Taxes buy more than schools and infrastructure and military.

When you pay taxes, you pay for your voice in the political structure.

If you don't want to pay taxes, move to Saudi Arabia.  Due to oil revenues, there's no taxes.  See how much representation you have in how you are governed.

Obama has always given McCain a way out -- some kind of benefit of the doubt.  McCain seems unwilling to do the same.

We've seen how this can affect a president's foreign policy:  Bush calls out Iran or whoever, and gets boxed in by the very narrow characterization of their government.  He does this in his own mind, as well as an explicit articulation of policy.  He gives them no way to comply without looking like jerks.  That's not much of an incentive, eh?

Obama, while drawing clear distinctions and firmly articulating our interests, would likely allow the Iranians (or some other problematic regime) a way so that they can save face AND meet our interests.

McCain and Bush would rather demonize the enemy than have our interests met.

Help me out.  I'm no good at tracking down and capturing specific video clips off the net.

There was a point in the debate last night, where McCain was talking about the need to reign in Putin.  He talks about Putin's aggression and then starts in on the domestic situation in Russia and stops conspicuously short of drawing attention to the crackdown on the media there.

Just got a robocall that identified itself as the "Republican Party of Virginia."

The call made a couple of vague points about Democrats being big spenders, and even seemed to attribute "The Bridge to Nowhere" to the congress in general.

Then at the end, they mentioned that I'd be receiving an absentee ballot, and please would I fill it out and return it.

We have not requested an absentee ballot, and have no need to do so.  A quick perusal of the VA State Board of Elections says that you have to meet some basic eligibility requirements -- you won't be around/able to vote regularly.

I contacted the Republican Party of Virginia, and asked what was up.  The said they didn't fund automated calls, that it may be the national GOP doing it.  Hmmm.

1)  Why would the GOP cite the bridge to nowhere as a negative for Democrats?

2)  Why wouldn't the VA GOP cop to the call, or why would the national GOP misrepresent itself?

3)  Is there some kind of absentee ballot scam, where unsuspecting voters send off fake ballots, or wait too long to receive the real one, or whatever.

The key here is that we're Obama supporters...

Not the most egregious phony campaign call, but certainly weird.  Please recommend and answer.

The McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting explicit sex-ed for kindergartners was not only factually inaccurate, but dishonorable.

Did Senator John McCain approve of that message?  The question should be asked of him directly.  If he did, did he know it was false?

If he did not approve of it, what does that say about his campaign and his ability to lead?  Force him to either disavow it, or take full responsibility for it.

Gov. Palin trumpets her $1200 per person rebate to Alaskans, while continuing to seek federal money for infrastructure, programs, etc.

Can someone in the media please ask Gov. Palin just how much of MY taxes have gone to offset this rebate?

I think the abortion issue is the perfect example of the right's obstinacy in real governing and leadership.  It illustrates the tendency to deal with the world how it should be, rather than how it is, and how that prevents any real solution to the problem.

They say they want to end abortions, but it's clear their plan for doing so -- repealing Roe v. Wade and outlawing them -- will a)  not happen*, and b) not work anyway.  Abortions will continue outside of the law and outside safe medical environments (except, of course, for those with the means to travel to places where it is legal).

Abortions arise from only one thing:  unwanted pregnancies.  Reduce unwanted pregnancies and you reduce abortion.  It really is that simple.

What is the most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies?  Comprehensive sex education which includes abstinence, masturbation, and birth control (primarily condoms, which can also protect against the spread of disease).  The argument that abstinence is a 100% guaranteed way of avoiding pregnancy, and thus should be taught exclusively is a ridiculous argument.  Use all of the available information to keep people safe, highlighting abstinence accordingly.

The same people who are avidly pro-life, the ones who display the sickening images of aborted fetuses, are also against comprehensive sex education.  How can this be?  Is masturbation so evil as to compare with an abortion?  Obviously not.  Must education about condoms imply that it is OK for teens to have sex?  Of course not, but might it not be worth that risk?  Carrying a condom in your pocket does not (sorry, fellas) guarantee a partner to use it with.

Let's say you have a choice between a certain number of illegal abortions, and a lesser number of legal ones.  Which do you chose? I suspect that pro-lifers would invariably choose the higher number of illegal abortions because they desire the codification of the taboo more than actually diminishing the occurrence.

An illegal abortion can't be that much more of a deterrence to youth sexual activity than a legal one -- we're talking hormones, here.  I would argue that the only thing making teen pregnancy, with all it's physical and emotional costs, less of a deterrent is the increasing prevalence of teen pregnancy:  it's becoming more "normal," thus less socially risky.  This makes casting aside the moralism and adopting comprehensive sex-ed doubly effective.

Why pursue an agenda which does not accomplish the stated goals of reducing the number of abortions?  Is the moralistic stance more important than the actual people affected by abortion?  Are they that concerned about a particular "message" that the government might send?  The same government, by the way, many pro-lifers would rather have less of an influence on their lives, or so I hear?

Imagine for a moment abortion is made illegal once again.  You and your wife get pregnant.  Maybe you were trying, maybe you were not, but something goes wrong, and she miscarries.  How will you be able to prove it was not an abortion, should it be suspected that it was?  Do you know any midwives, nurses, or doctors that may have the skills to perform the procedure (even begrudgingly)?  You are now suspect.  Did you miscarry abroad in a country where abortion is legal?  You are now suspect.  Are you poor?  Not white?  As with other crimes, you are more suspect than someone who isn't.

The questions continue (sorry).  Are all miscarriages investigated?  What, exactly, would this investigation look like?  Would police inspect your reproductive organs?  With a warrant or without?  How many of your friends, neighbors, co-workers would need to be interviewed in this investigation?  Suppose your doctor ends up getting caught performing abortions on others years or months after your miscarriage.  Does this mean that your miscarriage will now be deemed an abortion?

How about if the pregnancy is causing a medical emergency for the mother?  Who gets to decide if the situation is dire enough to terminate the pregnancy?  Doctors?  Judges?  The Upstanding Citizen's Moral Brigade?  It certainly wouldn't be the family itself, right?

If we are to deal with the world as it is, and not as it should be, we must recognize common ground on abortion and other issues.  What is the common ground on abortion?

An abortion is a traumatic, sickening, sad, and regrettable (in the strongest use of that word) act.  Use stronger language, if you must.  It only reinforces the point that the fewer people that feel the need to subject themselves to that process, the better.  Let's find an approach that will actually work.



*A repeal of Roe v. Wade would require a McCain victory, a couple of SCOTUS deaths, a couple of difficult confirmations, and a lot of litigation.  Even then, you'd have to go state-by-state.  How many years off is this "solution" to the problem?

--