I hope everyone enjoyed all the posts. I'll be doing another Q&A Friday in 3-4 weeks. See you on Monday & have a nice week-end!

Question: "You've written several times that you support vouchers so children won't be stuck in public schools that are failing to give them the skills they need. What would you say to people who are concerned that the good schools will become overcrowded if everyone has the option to attend any school they choose? Do you think this is a valid criticism, or are they missing part of the bigger picture?" -- CMD

Answer: Because of the power of the marketplace, any overcrowding caused by vouchers would only be temporary. Look at it like this...

Let's say you live in a fast growing town with only one very large restaurant. However, it's a bad restaurant with high prices and slow service. Then, next thing you know, a smaller, but much better restaurant with lower prices, better food, and great service crops up. Suddenly people flock to this new restaurant, there are lines out the door, and they can't handle all the business. So what's going to happen next? In all likelihood, either...

1) The small restaurant will expand in order to handle more business and therefore make more money.
2) The big restaurant will try to make improvements in order to get their customers back.
3) Another restaurant will open up to try to handle the overflow & take a bite out of the big restaurant's business.

Note that no matter what happens in this scenario, the customer has more -- and better -- options than when there was just one restaurant.

The same reasoning applies to school vouchers. If a private school pops up and is so much better than the public schools in the area that it draws more pupils than it can hold, then either that school will expand to make more money, the public school will improve to keep so many kids from leaving, or new schools will pop up to try to take students from the old school. There may be some growing pains during these changes, but in the end, inevitably, the quality of education will improve as schools compete to draw in more students. If there is a public or private school that can't compete, then it will go out of business and schools that are more able to meet the needs of parents and students will replace it.

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, we could do that could make a bigger positive impact on education in the United States than making schools compete for students via vouchers.

Question: "If you could ask kerry one question on live television, that he could not dodge, what would you ask him?" -- acerocula7788

Answer: If John Kerry couldn't dodge, if he had to tell the truth, I'd ask him, "Are you a liberal?" The moment he said "yes," the election would be as good as over.

That's why a dovish Senator like Kerry, who votes to the left of Ted Kennedy and has worked tirelessly throughout his career to weaken the military and our intelligence services, is trying to convince the American people that he's actually a hawkish centrist, not an ultra-lib. If he told the truth, his chances of getting elected would be zero.

Question: "Would you comment on the ACLU and their threat of law suits to LA County and other areas for having "Christian" symbols on their seals? Do you think they'll ever go so far as to threaten cities with lawsuits to change their Christian/Catholic names? (Like Sacramento?)" -- Libby

Answer: I think we have the First Amendment turned on its head when it comes to religion in this country. Despite the fact that the First Amendment was designed to protect the religious freedoms of Americans, anti-Christian zealots like the ACLU and liberal tyrants in black robes have turned the First Amendment into a weapon against religion.

The First Amendment is designed to do exactly what it says, prevent Congress from making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In short, it's designed to stop the Federal government from establishing a "Church of England" here in the US and defend religious liberties, not to purge all mention of God by government officials or from government buildings. In fact, back in the days of Jefferson, Madison, they were declaring "national days of prayer" and teaching children to learn to read out of a Bible in the public school system. The idea that the Founding Fathers would support purging Christian symbols from state seals, banning the use of the word "Christmas" in schools, or removing the Ten Commandments from courtrooms is Orwellian in its twisting of the truth.

Question: "Who poses a greater threat to the principles of American republicanism: the leftists or neoconservatives?" -- Goose

Answer: I think ThaSickness covered this one pretty well in the comments section so I'll just use his reply...

"HAHAAHA! Is there ANY doubt? That's like asking what tastes better... Reese's Peanut Butter Cups or Sandpaper! Hahaha! Oh, and in case a liberal is reading this.... Leftists, of course."

PS: There's a reason "More neoconlicious than the neocons" is one of the rotating taglines that show up at the top right hand side of the page and it's not because I'm at odds with people like Richard Perle, David Frum, & Jonah Goldberg on foreign policy.

Question: "What do you think about Israel saying that they will use military force to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?" -- GodBlessAmerica

Answer: As far as I'm concerned, we'd be better off going to war with Iran than letting them get nuclear weapons. If we allow a bunch of "Death to America" chanting, anti-semetic, Islamo-Fascists with close ties to multiple terrorist groups make nuclear weapons, we're just asking for a nuclear weapon to go off in LA, New York, or Tel Aviv one day. If we can talk them out of it, great. If not, we can bomb their nuclear plants, Israel can bomb their nuclear plants, hell, Zimbabewe can bomb their nuclear plants for all I care, but we have got to use any means necessary to stop their getting nuclear weapons no matter who likes it or who doesn't. Let Ariel Sharon & W. work out the details behind the scenes on who actually makes the move, but get it done BEFORE they get nukes...

Question: "Would you agree with me that Spider Man II is nothing more than a series of tired cliches and melodramatic, pseudo-tormented souls? Thumbs down on this one." -- huckupchuck

Answer: Maybe I'm biased because Spider-Man was my favorite comic as a kid, but I thought it was a blast to see a super-hero whose secret identity was interfering in his regular life. For heroes like Superman & Batman, life just didn't seem that tough for them when they weren't crime fighting. But, Peter Parker? His alternate identity is crimping his style. He's working as a freelance photographer & a pizza delivery boy and he still can't make ends meet. His aunt might lose her house and he really can't help. He can't date the love of his life because he's afraid she might get hurt. His grades at college are failing because he's missing classes and can't find time to study. And why? So he can swing around the city saving people's lives and get vilified for it in the Daily Bugle. You may think it was about "tired cliches and melodramatic, pseudo-tormented souls," but I thought the movie did a great job of making you relate to Peter Parker because he's struggling & sacrificing so much to do the right thing.

Furthermore, there were so many great characters in the movie. Peter Parker, Mary Jane, & Aunt May were all still very likable. Doc Ock was a magnificent villain, a character that was menacing and sympathetic at the same time (and on a side note, the operating room scene right after the fusion accident was incredibly well done). Heck, even ole J. Jonah Jameson did a great job of providing comic relief.

However, I don't want to give the impression that I liked everything about the movie. My biggest beef was that Spider-Man kept taking off or losing his mask. I mean, is he not supposed to have a "secret" identity? Isn't this the same guy who's terrified his loved ones will get hurt? But heck, a bazillion people know who he is by the end of the movie. Furthermore, I thought the CGI enhanced action in the original movie was superior to the CGI only action in this one. That's not because the CGI was bad, it wasn't, but CGI only action (which was necessary because of Doc Ock's tentacles I'm sure) just doesn't look as real or believable as CGI enhanced action. Last but not least, I thought the dialogue was a bit stilted in places, particularly Aunt May's dialogue with Peter as he helps her move a few things later in the movie.

That being said, I give the movie a thumbs up and wouldn't hesitate to recommend that anyone take the kids to see it in the theater. It's not quite as good as the first one, but it's a good movie, with a good message behind it.

Question: "what do you think about vegetarianism" -- johnson

Answer: "I think it's probably healthier for you than a diet containing meat. If they could make yams that tasted like fried chicken, green beans that tasted like steak, and squash that tasted like hamburger, I'd go vegetarian myself."

Question: "Do you have any favorite, fictional characters that you believe to be conservative?" -- CloaknBlade

Answer: This is a tough question to answer because my favorite fictional character is Conan and it is of course a bit difficult to figure out which way he'd go on partial birth abortion and free trade. On the other hand, given this quote from the movie, you could at least be sure he'd believe in a strong national defense...

Q: Conan, what is best in life?

A: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Those are not the words of a man who would ask permission from the UN to defend America. On the other hand, he made his living as a mercenary, pirate, & thief, which would probably turn off the swing vote.

PS: Although I was a huge fan of the first "Conan the Barbarian" movie and liked the 2nd one as well, I'm more of a fan of the books than the movies. I've read 30+ Conan books and have enjoyed the majority of them, even though many of the books have different authors. First and foremost, I'd recommend the books written by Robert Howard (W/ or without co-authors), but anything by L. Sprague DeCamp or Robert Jordan is guaranteed to be a good read as well.

Question: "Given that they have unsuccessfully tried the same tactics with Italian, Japanese and American hostages, why do you think Michael Moore's "minutemen" are now threatening Filipino hostages with beheading unless they pull their forces out of the 'unilateral Coalition?'" -- Cujeau

Answer: Fighting against American and British troops will get you killed, killing Iraqis is unpopular, and blowing up oil pipelines or empty buildings doesn't get enough press. So, kidnapping civilians may be their best option in many cases.

The Western press covers them, they've had some small amounts of success in getting some civilians to leave the country, and it leaves the impression that they're still doing something. But, in reality, it's not an effective tactic, it's not going to help them achieve their goals, and it actually stirs resentment against them in Iraqi society. Think of those kidnappings as desperate acts committed by desperate men who are fast running out of options.

Question: "What is the significance, in your mind, of the Iraqi resistance group's new threat to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Will there be more opposition to the foreign fighters in Iraq now that the occupation is officially over, or is the American presence enough to "provoke" the Iraqis that are supporting the insurgency to continue to do so as fervently as they have over the past few months?" -- drunkenmaster

Answer: I don't think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has much to worry about from a group of masked Iraqis unless they have super powers =D. To kill al-Zarqawi, they have to find him, and we can't do it and the interim government can't do it with all of our manpower and intelligence, I doubt that they can do it either.

On the other hand, the Iraqi people have accepted the interim government. As Larry Kudlow points out in his latest column,

"A new poll of Iraqis shows that 68 percent have confidence in the interim government, 73 percent approve of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and 84 percent approve of President Ghazi Yawar. Nearly 80 percent of Iraqis expect that the new government will “make things better” for Iraq after the handover."

Many Iraqis who may have been ambivalent about attacks aimed at the American led CPA or American troops will now be outraged by insurgents &/or terrorists who continue to aim attacks at an Iraqi led government or Iraqi troops. A lot of the same Iraqis who would have been cursing Americans had we torn up Fallujah finishing off the insurgents there will CHEER the Iraqi government for rolling in and "establishing order" over the insurgents dead bodies. Everybody tends to root for the home team, that's just human nature.

So we probably have already been hit with the insurgents best shot back in April when we were fighting Al-Sadr and in Fallujah. Although we're not out of the woods yet, things should continue to slowly and surely improve as Iraq continues down the road towards Democracy. Once they get there, make sure to mock all of the liberals who preferred to leave Saddam in place and have contributed absolutely nothing to freedom in Iraq or for that matter, the war on terror in general.

Today, I'm doing the third Q&A Friday at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, heck it can even be about movies, music, TV, and film if it's interesting enough and I'll try to root through the questions and start answering more of them around 6 PM EST tonight.

My posts will probably be a little shorter than normal and I won't be able to get to every question (so don't even bother asking fluff like "what is your favorite color" or "How often do you clip Patton's nails"), but expect at least twice as many posts as normal today.

So ask away and let's see how this goes...

Question: "Do you think it would be worthwhile for conservatives to organize a march on Washington to show support for the war?" -- Bildo

Answer: No, I don't.

Those sorts of marches just don't make any sort of lasting impact -- just look at all the anti-war rallies in the run-up to the war in Iraq if you want proof. Even if you get 100,000 flag waving conservatives to show up in Washington, it's not going to change any hearts and minds.

What is going to make an impact, is how people perceive things to be going on the ground in Iraq.. That's why it's so important to get the word out and make sure that people understand that the biggest threat to Democracy in Iraq would be losing the will to continue on here. We will succeed in helping the Iraqis become a Democracy as long as we don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by taking the advice of the Michael Moores and Ted Kennedys of the world...

Question: "What would it take to get Alan Keyes on the ticket should Cheney drop out?" -- Ned_Schnittt

Answer: Not. Going. To. Happen.

The problem Alan Keyes has is that he's a pundit, not a politician, and like most pundits, I don't think he's capable of making the transition. That's not a slap at Alan Keyes because I'm a fan, but it's not enough to have the right views on the issues. You have to be able to do the things that make a politician successful to be worthy of national office. If you want to operate at that level, there are questions you have to ask yourself....

Do you enjoy plunging into a crowd and spending 30 minutes shaking hands? Can you whip a crowd into a frenzy? Can you appeal not just to the base, but to moderates, independents, and even a few people in the other party? Are you capable of raising absolutely gargantuan sums of money? Are you willing to compromise your principles in one area to win a greater victory somewhere else? Can you spend hours talking to crowds and the press without letting something slip that the opposition can twist around and use against you?

The skill sets you need to succeed as a columnist, commentator, or radio host are just very different from the ones a politician needs to be elected.

So maybe in a 99% conservative, politically aware, America we could have an Alan Keyes/Rich Lowry ticket battling against Hugh Hewitt & Michelle Malkin to get into the White House, but in the interim, the pundits just aren't going get invites from the voters to the big dance.

Former New York Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato is the latest person to suggest that W. drop Cheney from ticket...

"Mr. D'Amato, famous for his blunt candor and shrewd political skills, has suggested twice in the past two days that Mr. Bush could replace Mr. Cheney with one of two big-name Republicans who he said could ensure Mr. Bush's re-election: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or Senator John McCain of Arizona.

"As an observer of politics, I believe the president can guarantee his essential re-election by looking to several other notable individuals who would add a great dimension to his ticket as a running mate," Mr. D'Amato said."

This is the sort of thing that makes for great talk around the water cooler, but I can't say that I agree that Bush could guarantee his reelection by dumping Cheney. To the contrary, my guess is that it wouldn't make much of an impact in the end.

First off, the latest Battleground Poll puts Cheney's numbers at 45% approval / 46% disapproval (Bush is at 51%/48% in the same poll). On top of that, his experience and competence, especially in foreign policy and military matters, makes for a great point of comparison with the inexperience of John Edwards. So as it stands now, Cheney isn't a drag on the ticket.

Furthermore, you have to remember that veeps don't usually have all that much of an impact on the election beyond the initial bounce they give the ticket when they're announced. Given how polarized the electorate is this year, I'm not even sure a replacement for Cheney would give Bush any boost at all. Keep in mind that according to the latest AP & Zogby numbers, Edwards hasn't given Kerry any sort of significant lift.

Also, you have to keep in mind that McCain, Powell, & the other name I hear tossed around a lot, Rudy Giuliani (bloggers tend to like Condi who I think wouldn't work for different reasons) are not as popular with the conservative base as they are with the press or the public at large. So if you replace Cheney with one of the moderates listed above, it's entirely possible that you'd pull in a few independent votes at the cost of some conservatives staying home because they'd be angry that a real conservative like Cheney was dropped from the ticket.

So given the value of Cheney's hawkish views & experience during this time of war, I think it would be a mistake to dump him from the ticket in what would probably be a futile attempt to get a political boost in November.

Cheerio old chaps! I thought you might like to peruse some of the hate mail I get from liberal loonies! Read & enjoy!

---

From: David Dermody
Subject: Your brilliant

Hi John, anyone who supports this moron and his war mongering cronies has to pretty lost and not to bright. If you ever pull you head out of the wall street journal op ed section and watch something other than fox, and stop getting false info from Rush you would realize how bad off this country has become under this bone head. Take that bible you’re probably waving around and smack yourself in the head a few times with it. Maybe you’ll come to your senses.

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton

P.S. Maybe you should try getting a hummer. Maybe than you wouldn’t be wrapped so tight.

Must not make obvious joke about his sister and getting a hummer, must not make obvious joke about his sister and getting a hummer, must not make obvious joke about his sister and getting a hummer...

---

From: Brenda Badih
Subject: wake-up John

Sir, are you kidding me? I have known about the Ashcroft "camps" for over a decade. They are both democrat and republican supported. If you have any doubts go to Alex Jone's "infowars.com". There are many other sites that can set you on the road to revelation. But I suspect you are a nwo "plant" or in some serious block-headed denial. How else can you have missed this old news??? Whose side are you on? What color is your hat? Black or white? There can be no gray or blue this time. This is a real war for America. Us against the luciferian nwo. B

There are no camps. The Aliens did not give you an anal probe. Alex Jones is a kook. That is all.

---

From: Harlingtonjones@****.com
Subject: Well done !!

..and you wonder why the rest of the WORLD..hate you?

God save me I belong to a country which has backed a pack of sh*t like the good ole us of a..(notice the use of lower case letters!)..

May you rot in hell like the rest of you god-forsaken-mother-f*ckin'-right-wing-arseholes...!!

Rayguns knows! He's already having hot spikes stuck up his arseholes already - Nancy next!

and then YOU! Nice. Enjoy!

Methinks you have already run into your next Vietnam and you're not going to win this one either, the only problem you have and I have is that Blair has been sucked into this one and good British boys will die alongside your right wing scum! F*ckin' yank sh*t bags!

"you wonder why the rest of the WORLD..hate you?" No, not really. I just assume that all the people who hate us are the sort of intellectual giants who spend their days fantasizing about who's going to have hot spikes stuck up their 'arseholes' at some point.

---

From: Andrew Thompson
Subject: i hope you die

john-

i hope that you are run over ny a train. i also hope that you have children and that they are terribly saddened by your death. then, after that they will realize what a f*ckface you are and vote for anyone on the left.

Well Andrew, when I finally do have children one day, perhaps with David's sister =D, I'm sure it will be suave über-geniuses like you rambling on about f*ckfaces and wishing people death that will convince them to vote for 'anyone on the left'. Look out Jonah Goldberg, Walter Williams, & Charles Krauthammer, you've met your match in Andrew Thompson.

I was pleased to hear that George Bush has once again declined at invitation to speak at the NAACP Annual Convention for two reasons.

First off, while I think it's important to try to reach out to conservative black voters, there aren't any of them to be found at the NAACP. The NAACP is an ultra-liberal organization that's in the pocket of the Democratic Party, they tell black people they're victims, & they favor government programs that discriminate against white people. In short, you're not reaching any black voters who are open to a conservative message by speaking to the NAACP.

Second of all, there's no point in talking to the NAACP because they're in bed with the Democratic Party first and black Americans second. Note that most black Americans strongly oppose gay marriage and support vouchers. On the other hand, the NAACP sides with the Dems & their allies in the teacher's unions against poor minority kids who want to use vouchers to get a decent education. They also claim to merely be neutral on the issue of gay marriage even as people like NAACP chairman, Julian Bond publicly stump for it. It wouldn't matter if 50% of black America turned as conservative as Tom Delay tomorrow, the NAACP would have the same positions because it's an organization run by left-wingers.

So any gains conservatives make with black Americans will be because we went over, under, around, but not through, the NAACP. That's why it's counterproductive for Bush, Cheney, Condi, or Powell or other prominent Republicans to speak at the NAACP, pretend that they're something other than a group of liberal race profiteers, or do anything that increases the prestige of the NAACP. It isn't about convincing the NAACP to like conservatives, it's about beating them in the arena of ideas.

***Update #1***: From the comments section,

"I dunno... I don't know the reasons why GWB turned down the speak-invite, but I DO know that the christian thing to do is to take your message to the pagans. Isnt' that what your christian bible says to do? If he wants to win converts SHOULDN'T he go where the convertin needs to be done?" -- useless

From what I've seen, preachers have had a lot more success coverting sinners to Christ than conservatives have had converting liberals to a logical view of the world. In other words, W. isn't bringing any Republicans into the fold by speaking to the NAACP.

Instead, we need to focus our energies on recruiting blacks who are actually fairly conservative, but have been brainwashed into thinking Republicans are evil racists who hate blacks. I honestly believe -- and I'm dead serious about this -- that roughly 1/3rd of all black Americans have views more in line with the GOP than the Dems, but W. only pulled 8% of them in the last election.

To bring those people into the fold, we need to work to build up groups like Project 21 & BOND that can help us get our message out in the black community. That's what the GOP needs to be doing, not reaching out to an organization like the NAACP that's going to give conservatives a real chance.

Made Over 100 Films in Early Seventies, Congressman Admits

Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry named Senator John Edwards of North Carolina as his vice-presidential running mate after learning that his first choice, Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri), had appeared in over one hundred hardcore porn films in the early 1970s.

Rep. Gephardt, who made the raunchy movies under the name Dick Gethardt, acknowledged last night that he had performed in the films, but added, “To the best of my recollection, it was more like two hundred.”

Rumors that Rep. Gephardt had a thriving porn career before becoming a Missouri congressman had been swirling around the Kerry campaign for weeks, but Mr. Kerry wanted to view the films for himself before making a final decision on Mr. Gephardt’s fate.

After a marathon viewing session in which Mr. Kerry watched over thirty of Mr. Gephardt’s films, the Massachusetts senator said that there was “no question” that the performer on the screen was the Missouri congressman, telling reporters, “The guy in those films had no visible eyebrows.”

Some within the Kerry campaign argued that Mr. Gephardt’s porn experience should not eliminate him from the vice-presidential sweepstakes, since he had demonstrated the energy and stamina necessary for the long election campaign.

“One thing’s for sure, after seeing these movies no one could ever accuse Dick Gephardt of flip-flopping,” one aide said.

For his part, Mr. Gephardt told reporters that he had no regrets about making the films, adding, “Now that my political career is at an end, I may very well return to porn, which was my first love.”

If you enjoyed this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work at The Borowitz Report

In her latest magnificent column, Ann Coulter absolutely eviscerates parasitic shyster John Edwards for being the living embodiment of everything people hate about trial lawyers...oh, and for claiming to channel the spirit of an unborn baby =D...

"Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases – unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

Despite the now-disproved junk science theory about C-sections preventing cerebral palsy that Edwards peddled in the channeling case, the jury awarded Edwards' client a record-breaking $6.5 million."

Andrew Sullivan & Kate O'Beirne are wondering whether the GOP is having an identity crisis because of all the RINOs who are going to be speaking at the Republican National Convention. Here's O'Beirne on the subject...

"The lineup of primetime speakers at the Republican Convention predictably reflects its New York location by giving prominent spots to the hosts, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor George Pataki. But those enjoying the coveted spotlight also pay tribute to New York's former Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Joining the hosts will be other mavericks and dissidents who represent a minority in Ronald Reagan's GOP. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona's Senator John McCain, and California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will all be at the primetime podium. The only announced speaker who actually agrees with President Bush on major issues is Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georigia.

The decision to showcase rogue elephants as representatives of the modern Republican party is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment. If the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not. The Republican party seems to habitually internalize the criticisms of its opponents. When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party's convention is a Democrat, the GOP has a serious identity problem."

I can't say that I agree with Sully & Kate on this issue even through I'm lukewarm on Rudy & Arnold and genuinely dislike McCain. But, the reality is that right now, Rudy, Arnold, & McCain are some of the hottest names in the GOP, newsmakers who'll draw column inches and interest independents, so they should have prominent speaking spots at the convention.

That being said, there's no need to worry about an "identity crisis". Giuliani caught the public's eye because of his fine performance in the aftermath of 9/11, Schwarzenegger is a movie star turned governor, & the media and the Kerry campaign slobbered so hard over the possibility of a Kerry/McCain ticket, that letting him speak will be like a thumb to Kerry's eye. In short, not one of these men is getting his speaking spot because of his views.

So don't worry about country club Republicans making a comeback, this year's group of "big name speakers" is just a fluke...

With the war on terror top-most in the minds of American voters, Democrat vice presidential candidate John Edwards today announced his plan to "drive up the cost of doing terrorism."

Mr. Edwards, who like Senate colleague John Forbes Kerry supported the presence of American troops in Iraq by opposing funding of that presence, said that as vice president he will ensure that the U.S. government sues every terror group whose faulty ideology results in injury or death.

"Terrorism is not a war issue, it's a legal issue," said the first-term Senator, who built a fortune as a trial lawyer. "It's just another defective product that hurts ordinary people. If you sue the maker of the product--tie 'em up in court for a few years--you increase their cost of doing business and jeopardize their ongoing operations."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

For those few of you who are unfamiliar with the divisive debate about abortion, let me fill in some of the details for you. You see, for the most part, the argument revolves around when life begins.

Those of us who are staunchly opposed to abortion believe life begins at conception. So for us, in effect, there is no significant moral difference between aborting a fetus that was conceived five minutes ago and taking a baby out of his cradle and smashing his head with a rock. In both cases, an innocent human life has been savagely ended.

On the other hand, abortion advocates will tell you that life begins at some arbitrarily defined point -- birth, the third trimester, when the baby can survive outside of the womb, something along those lines. Up until that point, they will tell you that the baby is simply a lump of flesh, a parasite, a pile of goo, etc, etc, anything but a human life. Therefore, they'll tell you that it doesn't matter if you abort the fetus because no human life is being lost. (Cont)