GP2,

Ya’ got me bad with that one! Based on too little information, I chose Hitler over Roosevelt only because Roosevelt consulted astrologers. I figured anybody in politics must associate with crooked politicians because it just comes with the territory, but doesn’t mean they are necessarily corrupt. There were no negative attributes listed with Hitler. Shouldn’t the information have included time in jail or prison? I thought Hitler wrote Mein Komph (sp) in jail. I didn’t figure smoking, drinking, and philandering were significant factors for rating a candidate’s ability to do the job. Getting kicked out of office happens way too infrequently, so I figured that doomed Churchill’s chances.

As for question 1, there was too little information. Were the other kids born deaf, blind, and retarded? Or were there external, non-birth-related factors. Given that limited info, I was leaning toward recommending aborting poor ol’ Beethoven.

I’m inclined not to judge people without a reasonable amount of information, nor making out-of-context judgements, but I made an exception here so I could play your game.

Gadzooks! The Congressional statistics are absolutely frightening! 84 DUIs? 71 can’t get a credit card? I can’t keep the offers out of my mailbox. Being a defendant in a lawsuit doesn’t really connote a negative value about someone. And being accused of something is often a long ways from being convicted of it, although it should elicit a closer look at a person. And this is the best Congress money can buy? I’m very disappointed.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.