Limousine Liberals

Liberals like to pose as the champion of the little guy.

They claim to be the ones who are in tune with the blue collar worker.

They sympathize with the plight of the downtrodden.

They stand up for those who are exploited by evil corporations.

But occasionally, one of these big-hearted liberals slips up and reveals what he really thinks.

On Sunday night, Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin was co-hosting a radio program with Brian Whitman on WABC in New York. He made some disparaging remarks about Sean Hannity, and Mr. Hannity called in to discuss the remarks. Alec Baldwin, who has publicly called Vice President Cheney a terrorist and suggested that Henry Hyde be stoned to death, was not willing to defend his comments with substance. Instead, he immediately launched a personal attack against Sean Hannity. The actor searched for the deepest, darkest, most demeaning insult that he could conjure up, and he came up with this gem:

"Why would I want to come on the show with a no-talent, former construction worker hack like you? "

In a single sentence, Alec Baldwin revealed what he truly thinks of real Americans. Construction workers are the people who make America work. We all depend on them for the houses we live in, the buildings where we work, shop, and live out our lives, and the roads we drive on. Baldwin shows the height of his arrogance and condescension by using "construction worker" as an insulting epithet. He believes that his career of pretending to be someone not only makes him better than the rabble who pay admission to his films, but also makes his opinions more valid and more important than anyone else's. The fact that Baldwin thinks that calling someone a "former construction worker" is an insult reflects much more on Baldwin than on the target of Baldwin's diatribe.

Although Baldwin's self-importance has not yet reached the level of Richard Gere, who claimed to speak for the entire world, it is getting close.

Making it all worthwhile

Sometimes something happens which makes it all worthwhile.

Yesterday, my wife was talking with our 6-year-old son. He was telling her about how he was going to have eight boys when he grows up. He told her that he would need a big house for all of those kids.

My wife said, "You'd better work hard in school so that you can get a good job. You need to be able to support that family, and you don't want your wife to have to work and put the kids in day care."

My son said, "What is day care?"

At that moment, all of the effort we have made to be sure that one or the other of us is always available to be with the kids paid off. We could live in a fancier house, drive a nicer car, and have a bigger checking account, and get more sleep if we dumped the kids in day care while we both went to work. But what is the point of having kids if you are going to hire someone to raise them? Investment in things which last and things which really matter will always pay off.

Real Westerns

I used to watch the Academy Awards, or at least I was interested enough to find out who won. I watched two years ago when the third Lord of the Rings movie swept most of the categories. I will not be watching this year. Politics have taken over the Academy, and people are voting to prove how "enlightened" they are, rather than based on the quality of the films.

Brokeback Mountain is a perfect example of this. The Actor's Screen Guild was right in passing it up, but it will almost certainly win a bunch of Oscars on Sunday. Personally, I much preferred Crash for best picture. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it. Joaquin Phoenix would get my vote for best actor, for his role in Walk the Line. And why didn't Russell Crowe even get a best actor nomination for Cinderella Man?

One positive note is that Brokeback Mountain was not nominated for best documentary, even though the equally fictitious "Bowling for Columbine" won that category two years ago, again based on politics rather than merit.

Brokeback Mountain is not the only nomination which reveals Hollywood's political agenda. Other nominated films show a gay writer as a soulful artist, a transsexual as a responsible parent, a Palestinian suicide bomber as a thoughtful, conscience-driven activist, greedy oil company executives as, well, greedy oil company executives, and Senator Joe McCarthy as (gasp) a threat to American civil liberties. Positive representations of Christians, conservatives, or white hetersexuals are strangely missing.

Brokeback Mountain is popular in Hollywood because it is an attack on the American history of the west as a place of rugged individualism where the men are, well, manly. Although I am not a big fan of westerns, I love the distinctly American culture they reflect. I plan to spend Sunday evening celebrating the American West by watching a true, red-blooded American Western. I have not decided on which one to watch yet, but my prime candidates are: True Grit, The Shootist, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Red River.

Chocolate New Orleans

In honor of New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and today's Mardi Gras celebration, I present the recipe for a Chocolate New Orleans.

1. Start off with a large brownie with chocolate chunks baked into it.
2. Apply a layer of chocolate mousse.
3. Add a second layer of brownie.
4. Lay down a thin layer of chocolate pudding.
5. Add a third brownie.
6. Put two large scoops of chocolate ice cream on top.
7. Cover it with a generous layer of hot fudge.
8. Sprinkle dark chocolate shavings on the hot fudge.
9. Have a transvestite from the French Quarter pee all over it.

Self-centered little brats

Was I the only one who was a bit embarrassed by some of our Olympic athletes?

I'm not going to mention names here, because these people seek attention at any cost. What is sad is that these few high-profile athletes and their childish actions overshadowed many fine athletes who have worked hard for years to get to the Olympics and competed honorably.

We had one world-class skier who was favored to win a number of events, but messed all of them up and walked away empty-handed. That would be excusable, except that in an interview after he lost the last event, he had a very blasé attitude, and talked about how it was all good because he had fun hanging out in bars until midnight before competing.

Then there was the American snowboardcross racer who was leading the gold-medal race but felt the need to show off with a showboat jump move. She crashed a stone's throw from the finish line, and lost the gold medal. There is certainly a time to celebrate a win, but it is on the other side of the finish line.

One snowboarder said that he hoped to win a gold medal because it would "help me pick up lots of chicks."

And of course a lot of attention went to the two American speed skaters who had a public name-calling match in the media over who would or wouldn't skate in a relay race.

It used to be that being a part of the American Olympic Team was about national pride and sportsmanlike competition putting team and country ahead of self. These days it seems to be about individual attention at any cost. This trend appears to have started with professional athletes and celebrities such as Dennis Rodman who depend on media attention to get bigger contracts and higher-paying endorsements. By doing something shocking, they can get their names in the headlines, which builds their name recognition. This year's Olympic Team reflects that self-focused culture, and the attitude they display is being picked up by our teenagers as well. Our teenager sees sports as a way to attract attention by showing off flashy moves, but without the discipline, persistence, or focus on teamwork to excel as an athlete. If we can't get rid of this "it's all about me" outlook, we are going to turn into a nation of self-centered brats.

Why I love old movies

This clip from the 1940 movie "The Ghost Breakers" starring Bob Hope shows why I love old movies. I nominate this as the greatest line in film history.

Other old movies I have recently watched:

Witness for the Prosecution -- a courtroom drama with interesting characters and an amazing ending

The Big Sleep -- a mystery with Humphery Bogart. The plot is dizzyingly complex and I had to write down a list of characters to keep it all straight.

Affirmative Action Arson

Whoever is setting fire to Baptist churches in Alabama seems to believe in Affirmative Action.

The arsonists appear to be using a quota system to assure that each race is represented in the church burning in proportion to the racial makeup of the general population. Of the first six fires, five were set in Baptist churches with predominately white congregations, and one was in a church with a predominately black congregation. The 16% black representation is good enough to prevent even Jesse Jackson from shaking them down for some extra cash.

The media seems to be very relieved that the arsonists are so progressive. Each time more churches burn, the news articles conclude with the current tally. As long as the arsonists continue to employ a quota system, it is all good. Using the right kind of racial discrimination is enough of a virtue to overshadow the crime of burning houses of worship. After all, hate crimes against Baptists are excusable.

U2

Fifteen years ago I was a huge U2 fan. I first started following them when they put out the album War. That is still one of my favorites, along with Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Boy, and Achtung Baby. I have seen them in concert three times. At one point I could recite the lyrics to every song they had ever recorded. U2 had a passion and a fervor which made their music powerfully compelling.

However, since Achtung Baby came out in 1991, U2 has lost its soul. Zooropa was worthless, and besides one faint glimmer of their former selves, Pop was just as bad. I still faithfully line up to buy their albums, hoping that they will rediscover that unforgettable fire which made them great, but their last two albums have been equally disappointing. U2 has gone from being revolutionary to being clichéd and formulaic.

As a U2 fan, you would think that I would be thrilled that they won 5 Grammy Awards last night. Actually, I am a bit puzzled. What in their last album makes it worthy of a Grammy? I listened to it a lot, and finally gave up on trying to appreciate it. The songs are trite and shallow and the music is pop rock drivel. Perhaps they were on to something a few years ago when they wrote "What do I do now that its all been said, no new ideas in the house, and every book has been read?"

So why does a has-been band like U2 win 5 Grammy Awards with such a dull album? It clearly doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their music. It is due to the memory of their former greatness combined with their present-day political activism. However, neither of these is a substitute for present-day musical creativity or innovation.

U2 has always been political. One of their great early songs is "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" a protest of the Irish revolution, about the bombing of a vetrans day parade in Dublin. This is a matter close to the heart of U2, being native Irishmen, and the passion of personal conviction comes through clearly in the music. "In the Name of Love" is another great anthem from U2's early days, honoring Martin Luther King in soaring, spiritual verse.

It used to be that the music spoke for itsself. Today, the music is shallow and the activism is mostly offstage. And it has gone from being personal and passionate to being forced, calculated, and staged for an audience. They are political because they think that this is what people want, not because they believe their new poll-driven causes in the same way they believed Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Instead of singing about their homeland, where there is a personal connection, they sing songs bashing America. Americans certainly have a right to be critical of our government, but let's not forget that U2 chose to move here to take advantage of the great economic opportunity available in America. U2's prosperity is a testimony that there is opportunity for anyone in America, but their songs carry the opposite message. Certain segments of the public, along with the Grammy jurists, eat it up. But those of us who remember U2's roots see through it.

Cartoons

Muslims, angered by Danish cartoons linking their prophet Mohammed with violence, took to the streets setting buildings on fire, storming embassies, looting, burning flags, hurling bottles and stones, and killing people as they demand that Islam be recognized as a religion of peace.

One masked gunman barricaded in the EU headquarters said, "Until Israel is a charred cinder and the Zionist pigs, Danish Devils, and American infidels show respect for Islam and burn in a lake of hellfire, we will hunt them down and rip out their innards for depicting the prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, or the Islamic faith as breeding violence."

Lifeboat

Tuesday morning at Oak Hills Elementary

Teacher: Good morning, class!

Class: Good morning, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: Today we're going to play a game!

Class: Yeaaaaaaaaaah!

Teacher: This game is called Lifeboat. All together...

Class: Lifeboat!

Teacher: Good! Lifeboat is a lesson in values clarification. Can you say values clarification?

Class: No.

Teacher: Values clarification is where your little minds decide which lives are worth living and which lives are worth ...ahem... not living. Now here's how we play. A big ship just sank. There are five people on the lifeboat. But the lifeboat is only made for two. I'll list the five people on the chalkboard, and you, class, will decide which three will be thrown overboard. Are we ready?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: Good! First, there's an old, old crippled grandfather. Second, there's a mentally handicapped person in a wheelchair.

Alison: What's mentally handicapped?

Teacher: It means they can never be a productive member of society. Third, there's an overweight woman on welfare, with a sniffling, whimpering baby.

Max: Is the baby on welfare, too?

Teacher: Let's not push Mrs. Aryan...

Sydney: Who else is in the boat?

Teacher: A young, white doctor with blue eyes and perfect teeth, and Jessica Simpson. Now, class, take five minutes to make your decision. ... Times up! Well class?

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rockin' the boat

Teacher: Very good! That was fun, wasn't it?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.

Teacher: For our next lesson, we're going to do an experiment!

Class: Yeah!

Teacher: We're going to test the law of gravity, just like Galileo, by dropping two objects out the window--one heavy and one light-- to see which one hits the sidewalk first. Now what shall we use for the lighter object? I'm thinking of something small and square...

Class: An eraser?

Teacher: Good! And what shall we use for the heavy object? I'm thinking of something round and bouncy... Tommy, I haven't given you permission to leave your sea...class, the bell has not rung. What are you... oohh! Class...put me down! Put me down this instant! Ooohhh! Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[THUD]

Throw over teacher and we'll see if she can bounce
We've learned our lesson--teacher says perfection's what counts
She's getting old and gray and wears an ugly coat
Throw over teacher and we'll play another game of lifeboat

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby, or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rockin' the boat

Two speeches

On Tuesday night, two speeches were given to Congress and the nation.

In one speech, the benefits of smaller government were proclaimed. The speech called for lower taxes, more free markets, less government interference with the economy, and more individual liberty. This speech acknowledged that capitalism, freedom, open trade, and the diligence and innovation of the American people are the greatest forces for progress and economic growth.

In the other speech, government was the solution to every problem. Increased government spending was touted as the great fix-all. More taxes, more regulation, and more government programs were presented as the path to prosperity.

What is truly odd is that both speeches were given by the same person.

Speaking as a fiscal conservative, President Bush made a strong case for lower taxes, tax code reform, and Social Security reform. He called on Congress to reign in runaway spending by cutting wasteful programs. He asked for the line-item-veto to help eliminate earmarks. At times he sounded almost like Ronald Reagan declaring that "In this crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Unfortunately, the second speech sounded more like Lyndon Johnson than Ronald Reagan. President Bush proposed more than two-dozen new or increased spending initiatives.

He proposed a 22% increase in government subsidy into clean energy research and development. He also promised government money to build new nuclear power plants and to produce ethanol from wood chips. If these technologies were economically viable, the private sector would make the investment. Tax money should not be used to subsidize the development of new technologies which are not cost effective.

The President proposed spending tax money on the development of hydrogen-powered cars. Again, if this technology was economically beneficial, private businesses would undertake the effort. The President appears to have forgotten about the billions of dollars which President Clinton poured into a government program to develop hybrid technology, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The program never produced the hybrid cars they promised. However, foreign automakers, Honda and Toyota, privately developed the technology which can be purchased by Americans today.

Bush also proposed increasing federal "investment" in math and science education. Vast amounts of research show that there is little connection between spending and educational results, and federal spending is the least effective way to improve the quality of education. Surely the President is aware that America did not become a world leader in technology and scientific advancement because of government subsidies. We have long surpassed the countries who tried to achieve success this way.

The president called for more government subsidies and tax preferences for health care. This ignores the fact that the current problems with our health-care system result largely because of government intrusion and subsidies which subvert the market forces of price and quality competition.

After listening to the contradictions in these two speeches, one was forced to ask "Which one do I believe?"

The first speech presented a real roadmap to progress and prosperity through opportunity and freedom.

However, the President's laundry list of new government programs and increased government spending is more in line with how Congress and President Bush have actually operated for the past five years. Since 2000, government spending has increased 40 percent, a figure larger than Clinton's entire eight years. The reality is that the American public expects a government solution to every problem, and any politician who does not promise more government money for every societal ill is committing political suicide. For real change to occur, Americans need to stop looking to the government as their paternal caretaker and start making the most of the opportunities we each have to achieve our own potential.

ANWR

Politicians love to decry our dependence on foreign oil and the high price of gas. The problem is that both of these things are a result of their own actions. We have plenty of domestic oil which is there for the drilling. However, environmentalists and their liberal allies have prevented us from using it. There is more oil in Alaska than in any middle-eastern country. We could end our reliance on foreign oil in two or three years by making full use of our own oil reserves on the gulf coast and in Alaska. Likewise, politicains blame oil companies for the high price of gas, but at the same time they keep increasing the gasoline taxes, and they let environmental lobbists block the construction of more refineries which would increase supply and drive down the price. As a result, no new refinery has been built in the United States for 28 years.

Drilling for oil in ANWR is the ideal way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while we develop new energy sources to meet our longer-term needs. Hydrogen-powered cars and fusion power plants are still a decade or more away, and conservative estimates say that our oil reserves in ANWR would last 50 years. It is time to start using our own resources so that we are no longer beholden to people like Hugo Chavez or middle-eastern nations who take our oil money and use it to finance terror.

The reason that we have been prevented from drilling in ANWR is that environmental groups along with liberal politicians and the media have waged a very effective PR campaign to prevent it. From reading media accounts, the area where President Bush wants oil drilling to be conducted is a pristine wilderness, with snow-capped mountains, green meadows, sparkling rivers, and blue lakes surrounded by teeming wildlife. Here are a few photos from news stories about drilling in ANWR:

One of these photos is actually in ANWR, but not in the part of ANWR where they plan to drill. The others are not ANWR at all.

Here are photos of the area where they actually plan to drill:

It is an ice rink the size of South Carolina. Not a single one of the politicians who opposes drilling has actually been there. People who have spent a lot of time in the Alaskan wilderness report that the caribou congregate under the pipelines. They love the pipelines, and use them for shelter. In ANWR there is one dirt road which runs part way along one edge of the 29,600 square mile area. Roughly one tenth of one percent of the ANWR land area would be affected by drilling, leaving 29,560 square miles for the caribou. The ANWR web site says that there are two herds of caribou living there. Each one would have to make do with 14,780 square miles of land.

I wonder how quickly the environmentalists’ argument would last if people saw these pictures instead of what the media shows.

Tax cuts

The report published by the Congressional Budget Office last week indicates that the 2003 capital gains tax cuts have already more than paid for themselves.

In 2003, before the capital gains tax cut bill was passed, the CBO Budget and Economic Outlook report projected capital gains tax revenue at $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a total of $125 billion.

The capital gains tax was passed by Congress in 2003, and took affect in 2004.

Opponents to the tax cut claimed that it would reduce tax revenues by $27 billion in 2004 and 2005, resulting in $98 billion in revenue instead of $125 billion. They were wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but completely, 180 degrees wrong.

Tax revenues did not decrease as a result of the tax cut. They increased. The actual capital gains taxes collected were $71 billion in 2004 and $80 billion in 2005, for a total of $151 billion.

Instead of reducing revenue by $27 billion, the revenue exceeded projections by $26 billion.

Chalk up one more for supply-side economics.

Daniel Clifton of the American Shareholders Association predicted this result, saying

A capital gains tax cut spurs the growth of new businesses, increases the wage of workers, enhances consumer purchasing power, and grows the economy at large, resulting in more overall gains to be taxed. When capital is taxed at a lower rate, any revenue losses are offset because there is more overall capital being produced, and thus more total revenue being generated.

The reverse is true, as demonstrated by President Clinton. In 1993 he signed the largest tax increase in history, raising the top rate by 16 percent. However, tax revenues over the next four years only beat pre-hike estimates by one percent.

So what put the budget into "surplus" at the end of the 1990's? It was a combination of Republican-led reigning in of spending, and a 1997 capital gains tax cut engineered by a Republican Congress. In spite of cutting the capital gains tax rate by 28%, capital gains tax revenues exceeded projections by 11% over the next three years.

Now I reject any argument which claims that we should be trying to maximize tax revenues. The government already spends too much money and is too intrusive. Balancing the budget can not be accomplished by increasing the tax burden. When we face a budget deficit, the problem is excessive spending, not insufficient taxation. We can not blame Bush's tax cuts for the current budget deficit. The numbers simply do not support the claim that tax rate cuts result in deficits.

Instead, we must blame Congress for their inability to control spending. Republicans won control of Congress on this platform in 1994, and for a while, they remained true to the principle of fiscal restraint. But in the five years that Republicans have controlled Congress and the White House, they have failed miserably to keep spending under control. In 2005 the Federal government spent $2,472.2 billion, up from $1,789.2 billion in 2000. This represents a 6.68% annual increase in spending, outpacing inflation, population growth, and GDP.

There are two key elements to a successful implementation of fiscally conservative economic policy: low taxes and controlled spending. One does not work without the other. We are doing fine on taxes, but its time to get spending in check.

A relief

On Tuesday, liberal web site "Truthout" reported that they had proof that the NSA wiretaps had started earlier than 9/11/2001. They trumpted this news as evidence that President Bush was hellbent on depriving people of their rights by listening to the international phone calls of terrorists.

On Wednesday, the "Truthout" story was debunked, meaning that they do not have evidence that NSA wiretaps had started before terrorists crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, and Pentagon, and attempted to target some other site. They were not nearly so loud in admitting that they were wrong. Truthout, it seems, is aptly named. There is no TruthIn it.

However, "Truthout" author Lason Jeapold did express relief that the story was untrue. "It is a great relief to discover that the rights of the 20 hijackers and 3,000 Americans killed on September eleventh were not violated."

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice pointed out that "its hard to exercise your right to make an unmonitored phone call when you are dead."

Klanned Parenthood

KLANNED PARENTHOOD
Putting the "hood" in Parenthood

Abortion! Because lynching is for amateurs.

In America today, almost as many black babies are aborted as are born.


A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. This is not an accident. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger said "Negros and Southern Europeans are mentally inferior to native born Americans. Blacks, soldiers, and jews are a menace to the race -- sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility. ... More children from the fit, less from the unfit--that is the chief issue of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919)

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

What the Ku Klux Klan Could Only Dream About The Abortion Industry is Accomplishing

Abortion

There is one central issue on the mind of every Democrat Senator in the confirmation hearings of Judge Alito: will Ted Kennedy ever shut up?

The confirmation hearings are more about liberal Senators grandstanding than about understanding Judge Alito's judicial philosophy. Kennedy talked for 24 of the 30 minutes allotted to him for the purpose of questioning Alito. Senator Biden went on for 18 minutes before he got to the first question.

These senators have already decided how they are going to vote. They are now just looking to score political points. They hope to do this by forcing Judge Alito to sound evasive, particularly on the question of abortion. But is Judge Alito being evasive when he refuses to say how he would rule in a case involving abortion? A better question is this: would a judge be fair to say how he would rule on a case before hearing both sides of the case argued in court? A judge who did this would rightly be considered prejudiced and unfit to try the case. While politicians can take positions based on their own opinion or what is politically expedient, a judge must decide a case based on the law, and only after hearing arguments from both sides.

That being said, I do think that Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He would not vote that way because of his own personal opinion. He would vote to overturn Roe because it is bad Constitutional law. In 1973, the Supreme Court made a life and death decision which resulted in the deaths of 46 million unborn babies. The Supreme Court came down on the side of death, and they did it based on a "right" made up out of thin air. The Constitution does not include a right to privacy, and depriving 46 million people of their right to life on the basis of a non-existent "right" is a travesty unequalled by our nation since slavery.

Abortion advocates have made many arguments in an attempt to justify abortion. These arguments are based on a "right to choose" and "a woman's right to do what she wants with her body." They claim that abortion is a decision involving a woman and her doctor. But they omit the fact that a third person is involved: the baby. All of the pro-abortion arguments crumble unless the baby can be dehumanized. Certainly no one's right to choose supersedes another person's right to live. A woman's right to her own body does not give her the right to dismember someone else. A decision between a woman and her doctor can not result in some other person being sucked into a sink.

Abortion advocates are forced to resort to arbitrary definitions for who is human and who is not.

The Supreme Court used a trimester system. They said that 179 days after conception, it is a lump of tissue which can be removed, but 181 days after conception it is human and the state has an interest in protecting the life. Why is 180 days the magic number? No reason.

Then there was the viability standard. If the baby is viable, it is human. But viability is determined by the level of technology among many other things. A person's humanity does not vary depending on the level of technology. Thirty years ago, 28 weeks was the limit of viability. Today it is common for babies born at 22 weeks to survive. By their argument, in 1975 a baby at 25 weeks gestation was not human, but today it is.

Others say that it is when the baby is no longer dependent on it mother for survival. As the parent of a teenager, let me tell you that this doesn't happen until age 19 or so. But seriously, a one-year-old is dependent on her parent for care. Leave her alone and she dies. Should killing her be a matter of choice?

Many other attempts have been made to define a point somewhere between conception and birth at which a baby "becomes" human. These tend to focus on the baby's biological or cognitive functions. However, it is not these functions which make us human. People who lose these functions through a medical condition or age are not considered unhuman.

Today abortion is legal up until the moment of birth. Humanness is determined by one's position relative to the birth canal. On this side, you are human, but on that side you are not. It is discrimination based on place of residence. But this doesn't even fit with standard usage. I did an experiment years ago where I approached dozens of obviously pregnant women and asked them "what is in there?" Some told me it was a boy. Others said a girl. Some said that it was a baby. Some even told me the baby's name. Not a single one said that it was a fetus, the product of conception, or a tissue mass. The working definition for an unborn baby's humanity is that it is human if it is wanted.

The only non-arbitrary definition for humanness is that at the moment of conception, a unique, living human comes into existence. She is unique because her DNA is distinct from either parents' and from any other person on earth. And if not human, than what species is she? The state has an obligation to protect the lives of all people, not just the ones who are big and powerful and can speak for themselves.

Vermont Real Estate

The value of real estate in Vermont jumped sharply on Friday, with the news that Judge Edward Cashman had sentenced a man convicted of repeatedly raping a 7-year-old girl to six months in prison because "he no longer believes in punishment."

It appears that the sudden surge in demand was a result of pedophiles from across the country moving to Vermont to take advantage of this new philosophy for dealing with child rapists.

Analysts say that the housing bubble is unlikely to last for long, as a glut of houses is dumped on the market by families with children moving out of the state.

Judge Cashman based his decision primarily the lack of facilities in Vermont prisons to rehabilitate sex offenders, saying "There's other families out there, and there's other people who could be victimized, and I'm trying to take the long view." However, prosecuting attorney Jack Harmon pointed out that there are no seven-year-old girls in prison.

An apology

In 1996 I was critical of Steve Forbes when he called Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." It was not that I particularly liked Robertson, or didn't like Forbes. In fact, my little green Nissan Sentra sported Forbes bumper stickers during the 2000 primaries, and I have never watched Robertson. But Forbes' comments on Robertson seemed excessively harsh.

Well, it turns out that Steve Forbes hit the nail on the head. Pat Robertson believes that he speaks for God, revealing exactly what God thinks on any topic, and why God does what he does in a specific situation. What arrogant presumption!

Mr. Forbes, I apologize for taking issue with you for calling Pat Robertson a "toothy flake." You were right.

52 months

It has been 52 months since a group of terrorists crashed American airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and attempted to attack a forth target, killing three thousand innocent people. Bin Laden intended the 9/11 attacks to be the first in a series of three attacks on America over a two year period, each attack more devastating than the previous. To this day, attacking America and inflicting massive casualties remains a top priority of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi. But nothing has happened.

But in reality, a lot has happened.

Of the 26 most wanted terrorists on the FBI list in January 2002, 22 are dead or captured.

We are holding hundreds of terrorists in secret prisons and at Gitmo. We are using the intelligence we obtain from them to capture more terrorists and thwart their plans.

We have listened to terrorists' communications here and around the world, giving us an advantage in stopping their attacks.

Jose Padilla is facing trial rather than plotting to kill Americans.

A dictator who sponsored terror has been removed from power, and the first democracy has been planted in the Middle East, where the people of Iraq elected their own government for the first time in history last month.

Zhalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and others are in prison cells rather than directing more murder plots.

Thanks to the single-minded leadership of President George Bush, we are fighting an effective war on Terror which has prevented further attacks on American soil for 52 months.

Part of the problem with the War on Terror is that the benefits are often untangible. How many people were saved by preventing attacks which never happened? We will never know the exact number. However, it is clear that our aggressive, pro-active approach is working. Let's not mess with it.

Treason

Some day, America will be attacked by terrorists again. Their goal will be to make September 11, 2001 look small-time. Recent politically motivated statements and actions by Democrats make it more likely that these attacks will be successful at murdering many thousands of Americans.

I wonder if Democrats will stand up and take responsibility when this happens?

Will Charles Schumer address the families of the victims killed by the terrorists, and explain why the "right" of these terrorists to carry on their international phone calls without monitoring was more important than the right of the victims to not be blown up?

Will the politicians who complain about the high price of gas and our reliance on foreign oil, but then vote to raise gas taxes and to not allow us to use our own vast oil reserves or build new refineries accept the blame when terrorists use the money we pay for their oil to finance attacks against America?

Will Howard Dean meet with the wives of American soldiers killed by an enemy emboldened by his statement that America can not win the war in Iraq? What could he possibly say to justify his irresponsible comments?

Will Senators who voted to compromise our ability to stop terror attacks by weakening the Patriot Act and passing the Terrorist Bill of Rights stand by their position that the "civil rights" of terrorists outweigh American civilians right to life?

Will Senator Murtha resign in disgrace if we don't finish the job in Iraq, and the terrorists we left behind kill thousands of Americans with Saddam's hidden supply of nerve gas?

We all know who will take the blame when the next attack happens. It won't be the Congressmen who voted for the war and then stabbed our troops in the back when it became politically expedient. It won't be the leaker in the CIA who notified the terrorists that we were monitoring their communications. It won't be CNN or the New York Times, al Qaeda's propoganda branch. It will be the one man who has done more to dismantle the global terror networks than any person in history. the one man who has taken an unwavering stand against evil in spite of the political price. President George Bush will take the blame.

The War against Terror is a global confrontation of Good versus evil. The war in Iraq is a war between 25 million Iraqis and a few thousand terrorists. Democrats have joined with the wrong side in this conflict. In the long term, this will be a losing strategy.