Mike Wallace and Doctor K

These look more like tattoos or chopper "art", (but even more cheesy, if that's possible).

Living in Michigan we have the double fun not only of Dr. Death, but also his charming defense attorney (who ran for governor about ten years ago) Geoffrey "Never met an ad hominem attack he didn't like" Fieger.

To parrot one of the commentators on the article you linked, why is it acceptable for the NYT to throw epithets about the man williy-nilly, or for you, Rod, as a journalist, to opine about his "demonic creepyness," but it is not acceptable for Mike Wallace to offer his opinion about the man?

Easy. 1) I am an opinion journalist, whereas Mike Wallace prides himself on being a straight-news reporter, and 2) Mike Wallace has done, and may do again, reporting on the revolting Dr. K.

Regarding Wallace: I'm certain it was Wallace who went on record saying that his objectivity as a journalist would prevent him from saving a serviceman's life.

From Jeff Jacoby:

The most infamous expression of this neutrality fetish occurred during a PBS debate in 1989. A hypothetical case was put to Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace: You're covering a war, traveling behind enemy lines with a "North Kosanese" military unit that sets up an ambush to kill a group of Americans. Do you film the ambush, or do you try to warn the Americans?

Jennings answered first. "I think," he said after a long pause, "that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."

That appalled Wallace. "I am astonished" that you would interfere, he said to Jennings. "You're a reporter!" But shouldn't a reporter do something, asked the moderator, when his fellow Americans are about to be massacred? Doesn't he have a higher duty than covering the story?

"No," Wallace replied at once. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

Jennings backed down. "I wish I had made another decision," he said. "I would like to have made his [Wallace's] decision."

Wallace has made a fetish of his objectivity. It is right for Rod to call him on it.

Will Wallace intervene for Scooter Libby because of Scooter's fine qualities as a man?

I looked at the paintings. Frankly, they remind me of art that a coffee house I once frequented used to put on the wall -- clearly the result of an adolescent need to shock the bourgeoise. Honestly, I wouldn't call this stuff so much demonic as ugly, poor quality, and childish.

To me, Kevorkian is not demonic, but rather a dangerous, reckless man who believes himself to be a martyr trying to advance the cause of human dignity.

As someone who is generally pro-choice, I have grave doubts about the whole "Right to Die" movement. I don't believe in heroic measures in terminal cases, necessarily, but I worry that the advocates for the "Right to Die" movement may some day find themselves replaced by advocates of the "Duty to Die" ("because you are old and in everyone's way, etc.") movement.

Well, they're bad,macabre paintings but his philosophical musings,except for the Easter one, are just reiterating how low humanity has fallen not advocating satanism. He's probably a bit disturbed but I don't think his paintings epitomize evil.That said, there's no way those paintings would ever enter my house let alone grace the walls.