There is so much bad karma in this talk about the war. People are saying the most awful things, and wishing death on people. Beware. All the spiritual people and futurists are saying that karma is speeding up now, so if you do and say bad things, you'll get it back instantly. And with karma, you get it back three times.

Check this article out about a professor from Columbia University, Columbia teacher calls for `a million Mogadishus;' referring to 1993 ambush of U.S. servicemen.

What a fool! I think this professor needs some serious therapy, because he obviously has a ton of repressed anger. And he's an academic as well. No matter what side you fall on about the war, what good does it do to wish people to die?

This professor just adds the fuel to fire that conservatives have been saying for years, that public education is all about indoctrination by the hostile left.

The other thing I'm start to hate is ad hominem attacks against Bush. People say they're against the war, but instead of offering rational arguments for why, they will launch into saying how much they hate Bush and don't trust him. I hear very few voices of the anti-war movement, especially the ones who call up and give their opinions on radio stations, that don't within 5 minutes launch into an ad hominem attack on Bush.

Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies
One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically.

Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it.

Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on:

personality, traits, or identity:
"Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?"
"Of course she's in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?"
affiliation, profession, or situation:
"What's the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They're always against any increase."
"Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great--until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con."
inconsistent actions, statements, or beliefs:
"How can you follow a doctor's advice if she doesn't follow it herself?"
"Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite."
source or association for ideas or support:
"Don't vote for that new initiative--it was written by the insurance lobby!"
"You can't possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking--it was paid for by the tobacco industry."

The point is that each argument must be evaluated in its own right. Information or suspicions about vested interests, hidden agendas, predilections, or prejudices should, at most, make you more vigilant in your scrutiny of that argument--but they should not be allowed to influence its evaluation. Only in the case of opinions, expert and otherwise, where you must rely not on the argument or evidence being presented but on the judgment of someone else, may personal or background information be used to evaluate the ideas expressed. If, for example, a used car vendor tries to prove to you that the car in question is being offered at lower than the average or "blue book" price, you must ignore the fact that the vendor will profit from the sale, and evaluate the proof. If, on the other hand, that used car vendor says, "Trust me, this is a good deal," without further proofs or arguments, you are entitled to take into account the profit motive, the shady reputation of the profession, and anything else you deem to be relevant as a condition of "trust."

I am no Bush supporter, but I hate people arguing their case and making it personal. Conservatives did the same thing with Clinton, and I hated it then. The other side is doing it to Bush, and I still hate it. Where the heck is all this emotion coming from? Argue the points and don't make it personal, because then I just think you're not very intelligent and your argument is totally worthless.