JB's editorial is so mild-mannered I can barely resist comment. this from the JB we all know and love? this is so bland as to be almost PC, and frankly I agreed with every statement in it, virtually. how did he manage to avoid the label "assassination politics"? in fact how does he avoid the label "assassination" entirely? the whole system was based on killing people. what's this about mere "protection" or "security"? JB, have you changed your ideas? a common pot of money for a security force is not a radical idea. a betting pool on deaths *is* not only radical, but quite morally vacuous and depraved. I think the main flimflammery in the essay is the concept of "criminal". JB always advocated in the past that merely being a bureacrat was virtually criminal, and that people would donate money toward their demise. JB, you are going to get nailed for your obvious duplicity. you should be ashamed of yourself. you are not only a advocate of death, but someone who does so as weasely as any politician hides his true views. you are not being honest with your own ideas. you are just as much a hypocrite as the bureacrats you despise. note to everyone: jim bell's editorial has virtually no relation to his past essays. I propose that someone send that newspaper his AP article.