Without getting in to academics, let's draw some insight from ordinary human experience.

When an individual is able to kill, and upset enough to kill, but thinks it through and does not, he is called a normal guy.

WHen an individual steps in and uses physical force to protect someone else from violence, or to subdue a criminal who is threatening the use of violence. and thus save aparticular situation by handling the source of it, he is often called heroic.

When an individual is angry and takes it out on anyone who crosses his path, using emotional and physical force to intimidate others needlessly and arbitrarily, he is usually known as a cheap bully.

When this form of bullying gets violent to the point of physical harm, he is labeled a criminal, a thug, or perhaps a murderer or serial killer.

The difference is in the balance between analysis and dramatization used, which shows up in whether his force is used on the right people for the right reason (see case "hero" above) or on wrong targets and for wrong reasons (see cases "thug", "bully", "criminal" above).

It does not make a whit of difference whether he rationalizes his acts by conscience, theism, his mother's memory, or his boss' orders. It is the act and the degree of sanity behind it that matters. Never mind the content, the explanations or the justifications.

It is clear from this perspective that we have plenty of heros, plenty of bullies, plenty of thugs and criminals in this country. So does Saddam and so does every other nation. These are not categories based on philosophical notions; they are found in any collection of human beings.

'Course, letting them in office is another matter! :>)...


A