Drop the house on her, Ben!

[BoKiana]

I'm here, locked and loaded! ^-^

There are ways to beat them though. And that's by changing the face of the Middle East. It's by and far not a quick and easy solution, but think about a few things.

When freedom is brought to a nation, things are rather rought the first decade or so (the US was a hell hole right after the king was kicked out, and it took quite a long time before Washington helped set the first bricks that made the foundation of our nation, and to note, he's not the 1st President, there were 6-odd others before him, though they served in local areas and had terms spanning..weeks to months..), but once things stablize, few big problems happen, and those that do are sorted out as the people have control. Afterall, you and I live in fear of US Born Terrorist, right? Wait...those are few and far inbetween, such as the "Earth Liberation Front", or the nutjob here or there that really sets things off, like the guy who killed abortion doctors, bombed a hospital and firebombed a nightclub then hid in the mountain ranges/forests of the south for just over 5 years. (and it was a lucky tip that we cought that guy, and he was hiding in our own nation and avoided capture from cops, FBI and others, which is what I bring up when others question about finding a certain someone who's hiding in unfriendly nations)

For a short term fix, do what I was trained to do. Shoot badguys in the head, leave their body for the buzzards. They at least useful to the world that way. For a long term, teach a nation to be free. For instance, after one nutjob blew himself up in Iraq near a polling place, the people getting in line to vote were spitting on his gibs. Are these the kind of people who will allow terrorists to grow and prosper within their walls?

Granted, it is a gamble with letting the people descide on what to do. Iran did, of a sort, and their country has been paying for it since, although recently, the people are getting tired of it and the ideals of a revolution are being quietly (or not so quietly) spread around to overthrow their Islamic run government, which is why Iraq's government included in their own constitution that Islam will have a place in their government but it will not run it. That part is important.

This has always been the gamble, even among Americans. After the revolutionary war, the people of the US kept saying "Please, General Washington, become our King and rule us as King Washington I" and George had to beat it into them that he was not going to be a King. Such people exist even in today's world and, like Washington, will step up to the plate when the time is right.

Afiganistan has already begun their new government (which somehow, missed all the news reports considering it was a free election like Iraq's...hmm), now Iraq is on their way to freedom. What's between them? Iran ain't it? The way I see it, like a zit, you go after something from both ends and squeeze. Those people seeing freedom on both sides will invariably spark their own need for freedom. With a few things done, a bit of luck, and we'll be supporting the revolutionaries and not need to outright invade. Another gamble? Yeah, but it's a gamble I'd rather bet on than doing what has been done in past decades. Other nutjob leaders? They will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, considering that one plan may work for one nation won't be the best course of action for another.

Now, I can see how this works out, and I'm nothing more than a 24 year old kid that pores tar for a living and has an affinity for video games, online comics and porn. If I can see this, those who study things of this sort must know these things long before I outgrew GI Joe...(Note to self: mention nothing of my GI Joe-The Movie DVD)

Fighting the terrorists is not easy, nobody said it would be, but it can be done and can be won. This is not a fight that can be seen as easily as the "Front Line" was back in WWII, because this has become a war of ideals moreso than ever. In the easiest way to see it, it's Democracy and Freedom vs Extremest Islam and Tyrany. Freedom and Islam are able to co-exist, afterall, there are a large number of Muslims that are US Citizens, love being a part of the US of A and will fight and die to defend this nation, it's the extremests who is the enemy and not compatable (I remember one news report from a high-up Islamic cleric saying the greatest danger to Islam is 'Western Aid' Google it for yourself, it's floating around somewhere I'm sure). Elsewhere, where there are Islamic Schools run by Osamakin, their teachings are esqued and ripped to no end, it's like equating the difference between Christians and Klu Klux Klan or maybe Neo-Nazis. Changing those schools will make an effect in the long run. Yes, there will always be nutjobs. That's universal to the human race, but IMO, having a Ted Kennedy, PETA, and a Micheal Moore here or there is better than Osamas, Al Qaidas, and Arafats.[/i]

[TGIF]

Seriously. All prisoners held by the US, regardless of WHY they are held prisoner, have certain rights. This is mainly so that it would encourage equal treatment of our own forces held by other groups.

In case you haven't noticed it, these terrorists of 27 flavors are not treating Americans (and others) that they capture them humanely - they are beheading them and torturing them and bragging about it.

We are not fighting a country here. We aren't even fighting one group of terrorists. At this point, every group that has a beef with democracy and freedom is sending "volunteers" to Iraq to dance their dirty jig.

There is no negotiating with these creatures (I refuse to pollute the term people by including them in it). These are enemy combatants who were never within the bounds of the Geneva convention. It is certainly insane to give them the right to each individually tie up our courts with frivolous lawsuits over their status.

And as far as the ACLU goes, remember this is the group that - among many other crazy things - went to court to support the right for neo-Nazis, skinheads and KKK to march through a Jewish neighborhood with their filth and slime.

Don't get me wrong - torture of prisoners is wrong unless you are facing imminent loss of life. And even then it isn't a simple matter.

But confusing these creatures with POWs besmirches honest soldiers around the world.

TGIF

[Firemane]

What bothers me about the situation is the definition of "enemy". My understanding (from following the news, for reference I primarily listen to NPR

Well, there's your first mistake.

Right, right... but I know the bias is there. Where do you suggest I turn for news that hasn't been run through the spin cycle? Every news source I've seen is guilty of bias in one direction or another. Even the "Fair and Ballanced" news. Can't I just get the facts, ma'am?

Look, if you're expecting NPR or any other branch of the left-leaning media to merely lie outright, you're not giving them enough credit. Mind, over the past 4 or 5 years they've been caught out in some pretty outrageous lies..... but most of the press' sins consist of lies of OMISSION, not of COMMISSION.... carefully leaving out key details, using subtle innuendo and carefully choosing vocabulary to lead the reader.

For instance, when one person makes a proposal, and another opposes, note how the press phrases it..... do they say the opposition "questioned" the politician's conclusion, or that they "attacked" it?

If they say "questioned," odds are the dissenters are liberals and the speaker is a conservative. If they say "attacked", the speaker is a liberal and the dissenters are conservative.

Actually, I haven't noticed a pattern for that in NPR. Liberal Democrats have "attacked" Bush in NPR's parlance on several occasions, most recently about the State of the Union address. Although I've disagreed with most of the things Bush has done up until this point (not only his methods, but his apparent motives, I can get into specifics if you'd like), I have to say I like the idea of privatizing Social security (It's my money, darnit, I should decide where it goes), and I agree that Jackpot Justice needs to be restrained (I live in Alabama, the *home* of Jackpot Justice).

As an example, NPR this morning suggested that, according to one expert, Bush was overstating the danger to the Social Security program, as the program has the funding to keep paying 70% of benefits for about the next 75 years (I'm not sure what the point was there... that 70% was sufficient? Or that the problem doesn't need that big an overhaul?)

In counterpoint, they then suggested that the Democrats had overstated the risk of the Bush proposal by saying that it would produce a 40% decrease in benefits. The 40% decrease came from one possible option of the Bush plan, and thus was not indicative of the plan as a whole.

I don't personally ascribe to any particular political label, though if I picked any one it would be Libertarian. Does that mean I'm upset that Bush won the elections? You're damn right it does. Does that mean I wanted Kerry to win? Absolutely not. I don't feel that either one has my best interests in mind. My objection is to the political mechanic that forces me to choose between TweedleDee and TweedleDum, not that TweedleDee won. I believe in personal freedom, so no matter who wins politically, I lose. From everything I've seen, both political parties have an agenda that involves restricting my personal rights... they just intend to do so in different directions. So I can't really agree with the Democrats and their Socialist agenda, nor can I really get on board with the Republicans and their paternalistic agenda. So where do I go for information that isn't contaminated? Is it even possible to get unbiased journalism?

A common one for the war news is "X number of American soldiers were killed today...."..... carefully omitting the fact that said soldiers died in a raid on an "insurgent" stronghold and that they not only took out a few dozen enemy troops but that they also captured a stockpile of enemy weaponry big enough to turn a small city to rubble.... or that they uncovered a torture chamber which "insurgents" had been using to execute Iraqi "traitors and infidels."

For that matter, note that the terrorists, Jihadists, and remnants of the Saddam regime--- who are determined to clap the people of Iraq back in chains--- and the violent murderers who have been trickling across the borders INTO Iraq to attack American outposts and Iraqi civilians--- are referred to as "insurgents," rather than TERRORISTS.
Insurgents are people who wish to overthrow the old order and establish a new one, not reinstate the old.
The real insurgents were the ones in line VOTING last Sunday.

Or, more to the point, the fighters are foreign counter-insurgents.

Look, like everyone else on the opposite side of the issue, I'm not going to make the case that Saddam Hussein was a "nice guy". Maybe I'm a touch isolationist, but are we morally obligated (as the president now seems to be suggesting) to end tyrany wherever it exists? Do we have to invade North Korea next? Or Syria? The idea that we have a mandate to secure democracy abroad sounds too much like the idea that, because we have a comparatively high level of income, other countries have a right to demand money of us (i.e. that stupid Tsunami Aid thing... what happened to gratitude, I mean, really!). It seems like global socialism to me, but perhaps I've caught a bit of post-9/11 isolationism.

I think the problem here may be that we have fundamentally different views of government, not just the current administration. I'm inherently distrustful of government and organization in general. I aknowledge it as a necessary evil, because anarchy really makes it hard to get anything done, but the problem with any administration (be it governmental, religious, or otherwise) is that it takes on a life of its own, and becomes self-sustaining. It develops its own needs and goals outside of the specific needs of the people. As a result, and based on a history of governmental abuse older than most religions, I am very suspicious of everything the government does. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing... I was (rightfully, I think) distrustful of Clinton back in the day.

That's another thing that cheeses me a bit... why is it that when I say I don't like Bush, the first thing people say is "Oh, so you liked Kerry/Gore/Clinton?" That's like saying I have to like Strawberry because I don't like Vanilla. Can't I just like Butterscotch?

Now, as to the detainees....

Things that are not mentioned include

1)that most of the noncombatant detainees were released within 24 hours, and nearly all were released within 2 days.

2)The ones being held now are combatants--- terrorists killers and some of the most vicious mothers on the face of the planet.

3)"If it can happen to them, why can't it happen to your or to me?" Because, for one thing, unlike the detainees, we are American citizens and legal residents of the United States. Thats another little fact lost in all the smoke: the "noncombatant detainees" who were arrested in America tended to have problems with their Visas--- like not having any.

Your first point conflicts with my understanding of the situation. Which isn't to say you're incorrect, mind you. That's why I was asking for an alternate news source so I could investigage further. Or, putting it another way, I've confessed where my biased information came from, and I was hoping you would do the same.

As to your second and third points... that doesn't really make me feel better. The president spent a lot of time in his campaign talking about "values". I believe in American values... I believe that all people (even bad people) are born with inalienable rights, not just American citizens. I believe that's fundamental to our nation's character, and I don't want to see that thrown away.

I don't hate America. I'm glad I'm an American. That doesn't mean I believe that America is perfect or without fault. For that matter, I don't believe that *I* am perfect, or without fault. I believe that my country has taken actions that are not defensible over the course of the past century. I believe that, with the best of intentions, surely, my country, or agencies thereof, have done bad things, including but not limited to installing dictators, supporting terrorism, and outright murder. Does it make me happy to believe this? Hardly. But me wishing it to be otherwise doesn't change things. Perhaps I'm the victim of a misinformation campaign, and everything I believe I know about history is 100% wrong. If so, and if you are in possession of verifiable truth, I would ask that you share it, because I'd really rather believe the best of my nation.

Besides which: we can't even get them to hold onto <I>confirmed killers</i>. Guantanamo has turned into little more than a terrorist catch-and-release program.
<I>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- At least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been involved in terrorist acts, despite gaining their freedom by signing pledges to renounce violence, according to the Pentagon.
At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman, said last week. Others are at large.

The seven were among 203 detainees released from the prison at the U.S. naval base on Cuba's southeastern tip since it opened in early 2002.

Of those, 146 were let go only after U.S. officials determined they no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.

Posted at October 19, 2004 04:53 AM</i>

That's... rather discouraging, although hardly surprising. What do you expect to do with them? We can't mange to rehabilitate petty criminals, so I don't think we'll have any luck turning fanatics into productive citizens. Your three options are kill them, hold them forever, or let them go. Killing them (morals and ethics aside) would be a public relations nightmare. Holding them forever is a logistical problem (as with our own criminals), as you can keep catching more terrorists indefinately. *shrugs* It's a reflection of the problems inherent in our own criminal justice system, but with fewer obvious solutions.

Thank you for discussing this civilly with me, especially since we've gone so far afield from discussing your comic directly. It's been a long time since I've had the opportunity for thought provoking debate that didn't degenerate in the first three posts to "Well, you're just an idiot and there's no point talking to you". Also, I apologize for my post being so long and rambling, I'm an amature writer and I sometimes wax verbose.

Firemane

[Firemane]

And as far as the ACLU goes, remember this is the group that - among many other crazy things - went to court to support the right for neo-Nazis, skinheads and KKK to march through a Jewish neighborhood with their filth and slime.

I fully support the right of stupid people to do stupid things... preferentially things that selectively remove them from the gene pool.

I don't drink, smoke, or engage in recreational drug use (outside of caffiene, sweet nectar of the gods), but I fully support every American's right to get drunk, get lung cancer, and have LSD flashbacks for the rest of their lives. I disapprove of guns on principle (that sort of lethal power should never be achievable without requiring some form of discipline) but since they exist, I support your right to own one, even if I choose not to. I support your right to be a skinhead jerk, if you so choose. That doesn't mean I like it, or that I have to agree with what you say. As long as the Klansmen don't stray onto private property, they have just as much right to assemble as any other group. It's one of those quirks of living in a free society.

It is unfortunate that a group with such a lofty goal (the defense of essential civil liberty) has to be run by people suffering from such a polarized viewpoint (Hey, wait, this is almost back on topic!). What we really need in this country are a few clear-headed people, maybe 9 of them or so, to have an official position in the government where all they do is make sure that the people's rights aren't infringed. They'd have to be free of political influence, of course... I'm not sure I trust the people to elect them, so I guess they'd have to be appointed somehow. We could call it, I don't know... a Supreme Court.

Nah, on second thought, that'd never work.

Firemane

[RHJunior]

Firemane,


1)If you think the press isn't overwhelmingly LEFT leaning, you're in a state of denial no amount of facts will change. It's observed, it's documented, it's tabulated, it's been put on display. Go pick up a copy of "Treason" by anne coulter, a self-named conservative, and "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a confessed leftist. That's both sides of the argument for you. Both agree that the press is pinko as it can get, and provide the documentation to list why.


Leftist: someone who thinks "media bias" wasn't a problem till Fox News came along.


2)If you think the Supreme Court isn't a big source of this nation's problems, you're in a state of denial no amount of facts will change. Rather than mediating and adjucating, they have taken to REWRITING the law to suit themselves.

Supreme Court: The Means by which Leftists get around the fact that they lost an election.

[Kerry Skydancer]

As an example, NPR this morning suggested that, according to one expert, Bush was overstating the danger to the Social Security program, as the program has the funding to keep paying 70% of benefits for about the next 75 years (I'm not sure what the point was there... that 70% was sufficient? Or that the problem doesn't need that big an overhaul?)

In counterpoint, they then suggested that the Democrats had overstated the risk of the Bush proposal by saying that it would produce a 40% decrease in benefits. The 40% decrease came from one possible option of the Bush plan, and thus was not indicative of the plan as a whole.

NPR is a mixed bag, I'll admit. They're almost centrist on some things and can actually be a useful source of information on completely apolitical issues. On international news, though, they're way out in left field and they rarely stray from it in domestic politics, either; they are a bit more balanced on economic issues for some reason.

But SS is more political than economic and they were true to form. The 'decrease in benefits' blather that the Dems were spouting was completely bogus; boils down to 'when the program is fully in place, retirees will get 40% less from -this- program label while making up for it by at least double and possibly ten-fold from -that- program label.' They left off the second part.

And Bush is -not- overstating the danger to the program. That 75 year solvency projection assumes that the treasury bills that the program has 'invested' in can be repaid without raising payroll taxes. I call BS on that idea. Without that bit of bookkeeper finagling, the program does indeed go into the red in just a few years... and the government can't invest in itself, it doesn't actually produce a profit.[/quote][/i]

[Mad Mike]

What we really need in this country are a few clear-headed people, maybe 9 of them or so, to have an official position in the government where all they do is make sure that the people's rights aren't infringed. They'd have to be free of political influence, of course... I'm not sure I trust the people to elect them, so I guess they'd have to be appointed somehow. We could call it, I don't know... a Supreme Court.

Nah, on second thought, that'd never work.

2)If you think the Supreme Court isn't a big source of this nation's problems, you're in a state of denial no amount of facts will change. Rather than mediating and adjucating, they have taken to REWRITING the law to suit themselves.

Supreme Court: The Means by which Leftists get around the fact that they lost an election.

RH, it sounds like the two of you are actually on the same page with the Supreme Court - I'm pretty sure that Firemane was being either sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek with his statement above (although I may be wrong).

Personally, I think that the Supreme Court started out as a good idea - the problems started when the Justices decided that they could twist or nullify laws to suit their whim. They have given additional powers to the federal government in clear violation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is a prime example. Any power not clearly defined in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government is reserved to the individual states, like laws governing the banning, regulating or allowing of abortions.
I would prefer nine strict Constructionist judges - people who judge based upon the law, without reinterpretation, nullification or any other nonsense.

[Kerry Skydancer]

What we really need in this country are a few clear-headed people, maybe 9 of them or so, to have an official position in the government where all they do is make sure that the people's rights aren't infringed. They'd have to be free of political influence, of course... I'm not sure I trust the people to elect them, so I guess they'd have to be appointed somehow. We could call it, I don't know... a Supreme Court.

Nah, on second thought, that'd never work.

2)If you think the Supreme Court isn't a big source of this nation's problems, you're in a state of denial no amount of facts will change. Rather than mediating and adjucating, they have taken to REWRITING the law to suit themselves.

Supreme Court: The Means by which Leftists get around the fact that they lost an election.

RH, it sounds like the two of you are actually on the same page with the Supreme Court - I'm pretty sure that Firemane was being either sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek with his statement above (although I may be wrong).

Personally, I think that the Supreme Court started out as a good idea - the problems started when the Justices decided that they could twist or nullify laws to suit their whim. They have given additional powers to the federal government in clear violation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is a prime example. Any power not clearly defined in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government is reserved to the individual states, like laws governing the banning, regulating or allowing of abortions.
I would prefer nine strict Constructionist judges - people who judge based upon the law, without reinterpretation, nullification or any other nonsense.

Got it in one. One wonders if they should try appointing non-lawyers to the Supreme Court. Say, engineers or other folks who work in the real world and can just read what the constitution says and apply it.

[The JAM]

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Going back to the comic........



I think we all saw that one coming, didn't we?

[Wallaroo_Blacke]

Well... it was a foregone conclusion...

Thelane's grating nature in trying to
hurt others in her own special way had
resulted in it blowing up in her face...

Or as the case may be, crashing down
around her ears... and on top of her.

*looks around for a spatula...*

[Mad Mike]

Uhh, that's 'Beltane'...

We may not see her feet curl up, but I guarantee her TOES curled up when she realized what was about to land on her...

[Tbolt]

My question is, how did Ben avoid...


"Hello, my name is attorney Ambulance D. Chasser, and I wont get paid until I get money from YOU!!!"

[Mad Mike]

Ah, the house is probably hollow, made out of balsawood and has no base. The door will no doubt fall open and we'll see her inside, soaking her knickers, but otherwise uninjured.

[Firemane]

Firemane,


1)If you think the press isn't overwhelmingly LEFT leaning, you're in a state of denial no amount of facts will change. It's observed, it's documented, it's tabulated, it's been put on display. Go pick up a copy of "Treason" by anne coulter, a self-named conservative, and "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a confessed leftist. That's both sides of the argument for you. Both agree that the press is pinko as it can get, and provide the documentation to list why.

I already admitted I live in Alabama, which may not be *the* state of denial, but is certainly *a* State of denial. Secondly... I already said I recognize that NPR (which is where I get the majority of my news, since I listen to it on the way to and from work) has a liberal slant. My question to you was, 'what is my alternative'? Those news outlets I've seen that don't lean to the left are generally biased in the other direction, which doesn't strike me as being better. Biased information is biased information, no matter which side it supports. Or, putting it another way, there is every possibility that neither side is right.

I appreciate your recommended reading material. Every so often we have quiet midnight shifts (not as often as we used to, but still) and as soon as I'm finished with my current novel, which won't take long, I'll look into the books you recommended. In kind, I might recommend "Ain't Nobody's Business if you Do", by Peter McWilliams. I'm not suggesting it because I think it will change your mind, but rather because I think you already agree with 75% of the things he says and you might enjoy his insightful and sometimes quirky take on the issues. For a political book it is remarkably humorous.

Leftist: someone who thinks "media bias" wasn't a problem till Fox News came along.

On the contrary, I've understood since I was a child that news media is biased. Heck, the local paper where I grew up was the Clarke County Democrat (which is actually more Republican, but the name was from back in the day before the two swapped sides). History is written by the victors... and bad rumors are spread by sore losers. How do you decide what is true and what isn't... or what's been given substantial spin? I say you apply your best judgement and take everything you hear with a grain of salt, but doing so seems to have led us both to very different conclusions about the world we live in. The standard of Objective Evidence is difficult to apply to things that are happening on the other side of the world... or things that happened before you were old enough to be politically aware. Sometimes it's easy to figure out (OMG! Sacharrine causes cancer in lab rats! ... Yes, it does, if you stuff an adult *human* dose into the rat) but othertimes it isn't. You like Bush. I don't. You have your reasons. I have mine. It may be that my reasons, or yours, or both, are not supported fully by the facts. It may be that both of us are just hearing what we want to hear, and are selectively filtering the information that doesn't support our existing view of the world.

2)If you think the Supreme Court isn't a big source of this nation's problems, you're in a state of denial no amount of facts will change. Rather than mediating and adjucating, they have taken to REWRITING the law to suit themselves.

Supreme Court: The Means by which Leftists get around the fact that they lost an election.

We already did the State of Denial thing with your first point, but more to the point, you kind of missed my point. Or rather, you made my point without realizing it was mine in the first place. Or something to that effect.

Firemane

[Wallaroo_Blacke]

Ah, the house is probably hollow, made out of balsawood and has no base. The door will no doubt fall open and we'll see her inside, soaking her knickers, but otherwise uninjured.

No doubt... Balsa wood treated with sealant, and strapped down
to the roof with cord... but Beltane will definately leave a yellow
ice patch, regardless.

[Sharuuk]

I *thought* she was an Afghan, or at least an Irish Setter. The ears, muzzle and tail are the signs. And please dont' insult corgi's like that Squeaky, I own one.

Weeellllll.......Let's see, I have concluded from looooong association with owner of both breeds that Afghans and Irish Setters are probably the two dumbest breeds alive. I've watched both dogs, each owned by different friends, repeatedly run into closed doors....both solid and glass, cut corners too short and clip their heads on the wall etc. And these dogs were raised in these homes.....it's not like they're blind and the furniture keeps getting re-arranged.......these hounds are just plain DUMB!!!!!

That Beltane would be an Afghan and act like this......makes perfect sense to me.

[Mjolnir]

No, Sharuuk, they aren't the dumbest. Labs are, by far, the dumbest breed on Earth. For example, my great-aunt's old dog, Hobie, decided that he wanted to go for a swim one day, so he jumped over the railing of the deck to get to the water.

Dimwit, however, forgot that he was on the 2nd floor of a house on pilings (or about 20 feet in the air). He actually landed on all fours with no injuries, but he hit the ground and stopped for a second before running into the bay. The look on his face was priceless when he finally hit. I could almost see the word balloon with "WTF?" in it.

Now, as for smartest breed, I would have to vote for German Shepherds. Mine, Thor, has managed to outsmart us on several occations. once, when he was still a puppy, he even managed to get out of his crate and we have no idea how he did it. The door was locked and all the corners were zip-tied together. I still puzzle over that one.

- Mjolnir

[Labrusca]

FWIW, I knew a blind lady with an Irish Setter guide dog. The dog died in a fire, along with it's owner, trying to get her onto the fire escape.

[Sharuuk]

OK.....while I AM being a little bit facetious here, these to hounds really ARE that dumb. "Trish", the Irish Setter actually "chased" a PARKED CAR...MINE!!! Trish knew my car, had even been in it on several occasions. I'd been at the house about 10 minutes when Trish just started raising hell at the door wanting to get out. Barking non-stop and pawing at the door. The front curtains were open and there was NOTHING OR NO ONE TO BE SEEN out where my car was. Door open, red blur, loud 'thump' with short yelp as Trish plows headlong into the driver side door. Proceeds to raise hell barking at the car, biting at the tires.....ALL 4 OF THEM IN ROTATION....and just generally carries on like this for about 5-7 minutes.

Stops.......looks over the car, barks one last time and calmly trots back to the front door to come in. ????? WTF?????

The way my car was parked we could clearly see underneath it and there was nothing to see......Trish didn't seem at all interested in anything under the car......she was acting like the car was rolling.

Mjolnir.......YOU tell ME this ain't a wierd dog.....! BTW, I'd have paid good money to have seen the look on the Labs face after that landing..

My other friends' Afghan Hound "Finor" (I think that's how that dragon's name is spelled.) Started barking and yelling at me like he was some kind of bad-ass while I checked out Steves newely refurbished pool. I started to advance on him asking if he REALLY wanted a "piece o' me".....all this time Finor is just a-raisin' hell an' barking like he's gonna tear me a new one.....all the while backing up! I kept advancing on him slowly and he suddenly looked at the diving board and got onto it. Now he's a little taller.....so up comes the volume of the barking.

I step up on the end of the board and take a step toward this idiot dog who BTW doesn't weigh 50Lbs soaking wet after a 7-course meal. Finor backs up, I step foreward, dog takes one more step backward and runs out of board.......one back foot stepped back and found nothing there. Finor looks around to discover there ain't nowhere else to go, stops barking INSTANTLY and sits down right there with the most priceless "oh shit" look on his face you have ever seen.

Steve is yelling that if I throw him in, I'm gonna haveta brush him out. I take one more step toward Finor and he starts wimpering.......I just didn't have the heart to toss him in or even worse, bounce on the board and make him jump in.

He had the whole pool deck to use and he goes on the ONE place with nowhere to go but in the water.........REAL brain trust this one....yes???

For smarts.....yeah Shepards are very smart, and so are Dobies....I had one named Thor as well.

[Tbolt]

One of my coworkers owned both a dog (mixed breed with terrier added) and a cat. Cats are not noted for their intelligence in that most refuse to do tricks for humans. (perhaps a sign of superior intelligence? )

Anyways skunks began showing up around the house from out the local woods. The cat got the idea immediately that it was a very BAD idea to antagonize the black and white striped animal. When the skunks showed up it would sprint into the house and hide under the master bed for at least five hours. The dog however....

I imagine the thought process as this:

"INTRUDERS!!!"

"MUST ATTACK!, MUST BARK!!! " (sees an opening to the outside)

"CHARRRGE!" (two seconds later.....)

"ARRGH!!! EYES BURNING,... SMELLS BAD,... HELP MASTER! SAVE ME!"

Repeat the process SIX TIMES in a one month period and the poor dog STILL hasn't gotten the point!


This might be an example of living with a bad influence:

Another of my co-workers owns a german shepherd and two cats. The cats were there first when the dog was added to the family. So it was more or less raised by the cats from a pup.

The cats like to hunt birds while perched uponthe fence in the yard. After a few tries the dog realized that it did not posses the balance necessary to stay upon said fence. Instead it mimics the crouch of the cat and lays in wait for birds right underneath the cat that is perched on the fence! Unfortunately for the hunt, the dog generally "pounces" to soon and the target bird escapes.

The Same thing Happens every Night:

The Shepherd goes to his bed, rotates three times and plops down to snooze. The cats peer into the door and wait for the dog to start to drift off. They then creep up to the dog and... SWAT right on the snoot! The dog takes off after his two assailants. The cats lead the dog on a merry chase around the hall until he works up a good head of steam. Then they break off into the game room which has a stereo system with a small space underneath it. About the right size for a hideout for the two fleeing perps. The dog comes tearing into the room hot on their trail. The room has a polished hardwood floor, with little traction for claws. The dog hits the brakes too late and crashes headlong into the stereo. The dog, slightly dazed staggers off back to bed. The cats satisfied with a good nights work leave the dog alone and go to bed themselves.