Outside The Asylum

An interesting post - and an interesting point. The War on Terror has been utterly, utterly lost, and: It doesn’t matter either way. Dead or alive, Osama bin Laden is the greatest strategist in the history of human conflict. With no navy or air force or anything that resembles a formal army, he’s managed to whip the world’s mightiest nation like a rented camel. Our economy is shot, the best-trained, best-equipped military in history has been proven impotent, and our moral standing in the world has gone through the sub-basement. I seem to remember making a similar point before the 2004 election- that the Republicans, as war makers, were a failure to invade Iraq, and that one old guy in a Turban with a kidney condition had effectively beat the US military all hollow.

A wonderful alternative to Autism Speaks, A Hope for Autism, is having a fundraising dinner April 10th at the Benson Hotel in Portland .

The original Equal Rights Amendment was simple- the law should have no gender differences. A man makes his decision to become a father the instant he has consensual sex, at least, under the law. I should emphasize the word consensual; we're not talking about rape or incest here, we're talking about normal sex, inside of some form of committed relationship. He can't back out past that point. Yet Roe V.Wade allows a woman to. This creates a difference in the law- a difference in parental rights. Yeah, I know, women try to justify it with "It's my body and I have to give up 9 months of my life for the child". But I'm talking cusps here- the moment of decision. And the moment of decision, legally, should be the same for a man as for a woman. And that moment shouldn't be *after* the fact. Non-consensual sex, like incest and rape, isn't included in this. In fact, I consider abortion due to incest and rape to be murder- and the murderer to be the ra...

I'm Roman Catholic. To me, that means marriage is a sacrament designed to last, and even divorce should not be permitted. Recently I participated in a joke post on somebody else's blog, playing devil's advocate: Why California can no longer afford divorce But I fear it might have left my real position confused. So here goes- the gay agenda has highlighted one thing in particular. Writing marriage into civil law comes dangerously close to violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Which causes a conflict for me between faith and patriotism. Thus I propose this answer: We split civil recognition of marriage into three parts. First of all, Sacramental marriages may no longer be recognized by the State at all . They are fully in the province of religion, and follow the rules of the religious sect of the person who officiates at the marriage. The person officiating at the ceremony has the full right to require premarital classes and cou...