Better late than....

[Doctor Doom]

Well I'd say it's pretty obvious. Reed mentions that several events, many of them distasteful, would need to occur very close together in a precise order, or all would be for nothing. I'd say it's clear Thor was needed for one of them and Thor wasn't there so in his absence...

[balok]

Perhaps Thor was needed to murder Bill Foster, in order to ensure Reed's predicted utopia.

What's a few murders here and there, and the wholesale abridgment of civil rights for a class of people, if your heart is in the right place, eh?

[Doctor Doom]

Right, to go with all the many murders Reed authorized like:


<Long, long silence>

And of course, all the rights lost by those heroes in 42 for almost a month!

And of course "NOT having the entire Earth destroyed" is the same as "having your heart in the right place". Naturally, Cap would have rathered everyone on the planet die than have heroes who break the law actually be held accountable.

[Nutcase65]

docdoom said:

And of course "NOT having the entire Earth destroyed" is the same as "having your heart in the right place". Naturally, Cap would have rathered everyone on the planet die than have heroes who break the law actually be held accountable.

the thing is, there is no real guarantee that the entire earth WOULD have been destroyed.

How many times have the odds been very long to impossible against the heroes. Numerous

How many times should the earth have been destroyed, Numerous

How many times has the Earth been irrevocably destoyed?
It's still there

I always agreed with Sues take that they always ignored the odds and won. I don't see why this time had to be any different.

But again, where some peopl get into that this is an example of bad writing, I disagree. I think it's written fairly well. Doom can read the series and see and argue the pro-reg points and point things out and I can do the same with anti-reg.


spoiler alert



























(Doom turns out to be wrong, by the way)

[Doctor Doom]

Except of course, when the smartest man on Earth says beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Earth will be destroyed unless something happens, when that something shouldn't result in any deaths or any wholesale loss of rights, and when everyone else smart basically verifies that, one tends to lend it slightly more weight than a villain threatening to eat everyone on the planet, no?

Spoiler Alert:








Nutcase turns out to be a moron by the way

[balok]

docdoom said:

Right, to go with all the many murders Reed authorized like:


<Long, long silence>

Huh?

When did I claim Reed authorized murders? I merely speculated that perhaps his equations required Thor, because maybe Goliath had to die the way he did. Perhaps that was one of the preconditions to avoid the doom Reed foresaw... That's far from suggesting Reed actually authorized murders - although they way he was written in Civil War, if his equations told him someone had to die, then I'd expect him to arrange that death with scientific dispassion. Even if it was Ben Grimm. Even if it was Sue. They made Reed a believer in the infallibility of those equations; a man willing to do anything, support anything, if the equations required it.

docdoom said:

And of course, all the rights lost by those heroes in 42 for almost a month!

They still have to register. That's an invasion of their Fifth and possibly Fourth Amendment rights, and perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment as well.

docdoom said:

And of course "NOT having the entire Earth destroyed" is the same as "having your heart in the right place". Naturally, Cap would have rathered everyone on the planet die than have heroes who break the law actually be held accountable.

And, as others have said, there's no guarantee this would have happened.

The fundamental problem here is that one cannot have a healthy society that does not maximize the rights of individuals, because a functioning society is made of free individuals. If the survival of "society" must be purchased at the price of freedom, that society does not deserve to survive. Let it die. A society that places low value on freedom - for everyone - is worthless.

[balok]

docdoom said:

Except of course, when the smartest man on Earth says beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Earth will be destroyed unless something happens, when that something shouldn't result in any deaths or any wholesale loss of rights, and when everyone else smart basically verifies that, one tends to lend it slightly more weight than a villain threatening to eat everyone on the planet, no?

Being the smartest man on Earth, and there are other contenders besides Reed by the way, is not a guarantee of infallibility. Once, Reed would have rejected both alternatives in favor of a better third choice.

[Nutcase65]

balok said:

docdoom said:

Except of course, when the smartest man on Earth says beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Earth will be destroyed unless something happens, when that something shouldn't result in any deaths or any wholesale loss of rights, and when everyone else smart basically verifies that, one tends to lend it slightly more weight than a villain threatening to eat everyone on the planet, no?

Being the smartest man on Earth, and there are other contenders besides Reed by the way, is not a guarantee of infallibility. Once, Reed would have rejected both alternatives in favor of a better third choice.

Like the choice to all go out for ice cream sodas,.. wait, I've been reading Archie comics again.

[Engage]

I want to know why they spent all of the Fantastic Four's Prelude to Civil War issues focusing on the return of Thor, especially since it turned out to be a red herring. I would have felt a lot better about a lot of the morally shady parts of Civil War if we had seen Reed locked in that empty room making calculations. As it was presented it came too late in Civil War.

[Tana Nile]

docdoom said:

Except of course, when the smartest man on Earth says beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Earth will be destroyed unless something happens, when that something shouldn't result in any deaths or any wholesale loss of rights, and when everyone else smart basically verifies that, one tends to lend it slightly more weight than a villain threatening to eat everyone on the planet, no?

Reed's such a smart guy, he developed a science that would allow him to predict that without the SHRA the world would end. However, he's also the guy who was very much surprised when his clone/robot Thor killed a man. I'm not so sure I trust his calculations at this point.

[Nutcase65]

Y'know, I used to be a paramedic. One time we went to pick up a patient. He had written in this wee little bitty handwriting over EVERY surface in his house walls, ceilings, tabletops everything, sorta like Reed had done in HIS room.

We didn't think this guy was a genius, we thought he'd lost it.

[Doctor Doom]

balok said:

When did I claim Reed authorized murders? I merely speculated that perhaps his equations required Thor, because maybe Goliath had to die the way he did. Perhaps that was one of the preconditions to avoid the doom Reed foresaw... That's far from suggesting Reed actually authorized murders - although they way he was written in Civil War, if his equations told him someone had to die, then I'd expect him to arrange that death with scientific dispassion. Even if it was Ben Grimm. Even if it was Sue. They made Reed a believer in the infallibility of those equations; a man willing to do anything, support anything, if the equations required it.

Ignoring that no-one outside of JMS would ever have that happen, DEFINITELY not Millar, you know full well Reed took strong measures to ensure no-one would die.

They still have to register. That's an invasion of their Fifth and possibly Fourth Amendment rights, and perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment as well.

No it's not. It's Gun Registration all over again, it's only a violation if you read an amendment through rose tinted glasses and twist things to your perspective. Why do you think acorss the net, only a very, very small number of people are trying to claim the act itself is inherently unconstitutional as opposed to the execution?

balok said:

And, as others have said, there's no guarantee this would have happened.

So risking the almost certain chance of the DESTRUCTION of Earth is of course worth it if the upshot is that vigilantes can run around breaking laws for a few years? You don't think the very principle of super heroing is unconstitutional? Because if you squint at the Constitution realh ard, that's more plausible than your SHRA theories.

[balok]

docdoom said:

balok said:

... They made Reed a believer in the infallibility of those equations; a man willing to do anything, support anything, if the equations required it.

Ignoring that no-one outside of JMS would ever have that happen, DEFINITELY not Millar, you know full well Reed took strong measures to ensure no-one would die.

You're probably right that they'd never write that kind of story, but that's the kind of man they've turned Reed into. He was willing to support wholesale disenfranchisement of a minority because his equations told him to - there's no reason to assume he's stop at murder. This is true whether they write the story or not: Reed's new moral compass is his equations. Not basic compassion, respect for others, common decency, or a belief in the goodness of man. Just cold, hard math. Some hero.

docdoom said:

No it's not. It's Gun Registration all over again, it's only a violation if you read an amendment through rose tinted glasses and twist things to your perspective. Why do you think acorss the net, only a very, very small number of people are trying to claim the act itself is inherently unconstitutional as opposed to the execution?

That could also be that there are few people who are lawyers or who feel qualified to argue legal opinions. Owning a gun is a choice. For most of the supers, being what they are is not a choice. It is fundamentally no different than putting people in camps because they happen to have a Japanese heritage, a shameful time in America's history from not so very long ago that proves a lot of people - and the entire government - can think something is right when it is not. There are, by the way, a great many people here who regard gun registration as unconstitutional and gun control as pointless and stupid. But that argument belongs on a political board.

docdoom said:

So risking the almost certain chance of the DESTRUCTION of Earth is of course worth it if the upshot is that vigilantes can run around breaking laws for a few years? You don't think the very principle of super heroing is unconstitutional? Because if you squint at the Constitution realh ard, that's more plausible than your SHRA theories.

Most of them weren't breaking the law - they were acting as citizen law enforcement, and up until the government decided it wanted a superhuman army [1], there was a tacit arrangement - the heroes took care of the villains that the police could not.

Now, in the Marvel Universe, the government has enormous power over and control of every superhuman who doesn't care to break the law. That should scare people. It should scare them a lot. The best governments are those that are strong enough to exercise their minimal responsibilities, and absolutely no stronger than that. When governments get too much power, they do things like repress their citizens, or invade other countries without good reason.

[1] Gyrich admits this in Avengers: The Initiative #1

[balok]

tananile said:

Reed's such a smart guy, he developed a science that would allow him to predict that without the SHRA the world would end. However, he's also the guy who was very much surprised when his clone/robot Thor killed a man. I'm not so sure I trust his calculations at this point.

Excellent point.

[Doctor Doom]

balok said:

You're probably right that they'd never write that kind of story, but that's the kind of man they've turned Reed into. He was willing to support wholesale disenfranchisement of a minority because his equations told him to - there's no reason to assume he's stop at murder. This is true whether they write the story or not: Reed's new moral compass is his equations. Not basic compassion, respect for others, common decency, or a belief in the goodness of man. Just cold, hard math. Some hero.

Except again, that is backed up literally absolutely nowhere outside of FF 541. In fact, the exact opposite, since one of the big reasons he consistently gives is to protect his family and we see him throw himself in hamr's way for Sue. So no, you're trying to twist things to suit your point of view and ignoring most of Civil War to hone in on the parts you most hated.

That could also be that there are few people who are lawyers or who feel qualified to argue legal opinions.

Guess what- I do.

Owning a gun is a choice. For most of the supers, being what they are is not a choice. It is fundamentally no different than putting people in camps because they happen to have a Japanese heritage, a shameful time in America's history from not so very long ago that proves a lot of people - and the entire government - can think something is right when it is not.

Yes, it is, because you leave out minor details like that JAPANESE MEN CAN'T AUTOMATICALLY BLOW UP BUILDINGS ON A WHIM. Or, Hell, even by accident.

There are, by the way, a great many people here who regard gun registration as unconstitutional and gun control as pointless and stupid. But that argument belongs on a political board.

Well those people are wrong, but sure, let's leave that.

Most of them weren't breaking the law - they were acting as citizen law enforcement, and up until the government decided it wanted a superhuman army [1], there was a tacit arrangement - the heroes took care of the villains that the police could not.

And then fled the scene of the crime and never turned up in court, etc, of course.

Now, in the Marvel Universe, the government has enormous power over and control of every superhuman who doesn't care to break the law. That should scare people. It should scare them a lot. The best governments are those that are strong enough to exercise their minimal responsibilities, and absolutely no stronger than that. When governments get too much power, they do things like repress their citizens, or invade other countries without good reason.

Not necessarily. The founders didn't intend the government to have so little power it couldn't enforce it's own law, but let's leave that for the political boards. The government has control of the army, it has control of gun traffic, it has control of the police.Should that terrify us all?

[1] Gyrich admits this in Avengers: The Initiative #1[/quote]

And we all know that Henry Peter Gyrich represents the entire US Government. If that was the case, being a mutant would be illegal.

[balok]

docdoom said:

Except again, that is backed up literally absolutely nowhere outside of FF 541. In fact, the exact opposite, since one of the big reasons he consistently gives is to protect his family and we see him throw himself in hamr's way for Sue.

We'll never know, since they won't write the story where he has to make the choice. But if he champions a law that takes basic rights away from others to benefit his family, that's not heroic a little bit. And that choice does suggest that these equations are his new moral compass: what they say do, he does.

docdoom said:

Yes, it is, because you leave out minor details like that JAPANESE MEN CAN'T AUTOMATICALLY BLOW UP BUILDINGS ON A WHIM. Or, Hell, even by accident.

It also leaves out the detail that none of the Marvel heroes did that until Marvel, in its grand attempt to make the mainstream Marvel Universe more like the better selling Ultimates Universe, made that happen. In other words, the fact that heroes routinely learned on the job wasn't a problem until Marvel wanted it to be.

Like gun control laws, the SHRA punishes a large number of completely innocent people for the irresponsible acts of a few.

docdoom said:

And then fled the scene of the crime and never turned up in court, etc, of course.

So? They'd done the heavy lifting by that point. That was a trope of the comic book universe until Marvel decided they wanted it not to be.

docdoom said:

Not necessarily. The founders didn't intend the government to have so little power it couldn't enforce it's own law, but let's leave that for the political boards. The government has control of the army, it has control of gun traffic, it has control of the police.Should that terrify us all?

Actually, many of the founders wanted a weak central government. Wise men like Jefferson felt that way. And, yes, given what Mr. Bush has done with it, I *am* afraid of a strong central government.

docdoom said:

Gyrich admits this in Avengers: The Initiative #1

And we all know that Henry Peter Gyrich represents the entire US Government. If that was the case, being a mutant would be illegal.

Since he's the Secretary of Superhuman Affairs, or whatever his title is - yes, for this argument he IS the government. He's the top level official in charge of superhuman policy, a cabinet level official and probably a member of the president's inner circle. Yeah, he's the government.

The thing is - and here's the heart of my loathing for the Civil War event - that Marvel make a marketing driven decision to reshape its universe. To do so, it ignored decades of characterization and decades of established comic book tropes to craft something new. But new is not always better.

[Doctor Doom]

balok said:

We'll never know, since they won't write the story where he has to make the choice. But if he champions a law that takes basic rights away from others to benefit his family, that's not heroic a little bit. And that choice does suggest that these equations are his new moral compass: what they say do, he does.

Except that again, you're wrong. He doesn't think that this law takes basic rights away, nor do many others, it's a matter of perspective. And he genuinely thinks it's better for everyone and intends tat no-one die. So your analogy is totally off-base. Imagine my shock.

It also leaves out the detail that none of the Marvel heroes did that until Marvel, in its grand attempt to make the mainstream Marvel Universe more like the better selling Ultimates Universe, made that happen. In other words, the fact that heroes routinely learned on the job wasn't a problem until Marvel wanted it to be.

Haha. Naturally it's impossible that they just wanted more realism, oh no, it HAS to be a push towards ultimisation.

Like gun control laws, the SHRA punishes a large number of completely innocent people for the irresponsible acts of a few.

Like gun control laws, the SHRA doesn't believe the advantages of having any form of person of mass destruction outweighs the disadvantages when they go rogue.

So? They'd done the heavy lifting by that point. That was a trope of the comic book universe until Marvel decided they wanted it not to be.

Until Marvel decided maybe, just maybe, realism wasn't always a bad thing.

Actually, many of the founders wanted a weak central government. Wise men like Jefferson felt that way. And, yes, given what Mr. Bush has done with it, I *am* afraid of a strong central government.

And others did not. And I think you trust too little in the people to vote in a strong leader. True, the people fail on occasion, as with Fuehrer Bush, but they will recover, and we've already seen that., People do learn from their mistakes.

Since he's the Secretary of Superhuman Affairs, or whatever his title is - yes, for this argument he IS the government. He's the top level official in charge of superhuman policy, a cabinet level official and probably a member of the president's inner circle. Yeah, he's the government.

No, he's not. Are mutants superhumans? Yes. Do you hoenstly think for a second Gyrich would like anything more than to round them all up and kill them? And yet is that happening, or anything close to it? Of course not.

The thing is - and here's the heart of my loathing for the Civil War event - that Marvel make a marketing driven decision to reshape its universe. To do so, it ignored decades of characterization and decades of established comic book tropes to craft something new. But new is not always better.

No, it did not. This is what I dislike about many people who hate on civil war. They don't see the possibility that marvel have a different interpretation of the characters. They don't see the vague chance that maybe Marvel think they're staying true to them, or even that there is a grey area. They simply are convinced that Marvel are deliberately ignoring what they personally- as in the haters- regard as characterization. Which is lunacy.

[balok]

docdoom said:

Except that again, you're wrong. He doesn't think that this law takes basic rights away, nor do many others, it's a matter of perspective. And he genuinely thinks it's better for everyone and intends tat no-one die. So your analogy is totally off-base. Imagine my shock.

Oh, I'm not shocked you disagree with me. I expect it. Reed supported SHRA specifically because the equations told him to. That tells me that whatever the equations tell him must happen, he will do. That's the definition of a moral center.

docdoom said:

Haha. Naturally it's impossible that they just wanted more realism, oh no, it HAS to be a push towards ultimisation.

The Ultimate universe attempted to be more realistic. That was its chief difference from the mainstream Marvel universe which drew a lot of its character from long established comic book tropes. When Marvel saw that Utimates sold well, it guessed that remaking its main universe in that image would also sell well. So far, it's right.

docdoom said:

Like gun control laws, the SHRA doesn't believe the advantages of having any form of person of mass destruction outweighs the disadvantages when they go rogue.

Some people use computers to steal money. Therefore, a law requiring everyone who owns a computer to register it with the goverment, and to provide an updated usage log, makes sense. Right? Right?!?

Anything can be misused, and certainly some things are more dangerous than others. But I still contend that the best law enforcement efforts focus on the lawbreaker, rather than on everyone. Good laws call out penalties for specific acts deemed antisocial. Bad laws assume everyone is antisocial and call for odious requirements on that basis. They're bad because they assume innocent people are criminals, and they're bad because they give government powers and an infrastructure that it will misuse.

docdoom said:

Until Marvel decided maybe, just maybe, realism wasn't always a bad thing.

It isn't a bad thing in its place. It's just not a good thing in comics, which are (or should be) fundamentally larger than life.

docdoom said:

And others did not. And I think you trust too little in the people to vote in a strong leader. True, the people fail on occasion, as with Fuehrer Bush, but they will recover, and we've already seen that., People do learn from their mistakes.

I have seen little evidence that the electorate is competent to select its leadership. And almost no evidence that people learn from their mistakes. I'm old enough to have seen this happen, again and again. The best remedy is to limit the scale of the mistake by limiting the scope of the powers entrusted to leaders.

docdoom said:

No, he's not. Are mutants superhumans? Yes. Do you hoenstly think for a second Gyrich would like anything more than to round them all up and kill them? And yet is that happening, or anything close to it? Of course not.

It's early days, yet. Give him time. And yes, he is the highest ranking government official in charge of superhumans. He's the voice of the government in that policy area - unless you can point to someone who outranks him?

docdoom said:

No, it did not. This is what I dislike about many people who hate on civil war. They don't see the possibility that marvel have a different interpretation of the characters. They don't see the vague chance that maybe Marvel think they're staying true to them, or even that there is a grey area. They simply are convinced that Marvel are deliberately ignoring what they personally- as in the haters- regard as characterization. Which is lunacy.

Tossing away decades of established canon that suggest how characters behave is not a "different characterization" it is "ignoring characterization." They also tossed away decades of established comic book tropes to remould their world. I "hate on" Civil War with excellent reason.

You can say "I like the way they've rebooted their characters - they've made them edgier and more realistic, which is what I want." You can't say "This is how these characters always were." Not if youi expect to be taken seriously.

[Nutcase65]

But, like it or not, they ARE Marvel. Don't they have the right to change anything they want?

The things we don't like, we don't buy. If enough people were to cast this vote, maybe they would pay attention.

[balok]

nutcase65 said:

But, like it or not, they ARE Marvel. Don't they have the right to change anything they want?

The things we don't like, we don't buy. If enough people were to cast this vote, maybe they would pay attention.

That's why I purchase one Marvel book, soon to be none.

They can emit whatever crap they like, but they can't do it with my cash.

[uberwolf]

Oh yeah, one other thing I thought was less than stellar was the illegal Skrull organ transplant ring. So you stick some alien organ inside you, any organ because not one looked alike, and suddenly you can change your appearance to avoid capture by Iron Pants and the Fascist Brigade. Um.... how...? Oh never mind.. Did they ever clear that up or was the story dropped?

[Nutcase65]

Heroes for Hire busted the Skrull organ ring.

[Nutcase65]

and please don't talk about having an alien organ inside you,... it brings up bad memories.

[balok]

uberwolf said:

So you stick some alien organ inside you, any organ because not one looked alike, and suddenly you can change your appearance to avoid capture by Iron Pants and the Fascist Brigade. Um.... how...? Oh never mind.. Did they ever clear that up or was the story dropped?

Since we're striving for realism - there's three outcomes of a transplant: you spend the rest of your life on antirejection meds that keep your immune system so weak you have to be careful around kids with colds. Or you reject the organ, which kills you, or you get Graft-versus-Host disease, which is where the organ rejects YOU (happens only to marrow recipients - but if the Skrull organs make changes to the entire cell structure such that shapeshifting becomes possible, it seems a likely outcome with them, as well). The first one comes with a side order of sick all the time, and the second two come with a side order of great pain, with death for dessert.

[uberwolf]

nutcase65 said:

and please don't talk about having an alien organ inside you,... it brings up bad memories.

Does it bring back those buried alien abduction memories Nutty?

[von Bek]

docdoom said:

Naturally it's impossible that they just wanted more realism, oh no, it HAS to be a push towards ultimisation.

But more 'realism' is what makes the Ultimates different from the traditional Avengers...

docdoom said:

Like gun control laws, the SHRA doesn't believe the advantages of having any form of person of mass destruction outweighs the disadvantages when they go rogue.

You kinda of lost me here. There are still 'persons of mass destruction', the only difference is that now they´re controlled by the government.

docdoom said:

Until Marvel decided maybe, just maybe, realism wasn't always a bad thing.

Marvel decided that a long time ago, Thor fought a Fidel Castro lookalike in his second adventure.

docdoom said:

No, it did not. This is what I dislike about many people who hate on civil war. They don't see the possibility that marvel have a different interpretation of the characters. They don't see the vague chance that maybe Marvel think they're staying true to them, or even that there is a grey area. They simply are convinced that Marvel are deliberately ignoring what they personally- as in the haters- regard as characterization. Which is lunacy.

I can clearly see that Marvel (the editors and writers) has a different interpretation of the characters than many readers. But many characters are acting in ways that Marvel wouldn´t allow before, you can´t deny that.

[Nutcase65]

uberwolf said:

nutcase65 said:

and please don't talk about having an alien organ inside you,... it brings up bad memories.

Does it bring back those buried alien abduction memories Nutty?

It's one of the many ingredients in my imbalance

[Tana Nile]

Since this appears to be the most active Civil War thread, I thought I would mention that the Comic Buyer's guide this month (#1631) has an excellent series of articles on Civil War, and its aftermath. They interview Millar, Bendis, Slott, Quesada, and more. Some of the comments I found interesting:

- From Millar about Cap:"He wants the rules of the era he grew up in to still apply, but, unfortunately, we're living in a world where people aren't quite as free as the time when he was created."

- Slott on Gyrich's involvement with the Initiative: "That's kind of like putting John Bolton in the United Nations."

- on the 50 State teams: Massachusetts may get the Liberty Legion, while Pennsylvania may get a team with legacy connections to the LL.

- Brubaker on a replacement Cap: " I wouldn't expect anyone to be calling themselves Captain America any time soon in the comic. That's not the story we're telling. We're telling the story about the loss of Cap, and the hole his death has left in the Marvel universe, and the lives of his friends."

- Quesada admits that he has never read the Englehart issues of Captain America (!)

- Quesada's take on the infamous Sally Floyd speech in CW Frontline 11 is hard to explain, but essentially, he interprets her speech as showing how all of our modern technology, while convenient, also deprives us of our privacy and freedoms. (Personally, I thought this was a huge stretch!)

There's lots more. Check it out if you can.

[Doctor Doom]

No time to fully reply but I want to make this point:

SOMEWHERE in the vast tapestry of the forum, Balok said the rogue heroes were definitely in 42 since War Machine said that's where they were dropped off in A: TI 2. Having reread it, I can safely say that's not true, War Machine SPECIFICALLY says "super-villains." Just wanted to clarify the point.

[balok]

docdoom said:

SOMEWHERE in the vast tapestry of the forum, Balok said the rogue heroes were definitely in 42 since War Machine said that's where they were dropped off in A: TI 2. Having reread it, I can safely say that's not true, War Machine SPECIFICALLY says "super-villains." Just wanted to clarify the point.

It was actually Gauntlet that made the comment to which I referred, wasn't it? As he was escorting the fnewgies to Texas through the 'zone?

A supervillain is a metahuman who disobeys the law. The law (the SHRA) requires registration. Therefore, an SHRA violator could certainly be interned in 42. You may call that semantic hair-splitting, and I'd agree, but Mr. Bush's henchman Alberto Gonzales has used similar logic to say that torture is perfectly okay. Since we're being realistic, and all...