill another human being is contrary to the instincts of any sane individual.

To an extent, I have to disagree. The instinct to kill is part of the primitive "fight or flight" response all of us carry within. Murderers who are sane by clinical standards often find a way to rationalize their acts. Hell, terrorists often CELEBRATE brazen acts of brutality.

But yeah, any decent individual with an ounce of compassion is going to feel excruciating guilt and remorse for committing such an act, even if it is justifiable. No one should want to kill and I cringe when I hear people flippantly suggest that we do so. While I wouldn't cry if Osama bin Laden's head became acquainted with a U.S. soldier's bullet, were I the trigger-man I'd have mixed feelings about it.

In law school, we spent a good deal of time discussing the proximate cause of an event. Courts sometimes use a the shorthand "but for" test..."but for event X, the plaintiff would not have been injured."

It's not as simple a thing to do as you'd think it would be. Most events are the result of a confluence of events that lead to injury or death. But for the driver violating our immigration laws, he'd not have been driving on the stretch of road. But for his drinking that one extra drink that slowed his response time, he'd have been able to avoid the other car. But for the victim forgetting his lunch the first time he left for work, he'd have been 5 minutes further down the road.

In my opinion, a DUI accident is caused by one thing, and one thing only...the DUI person deciding to operate his vehicle after consuming booze. It's not the fault of the person that serves him, or the beer maker, or the government that doesn't catch him when he enters the country, or deport him when they catch him DUI the first time. At this time, if you're over the age of 12 and you don't know that drinking and driving is literally playing Russian Roullete with a car, not only with your own life, but with everyone else on the road/sidewalk/in their living room, you're either not paying attention, or deliberately ignoring what's going on around you. There's no excuse for getting into a car after you've been drinking, and we should treat DUIs the same way we treat other reckless endagerment offenders. I'm thinking specifically of people that shoot off weapons in public. If they don't hurt anyone, we go somewhat easy on them. At the very least, I think they lose their license to own a weapon, and probably have to forfiet the weapon. If they do injure or kill someone, punishmend should be much more severe.

Den: "I was looking at this issue in the context of O'Reilly's general behavior, which is to dictate to his guests what he thinks their views are, and then to bully them into admitting he's right."

And I have absolutely no problem with that. I have NO problem with anybody pointing out when O'Reilly is acting like a bully, an idiot or a clown. I'll even help out and add an example or fifty if you're trying to build a case for that point and your brain is checking out on you that day.

What I was reacting to from here and elsewhere was the somewhat knee jerk response being displayed by some to condemn O'Reilly for his stupidity and wrap that actually issue in with his antics. I would never have said one word about it if most the people I had been seeing, hearing and reading were just saying, "O'Reilly is a low class bully and an idiot." But a lot of people seemed to be taking the other side of the argument just because O'Reilly took the opposite position and saying that O'Reilly was an idiot, He was a bully, he was wrong and the immigration issue had NOTHING to do with this.

I think it does and I would hate to see a valid point lost in the "O'Reilly's a jackass" pile-on. It's not an issue that is usually equal to DUI issues in most peoples books nor in mine, but the circumstances here make it, for me, equal to or greater then the DUI issue. Had the driver been a legal citizen, we would be arguing the point that he should have still been serving time from his February conviction or not. Virginia law allows enough discretion by a judge that this would be a completely valid argument and good points, believe it or not, can be made on both sides. However, since it was uncovered back during his last conviction that this guy was here illegally, we shouldn't even be discussing this because his butt should have been South bound and gone (loaded up and trucking?) and in no position to get drunk that night and kill those two girls to begin with.

Bill Myers: "The instinct to kill is part of the primitive "fight or flight" response all of us carry within." & "No one should want to kill and I cringe when I hear people flippantly suggest that we do so. While I wouldn't cry if Osama bin Laden's head became acquainted with a U.S. soldier's bullet, were I the trigger-man I'd have mixed feelings about it."

Yeah, it is a part of our instinctual nature, but we overcome lots of stuff that is a part of that. Not everybody mind you, but many. We're raised to be better then our instincts would have us be.

Plus, I'm not sure the actual desire to kill is a strong a part of the "fight or flight" response as is the desire to hurt someone enough to safely engage in flight or to cause them to hightail it. There are lots of animals that, when cornered, will rip you a new one just long enough to get an opening to escape. Even when death is involved, it's usually because a claw or a fang hit something vital. The cornered animal often times doesn't hang around to enjoy the fruits of its kill as it's too busy doing warp 1 in some other direction.

I think the "kill" impulse in "fight or flight" that some have is more from teaching and environment then instinct. You have five year olds in the Middle East that are looking forward to the day that they can strap on a bomb, kill a bunch of people and join an older sibling in Paradise. I can introduce you to ten year old inner city kids that don't think that they'll live to see twenty-five because they've grown up in an environment of violence and have been taught that it's kill or be killed in their neighborhood areas. But I can also show you ten year old kids who can't imagine any reason where they would think killing someone is justified, but have no problem giving a bully a split lip and a black eye.

Most people who live in, what we term, "civilized societies" are raise to believe that murder is absolutely wrong and many are also taught that killing another person is something that we should never celebrate even when it is a necessity. Those teachings becomes a part of your core self. If a hard thing to betray something that is that much a part of you. Add in the religious factor that some have against killing and you have a powerful struggle.

Even trained soldiers have to fight hard with that struggle early on. One guy I know who was involve in a shooting kept in touch with the counselor the department hooked him up with and became friends with him. I've met the guy and we've had some pretty interesting talks. Before becoming a civilian who works with police officers, he was in the military and did the same job with soldiers. According to him, even trained and experienced military snipers sometimes have the odd crack up because, even knowing that their job may be saving a huge number of lives on both sides, they still realize somewhere that they're doing something that is against a strong core belief that they were raised with.

Remember when I mentioned that there's a problem that some officers have after a shooting where they can't look their own reflection in the eyes for days or weeks? He said the first time that he had ever come across that was with a military sniper that he was counseling.

If you're raised to be a civilized member of a civilized society, then you're going to have issues with killing. Even if it's necessary, you're going to have to fight to overcome it. The scary thing for some of us that do jobs that may one day put us in the position to engage in that struggle? You don't truly know, no matter how tough you talk, which side you'll come down on until you have to do it and you don't know if you'll end up hesitating too long even if you come down on the "kill the other guy" side of the struggle. Definitely not something some of us or our loved ones really like to think about all that often.

Bobb Alfred: "...or deport him when they catch him DUI the first time."

See, I'm going to agree with everything you said except that. Deport him in February and he's not here to kill someone by DUI in April. Even if there had been a different offense back in November and no DUI or deaths now, I would still be ticked that an area's entire legal system failed to even bother reporting to the proper Federal authorities that they had arrested and convicted an illegal immigrant for committing a crime.

They fell down on the job here. It's unfortunately becoming a common thing in some areas. This particular case is just getting more attention then the others because of the DUI deaths.

By all means, lobby your local lawmakers for stricter DUI laws and penalties. That's by far and away the issue that impacts more lives to a greater degree right now. Just don't completely dismiss the failings in our immigration enforcement in this particular case.

He Who Must Not Be Mentioned raises what may seem to the uninformed a valid point. I'm going to half break one of my own rules and address the point for the benefit of others, but I will not engage in a debate with him our address any further posts on the subject by him. I do see where a clarification could benefit the overall discussion of how DUI drivers are treated by the cops and by the courts though.

Some people do tend to see the attitude towards DUI drivers that I and a number of my fellow officers have as a odd. That would seem the case even more so since we're discussing DUI related deaths here. But it's not really that odd if you have some experience.

Most people only hear about DUI incidents when they're on the news due to deaths or when they hear about a family member or friend who has been hurt by a DUI driver. A fair number of DUI arrests don't involve that level of drunkenness.

I've gotten DUI arrests involving both drugs and alcohol because I stopped someone for something as minor as right turn on red at a posted no turn on red or driving at 10PM with no headlights on. So have a lot of guys I know. They weren't speeding, they weren't weaving and they weren't driving on the wrong side of the street. We make the stop with the intention of writing a minor ticket or simply advising someone, we get a whiff of alcoholic beverage, the driver might even pass the sobriety test but ends up blowing the legal limit on a PBT, driver goes to the breath tech and blows the legal limit and the you have a new DUI statistic.

They're not stumbling drunk, they might not have a single offense of any kind on their record and a lot of them that I get or I am the back up officer for are young guys and gals who are still in their first year or two of becoming legally able to drink. They're experimenting with a new freedom. Yeah, it's not the safest freedom to experiment with, but I've know lots of people who have experimented with that freedom who outgrew it in a year or two without ever being a staggering drunk or harming a single person.

And it's easy to be a legal DUI in a lot of stated without being obviously drunk thanks to .08 limits.

Lots of states are getting tougher on DUI laws and penalties and I have no problem with that. I have absolutely no problem with jamming up some guy who's in his thirties, forties or fifties and still "experimenting" with just how drunk he can get himself and still drive. I have no pity whatsoever for seeing someone go to jail for the rest of their lives for getting behind the wheel so drunk that they can't se straight and end up injuring or killing someone else. But I do have a little room in conscience to allow for the inexperience of youth or people who cross the legal limit without being able to tell that they have. That's why I don't automatically get the gut reaction that Mike Weber mentioned every time someone mentions the letters D, U, and I together in one shot. It's also why a lot of cops I know despise DUI drivers that get drunk to the level that dipwad did when he almost ran over that officer or when he killed those girls, but still see the need for some level of restraint in treating every DUI exactly the same as every other DUI. They're not always all equal.

Sue me, I'm a cop with somewhat liberal leanings. It's what'll make me a nice guy when I pull any of you chumps over. Drive safely, have a nice day.

Jerry's experiences highlight an interesting point. Our DUI laws are shaped by the most egregious offenders...those that result in injury or fatality accidents. Because that cose is so high, we put a high penalty on the condition. driving while under the influence...and set generic limits.

But here's the thing. While .08% is the limit in many states now, that's not some magic number where suddenly every person is blind, stinking drunk. Booze affects each person differently. Weight, height, what you ate for dinner, how much rest you've had, etc., all factor into how much the booze affects you. So from the standpoint of trying to protect others, it's somewhat a mis-applied standard. I think you could find some people drive no less safe at .08% than they do at .00%. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more reckless and dangerous driving sober than some folks driving at .08%+.

Given this, I think there's a reason why "no harm, no/low foul" gets applied in court.

As for proximate cause as Jerry responds, there's legal proximate cause, and then there's real proximate cause. Certainly, if the fellow had been deported after the first incident, he's not involved in the second. So the failings of the system do contribute to the event, although not in any way a court would recognize.

Jerry, you make valid points about the issue of how our attitudes towards killing are formed.

It's easy to watch cop shows on T.V. where the lead character shoots a guy almost every damned week and think that it's easy. But the bottom line is it's not for most of us. Not even for police or soldiers who are trained to commit the act should it become necessary. As I said, should a U.S. bullet find it's way into Osama's skull, I wouldn't shed a tear. Yet I've only fired one gun in my life -- it was a low-powered rifle and I shot an old garbage can under the supervision of my grandfather -- and never at another human being. I'd hate to be the person who'd have to bear the weight of that awful act, even if it was necessary, justifiable, and resulted in a greater good.

On a personal note, Jerry, I will reiterate what I said during our conversation: should the need arise, I hope and pray that your training kicks in and you do what you have to do. I'd rather have to support an emotionally distraught friend than to mourn his passing.

Also, don't eat so many donuts. That's another thing that cops do to put their lives in danger. Let's be careful out there.

Bill Myers: "The instinct to kill is part of the primitive "fight or flight" response all of us carry within." & "No one should want to kill and I cringe when I hear people flippantly suggest that we do so. While I wouldn't cry if Osama bin Laden's head became acquainted with a U.S. soldier's bullet, were I the trigger-man I'd have mixed feelings about it."

Jerry Chandler: "Yeah, it is a part of our instinctual nature, but we overcome lots of stuff that is a part of that. Not everybody mind you, but many. We're raised to be better then our instincts would have us be.

Plus, I'm not sure the actual desire to kill is a strong a part of the "fight or flight" response as is the desire to hurt someone enough to safely engage in flight or to cause them to hightail it. There are lots of animals that, when cornered, will rip you a new one just long enough to get an opening to escape. Even when death is involved, it's usually because a claw or a fang hit something vital. The cornered animal often times doesn't hang around to enjoy the fruits of its kill as it's too busy doing warp 1 in some other direction."

Both instinct and reason, nature and nurture can result in violence. We seem to have violent instincts and compassionate ones, and education can teach us to suppress violent instincts or rationalize violence. I suppose ultimatly it's a matter of balance.

[Illegal immigration]'s not an issue that is usually equal to DUI issues in most peoples books nor in mine, but the circumstances here make it, for me, equal to or greater then the DUI issue.

...I do have a little room in [my] conscience to allow for the inexperience of youth or people who cross the legal limit without being able to tell that they have.

That still sounds like 5 invasions of Iraq for the 17,000 DUI-related deaths each year to zero invasions of Iraq for illegal immigration.

Jerry Chandler wrote "According to him, even trained and experienced military snipers sometimes have the odd crack up because, even knowing that their job may be saving a huge number of lives on both sides, they still realize somewhere that they're doing something that is against a strong core belief that they were raised with."

In the TV series Bones, FBI agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) is an ex-sniper who seeks to put away bad guys in part as a means of "atoning" for the lives he took (he's also a devout Catholic). In one episode, he described how he killed a warlord of some sort, while the warlord was enjoying some family event at his home. To most of the world, that warlord was a very bad man who probably wouldn't be missed; but to his young son, he was the loving father who'd just been murdered before his eyes.

If I recall correctly, Booth said he took the shot at that time because he had no other choice. However, he remains, if not haunted, at least disturbed by the child's reaction; and by the knowledge that he'd shattered that child's world.

I've no doubt that Booth has more than a few real world counterparts.

Bill Myers wrote: "No one should want to kill and I cringe when I hear people flippantly suggest that we do so."

I know what you mean, but I wonder to what degree people who make such "flippant" suggestions are just blowing off steam or expressing their own frustrations. When I read about some things people have done, part of me wants to kill them, then bring them back to life and kill them again. Would I ever take matters into my own hands if given the opportunity? I hope not, but if something happened to someone important to me, I just might.

Scary thought, but maybe the fact that I hope I wouldn't act on it means I wouldn't. You know, kinda like the argument that if you wonder if you're crazy it means you're not, because really crazy people don't wonder about it.

One of the advantages of being a writer is that I can- and do- have characters carry out acts of revenge that I wouldn't or couldn't perform. I can also follow the consequences of those actions by fictional characters under more comfortable circumstances than I'd probably be in if I carried out those acts myself.

I'm sure everyone has harbored thoughts of taking matters into their own hands at one time or another, either because someone hurt or killed a loved one, or because someone did something that just struck one of those universal nerves. When I was a boy, I remember standing in my back yard and daydreaming about single-handedly defeating the Oakland County child killer, and doing so in the name of one of his victims. The thing is, I didn't know any of the kids he killed; yet I remember being furious about it. Maybe because I was in that same age group. Maybe because I saw him as a bully who took things to lethal levels, and I don't like bullies.

More recently, you may remember the news reports about the man who threw the dog out of a car onto a freeway. I don't know any of the players involved, but because I had a dog (who died of natural causes) and like dogs, part of me wanted to throw that man onto a freeway.

Yet would killing someone for revenge be satisfactory in the long run? I don't think so. It won't undo what that person did, and since we can't kill people then bring them back to life to kill them again, we're prevented from feeding the desire for revenge even further. That, in turn, leads to increased frustration.

And I can't imagine that increased frustration leading to any good outcome.

Rick

P.S. On the flip side of the taking violent action coin, I'm reminded of an outcome from the death of one of my brother's friends back in December 1988. Jim and some friends were driving back from Canada and got into an argument with the occupants of another car. Both cars got off the freeway and pulled into a parking lot. A short fight broke out and that seemed to be it. Then Jim slipped on the ice and one of the guys from the other car kicked him in the head.

Jim died at age 19, and the other guy, then 21, served a prison term o