Too many things to opine about.

Issue 1. The shooter.

Cho was born in Korea, but raised in the US. Ultimately, he's a product of our American culture so those trying to marginalize him as a foreigner and pigeonhole him into a stereotype are getting it wrong. Not suprisingly, he's been the victim of that odd for of socialization called "bullying". So were the Columbine kids. I would hope the people who bullied Cho for his differences are feeling some remorse for their actions, but part of me just doesn't think that is the way of bullies. But bullying can not excuse any of the suffering that the people of Virginia Tech are now suffering. It's a factor and probably something that can be addressed at a later date, but never an excuse. After Monday, I've been trying to avoid coverage of this story. I can't help think the media cares more about ratings than anything else anymore.

Issue 2. The morons.

Gonzales did not save his job through his testimony. He apparently can't even remember yesterday. The question is did he save Rove's. One interesting note about the AG's turmoil is that IMF head and former Rumsfield gunner, Wolfowitz, is not getting as much coverage as he might deserve. His is the simplest kind of scandal, he was sleeping with someone that reported to him, and that woman has been promoted. By all accounts, his ladyfriend is actually a fairly qualified individual (though can anyone explain the taste in men?) but his involvement in her promotion and advancement was still unwarranted and unnecessary. His board is asking for his resignation, but he's another Bushie that should go.

Issue 3. The Court

Most of the medical community agrees that the old men on capitol hill really shouldn't be in the business of telling doctors what the safest procedures are. That's a medical decision. But somehow, Congress crafted a law that bans some procedures even if there are reasonable medical reasons for that treatment. This new law has no exception to protect the life of the mother. But this is just one small step. This just opens the floodgate so we can argue about this divisive issue again for the next twenty years. And the composition of the court suggests, that the pro-life contingent will win much more than they will lose.