The American Spectator : Malala versus Sandra

Will| 10.16.12 @ 6:17AM

"there can be no right to something which is to be provided, whether through their labor or their money, by others."

So lots of Americans aren't entitled to national defence, the police, the fire service and public education?

spike59| 10.16.12 @ 6:39AM

let's use your 'reasoning'...i want a new Mustang...how about the government confiscate your pay to provide me one????

sounds ridiculous, no???? no more so than insisting that since our tax dollars fund the legitimate functions of government, they should also fund our lifestyle choices

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:42AM

Is that what they're calling it, these days? A lifestyle choice? Really?

So, today, in Gay Bathhouse Barry's AMERIKA, being the Town Whore is a Lifestyle Choice?

Here's a Middle Aged Skank (who I wouldn't Dork with Ross' dork, bye the way) telling everyone that she's getting Plowed so many times in the Bus Terminal Men's Room (one would presume) that she can't afford $9 a Month for her De-Sperming Pills. She can't afford to keep Shoving Quarters into the Multicoloured Condom Dispensors everytime somebody getting off a bus Drunk wants to Shove Something her way.

No, no. We're supposed to pay, while she attends a Very Expensive School on a very limited Scholarship that she received as the Winner of last years Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. Not the one on the 4th of July. The one on Saturday Nights. And, it's not THAT Nathan's. It's a Guy NAMED Nathan. And it only involves One Hot Dog.

That is the Spokesperson for Gay Boy's Women Outreach.

That's like having Al Sharpton be your Liaison to the "I gots me a OBAMAPHONE MF*rs!" Community.

What? He already is?

Okay. It would be like having Eric Holder Run Automatic Weapons down to the Drug Cartels, in Mexico.

What? No way.

It would be like him finding out that 2 of our Embassies had been Attacked, and 4 of our Personnel had been Murdered, and then jumping on a Plane for Vegas, to Fund raise and go to a Party at Jay Z's house.

Why is this Race Close, again?

Oh yeah. "OBAMAPHONE!"

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 9:17AM

Mr. Kaminsky, two issues to be addressed: Abortion is "life threatening"; and All people are entitled to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are people in the mothers womb. Your outrage over what happened to these two beautiful young girls should also be applied to those babies who are being torn apart in the mothers womb. Just asking that you actually think of what is happening to these babies who are being tortured and murdered all in the name of "choice".

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 10:02AM

He just got Married, a little while ago, and OBVIOUSLY, he's not the one "Wearing the Pants" if you get my drift?

I think the Medical Term is (and please excuse my broken Latin) Pu$$ywhipped.

But, I could be wrong.

(I'm not wrong)

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 4:40PM

Except once - but that was yesterday:)

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:55PM

Specify, Joellen.

Specify.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:56PM

No Hit and Runs, please.

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 6:35PM

The Priest being married - but that's ok, we can argue that one - as I stated, you still the man!

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 6:47PM

There's no argument here.

You know that I love you.

If Priests were still allowed to get Married, like they once were, we wouldn't be Plagued, now, with all of the Scandals that have WEAKENED the Catholic Church.

GOD made us, the way we are.

It's Unnatural to ask MEN to Turn the other cheek, when it comes to the Natural Urge to Procteate.

We are, what GOD made us.

To try to Suppress that, is a recipe for the Disaster that the Church finds itself in, today.

It has to change, for the sake of the Church.

You know that.

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:41AM

But Joellen...you wouldn't want young girls "punished with a baby" would you?

Yea, that's the mentality of our current president and there really are people intending on voting for him in a few weeks.

atilla| 10.16.12 @ 1:57PM

VERY, VERY GOOD JOELLEN. GOD BLESS YOU.

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 4:41PM

Thanks Atilla - he always does!

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:56PM

"Do not bear False Witness."

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:57PM

That was for you, Joellen.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:51AM

So wanting a free muscle car is morally equivalent to wanting treatment for a life-threatening illness. Ann interesting insight into the right-wing mind.

Abdullah| 10.16.12 @ 9:11AM

It is just too good to pass on. The only life threatening illness between you and Sandra F-ck is the mental disorder, known as CRP (Chronic responsibility phobia).
And by the way, why are you hiding behind man's moniker? Does Will stand for Wilhelmina or something?

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:16AM

No, I am not a German woman. Good to get that cleared up.

Fancy engaging with the argument at all, rather than simply chucking personal abuse about? Makes you seem a bit insecure.

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:06PM

What's to argue with you ? You confuse federal constitutionally enumerated powers with welfare.

Your inane non-point isn't anything worth "arguing" over.

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:09PM

A pregnancy is a life threatening illness?
Only to a liberal.

Controse| 10.16.12 @ 3:12PM

CPR (Chronic Responsibility Phobia). Excellent. That describes the liberal behavior more succinctly than most phrases. Cowardliness is the root cause of CPR closely followed by laziness.

Jack of Spades| 10.16.12 @ 9:37AM

OBAMAPHONE!

The question you're ducking is, who should pay if not the beneficiary? Medicare and Medicaid were justified by the argument that no one should be denied medical treatment simply because they couldn't pay for it themselves. Now Medicare is going broke so Obamacare is taking over the health-care industry on the premise that no one should have to pay for their own health care, and in fact no one will be allowed to. And if the government decides to deny you treatment for your life-threatening illness, you're SOL.

Having the government pay for medical care means the taxpayers pay for it. And Democrats have so thoroughly demagogued the issue that taxpayers pay for a lot more than life-threatening illness, to the point that Sandra Fluke can put in a plea for subsidized contraception and then be given a speaking part at the Democratic convention.

And the left-wing mind still believes that there's nothing wrong with this picture.

Jacob McCandles| 10.16.12 @ 10:49AM

Treatment for a life threatening illness is available to all humans who present to their nearest emergency facility. Once they are stabilized, they are transported to the ward where they receive round the clock care, including medicines that cost tens of thousands of dollars. If you think people are turned down for treatment and told to hit the road, you have no idea how our hospitals work and have no business opining about "life-threatening illness." You ignorant POS you.

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:22AM

Please quit playing dumb and pretending as if Ms. Fluke was NOT advocating FREE birth control for everyone as opposed to ONLY for those facing a life threatening illness! We as rational people (hopefully, who knows anymore) are capable of arranging for someone's insurance to cover ANY medication needed to treat illness.

This was the best article I have read from Ross, in my opinion. This is the best part: "Sandra Fluke and her ilk are no better than muggers; they just try to get government to hold the gun for them. When I say to these women "pay for your own damn birth control! (or get your boyfriends or husbands to)," it's not because I object to birth control. It is because I object to the assertion that their desires and voluntarily-taken risks are my financial responsibility."

Mitt should use it tonight.

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:31AM

Liberals are constantly throwing out hard to digest legislation or positions (Obamacare, tax-payer funded abortions, free birth control, payouts to Unions) and then blasting the opposition as against women, against teachers, against seniors, etc. It's really tiresome.

The really devastating thing about it is there are too many ignorant Americans who believe conservatives are all of these things. Because just like being a plunderer, it doesn't require much thinking to be a liberal.

spike59| 10.16.12 @ 3:06PM

"treatment for a life-threatening illness. "
===========================
now, i've known a woman or two to say "If i don't get some, i'll DIE"....but i've never actually known someone to claim that the old Hawaiian disease 'lackanooky' as 'life-threatening'...an interesting insight, indeed, into 'Progressiveworld', where women are told to vote with their 'ladyparts' and their 'healthcare' begins and ends between their legs

cuban pete| 10.16.12 @ 4:21PM

I talked to an old Hawaiian about "lackanooky" once. He said," Ima crackin up from a lacka shackin up".

spike59| 10.17.12 @ 6:10AM

i know the feeling; at times, i've been turned into one 'lolo haole'

Nina in MA| 10.17.12 @ 6:01PM

But...hey...I'm not a sex object! I resent your comments...I'm a liberal woman and I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan...so pay for my BC!

spike59| 10.18.12 @ 5:30AM

if you ARE a 'liberal woman'....by definition you're NOT a sex object

vtwin| 10.16.12 @ 1:15PM

Mustang sure, if by Mustang you mean inter-state highways, the air traffic control, the Coast Guard…

spike59| 10.17.12 @ 6:08AM

the same goes if she wants me to pay for HER OWN PERSONAL interstate highway, HER OWN PERSONAL air traffic control or HER OWN PERSONAL Coast Guard...if she is, indeed, 'sharing the benefits' of her contaceptives with EVERYBODY, then perhaps Rush was right in his assessment...

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:57AM

No. It means that lots of Morons, like you, have the right to be Morons.

This Country isn't one big Grab Bag.

The Bill of Rights has 10 Amendments. Apparently, the one that you have (the one with that snapshot of you sister on the toilet, inside of it) only has 9.

James Madison said this, about the Federal Government's Reach, under the Constitution: "The Powers of the Federal Government are FEW, nas WELL DEFINED. They are documented in the first 9 Amendments of the Constitution."

If it ain't laid out in Black and White, in the Constitution?

Then it belongs to The States, and to The People.

Why are you so eager to give up your Liberty to a Cloistered American HOUSE OF LORDS?

To the 537 Worst People on the Planet?

People like you, seek the Right, to Give Up your Rights.

You can do that, already. It's called PRISON.

And, if you had your way, that's where we'd all end up.

Why don't you go on and exercise your right to Kill Yourself.

I can't imagine that anyone would even notice that you were gone.

Seriously.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:58AM

That would be for Will.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:52AM

I'd imagine so. Unluckily I don't feel like committing suicide because somebody on the internet has taken a dislike to me. Sorry.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 9:00AM

So, find some other reason.

I'm thinking a guy like you must have a Million reasons to Jump off a Bridge.

I mean....Look at yourself!

Your Pathetic.

Do it.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:04AM

"A guy like me" being...what, exactly? Somebody who disagrees with your politics? That'll be quite a few suicides, then. Will there even be enough bridges?
It may have escaped your notice, but in democracies it is not all that normal to demand that your opponents kill themselves.

Truth to Power| 10.16.12 @ 9:12AM

We'll make an exception for you.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 10:22AM

It may have escaped your notice, but we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic, Madame. If you can keep it.

And, ever since vtwin's "Nigga" (His words, not mine) got in power? We're not even that, anymore.

And,what's so bad about Everyone who disagrees with me, Committing Suicide? I'm sure a good Lib like you would love a little Population Control. Abortion. A One Child Policy. Death Panels. All that good stuff.

Just don't Execute and Murderers!

Suicide sounds like it's right up your alley.

Besides. We've got Lots of Bridges.

buckeyeman| 10.16.12 @ 11:32AM

Sorry, TLP, but we're no longer living in a representative Republic. We have devolved into a kleptocracy, where folks like Will can vote to steal our stuff and then pretend that he actually believes that there is an equivalency between the modern welfare state (OBAMAPHONE!!!) and the government's obligation to provide national defense.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:59PM

Unfortunately, you are correct.

Von Mises Jr| 10.16.12 @ 10:34AM

Perp is back, TLP. Ignore the a$$hole.

Drunken Sailor| 10.16.12 @ 11:12AM

Good Call.

Stephie| 10.16.12 @ 7:58AM

How do you compare taxpayer funded abortions and birthcontrol to national defense, police, fire service? Washington should not be in the business of "educating" our kids.

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 8:08AM

You cant Stephie, one denies the precious gift of life; the other defends the precious gift of life. The left is very good in distorting, disgusing, and cofusing the mass, and if anyone doubts that look at what is emerging from our Universities. Have you all noticed that all Obama's campaign stops are at said places? Again I strongly suggest you see Breitbart's "Occupied Unmasked".

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:48AM

Well Stephie, it's what happens when you give govenrment that responsibility...or should I say sit back and LET government take it.

Just like when Rahm Emanuel said "never let a good crisis go to waste", Liberals believe never let a slippery slope go unsliddin...

Nancy in NC| 10.16.12 @ 8:10AM

National defense is mentioned in the Constitution, and benefits all of us. As far as I'm concerned, the other things you mentioned should be provided by the state and/or local government.

Birth control does not serve all people, just those who are young enough to reproduce. Sex is something people want to do and it's cheap enough to pay your own way.

You're missing the whole point anyway. I'm sure it strains your brain to consider the courage displayed by these two young girls to fight for something REALLY important in a place it's dangerous to do.

Courage is something I've seen very little of on the left. In fact, as a whole most lefties are big cowards, hiding under their mama's skirts or in her basement.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:57AM

I vastly respect their courage. I'm in total awe of it, frankly. I just don't like the way this article skipped straight from them to an attack on feminism/Obama/abortion/whatever. Why not write about the terrible conditions for girls in the Swat Valley, or US aid to Pakistan.

2Anglico| 10.16.12 @ 10:17AM

The author was engaging in CONTRAST. Contrasting the REAL life threatening circumstances in Pakistan with the imagined, phony, make believe "life threatening" conditions in the U.S.
I note the very first post in this thread was from someone named "WILL". It seems "WILL" was the one who side tracked the conversation by talking about police and firemen.
Right, WILL?

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:53AM

Will Said: "I just don't like the way this article skipped straight from them to an attack on feminism/Obama/abortion/whatever. Why not write about the terrible conditions for girls in the Swat Valley, or US aid to Pakistan."

To paraphrase, and put Obama's whole strategy in a nutshell: "Please ignore how we are destroying the country and concentrate on something else entirely".

CJW| 10.16.12 @ 6:31PM

Will, are you Purpie?

RFisher66| 10.16.12 @ 8:32AM

Will, you are a consumate idiot and no reply is needed to expose your vast ignorance.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:55AM

That's convenient- if somebody disagrees with you response is not needed because they are clearly wrong because they disagree with you. Groupthink here we come!

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:17PM

Suicide is not required, nor are insults.
Reason, logic, courage and maturity are though.
You seem to want Big Govt to provide whatever people need to live the life they choose.
That is not America, that is The Lottery.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 9:19AM

Will;

“Americans aren't entitled to national defence, the police, the fire service and public education”

People aren’t entitled to national defense, police or fire services. In 1787, 13 states got together, and created a Constitution to provide for the common defense. Having signed their name to a piece of paper that enshrined the founding principles didn’t entitle them to protection against hostile forces, it gave them a mechanism to decide if something is to be done for common defense, and if so, how to provide it.

That you seem unaware that government police and fire services didn’t exist in most places here and elsewhere at the time of our nation’s founding shows that the public education that you trumpet (which also didn’t exist then) has once again failed to educate (though your spelling it “defence” may indicate the failure of British education).

Regardless of what anyone thinks of any of Mr. Kaminsky’s various positions on an array of issues, you prove his point that believing that somehow by merely existing, you are entitled under the Preamble’s mention of general welfare to have others fund your personal contraception, any more than the common defense entitles you to a private bodyguard.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:30AM

What about defence (yeah, I'll spell an english word the English way) from ignorance, disease, hunger and so on? The government has some duty to prevent people from starving in the streets, dying because they can't afford health insurance, wasting potential because of a substandard education. I'd say most Americans agree with me- just look at the extent of public support of public education, libraries, Medicare, Social Security. Part of belonging to a nation is that each member has an obligation to each other- especially in one of the richest countries on the planet. We all benefit from that.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 9:57AM

The government has a duty to do the things that we established it to do. When it exceeds that to the detriment of those who established it, it must be corrected (that's an American thing; we are not government's subjects).

To the extent that morality creates an obligation to prevent ultimate harm coming to other individuals (beyond "wasting potential because of a substandard education", which reveals where your thoughts are) , these should first be the function of non-governmental organizations, such as charities, churches, etc.

That is, unless you believe that we should legislate morality, which would seem to suggest you support making it illegal for "poor people" to "dare to have sex".

Will| 10.16.12 @ 10:24AM

And what was it established to do? Defend "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I suppose. Well, it's very difficult to have liberty or pursue happiness when you die becuase of a pre-existing condition preventing you from getting insurance. All Americans benefit from the collective efforts of previous generations- the infrastructure, culture, system of government. For that process to continue, you need a decently educated population who don't die preventable deaths due to their income.

The NGO sector has never managed to provide big-ticket services like health and education. That is why the welfare state was set up in the first place. America is a very charitable place, more so than anywhere else, charities could never get enough money.
All governments legislate morality to some degree. Murder is immoral, therefore it is illegal. Laws are by definition normative- they are a judgement on how individuals should behave and how society should work. I agree that that has to be strongly limited, and it's a question of where you draw the line. Recognise that maybe you yourself have an interest in living in a country where other peoples' kids, educated by everybody, contribute to the future success of the nation. Where people who lose their jobs don't have to resort to crime to feed their families. Barely anyone still alive remembers a time before some sort of welfare system. You can attack it, but you and I have no experience of living in a society without one.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 10:57AM

If the American people supported government supplied health care in the way that you posit that they do, they could make it a Constitutional Amendment, and therefore make it a “right”, which people would be entitled to receive. There has never been a proposal to do so, and even Obamacare was enacted legislatively through a corruption of our normal process (deeming it passed, etc.). Our Constitution shows where we should we draw the line in what our government does, and when we respect and follow it, it works.

Meanwhile, that governments or charities might choose to help individuals temporarily, that does not permanently entitle anyone to its largesse.

Similarly, just because people try to tackle a problem through government doesn’t mean that it is an effective approach. If government spending would eliminate poverty, it would have disappeared fifty years ago. Terminal poverty generally results from pathological behavior, and until the pathologies are addressed, it will continue. To remove many of the pathologies would require excessively limit people’s freedom to make bad choices far beyond what our Constitution permits, as our government was established to protect our freedom, not to provide for all of our needs at the expense of others (who will never be in large enough supply to actually fund it).

That you have apparent difficulty grasping this is why you find Mr. Kaminsky’s position objectionable.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 1:07PM

Not a very convincing argument. If all legislation had also to be constitutional amendments the constitution would be millions of pages long. So long as government supplied healthcare got through the supreme court, there wouldn't be a problem. And in case you haven't noticed, 4 years ago the majority voted for a guy who promised universal healthcare. Congress passed it, the Supreme Court declared it constitutional. Does Obamacare require a constitutional amendment?

If terminal poverty was all about pathological behaviour, then the stupider sons and daughters of millionaires would be living in cardboard boxes, while bright kids born in the ghetto would be working for Goldan Sachs. Clearly that isn't the case- when you are born in poverty, no matter how low or high your IQ, no matter what your work ethic, the chances are that you will stay near the bottom of society for the rest of your life.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 1:13PM

Precisely because you lefties harness those bright kids with substandard teachers in substandard schools protected by superstandard unions who vote in droves for collectivists who then teach the bright boys how to be unwed sires of multitudes of children and bright girls how to be broodmares in order to fatten the "family" (term used advisedly here) coffers. These kids are born to a poverty that you and your ilk created, continue to create, and will always create. Will, you and your kind are the new slavers. It's really as simple as that.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 1:21PM

I wouldn't know about the US public schools system from experience, though I imagine that plenty of what you say is true. Problem is, even better schools wouldn't be the cure. Stupid rich kids start doing better than clever poor kids at school by the age of 6, largely because of the terrible effect of poverty. It's no surprise that countries with average schools and very little poverty (Japan, much of Northern Europe) do better on this than countries with possibly better schools but huge poverty (USA, UK).

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 2:45PM

Poverty being a reason kids don't do well in school is another big liberal lie. If you break down into why the kid comes from a poor family, then you start to see the truth. Kid with parents that are drug abusers or alcoholics. There are plenty of kids from poor families that do great in school. It's more about parenting than it is income. It's more about the child and their desire to learn than it is about income. It's more about teachers unions than it is income.
Abraham Lincoln was dirt poor, but he had a good brain and a desire to be educated.

cuban pete| 10.16.12 @ 4:32PM

You sir, are exactly correct. My family and the majority of the other households in my neighborhood didn't have a pot to p**s in or a window to throw it out but they took a direct interest in their kids and their educations,etc. because they were determined that their children would have a better life.
They deferred gratification and took satisfaction in their children's success.

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 6:07PM

Uh, no. Not true, Will. Example one: Sir Jonathan Miller's kids. My Cousin Jonathan (MY personal cousin through my father's side) put his kids through state schools as a "equality experiment" and they did quite poorly, although they were rich.

The Commonwealth state school system sucks. I learned this as well from my New Zealand experience.

TinaB| 10.17.12 @ 2:39PM

Will, if you are not a product of American Public Education you need to read John Taylor Gatto, NY City Teacher of the Year 3 years running and NY State Teacher of the Year the last year, 1991. During that school year he quit, on the pages of the Wall Street Journal he wrote his letter of resignation.

He is a conservative thinker who has taught the children of the richest to the poorest, and says the opposite of your claim. The best and brightest of each social class can perform wonders, and horrors. It is the family that separates the two. Money does not make a man good any more than poverty makes one evil, but a good family of love and support, makes all the difference in the world.

And that is where the Democrats, liberals and leftists, yes yes I know they're one and the same, have worked to destroy the family, in the name of education, which is really only schooling, and thus our Public School system is actually very successful. We have a nation of adults ignorant of true history, ready to reelect a community organizer who was raised and mentored by card carrying Communists for God's sake! The schools have done their job.

Our students are dumber than theirs because we have successfully dumbed them down. Read Gatto's books if you want a real American education.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 2:16PM

"If all legislation had also to be constitutional amendments the constitution would be millions of pages long. "

In the alternative, there might not be as much legislation if people had to work harder in order to take money from one group of people, in order to give it to another. As it stands, the Obamacare Bill was way over one thousand pages, which had to be passed so you can learn what is in it.

In the same sense, merely passing a law doesn't make something a permanent right, as subsequent legislatures can undo what was done. That was what the SCOTUS said in upholding the Obamacare legislation (in a highly flawed opinion), and hopefully what this election will establish.

2Anglico| 10.16.12 @ 11:28AM

American life expectancy in 1900 - 47. Today's American life expectancy? - 77+.
This cry baby notion that everybody is dying because of some provision in an insurance policy is ludicrous.
So, WILL, if we surrender our liberty to your know it all government, do you GUARANTEE we will live forever???

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 10:05AM

Will, what about voluntary ignorance, the kind that comes from not bothering to get an education (freely provided) or voluntary hunger, the kind that comes from being irresponsible, drug-addicted, or just plain damned lazy? I know of no one who is opposed to helping those who truly cannot help themselves. On the other hand, I know many, myself included, who have little sympathy for, or patience with, those who refuse to help themselves though possessing the ability to do so. So, are you saying that those who choose to live their lives as parasites, have a "right" to the fruits of my labor? Ironic, indeed, that a liberal would decry "substandard education" as causal to wasted potential. Substandard education is a curse laid upon the poor by the left's lemming-like support for union support of grossly incompetent teachers. But then, how else to keep poor inner city blacks on the Socialist plantation? Tell me, does your support for "public education" include support for Charter Schools? Does it support denying tenure to unqualified teachers? Does it support education vouchers so parents can pull their kids out of the slave factories in the inner cities and send them to private, non-union schools. Bet not. More to follow.....

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 10:08AM

As to public support for Medicare, you are correct. Americans understand the moral duty to protect the least among us but you pull the same, tired, liberal canard when you tie Medicare and Social Security together. Medicare is wholly an entitlement. Social Security is not. It is a Ponzi scheme wherein the government, by force of arms, confiscates my money, wastes it in somany ways, and then, after denying its use to me for decades, returns it to me piecemeal, at an obscene rate of return.

Jacob McCandles| 10.16.12 @ 10:57AM

Very well put, KJ. You and ACJ are slam dunking it today.

TinaB| 10.17.12 @ 2:44PM

You got it exactly right Kennesaw, everything you listed would add to healthy competition for the Public Schools. The lefties are against every bit of alternative Ed. They have their monopoly, all the kids are theirs, unless home schooled, and they will fight to the death to keep the status quo.

atilla| 10.16.12 @ 2:05PM

WILL, YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY POINT YOU BRING UP.
SOCIAL JUSTICE EXISTS IN THE MINDS OF LIBERALS ONLY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES SPENDING SOMEONE ELSES MONEY. .
THE POOR WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE ENORMOUS CHARITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:21PM

Even if they are not, it does not make charity at the point of a gun(Big Govt welfare)moral.

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:21PM

Even if they are not, it does not make charity at the point of a gun(Big Govt welfare)moral.

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 6:11PM

Our poor people are obese, Will. And they are in the Commonwealth, too. I say this as an immensely experienced Board certified psychiatrist who has worked with Navajo and Ojibwe indigenous peoples in the US, and with extensive experience working with the Maori in Rotorua.

The problem is poor education, contempt for education, and drug abuse, along with no fathers who are worth a crap. I say this with authority from doing the job I do and did, not from being a Labour Mongoloid taking the Piss.

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 6:15PM

By the way, I have never received ONE ha'penny from Sir Jonathan Miller. My family is huge. I also paid off $80,000 in student loans in my 1st 18 months of practice, by working my ass off in a rural area.

Will, I doubt you have EVER done anything directly to help indigent or indigenous peoples. I doubt that you have ever given away your professional services for free (in private practice, I gave away more than $100,000 worth).

In short, wanker, piss off.

2Anglico| 10.16.12 @ 9:53AM

The word "education" does not appear in the Constitution. Police and fire are LOCAL responsibilities. Which leaves National Defense. The PRIMARY reason there is a Federal government is to "provide for the common defense".
There is no authorization in the Constitution for the Federal government to provide toilet paper for the citizenry.
Taking the property of one American, by force, and giving it to another American, TO WHOM IT DOES NOT BELONG, is theft.
Receipt of stolen goods is a crime in most of America too.

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 1:53PM

"Taking the property of one American, by force, and giving it to another American, TO WHOM IT DOES NOT BELONG, is theft."

Actually, according to most state statutes it's called, robbery." To wit, the use of force or threat of force to deprive another person of their property. Any way you look at it...the use of the tax code to achieve unconstitutional objectives or fund unconstitutional actions is definitely, robbery.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 10:53AM

That is HIRING others, will. Furthermore, the first three are legitimate functions of government. The last is not.

Drunken Sailor| 10.16.12 @ 11:09AM

Well considering the only thing you mentioned that is defined as the federal goverment's role is national defense, then yes, they are entitled to it. As for the other straw men you put up they are not garunteed anywhere in the constitution and should be handled by the local or state goverments.

Now please show me where birth control, let alone health insureance is garunteed as a right.

Drunken Sailor| 10.16.12 @ 11:10AM

Sorry, this was meant for Will's first comment. No idea why the site put it way down here.

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 11:11AM

We do not claim to be "entitled" to national defense, police, fire fighting, and government education. We PAY for these things through our taxes. People who receive "entitlements" are receiving in many cases without paying any taxes at all, and in other cases with paying far less in taxes then they receive in "entitlements." There is a monumental difference between working, earning a living, and paying taxes for agreed upon public services on the one hand, and having government transfer tax money from people who earn it to people to whom it does not belong as a subsidy on the other hand. Your argument is a false comparison, a false equivalency between services and subsidies. Grade: "F". Now go do your homework.

atilla| 10.16.12 @ 1:53PM

TO WILL,
YOU CAN BE TAXED FOR THINGS FOR "THE PUBLIC GOOD"...........I.E., ROADS, BRIDGES BORDER PATROL, NAT'L DEFENCE, POSTAL SERVICE...THE THINGS ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. NO ONE OBJECTS TO THAT.
YOU KNOW THAT WILL, OR YOU ARE AS STUPID AS YOU SOUND!!

Will| 10.16.12 @ 5:12PM

Education and healthcare are both public goods- it is not profitable to provide them but we all need them. That is the definition of a public good.

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:39PM

A corrupted Big Govt educ. system is not for the public good.
Rather it is solely for the benefit of Big Govt, as it creates helpless mind-numbed victims who will vote to increase Big Govt power permanently.

Gr0w1er601| 10.16.12 @ 4:25PM

Yo, you also forgot infrastructure, water, and sanitation systems. Why is you whiny-types so often confuse public needs with individual wants? Could it be that you (collective) are so arrogant, not to mention egotistical, as to believe you know what the people need, or (dare I mention the 'e' word) are 'entitled' to? Nah. Didn't think so.

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 5:51PM

Sharia Delenda est. Like Nazism, which it closely resembles in many ways (and Sharia was greatly admired by the Nazis), it is despicably evil.

Wjhat should be happening each time a girl is injured by these vermin, is that 1000 Taliban should be gathered together and crucified, with rope instead of spikes, and left to die as a message.

The lessons of proper behavior must be taught in a way so that these vermin can learn, and the only way they will learn is by having the lesson burnt into their skin.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 6:26AM

Poor Malala will probably die, becuase the Pakistani government is sending her to be treated in an NHS hospital. They say this is because Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham is the best in the world for bullet wounds to the head, but clearly that can't be true, because it's socialist, right? Thats if she even makes it from the airport to the hospital, as those death panels that we have over here (definitely) will never allow precious resources to be wasted on her. Probably because we spend so much cash bankrolling contraception, which violates the vital principle that poor people should contract syphilis if they dare to have sex.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 8:08AM

Maybe it's not too late for someone who's compassionate - someone like you - to Fly over there an ABORT HER?

She's only, what? 14? 15?

You can call it a Really Late Term Abortion.

And, if she refuses to Cooperate, and persists on Living, even after she's been Sliced Up by one of "Doctors"?

Just throw her in an Alley, somewhere. Sooner or later, she'll be dead.

After all. She has a RIGHT to be Aborted.

Isn't that right, Will?

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 8:40AM

Tim: "Really Late Term Abortion" ... very creative. RLTA ... the future of Planned Parenthood.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 8:48AM

How's that Comb working out?

Let me guess.

You're Bald.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 8:49AM

"Planned Parenthood"?

More like - Obamacare - if you ask me.

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 8:46AM

Tim, unfortunately, you've just given the left their newest campaign slogan "THE RIGHT TO BE ABORTED". GOD help us.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 8:55AM

Actually. We can use it to Our Advantage.

From now on, Prosecutors will no longer run in to a Buzzsaw, when seeking a Death Sentence for a Brutal Murderer.

They can seek a Really Late Term Abortion.

There won't even be any Appeals, as that would Violate Roe v Wade.

Try'em before Breakfast, and Really Late Abort'em before Lunch.

God Bless America.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:58AM

There's this thing called irony. I suggest you google it.

Tom Kyba| 10.16.12 @ 11:01AM

There's this thing called disingenuousness. I suggest you google it. This is a thing that we've seen a thousand times on this site. It shows up as left wing posters making comments for no other reason than annoying the regulars, then sitting back and smirking at the replies. This is followed by the lie that all you're interested in is rational discourse. No need to google that. Show some intellectual honesty.

spike59| 10.16.12 @ 3:11PM

there's this thing called 'rational thought'...is suggest you get your mommy to explain it when she makes her next Cheetos delivery to the basement

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:06AM

The Pakistani Taliban came very close to killing her- aborting her, if you like. Show some respect.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 9:44AM

Will, if there's any lack of respect being shown, here, it is for you. Coming here with your leftist hubris (google that),now that the conversation isn't going where you would choose to lead it causes you to cry out "show some respect".

While you can show some courage, and speak up for the socialist ideals you have posited on this thread, I think most would prefer you to show your back as you depart.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:55AM

Yes, how dare I point out that there might be something a little disrespectful in using a fantastically, tragically brave girl to bang on endlessly about abortion.
I haven't shown any courage whatsoever- I enjoy an argument. Just wish that perhaps people might engage in argument rather than tell me to bugger off because I'm a lefty on a right-wing website.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 10:10AM

While you enjoy an argument, perhaps it should occur to you that others enjoy telling lefties to "bugger off", and that in order to get what you want, you have to give in return.

I believe it was a great English politician Margaret Thatcher (my Irish ancestors cringe at the thought) that once said words to the effect that the trouble with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

To the extent that the currency here for your argument is both counter-argument and being told to "bugger off", I doubt that either (though definitely the latter) is in short supply.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 10:26AM

Dear old Maggie, who didn't abolish the NHS or state education, who destroyed more grammar schools than any other education secretary, who defended our EU membership to the hilt. By "American Spectator" standards Maggie was a commie.
Nah, I won't bugger off. I'm enjoying this too much.

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 12:17PM

Will, you say you like a good argument. No you don't. If you just wanted to argue you would show the willingness to reason or use cognitive thought when the other side gives an example or proof. You refuse to use any intelect and ignore the facts. Our forefathers were very clear about how it was, is and always will be to take the work of one man and give it to another. We are ENTITLED to life, lberty and the pursuit of happiness(tha ability to work for a living). No where does the Constitution say the government is to give us those things. The Constitution says the government is no to interfere with those things.
Now, is your citizenship U.S., or some other country? If it something other than U.S., then please as you say, "bugger off".

Will| 10.16.12 @ 12:52PM

It is other than US. UK, since you ask. But I take an interest in the politics of countries other than my own. I have the freedom to comment on other countries- in fact, I hold that truth to be self-evident.
I think I have tried to argue reasonably and use "cognitive thought" (tautology time!). My point is that if all are ENTITLED to life then surely society should step in to save people from preventable death. This would be a promotion of that classic American mission statement, not an abnegation of it.
Just a parting thought- is freedom from government, freedom from paying tax, the only kind of freedom that matters?

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 2:02PM

Will, as another has already posted here, all people in this country, notice I did not say citizens, get lifesaving treatment in emergencies. Anyone in this country who is below the poverty line gets free medical help. Why is it so hard for you to differentiate between an illness and choice? There is no need for free birth control if you keep your legs together. It's a choice. Getting cancer is not a choice unless you're a smoker.
Our forefathers wer adament that it is unlawful for the government to take from one to give to another.
If you want tp spread your legs and have unprotected sex, then that is your choice. Nothing in our Constitution gives you the right to my income so you can have mutliple choices.
Freedom is from God, not government.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 1:09PM

I doubt that many here would insinuate that Margaret Thatcher was a “commie”, as you posit. I am sure that many would respect the role she played in standing up alongside Ronald Reagan to the Soviet Communist that loomed over so much of the 20th century, but collapsed in its last decade, in large part due to their domestic efforts together.

I further doubt that many would try to suggest that Britain adhere to our constitutional principles. As our founding fathers had to kill many of their representatives in order to establish this republic, we ultimately recognized our rights to differing systems of government nearly 200 years ago. While we have much in common with English traditions of self-governance, too many American patriots died at our founding for us to throw away the Constitution they established to discard it in favor of the socialist democratic policies that evolved there, and to any who would suggest it, I think “Bugger Off” is a fair response.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 1:24PM

My point about Thatcher was that, if she was a contemporary politician, most readers of the American Spectator would consider her a RINO. That shows not that she was left-wing, but how right-wing you guys are.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:44PM

It shows only one thing - how dishonest you are.

We like Thatcher, just as we like Reagan. We don't condemn them for failing to do everything we would have liked when it's abundantly clear that they could not have. No one has limitless power.

Your only weapon is the straw man.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 1:57PM

It appears your pretextual English identity is beginning to slip a bit. Thatcher was not a Republican. I believe the term used most frequently to describe the party of her membership in the British conservative (or Unionist, if you prefer) movement was "Tory".

My point is that we don't hold British politicians accountable to the US Constitution. We should and must hold American politicians to it, as they (upon assuming office) take an oath to support and defend it.

If you want to feel good about yourself, do something to help someone else out yourself. You are not entitled to feel good about yourself for taking something from me or anyone else to give it to someone else to help them, particularly if your gift does not improve the lot of the recipient.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 5:14PM

I know she wasn't a bloody Republican! When did I ever say that?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 5:57PM

"most readers of the American Spectator would consider her a RINO"

The R in "RINO" stands for "Republican".

CJW| 10.16.12 @ 6:35PM

Willie, please define right wing and left wing for us, since you appear to be new, just popped in today, and we want to be clear on your terms.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 5:20PM

I have, on this site, seen it said that the National Health Service has death panels which decide who should live and who should die. That Britain is being taken over by fundamentalist Muslims. That we, and all other Europeans, are a bunch of Marxists. That in the 22 years since Margaret Thatcher was kicked out we have gone to the dogs.

None of this is true, yet people on TAS have made these accusations plenty of times. So I think I have a right to comment, reasonably and politely, on US politics.

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 6:03PM

Will: the Death panels are referred to as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Have you ever worked as a senior medical specialist in a hospital governed by NICE protocols in the Commonwealth? I have. You don't know anything, sir.

And, Will, seeing as you have no kids of your own, what's the most common boys' name in Britain? The answer is a name shared with a Stooge.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 6:08PM

"So I think I have a right to comment, reasonably and politely, on US politics."

You continue to assert “rights” that are not rights. This site belongs to The American Spectator, which sets up rules for posting. The editor can remove your post, or any other, if it feels the need to do so. While you may currently have this privilege granted to you (as a result of those of us who have voluntarily contributed to funding The American Spectator Foundation), you should never confuse it with a right.

That you fail to grasp this, once again, goes to demonstrate what a poor value your education was. Had you not claimed that you were educated in the UK, I would have guessed that Professors Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama were your instructors, or perhaps "Anna K. from Emory U."

CJW| 10.16.12 @ 6:36PM

Willie,
How is it that you have read all these untrue accusations plenty of times but just decided today to respond?

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 1:14PM

I understand the Argentinians are as fond of her as you are.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 1:15PM

Above in reply to Will.

Von Mises Jr| 10.16.12 @ 10:39AM

Perp is back, TLP.
He came up with the name "Will" since that is how he starts his conversations at the gay bathhouse. "Will" you infect me with bug juice, big boy?

Will| 10.16.12 @ 12:18PM

Stop projecting your sexual fantasies onto me. Be true to yourself, man up and find a gay bathhouse, if there are such things.

Von Mises Jr| 10.16.12 @ 2:02PM

So Perp, you can type with your mouth full.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 5:22PM

There are 2 kinds of men who are anti-gay. Those who are just prejudiced and bigoted, and those who do it because they are scared of their own latent homosexual leanings.
I think you come into the latter category.

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:51PM

Will, you seem to think that anything a person "needs", if they cannot provide it themselves, should be provided and paid for by others through forced confiscation.
That is tyranny, not liberty.
Europe is dying, thanks to the welfare state, abortion, ennui and Islam.
We conservative, traditional Americans will fight and possibly fall, but we will not be herded unto the tender mercies of Big Govt, Herr Heydrich.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 5:57PM

Wow. Support for the welfare state= Reinhard Heydrich. That was impressive. Godwin's Law has been proved once again, a person who disagrees with you has been compared to a Nazi. On that, I'm off to bed

TinaB| 10.17.12 @ 8:12PM

Thank you once again, Skippy. I would be that ex-Brit who is so grateful to Almighty God and my parents for migrating to the wonderfully free (so far) USA.

CJW| 10.16.12 @ 6:37PM

Willie,
You forgot to deny you are Purpie.

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 11:14AM

My goodness. Stupidity coupled with arrogance and condescension. What a combination this goon "Will" possesses. Contraceptives do NOT prevent the spread of SDT's. A birth control pill or diaphragm will not prevent one from contracting syphilis. Buy your own.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 12:16PM

I was referring to condoms, which do prevent the spread of STDs

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:50PM

With a dog, a security system, and a gun, I can prevent my house from being robbed. This will save my homeowner's insurance company from reimbursing me for property lost to theft, and will save me from anguish as well.

It is only logical, then, that the federal government require those who provide homeowner's insurance to provide their customers with free dogs, security systems, and guns.

Furthermore, drivers who cause accidents would be saved if chauffeurs were provided to drive for them whenever they're tired, distracted, or drunk. The federal government should require auto insurers to provide these chauffeurs in the name of saving themselves and their customers.

What of those whose homes would not be robbed regardless, or who would cause no accidents regardless? Screw them - they're just whiny selfish Republicans!

Will| 10.16.12 @ 1:00PM

Err, no. In both of these cases, the answer is a police force, paid for by general taxation- hardly unconstitutional.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:14PM

Police prevent people from causing accidents? How, exactly?

Police do little to prevent crime except to serve as a deterrent. Their primary role is after-the-fact prosecution of crime.

Even if they could fill this role, your contraception mandate provides a variety of redundant forms of birth prevention, so I could still argue that I want my dog and gun, not your police.

The simple fact is that you cannot explain how my examples are different from this contraception mandate, because there is no difference. The justification for one justifies them all.

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 2:00PM

Federal Government does not have general police powers.

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 1:16PM

Not very well. The failure rate is rather high. Would you risk your life on a scrap of latex?

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 1:27PM

By the way, distributing condoms does not fall under any enumerated power of the United States Congress. Go buy your own. Other countries have their own governments to deal with this. You have no business taking my tax money and buying condoms for people in other countries.

Butch| 10.16.12 @ 2:22PM

Why is an English hospital ". . . the best in the world for bullet wounds to the head . . ." when guns are outlawed in England? That means they have none of those. Right? Anyway, the "best in the world for bullet wounds to the head" is a Smith & Wesson 357 Magnum with a laser pointer.

Will| 10.16.12 @ 5:26PM

Because that hospital in Birmingham treats all the soldiers coming back from Afghanistan with bullet wounds to the head. All the young Brits who have died in a war to avenge an attack on the United States.

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 6:00PM

It isn't. The best in my area probably be Mayo Clinic, as they have the #2 neurosurgery department in the world, and they would certainly kick Birmingham's behind. ( They rank only behind Hopkins---as Hopkins also functions within a murder capitol, I would go to JH anytime.)

If you think that the Brits can do a better job than Hopkins or Mayo, you are painfully mistaken. Painfully so.

Jack in Wi| 10.16.12 @ 6:38AM

The story of this young girl is truely sad. May I ask one question. How has our 11 year entanglement in Afganistan done anyone any good? We can't go around the world pushing womens rights and imposing our ideas on cultures that want nothing to do with them. These people have to figure it out for themselves. There is no difference between those people like Sandra and the nation builders. They both want to impose their ideas of what is right and wrong on others. This gang has tried to push abortion and birth control in both Afganistan and Iraq. I can think of a lot better uses for the taxpayers money then spending trillions pushing abortion, feminism, and contraception on unwilling populations in Iraq and Afganistan. Now we are about to remake Syria. In the end all our efforts have led to the increasing radicalization of the world's Muslim populations. Bring the troops home. We are broke from 100 years of sticking our noses where they don't belong.

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 7:45AM

Jack: You said, "We are broke from 100 years of sticking our noses where they don't belong."

Really? As usual you spout nonsense.

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:28PM

Maybe Jack was referring to the couple of times our boys crossed the Atlantic and pulled the Brits' fat out of the fire.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 8:46AM

I agree with Jack.

Vaporize the whole Goddamn Place.

Nobody will miss them.

They are a HUGE Net Drain on the Recources of Planet Earth.

Other than Opium?

I can't think of a Single thing that they produce, unless you count Dead Bodies and 8 Year Old Girls for Marriage, as Production.

Neutron Bomb the entire Worthless Hellhole, and be done with it, once and for all.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 11:53AM

"We can't go around the world pushing womens rights and imposing our ideas on cultures that want nothing to do with them."

Really, Jack? Really? So if someone here in America wants to abuse women, we can't push our ideas on him? Should we have kept slavery legal so as not to push our ideas on slaveowners? You can't even say "it's different when they're in our country" on that one, because the South seceded!

The very idea of rights - true rights - is that they don't depend on whether you're in the right place.

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 12:19PM

Jack,
When a government allows terrosit to openly train in their country, and those terrorist fly planes into public buildings killing thousands, then we have every right to do whatever the hell we want to do. End of story.

Darin| 10.16.12 @ 7:07AM

The author says he is pro choice. So he's OK with a mother killing her unborn child but has a problem with the Taliban shooting this girl. Of course, he ignores this disconnect and only talks about who should pay for the mother to kill her child.

C. Vernon Crisler | 10.16.12 @ 8:30AM

Yes, I stopped reading when Ross said that, and I suspect I will never read any of his writings again. How an AmSpec writer can be pro-abortion is beyond me, showing perhaps the decline of the magazine. It should also be noted that Malala has said that she is an Obama supporter, so there are both ups and downs to the Malala story.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 10:55AM

There's a big difference between being "pro-abortion" which I am not, and believing that the issue is not the business of the federal government, which is what I believe. (I do believe Roe v Wade should be overturned and the issue sent to the states.)

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 11:19AM

I agree completely with this statement, Mr. Kaminsky. This is an issue than can and should be fought out at the State level. The US Government has absolutely ZERO legal authority to govern abortion. It can not create it as a "right," it can not ban it, it can not regulate its practice in any way. RvW is the poster child for Leftist politics: what one can not achieve at the ballot box one can have the Courts order in to existence. RvW is the embodiment of dictatorial government and is a complete violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 11:57AM

Ross, so you're saying that you do not believe life begins at conception. If you thought otherwise, you could not sanction states allowing abortion. Killing a baby is still killing a baby, irrespective of which level of government permits it. I think your argument is a difference without a distinction.

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 2:02PM

Problem is, Murder is not a federal issue.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 2:19PM

From the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 11:58AM

No, Ross, there is no difference. Like Henry Clay, who said in the 1830s that he personally opposed slavery but found it impractical to ban it, you unsuccessfully attempt to straddle a fence for fear of taking a stand.

No one today would accept one who says "I oppose slavery, but can't stop someone else from enslaving black people if he wants to." And no one should accept one who says "I'm not pro-abortion, but I can't stop other people from killing their unborn."

Those who say "it's a state legislature issue" are demanding that we concede the entire issue, up front, to the position that the unborn are not people with the right to live. That's the ONLY argument against abortion that anyone's ever had! You can't tell us that you're straddling the fence when the first requirement of your position is that we concede EVERYTHING to our opponents!

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 12:06PM

Guys, I'm just not going to be dragged into a debate about abortion. My article is not about abortion and I'm actually very tired of people who focus on one small sentence which was only there to provide context for my point of view.

Abortion, even if it were murder, is NOT the province of the FEDERAL government.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:15PM

Murder is not the province of the federal government? But what of the right to life, which is enshrined in the federal government's Constitution?

From the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

C. Vernon Crisler | 10.16.12 @ 1:49PM

I agree JD. Normally, domestic morals legislation is a matter for the States, but the 14th Amendment makes questions of life a federal matter as well. Hence, abortion is both a federal and state issue.

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 12:27PM

We are endowed by our Creator with certain uninalienable rights. "LIFE", liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That all men are CREATED equal.

If you need to read those two lines over and over again, then please do so until they sink in.

Yes, it most certainly is the duty of the government to defend the unborn. How much clearer could it be once you have read those two lines?

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:31PM

Ross will answer my post by pointing out that it defines citizens as those born here and defends only the rights of such citizens. But I, for one, have never liked the idea that "rights" (true rights, not Leftist rights) are to be respected or ignored based on citizenship. While we're under no obligation to take in non-citizens, we should be responsible for the rights of all within our borders.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 1:53PM

Actually, JD, many constitutional rights are explicitly noted in our founding documents as applying to people/humans, not just citizens. The issue with citizens relates directly to the application of law. In general, I agree with your statement, and am somewhat surprised that you would think differently.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:55PM

Then... how exactly do you defend "leave it to the states" when murder is a federal issue (AND rights are not subject to legislatures?)

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:23PM

JD, I disagree that murder is a federal issue. For most of American history almost nothing was punishable by murder under FEDERAL law.

But I have to say that I'm not a lawyer and I'm probably getting a little out of my depth here.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 6:56PM

Ya think!

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 3:49PM

We are only responsible for those who are legally within our borders. Those here illegally are still the subjects of their home country.

C. Vernon Crisler | 10.16.12 @ 1:04PM

I do not think that Ross really understands the American Principle.

StephenF| 10.16.12 @ 1:03PM

Mr Kaminsky you have managed to undercut your entire argument in this otherwise fine article but your pro child murder stance. Abortion is murder and to suggest otherwise is grossly disingenuous or horribly naive of you. So while you want to avoid a debate on abortion you must face the fatal flaw of your entire article.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:10PM

His argument has merit independently, but he does himself no service with his abortion position. It would have been better to have avoided stating it and simply talked about condoms and other less controversial things.

StephenF| 10.16.12 @ 1:48PM

Perhaps on some level but he undoubtedly lost much of his audience by inserting his pro child murder stance into the article. No matter how you cut it his argument loses merit when he denies humanity to the unborn while trying to highlight the inhumanity of a certain segment of the population and the bravery of certain individuals in the face of those threats.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 1:54PM

I would suggest that the strength of my argument is increased among those who are not anti-abortion.

Since those who are anti-abortion probably already agree with my fundamental point, I am more concerned with trying to convince the convince-able rather than preaching to the conservative choir.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:56PM

This is a conservative choir site, but you're right, the argument appeals more to the middle-left if you admit to being pro-abortion yet still oppose subsidies.

StephenF| 10.16.12 @ 2:37PM

Mr Kaminsky your target audience on this site is conservative and pro life and thus any article on this site advocating conservative causes is essentially preaching to the choir. We (and I take the liberty of speaking for other conservatives) do not come to this fine site read articles that are written in a nuanced manner to appeal to center-left readers. I would suggest such tactics are best for articles seen on more generic sites.
As I stated above your article is a fine work but is under cut by your pro child murder stance. On that issue I respectfully and strongly disagree with you.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 2:57PM

Trust me Stephen - I'm a liberal and the article does not in any way appeal to the centre-left. It's deeply unpleasant anti-woman, anti-public health and self-defeating right-wing nonsense.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 3:17PM

You represent the Left and the Liars (perhaps the same group?). You are in no position to comment on the perspective of honest members of the center-left.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:22PM

See, Ross?

You can't fix Stupid.

Liberalism is a CULT.

And, unless you have a different way to get to a Hailbop Comet, of sorts?

Your just pissing in a Bangledesh Monsoon.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:24PM

I know, Tim, I know.

OK, serious question here: What's this Friday thing so many commenters have mentioned? You may probably think I'm living under some AmSpec rock, but I don't know what it's about though I know you've mentioned a Friday "contest" to me before.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 5:34PM

Ross, just come to the site and watch for Tim's hints as to where to go to view the contest topic, the parameters of your entry (essentially, there aren't any), and the prizes, the really GREAT prizes. If you want, go back to last Friday and visit the Berkley article for a look-see. You really should join the fun.

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 5:34PM

Ross,

The only thing you need to know is, whatever the question, the answer is always, "The Beach Scene from Lord of the Flies." Remember that, and you're a winner.

I am now headed down to the fallout shelter to escape Tim's wrath.

Regards,

Mike

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:11PM

Don't listen to him.

He's Old and Confused.

Pay Attention.

Go to last Friday's Column on Berkeley.

Look for my Intro to the Contest, and then check out the rest of the guy's Entries.

It is so Hilarious, you can't believe it.

We take a News Item from the week, and offer Movie, Television, Play, and even Poetry Analogies to Parady the News Story.

A Month ago, when I started this, we had 18 Entries.

Last Friday?

We had 130.

We beat each other up, Monday thru Thursday.

On Friday, we all come together to Have Some Fun.

Go look at last Friday's Contest at the Berkeley Column.

Then, Join Us.

This Contest has brought a lot of us together, like a Family.

I would be HONOURED if you would join us.

And, I know that the rest of the Guys and Gals would be Honoured as well.

I'm BEGGING YOU to check out last Friday's Extravaganza.

You are always Welcome.

You might even Win.

This week's winning prize will be Hillary's Self Respect, which I grabbed, in the street, after she was thrown under the Bus for Benghazi.

Please Join us.

Look for the Clues to The Contest.

Did I mention what a good speller you are?

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 7:28PM

"He's Old and Confused."

That ain't the half of it.

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:34PM

"...the issue is not the business of the federal government, ,,, ,"

ABSOLUTELY ! That stuff should NEVER have been introduced as an issue in politics. It's the stuff of morals, religion, culture, and individual conscience.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 10:10AM

Spot on, Darin.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 7:45AM

This is one of the most offensive articles I've seen here - and that's saying something.

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 7:47AM

Jack: Why? Tell us why this article is "the most offensive article" you have read here.

Nancy in NC| 10.16.12 @ 8:01AM

I find your comment offensive. In fact, I find you offensive. Take a hike. If you don't like the article, why did you read it?

Tell a conservative a lie and he's angry. Tell a liberal the truth, then he's angry. Now we know why Jack is upset.

Jack of Spades| 10.16.12 @ 8:33AM

You're offended because the truth hurts.

Jack of Spades| 10.16.12 @ 9:10AM

Seriously,that's all you've got to say?

Tom Kyba| 10.16.12 @ 11:03AM

Whatever.

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 11:20AM

"Jack" is one of the most offensive people I have read here, and that's saying something.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:23PM

Actually, that's saying nothing.

Hardcard| 10.16.12 @ 8:11AM

It's a religion of peace.

jothepro| 10.16.12 @ 9:01AM

This post by Ross was, by most standards, a good article. But when I got to the part where he said he was pro choice, I had all these thoughts running through my head about little babies who haven't seen the sunlight or breathed the earth's air or had a chance to get a bullet put through their head by taking on a monster that few would. Freedom can be a hard thing to understand to those who don't cherish life....

Who Knows?| 10.16.12 @ 9:12AM

Love the Bastiat quote.

Back in his day, most labor was backbreaking, and hence painful. These days, though, in the West anyway, most jobs are in service industries, and not exactly painful, in the physical sense. Of course, getting up in the morning from a warm bed and ecstatic dreams, to face a mirror to put on your face, and otherwise spend time clothing the body in acceptable garb, moving it to the workplace by car or bus or whatever, etc etc etc---that’s painful, compared to what you’d rather be doing.

Is it still true that more people die on a Monday than any other day of the week, since they dread going to work so much?

I’ve had quite a few different jobs. Maybe the word is “drudgery”, not “pain”. I once had a temp job as a data entry clerk, punching numbers into a computer with one finger on each hand dancing away for 8 LONG hours each day.

Getting up to relieve the body every hour or so helped break the “pain”. So did listening to Beethoven, using earplugs, especially his Missa Solemnis mass, and my other classical music tapes.

See---it’s all about me.

Who Knows?| 10.16.12 @ 9:13AM

Seriously, though, it’s about time the makers verses takers concise dichotomy DID become much more well known---and taken account of, PERSONALLY, by everyone!

In my many years of subbing, in which I probably encountered tens of thousands of youngsters, there are many tales to tell.

Relevant to this article, at least once I had a discussion with some leftist student that went something like this---I found out he was in favor of taxes to pay for something or other. So, I mirrored back to him, “You want to take money from Joe and give it to Mike.”

He agreed.

So, I demanded---“Give me your money!”

What’s good for the one is good for the other.

Who needs the middleman, the government?

Maybe the ultimate “pain” is just becoming an adult, for a lot of people. So many “plunder” away, as the years go by, trying to, in essence, never leave “home”, that is, to stay FREE and in play as children---let the parents work!

Government as parents---now there’s a novel Idea!

Stormy| 10.16.12 @ 9:42AM

A lesson in morality, and a lesson in courage. Malala or Fluke? Gee, what a hard decision. Malala gets shot in the head for trying to get an education. Sandra Fluke is a law student at Georgetown U., and she whines about free contraception. What a world.

MelvinNC| 10.16.12 @ 10:07AM

Our government is no different than the Taliban, regardless who sits upon the thrown of power in Washington D.C.
At least with the Taliban assassins death usually come quickly with efficient precision. Here death comes only after we have worked a life time of servitude so Sandra can spend a lifetime in college screwing everybody.
So I guess it can be said that Malala is a beacon for everything right in humanity and Sandra Fluke is a whore for everything wrong.

Doctor Right| 10.16.12 @ 10:12AM

Haven't we had ENOUGH of the Islamic barbarians in the world???

Before we leave Afghanistan to return to the dark ages, I propose we airlift as many females as we can, of all ages, out of that hell-hole and bring them to freedom.

Leave the ignorant men to diddle each other, and their goats.

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:41PM

As long as you deplane them at Heathrow. One Dearbornistan in America is quite enough.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 10:25AM

What's particularly offensive about this article is the great play it makes for help for women in one part of the world while for the sake of a few cents denying women and early child health services for low income women in another.

Kaminsky hasn't any idea what Planned Parenthood does or how oral contraception is prescribed and managed. He thinks you can go into Target and buy it - no. Not without a prescription. And these cheap generics nay not be suitable.

Women's services have mostly enjoyed bipartisan support, but not from scorched earth anti-enitlement idiots like Kaminsky, who should be forced to spend a day in a PP clinic and learn something for once in his sheltered life.

Jacob McCandles| 10.16.12 @ 11:19AM

Even the poorest women among us can get a prescription for BCPs. And there are generics for everything that ails ya. Most of these "low income women" don't mind investing 200 dollars a month for their cigarettes. Cry me a freaking river. You can call me uncaring if you would like, but I have little sympathy for able bodied folks who, by their own foolish decisions, make a mess of their lives.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 11:59AM

The lie that to not give someone a handout is to deny them something is one of the most pernicious evils in the world.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 10:59AM

To those who are slamming me for being pro-choice:

My point was not to emphasize my personal beliefs on that issue (and by the way I am against Roe v Wade), but rather to show that I am against Sandra Fluke and her ilk, and against federal funding of Planned Parenthood, even though I am pro-choice.

Someone who is against that organization because he disapproves of what they do (separate from the funding question) has less credibility with those who don't share that view.

I'd also re-emphasize to you (separate from the article) that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It means that I think the federal government should not be involved. After all, while I don't think abortion is murder (although I might not say that about so called "partial birth abortion"), I don't think the federal government has any legitimate involvement in prosecuting murder (outside of treason, terrorism, etc.)

Jacob McCandles| 10.16.12 @ 11:31AM

Yea, I was pro choice too long ago. I used to imagine that a fetus was a ball of cells that was eliminated, no life there, right? I saw some actual fetuses at various gestational ages when I was about 20. Changed my view a bit. Anyone who has access to the internet can find out exactly what abortion is. One can discover how early in gestation little eyes, arms, and legs are formed. By the end of the 8th week, most of the major organs are formed.

I still struggle with my position on chromosomal abnormalities, especially those that would allow for life outside the womb, albeit for a limited time. And then of course, there are many of these types of birth defects with wide ranges of life quality. Not black and white for me.

If Mitt Romney decides that NOT making abortion a major issue in this campaign will make the difference in him getting elected, I say that's ok. If Obama is reelected, we will soon not have the ability to argue about social issues. And many, many more humans will suffer both inside and outside the womb.

Nick| 10.16.12 @ 2:02PM

Here is a video that shows the development of human life, from conception to birth. It is amazing.
***WARNING!!!***
Video contains brief images of a live birth & human anatomy.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 11:34AM

Ross - it was Nixon who signed Title X into law. Why do you want to take family planning and women's health services away? They also get pretty much matched funding from private sources. The contraception angle is really a red herring anyway:

"In February 2011, a National Public Radio (NPR) article evaluated the impact of Title X. NPR cites a Guttmacher Institute report claiming that Title X grantee clinics serve 15% of women in the U.S. who use contraceptive prescriptions and supplies or get annual contraception check-ups. Furthermore, only five percent of patients served by Title X funding at these clinics came in solely for birth control. Nearly 90% also received preventive gynecological attention, and over 50% were treated for STIs or reproductive tract infections or related conditions."

Why are you so anti-women and anti-society? Do you really want more unwanted children, more disease and more people on welfare?

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 12:08PM

"Jack",

I don't want to "take away" those services.

I want them to be privately funded, or if they must be government-funded then it should be by states, not the Feds.

Federal funding is unconstitutional.

No, I do not want more unwanted welfare babies. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to trample the constitution.

By the way, you do know that Planned Parenthood's founder was a eugenicist racist, right?

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 1:25PM

There are more than 900 federal grant programs and I would say one of the very last we should cut is Title X. It's a law and there is more in the constitution to support it than against it.

And is it your contention that Obama and all the other current supporters and managers of PP are racists? You're getting as bad as Jeffery 'liberals are Nazis' Lord.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:41PM

Can you just change your name to "Straw Man" to make it easier for us?

What an incredible person you are, thinking that vague, nebulous "family planning" services are one of the most important functions of government and that anything in the Constitution requires the government to provide them. Your warped perspective is a danger to yourself and to others.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 1:55PM

Jack, we should probably cut 899 of the 900 federal grant programs. Just a gut reaction to your number.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 2:55PM

So Ross assuming Title X is in the 899 you disagree with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when its says family planning as one of the “ten great public health achievements” of the 20th century because it decreases infant, child and maternal deaths?

You really do want to send us back to the 19th century. Thankfully, about 75% support Title X and Congress will go on funding it despite the mean-minded anti-public health folk like you.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 3:23PM

Once again, Jack cannot open his mouth without lying.

In addition to senselessly maligning the motives of people who have shown no sign of having insincere intentions, he suggests that we'll regress to the 19th century without the glories of his wondrous government welfare.

As for the CDC's recognition, it can be attacked on several fronts.

First, it's the CDC. It's a political entity. It celebrates spending on public health because some of that spending funds the CDC!

Second, the category is "great public health achievements". There isn't much to choose from. By restricting the category to "public", you avoid any unpleasant realities you might encounter by allowing private competition into the running.

Third, the estimates of its benefits are subjective and very hard to substantiate, and no effort is made to compare them to costs.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 3:30PM

JD, I realize you're more rabidly right wing than a wagon full of hydrophobic dogs but for just once in your life can you stop and think? Your posts betray an utter lack of knowledge of America, its history, science and technology, the humanities and economics. I think that leaves only a bachelor degree in ignorance and stupidity.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 4:18PM

You have yet to make a post that doesn't malign the intentions of your opponents. You could counter that I have yet to make a post that doesn't call you a liar, but I call people liars when they lie. What can I say?

You illustrate, time and time again, why I can't be a leftist - you keep asking me to believe things I know aren't true. Not only do you tell me that I believe things that I don't believe, but you tell me that I don't know about things that I do for a living and receive respect from my peers for doing well.

But I am a fool for one reason - I continue to respond to each of your points while you address none of mine. What a waste of time!

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 4:24PM

So JD - were you serious about challenging 'public health' because it wasn't 'private health'? Do you realize that public health is a term that means something in its own right? If you can say it was a joke I'll stop calling you stupid. If you were serious then ... words fail me - man do you need an education.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 5:19PM

I had expected that your list would include only things done by the government, which would limit the achievements, since most great things are not done by government. But upon Googling, I've found that in fact the list consists of private efforts as well, which might be worse because some of the articles imply undue government credit.

Regardless, the list lumps some big things together to make room for "family planning", which has no place on it. Somehow, preventing unintended pregnancy is ranked as the equivalent of saving a life.

The phrasing of the CDC's entire article on the subject (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm) treats pregnancy like an infectious disease, celebrating as its achievement a reduction in pregnancies, and nothing more.

I have to say the first item in the "Family Planning Timeline" was interesting. "First standard certificate of death created". How is that a family planning achievement?

Someday cancer will be cured, and you people will be there to say that by discovering a new way to make gay sex more pleasurable, you've achieved something more important.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:27PM

Family Planning starts BEFORE she bends over the hood of the car.

Not after.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Help me out here, Ross.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:27PM

Jack, much of what is called "public health" these days is in fact private health. Immunizations are reasonably public because one person with a bad disease can infect many others if they are not immunized. But "reproductive health" and obesity are simply a series of private health issues.

I am not anti-public. Almost all of the stuff you're talking about can be done privately or by states.

THAT is my point, which you refuse to acknowledge, instead offering transparent straw men.

Jack London| 10.17.12 @ 5:51AM

Ross - in case you're still reading - 'public health' means about the public, and not about who funds what. Obesity is one of our biggest public health issues.

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 2:07PM

"And is it your contention that Obama and all the other current supporters and managers of PP are racists?"

Based on the percentage of black babies killed as a percentage of the black population, yes, you could say PP is racist.

Jack London| 10.16.12 @ 2:59PM

Mike - that's a stupid comment.

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:47PM

No, Jack London... that's a GOTCHA !

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:11PM

Why are you such a despicable liar?

You act as though so long as something is good for someone, it is acceptable to rob to fund it. What's worse, you act as though those of us with the sense to say otherwise are making the claim that what is funded through theft isn't good for the beneficiaries of the theft. What a straw man!

But of course, you need the straw man, because it allows you to evade the issue of the theft, and allows you to think, in your tiny dishonest mind, that you win the day simply by asserting that what is bought with stolen money helps someone.

If you are ever robbed, you'd best ask the thief if he intends to use the money to make anyone's life better, and if he says yes, you must give to him gladly. If you don't, you'll be a hypocrite!

But of course you won't see that. You'll cling to the notion that it's not the same if government does it, as though the entity created "by the people, for the people" is not people at all, but rather some mystical power not bound by the morality of people!

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:01PM

Like Henry Clay, who said in the 1830s that he personally opposed slavery but found it impractical to ban it, you unsuccessfully attempt to straddle a fence for fear of taking a stand.

No one today would accept one who says "I oppose slavery, but can't stop someone else from enslaving black people if he wants to." And no one should accept one who says "I'm not pro-abortion, but I can't stop other people from killing their unborn."

Those who say "it's a state legislature issue" are demanding that we concede the entire issue, up front, to the position that the unborn are not people with the right to live. That's the ONLY argument against abortion that anyone's ever had! You can't tell us that you're straddling the fence when the first requirement of your position is that we concede EVERYTHING to our opponents!

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:04PM

That said, Ross, you do have a point in saying that there are two issues here. One is the legality of abortion. The second is forced taxpayer subsidy of others' chosen activities. Even those who think abortion should be legal could, and should, have reason to oppose the forced funding of others' chosen activities.

Perhaps those who support the Second Amendment should demand that government require taxpayers to buy free guns for anyone who wants one? Or maybe homeowners' insurance policies should be required to provide free guns so that homeowners can prevent robbery. That makes sense. After all, robberies cost insurers more money than guns!

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 12:08PM

Now you're hearing me, JD!

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:19PM

I understood that point before you wrote the article, and I understand why you claim that the point has more authority coming from an abortion supporter. Nonetheless, disagreement generates far more conversation than agreement, especially on an issue of this magnitude.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 12:36PM

I don't like being called an "abortion supporter." I think it's a fairly horrible concept, esp after the first month or two of pregnancy. While I would prefer that it remain legal, I do believe states probably have the right to regulate it. But I don't believe the federal government does.

And I like conversation but I hate it when the conversation is so far removed from the point of my article which I actually think it fairly important.

In any case, I do appreciate your civility and at least trying to understand what point I'm trying to make.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:06PM

I don't know how else to say it.

The ONLY argument against abortion is that it violates a right.

Legislatures do not have the power to legislate the violation of rights.

Saying a legislature should have the power to decide IS saying that the ONLY reason to ban abortion doesn't apply.

Thus your position is the functional equivalent of being pro-abortion.

That you don't intend it to be that way is irrelevant, just as the good intentions of the Left are irrelevant when their policies do harm.

Again, I point you to Henry Clay. Did his claim to personally abhor slavery matter to the slaves, when he still kept it legal? Not at all. His position was the functional equivalent of Jefferson Davis's position.

In all of this, I'm not even arguing the abortion issue itself. I'm arguing against your claim that your position is not the same as being "pro-abortion".

As to it being a tangent, you know full well that when Leftists argue, they perceive the debunking of any tangent as the debunking of the main argument. Sometimes they're even right about that. In this case, the morality of abortion isn't necessary to the point about forced subsidy of others' activities, BUT an attack on your credibility can serve to debunk ALL points that you make, not just the one attacked.

I think you have lots of credibility, but you'd have more if you gave up this notion of having a position that is not the functional equivalent of being pro-abortion.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 1:59PM

JD, I understand your position.

I realize you will not agree with my metaphor but I will pose it anyway:

I am pro-legalization of marijuana (actually of all drugs). But I have never smoked pot or even a cigarette and would not try any of those drugs even if they were legal. And I will do everything in my power to make sure my kids understand that they should not use drugs.

Therefore, I can be pro-legalization with being "functionally" pro-drug use.

I feel similarly about abortion. I am not "pro-abortion." I am pro-liberty. Again, I completely understand the argument that there is no liberty to kill someone.

From there we get into the discussion of whether life begins at conception and this is a matter more of religion and opinion than anything else and thus not a productive debate.

I would like us (AmSpec's conservative and libertarian readers) to work together where we agree rather than focus on the one damn sentence in a 1500-word article where we don't all agree.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 2:14PM

The gaping hole in your metaphor is that the movement to ban marijuana does not have as its entire basis the claim that marijuana use violates a right. Thus to "throw it to the legislature" does not require you to make a ruling on the only point of controversy, whereas with abortion, "throwing it to the legislature" is doing exactly that - deciding, without debate, that no rights must be in play, since legislatures can't override the right to life.

One could argue that drug addiction compromises free will, making the sale of drugs a crime against the buyer, but one could counter that the first-time user is not addicted and is responsible for his choice. Then one could argue about first-time users that are minors. And so on.

But I can think of no argument on either side of the marijuana issue that is neutralized by the mere act of saying the legislature should decide.

Since my entire point against you was that your position constitutes a ruling against the personhood of the unborn - a ruling just as strong as the ruling of any Leftist abortion-lover - your analogy to a situation where "throwing it to the legislature" doesn't impact either side's arguments is a bad analogy.

Again, the statement that the legislature has the authority to decide IS the statement that personhood doesn't exist.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 2:26PM

The word "religion" has two meanings in today's world.

To atheists, it is like the Christian word "heathen" or the Muslim word "infidel", meaning simply "one who's belief is wrong."

To others, it and its cousin, the word "politics", constitute an effort to prevent conversation about an issue. A person who feels unable to defend his position and afraid of being exposed says "that's a religious issue" or "that's a political issue", the implication being that the conversation should cease immediately.

What an evil idea, given that its application is usually proportional to the importance of the issue.

Any other supposed definition of the word "religion" is still a lumping together of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. There is no one within that group who would not abhor this association, which is why it is only made by those outside the group (atheists). Alternatively, "religion" could refer to "whatever you believe", at which point it groups everyone who has a consciousness (including atheists). This would be less abhorrent, but also makes the word redundant.

So we're back to the two meanings I listed.

I agree that we shouldn't continue this tangent, not because I'm afraid of it, but for the sake of time.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:30PM

I'm not afraid of it either, but I think it's a bad use of your time and mine, and I'd rather concentrate on things where we agree and can try to move others to share views that we share.

For example, put aside that I said I'm pro-choice and look at the fundamental point of my article.

I suspect you agree completely on that, and I hope that every once in a while I make a point that even well-read conservatives or libertarians may think adds to the caliber of their intellectual ammunition and helps them make a difference.

That said, I (unlike Barack Obama) do not assume that I am going to change the world. I'm just doing what one guy and a keyboard can try to do. I hope you like my work more than you dislike it....and that hope goes for all my readers, though I don't modify what I think to try to please people (as I think I've amply demonstrated today!)

Abdullah| 10.16.12 @ 11:04AM

"Summertime"
1935 opera Porgy and Bess. The lyrics are by DuBose Heyward

Summertime and the livin' is easy
Fish are jumpin', and the cotton is high
Your Daddy's rich and your Mama is good lookin'
So, hush, little baby don't you cry

One of these mornings you're gonna rise up singin'
You're gonna spread your wings and take to the sky, take to the sky
But until that mornin' there's nothin' that can harm you
With Daddy and Mommy standin' by

2012 opera “Porky and the Beast” lyrics are by Sandra Flucke

Obamatime and the livin’ is easy
Boys and weeds are aplenty, and you’re mostly stay high
Your Daddy’s rich and your lover is good lookin’
So, hush, middle-age baby don’t your cry

One of these mornings you’re gonna rise up broken
No job in sight and student bills high up to the sky,
But until that mornin’ there’s nothin’ that can harm you
With big Brother’s handling, you will be getting’ by.

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 11:50AM

Abdullah: I hate to steal Tim's thunder, but ... come to Tim's contest on Friday. You have a real opportunity to win an important and pleasing prize.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 12:24PM

Are you gonna donate the comb?

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 12:27PM

Pete, given the rate of increase in contest participation and the attendant upward shift in the quality of the entries, can it be very long before we tune in our TV's to Tim's new reality/game show? We just gotta come up with the proper name for it.

Abdullah| 10.16.12 @ 1:00PM

Pete, I missed up on the whole contest thing. Could you please provide a link or something? Thanks.

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 1:09PM

Abdullah: Every Friday, but you have look for Tim's clues about where to find the game on TAS.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 1:31PM

You need to be there, Ab. You look like a natural.

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 1:08PM

Okay, Name The Game Time (in no particular order of preference). The only rule, the name of the game must include "Tim":

1. Come Game With Tim
2. The Tim Game
3. Tim's Tavern (You gotta drink to play!)
4. Toast of TAS with Tim
5. Face-off with Tim
6. Tim's Festival of Fun
7. The TAS Game Starring Tim
8. Tim's Challenge
9, Beer Time with Tim
10. Tim's Game Quest

Voting at 2300 GMT.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 1:23PM

1. Sailing to Byzantim. (Think about this one, guys. I should have saved this for a contest. Damn.)

mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 2:10PM

A tortuous, typewritten tome, by Tim

Drunken Sailor| 10.16.12 @ 2:25PM

Tim's Geek Show

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:30PM

I think we've got a winner.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 3:36PM

TLP Presents His Medicine Cabinet:

A Contest for the Cure to Your Liberal Ills

Movies as Medicine
Poetry as Prophylactics
Lyrics as Laxative

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:41PM

This week's Prize?

Hillary Clinton's Self Respect, which she just lost, today, when The Muslim threw her under the Bus by her Tits. (Hat Tip - Frank Navritil)

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 4:11PM

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to "BITCHSLAP!!!", with your host with the most, Tim!.
Tonights catagories are, Liberalism and why liberals can't understand normal thinking, Benghazi and why both Obama and Hillary are cowardly traitors, Election fraud and how the DNC perpetuates it, and our fianl catagory, "Teh Great Society" and how black sold their sole to the white Democrat plantation owner.

I'll take Benghazi for $500 Tim.

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 4:31PM

Winner! Hands down.

Drunken Sailor| 10.16.12 @ 4:43PM

Nice!!

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 5:37PM

Wait! I have to reconsider. Try this., "Welcome to Name that Choom with your host, Tim the Silver Tongued Devil"

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 5:41PM

Thats not how you spell coon.

CJW| 10.16.12 @ 6:42PM

No, I think Hillary outsmarted Obama, not hard to do, by accepting responsibility in Clintonian words, to make Obama look weak and pathetic because he will not accept responsibility. Hillary is devious. She is forcing him to either accept responsibility or look like a wimp. She wins either way. Obama loses both ways.

Pecos Pete| 10.16.12 @ 8:07PM

And the WINNER is: KennesawJack for Sailing to Byzantim.

But. KJ, don't get too excited, TIM has to approve. Anyway, for what it is worth (not much), I'm passing the Comb on to you.

Slacker| 10.16.12 @ 12:03PM

Ross got this one wrong.

Most American women hardly care about the money. They understand that “free” services will be more difficult to restrict in the future. This is as way to buttress their “reproductive rights”.

It is sad that American women are so easily duped. I don’t mind them fighting for abortion rights. What concerns me is their very limited concept of individual liberty.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 12:05PM

In the minds of many people, there is only one individual who needs liberty.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 12:09PM

For the record, when I brought up this issue on my radio show on Sunday, the two or three women who called in said that women should pay for their own birth control. That said, I have a right-of-center audience...

sotto voce| 10.16.12 @ 4:45PM

Slacker, do you really believe government-mandated "free" services would be more difficult to restrict? I see the opposite: a government program invites bureaucratic manipulation, whereas a free market responding to consumers is beholden only to the customer. As a woman, the whole notion of government-mandated "free" birth control raises alarms. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to envision a Kathleen Sebelius-type bureaucrat deciding to ration contraception as a means of control.

Slacker| 10.16.12 @ 6:03PM

I’m agreeable to your thinking.

Government mandated services will be easier to restrict in the sense that bureaucrats will decide what options are offered. On the other hand, government mandated benefits never go away. The reproductive health benefits may be low quality but, they are essentially guaranteed forever.

vtwin| 10.16.12 @ 12:37PM

The common thread among these women, Malala, Shazia, and Sandra, stories is the control of female sexuality a practice accepted in ancient male dominated societies but like slavery and human sacrifice it has no place in our modern society.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 1:08PM

Only by telling the lie that opposition to taxpayer subsidy for others' personal activities is equivalent to opposition to the private personal funding of these activities do you make your case.

vtwin| 10.16.12 @ 2:04PM

Red herring, subsidizing of personal activities is true of all healthcare insurance public and private. The complaints are not about unhealthy eaters, smokers, those who don’t exercise…

JD| 10.16.12 @ 2:17PM

You're right. That's why taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is wrong, health insurance mandates are wrong, and government rules about what insurers must cover are wrong.

People should be free to purchase or not purchase what they want.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:51PM

So, according to you?

If I was still a Drug Addict, I could expect Your Nigga to pay for my Cocaine?

Is that what you're saying?

Cause, that's what I'm hearing.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 2:00PM

The idea that female sexuality is controlled by men in America is frickin' ridiculous. You must not be married. (Or else maybe you're gay...not that there's anything wrong with that. Uh oh, now I'm in trouble with the conservatives again!)

JD| 10.16.12 @ 2:18PM

Yes, we conservatives hate Seinfeld!

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 2:39PM

Ross, relative to your first two sentences above, Ain't that the friggin' truth!

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:36PM

Wow.

What was that?

"Maybe you're Gay?"

You DEFINATELY belong in The Contest.

I'm BEGGING YOU to go to last Friday's Story about Berkeley.

Join us.

If you're ONE OF US?

You'll come to The Contest on Friday.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:33PM

TLP, as I asked above (but will ask again in case you don't see it), at the risk of your wondering where the hell I've been, I don't know what this whole Friday thing is. Can you please elucidate?

(Perhaps just shoot me an e-mail directly at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com in case I don't get back to these comments.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 6:34PM

(If I may respond before TLP), this past Friday, in the article on this site by Tom Bethell entitled "A Glimpse of Berkeley", many of the site regulars gathered on the comment thread following the article (in the manner that we are all here). As founder and moderator , TLP called for a film (or other cultural reference point understood, such as TV, literature, poetry, music, etc.) metaphor that best symbolized an event of the week (last week was the Benghazi Hearings, the week before was the debate, and so forth during the last 4-5 weeks).

Multiple entries and comments from the entries follow. Please review and consider if you may wish to participate in this week's contest.

HR| 10.16.12 @ 12:57PM

This is one of the finest explanations I think I've ever read of why I'm a conservative at all. Thank you, Mr. Kaminsky!

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 2:01PM

HR, thanks! I needed the positive reinforcement today!

RGK

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:44PM

You're a good speller.

How's that?

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 3:53PM

And his grammar ain't too bad, either. You're on a roll now, Ross. Postive reinforcement from all directions!

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:32PM

So, when I was in 8th grade, I was my school's spelling bee champion.Went to the state spelling bee (somewhere near San Diego.)

The first word to me was "incredulous". I was so damn nervous, I said "I-R"...then immediately said "I mean I-N..." and proceeded to spell the word correctly, but it didn't matter because I started it wrong the first time. I really felt like I let down my school, my family, myself. I think I'm still scarred by it.

You know, I don't think I've ever written that story down before.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:25PM

The Spelling Bee Champ?

I knew it.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 9:06PM

I knew that you knew it! It's obvious, isn't it?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 4:10PM

His picture shows that he's not a bad looking guy, either (even if I wrote on his birthday that his photo on the blog section resembles Chuck, the four fingered money launderer from "Sons of Anarchy". He's not a bad looking guy either, from the neck to the eyebrows, anyway).

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:27PM

Suckup.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 8:49PM

Anything more than one sentence was too much, huh?

Don't forget to e-mail Ross directions for Friday's contest. He can find his way to a Third World hell hole on vacation, but he can't find his way to the Friday Follies.

Riff Raff| 10.16.12 @ 1:28PM

If there ARE such things?! Clearly you have never spent much time in San Francisco.

atilla| 10.16.12 @ 1:43PM

This is most wonderfully stated.
MY POSITION IS SIMPLE....... HOW DARE ANYONE, GOVT INCLUDED, REACH INTO MY POCKET AND TAKE MY MONEY AND GIVE IT TO ANOTHER PERSON???
THE GUN ISN'T MISSING BY THE WAY.....IT'S CALLED THE "LAW", DESIGNED BY SELF-SERVING POLS TO BUY THEM VOTES.
EVERY POLITICIAN SHOULD BE FORCED TO READ THIS ARTICLE.
IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION IN TWO WAYS......LIBERTY TO KEEP THE FRUIT OF YOUR LABOR AND YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

JimH| 10.16.12 @ 2:19PM

From Hobbes onward, people have argued that the State is necessary in order to make our lives better than the AmSpec legal counsel, Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short. In order to protect us from external threats and each other it is necessary for each individual to surrender some personal sovereignty. An anarchist would disagree but most accept this as the starting point of legitimate government function. Questions then are, what might it do to achieve these ends and what else, if anything, are its legitimate functions.

Starbookzz| 10.16.12 @ 3:18PM

Ross,
I was blown away by that wonderful quote from Basiat and likening of Malala Yousafzai to the founding fathers. It with contrasts the cynicism of the leftists and their supposed support of women and the middle class.
You give me hope that the present climate of hate for achievers can be overcome.

Ross Kaminsky| 10.16.12 @ 5:34PM

Thanks very much. I think I might use Bastiat a little too often, but he never disappoints.

JD| 10.16.12 @ 8:15PM

Does a pastor use the Bible too often?

The Left tells us we can't repeat our truths too often because they're the same old tired refrains. But what's right is, was, and will be right. You can't be right too much.

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 3:47PM

As far as Sandra F*uck is concerened?

Is that what they're calling it, these days? A lifestyle choice? Really?

So, today, in Gay Bathhouse Barry's AMERIKA, being the Town Whore is a Lifestyle Choice?

Here's a Middle Aged Skank (who I wouldn't Dork with Ross' dork, bye the way) telling everyone that she's getting Plowed so many times in the Bus Terminal Men's Room (one would presume) that she can't afford $9 a Month for her De-Sperming Pills. She can't afford to keep Shoving Quarters into the Multicoloured Condom Dispensors everytime somebody getting off a bus Drunk wants to Shove Something her way.

No, no. We're supposed to pay, while she attends a Very Expensive School on a very limited Scholarship that she received as the Winner of last years Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. Not the one on the 4th of July. The one on Saturday Nights. And, it's not THAT Nathan's. It's a Guy NAMED Nathan. And it only involves One Hot Dog.

That is the Spokesperson for Gay Boy's Women Outreach.

That's like having Al Sharpton be your Liaison to the "I gots me a OBAMAPHONE MF*rs!" Community.

What? He already is?

Okay. It would be like having Eric Holder Run Automatic Weapons down to the Drug Cartels, in Mexico.

What? No way.

It would be like him finding out that 2 of our Embassies had been Attacked, and 4 of our Personnel had been Murdered, and then jumping on a Plane for Vegas, to Fund raise and go to a Party at Jay Z's house.

Why is this Race Close, again?

Oh yeah. "OBAMAPHONE!"

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 4:02PM

Please don't get me started on that free phone crap. It needs to come to am immediate end. If someone who doesn't have a phone needs to make a phone call they can go to a PAY phone and PAY for the call. If they've already spent all the money in their EBT account then too damn bad. Anyway, 911 calls are free.

sotto voce| 10.16.12 @ 4:13PM

Mr. Kaminsky, thank you for drawing this devastating and apt contrast between Malala's courageous and legitimate struggle for fundamental rights and the deceitful left's selfish and morally bankrupt demand for counterfeit "rights".

drake1456| 10.16.12 @ 4:44PM

Brilliant piece Ross and to add to that, one wonders why seniors and others needing hip replacements for conditions not of their own making will be denied under Obamacare while the Sandras will demand we pay for their sex!!How about if those seniors are in fact also WOMEN.

Slacker| 10.16.12 @ 4:46PM

The stupid pills are only $9 a month. Republicans are really doing something wrong when they allow the Dem’s to buy votes so cheaply.

Most women I know are neither conservative nor feminist. Mainly they want some assurance that Republicans will respect their right to be left alone with their cats. Why is that so hard?

drake1456| 10.16.12 @ 4:49PM

Also, great comments by TLP You should have a talk show!!

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 5:12PM

I agree.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 7:06PM

I just nominated you are writer in residence last week, and now you want to leave the gig for a talk show?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 7:07PM

"are " should be as (where did I put that "Edit" button I won last month?).

drake1456| 10.16.12 @ 4:51PM

SOME pills are $9 per month but others cost $250 per month and they will demand those. I know. I am a doc and those with NO means demand "The Best".

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:57PM

Is it because the cheap ones keep falling out ?

drudge ette obama| 10.17.12 @ 6:37AM

This young woman who has been blogging in danger for years should have won the Nobel Peace Prize rather than the European Union.

Alex Feltham | 10.17.12 @ 10:57AM

The tragedy for us is that the Taliban are not the unfortunate exception.

Read "The Innocence of the Infidels" to find the root cause at:

http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/

Alex Feltham | 10.17.12 @ 2:51PM

The sad thing is that the Taliban attempted murderers are being good Muslims!

Read "The Innocence of Infidels" at:

http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/

Nina in MA| 10.17.12 @ 5:36PM

What's wrong with this picture? Here are two young girls, kids...a life ahead of them...willing to speak out against the Taliban, speaking out FOR young women, children in a terror ridden part of the world that most Americans will never know (hopefully), fighting for an education. Something most American kids today take for granted and throw away...putting themselves out there. Where are the adults who oppose the Taliban? Why are they not rising up in defense of all girls in the middle east to get an education? To live a life they choose, not one chosen for them? We never hear of any muslum denouncing anything the Taliban does or a terrorist does but yet, here are two kids doing it and putting the adults to shame. I wish you both well and hope for a speedy recovery! And to accomplish your dreams!

Politicaljunkie| 10.18.12 @ 12:16AM

I'm not usually a big fan of men weighing in on women's issue, sorry just my opinion. But I must say you are completely right on this issue. "Women's groups", like many social advocacy groups, have sold out their cause. PETA is another sad example. These groups started out with pure intentions, but became more concerned with their own political power. It's actually a small tragedy, because their are still fights the need fighting. And it's not about birth control.

The American Spectator

Special Report

Malala versus Sandra

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (299) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Will| 10.16.12 @ 6:17AM

spike59| 10.16.12 @ 6:39AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:42AM

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 9:17AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 10:02AM

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 4:40PM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:55PM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:56PM

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 6:35PM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 6:47PM

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:41AM

atilla| 10.16.12 @ 1:57PM

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 4:41PM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:56PM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:57PM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:51AM

Abdullah| 10.16.12 @ 9:11AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:16AM

Alej| 10.16.12 @ 5:06PM

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:09PM

Controse| 10.16.12 @ 3:12PM

Jack of Spades| 10.16.12 @ 9:37AM

Jacob McCandles| 10.16.12 @ 10:49AM

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:22AM

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:31AM

spike59| 10.16.12 @ 3:06PM

cuban pete| 10.16.12 @ 4:21PM

spike59| 10.17.12 @ 6:10AM

Nina in MA| 10.17.12 @ 6:01PM

spike59| 10.18.12 @ 5:30AM

vtwin| 10.16.12 @ 1:15PM

spike59| 10.17.12 @ 6:08AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:57AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 7:58AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:52AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 9:00AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:04AM

Truth to Power| 10.16.12 @ 9:12AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 10:22AM

buckeyeman| 10.16.12 @ 11:32AM

TLP| 10.16.12 @ 4:59PM

Von Mises Jr| 10.16.12 @ 10:34AM

Drunken Sailor| 10.16.12 @ 11:12AM

Stephie| 10.16.12 @ 7:58AM

Joellen| 10.16.12 @ 8:08AM

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:48AM

Nancy in NC| 10.16.12 @ 8:10AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:57AM

2Anglico| 10.16.12 @ 10:17AM

CrackerHound| 10.16.12 @ 11:53AM

CJW| 10.16.12 @ 6:31PM

RFisher66| 10.16.12 @ 8:32AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 8:55AM

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:17PM

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 9:19AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 9:30AM

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 9:57AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 10:24AM

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 10:57AM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 1:07PM

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 1:13PM

Will| 10.16.12 @ 1:21PM

Stkman| 10.16.12 @ 2:45PM

cuban pete| 10.16.12 @ 4:32PM

Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 6:07PM

TinaB| 10.17.12 @ 2:39PM

Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 2:16PM

2Anglico| 10.16.12 @ 11:28AM

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 10:05AM

KennesawJack| 10.16.12 @ 10:08AM

Jacob McCandles| 10.16.12 @ 10:57AM

TinaB| 10.17.12 @ 2:44PM

atilla| 10.16.12 @ 2:05PM

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:21PM

Skippy| 10.16.12 @ 5:21PM