Just Following Orders

I'm pretty sure I would have reneged right away-I've been shocked before, when I was in computer school. It HURT, and I've always had a problem with authority figures too. I tend to resist authority, even do the opposite. It's a problem, I used to struggle with it, but now? I LIKE it!

Possible responses:

You first...

No way!

Bite me.

That is horrifying.  Olivia what are you doing up so late?

Greetings:  A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

I don't have a problem with authority figures, I have a problem with people who shouldn't be in a position of authority but are and they abuse that position.  Authority is necessary in this world, humans cannot thrive in anarchy, but ones conscience should always have a say in ones behavior.

Human beings are wonderful creatures but we are capable of untold evil if given the right circumstance and provocation.  Crimes of commission are no worse than crimes of omission.  I've never felt the need to "get away" with something because I could pass the buck or because it was convienent.

A good example would be the wars we've fought in over the 20th century and this century. Many good and decent men (and now women) have engaged in inhuman conduct during those wars on al sides.  The worst example was WWII.  Some Germans committed terrible atrocities only to claim they were "just following orders".

War brings out the worst in humanity...it also brings out the best. This century's wars have proved nothing new about humans.  Shakespeare, if he came back to life, would still find pleanty to write about. I doubt he'd be too surprised at the lack of change in human nature.

My conscience is usually troubled not by the things that I do, but rather the things that I cannot or forget to do.  It can be overwhelming, but perfection is the light that leads the way and not the requirement.

Why does everyone focus on the atrocities committed by the Germans in WW2?  The Japanese weren't exactly saints either.  Their methods of torture were and still are beyond belief.  Americans did some pretty terrible things too, but the winners write the history books.

Me/ What are YOU doing up so late, young lady? I'm an insomniac, what's your excuse? And, I'm always afraid I'll miss something good...

oops, Make that Me?

Actually I was up late playing with the boys...great fun!

Its only 10:42 here and SB is away training, can't sleep, so there!

I'm just up late playing useless myspace apps.  They are so stupid but I keep playing them, very addictive.

nachista,

Check out the Australian movie, Paradise Road (Cate Blanchett's film debut), for a good look at the methods perpetrated by the Japanese military in WWII.

My first thought, in relation to the scenario our host has presented, is to check with the screamer, "Are you okay?"  Does the screamer respond "Please don't do that again," or words to that effect.  I am a big believer in the notion of consent.  If I have the screamer's explicit permission, all is well.  If not, I walk out.

I had a veritably brutal boss for my first job on the double-decker tour buses.  He was always saying how, if your supervisor tells you to do something and you do it, you're not responsible.  One day, I heard him say that a time too many.  I turned to him and said, "I have two words for you:  William Calley."

DreadPirateRoberts,

I've heard that Calley's fitness ratings prior to My Lai were less than desirable.  How he was allowed to command anyone is beyond common sense.  But then we're talking about the Vietnam War and the the wider war in Laos and Cambodia.  The U.S. ambassador to Laos once said "if you think you understand what's going on here, you'd be mistaken"  He also said, "If you insist on listening to different people, of course you'll get different answers...but there is no answer because no one knows the question anymore."

It's earily familiar to me...like "Mission Accomplished".

In the years since my return from Vietnam I've decided I really wasn't there...it was a dream in the Twilight Zone....other peoples' version of the war was not my experience. I have answers but they don't match the questions.  I have more in common with the former ambasador to Laos then I care to think about. (All said tongue in cheek and with a sense of dark humor)

Done anything to violate your conscience today?

The scope of this topic dwarfs my ability to comment.  I've read a lot about neurology and behaviorial economics -- and I've worked in sales for 28 years.  (And then there was my time in Southeast Asia, a true laboratory of human behaviors!)  Suffice it to say humans are NOT rational creatures, nor does our consciousness have much to do with our behaviors.  We are really smart toolmakers whose tools are totally out of control, and who honestly believe homo sapiens are somehow in control, despite all the evidence.

Not much that humans do surprises me anymore.  It's truly wonderous to observe people inventing stories that 'explain' the world -- especially since the world is infinintely more complex than any human can ever fathom.

But -- if one can successfully escape being on the receiving end of humanity -- it is mind-bogglingly interesting to observe the heights and depths of human behavior!

Heiress-Pas encore, mais il est tot...

Power is seductive.  I like to think that I would be immune to that sort of thing; that I would not do it and would refuse.  However, were the subject to be my son's ex-wife?  Hmmmmmm

When we studied this experiment in the psych department, I often found Milgram more interesting than the results.

I found it interesting that he used the results, the subjects' willingness to follow orders, to make generalizations about German soldiers. And yet, I don't remember reading anywhere that he made similar generalizations comparing his own actions to Hitler's. Doesn't that seem like a fair corollary?

It's not that I don't find the experiment interesting, or even reliable. I do. I think it pretty accurately 'measured' human behavior. Cultural behavior.

But it also CREATED culture. It became culture. And that is my problem with studying social psychology through contrived experiments rather than just observing culture. The number one rule of creating psychological experiments is to keep your 'fingerprints off them' as much as possible.

But Milgram was the Frank Lloyd Wright of psychology. Fingerprints all over people.

Read about German torture; don't create it in a lab.

Wanna know what I think would make a great novel? Imagine one of the subjects of Milgram's experiment. Imagine his trajectory from throwing the switch, to reading the study, to re-imagining himself as a Nazi soldier, to acknowledging that THE ENTIRE world thought less of humanity because of the switch he threw that day.

Today we step into those subjects' shoes for a moment. But imagine rethinking that decision every day. Imagine how it would shape your life.

Milgram shaped those lives. And he chose to do it.

Willie Trask,

"Simulate?" Do we know that?

Olivia,

C.B. "Du Blon" Tahn was a non-stop smutter: "Oh, big cities. I thought you said 'titties.' He could wear you down like a miller's wheel.

He was famous as well for the arm around the midsection, thumb up and under move on every female he could reach. At a wedding reception, he would have had more mammary contact than a dairyman on the job.

And then there is this even less topical item that must be shared:
As a rule, when parked in a medical office treatment room, it is my practice to pull out the extender leaf on the "hop up here" thing and have a nap.

That day, there was a carton of very outdated drug samples too big to place elsewhere, sitting on it.

I amused myself for awhile playing with the digital scale, the power sphygmo and whatever else they'd left lying around before noticing a tiny PC half opened to a note taking app.

"My doctor is not Joseph Bell nor is he Gregory House," I wrote followed by a few not entirely memorable lines- but rhyming at least.

On my next visit, the little lappie sat in the same place open to the same application. Written there were these words and more great ones that I wish I could remember:

"My patient is not Robert Frost nor is he Billy Collins."

The feeling was not unlike that going through the mind of the guy who having been shot out of the saddle is dragged down Front Street a spur caught in the stirrup.

Missive I think you're on to something with that post.

DPR, thanks for the recommendation.  I've seen it and you are right.

Maybe Milgram didn't have a very wide variety of test subjects.  I still believe that if I had been working there and the test subject were reacting adversly to the experiment and was no longer interested in continuing I would respect the wishes of the "subject" before the demands of the boss...the job be damned, people come first.

Stoney,

How does that thumb thing work?

Remember how Altman frequently had  characters who felt the need to brush ashes off shirtfronts? Gambon's character in Gosford park does something similar...

Billy Collins once said on the radio that life's most consistent disappointment must be "meeting the author", but he also admitted to reading some worthy book, by Henry James or somebody and suddenly recognizing his own notes in the margins, despite having no recollection of the previous reading.

About the puppies. I can't figure it out. I suppose it is typical that they would simulate on people and actually hurt the dogs, but the people were volunteers.  And dogs are notoriously poor actors. Anybody know the joke about the child with the dog tied to the wagon and the improvised siren, or the one about the amish woman's emergency brake?

Willie Trask,

"How does that thumb thing work?"
Rather well actually as did his heat seeking elbows,

"Remember how Altman frequently had  characters who felt the need to brush ashes off shirtfronts? Gambon's character in Gosford park does something similar.."
Ah yes, Sir William of Gosford.
I've always considered it preferable to be thought a damned fool than a dirty old man. Done deal.

Billy Collins is great and when, listening in the car to his wonderful piece, "The Lanyard," my wife, staring, asked: "Did you call that guy from the city?" I knew action was called for. Taking the afternoon off, we had a long trail walk with the dog. It worked.

The siren and the amish woman sound related to the guy in the dentist's chair who, having been told: "This won't hurt a bit," established a relaxed but certain grip on the DDS's suspended bits declaring: "Let's hope not."

'Just following orders...', the ultimate expression of trust in leadership... And as I follow the current financial mess, it occurs to me that -- from time to time -- people lose confidence in authority figures.  (Wonder why, heh, heh).  Many people, instead of learning from their betrayals, simply move on to new authority figures.  Go figure.

It seems the human animal has an inherent need to 'follow orders', if for no other reason than to find order in chaos.  In a certain bizarre way, those of us who had to suffer under authority figures we couldn't trust are more 'fit' for a world in which betrayal of trust is the norm.   As a 'non-believer' I have always found it very strange that most folks refer to the Supreme Spirit (by definition lacking a body) as a 'father', rather than an 'it'.  I suspect Abraham, getting ready to kill his son Isaac up on that mountain at God's order must have had some fascinating thoughts going through his mind.  (For those of you unfamiliar with the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham .  The 'following orders' problem has been with mankind a very, very long time.  And the motives for following either the actions of Abraham (on one hand) or of Prometheus (on the other) are enthralling!

I'll offer the following saying of my mother for those who suspect me of being a subversive and radical individualist (guilty as charged, your honor): 'Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe!'  

Isn't it ironic that we, the current self-proclaimed, reigning kings of the evolutionary food chain are in many ways the most fragile and vulnerable of all species?

The gift of free will, which in turn enables us to be "choiceful" creatures, is governed by an extremely complex and delicate chemical cocktail and a very intricate and fragile electrical system.

If that doesn't sufficiently complicate things enough to make us fairly unpredictable; let's add in a dose of life's experiences, an endless variety of environments, all manner of diseases as well as inherited instincts. I'm surprised, and very relieved, that evolution has not branded us with a "Hazardous Material" label.

I know I may be preaching to the choir so far and I do apologize. If there is a point to this rambling it's just to say I believe we all have a vision in our minds eye of how we hope we would act and be perceived under any circumstances. If nothing changes within us we may well be able to successfully predict our responses to new sets of circumstances; but being the very complicated and fragile entities we are there is a good chance we would be wrong.

I'm struggling with my ability to effectively communicate my thoughts on this subject so as the saying goes, "if you find that you are digging yourself into a hole, then stop digging". My bottom line thought, for what it's worth, is that I think it is impossible to really walk in someone else's shoes to understand them. Presto..... it's a can of magic"

I sure hope this is relevant to today's topic ‘cos I've already invested too much into it for me not to share it.

Just say "see ya later" John ......and go rake some leaves.

CHOICE and how we would act? PeterLake makes several good points. To borrow a phrase from Rod Serling, I submit the following for your consideration:

Two men were sitting next to each other in First Class. One had already proclaimed himself to be devout, a teetoler and above compromise. The other had not yet declared himself when the flight attendant came along, offering cocktails.

(Flight Attendant) Would you like a cocktail, sir?

(first man) Yes, ma'am,  I'd like scotch and water.

And you sir?

(second man) Young lady, I would not. Why I would just as likely have sex with you right here in the aisle.

 (first man) umm, excuse me, miss,  it appears I didn't  consider all of my options.

PeterLake,

Funny thing you should mention the other guy's shoes:

I cultivated a deep abhorrence for a fellow worker, who, when he was told to fire several people- none of whom had seen it coming- did it.

Events unfolded in a way wherein it wasn't too long before he was gone and I was placed in the same position.

Sitting down with the group in question, it became clear that two of them were happy to get the hook and collect unemployment during hunting season.

Good, forty percent of the problem solved.

Several others were more than open to reduced or flexible hours and it worked out so that more money was saved than if the reduction I was told to make had been made, the people were happy and we had better coverage in time and talent.

My boss was shocked and irked: "I told you to fire some people. Your predecessor did."
I looked around as if to suggest: "And what did it get him?"

"If," I said, "All you are looking for is somebody to go somewhere and say something you are unable to say, I am not your boy."

He told me to sit there and wait while he thought things out but I got up and went across the street for a tense cup of coffee.

It must have been an hour, during which he had spoken to all involved, before he came over, gave me a little pat on the back and walked out. Whew!!

The advantage I'd had is that I didn't want to feel about myself the way I had about the other guy... the one with the shoes.

Maybe not a very useful example after all.

Willie T and Stoney,

Both of your stories lead me down the path of:

Some people can only perceive the world in absolutes, jet black or bright white. For them, decisions are quick and easy to make. The downside is that regret often follows.

Others live in a world of infinite shades of grey, never black, never white and usually somewhere outside of the lines. Decisions take longer, they are usually more difficult to sell and although there may be less regret, there is often an up tick in chaos.

I think that to function most effectively as humans requires us to have the flexibility to use the whole spectrum between black and white as is appropriate.

I think our ability to do so is predicated by our experiences and what we as individuals bring to the party (physically and mentally)

If I accidentally stumbled upon a point here, please let me know. If not . . . just pretend it didn't happen.

Stoney's story and the original allusion to the Holocaust make me think about how people who DO trust and obey authority can sometimes be terribly let down and disappointed by the leaders in whom the place that trust.  I suppose the current headlines also drive that point home.

The discussion of the Holocaust in relation to this larger topic reminded me of Rolf Hochhuth's play, The Deputy, in which Kurt Gerstein, an S.S. officer, finds out what is happening at Auschwitz and is horrified.  Utterly disillusioned with the authority to which he had heretofore submitted, he seeks another authority, the Pope.  He is then astounded  at how little Christ's Deputy is willing to do in terms of explicitly condemning Hitler's extermination of the Jews.  Rather, Pope Pius XII spoke vaguely of "Nazi excesses" and such.  Here is a passage from Hochhuth's notes regarding the complicity of the people in terms of their submission to Nazi authority:

"For even the fact that today we can go sightseeing in Auschwitz as we do in the Colosseum scarcely serves to convince us that seventeen years ago in our actual world this gigantic plant with scheduled railroad connections was built especially in order that normal people, who today may be earning their livings as letter carriers, magistrates, youth counselors, salesmen, pensioners, government officials or gynecologists, might kill other people."

PeterLake,

All I know is that it seems easier to avoid repeating the actions of a really bad examplle than it is to follow a really good one... for me- sadly. Something, but not much.

PeterLake,

I believe your point is ( as usual) a good one. But I am reminded of one man who said famously "I may have been wrong, but I was never in doubt."  Sometimes, the wrong decision is a lot better than no decision.  Then again, sometimes it is just wrong.

When I was about fourteen, we used to call out to each other on our mastodons ( mine was not as nice as the guy's up the street, which had four holes in its side) "Not to decide is to decide," meaning, if you put it off long enough, the opportunity is likely to go away...

After just 30 months of planning and analysis, I recently bought a flatscreen TV. In that time, my idea of the perfect size grew and grew from about 30 inches to 47 inches, but it recently shrank a little ( Olivia, can you explain this?) and I bought a 42 incher. Not that I intended this, but in the meantime, the price dropped a LOT. I am still trying to calculate how much better my life would have been, had I seen everything approximately 170% of the previous viewing size for all of those months, but at least I know now that the long national nightmare is over.

 By the way, while I was agonizing over this purchase, those crazy kids over at Woot offered, not once, but twice, to sell me a 65 inch TV, which they pointed out would allow me to display James Madison, Napoleon, and Prince all life-sized, at least diagonally, but not all at once. And their price was spectacular, just about two and a half times as spectacular as I had in mind. 

Some would accuse this old bachelor of having dithered when I could have been doing something else.  Again, who is to say what the accounting of plus and minus is there?  Little Ricky Nelson wasn't the first to say it, but he was right when he did :

"You can't please everybody, you got to please yourself." 

And doesn't that take us back to individual conscience? 

(by the way, I DO know how to spell teetotaler... )

PeterLake & Stoney:  In reference to the other guys shoes...Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he'll be a mile away -- and barefoot.

Stoney,

I do believe that either following a "good" example or avoiding a "bad" example is definitely a win-win scenario. We learn and grow from both.

Willie,

I struggle to articulate why I agree with what you say, but it does feel right to me.  We do the best we can with what we've got at the time.  Time waits for no one.

But on the topic of TVs, I got a 42 incher myself and yet I find myself pulling the chair up closer to the screen.  The one thing that I have learned from watching a widescreen HD TV is that there are a lot less people with baby-butt perfect complexions than there were on the smaller sets.  It kinda evens the playing field.

I'm waiting for the home version of IMAX!

Aye-aye Captain Neptune.  That be good advise fer sure.

Capt Neptune,

I am laughing out loud.
Thank you

It was often said that what lurked beneath the polished manners and bespoke dress of a British merchant banker was a rough and tumble barbarian waiting  for you to push a little too much. The thin veneer of civilization is another name for it. How quickly we can submit to authority is hinted at in books like 1984, Farenheit 541 or an even benign authority as in Brave Bew World....of course we can create are own world very quickly once the authority of reason is gone.  Lord of the Flies.  A good question to ask yourself in the above situations is would you be the servant or the master in a such a world? Especially if you had no chance to rebel.

In other words, would you choose to be on the receiving end of a cattle prod or would you get used to the idea of using it on your felow humans? It's not really a black and white moral issue, it's very much a murky grey issue.

Willie,

You may notice that the woman in your CIA story clearly flunked the test.  The order was quite explicitly to SHOOT her spouse.  At no point was she ordered to KILL him.  By killing him with a chair leg she both fails to execute the order as given and takes it upon herself to accomplish a directive that was never given.  Must have been more in that marriage than meets the eye.

I've been on the receiving end of a cattle prod, I jerked it out of the kid's hand and whacked him in the butt with it.  Same thing happened with one of those crops the 4-H kids use to guide their hogs around the show ring...that time I just climbed up into the rafters and hung it from a light that they couldn't reach.

DPR, picky, picky, picky...shoot, bludgeon, you can't give us an order and then not expect us to improvise, its what women do best!

nachista, I've got to agree with you.  A perfect example of neccessity being the mother of invention.

I cannot derive much meaning at all from the Milgram experiment, being as it was utterly uncontrolled and therefore not science, being without any fashion of informed consent, and accompanied as it was by the fact that Milgram was often watching it from behind a two-way mirror and laughing hysterically. As Ive has said, this revealed more about Milgram than it did about human behavior.

I have known religious types to try and misappropriate the event as evidence of a universal heart of darkness in the absence of a moral compass that only religiosity can confer to people. 

Mark Swaim - I really have to second and third your comments - psychology is as psychology does and just because one has the degree and the title doesn't necessarily mean a thing unless the protocols of validity are observed in their experiments.  As the genuine mother of pearl of a currently practicing clinical psychologist, I am among the first to question some of the stories published about such experiments.  I'd wonder if Milgram's experiments would even be allowed these days.  Even the ASPCA should question his antics. 

William-Sometimes throwing cold water on an idea will cause it to shrink too.

I have a 42 inch television I got on sale at Target. when I saw it, I HAD to have it. Anyone care to guess the brand name on it?

Back to you, Herr Professor jerk Milgram. I don't like that experiment, that guy is a twisto.

Olivia,
LG

Stoney-Nope-it should be obvious!

Hi Olivia:  Your new TV is.....a......Olevia 2 Series 1080p 42" LCD TV - 242TFHD

*clapping excitedly* Ooh-you win! Now, let's see, what shall your prize be? Ah, I have it!

*blows Cap'n a big wet kiss*

Olivia:  Speaking of Kermit the Frog;  The song "Rainbow Connection" has just been covered by Willie Nelson.  Yeh, ol Willie.  He stays true to the origional and it is very moving.  Just as good as Kermits version.  Check it out and let me know what you think.  Oh yeh, thanks for keeping the economy moving with the purchase of the TV

Olivia:

Name for a heavy metal headbanger band!!!!!!

STANLEY AND THE MILGRAMS

Kermie's my only bf atm. We get along great. I'd love to hear the tune you reference.

Bought the TV a short time ago, I love it.

Now, behave, or I'll push this red button...

Mark-good one! How about A MILGRAMS OF SHOCK? 

THYROTOXIC STORM is still my fave lol.

How about MILGRAMS PROGRESS?  

I think EFFEXOR AND YOUR BRAIN ZAPS would be a good band name.

Nachista,

"You can't give us an order and then not expect us to improvise, its what women do best!"

And you claim not to have a problem with authority?

I don't have a problem with authority, I have a problem with vague guidelines that leave room for mistakes and problems.

;)

I like to play devil's advocate, especially when I see an overlooked point or fact that could really weedle someone out of their comfort zone and make them consider that their POV might not be based on ALL the information. 

High school debate team tried to recruit me because I would do research on text books that didn't seem up to snuff and point out their flaws in lectures when it was obvious the teacher hasn't done his/her homework and was just phoning it in.  I lasted a week in debate because it wasn't fun when you HAD to do it.

Sarah McLachlan does Rainbow Connection in a way that sounds like something a very hung over mom might do to get the kids to quiet down until about four in the afternoon. It is great.

Olivia hit the nail on its screaming head; our willingness to inflict pain is located on a broad continuum, not as the bivalent values of a dichotomy (I'd definitely punch the button on my stepfather). Put another way, you don't have to sacrifice your genuine Good Character to be willing to punish someone. But the ability to get to this uncomfortably special place is outside the realm of popular culture, as follows...

Recent moral dictum suggests that there are good and evil in the world, each constantly fighting for your eternal soul. Choose wisely, since the choice is forever. We all know that drill.

But not long ago, nearly everybody believed that "good" and "bad" were merely contextual locations on a moral scale, the implications of which were essentially hidden from view (which is not at all different from today, really). Sure, you had to make your decisions, but you did MAKE them with full realization that at the end of the day these were your fully-owned acts of conscience. Kill somebody today? That's your fault. Hope you had a good reason. Save somebody's life? Better hope that they were worth saving; you'd hate to be the guy who saved the five year old Hitler from drowning, right? Right??

All of which helps me get to within one or two internal leaps of logic of the point: that there isn't a dualist world with Good vs. Evil as the main event. No, it is an American Plan world with Good AND Evil both on the menu at all times. We are made up of equal parts Enlightened and Icky, and it's our choices throughout our lives that weave in and out with the choices everybody else makes, and taken altogether we are producers of the literal fabric of destiny. Weaving fate, that's what we're doing. Give or take a nuance here and there.

The trouble is, not many - least of all Milgram's test subjects - are schooled in thinking about themselves this way. Thus, the opportunity to do something generally thought of as "wrong" (because I wouldn't choose to electrocute anybody for a bad word choice... honest), would once have offered the subject an opportunity to consider personal honor, and pride, and the power of a bad choice to resonate forever. Instead, these days, the chance to do something "bad" with nobody else ever the wiser is considered "getting away with something". And who doesn't want to do that? I'd like to get away with viking a boat load of gold bullion right about now. It would make me happy. But I digress.

The compulsion under orders to do something bad to another person is inexcusable. True, a bunch of Free Thinkers is the last thing most of us would want for a cadre if we were in fact in charge of it all. But this is not a modern problem; it is an ancient one. Merely subsuming one's moral compass beneath the power of a superior, or more forceful one, in the guise of being a good citizen is base, ignorant, reprehensible, and foul. And you can go all the way back to Socrates to find out how somebody else finessed such a situation (or read a good contrarian analysis of Socrates' decision to "go home"... http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/ifstoneonsocrates.html).>

Bottom line: you own your decisions. Socrates owned his and developed a drinking problem. Then some mass social psychosis intervened for a few centuries, and now we have herds of sheeply people who think that just "following orders" gets them off the hook. And they think that there's evil out there, ready to trip them up if they venture off the straight and narrow. Nonsense.

Ach, Jonathan, now isn't that the auld and lovely Irish toast you're givin there? Here's another:

May the roof above us never fall in, and may the friends around us never fall out!

Singing's no sin, and drinking's no crime, if you only have one-just one at a time!

When you pass on, may you be in heaven five minutes before the devil knows you're dead!

May misfortune follow you all the days of your life-and never catch up!

and a good one for me:

If you're lucky enough to be Irish, you're lucky enough!

sorry, like a pint of porter, one's never enough...

nachista,

Oh, my dear, do tell me what part of "shoot your spouse" is a vague guideline that leaves room for mistakes and problems.

Related topics: Existentialism, freedom, mirror neurons, Prisoner's Dilemma, monotheism, fear, chimpanzees, the Grand Inquisitor (Doestoevsky), 1984 (Orwell), and on and on... so much!

The one single must-read book I never hear mentioned (a classic) is Hannah Arendt's 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism 

Recommended to me as an undergrad by the late George Bauroth, it took me almost 40 years to get around to reading it.... I wish I'd done so earlier, but I'm glad I finally read Arendt's analysis.  For a bit about Arendt's biography (she was an interesting woman!) here's a starter:  http://www.egs.edu/resources/arendt.html 

I helped teach that book (Origins) as a TA for a course at UCLA years ago, taught by a fascinating English woman. She was a very Petermanly character herself. She taught at UCLA during the summer, but retired to her 14th century French farmhouse the rest of the year. Her class was generally speaking about the ethics of violence, and filled with 18 and 19 year old geniuses. I learned more as the TA than I could have expected. They should have made me pay tuition for it, instead of paying me to grade papers.

DPR define shoot *gigglesnortgiggle*, Bill clinton isn't the only that can play that game.  Maybe the chair leg was used as a projectile and when it missed its mark she simply helped it along.

nachista,

Okay.  I admit, the order never stated "Shoot your spouse WITH A FIREARM".  So, I acknowledge the possibility that you could conceivably kill your spouse with a chair leg in a manner that resembles shooting.  However, I seriously suspect that, in order to actually kill him with the chair leg, she would have had to do more than the order stated.  Once again, there was no stipulation that the shot need be fatal.  Therefore, to do all the projectile chair leg shooting required to achieve said result is a clear case of... wait for it... OVERKILL.

And you're quite right.  Bill Clinton is definitely not the only one who can pay that game.  Indeed, he plays it rather badly.