Pit bulls aren't called pit bulls because they dig deep holes. The association, as I understand it, is with the bull pit or the bear pit, places where dogs were used to bait large animals for sport and betting purposes. The sport was banned in the middle of the 18th century in England, but dog-fighting took its place and flourished for a long time after (didn't it -- see M. Vick). Pit bulls and Staffies and others were bred to be cool around people while ferocious with other dogs. This hard-wiring can obviously be interfered with through bad training and traumatization, but it's still there.

My Australian shepherd has never seen a sheep nor have I ever trained her to herd anything. But her entire relationship with other animals, including other dogs, is to try to herd them.

We've been very good at creating dogs to suit the tasks we want them to perform. In the case of the pit bull, I'm afraid it's a bit like the handgun -- too easily misused to be allowed to roam the streets freely.

Make that "middle of the 19th Century"

Breeding for specific traits, over times, IS a matter of genetics. You're not arguing that, are you? No one else is.

And once again Bush makes his speech to a group of VFW fossils who think war, any war, is just dandy. Is it possible that Rove et al. have so successfully protected Bush from knowledge of how much people dislike him personally and his presidency in all its incompentence? Poor guy is in for a hell of a wake-up call once he gets out of office and can watch television again.

How much you wanna bet we learn soon that today's Blackhawk tragedy was enemy fire? Right about now, that's the last thing they'd want us to know, which is exactly what makes me think it's the truth.

So why would the writers choose to distort history so?

Ever hear of the Ministry of Truth? It's not distorting history, it's creating history.

Yes. This is how the troops are supported.

If you want a great chuckle, go to Slate and look at yesterday's Doonesbury, then today's.

Is there some kind of cronyism happening with the suppliers?

Gee, ya think?

Please send that post to your nearest major newspaper's letters-to-the-editor department!

Quite correct. And the Brits called them the equivalent of terrorists.

Indeed. Caused by whom?

Crocker almost makes Bush sound articulate. Well, not quite, but they're both from the same school of tongue-tied-in-knots-from-lying.

Then why don't you?

I couldn't, and so didn't submit. I agree with you that what we got was pretty lame. You have to give those professional bumper-sticker writers some credit. It ain't an easy job.

If BushCo thinks they can win the war and salvage their place in history by hiring a PR firm and replacing one feckless Iraqi with another, let 'em. It isn't going to work. It's fine to point out what they're up to, but I wouldn't spend too much ink on it. Next month, it'll be something else, because this clearly isn't going to change the situation on the ground. At best, it buys some time as we "give Mr. Allawi a chance to prove that we've been right all along." But nothing's going to change. The reality that we invaded a country without understanding its culture and the pressures that had built up in its intra-religion dynamic is not going anywhere anytime soon, no matter how fast and furiously the Bush administration dances and twirls.

But those headlines sound like "the Onion." Maybe you could get a job there?

What B.S. Gonzo was the administration's creation, it's pet dog. The embarrassment belongs to the administration, not to Gonzo. He's just who he is, always has been and has always been known to be by anyone paying attention. It was making him AG that is the embarrassment. Wiping their hands and claiming to be relieved that he's gone is the worst kind of misdirection of responsibility.

I haven't read all the posts yet; I can't believe I'd be the first to ask exactly what you mean when you say:

One would hope, though not necessarily expect, that Harry Reid and company would treat that as the serious violation of their agreement that it would be and respond with full retaliation.

At least to judge from recent history, "full retaliation" by the new Demo congress isn't a whole lot for Bush to live in fear of.

I've been a pretty faithful reader of Glenn's posts and readers' comments since Glenn moved to Salon. It's true, I'm getting old and the synapses don't fire as reliably as they used to. But I do not recall many (or really, any) instances of Glenn mocking or belittling calls to direct action or those who propose them. Could you post an example to help me see your side of the argument? I think Glenn is making a difference in ways that MoveOn.org is not intended to, and thus serves a very important role in moving the Mainstream Media in the general direction of greater honesty and impartiality. Incrementally, to be sure.

Anyway, please post that example ASAP.

Cheers,

Additionally, Bush can allow Clement to keep the seat warm until he feels like making a change...let's say just prior to the Christmas recess period.

If I read the rules correctly, Bush can keep him warming that seat until Jan. 20, 2009.