Serious Republicans, their ideas, and their legisation, are ignored as Our National Press Corps concentrates on joke-of-a-candidate Sarah Palin..
One need not look further than her resignation speech today to see what a joke she is. She explains that if she were to stay in office she'd waste more money than most people earn in a lifetime, and lots of time, too. Some parts of "politics as usual," a phrase she has used more times than anyone knows, is electing people who, well, if not competent, at least put on a good show of it.
Our National Press Corps, apparently, want Sarah Palin to run in 2012. They want her to run and lose. I guess a lot of the Republicans want to justify their own faith in her in 2008. And the Democrats, I guess, both enjoy a good laugh and would like to win.
UPDATE 1 (same day): This is all about a scandal, not about a run for the Presidency.
UPDATE 2: No, I was correct in the first instance, this is about the Presidency.
2009-07-04
2009-05-31
The Most Horrible Future I Can Imagine
Some people have been talking about what will happen if the government cuts back on bonus pay for Wall St. types. They say, for example, the industry will lose "the best and the brightest" (that from Amity Shlaes). What these people are saying is that the most capable people go to work for Wall St. because those jobs offer the most money.
So, I started having this nightmare. Imagine if, by law, teachers earned the most of any profession. What if all the "best" of us spent their time educating the children?
Surely, with people a lot more educated, Wall St. Ponzi schemers and bubble-inflaters would have a much more difficult time fooling people, both because the people would have been taught more about scams and the schemers wouldn't be the "best and the brightest" anymore.
As for advertising, I'm not saying Madison Avenue would stop producing multi-million dollar campaigns to convince the teeming masses to buy one brand of flavored-colored-sweetened-caffeinated-bubble-water over the other, but if these ad men weren't as well paid as the people who were preparing the kids for what to expect from Madison Avenue, the outcome is less certain.
And what about the news industry? Who would the media have to fool if, instead of paying clowns like Brian Williams and Chris Matthews multi-million dollar contracts, those same two (motivated by the money) were teaching the young of today how to not be fooled by the likes of a Brian Williams or Chris Matthews?
The worst effects, undoubtedly, would occur in the realm of politics. I daren't even think of it.
It seems like, no matter where I turn my imagination, this idea of "paying teachers the most, because the future is important" is a recipe for a global disaster of epic proportions. Give me multi-trillion dollar asset destroying economic bubbles, give me advertisements featuring young, healthy people enjoying the most fattening foods ever created, give me news that keeps me blissfully unaware, and give me more politicians like we have today! Do I even need say it? Give Me Freedom!
[This message brought to you by the ruling class.]
So, I started having this nightmare. Imagine if, by law, teachers earned the most of any profession. What if all the "best" of us spent their time educating the children?
Surely, with people a lot more educated, Wall St. Ponzi schemers and bubble-inflaters would have a much more difficult time fooling people, both because the people would have been taught more about scams and the schemers wouldn't be the "best and the brightest" anymore.
As for advertising, I'm not saying Madison Avenue would stop producing multi-million dollar campaigns to convince the teeming masses to buy one brand of flavored-colored-sweetened-caffeinated-bubble-water over the other, but if these ad men weren't as well paid as the people who were preparing the kids for what to expect from Madison Avenue, the outcome is less certain.
And what about the news industry? Who would the media have to fool if, instead of paying clowns like Brian Williams and Chris Matthews multi-million dollar contracts, those same two (motivated by the money) were teaching the young of today how to not be fooled by the likes of a Brian Williams or Chris Matthews?
The worst effects, undoubtedly, would occur in the realm of politics. I daren't even think of it.
It seems like, no matter where I turn my imagination, this idea of "paying teachers the most, because the future is important" is a recipe for a global disaster of epic proportions. Give me multi-trillion dollar asset destroying economic bubbles, give me advertisements featuring young, healthy people enjoying the most fattening foods ever created, give me news that keeps me blissfully unaware, and give me more politicians like we have today! Do I even need say it? Give Me Freedom!
[This message brought to you by the ruling class.]
2009-05-16
Torturing Americans
Jon Haidt, after doing some research, finds that you can sum up human morality with five concepts: do no harm, fairness, purity, loyalty and obedience. The responses he received from tens of thousands of questionnaires, including respondents from many different countries, show that liberals strongly believe in the first two, a bit more than conservatives, while conservatives put the last three on par with the other two, perhaps even putting them over fairness.
The topic of the day is "What are we to do about the American torturers?"
Releasing the pictures will do harm.
Fairness, or justice says that the torturers, those who ordered the torture, and those who crafted legal rationales for torture, should all be punished.
All the liberals I know want to bothrelease the pictures and punish the transgressors.
All the conservatives whose opinions I've read want to both hide the pictures andnot to prosecute any Americans.
If both sides are advocating something wrong, as I suggest they are, and I believe a fair understanding of Haidt's moral framework confirms, then I consider this a win for me and Haidt.
Details
Harm: The first harm I thought of first was to the people that the Great Bush Tragedy put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also realize that there is sometimes a need to protect the victims. If your face were shown in a naked, human pyramid would you necessarily want the picture released to the public? This is an extension of the idea that in rape and sexual molestation cases, sometimes there is harm to the victim if all the evidence is made completely public. There is a third group which will be harmed by the release of the photos, the group harmed the most so far, the Iraqis and Afghans. For surely if attacks against Americans are stepped up, the lethality and brutality of the American response will be stepped up even more. This is obvious when you realize that we've killed or wounded many times the number of Iraqis as they've killed or wounded coalition troops. I don't know the comparable numbers for Afghanistan.
Purity: Releasing the pictures will put yucky thoughts in the minds of millions. You do not want to see videotape every time some lunatic does something horrifying. Whether or not you are allowed to see the videotape is orthogonal to purity.
Obedience: The conservatives don't see a problem with people following orders, even wrong ones, or are at least willing to balance the wrongness of the act with what they perceive as the wrongness of not following orders.
Loyalty: The conservatives are loyal to Americans, and are willing to ignore punishment if those who are to be punished are our allies, or at least are willing to weigh that loyalty against the prospect of punishment.
The topic of the day is "What are we to do about the American torturers?"
Releasing the pictures will do harm.
Fairness, or justice says that the torturers, those who ordered the torture, and those who crafted legal rationales for torture, should all be punished.
All the liberals I know want to both
All the conservatives whose opinions I've read want to both hide the pictures and
If both sides are advocating something wrong, as I suggest they are, and I believe a fair understanding of Haidt's moral framework confirms, then I consider this a win for me and Haidt.
Details
Harm: The first harm I thought of first was to the people that the Great Bush Tragedy put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also realize that there is sometimes a need to protect the victims. If your face were shown in a naked, human pyramid would you necessarily want the picture released to the public? This is an extension of the idea that in rape and sexual molestation cases, sometimes there is harm to the victim if all the evidence is made completely public. There is a third group which will be harmed by the release of the photos, the group harmed the most so far, the Iraqis and Afghans. For surely if attacks against Americans are stepped up, the lethality and brutality of the American response will be stepped up even more. This is obvious when you realize that we've killed or wounded many times the number of Iraqis as they've killed or wounded coalition troops. I don't know the comparable numbers for Afghanistan.
Purity: Releasing the pictures will put yucky thoughts in the minds of millions. You do not want to see videotape every time some lunatic does something horrifying. Whether or not you are allowed to see the videotape is orthogonal to purity.
Obedience: The conservatives don't see a problem with people following orders, even wrong ones, or are at least willing to balance the wrongness of the act with what they perceive as the wrongness of not following orders.
Loyalty: The conservatives are loyal to Americans, and are willing to ignore punishment if those who are to be punished are our allies, or at least are willing to weigh that loyalty against the prospect of punishment.
2009-04-24
Ahmadenijad Covers Up Arab Muslim Past
Do you realize that Ahmadenijad said this at the UN racism meeting?
Now, everyone can agree that he should get points for pointing out that there was some hard core, violent opposition to science from the Church that most Westerners prefer to forget about. But did you know that, overall, it is reasonable to say that the Arabs brought almost exactly as many slaves away from Africa's east coast as the Europeans and Americans brought away from Africa's west? Now, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but he is blatantly covering up for them here.
In the middle ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade, when innocent people in millions were captivated and separated from their families and loved ones, to be taken to Europe and America under worse conditions
Now, everyone can agree that he should get points for pointing out that there was some hard core, violent opposition to science from the Church that most Westerners prefer to forget about. But did you know that, overall, it is reasonable to say that the Arabs brought almost exactly as many slaves away from Africa's east coast as the Europeans and Americans brought away from Africa's west? Now, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but he is blatantly covering up for them here.
2009-04-22
The Value of Earth
What is the value of Earth? If we price everything, and add it all up, what do you think the value of the planet would be?
I've heard that the value of America was about 50 trillion dollars, which is certainly a better estimate than 5 or 500 trillion. And I'll go out on a limb and say Europe and Asia are worth as much, and 50 trillion for the rest, bringing the grand total to about 200 trillion.
What is an interest rate swap? An interest rate swap is (most generally) when one party trades the interest payments on a fixed rate debt for the interest paid on a floating rate debt. One side is betting interests rates will go down, and so wants the payments of a fixed rate debt, and the other side is betting they will go up, and so will get the increased payments from the floating rate.
In a manner similar to many other derivatives, the debt payments in question don't actually have to exist, it is all a sort of pretend.
Hopefully you are asking "What's this got to do with the Value of Earth?"
The total value of the debts being paid off in the Interest Rate Swaps market is greater than the Value of Earth.
This is bad, and like the Credit Default Swaps market, as long as most things are moving along normally, there is no sign of any danger.
Personally, although I benefit from the trade, I'm not entirely convinced that any derivatives should be legal, but allowing that you can insure your ownership in companies (the value of a stock is insured with Put and Call options, the most basic type of derivatives) and your bonds, then I'm pretty darn sure that people who don't own the underlying paper(stock, bond, whatever) shouldn't be allowed to hedge(insure) the position implied by the ownership of the paper.
This is really serious. So is the FX market, but for different reasons.
I've heard that the value of America was about 50 trillion dollars, which is certainly a better estimate than 5 or 500 trillion. And I'll go out on a limb and say Europe and Asia are worth as much, and 50 trillion for the rest, bringing the grand total to about 200 trillion.
What is an interest rate swap? An interest rate swap is (most generally) when one party trades the interest payments on a fixed rate debt for the interest paid on a floating rate debt. One side is betting interests rates will go down, and so wants the payments of a fixed rate debt, and the other side is betting they will go up, and so will get the increased payments from the floating rate.
In a manner similar to many other derivatives, the debt payments in question don't actually have to exist, it is all a sort of pretend.
Hopefully you are asking "What's this got to do with the Value of Earth?"
The total value of the debts being paid off in the Interest Rate Swaps market is greater than the Value of Earth.
This is bad, and like the Credit Default Swaps market, as long as most things are moving along normally, there is no sign of any danger.
Personally, although I benefit from the trade, I'm not entirely convinced that any derivatives should be legal, but allowing that you can insure your ownership in companies (the value of a stock is insured with Put and Call options, the most basic type of derivatives) and your bonds, then I'm pretty darn sure that people who don't own the underlying paper(stock, bond, whatever) shouldn't be allowed to hedge(insure) the position implied by the ownership of the paper.
This is really serious. So is the FX market, but for different reasons.
2009-04-09
Death To Them All!
Extra-terrestrials bent on dominating Earth, I mean, should it ever turn out they exist.
In the meantime, between gnashing of teeth and contemplating the alien menace (as likely as not to emerge in the form of an asteroid hurtling towards Earth) consider enjoying some websites about music
Aurgasm : not exactly sure how it works, some music comes out.
GrooveShark : if you know the song, they play the song.
CherryPeel : don't know the song? other people vote on them.
In the meantime, between gnashing of teeth and contemplating the alien menace (as likely as not to emerge in the form of an asteroid hurtling towards Earth) consider enjoying some websites about music
Aurgasm : not exactly sure how it works, some music comes out.
GrooveShark : if you know the song, they play the song.
CherryPeel : don't know the song? other people vote on them.
2009-04-04
The Money Supply
Generally it is rightists who complain about the government's ability to print money.1
With technology nowadays, we could almost say that, to print each $300,000,000 dollars2 , they just deposit $1 into everyone's bank account.
You might think this is radically egalitarian, but it isn't as long as long as it is the government which actually decides when to disburse funds.
With technology nowadays, we could almost say that, to print each $300,000,000 dollars
You might think this is radically egalitarian, but it isn't as long as long as it is the government which actually decides when to disburse funds.
2009-03-30
Now is the time for a Gas Tax
Dear Citizen,
Now is the time for an increase in gas taxes and to increase funding to limit the effect of oil price shocks on the economy through investment in rail, refurbishing subways, and credits for higher fuel efficiency cars.
The worst news is that this proposal is anti-American, since American auto-makers have thus far refused to compete in the high MPG market and instead utilize the Congressionally sanctioned loophole for light trucks and SUVs to produce cars for the most self-centered drivers.
A gas tax now of even immodest proportions ($1.00/gallon) will result in prices lower than during the 2008 season, but certainly that much would be rejected. Selling the bill as a way to raise funds to make America more energy independent makes this a pro-America bill. 2/3rds of all oil used in America is used in the transportation sector. If American cars became as fuel efficient as China's, we could cut oil consumption by one third. Other bad news is that most Americans don't really care, and some Americans actually produce extra CO2 just to spite the people who care.
A gas tax is better than an incentive program geared towards encouraging people to replace their fuel inefficient cars. One the one hand, the people being rewarded are the ones who blithely purchases an under 18mpg car in the last decade, clearly someone with their head in the sand. Secondly the actual production of more cars, and the premature junking of old cars, contributes substantially to the use of oil and carbon emissions. An inefficient car used in a limited fashion will always be more energy efficient than purchasing a brand new car. The big car makers will spend millions to get this program passed into law, but they are the ones who have, generally speaking, been the biggest problem in this equation, in part by spending the biggest proportion of their advertising budgets money marketing the least fuel efficient cars on Earth.
A gas tax directly addresses people who use oil, and not anyone who owns a car. Oil is a multi-faceted problem, and we know that, someday, only the poorest and most backward nations will be relying on it for a fuel source. This bill is pro-American because it rejects the idea, flaunted by certain idiots, that America should go down the tubes clinging to its inefficient cars. These are very well paid idiots, so there is no reason to expect them to shut up.
Oil is the problem for several reasons: it contributes pollution, it contributes to global warming, it comes principally from a whole range of countries with dubious allegiance to the future of humankind (instead concentrating on acheiving the most power and money in the short term), it puts national security in the hands of foreigners.
To some degree, although all those things are true, they can be overplayed. It isn't like KSA, Venezuela, Russia and Iran would stop selling to America, even if they wanted to the world market is quite flexible and oil is, generally speaking, a fungible good.
A gas tax can pass now because people rememeber paying much more just a year ago. A gas tax makes sense because it directly addresses the oil issue. A gas tax now can help fund a future for America.
Now is the time for an increase in gas taxes and to increase funding to limit the effect of oil price shocks on the economy through investment in rail, refurbishing subways, and credits for higher fuel efficiency cars.
The worst news is that this proposal is anti-American, since American auto-makers have thus far refused to compete in the high MPG market and instead utilize the Congressionally sanctioned loophole for light trucks and SUVs to produce cars for the most self-centered drivers.
A gas tax now of even immodest proportions ($1.00/gallon) will result in prices lower than during the 2008 season, but certainly that much would be rejected. Selling the bill as a way to raise funds to make America more energy independent makes this a pro-America bill. 2/3rds of all oil used in America is used in the transportation sector. If American cars became as fuel efficient as China's, we could cut oil consumption by one third. Other bad news is that most Americans don't really care, and some Americans actually produce extra CO2 just to spite the people who care.
A gas tax is better than an incentive program geared towards encouraging people to replace their fuel inefficient cars. One the one hand, the people being rewarded are the ones who blithely purchases an under 18mpg car in the last decade, clearly someone with their head in the sand. Secondly the actual production of more cars, and the premature junking of old cars, contributes substantially to the use of oil and carbon emissions. An inefficient car used in a limited fashion will always be more energy efficient than purchasing a brand new car. The big car makers will spend millions to get this program passed into law, but they are the ones who have, generally speaking, been the biggest problem in this equation, in part by spending the biggest proportion of their advertising budgets money marketing the least fuel efficient cars on Earth.
A gas tax directly addresses people who use oil, and not anyone who owns a car. Oil is a multi-faceted problem, and we know that, someday, only the poorest and most backward nations will be relying on it for a fuel source. This bill is pro-American because it rejects the idea, flaunted by certain idiots, that America should go down the tubes clinging to its inefficient cars. These are very well paid idiots, so there is no reason to expect them to shut up.
Oil is the problem for several reasons: it contributes pollution, it contributes to global warming, it comes principally from a whole range of countries with dubious allegiance to the future of humankind (instead concentrating on acheiving the most power and money in the short term), it puts national security in the hands of foreigners.
To some degree, although all those things are true, they can be overplayed. It isn't like KSA, Venezuela, Russia and Iran would stop selling to America, even if they wanted to the world market is quite flexible and oil is, generally speaking, a fungible good.
A gas tax can pass now because people rememeber paying much more just a year ago. A gas tax makes sense because it directly addresses the oil issue. A gas tax now can help fund a future for America.
2009-03-12
2008-01-05
The Republicans Eat Each Other
Charlie Gibson is moderating a debate of the Republican candidates for President.
It's like Thompson, Romney and Guiliani never heard of Syria 1949, Iran 1953, Iraq 1963, the general perception of Middle Easterners concerning Sadat and the King of Jordan (bribed tools of the west?) as they relate to Israel and get billions from America, Lebanon 1981, the bombing of Qaddafi (resulting in the death of his daughter), understand the perception of Pakistani people relative to their English speaking government, the non-UN-approved 10 year post-Kuwait-invasion US/UK bombing campaign in Iraq, the support of the absolute monarchs in KSA...
How can ANYONE let Guiliani and Thompson say nothing went wrong before 9/11?
The last good deed was the Suez Crisis, right? Over 50 years ago.
I can not say whether Guiliani, Thompson and Romney are ignorant, or stupid, have been led to this kind of idiocy, or they are actively attempting to deceive Americans.
It's like Thompson, Romney and Guiliani never heard of Syria 1949, Iran 1953, Iraq 1963, the general perception of Middle Easterners concerning Sadat and the King of Jordan (bribed tools of the west?) as they relate to Israel and get billions from America, Lebanon 1981, the bombing of Qaddafi (resulting in the death of his daughter), understand the perception of Pakistani people relative to their English speaking government, the non-UN-approved 10 year post-Kuwait-invasion US/UK bombing campaign in Iraq, the support of the absolute monarchs in KSA...
How can ANYONE let Guiliani and Thompson say nothing went wrong before 9/11?
The last good deed was the Suez Crisis, right? Over 50 years ago.
I can not say whether Guiliani, Thompson and Romney are ignorant, or stupid, have been led to this kind of idiocy, or they are actively attempting to deceive Americans.
And the next President of the United States is...
Barack Obama is going to win. Since that is, at 7:45am on January 5th, 2008, obvious, the main question is who will be his running mate. Edwards is the obvious choice, but it is quite possible to be someone we've never heard of. Of course, a particularly bad VP choice could sink it for Mr. Obama, but I doubt that is in the cards.
Who will he beat in the general election? I'll guess McCain, who will be beaten because his age is really going to show, or Romney, whose pull in Utah isn't going to help.
Who will he beat in the general election? I'll guess McCain, who will be beaten because his age is really going to show, or Romney, whose pull in Utah isn't going to help.
2008-01-04
My bad
I see now why I got the wrong result in the Dem primary. I had seen Fox do a little Edwards boosting, and hadn't recalled how anti-corporate he would later be depicted.
McCain will surely win in New Hampshire, and I guess that would be Obama for the Democrats.
McCain will surely win in New Hampshire, and I guess that would be Obama for the Democrats.
2007-12-29
Iowa Republican Review
Huckabee: Honest
Romney: Cardboard cutout
McCain: is losing his mind (age)
Thompson: doesn't think he is qualified, and he can't shake that thought because it is right. Makes media types comfortable.
Romney: Cardboard cutout
McCain: is losing his mind (age)
Thompson: doesn't think he is qualified, and he can't shake that thought because it is right. Makes media types comfortable.
2007-12-28
2008 Nomination Predictions
Iowa: Edwards and Huckabee
New Hampshire: Clinton and McCain
South Carolina: Edwards and McCain
Final: Edwards and McCain
And the winner is: John Edwards
I shouldn't have gone farther than Iowa, which is now six days away.
New Hampshire: Clinton and McCain
South Carolina: Edwards and McCain
Final: Edwards and McCain
And the winner is: John Edwards
I shouldn't have gone farther than Iowa, which is now six days away.
2007-12-23
2007-12-17
Christianity is not the basis of this Country
George Washington and the first Congress make crystal clear what ought to be the basis of the laws of our country.
In his first speech to the 1st Congress, George says that "private morality" should be that basis, and the Congress replied back that President Washington had it right.
Reported in the Annals of Congress, Washington says "the foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." He mentions the Creator and the Divine in this speech many times, but not one word for Christianity.
The first Congress of the United States replies back "We feel, sir, the force, and acknowledge the justness of the observation, that the foundation of our national policy should be laid in private morality."
Makes me hope to be even more moral, privately.
It also puts lie to the innumerably repeated Republican party lies. Will anyone call them on it? Ever?
In his first speech to the 1st Congress, George says that "private morality" should be that basis, and the Congress replied back that President Washington had it right.
Reported in the Annals of Congress, Washington says "the foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." He mentions the Creator and the Divine in this speech many times, but not one word for Christianity.
The first Congress of the United States replies back "We feel, sir, the force, and acknowledge the justness of the observation, that the foundation of our national policy should be laid in private morality."
Makes me hope to be even more moral, privately.
It also puts lie to the innumerably repeated Republican party lies. Will anyone call them on it? Ever?
2007-12-01
The Press is Plutocratic
In Federalist #39 James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, defines a Republic as a type of government where officers are either elected or appointed by people who are.1
Governance in a representative democracy2 is a particular type of feedback loop.3
There are elections,
the elected make decisions,
they act,
the people learn about the actions
and the results of those actions,
and then there are elections again.
For the Government of the United States, the Presidents and Congresspeople are elected, the Judges are appointed by those who are elected, and the press are paid for.4
Shorter:
A republic means elected or appointed officers.
The process is a type of feedback loop.
One step in this loop is bought and paid for.
Haiku:
For a republic
elections are feedback
a portion is bought.
Governance in a representative democracy
There are elections,
the elected make decisions,
they act,
the people learn about the actions
and the results of those actions,
and then there are elections again.
For the Government of the United States, the Presidents and Congresspeople are elected, the Judges are appointed by those who are elected, and the press are paid for.
Shorter:
A republic means elected or appointed officers.
The process is a type of feedback loop.
One step in this loop is bought and paid for.
Haiku:
For a republic
elections are feedback
a portion is bought.
2007-11-25
A is for Abortion in America
When it can't be saved,
not even on life support,
no gov'ment decides.
If the baby can not live,
not even on life support,
then, as with end of life care,
the government does not decide.
My solution divides pregnancy into two parts, and pregnant people into two types.
At about day 165, a baby might live if it receives professional, perhaps even expert, hospital care. It might live without significant brain damage. The two halves of pregnancy are before and after this date1 2 . The two types of pregnant people include the regular type, and the type where the pregnancy might either threaten the life of the mother, or have originated in rape or incest3 4 .
Law and tradition clearly indicate an interest in the status of living human beings. Those same two, when concerning themselves with people at the end of their lives, state that if a person can survive without machines they can not be killed. However, after a certain point, we all recognize that keeping a person alive does nothing to help them, or others5 , live.
I would prefer that laws only be passed about pregnancies after 165 days, and no Federal law should restrict abortions for the second type of pregnant woman. For pregnancies of less than 165 days, have no Federal restriction, recognize the State's right to exercise their discretion.
not even on life support,
no gov'ment decides.
If the baby can not live,
not even on life support,
then, as with end of life care,
the government does not decide.
My solution divides pregnancy into two parts, and pregnant people into two types.
At about day 165, a baby might live if it receives professional, perhaps even expert, hospital care. It might live without significant brain damage. The two halves of pregnancy are before and after this date
Law and tradition clearly indicate an interest in the status of living human beings. Those same two, when concerning themselves with people at the end of their lives, state that if a person can survive without machines they can not be killed. However, after a certain point, we all recognize that keeping a person alive does nothing to help them, or others
I would prefer that laws only be passed about pregnancies after 165 days, and no Federal law should restrict abortions for the second type of pregnant woman. For pregnancies of less than 165 days, have no Federal restriction, recognize the State's right to exercise their discretion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
