Our Next Question for Discussion

My article on the death penalty is below. I am now accepting your articles in answer to the question:

Are you for or against the death penalty and why?

In composing a post for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Death-Penalty Opponents Slaughter 23 on Honduras Bus

Because this story is in some way connected to the Death-Penalty issue, I have published this link. Wierd. Somehow, I think that the only lives that these death-penalty opponents are interested in saving is their own.

The Editor’s take on the Death Penalty.

Does the State ever, under any circumstance, have the right to deprive a person of his or her life? My own religious tradition, recognizing the authority of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Testaments of the book commonly called the Bible, answers yes. I shan’t go into a biblical defense of the death penalty since I intend to speak against the death penalty.

Although I am not against the death penalty in principle, I am against it in practice. Allow me to explain. This study review shows the extent of the problems our present legal system has with properly administering the death penalty. Read it carefully and allow it to sink in. Any system that results in 68% error respecting capital cases has serious problems that, in my opinion, render it incompetent to fairly adjudicate such cases.

One of the complaints often proffered by defenders of the death penalty is the tremendous expense and waste of time consumed by individuals on death row in the appeals process. Many want that process shortened. This study, however, shows why, in my opinion, limiting the appeals opportunities of the condemned will only exacerbate an already bad system and assure that more individuals will be executed erroneously, not fewer. Given the finality of death, the present state of affairs argues against the imposition of the death penalty.

What are the alternatives? We could expand the appeals process for individuals on death-row which would only increase the expense to tax-payers and expand the time between imposition and execution of the death sentence in the hopes that this will assure that all errors are found before execution. We could declare a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty and replace it with life-without-possibility-of-parole until we can be certain that either errors are eradicated from the system or, barring that, that all errors are certain to be caught in whatever appeals system is in place. In my opinion, the erroneous execution of even one individual is unacceptable.

Time for a new question?

Discussion has slacked off now so I get the feeling that it's time for a new question. We have a number of topics to choose from already. In no particular order they are:

How to assure that all pregnancies are wanted pregnancies;

Protecting the nation from terrorist attacks;

Eliminate or minimize government interference in our lives; and

Capital Punishment.

As usual, I am open to other topics but perhaps we should address these first. As this is your blog as much as mine, I put it to you...

What do you want to talk about next?

Third post concerning a thriving economy

Freedom is the most important factor in a thriving economy. The government's regulation of just about every aspect of running a business, as is common in America today, is a form of fascism.

All government licensing of professions should be repealed, from medicine, to plumbing, to child care. Licensing is simply a way for the State to extract more money from people, money which could have been saved, invested or spent in other ways. Voluntary organizations comprised of those in the profession should offer certification, if certification is desired. All government permits and regulations surrounding building should also be repealed, as this raises the cost of housing and running a business, because costs are always tacked on to the finished product.

Zoning laws should be highly curtailed or repealed altogether. People should be able to run businesses from their homes, or sell things out of handcarts if they so choose. Selling in that manner was extremely common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the descendants of those people (Jews, Italians, Irish) are now firmly established as the middle class.

Trade barriers should be abolished. People should be able to buy, sell or establish business relations in any country, without having to deal with tariffs or other protectionist measures. Foreign aid should be stopped, being replaced with capital investment in developing countries, which can certainly include charitable organizations who seek to offer loans so that people can start their own cottage industries

Minimum wage laws should be abolished, as should child labor laws. In this age of new vistas in education, namely homeschooling, young people who are not academically inclined should be free to go to work, to apprentice, etc. Both minimum wage laws and child labor laws prevent this. Social security taxes and medicare taxes should also be abolished. Employers and employees should contract together to determine wages and benefits.

Socialistic, paternalistic, government programs should be abolished. All welfare programs, the government school system, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FDA (and the list would go well beyond 1500 words). All this is money that has been stolen from productive individuals and put into supporting huge bureaucracies, in addition to squelching individual/family/church initiative in caring for the poor, in education, and in private philanthropy. Of course, this means that taxes should be slashed to the absolute minimum, including taxes on businesses, on personal income, on sales, on inheritance, and the list could go on.

Immigration laws should be repealed, except perhaps to require health screening. With no welfare state in place, immigrants are a blessing to a country as they contribute to the economy by working and by purchasing goods here.

Government subsidies of every kind should be abolished, as should price controls of every kind. Interference like this hampers the working of the market by distorting the information about supply and demand, resulting in shortages or surpluses.

Although I don't understand it very well, I do know from my limited reading that the expansion of the money supply increases inflation, and our government is printing money 24/7. A return to a sound money system of some kind, which very well may be a free market in currency rather than government monopoly, is necessary to decrease inflation.

Political, personal and religious freedom is also a necessity for a thriving economy. The American experience contrasted with the Socialist/Communist nightmare illustrates this. When people are not seen as individuals who stand and/or fall on their own merit and initiative, but rather as cogs in the State machinery, they lose incentive to be productive in all arenas of life because they know that their money will be stolen, their speech curtailed, their exercise of religion restricted. Of course, a black market always pops up in these situations, which is then the cause of increased taxation to provide police to repress it.

Regarding environmental concern, there have always been environmental problems. Before the automobile, city streets were covered with horse droppings. People used to bathe, wash, drink and throw trash into the same rivers. The free market will provide some solutions to environmental problems as people desire solutions and innovate to achieve means to increase productivity while protecting resources. The best way to do this is to enforce private property rights. If someone, for example, needs wood for their business and takes it from their own land, the incentive not to deforest is great, as their livelihood depends on those trees. Read about "the Tragedy of the Commons" (a quick google search) to see what happens to common land and resources.

I will end by saying that this is not a perfect world, and there are no perfect people. Greed exists, exploitation exists, etc., but regulation by government does nothing to change this fact, and there is every evidence that when economic decisions and control fall into the hands of the State that totalitarianism follows. It is my belief that freedom and private property (coupled hopefully with Christian ethics) is the best opportunity for the most thriving society and economy that we can expect to see in a fallen world.

Samantha

Another Take on Our Question

Is a "thriving economy" in itself a proper goal or should we be

demanding more?  For example, if we have full employment but a

totalitarian state where jobs are assigned and free expression is

inhibited, the monetary economy could be great but most of us wouldn't

want to be part of it.



A thriving economy that pollutes our environment might seem to be

doing well in a short term glance but could be quite negative (even in

strictly monetary terms) long term.



Another example is that of mega-corps.  Let's say we have ADM, food

supplier to the world.  Their economic contribution is cheaper and

more plentiful food - very "thriving".  But what if they screw up and

introduce a serious problem into the food chain - something that ends

up in a big mess of chain reactions that leave us with a lot of

starving people - again, the short term benefits looked good, but a

more enlightened view might have realized that we would have been

better off with small,  inefficient and more expense individual farms.



I think I'd rather investigate what we need for a thriving society in

general.





Tony Lawrence

The First Post on Our New Topic.

Let's see . . . off the top of my head I would suggest the following as requirements for a thriving economy:

1) Low or nonexistent taxation on accomplishment.
2) Sensible monetary policy.
3) Competition.
4) As little gov't regulation as we can get away with.

1) Low or nonexistent taxation on accomplishment.
Success generates capital. This capital is, by and large, reinvested into the business in many ways: R&D, capital improvements, paying competitive wages, etc.

Penalizing those who create opportunities by confiscating their legally earned wealth limits those opportunities and thus limits the economy.

This applies to supposed corporate taxation as well. [slight edit]You CANNOT truly TAX A CORPORATION. Any and all taxes are passed on to the consumer, thus lessening the ability of the end-user’s dollar to purchase goods and services. I suppose this lesson will only be learned around the same time it is understood that the whole “employer contribution to Social Security” is a myth and a scam.

2) Sensible monetary policy.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this area to comment extensively. I do know that this issue, mismanaged, can definitely halt an economy in it's tracks. I will look into this later and come back to post a revision on this point with what I have discovered would make good monetary policy.

3) Competition.

When only one company produces a product or delivers a service, that company has no incentive to improve their product/service.

Competition improves the quality of goods and services that we have to choose from to meet our needs. This encourages spending which improves the economy.

(BTW - The “it keeps prices lower” argument is a red herring in that consumer spending will set a price the market can bear regardless of the number of companies in a particular industry. People may still bitch, but if they are willing to pay it, then, by definition, it is a price the market will bear. If the sole company around sets their price above this mark, people will find not-quite-exact alternatives or do without. Most arguments of this type really boil down to “I want to pay less.”)

4) As little gov't regulation as we can get away with.

Let's face it, gov't regulation costs BILLIONS of dollars each year for questionable benefits. We must find a way to invoke _sensible_ regulations that are based on _fact_ rather than the enviro-fad-of-the-moment or this week's social-consciouness-cause-celebre.

Complete lack of regulation leads to some gross abuses by unscrupulous people. We need SOME rules to define acceptable conduct. As it stands we have _literally_ millions of words of codes and regulations which have little or no demonstrable benefit and cause definite demonstrable harm.

Every dollar spent on bad regulations is another dollar not spent on those things mentioned in point 1 above, which means lessened positive impact on the economy.

J at TAotB

A new topic of discussion is proposed.

Two topics for a new discussion have been suggested: creating a thriving economy or minimizing government interference.

I propose that we explore the question:

What conditions are most conducive to a thriving economy?

In composing a post for our discussion, remember the ground rules which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

What did I do wrong?

I think I blew it. We had some really good discussion here and very few problems. Suddenly...nothing. I have to assume that it's me. I hope that we can get started again. If any of you who were involved in our first discussion would be willing, please leave a comment or email me at revcraigh@yahoo.com and share with me what I've done wrong and/or what I could do better.

This really bugs me. I'm sorry. Please help me out.

Time for a new question?

I don't often watch 'The Practice' but in the past two days I've watched as the legal eagles made a last ditch effort to prove that a man convicted of murdering a mother and a daughter and who was slated for death was innocent. Of course, they succeeded but only after bucking a system that seems increasingly bent upon limiting appeal options of those who have been convicted.

I am not writing to talk about a tv program. I am wondering whether it is time for a new topic for discussion. It has been some time since I received an article for post and comments have also slacked off. I'm wondering whether it is time to change topics. Since I view this as being as much your blog as mine, I put it to you.

Is it time for a change? If so, what should be our topic? We already have some suggested topics. To refresh our memories, those are: Ending abortion, which I take to mean, ways and means; Protecting the nation from terrorism; Create a thriving American economy; and Eliminate or minimize government interference in our lives. To this list, I add, without prejudice, Capital Punishment.

What do you say?

I'm Going to Have to Insist...

Okay. When, in my role as moderator of this venue, I wrote:

"This ends here.
I mean it."

I meant the personalization of the comments; I didn't mean that all conversation should stop. Perhaps, however, the lull is an indication that the conversation has played itself out and that it's time to move on to a different topic.

Thoughts?

Another thing. I'm affraid I'm going to have to insist. On what, you ask? On henceforth carrying out our conversation in more neutral terms. I understand that the topics we propose to discuss here are such that inspire deep feelings. However, if you can't express your argument in dispassionate language, then what you're expressing is not argument, it's demagoguery and that's not what this site is about.

Soooooo, I'm going to have to insist. Okay?

The Editor’s long-awaited (by me, at least) post.

I have written that I am not an anti-choice absolutist and I will address this point in a moment but there can be no doubt that I am extremely troubled about the number of choices being made in this country that result in the termination of pregnancies. The reason for my being troubled about this is evident in my comments in various places regarding the fact that, from the moment of conception, a distinct individual life is brought into being with genetic characteristics that are derived from but quite different than his or her parents.

What is at issue is primarily the status of the pre-born, discussed by Ms. Gloria Feldt, in her recent book The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women’s Rights and How to Fight Back (Bantam: 2004; pp. 87ff. and elsewhere). If a fetus is deemed to be less than human, then there is no question of a right to life involved. If, on the other hand, it is deemed a person, then, in essence, the woman’s right to choose ends at the right of the pre-born to live.

I do not buy the argument that a fertilized egg is a potential human being just because he or she lacks those characteristics that we normally associate with humanity: a physically identifiable human form, consciousness, automotion, etc. All of us were once just a single cell; it’s what characterizes humans before they develop those characteristics normally associated with humanity. The problem is in applying notions of what we normally think of as characterizing human beings when applied to people on this side of the womb to human beings at their earliest stages of development within the womb. It is not a mere coincidence that, in utero, unless pregnancy is, for some reason, unwelcome, mothers consistently speak in terms of their baby; only when speaking of unwanted pregnancy do we speak of fertilized ova, blastocysts, and fetuses in discussions outside of the medical professions.

I am a Christian. One does not need to be religious, however, to be troubled by people choosing to terminate another human life, particularly when it is a woman seeking to terminate the human life within her. When Ms. Feldt (War on Choice, p.5) argues for a woman’s unfettered right to “freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of children” she will have, she plays into my deepest fear: that women are terminating pregnancy for no other reason than their own, personal convenience (not that there are no reasons for ever terminating pregnancy) and that it is precisely the right to terminate for any reason deemed right by a woman that the most radical pro-choice advocates, such as Gloria Feldt, are seeking to protect. In a perfect world every woman would be able to choose when and whether to bear children without destroying human lives in the process. This is not a perfect world and no one can ever choose every circumstance in his or her life; pregnancy and child-birth are no exception.

By the same argument that a woman’s rights to choose ends at the pre-born’s right to live, the pre-born’s rights end at harm to the woman who bears him or her. It is on this basis that I argue against illegalizing abortion. This is not about whose life, the mother’s or the fetus’s, is more valuable, for I can see no valid argument for valuing one life over the other, it is about who is endangering whom. If the only recourse to protect the mother is to terminate the pregnancy, so be it. Furthermore, I do not see it as the Government’s place to determine in law when a mother is endangered by pregnancy; that is a matter for a medical professional to determine on a case by case basis.

To summarize, I do not hold that a woman has an unfettered right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Life is often messy and unpredictable and intervenes into every life, changing situations and reducing choices. What is most determinative is the right of every human, at whatever stage of development, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The messiness comes in when the rights of two individuals, a mother and her pre-born child, come into conflict.

Continuum: From Left To Right

Now accepting articles from you in answer to the question:

Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?

Remember the ground rules: 1,000 to 1,500 words tops; reasoned debate--no personal attacks; no foul laguage; remain on topic. Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. If you have something to say, email it to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Update: There are now three articles posted immediately below in response to the above question.

Some Observations

I’d like to make some observations at this point in our conversation. First, for all of the complaints by Pro-choice advocates that women’s reproductive rights are under attack by powerful white men, we have yet to receive any posts from a man, although we now have some comments by one. Admittedly, our sampling is small, but in a conversation supposedly dominated by men, it ain’t so here. Second, no one has yet to argue either for the complete removal of abortion as an option, at least in cases where the mother-to-be’s life is in genuine danger or for complete, unfettered access to abortion for any reason whatsoever even though arguments on both sides could be extended to those extremes. Third, thus far, our conversations have remained respectful. Although not all have kept their use of language to the most emotionally neutral terms available, neither did my ground-rules require this. All of our contributors are to be congratulated and I hereby congratulate you all, and thank you for your posts and your comments. Finally, I am preparing for my contribution, which should be ready for posting later today.

Keep them coming, folks.

Third Article on Abortion

Unfortunately too many arguments against abortion have religious undertones. I am looking for a nonreligious reason to be against abortion. I could never have an abortion, I just feel that it would be too much for me to abort a baby, but I do not think it should be illegal for practical purposes.

This issue is so personal and not everyone even views the fetus as a baby. I understand this because the no one has been born. My belief is that the government should stay out of science. I'll leave it up to the medical community to decide whether or not abortion is seriously the threat to life that many religious people perceive it to be. (note: I am not trying to knock religious people, I just need some room to breathe the supposed separation between church and state)

But seriously, if I hear one more person say that the 'times are changing' argument is a copout I'm going to pull out my hair. Times ARE changing and the world will never be what it was yesterday. A lot of things suck in life and rape and birth defects and unwanted babies are part of our world. I guess if abortion is made illegal I sure hope that the Republicans who did this will give back their tax refunds to support the orphanages and foster homes and women's shelters so that the babies they fought so hard to protect can live a good life.

Andrea Goldman

A Different Perspective on Abortion

Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?

Whether ending abortion is 'practical' or 'pragmatic' is not the issue, and whether or not it is desirable for most people also matters not at all. The fact is that by allowing abortion, the government fails in its primary job (both in terms of the Christian faith and the ideals of liberty), to protect the lives and property of its citizens (or to prosecute such harm after the fact).

Abortions belong in back alleys. They cheapen people's view of life (euthanasia follows on the heels of abortion) and hence affect the liberty of all, in addition to being an affront against God Himself. All the propaganda today which attempts to sentimentalize women killing their own children should frighten any student of history, because calling those who are unwanted less than human (as is done by using the term fetus) is the precursor to systematic destruction of whomever is 'in the way' at any given time.

The fact that over one million women hire out the murder of their own children is not a neutral issue, despite all the talk that they are just 'doing what they want with their own bodies'. Any physician will tell you that the unborn child is not part of the woman's body. It has totally different DNA and is, half the time, a different gender. It may be true to call the unborn child a parasite of sorts, but no more so than a newborn baby, and only slightly more so than a two year old. Of course, there are people today who advocate killing of born children up to a certain age, although most Americans are hypocritical enough to be horrified when a girl gives birth and then tosses her baby in the dumpster.

So, although I think 'practical' and 'desirable' are far too weak as terms for describing the importance of stopping abortion, I would say that in both the temporal realm of political liberty and the eternal realm of morality, it is both those things.

Samantha

Our First Entry

Question:
Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to
achieve in America and why do you think so?

My Opinion:
Abortion has long been a subject of controversy and while it is good to believe in the value of life, it is not right to force opinions upon others.

Circumstances and reasons to get an abortion are not the same in every situation. This is 2004 and unfortunate things happen. America is not a safe haven where women can walk down a dark road without fear. Medical complications exist and forcing a woman to die, especially if she is already a mother, so a child can be born is nonsensical. Family members aren't always the kind, caring individuals they are supposed to be and take advantage of a child's innocence. Young girls make wrong decisions because of what they think is love. Some families just don't have the resources to take on another child. The number of homeless families and children in foster care is steadily rising and ending abortion would force so many more children into that life. The number of families surviving off of welfare is ridiculously high and would only get higher. Child abuse is out of control.

If someone does not want to have a child but has no other option, they will turn to the "back alley abortion" method or wait until the child is born and terminate it's life then. Abortion should be an option. Moderate it, make it hard for someone to have multiple abortions, that's fine, but don't make it impossible to get altogether. Not everyone has to like it, but they shouldn't get to take that right away from anyone else because of their beliefs. I'm not saying that abortion is right, I'm just saying that it should be included in everyone's rights. This is America. Land of the free. Free to make your own choices. Free to live your life the way you want. We should keep it that way.

-noodge

Words are important, Pt. 2

In preparation for our discussion relating to Abortion, I have begun reading The War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back (Bantam, 2004) by the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Gloria Feldt. I shall refrain from discussing the argument presented, since I have read very little. I wish to discuss with reference to this book, that of which I wrote very generally yesterday.

In the Introduction to the book, Sally Blackmun, daughter of US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, refers to "women's reproductive freedoms", also referred to as "women's reproductive choices", as being "under serious threat" and a "crisis" (p. xvii). She goes on to describe the threat as "a war...being waged against those rights by an active, extremist minority, with frightening success on many fronts."

Notice that the pro-choice position is stated in the most positive of language: women have reproductive freedoms, choices, and rights. The result of framing the argument with this language is such as to demonize anyone whose position might result in even the slightest limits upon those rights. Unsurprisingly, those who consider themselves Pro-Life are linguistically framed as an extremist minority that pose a threat, who are creating a crisis and waging a war against women. In fact, Ms. Feldt consistently refers to Pro-Lifers as Anti-Choice (p. 4 and throughout). And she complains that the use of the term Partial-Birth Abortion is "incendiary language" designed to "deceive the American people". Is it uncouth of me to suggest that Ms. Blackmun and Ms. Feldt are likewise guilty of using incendiary language designed to deceive the American people and that by engaging in the very practice that they criticize in their opponents, they risk marginalizing themselves as being an extremist minority?

When I do suggest this, it is not without recognizing that Pro-Life people do engage in the very same thing. I mention it because there is no shortage of incendiary language in use by all sides. This very language inhibits, rather than encourages, understanding and compromise. From what I have read so far, Ms. Feldt is not interested in compromise but wants nothing short of unconditional surrender of those who are Pro-Life, however, in fairness, I have not read the whole book so this is just a preliminary impression at this point.

What's my point? I suggest that participants in our discussion not use incendiary language. While I will not edit posts, other than in the case of profanity and personal attack, it will be an assistance to understanding if we keep our language as neutral as possible, if we refer to those whose opinions differ from ours in the positive language--Pro-Choice and Pro-Life--that they use in reference to themselves, and so forth. We are after understanding here, not victory.

Words are important.

Termination of pregnancy, abortion, a medical procedure, killing babies—the words we choose in talking about the act shape the course of our conversation about it. Termination of pregnancy and medical procedure are both clinical terms, designed to keep conversation as unemotional as possible because emotions are not conducive to clear thought and the weighing of risks, benefits and alternatives with a patient seeking to, well, terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is a fairly neutral term and the most common, but one closer to the emotions; we’re more apt to feel something when we hear it or use it. Killing babies is a phrase that is highly charged with emotions—primarily, anger—and is most likely to be used by Pro-Life activists protesting outside a clinic where the more antiseptic terms are used; it is designed to make those seeking an abortion aware of the consequences of the act that they seek: namely, that a baby, whose life has just begun, is going to die—their baby. It is very hard to contemplate having an abortion while focused upon the life to be ended.

It has been proposed that we take up the topic: Ending Abortion. It seems to me, however, that before we discuss ways and means of ending abortion, a prior conversation must take place centered on the question of whether ending abortion is a practical—which I doubt—or even desirable goal. Surely there are many who believe that, while abortions are far from desirable per se and that, in a perfect world, they would be unnecessary, in the world in which we actually live, they should be freely available to those for whom necessity has become a reality. I propose, for our first conversation, that we answer the question:

“Is ending abortion altogether a practical or even desirable goal to achieve in America and why do you think so?”

If you have an answer that conforms to these standards:

1. Articles for posting should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words.
2. Reasoned debate only; no ad hominem attacks will be permitted. This will be strictly enforced.
3. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
4. Remain on topic.
5. Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable.

email it to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.

Let's Talk, Shall We?

I have done the "This is my political opinion" blog and it no longer is what I'm after. What I want to do is a more communal blog where various writers, maybe even you, post on a certain political or social topic which, then, is discussed by people with various viewpoints.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. I’d like to hear your ideas for topics of discussion: you can leave suggested topics in comments here or I can be reached at revcraigh@yahoo.com; all topics will be considered. I will collate the topics and publish a list here.
2. Once we have the topics, I will suggest one to be the topic for discussion.
3. I will then accept articles on the discussion topic via email. Depending on how many I receive, I may select what I view to be the best from among the submissions and publish them on the new blog.

These will form the basis for a conversation to which anyone may contribute: hard Right to Far Left; hence the title.

There will be ground rules, of course. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic and be kept reasonably short. Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable.

So what do you think?

I have received four topics for discussion from Sara over at Somewhat Silent. They are:

- Ending abortion.
- Protecting the nation from terrorism
- Create a thriving American economy
- Eliminate or minimize government interference in our lives

All are relevant, important, and certain to generate viewpoints from each end of the spectrum. Just the sort of topics wanted.