I have to say that Ms. Fonda’s take on history, and on human responsibility, is pretty interesting. Some how the United States, forced evil megalomaniacs to round innocent farmers up and shoot them by the hundreds of thousands. It wasn’t the megalomaniacs’ fault. They were completely at the mercy of the mind-control ray being used by the evil forces of the US. I wonder if she thinks the US used it’s mind-control ray to get Mohammed Atta and his buddies to fly fuel laden planes into tall buildings?

Is she really serious? Or was she just pulling the producer’s chain? It’s hard to imagine that she really thinks the US was responsible for Pol Pot’s, and Ho Chi Minh’s actions. After all, the US was in there trying to *prevent* that slaughter. It was only when our cowardly congress failed to heed President Ford’s pleadings to authorize air power to support South Viet Nam against the invasion by the north; that the genocides began in earnest.

No, I think the reality is that Ms. Fonda understands that her efforts in support of “peace” actually played a role in the millions of death that that peace caused. I think she doesn’t want to face that. I think she believes so strongly in the concept of “peace” that she’s willing to accept all costs.

My friend said that the Democrats voted to _authorize_ force, but not actually for the war, and that Webb was right to criticize the president for actually doing what congress authorized.

Hillary said the same thing in Iowa this week. When asked why she voted for the war she said she didn’t know she was voting for a preemptive war, and that the President misused the authority that was given to him.

This is all nonsense. If Hillary, and other democrats who voted for the war, didn’t actually expect the President to go to war, then they should have strenuously objected when he did!

Where was the hew and cry from Hillary three years ago? Why didn’t the democrats raise a ruckus way back then?

It’s all just weasel words.

Most people don’t truly act like these sad characters. They don’t pin their panties to staff bulletin boards. They don’t steal hearts from people who deserve them for people who don’t. They don’t inherit 3.7 million dollars and keep the check on their fridge door. And most people, especially most young women, don’t have sex 20 times per day in operating rooms.

I know lots of people like this show. I don’t know why. From my point of view I find it offensive to my intelligence, offensive to my values, and just plain offensive.

I understand that some parents may react badly.  I understand that there are parents who are just plain bad.  But that doesn’t mean that the state should take responsibility for all under-age children in matters of reproduction.  These are very personal matters that parents shoud be deeply involved with, not excluded by the state. 

The state holds parents responsible for the actions of their children.  If my under-age child damages someone else’s property, that person can legaly sue me for compensation, and would likely win.  If the state presumes that parents are responsible for the actions of their children, then the state must not subvert that responsibility when it comes to sex and reproduction.  You can’t have it both ways.  If parents are to be held responsible, then the authority of parents must be presumed.  If the state subverts that authority by refusing to notify parents, then the state cannot hold parents responsible for their children’s actions.

Most parents want to be responsible for their children.  Most parents find the notion of state interference with their authority to be ahorent.   Laws that subvert that authority are often justified in terms of "safety" for the child; but that’s simply nonsense.  Yes, there are some situations in which a child might be at risk if their parents are notified.  But in the vast majority of cases the notification will do far more good than harm.  It is silly, even irresponsible, that the state prioritizes the welfare of the few over the welfare of the many.

Twenty years ago I worked as a chief software architect at a network management startup.  I was in the mens room one day and two guys in business suits sidled up to the urinals.  As they finished one said to the other: "Carful how you shake the dew off that lilly!"  As if on cue the other responded: "Any more that two shakes and you’re playing with it!".  Ha, ha, ha.  Hee, hee, hee.  Ho, ho, ho.  Nothing brightens the day like thirty-something urinal humor.

I was watching ER last night and saw one beautiful young female doctor tell another beautiful young female doctor that she had dropped her recent boyfriend because he was "orally challenged — he wouldn’t go south of the 32nd parallel — he didn’t want to eat at the Y."  Ha, ha, ha. Hee, hee, hee.  Ho, ho, ho.  Nothing brightens the day like the writers of a once great show succumbing to the temptation to use teenage urinal humor.

I will be quite amazed if that show gets another season.  It’s gone from great to complete crap. 

• Spouses inherit their mate’s estate by default, and there are tax benefits to that inheritance.
• Spouses have power of attorney over each other by default.
• Couples pay a slightly lower tax rate than individuals.
• There might be a few more, but they are minor.

As a taxpayer, I am vested in the economic strength of our nation.  To a large degree that strength is based on population.  Therefore I am willing to pay a little extra in taxes as an incentive to yough couples to marry and increase the population.  On the the other hand, I have no incentive at all to pay slightly higher taxes in order to incent gay couples from marrying. 

As far as I know the benefits of marriage can all be attained through other legal instruments.  Inheritance, power of attorney, etc. can all be part of contracts of one form or another between two (or more) people.  Unless I miss my guess, the only benefit of legal marriage that cannot be gained by some other legal contract is the slight reduction in the tax rate. 

So why should I be interrested in Gay Marriage?  I have a reason to want to see heterosexual marriage; I want more american children.  But I have no reason to want to subsidize gay men or gay women who wish to enter into a tax-advantaged relationship. 

This may seem "heartless" but why?  Why should I have to pay so that they can get married?  Their marriage does not benefit me the way a heterosexual marriage might.

Of course this sounds like it leads to the notion that infertile couples, or couples who have no intention of raising children should not get the tax benefits of marriage.   However, I’ve known couples of both kinds who wind up having children; so I don’t object to the subsidy in that case.  Perhaps you think the subsidy should only accrue once children are produced; but I prefer the incentive to be in effect.  It seems to me that couples who have made a committment to each other often find that they want to have children at some point in their lives.

So, for me, it all comes down to the potential for fertility.  I am willing to subsidize relationships that have the potential to increase our population.   I have no qualms at all about asking gays to pay a slightly higher tax rate than heterosexual couples.

Aborting a pregnancy is a choice.  However, that choice is usually subsequent to, and therefore ought to be subject to, the choice to conceive that pregnancy in the first place.  We know what causes pregnancy nowadays.  We know what men and women have to do to make babies, and we know what they have to do to prevent babies from being made.  Indeed, the options for preventing pregnancy are legion.  Most of those options are highly convenient, and very low cost.  Some are even free, and take absolutely no time out of a busy schedule.  Therefore when a couple does not take reasonable action to prevent conception, I believe they are entering into a contract with themselves, the unborn child, and society.

Clearly there are certain pregnancies for which that first choice was not made.  We’ll discuss those a bit further on.  For now let’s concentrate on the pregnancies that could have been avoided by the simplest of measures.  Should the parents have the right to abort such pregnancies?  Should they have the right to cancel the contract they made?

To exercise this right, a life must be destroyed.  Destroying a life is not an action to be taken lightly. There must be strong justification for destroying a life that would otherwise become a person.  The fact that this life is wholly dependent upon its mother, and will cause significant and irreversible changes to it’s parent’s lives, cannot be a factor.  Since they chose not to prevent the creation of that life neither the mother nor the father should have the right to take it back.

I don’t say this out of any religious conviction.  My argument is based solely on the ethical view that destroying a life should require significant justification, and should never be a unilateral decision.  Since the parents chose not to prevent that life from being created, they should be held responsible to that life.

Should a change in life circumstances be considered?  For example, let’s say that a couple decides to have a child, and then subsequently decides to get a divorce.  Should they then have the right to abort the child?  No.  Since they made the choice to have the child, they must live with that choice.  Their divorce is not a factor, just as it would not be a factor in any other kind of responsibility.  Mortgage companies are not going to forgive the debts of parties simply because they get divorced.  “I didn’t know this would happen.” is not a reason to dissolve a responsibility.

Is an embryo really worthy of such consideration?  Should a single cell be protected under our constitution?  Yes, so long as that cell was conceived by people who have the option to act responsibly.  In my view the fact that the parents allowed the conception to take place means that the parents entered into a contract with that single cell, and with society, to nurture that single cell into a person.  I am not arguing that the single cell has any innate rights simply because it exists.  I am arguing that the parents gave it the right to exist by allowing it to be conceived.  I am arguing that once the parents allowed the life to be conceived, they are responsible to that life, and to society, to nurture that life.

When does an unborn child gain the right to life?  There must be a moment when the child inherits these rights?  I can see no better moment to award these rights than the moment when the parents decided to allow the conception.  In this sense the child had the rights even before it was conceived, because the rights were granted by an act of the parent’s will.  This makes sense, because all rights are granted by an act of someone else’s will.  Who better to grant those rights to a child, but the child’s parents?  What better time than when the parent’s decided to allow the child to be conceived?

There are some changes in life-circumstance that can vacate the conception contract.  For example, if the pregnancy becomes a significant threat to the life of the mother.  (Not the life-style of the mother!).  For example, if maintaining the pregnancy poses a significant risk that the mother could die or be disabled, then the contract with the embryo is not in effect, and I find no ethical dilemma in aborting the pregnancy.  I know this depends upon the meaning of “significant” but I’m not writing a law here, just posing an ethical opinion.

What if a couple finds that they are pregnant even though they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy?  For example, what if a woman conceives while on the pill, or while using an IUD?  In that case the contract with the embryo is null, and I find no ethical dilemma in abortion.  (Rhythm, Pepsi douches, and Mistletoe tea don’t count.)  What if the mother claims that a condom was used?  I’d want the father to so stipulate.  What if the mother claims that a condom was used but doesn’t know who the father is?  Then I would deny the abortion.  The mother must produce the father and get his testimony. 

What if the mother wants the abortion but the father does not?  I think the abortion must be denied.  Conception is a contract to which both parents are parties, along with the child and society.  Both parents should be in agreement before any child can be aborted.  This may seem unfair to the dissenting party, but remember that both agreed not to prevent the conception.

There are cases where the choice to prevent pregnancy could not have been made.  These include rape, sexual abuse, and adolescence.  A victim of rape or abuse has not entered into a contract with her unborn child, society, or the father.  In cases where rape or abuse can be confirmed, I find no ethical dilemma with abortion.  I include statutory rape in this.  Girls or boys who are underage cannot be parties to the contract of conception and so abortion is not a dilemma.  Incompetence is also a factor.  Severely retarded individuals cannot enter into this contract and so abortion is an acceptable outcome.

When a couple willfully allows a child to be conceived, they have entered into a contract with each other, with the child, and with society.  That contract cannot be dissolved without the consent of all responsible parties.  Since the unborn child cannot represent itself, the other parties must speak for it.  Society, for it’s part, cannot agree to dissolve the contract unless the circumstances are extenuating.  Changing circumstances, or irresponsible behavior are not, in themselves, extenuating enough to destroy an unborn child who has the potential to become a true person, but who has had no say in any of the events surrounding its life.

Imagine desolation
in the whole Western Hemisphere…

YouHoooo.  You may say I’m a dreamer.
BUT I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE!
And if some day you don’t join us
We’ll find you with our guns.

We have often heard that the US is using terror tactics in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Indeed, Harry Belefonte has been applauded (by Hugo Chavez) for saying that President Bush is the greatest terrorist on Earth.  Many leftist politicians have claims that the US and Israel have been engaged in acts of terror, or have called the Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters", or have suggested that one man’s terrorism is another man’s justice.

Nonsense.  Flying planes loaded with innocent people into buildings loaded with other innocent people is neither justice, nor fighting for freedom.  It’s just terror.  It is war against civilians for the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.  It is a war to provoke more war, not to end war.   

In my humble opinion the Islamic Fascists are not trying to make a point, or retalliate for past injustice.  They are not trying to get the west to change its foreign policies.  They are trying to set the world aflame.  They want to see an ever expanding conflict.  They want total war. They want this because they believe that Allah wants them to build a new Islamic regime out of the ashes.

That’s why they teach the children in Saudi Arabia and Iran to hate Americans and the West.  That’s why they have slogans on their buildings like "Motherhood is sweet, martyrdom is sweeter".  That’s why they are trying, desperately, to gain nuclear weapons.  They want to build a fanatic army of Jihadists who are willing to fight to the death.  They want that army to swarm over Europe, over Asia, and to engulf the whole world

Or so it seems to me. 

I wanted to talk with you about the two soldiers who were captured, and apparently tortured and mutilated in Iraq.  I heard that you said that this is a reminder of the price we pay for our failed policies in Iraq.  Senator Durbin, which failed policies are you referring to?  If these boys were captured, tortured, and killed as a result of failed policies, then there must be some significant failures you could point to.

• Did we fail to rid Iraq, and the world, of a hideous dictator? 
• Did we fail to guide the Iraqis through the throes of forming a constitutional democracy?
• Did we fail to help them form a government?
• Did we fail to improve their economy?
• Did we fail to prevent further terrorist attacks here at home?
• Did we fail to decapitate the terrorist leadership in Iraq?  (Note that I use the term figuratively rather than than with the literal interpretation that our enemies use.)
• Did we fail to change the regime in Afganistan, and deprive our enemy of its primary base of training and operation?
• Did we fail to train the Iraqis to begin to take responsibility for their own security?

Senator Durbin, there are a few things I think we have failed at. 

• Initially we failed to understand how hard we’d have to fight.  This is in spite of the fact that the president told us that the war on terror would be long and hard.  We failed to understand what he seemed to understand. 
• We failed to maintain perfect professionalism in every case, thus giving rise to the embarassing moments at Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo.
• We failed to rev up the Iraqi security forces early enough.

And there are likely a few other mistakes and failures that we made along the way.  But I’m confused, because these failures don’t seem to be what the two boys paid for.  It seems to me that the two boys gave their lives for the lives and liberties of Americans and Iraqis.  The price, Senator Durbin, is horrific.  But we’ve always known the price of liberty is high.  Those boys understood that. 

Senator Durbin, it was not our policies that killed those young boys.  It was not our policies that tortured and mutilated them.  It was our enemies who did those things, Senator Durbin.  It was the enemies of all free people everywhere.  It was people who blow up shopping malls and weddings.  It was people who hide bombs by the side of the road.  It was people who fly airplanes into buildings.  These people are the enemy of civilization.  They are YOUR enemy, Senator Durbin, and they are mine.  And they were the enemy of those two brave boys who paid the price that must be paid to rid the world of enemies like that.

Senator Durbin, what was the failed policy that led to the enemy’s attrocities against these two boys?  The only policy I can imagine that might have prevented their fate, is a policy of surrender.  Because if we fight them, Senator Durbin, then sometimes they are going to hurt us.  Is that your solution then, Senator Durbin?  Shall we leave Iraq?  Shall we walk away from the job and surrender Iraq to our enemies?  Is that what you think of as a successful policy?   

We tried that once in Viet Nam.  Do you remember, Senator Durbin, how we walked away from our allies?  Do you remember how we promised to protect them, and then ignored that promise as the enemy swarmed over the friends we had sworn to protect.  Do you remember the killings and the torture, and the genocide?  Was that a successful policy?

No, I fear that the true failure here, Senator Durbin, is a failure of leadership.  Yours, and Senator Kerry’s, and Senator Murtha’s, and so many others who have used our national security as a pawn to gain political advantage.  You try to make success look like failure.  You demean the honorable sacrifice of our troops by telling them they are executing a failed policy; when in fact they are doing a wonderful job and SUCCEEDING.  You abuse the families of the fallen by implying that their sacrifice was in vain. 

It is your policies that have failed, Senator Durbin.  And I can only hope and trust that those policies of surrender will never get a chance to be tried again.