Coal In Your Stockings, Blackhearts

At some point, you have to say there are many millions of people in this country who care only about themselves. How else can you explain the black hearts of the following:

1) Those who supported tax cuts for the rich. We were talking about a measly four percent higher tax rate, actually exactly the same as the Clinton years when the super rich got richer and richer without the tax cut. How could four percent be so horrible? That bunch doesn't know how to spend the money they have now. And don't tell me they're the "job creators" and they will hire now that they know how high their taxes will be. Not true during the past 10 years when they had their oh-so-important tax cuts. Does anyone remember the term "robber barons."

2) President Obama. There are many reasons for wanting coal in the stocking of our country's CEO, but I will stick with the wars that he continues to fight with the help of volunteer soldiers who can't get jobs anywhere else. (The wars would have ended long ago if there had been a draft.) Not only do we have wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there are military actions (wars) also in Yemen, Africa, Pakistan, and Colombia. Where else we have only to guess.

3) Anyone who didn't want Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed. What are they afraid of? If you were in the military, how would you like it if your loved one could not see you off to fight in a far-off war or visit you openly in the hospital if you were injured? This issue was much like back when blacks could fight but couldn't be included in white squadrons and the like. I'm straight and I'm married and I'm not afraid of gays threatening either in any way. To think otherwise would be part of a mental illness.

4) Anyone who doesn't think about how others might be living. If you have a nice home, eat well, wear good clothes, drive a good car, etc., why would you think everyone else does or could have the same? Only someone with a black heart would not think about the poor children, disabled (including those with mental illness), the homeless, the homeless animals.

5) Anyone who continues to fight the Civil War, hoping over and over that blacks will once again be pushed to the back of the bus.

6) Politicians taking credit for passing the 9/11 health bill, all $4.3 billion of it over 10 years, making 430 million per year available to help. How far do you think that will go when it's to cover health issues for thousands of first responders to the New York City attacks in 2001? Only ones to benefit will be early claimants. The rest are screwed.

My list could continue, including aforementioned politicians and the rest who I believe to be experienced liars and nothing more. But I'll stop here and instead give you a short list of those who should receive sweets from Santa because they don't follow the sheep, don't think only about themselves. In other words, they have kind hearts.

1) Anyone who donates to an individual or family in their community who won't have enough to eat this weekend or who can't ever participate in holiday gift-giving.

2) Anyone who adopts an animal that won't make it through the holidays otherwise.

3) Anyone who hopes 2011 will see an end to the wars, to the maiming and killing of American soldiers along with civilians who live in the countries in the middle of "nation building."

4) Anyone who doesn't harbor petty jealousies. We wouldn't have many of the money problems we have now but for those who spend what they don't have to try to look like the rich. Who wants to look like the rich or have what they have? They're blackhearts, not to be admired.

Happy, happy to everyone for the new year.

Impeach President Obama

This week we learned that the military is sending the biggest tanks ever into Afghanistan to continue fighting that insane war. Such tanks have long been part of combat in Iraq, but they've been kept out of the Afghanistan War efforts until now. Why I don't know, except perhaps they were all in Iraq until recently.

President Obama is commander in chief of military forces and operations. He would have been consulted on the deployment of the tanks and he would have given his OK to such a tactic, which I believe will further escalate casualties for American soldiers and Afghan civilians.

I was a big supporter of Obama in 2008. I mean, who wouldn't want someone as our president who said he would correct the abuses, fraud and downright crimes of the Bush administration? But he was a liar then and he's a liar now. He is doing exactly what Bush did only with more thievery, pillaging and warmongering. We can wait until he loses in 2012 or we can hope to get rid of him now. I choose now. With Republicans leading the House in a few weeks, impeaching Obama might very well be at the top of their list of things to do.

With that said, there is one problem to all of this: Joe Biden. He would become president if Obama is impeached. Biden is a loser beyond belief. He never did anything as a senator for many years and has done even less as vice-president. Even worse, what he does do is against American interests. For example, these days he's going around the country, sometimes with his pal, turncoat Joe Lieberman, expounding the wonders of the scan machines at airports because he and Lieberman have "friends" who own the company that produces the machines. (Former Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff represents the company, as well.)

So you see, even though Obama could be impeached -- possibly -- we're still screwed. Will Sarah Palin win in 2012? I don't know. But I do know that if she does, we will know what we're getting. Fool me once . . .

Georgie, Porgie, Puddin' & Pie

War-lover George The Second is out there trying to pump up his legacy after leaving office as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Does he think that we've all contracted amnesia?

I read about Georgie Boy BEFORE he ran for president. In one book he is quoted as saying that if he ever had the chance, he would go back into Iraq to complete the job he thought his daddy left unfinished in the first Gulf war. He said the worst day in his life -- up to that point -- was the day his daddy said he wouldn't go into Baghdad because it would mire down U.S. forces. Bush had plans to go into Iraq long before September 11, 2001. (For those who have lost all reasoning, no one from Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks.)

On a tour to promote his new book, W tells a different story about why he sent troops to die and be maimed in Iraq. None of it makes any sense, of course, but that's never bothered the boy born and raised in New England and who pretends to be a Texan. Everything is a fantasy world to Bush. That's not surprising because drunks and dry drunks rarely tell the truth. Lying is part of their day-to-day life. He looks so honest when he's talking about plain old dog shit, doesn't he? Wouldn't you like to share a Texas-sized burrito with him? He's just like you, right?

Needless to say, I won't be buying such a book of fiction. And anyone who does has the memory of a gnat.

Countin' On You, Rand Paul

I can't wait.

Mr. Rand Paul, you will be sworn in as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky in January. With your strict Libertarian ideals and values, where you are against all foreign wars, I await your actions in the Senate where you will do everything you can to block funding for the two wars now being conducted by the current president. With the crazy Senate rules, where one senator can block any bill (even anonymously), you will have an opportunity to stop providing billions of dollars for the no-end-in-sight wars in the Middle East.

Oh, and Mr. Paul, I understand you are against agriculture subsidies. I await your action to stop all such subsidies and giveaways to big business.

If you work things right, you may be the best person to fight the corruption in D.C. I'll reserve judgment about other issues in our nation's capitol and how you fit into the equation. Good luck.

Growing the State

Yet another Liberal has put himself in hot water, and by doing so has betrayed the ideals of his political philosophy.

Charlie Rangel's been busy, by all accounts: failing to declare hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, shadily raising money to build a private center named after him, taking expensive trips to the Caribbean on the public dime.

Liberals obviously don't believe in liberty. They believe in control. And to increase control, they favor the exponential growth of the State. It amazes me that people I know--including our very own Cassandra--rail against the corruption of the government in one sentence, but in the very next, advocate the increased growth of the State by every possible means, including the centralizing of huge industries and the raising of taxes.

The only way to control the corruption that is inherent in the State is to control the size of the State. How many times does that need to be said before benighted Liberals get it?

Washington: Stop Centralizing!

Joe Barton and Michele Bachmann both made excellent points during last week's Congressional shakedown of BP. Barton's forced apology was hollow and pointless. Washington is supremely incompetent, intrusive, and deleteriously antagonistic toward private business and the free market, and the Feds have no business administering a $20 billion escrow fund for the victims of the oil spill. The fund, as Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham noted, should be overseen by the state governments directly involved, including Louisiana and Florida.

The Obama Administration always jumps at the chance to move in on the private sector, sacking the free market and saddling it with choking regulation and bureaucratic red tape, whether it's banks, investment firms, health insurance companies, or family-owned small businesses.

The last thing the oil spill disaster needs, now or ever, is an escrow fund "czar." Hundreds of fishing and tourism businesses in the Gulf have complained, practically in tears, about the interference that results when their requests for aid have to be cleared through dozens of federal agencies, each with its endless rules and forms. The federal government had the same problems getting decisions made quickly and aid sent on time during the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

So back off, Obama & Co., and let the locals deal directly with BP without having to obtain clearance from the EPA or other federal agencies first.

All for Nothing

My cousin Ronnie was 19 years old when he died in Quang Tri Province, South Vietnam. He arrived there in August 1969. Forty five days later he was dead, drowned in a rushing river while trying to cross it with a heavy pack on his back.

Recently I checked for Ronnie's name on www.VIRTUALWALL.org, where names and basic information are available through the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It shows, for example, that he was in the 11th Infantry, his body was recovered, he was a ground casualty, he received a posthumous promotion, and where his name can be found on the Wall in Washington, D.C. All of this is informative, but it doesn't help to bring back the cheerful, intelligent boy I remember so well from the many times we visited him and his family on their Wisconsin farm.

I ask anyone to tell me why he died so far away from home. Does anyone remember why the U.S. went to Vietnam? Why we stayed there? Why we allowed the years to go by as young men died and were maimed by the many thousands? When anyone can answer those questions truthfully, I ask why we went to Afghanistan and Iraq, why we stay there, and why we allow the years to go by as young men and women die and are maimed by the many thousands.

Ronnie would have been 60 years old this year. He did not die to defend our country. He did not die to protect his family. He did not die working on the family farm like his uncle Jerry did. He did die to protect the military industrial complex. He did die to protect politicians. He did die to protect oil interests. He did die to satisfy old men's fantasies. My cousin's death, all for nothing.

Ronnie's mother died a few years after her son, at age 48, a heart attack, they said. We all said she died from a broken heart.

Steeped in Tradition

The tea party participants have been taking it on the chin -- and worse -- for a year. The Left accuses them of bigotry, racism, and physical violence. The reprehensible, tendentious Rachel Maddow likens them to mass murderers in her recent MSNBC special on Timothy McVeigh.

Tea party critics never address the fundamental and solidly traditional view of the movement: A government that seeks to increase its power over the citizenry in the interests of ensuring their safety and security is no legitimate government at all but a tyranny. If the tea parties constantly bring up the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, it's because the philosophical principles of government and liberty are at the very heart of the tea party movement, and Washington's dangerous straying from those principles animates their anger and anxiety.

Do You Hear Us Now?

Tone-deaf Democrats whine and moan about this week's Massachusetts loss for Senator. Their excuses range from them (the majority in both houses of Congress) not passing health insurance reform to Martha Coakley being a poor candidate to voters simply not understanding the issues. While it's true that some of those reasons are plausible, there are other more important ones.

Listen up, Democrats, starting with President Obama. YOU HAVEN'T DONE A DAMN THING FOR ANY OF US IN THE PAST YEAR!!!!!!!! That's why Coakley lost and Republican Scott Brown won. How can you expect anyone to vote for you when you do nothing? I believe that many voters in that state really didn't want to vote Republican. But what other choice did they have? With the two parties controlling everything, a vote for a third-party candidate would have been wasted.

I'll list a few things you, the Democrats, haven't done, but which voters elected you to do:

1) End two wars. The day President Obama announced sending more troops to Afghanistan was the day I knew we weren't going to get the change we believed in.

2) End Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What kind of a disgusting, bigoted law is that?

3) Protect the environment. Naming Colorado rancher Salazar was plain stupid.

4) Not bail out big banks. Coming out this week with rules for the banks is too little, too late because you've done everything for them for a year.

5) Not bail out Detroit automakers. We don't want their cars. Let them fail.

6) Consider, even briefly, making an attempt to do something for your base. You lost your base in Massachusetts. It was all about the base for the previous administration and Congress and it worked for them for quite some time.

7) Do what you could to help people save their houses. After all, your friends in the banking and mortgage industries were largely responsible for people getting loans they shouldn't have in the first place. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd share major blame in this area.

8) Do something about jobs. The stimulus program was too slow and covered everything from simply giving raises to government employees to installing insulation. I mean, what the hell?Where are the jobs? It's a year late, but doing something now would be a start.

President Obama, it's time to stop with the speeches and get to work. Like your predecessor, you spend too much time out on the golf course. The difference, however, is that Bush had Dick Cheney to do his work. For some reason, you've shoved Vice-President Biden back to his Naval Observatory residence and you rely on speeches to keep voters in line. We're tired of speeches.

If you and the Democratic Party don't change your way of doing business in Washington this very instant, you've only just seen the beginning of a complete revolt come November. It's not a possibility, it's a certainty. Will you hear us then?

Cooking the Books

With the wide variation in climate over the Earth's long history (the Earth has warmed and cooled many times), cooler heads (ahem) should look at any specific claims about climate trends and their causes with healthy skepticism. Given the computer models used to predict warming, the United States should be unwilling to commit any significant resources based solely on those predictions. We simply don't know enough about climate mechanics to create credible models, and that is demonstrated by the inability of the models in use to "predict" observed behavior.

Given that the proposed actions to thwart the questionably predicted climate changes are expensive (and unlikely to be effective, even if we know where the climate is going), it makes no sense to take any action at this time. And if we do begin to find credible evidence that the climate will change in a predictable manner, we might then consider whether it makes more sense to attempt to change the climate dynamics or, instead, to adapt to the change.

There are degrees of scientific credibility that can be demonstrated through good practice with full public disclosure. Global warming alarmists haven't met that standard. In fact, they've demonstrated a disdain for good science, and we didnt need the leaked e-mails to prove it.

The consensus among global warming activists is that we must coercively reduce the production of greenhouse gases. The proposed actions will have little effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide, compared with natural causes and the emissions of developing nations. Think of all the strato-volcanoes throughout time that have erupted, throwing trillions of cubic tons of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, metal chlorides, and ash into the atmosphere. The effect on climate from volcanoes over the past several billion years dwarfs the effects people wreak from burning fossil fuels. The global warming activists fail to make a prima facie case for applying their proposed remedies. Even if I accept all they say as fact, their conclusions don't logically follow.

Coercive proposals are floating through Congress (stalled, fortunately) as we speak, and many "evironmental" groups and a large percentage of the Democratic Party advocate coercive measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Al Gore traffics in deception and the duped call him a prophet.

Centralization in Los Angeles: A Taxing Lunacy

Los Angeles is raising its taxes -- again. This time, it's to "pay for" various infrastructure projects (scheduled for completion in 30 years) and to "create jobs." Create jobs? Liberals -- whom I will henceforth refer to by their correct name, statists -- will nickel and dime us all into soup lines, while forcing their collectivist philosophy onto us by creating more and more government agencies until the entire civilization closely approximates the experience of an afternoon at the DMV.

I say let all of us keep most of our money. Let the private sector create jobs. Let it create innovation. Let it create newer, safer, and more efficient technologies. And most of all, let it pay for its activities out of its own profits.

Want to see something scary? Follow this link:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

I don't need an Agricultural Marketing Service -- who does?!

Look at what we're all paying for, decade after decade. There are hundreds of these nincompoop, do-nothing government bureaus. Statists want more and more of them. I look at this list and I scream inwardly, over and over. It's a nightmare that never ends, an eternal anxiety attack.

Office of Government Ethics?! http://www.usoge.gov

When the statists call their immoral and coercive actions "ethics," it is even more sophisticated satire than anything you can read in Swift, Pope, or Voltaire.

Tuesday: A Day In Infamy

Upstate New York's election Tuesday, Nov. 3, is a very important one. I am predicting that the Democrats had best reconsider their strategy if the conservative candidate wins that seat in the House.

The Republican has withdrawn from the race, endorsing the Democratic candidate this weekend. The reason for such a strange endorsement is no doubt because ultra-right-wing conservatives like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann have campaigned or endorsed the conservative over the Republican, who they consider to be too liberal. If your kids read Harry Potter, you're too liberal for that bunch.

My real prediction comes from a belief that if the conservative beats the Democrat, it will send a signal to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and other hell-bent-for-leather conservatives that all Democrats are vulnerable and all they will need to do is send out armies of like thinkers and the elections will be won by their ilk. I think they're right.

Unless Obama abandons his idiotic plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, brings home a brigade a month from Iraq (his campaign promise), overturns Don't Ask, Don't Tell (a campaign promise), actually does anything he promised -- all before the elections a year from now -- the Democrats will lose their majorities in both the House and Senate.

This is serious stuff, liberals and progressives. Nothing can be taken for granted. And remember that the other side hates more than we do, an emotion that tends to make them stronger and more determined to win. Get off your lazy cappuccino drinking, sushi eating, hybrid driving butts and start now to counter what's only beginning on Tuesday. Or 2012 will be a cakewalk for the conservatives -- but maybe not the Republicans -- and Obama will be a one-term president.

Those are my predictions.

One more thing: What good is it to have a majority in the House and Senate when our so-called representatives act like a bunch of school children who are constantly mooning for the cameras? What a bunch of idiots. While I detested George W. Bush when he was president, at least he made up his mind and told the Congress to get him what he wanted. This bunch, from the president on down, look like wimps who can't decide how far to go on anything because they're so afraid of offending their big contributors. Where is the change?

Eyes on the Peace Prize

Surely one of those Chinese dissidents, who were also nominated, would have been more deserving than the political leader of the United States?

I don't know what they give the Nobel Peace Prize for, but why give a $1.4 million prize to a sitting president? Isn't that person, by definition, feted enough as it is?

It all sounds like Employee of the Month stuff. We've all worked for companies that rewarded the executive team more than the rank & file, and we've all rolled our eyes at it. A president who is attempting to negotiate treaties -- peace, trade, etc. -- with other countries is, after all, just a politician doing what he is already being paid to do.

Give the Peace Prize to people who are genuinely putting their careers and even their lives on the line, I say -- not to bureaucrats who concentrate on nothing so much as their own re-election.

The Long, Hot Summer of Craziness

Lots of silly things going on and being talked about these days: death panels, killing Grandma (Grandpa must already be dead), Socialist health care, the Birthers, bailouts, co-ops, government-run whatever, Cash for Clunkers, never-ending wars in the Middle East, Big Pharma. So many subjects, but it's the health insurance reform debacle -- don't call it health care reform -- that I'm ranting about today, at least in part.

1) Anyone who is now receiving Social Security and Medicare -- and who rails against a public option for health insurance for those under 65 -- should stop receiving such benefits. They should call the proper government office and cancel their benefits. For Social Security and Medicare Part B, it was necessary for those receiving them to apply for such benefits. No one forced them to take either. They're receiving money from a government-run system, health

insurance from a government-run system, both based on a Socialist system.

Social Security, in particular, was based on a similar program in Socialist Germany. Of course, I have no problem receiving either because I believe in such a system. But when you don't, then stop taking the money. Leave more for me. I trust government workers more than I trust insurance company CEOs to do what's best for Americans. Oh, and don't forget that veterans' health care is also based on a Socialist program.

2) The nutty people out there bitching and moaning about death panels and the like that are purportedly contained in current health insurance proposals haven't seen any of the proposals, any of the five that are still in committees in Congress. Neither have I, but at least I'm willing to wait to see what the final one says. Besides, do any of us really think our democratically elected officials would write a bill that would kill off the old people? Old people constitute the biggest voting bloc, all that really matters to politicians. By the way, kudos to Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts for taking on the loonies at his townhall meeting.

3) Then there's this lie that was printed in Investor's Business Daily: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Only problem is that Stephen Hawking is British, has been under the British health plan his entire lifetime, and he has credited that Socialist system with helping him get to this point. Maybe the conservative editors at the publication didn't know Hawking was born in England and has always lived there. Whether they did or not is not the point. What is the point is the lie that they wrote because of ideological reasons and the laziness they displayed by not checking even the most basic facts. I'm not fond of crazy right-wing ideology, but more importantly, I hate laziness and lying, particularly in people who profess to report the news.

4) Why do so many people who complain about wanting to help to cover everyone with insurance, especially having a public option in the process, throw the Second Amendment rights into the equation? Some of them even wear their guns to political events, going armed to public meetings about health insurance reform. I don't believe they're wearing loaded assault-style rifles and handguns because they care about health insurance reform. The only reason to carry a gun is to kill someone or defend themselves. Defend themselves from whom? I don't know about you but I don't want to go to a meeting where idiots getting riled up about this issue or that are standing around armed with guns. Besides, having a right to carry a gun in certain states does not mean it's wise to have a gun in proximity to the president or other elected officials.

5) What's the co-op that's being talked about now, something that seems to have cropped up as a replacement for public option? If I understand it right, it will be information to compare insurance rates, giving us a chance to choose the insurance plan we want. I could put together a web site with that information for no cost at all. Looks like bait and switch to me.

6) One of the southern Republican wing nuts in the House said everyone in America has medical insurance, adding that emergency rooms are there for everyone. I won't even address how crazy she is and how much of a liar she is. What I will say is that by federal law everyone must be accepted for treatment at an ER.

What some may not know is that everyone who goes into an ER receives a bill for services provided. Insurance pays when the patient has it. When the patient does not, he can request a reduction in cost to be able to pay the bill with personal funds. Beyond that, who do you think pays the bill?

The hospital absorbs those costs, including those from illegal aliens, and then passes on those costs to those of us who do have insurance or who pay our hospital bills through other means. Nothing is really free. And once again, the liars are at work doing what they can to keep their insurance and pharmaceutical buddies retain their jobs.

Away from health insurance reform, I want to yell STOP THE BAILOUTS! If Obama and his bunch had given each man, woman and child in America the same amount from the bailouts that started with Bush last fall, each would have received several thousand dollars. How far do you think that would have gone to stimulate the economy? Very far, I think. How far have the bank, insurance and Detroit bailouts gone to stimulate the economy? Not far at all. Don't expect an insurance bailout to do any better.

Next, about all of those southerners who fight everything but corporate welfare (they call it the free market). How did you think the folks of the Confederacy would react to having a black president in D.C.? Did you think Johnny Reb would stand back and say nothing? If you did, it means you've never lived in the south or haven't read about the south. I grew up where drinking fountains and restrooms at the county fair said Whites and Colored. Blacks couldn't eat in restaurants, didn't go to school with us, didn't live in our neighborhoods, couldn't vote, and had to sit in the back of the bus. There were even towns where they had to be out by sunset. In towns and cities where they were allowed after dark, they lived in their part of town, we lived in ours, and rarely did the two meet.

Eventually, federal civil rights laws forced school districts to allow blacks into white schools, businesses started allowing black customers to buy their products, the Voting Rights Act became law, and Whites and Colored signs disappeared. But the thinking never changed. The Civil War rolls on. Those who oppose Obama based on race (and if you think there are millions who don't you're living in la-la land) are looking for anything they can to discredit him. Not to say he hasn't and isn't making mistakes. But these southerners and their sympathizers don't care what he does. To them, it's just not right that a black guy is in their White House.

Finally -- at least for my ranting today -- I want President Obama to get some cajones, at least some bigger ones. He's acting like he's afraid of somebody or some thing. It also sounds like he's too busy entertaining his Chicago friends and traveling the globe to put the efforts necessary for bringing about major change in this country. He ran on change and hope and HE WON. The Republicans were fired. If Obama wasn't going to work hard and try to take us 180 degrees away from the Bush policies, which were so destructive, then I wish he had stayed in Chicago. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. And listen, President Obama -- I'm not alone. We liberals aren't sheep who will follow the leader no matter what he does, much like was done the past eight years. We can think.

Abortion: All Liberals Don't Support It

Elections are won and lost when the subject of abortion becomes part of the campaigns. And these days it always does. This past week, abortion also entered the health care debate on Capitol Hill with congressmen saying that once abortions are free, even more women will get them. And one nutty Kansas representative even said that if abortions had been free in the 1960s, President Obama's mother might have chosen to abort him.

I believe abortion is today's Civil War issue. There's no middle ground. You're either for it or against it. As for my own view on abortion, it's my guess that many people might misjudge me, pigeonholing me on the wrong side. Because I'm a liberal, people assume I'm for a woman's right to choose. Because I'm a registered Democrat, I'm a supporter of abortion rights. Because I'm a woman, I think women should feel free to choose abortions. Because I'm not religious, I support abortions.

If you expect all of those to be true about my abortion views, you'd be wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. I am 100% against abortion. My reasons are many:

1) I don't know how any woman can have an abortion after looking at an ultrasound of a weeks-old fetus moving around in her uterus.

2) I don't accept the "her own body" argument. Yes, the fetus is inside the woman, but she is the keeper, the carrier. She doesn't own that baby.

3) When a woman decides to kill a fetus -- baby, to my way of thinking -- she is making a decision for someone else, someone who has no voice.

4) I believe birth control, not abortion, is the ultimate right to choose. I also believe in birth control beforehand, not after the (f)act. Too many women use abortion as birth control. This is the 21st century, for god's sake! Birth control pills have been around for 50 years. Since that time, many other contraceptives have arrived on the market, obliterating unplanned pregnancies for women who use their heads when they're going to have sex with men. Or, at least, that's the way it should be.

5) Too many women go along with men's pleas to have sex without condoms and the women themselves either are too lazy or have decided not to use birth control because of the slight possibility of side effects. If you haven't learned to say NO, then at least take the damn pills or use whatever kind of contraceptive you want. A few side effects are minor compared with killing a human being. A woman who allows herself to become pregnant when it's something she doesn't want should understand that a baby might be conceived because of her decision. There are consequences and one should not be the life of an innocent baby.

With that said, I want to counter something that the Religious Right, pro-life crowd do -- or don't do. They fight abortions with all of their might. That's their choice and I support them on this one issue. At the same time, once the babies who aren't aborted are born, many of these same people do little to support such children. For example, the Right fights any increases in the Head Start program, and they vote against school lunch programs and welfare increases for poor children. There are even politicians who say hunger inspires children to work.

It's admirable to fight abortions, but you had better decide what to do with children who will be born if abortions once again become unlawful and difficult to obtain. (Remember the orphanages of the past?) There are consequences no matter which way you go. For me, a live, healthy baby trumps just about anything else. And I believe everything should be done to keep him that way once he's here.

Re: Bootstraps and Assault Weapons

Cassandra, your assumptions and your conclusions are bitterly rhetorical rather than thoughtful and demonstrable.

Why do the Sean Hannitys of the world keep telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get out there and work hard, and they too can become rich? If that were to become fact, who would shovel the crap that Hannity and his ilk make each day? Who would work in the restaurants where the rich eat their foie gras and drink their blue martinis? Who would nanny their children, pick up their trash, service their cars, drive their cars, clean their houses?

Where to begin? I had trouble making sense of this non sequitur. Let's leave Sean Hannity out of this; that paragon of jingo populism isn't germane to your argument, which is (if I understand it correctly) that initiative, ambition, and hard work don't enable people to improve their quality of living (which you reductively & unfairly refer to as "becoming rich").

The fact is that evidence is abundant that the opposite is the case. Every single one of us either is or knows someone who improved his socioeconomic lot in life with work and careful planning. I can point to several people in my own family who did so, and so can you (because I know your family).

The advantages of our national character and market provide opportunities, not guarantees, as has been said time and time again. The important thing to remember is that we are not prevented by law from going after a bigger piece of the pie: more money, more security, more free time. We aren't guaranteed those wonderful things in our system. Furthermore, there is no system on Earth that guarantees those things. But the weird, wonderful magic of our system is that it has consistently and repeatedly enabled more people within it to benefit socioeconomically than has any other system. Ask yourself: Would you rather be working class in the United States or in Russia? Where are you more likely to get a raise by hard work -- the United States or Indonesia? the United States or China? the United States or Zimbabwe? Where do you think the working classes are more likely to be consistently able to feed, clothe, and house their families in relative safety and comfort? the United States or Uzbekistan? Examples of comparison around the globe are countless, are they not?

And if all of us have equal opportunities, with the only thing holding us back being our laziness, then what must be done about the disabled (physically or mentally), those who are slow (physically or mentally)? Certainly, we're not to give them welfare. Hannity and other conservatives rail against government assistance, exceptions being welfare for corporations and the rich.

Your implication is a ridiculous assertion that you couldn't marshal actual evidence for even if you were forced to at the point of a gun. Cite us even one mainstream commentator or politician who supports the complete removal of all State assistance, especially for the disabled. One of the legitimate and humane purposes of the State is to provide a safety net for all sorts of misfortunes, from natural disasters to physical and mental illness to job loss. No one (in his right mind) argues against such assistance; people debate the extent and the circumstances of such assistance. As for "welfare for corporations and the rich," a good many conservatives (and liberals) favor the abolishing of subsidies for businesses and of loopholes in the tax code (by which those who can afford accountants generally profit). The wealth of the business or the individual is beside the point: the unjustness of the subsidy is that it tampers with what should be a level playing field. Seek evidence for this in the public outcry (by both rich and poor) over the bailouts. That alone makes hash of your assertion.

Why do conservatives and the NRA fight so hard to keep the rights to buy and use assault weapons?

While I support the 2nd Amendment, I'm all for the regulation of dangerous weapons. Many things are regulated because they can be very dangerous: automobiles, bonfires, airplanes, some viruses and bacteria, fireworks, etc. I'd like to see assault weapons regulated more strictly than other firearms.

Gay Marriage, Bootstraps and Assault Weapons

Many things happening in this world cause me consternation, rile me, practically drive me mad. Now I bring them here -- and in ongoing posts -- for you to ponder and comment about. There might even be a miracle and I'll change my mind after reading your arguments.

• Why are straight people so worried about gays fighting for the same rights to marry? It's not as if they must assume any legal or personal responsibilities for gays who marry. And, unless they're into some kinky stuff, they won't have to get in bed with any gays. Sometimes this country seems so Dark Ages.

• Why do the Sean Hannitys of the world keep telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, get out there and work hard, and they too can become rich? If that were to become fact, who would shovel the crap that Hannity and his ilk make each day? Who would work in the restaurants where the rich eat their foie gras and drink their blue martinis? Who would nanny their children, pick up their trash, service their cars, drive their cars, clean their houses? And if all of us have equal opportunities, with the only thing holding us back being our laziness, then what must be done about the disabled (physically or mentally), those who are slow (physically or mentally)? Certainly, we're not to give them welfare. Hannity and other conservatives rail against government assistance, exceptions being welfare for corporations and the rich. It's a quandary -- we must all become rich, yet many of us must continue to service the rich, and if we can't do either, well, that's where I stop to keep my mind from exploding.

• Speaking of exploding, why do conservatives and the NRA fight so hard to keep the rights to buy and use assault weapons? I mean, if they want to kill something so much, don't rifles and handguns rip through soft flesh just as effectively? Is it, for example, necessary to blow the head off a deer when shooting it clean through an eye with a rifle will do the job of killing it?

Fire Timothy Geithner

OK, first off, I'm a liberal. I live in a blue state and I supported Obama with my vote and contributions. I like him a lot, but what the heck? He's all over the place with his selections for guys to run his administration and they're not doing what I want them to do.

The president selected a man for Secretary of the Treasury who has almost as many ties to corporations and Wall Street as the Bushies did. Why did he do that? I want to give Obama a lot of slack here. I know he inherited a mess, but don't tell me there wasn't and isn't someone better than Timothy Geithner. His demeanor is that of someone who's afraid to say anything, fearing that he will offend those who are both bigger and meaner than he. C'mon, President Obama, fire Geithner and put in someone we can trust, someone who can tell us what's going on, and someone who can take on the big guys without being afraid of them.

And, most of all, don't look across the aisle. We've had enough of those Republicans for a long time to come.