Street spectacle: I thought that he was talking into a cell phone...

[Boojatta]

but then I looked more closely. Half the people I was with believed that it was a cell phone, until I explained the situation to them. His hand was cupped, but he didn't have anything in his hand.

You know the signs. There were definite wrinkles on his shirt. I admit that it's unlikely that any of those wrinkles protruded far enough to take out someone's eye, but it's still possible. Why should we the people have to take that risk? It looked as though he hadn't shaved his face in at least a few days, but he didn't have any kind of stylish mustache or beard. What would happen when the hair on his face started to get itchy? He might be motivated to break into someone's home and use the washroom. It's really not much different from a number of unrelated adults buying a house and then sharing it. The odds are that they're going to want to park more vehicles than the property can accommodate. There's a risk that they might be motivated to park illegally. Therefore, regardless of whether or not they own the home, and regardless of whether or not they drive, we the people recognize that they don't have the right to live in it together.

I acknowledge that, taken alone, each item that I mentioned above (talking to himself, wrinkled shirt, hair growth on face, lack of styling of facial hair) is a detail. However, they form a pattern, and the science of medicine demonstrates that such a pattern could easily give rise to problems for everyone. Let us suppose that he sees a journalist on the street. Maybe he sees a camera and mistakes it for an RPG. He might shoot to kill, thinking that he's merely defending himself. Then he would have to punished, and he would suffer, and this is my primary concern. I do consider his potential danger to others, but I'm even more concerned that he could be a danger to himself.

Consider one more scenario. Let's suppose that he doesn't see a journalist on the street. Instead, he goes all Unabomber on us. However, unlike Ted Kaczynski, who sent package bombs to Americans, this man could send them to people in Iraq. Imagine it: an ordinary Iraqi receives a package in the mail. Curious and hopeful, he opens it. Boom! Somewhere in Iraq, a bomb would explode, and I'm not talking about construction demolition or mining. I'm talking about a device that is a danger its maker, because it could accidentally blow up while the man is making it. However, even if he's as skilled as Ted Kaczynski, the law will eventually catch up with him, so that in making bomb packages and mailing them to Iraqis, he is ultimately creating a danger to himself of incarceration, and a danger to others when Iraqis are injured or killed by the explosions.

In conclusion, I wish to say that George W. Bush was never a danger to himself or to anyone else, so the law says that when he was President he wasn't crazy. If you say that he was insane, then you are slandering him. Please stop the slander. George W. Bush was merely an eccentric President. Poor people are crazy.