[This was originally a comment at POLITICAL ANIMAL on Steve's coverage of Gov. Jindal refusing Federal assistance for extending unemployment benefits.  I hope it will become one of a series.]

FABLES FOR THE REPUBLICAN MIND:#1 (of a series)

(Court case)
"Now, Officer Jindal, you don't deny that when the decedent's car finally overbalanced and slid down the side of the ravine, considerable damage occurred to the houses below?"

<i>"No, Sir, that's undeniable.  Even my relatives had some windows broken in the resulting dirt slide.  And yes, many houses were ruined by it.  But I still do not understand why I am being sued for the damage.  I didn't drive the car there, or attempt to turn around in such a dangerous place.  It's the defendant's family that should be being sued.  Instead, Your Honor has allowed this suit to go forward, and even allowed them to sue me for 'wrongful death.' I don't understand how..."</i>

"Officer Jindal, you don't deny that surveiillance cameras show you parked a few feet from the defendant's precariously balanced car?"
 
<i>"No sir, I've already stated I arrived at 1:10, and that the defendant's wriggling and waving in the front seat caused the car to unbalance at approximately 1:18."</i>

"And your police car comes equipped with a winch and chains for just this situation, correct?"

<i>"Yes sir, at least about the winch and chains.  It's the 'just this situation' that is the question in the suit."</i>

"Yes it is, exactly.  Now you say it was the gesticulating and waving the decedent was doing that caused his car to overbalance?"

<i>"Yes, sir, which is why I don't understand..."</i>

"Is it possible the driver was waving to get your attention?"

<i>"That could have been so, but I don't see how anyone can be sure of this.  He may have just been trying to escape from the dangerous situation he was in."</i>

"What were you doing in this period?"

<i>"My job, sir.</i>

"Explain."

<i>"The police budget for repairs has been cut, and everytime the winch is used, it scrapes so much paint off that the car needs repainting.  Because of this, I've determined not to use it in cases where the driver himxself is responsible."</i>

"And how were you determining this question?"

<i>"I was making sure the driver hadn't been drunk when he caused the trouble for himself.  I was checking to see if he had any record for DUI."</i>

"Surely that would have taken seconds to check on the computer in your car."

<i>"Yes, sir, but the previous local government was known for its leniency in such things.  It was possible they simply hadn't prosecuted.  I was calling all the bars in the area to see if a driver of his description had been in that night."</i>

"And had they?"

<i>"No, and that's the real tragedy.  Had the driver remained still, I had just determined he probably wasn't at fault, and was just positioning the car so I could tow him.  But he got even more excited and... well, we all know what happened."</i>

"He got 'more excited' you say.  Could he have thought you were driving away?"

<i>"I don't see why.  The problems with the police budget have been in the newspapers.  He should have known our policy, and if he knew he was blameless he would have known I'd help.  Besides, I can't be responsible for what he thought.  I still don't see how I am at fault here.  I was just trying to save the government money.  If his own actions caused the landslide, why am I here?"</i>