When JFK was assassinated, many cheered. And the worst that was said about Kennedy at the time was that he wimped out on the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis. It was shocking to hear people say "good riddance", but a lot of people really did not like Kennedy.

Cheney, on the other hand, has evolved into something close to a war criminal if indeed he is not one. He is openly contemptuous of international law and diplomacy, and believes that America's destiny is to guide if not rule the world, using whatever force, including nuclear weapons, it takes to get the job done. And that's not all. Domestically, he believes in the secret use of power and the corporate state.

So a whole lot of people hate and fear him, and believe the world would be a lot better and safer without him in it. And Bush, who often looks like Cheney's lackey, is still safe from impeachment as long as Cheney stays in office.

So I suspect that yesterday the thought briefly crossed upwards of fifty million minds, "Damn! They missed!"

If some few bloggers feeling that way gave voice to their feelings yesterday, it clearly violated the rules of political etiquette.

But so what? We should not be trying to marginalize those voices. We should be saying, It's not polite to say such things, so instead we will channel those feelings into a more acceptable direction and get serious about Cheney's impeachment. He has a lot more to answer for than bad manners.

One thing is for sure about global warming: it is a very complex subject with huge numbers of variables, with effects that are hard to judge in the short term, like next week, let alone a century from now. It reminds me of economics: we know a lot about the subject, so we construct these elaborate models, and something we hadn't factored in screws everything up.

There is another thing for sure: human beings often seize upon concepts and mass around them and it turns out that they were just wrong. Communism, for example. Arguably every organized religion that ever existed.

Like "Hi", I watched the Charlie Rose interview of Crichton fully prepared to snarl and spit. And I was completely disarmed.

He accepts that there is global warming, and that we need to respond to it, and do most of the things that are being recommended to deal with it. He accepts that it's going to cost trillions of dollars, and that money needs to be spent, or conserved, in order to get the job done. He likes Al Gore, and thinks much of what he is doing is positive.

He just isn't convinced that the rate of acceleration of the problem is as great as is being advertised by the Totally Certain "warmists". He says that if you look at the data and chart it out, you don't get the results that the TCWs proclaim as certain. He says that their data has been so widely accepted because there is a tendency in human beings to accept catastrophic forecasts before all the data is in. He says that dealing with the problem at the pace the TCWs want will indeed bring economic hardship that is unnecessary. In short, it's all about timing.

It dismays me that honest discussion like this, and Crichton's writing on the subject, have become so very political. It's too important for that. I am looking for some kind of study or book or documentary which fairly takes on the TCW conclusions and haven't found it yet.

In that regard, it is common for the TCWs to point at the "universal consensus of experts" on global warming. Well, I've looked at the credentials of a lot of those folks, and some are certainly very heavy hitters. But others are credentialed in peripheral fields, and if you press them, they end up saying, "Well, I accept the TCW bottom line because THAT guy does." That is not science.

So I am reserving judgment, but remain very interested and alert for new information. I think that is a responsible position, and I commend it to others.

The bad faith with which this war was started, the war crimes that have been committed in its name, the descent into torture and perpetual imprisonment, the neglect and mistreatment of its wounded heroes, the brutal recycling of the unwounded ones for third and fourth tours, are now joined by a policy of indifference to the widespread rape of its women combatants.

The half-measures taken to deal with the problem are like "don't ask, don't tell" -- if you can get away with it, go ahead.

How much more evil must we learn of to compel our withdrawal from this awful mess? When at long last will the prosecutions of the evildoers at the top begin?