Skip to main content

Bob King

Bob King's Public Library

  • The abstinence-only grants have been controversial from the start.


    Supporters say comprehensive sex education sends a mixed message and that abstinence is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Critics say abstinence education simply doesn't stop teens from having sex, and those teens need more information about how to reduce pregnancy and disease. 

     In April 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., found that participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants. The four programs had taught students about human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases, helped them improve their communication skills, manage peer pressure, set personal goals and build self-esteem. 

     For Colorado, the study results sealed the decision to get out of the program. Dr. Ned Calonge, the state's chief medical officer, said Mathematica's methods were the gold standard for scientific studies. 

     "To show no benefit compared to nothing. That was striking," Calonge said. "These are tax dollars that are going for no useful purpose, and it would not be responsible for us to take those dollars."

  • what I most wish I had understood before the invasion was the reckless arrogance of the Bush administration. I had inklings of it to be sure, and warned of the inadequacy of some of what I saw. But I did not realize that as skillfully, cautiously and patiently as George H. W. Bush’s administration had handled its Iraq war, that was how clumsy, careless and rash George W. Bush’s administration would treat its own.

    Kenneth M. Pollack was a former director of Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council. He is a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

  • "We appreciate your pro-active enthusiasm, but Steven Colbert is not seeking interns at this time." - Bob King on 2008-04-10

  • The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.  

     <!-- /SIG=12g99sdue/M=631614.12053349.12485450.1414694/D=news/S=8903239:LREC/_ylt=ArMRPIPlu_9fCHIEl4KnOjpH2ocA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1198865400/A=5121633/R=0 -->
    <script language="javascript"> if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['zglUetGDJHE-']='&U=13b24fru6%2fN%3dzglUetGDJHE-%2fC%3d631614.12053349.12485450.1414694%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5121633'; </script>

    And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.


    Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.

    • Bob King
      Bob King on Dec 28, 07

      <b>By their fruits you will know them.<br><br></b>There isn't any reason why a Christian can't be prosperous, of course, but there's nothing in the Bible - or any other spiritual text - that highlights wealth as a special and particular blessing of faith.<br><br>As for those preachers who are enjoying the fruits of their ministry to the extent of living lavish lifestyles and hob-nobbing with presidents and powerful business leaders who love to think that their aquissitive nature is a spritual gift - "Behold, they have their reward."<br>

    Add Sticky Note
  • The probe by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has brought new scrutiny to the underlying belief that brings in millions of dollars and fills churches from Atlanta to Los Angeles — the "Gospel of Prosperity," or the notion that God wants to bless the faithful with earthly riches.

  • By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

    However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

    When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

    Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

    If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

    He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

    President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

  • The Price of Apathy... shirt
  • Warfare is a magnificent distraction - and in it's own way, a very unpopular war is an even better distraction. If you fundamentally do not care about the opinion of the American People, save as a means of manipulating them, an unpopular war is very useful tool, for it concentrates the minds of the opposition on the obvious. It casts long shadows that one may hide anything within.

  • Doctors are increasingly worried about the number of girls - and boys - being referred to specialists because of this phenomenon of 'precocious' puberty.  

    The normal age at which puberty starts in both boys and girls has dropped by about two years since the 19th century, to 14 for boys and 12 for girls. This is largely due to improved nutrition - onset of puberty is believed to be triggered by physical size. Another theory is that the epidemic of obesity is to blame.  

    But modern social conditions may also be a contributory factor. Research suggests that children from broken homes experience earlier puberty. The stress of family breakdown apparently alters the balance of growth hormones and other chemicals in the body, speeding up a child's physical development.  

    Absent fathers may be another cause. American researchers have found that biological fathers send out chemical signals that inhibit their daughters' sexual maturity. Girls whose fathers had left home started their periods earlier.  

    Early puberty has even been linked to watching too much television. A few years ago, Italian scientists found that children who watched three hours a day produced less of the sleep hormone melatonin - low levels of the hormone play an important role in the timing of puberty.  

    But perhaps more worrying is the theory that it's exposure to environmental chemicals which is causing the drop in the age of puberty. These chemicals mimic the effect of hormones, disrupting the normal timing of sexual maturing.

  • Mikhael Manekin, discharged from the IDF in 2002 is now the Foreign Relations Manager of Breaking the Silence which documents former IDF soldiers testimonies about the occupation and oppression of Palestinians, "I am a practicing Jew and in two weeks we go into the month of repentance; which requires acknowledging our sins. We cannot change things until we acknowledge our culpability.
  • "A few years ago, the soldiers you have encountered at the checkpoints would have been me. Soldiers like myself who served during the second intifada, got our education on the job. You all have visited more places [the past nine days] than most Israelis ever have. Israeli's have no idea what is happening in the occupied territories. But, so far in 2007 we have given more Israeli's a tour through Hebron than we did in 2005 and 2006 combined. Hebron is a ghost town, the settlers are unbearable and every soldier who is stationed there understands the 600 settlers there are psychotic; insane.


    "I became very opinionated while in the army, but I kept it all to myself. Nobody talks about it in the army and I was the commander and did not know until after I got out that one of the other soldiers in my unit was feeling the same way, until he gave his testimony. Israeli society wants you to believe you are a bad apple for speaking out because unless you trust the system, it will fall apart. Most Israelis who get out of the army leave the country and are probably all drugged out. They suffer post traumatic syndrome but we are the victimizers. My age group is getting the hell out of here or walling themselves off from society and are not involved in anything.


    "Over 450 former soldiers have now given their testimonies and we don't publish any stories without the corroboration coming from another former soldier and the testimonies are kept anonymous.

  • "We all served in the territories. Some served in Gaza, some in Hebron, some in Bethlehem and the rest served in other places. We all manned checkpoints, participated in patrols and arrests and took part in the war against terror. We all realized that the daily struggle against terror and the daily interaction with the civilian population has left us helpless. Our sense of justice was distorted, and so were our morality and emotions.


    "The reality we experienced was made of: Innocent civilians being hurt, Kids not going to school because of the curfew, and parents who can't bring food home because they can't go to work.

    •  On July 15th, >    the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising >    totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, >    Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him: >  


      •  3rd >    in total receipts for the quarter >
      •  4th >    in total receipts to date >
      •  3rd >    in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, >    and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney) >
         Thus far, >  47% >    of the contributions >  made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations >    of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest >    percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact >    that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate >    interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking >    sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman >    Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for >  anyone > , >    special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's >    campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on >    a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests >    buy him lunch." >  


       Among >  all >    candidates, Dr. Paul is now >  first >    in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this >    may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary >    reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel) >    want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see >    Why >    the US Military Loves Ron Paul > ). >

    • Bob King
      Bob King on Jul 28, 07

      Other indicators: check out the number of hits you get for "ron paul" on t-shirt sites. It's like a statistically significant hamburger poll.

    Add Sticky Note
    •  On July 15th, >    the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising >    totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, >    Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him: >  


      •   3rd > >    in total receipts for the quarter >
      •  4th >    in total receipts to date >
      • 3rd    in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, >    and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney) >
         Thus far, >  47% >    of the contributions >  made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations >    of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest >    percentage ). > This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact >    that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate >    interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking >    sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman >    Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for >  anyone >,    special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's >    campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on >    a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests >    buy him lunch." >  


       Among >  all >    candidates, Dr. Paul is now > first    in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this >    may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary >    reason when he asked rhetorically, " why > should (military personnel) >    want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see >   Why    the US Military Loves Ron Paul >).

    • No candidacy   has generated more buzz than Ron Paul's, and the following statistics   prove the point: 


      • "Ron Paul"   recently topped Technorati's   search-term rankings for an unprecedented stretch – current   rank #2 (Technorati is   the leading authority on Internet media usage).
      •   draws more traffic than any other candidate's Web site.
      • On,   the Internet's most popular video site, the Ron Paul channel has   over 22,000   subscribers, which is 13,000   more than the second most popular candidate (Obama).
      • And on,   more than 25,000 people comprise 560 Ron Paul Meetup groups, which   makes the Good Doctor the most popular   Meetup source in the political category. The next candidate,   Obama, is a distant second with 5300 members in 68 groups.  


        Notes:   All statistics reflect current numbers as of July 23, 2007.   Also, for those who don't know, is the most popular   Internet site for people with common interests who want to organize   events and activities with one another – consequently,   it's the most commonly used online resource for coordinating   political activities.

        Some commentators   say this interest and support is illusory, perhaps even the product   of a centralized Internet effort led by the Ron Paul campaign. Yet,   the Paul campaign has only spent $600,000 to date, while other candidates   have already burned through tens   of millions. Although Paul's campaign staff is growing, it doesn't   even have the resources to provide timely responses to the flood of   incoming e-mails (I speak from personal experience here), much less   oversee such a sustained, widespread, technologically-sophisticated   endeavor.  


      The skeptics   also ignore an obvious question – if it's so easy to jerry-rig   Internet statistics, why haven't other, better-financed campaigns   done the same? (Answer:   It's not easy and, in many cases, it's simply impossible.)   While I personally don't know of anyone who spends their time spamming   online polls or repeatedly Googling their favorite candidate's name,   I have no doubt such people exist in the ranks of most political   movements. And given the evident enthusiasm of Ron Paul supporters,   it's quite likely that a greater percentage of his backers might   attempt to do such things.  


      That said,   I believe there are more plausible reasons for Ron Paul's "online   success" – most importantly, the Internet is the primary source   of information about Dr. Paul. As early as last fall – two   full years before the election – the conventional media   and major-party establishments had already anointed the top six   Republican and Democratic candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney,   Clinton, Obama, & Edwards).  Since then, countless opinion makers >    have informed Americans that these six politicians complete the >    list of "viable" Presidential options. In other words, >    no need to look further – we've done your thinking for you. >    


      How and why   this happened exactly is a topic for another day. (Hint – Follow   the   money.) The important   point here is that each of the Anointed Candidates has received   regular, daily coverage since that time (and, in some cases, for   several years now). Although Dr. Paul has benefited from a smattering   of media attention since his "blowback" exchange with   Giuliani in May, people who are curious about Paul's track record   and platform must turn to the Internet. The conventional   media is most unlikely to begin covering Dr. Paul on a regular basis,   no matter how much traction he gains.  


      Consequently,   Ron Paul's supporters must assume the task of spreading the word.   Fortunately, many of us are happy to do so, and when people first   learn of Dr. Paul's track record, they typically want to know more.   As regular readers of my   blog know, Ron Paul challenges US foreign policy on a refreshingly   honest and fundamental level – a level of inquiry wholly absent   from most political forums. And Dr. Paul's forthrightness doesn't   stop with foreign policy, as he applies the same intellectual rigor   to issues involving civil   liberties, health   care, immigration,   education,   our fiat-money   system, and so on.

  • America's political  reporters don't like John Edwards, and have tried to destroy him.  


    But don't take my word  for it.


    Marc Ambinder was one  of the founders of ABC's The Note and is a contributing editor to the  National  Journal's Hotline  newsletter. The Note and the Hotline consist  largely of links to and excerpts of political news and commentary by other  reporters with ample doses of snark and Rove-worship thrown in. Whatever they  may lack in insight and judgment, The Note and the Hotline are at the center of  the D.C. political media establishment.


    Ambinder, in other  words, is a political reporter whose job has largely been to understand the  political media.


    This week, Marc  Ambinder explained why the media has covered John  Edwards' grooming  regimen so much and Mitt Romney's so little:


    There is a  difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the  national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.  


    Fairly or unfairly, there's also a  difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was  trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now  -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner.  


    Now, if reporters  dislike a candidate, that's their business. But when they wage a relentless and  petty campaign to "bury" that candidate, that's our business. All of  us.


    And we've been through  this before.


    The 2000 election was  close enough that any number of things can fairly be described as having made  the difference. But what Bob Somerby describes as the media's "War Against Gore"  was undoubtedly one of the biggest factors in Bush's "victory." The contempt  many political reporters felt for Gore is clear, as is the inaccurate, unfair,  and grossly distorted coverage of Gore that decided the campaign. And, again, you needn't  take my word for it: Bob  Somerby, Eric Alterman, Eric Boehlert, and others  have chronicled the acknowledgements by working journalists of their  colleagues' hate for  Gore. Jake Tapper described reporters "hissing" -- actually  hissing -- Gore.  Time's Eric Pooley described an  incident in which a roomful of reporters "erupted in a collective jeer" of Gore  "like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless  nerd."


    And Joe Scarborough  -- conservative television host Joe  Scarborough; former Republican  Congressman Joe Scarborough -- has said  that during the 2000 election, the media "were fairly brutal to Al Gore. ... [I]f  they had done that to a Republican candidate, I'd be going on your show saying,  you know, that they were being biased."  


    Somerby has long argued  that one of the reasons the media's hatred for Gore was able to define the 2000  campaign so completely is that too few people talked about it  -- and  demanded that it stop -- at the  time. Indeed, as he writes today, too many of those who should be combating  these nonsensical but damaging storylines repeat  them instead:


    But then, inside  Washington,  establishment liberals and Democrats often seem congenitally unable to  understand the shape of the past fifteen years. Haircuts -- and earth  tones -- have  destroyed the known world! But so what? Dems and libs keep reciting these trivia! We keep inviting the public to draw conclusions  from these idiot tales.  


    One recent example  occurred during Wednesday's Lou Dobbs  Tonight, when Air America Radio host Laura Flanders  said that Barack Obama has "kind of  become the female on this race. ... He's seen as the weaker -- cute, attractive. ...  Hillary is the one with the balls." In just a few moments, Flanders managed to  suggest that a male progressive is feminine and that a female is masculine  -- one of the  conservatives' favorite tactics for marginalizing progressives -- and to  equate being "female" with being "weak." With progressives like Laura Flanders,  who needs Ann Coulter?


    For anyone who would  rather fight these absurd media storylines than repeat them, coverage of  Edwards' haircut presents a valuable opportunity to do  so.

  • Hey, I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader....
     I don't live in an igloo or eat blubber, or own a dogsled....
     and I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada,
     although I'm certain they're really really nice.
     I have a Prime Minister, not a president.
     I speak English and French, not American.
     And I pronounce it 'about', not 'a boot'.
     I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack.
     I believe in peace keeping, not policing,
     diversity, not assimilation,
     and that the beaver is a truly proud and noble animal.
     A toque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch,
     and it is pronounced 'zed' not 'zee', 'zed' !!!!
     Canada is the second largest landmass!
     The first nation of hockey!
     and the best part of North America
     My name is Joe!!
     And I am Canadian!!!

  • TORONTO — Canada announced plans Monday to increase its Arctic military presence in an effort to assert sovereignty over the Northwest Passage _ a potentially oil-rich region the United States claims is international territory.


    Prime Minister Stephen Harper said six to eight patrol ships will guard what he says are Canadian waters. A deep water port will also be built in a region the U.S. Geological Survey estimates has as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.


    "Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it," Harper said. "It is no exaggeration to say that the need to assert our sovereignty and protect our territorial integrity in the North on our terms have never been more urgent."


    U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has criticized Harper's promise to defend the Arctic, claiming the Northwest Passage as "neutral waters." But Wilkins declined to comment on Monday, said U.S. Embassy spokesman James Foster.

  • A recent New York Times article postulates that one thing men and women have in common is that we both get crushes on women. This interests me greatly because I just went through a bad "girl breakup" that was the result of a "girl crush." 

    If you ever try to discuss the topic of girl crushes with a man, his eyes instantly glaze over and you automatically know it's because he is hearing the "do-wacka-wacka" of cheesy porn music in his head. Sometimes you have to clap your hands together really loudly right in front of his face just to pull him out of his catatonic state.


    No, it's not that kind of "girl-on-girl action." A girl crush is where you meet a woman whose sense of style or brilliant achievements or personal charisma makes you kind of adore and worship her.

  • The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.
  • department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking "in the context" of reports by the department's inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.

  • "This enclosure sets forth details of investigative activity which the FBI has determined was conducted contrary to the attorney general's guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection and/or laws, executive orders and presidential directives," said the April 21, 2005, letter to the Intelligence Oversight Board.
  • Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations

    After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing


    Washington Post Staff Writer
     Tuesday, July 10, 2007; Page A01


    As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

    Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

  • The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

1 more annotation...

  • Games. Whenever I'm sick of writing about politics it is because of all the games people play while elsewhere real people suffer and die. I get the point of the games: they are strategy and tactics. Think of politics as baseball (with a Mafia flavoring) and you get the strutting games and the top-rooster-of-the-tip games, even if you have no testicles. So in that world the way to write about this event is by asking thoughtful questions about the consequences of Bush's act on his popularity with the Republicans (who wanted Libby pardoned) or the Independents (who probably don't know who Libby is, on the whole).

    Or if you want to go all erudite you can compare this case to the Clinton impeachment case, even if they are not really the same at all. Or you can write long posts about how the base of the Democratic party is going to react, given the "witchhunt" they have engaged in. You know, trying to get Dick Cheney or Karl Rove and only managing to get poor liddle Libby who is a kind and thoughtful man.

    All these games share one thing: They don't ask whether Bush's actions are morally right. Atrios writes that he is very mad today. He sees Bush's act as "obstruction of justice" and none of the many Democrats he quotes has brought that up.

    I see Bush's act in the baseball sense. It's as if the coach of one team has decided to overrule the umpire's decision, and everybody just goes and buys more popcorn.

  • “Libby is in trouble for being part of a team – part of a team whose purpose it was to sell the case for war and to perhaps make sure that someone who was out to debunk the case -- Ambassador Joseph Wilson --  wasn’t credible. So everything he’s been accused of and found guilty of were efforts that were very much a part of the administration’s political purpose.”


    “The irony in this case is that the president said he would 'deal with anyone who leaked,' and now his way of dealing with Scooter Libby is to pardon him.”


    “For him to say that the penalty is 'excessive' may well be true, but it was the same crime that President Bill Clinton was impeached for by a Republican House of Representatives and in which 50 U.S. senators, Republicans, voted to remove him from office. So Republicans as a party thought perjury and obstruction of justice were sufficient to remove a twice-elected president from office. And now the president is saying that 30 months in prison is an excessive penalty for the same exact crime. It’s inconsistent.”

  • politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're   supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means   the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the   media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the   power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.


    Remember that   one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government   edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is   backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That   is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American   people.


    The desire   for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate,   but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were   political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others   through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely,   without regard for the rule of law.

  • Those who hold   political power, however, would lose their status in a society with   truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied   various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and   regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political   power promote an activist government that involves itself in every   area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support   by promising voters that government will take care of everyone,   while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.

  • To say it is "cowardly" to consider assassination is just plain silly, just as it was absurd to call the 9/11 hijackers cowards. A coward is someone who: lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; is a timid or easily intimidated person; is very fearful or timid; or who acts from fear or timidity. If you think that carrying out an assassination or a suicidal plane crash for a heartfelt cause is an act rooted in fear or timidity, all I can say is you've got a different dictionary than I do. I get scared shitless when a plane hits turbulence, and extremely uncomfortable if I even have to tell someone something they may not want to hear. An assassination? I'd crap my pants and possibly have a heart attack before I got out the door! Do you think that Claus von Stauffenberg or others who tried to assassinate Hitler were cowards? Please.

     Not to assassinate a criminal who may well kill your relatives (think nuclear holocaust, global warming, provoking terrorists), because it might be considered "criminal" BY the "criminal" or his criminal buddies, is nothing less than insanity. We need better reasons than labels of "cowardly" or "criminal" to stave off an assassination.

     And let me be honest on this: As much as I appreciate articles on impeachment, especially fine ones like Linda's, I do believe that if I have to read another, I'm going to have a powerful urge to assassinate myself! Talk, talk, talk; talk, talk, talk, but nothing seems to be changing. Some of us are doers and we get a little weary of all the talking, important though it may be.
  • Faithful readers of this site should already recognize me as a reasonably peaceful warrior. As I've told many people over the years, "If you don't believe in peace, I'm going to have to kill you!" I more than once have chastised the military for being willing to kill other human beings, before they get to know them. I have pointed on several occasions to one of my favorite articles God Angrily Clarifies Don't Kill Rule (recommended reading if you haven't read it already).

     So spank me all you want, but I confess that this has only made me made think harder about my own question. Which of course has led to some answers of my own, that are a bit more refined than whatever I was thinking before. And I feel it's safe to say that at least a few of my higher level neurons are actually firing at the moment. So I herewith present five reasons why we should not assassinate, even if one is cursed with a burning itch to do so:
1 - 20 of 48 Next › Last »
20 items/page

Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »

Join Diigo