Pulling the Trigger: Abortion Post Roe v. Wade

On Friday, June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which may ultimately prove to be as decisive as the first volley fired at Concord and Lexington in April 1775 or the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. The court, by a five to four decision along ideological lines, voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has stood since 1973, giving women the right to end a unwanted pregnancy.  

A majority of Americans, 54% to 28%, regarded the court's decision a mistake equivalent to Citizens United and further demonstrated the folly of lifetime appointments and the disconnect it creates with the American People, technology and society.  In another poll, 70% of the respondents said that a woman's decision to get an abortion should be private matter between a woman and her doctor.

The nearly 50 year old decision was based on the 14th amendment (and to a lesser extension, the 9th amendment which serves as a "catch all" amendment) and was based on the issue of privacy.  These same laws were used to guarantee the rights and citizenship of former slaves because of its "citizenship clause". It  is also cited to justify citizenship for so-called "anchor babies". That is, children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.   

The 14th amendment was used in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education which dealt with racial discrimination under its Equal Protection Clause, and in 2015, it was used to strike down state laws opposing mixed race and same sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, each state regulated their own abortion laws. Some states were fairly liberal, essentially allowing abortions on demand, while others restricted it to cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother was endangered or if something catastrophic was wrong with the child which would affect its quality of life, while some prohibited it altogether.

In states where there were restrictions, it also meant that those with the financial wherewithal could afford to obtain a relatively safe abortion while the working class and poor were often forced to seek out "back alley" procedures which were typically unsafe and unsanitary (in some cases, women crossed or were smuggled into Mexico for the illegal procedure) and provided nothing for pain.. 

It wasn't unusual  for a woman to be physically injured during the procedure, leaving them with internal injuries, infections like sepsis, sterile, or dead.

Some women purchased certain drugs, which caused violent cramps, bleeding, and vomiting, from questionable sources to end their unwanted pregnancies. These drugs could be just as deadly.  Roe v. Wade was intended to end these procedures and provide safe alternatives.

The decision ending Roe v. Wade, will again put the decision back into the hands of the states in what's known as "trigger laws".  In 26 states (including Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri ), these laws will take effect immediately, while in others there is a waiting period ranging from five to 30 days. In a few states, the laws must be reviewed and amended if necessary before taking effect (it's worth nothing that in some states, their abortion laws date back to the early 1930's).

The ending of Roe v. Wade marks another serious break in the United States, which is already deeply divided. Approximately 2/3 of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. 58% of those polled said they hoped their state would enact more progressive abortion laws, while 51% wanted their state to become a "safe haven" for women seeking an abortion.

Thus, the Supreme Court has now joined Congress and the Presidency in disregarding the opinions of the majority of the American People. Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court has a 25% approval rating?  As an aside, the approval rating of Congress is a dismal 20% (it was a record low of 18% in May 2022) while Biden's is currently just 38% (VP Kamala Harris has a rating of 35%).  

As a result of the Roe decision, the approval rating for the Supreme Court dropped from 40% to 25% among Independents (America's largest political bloc), from 30% to 13% among Democrats, and yet it actually rose among Republicans from 37% to 39%.

It's worth nothing that the court's decision, which many consider to be a women's issue, came down primarily along ideological lines with the five conservative justices (four men and one woman) voting to undo Roe v. Wade while the four liberal justices, which  included two women, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissenting ( it's worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas is considered the most conservative while Sonia Sotomayor is the most liberal).  

In addition, it should be pointed out that Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed by President Obama.  Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the court's majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas were appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush. President Trump appointed three— Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Many conservatives, notably among the Far Right, considered this to be a moral, and therefore, a religious issue more so than a ideological one. Their argument was that abortion, regardless of the circumstances to be morally wrong, and thus in conflict with their religious beliefs.

There may be a grain of truth in this. The court consists of six Catholics, one Protestant, and two Jews. The lone Protestant, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but converted to "Catholic-lite" Episcopalianism. Justice Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent and the most liberal justice, has said that she considers herself more of a "cultural Catholic" than practicing Catholic. 

Nevertheless, the Vatican has stated that any politician or judge who supported abortion, which is banned by Canon Law, could be refused communion or possibly even excommunication. Apparently five of the Catholic justices weren't taking any chances.

The Left, on the other hand, saw Roe v. Wade more of a economic and social issue which provided women with the control over their body and by being a federal law, made abortion legal, affordable, and providing a degree of safety as well as privacy.

Of course, some states, with considerable pressure from conservative Right to Life groups, attempted to hamstring the federal law by requiring a waiting period, mandatory pre-procedure counseling, and viewing images of the fetus before being allowed to proceed with the procedure.  

So, what does this all mean? Since 1973, there has been an estimated 63 million abortions performed in the United States. The National Right to Life Committee has claimed that for every 1000 live births, there are 193 abortions. Yet contrary to popular opinion, most of these were not "on demand" forms of birth control as some have alleged.

The renown Guttmacher Institute conducted an intensive study of why women had abortions found that 74% said having a child at that time would interfere with their work, education, or ability to take of a dependent. 73% cited economic reasons while 48% didn't want to try to raise a child on their own. 4 in 10 said they were done with their childbearing and didn't want any more children while 1/3 admitted that they weren't emotionally ready to have child yet.

With Roe v. Wade becoming law in 1973, the number of adoptions available significantly decreased, especially among middle and upper class white women. Adoptions rose from 91,000 in 1957 to 175,000 by 1970. But by 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade, they had dropped to 130,000 and continued to drop.

In the 1970's, 9% of single women surrendered their children to adoption. By the 1980's, that figure had dropped to 2% of single females giving their children up for adoption, which further dropped to 1% by the 1990's and on.  It's also worth noting that most of the women interviewed stated that it was less emotionally stressful to have an abortion than it was giving up their child for adoption.

Our America of 2022 is not the same America of the 1970's. There will likely be more states willing to allow abortions, at least at some level, than there was the years prior to Roe v. Wade. There are more conception options available, such as the "morning after pill", not to mention dozens of birth control devices and reversible procedures available. If you are going to be sexual active, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and use some form of protection. There's now no longer any excuse not to.

However, it's not really about birth control or even abortions is it? It comes down to who has the final say over one's own body---the individual? The state? Or is it some group attempting to impose its religious and moral values onto others? That, in my opinion, is what the argument has really been about all along.

With the undoing of Roe v. Wade, should there now be an attempt to expand this reversal of privacy and individual choice to include birth control (as some religious groups have promised to do since they believe all forms of birth control are "immoral"), or attempt to apply it to interracial or same sex partnerships and marriages (which some oppose for the same reason), I think you will see the final tear in this nation's fabric.

It's ironic that at the same time, we are seeing efforts by the Left to prohibit or further restrict gun ownership, which also comes down to a matter of privacy, personal choice, and self-protection under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Somehow I can't see conservatives standing by and allowing it to happen, and yet isn't turnabout seen as "fair play"?    

I struggle with abortion for several reasons, least of all depriving a healthy infant the wonders of life (none of those reasons involve religion by the way).  However, I believe there are exceptions, such as rape, incest, the endangerment of the mother's life, or something catastrophic which would seriously impair the child's quality of life. I can't condone late term abortions either unless, again, the mother's life is endangered or the child's quality of life is impacted.

But, to be clear,  I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to tell anyone, especially a stranger whose circumstances I know nothing about or someone of the opposite gender, what they can or can't do with their body, regardless of whether I agree or not (otherwise, it follows that women should be able to require men to get vasectomies for instance). I will, of course, be more than happy to give my opinion should they ask!

 Lastly, I don't believe any individual, group, or religious institution has the right to impose their religious beliefs or ideas of morality onto anyone else, particularly when they are neither married or have children. That's no different than what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan. 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

 What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean? Supreme Court decision's implications

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

The Religion of the Supreme Court Justices

The political leanings  of the Supreme Court justices

Trigger Law

Guttmacher Institute: Reasons U.S. women have abortions

Why So Many Women Chose Abortions Over Adoptions

New poll finds Americans oppose striking down Roe v. Wade bya 2 to 1 margin

The New England Journal of Medicine: Perilous Politics: Morbidityand Mortality in the Pre-Roe Era

Having Your Cake and Eating It Too: The Supreme Court Ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

I guess I should have known something was up. I noticed a sudden large increase in the number of emails received, most of which were from Left oriented organizations. While most are from some ubiquitous sounding organization like "United for Intergalactic Peace" or "Surrender Now", several were from LGBTQ groups, and others which promoted transgender "self-identification". Each mentioned some recent apocalypse sounding event in their headline beckoned me to open and read on. I usually get a broad cross section of political emails from all political corners; each pushing its own cause and citing some recent tribulation (real or imagined) which they felt warranted my immediate attention and as always, begging for money to make it go away. However, this seemed like an unusually lot, even for me.

However, before I got the opportunity to delve into this mystery, I received a phone call from a friend of mine asking if I heard the latest news. Knowing that could be just about anything, especially sense I follow and usually write about news from a national and even global perspective, I had to acknowledge that I was stumped (of course, I was secretly hoping it had something to do with all the emails). Still, the two mysteries just might be related I thought. As it turned out, they were.

Back in 2012, an ordinary baker by the name of Jack Phillips was asked by a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig to bake them a wedding cake. Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, politely declined to accept their order for the wedding cake (usually a very profitable project with a big markup) because of his religious beliefs. Mr. Phillips claimed to be a very traditionalist Christian, has said all along that his religious beliefs prohibited him from partaking in any way with an event which goes against his faith's religious tenets, which so happens to include gay marriage. Apparently Mullins and Craig couldn't accept his answer, and neither did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which said that Phillips had no such religious freedom and his refusal to bake the cake was violation of Mullins' and Craig's civil rights.

Nevertheless, the couple insisted that Phillips bake their wedding cake, which was repeatedly refused, which makes me wonder why? It's not like there weren't other professional bakers capable of doing at least as good of a job; maybe even better. It's not like they couldn't have asked around in their local LGBTQ community for recommendations for another baker. Nope. It had to be this one and only this one. Again, I ask why? My personal opinion is that the couple saw this as a potential payday. An opportunity to gain some national notoriety and maybe a large financial "piece of the pie" if you'll pardon the pun. Besides, if you force someone into making a wedding dress, drapes, or a cake in this case against their will, what kind of product do you think you're going to end up with?

Apparently the Supreme Court, in a rare act of common sense, had ruled 7 -2 in favor of allowing the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to decided who he does business with or not. Imagine that. You, as a business person, getting to decide whether or not you want to accept someone's business. I'm sure we've all seen signs on the doors of various establishments which read "No shoes. No shirt. No Service" or something similar. These proprietors were telling prospective customers that they have certain criteria which has to be met if you want to come in and get service. if you didn't meet these requirements, feel free to move on.

Of course, did the Supreme Court really have any other choice in making their decision? The Bill of Rights provides us with the freedom of association, meaning we get to hang out with whomever we want without interference by the government (provided, of course, no crime or criminal behavior is implied). That means you can associate with folks who role-play, follow a certain religion or philosophy, cross dress, or whatever. It's up to you and it's not any of the government's business. The Bill of Rights also provides us with freedom of religion, which means that the government will do whatever it has to not to interfere with those beliefs, so long as those beliefs are legal and fall within the general norms of society as a whole (that means no religious based rapes, human sacrifice or beheadings).

Some would argue that using the "freedom of association" or "freedom of religion" argument would mean refusing to associate with anyone you don't like under the mask of "religion". However, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said business owners can't deny services or goods to individuals under neutral public accommodation laws, otherwise it a "community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights" could result. Justice Kennedy went on to say that Phillips acted within reason based on his religious beliefs, which had remained consistent throughout. He added that may have been a one off decision, and the verdict on similar cases in the future might be quite different. True. I wonder how the Court would rule if some Southern "redneck" requested a Muslim caterer to provide a pork-laden spread or a Hindu caterer to provide cooked steaks and hamburgers with their order. It's coming folks. It's coming.

Now, as everyone who knows me personally or reads my articles knows, I couldn't care less about someone's gender, race, orientation, religion, or whatever else. I may or may not agree with their choice, but it's not for me to decide; it's theirs. However, people have to understand that not everyone is going to playing along in their personal drama. People will look at you funny. People will speak out--- rightly or wrongly. That's just the way it is in our relatively free society. If I seriously don't like something about you, I'm obviously not going to invite you to participate and no law is going to make me. If you get "offended", that's just too bad. By the same token, if I don't get to play in your "reindeer games" because of my opinion or whatever guess what? I'm a big boy. I'll somehow manage to live. It also means that while we disagree in one area, that doesn't mean we disagree across the board. We accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with everything we say or do. That's known as maturity.

Just because you made a conscious decision about your lifestyle (tattoos or body piercing for instance), that doesn't mean you get a free pass. If you decide that you self-identify as a dog or space alien, and you go out and spend a bunch of money having yourself surgically altered to fit in with your new persona, well good for you. Hopefully, it makes you happy. But don't expect to be greeted with open arms by society as a whole. If you decide you're going to be omni-sexual, pan-sexual, or whatever, then great; whatever floats your boat. But, again, that doesn't mean you're going to get to float that boat in just anybody's pool. There are consequences for your actions, good or bad. No one is ultimately responsible for the decisions you make but you, so suck it up and get over it.

As an aside, I personally believe there are two and only two sexes---male and female, and regardless of how you self-identify, Mother Nature wins out as she always does. As for your sexual or life choices, I really don't care. It's not my business. For that matter, it's really not anyone's business other than those directly affected, which means that neither do I particularly care or need to know. Now, whether it's a psychological disorder, a simply a genetic mutation, or one of Satan's demonic minions as some claim, I don't know. I've known a lot of folks who are gay, Lesbian, transgendered, bisexual in my lifetime, and I can't say a single one was the product of a "choice" . It was just the way they were. It may have been a choice on their part to "come out", but their sexual orientation was never a choice in itself.

Now, having said that, not everyone agrees. Some people believe for personal reasons that "something" is wrong with them. That's fine. That's their decision based on their upbringing or life experiences. Meanwhile, there are others who believe being gay or whatever is a violation of their religious beliefs, and to violate those beliefs is to disobey God or whatever deity they worship. That deserves as much respect as does someone else's personal decisions about themselves, be it body piercings, tattoos, or coming out. So, kudos to Mr. Phillips for standing his ground for his religious beliefs and a polite nod to at least seven of the nine Justices for getting it right for once (now, if only they would go back and revisit their "Citizens United", which was one of their biggest mistakes). The trouble with diversity is that it's diverse, and we have to get used to it. That's also it greatest strength.



Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case


Supreme Court rules on narrow grounds for baker who refused to create a same-sex couple's wedding cake

It's Good To Be King Part II

As you'll recall, I mentioned discussing politics and current events with a friend of mine recently. I had just posted an article and was doing research for my next articles. During our conversation, he suggested a topic---being King (or Queen) for a year. Whatever you decree becomes the law of the land, but it had to be practical. So, after considering the possibilities, I decided to give it a go. Besides, it sounded like fun and would me clarify my thoughts on some topics. As a disclaimer, none of my comments, either in this edition or in Part I, are set in stone. Situations change. Woe befall those who never evolve. People should continually educate themselves and be willing to change their opinions as the situation dictates. So, with that said, let's continue with "It's Good To Be King" Part II.

Next on my royal agenda would be to overhaul the tax system. Personally, I don't think the tax code should be any longer than short term paper. I think we need to institute either a consumption tax or a flat tax. Under the first option, you pay a tax on whatever you buy. If you buy only a little, you only pay a little; great for those on fixed or limited incomes. If you're a big spender, you'll pay more because you can obviously afford more. The second option would simply be a fixed tax that you'll pay regardless based on your gross income. Of course, certain items such as food, medicine are exempt along with income that's double the poverty rate.

No more NAFTA. No more TPP. No more secret trade agreements. We will focus on Fair Trade instead; one that protects our labor market from unfair foreign trade practices. If a foreign government underwrites a particular industry in order to undercut our market, it may be necessary to support that market domestically in order to protect domestic jobs. The next project I would embark on is to reduce US military presence overseas. Currently, we have over 1000 bases overseas (the actually number is publically unknown). In some cases, we are there to provide backup in case that nation is attack. In other cases, we are there as the defacto military force on behalf of that country (Japan comes to mind). I think that unless we're being compensated, we need to withdraw our military from any country where our national interests aren't directly impacted. Along with that, I think we should seek closer cooperation with Russia which would go a long way in reducing global tensions, plus both the US and Russia could work jointly on certain global issues militarily and economically. Besides, we alone have enough nukes that no matter what Russia or China do independently or jointly, we could literally blow the Earth into a cosmic dust cloud a 1000 times over. Not even cockroaches would survive.

I would take the savings and rebuild our infrastructure. Internally, our highways, roads, bridges, and transportation systems are as decrepit as the government in Washington. We need to refocus on a train system similar to Europe's or Japan's. We need trolleys and subways too. We need to update and secure our power and water stations, and yes, we need a serious commitment to solar and wind power too. We need to see ourselves as conservators of the Earth, not just for ourselves but for future generations. Besides, this would be great for our national unemployment. The jobs and contracts would be open to all US citizens and domestically owned companies; especially small businesses. Finally, there would be a minimum tax paid by all corporations. No more making billions, obtaining taxpayer paid loans,tax abatements, federal contracts, corporate officers making tens of millions of dollars, and paying nothing. As an aside, I would not tax savings accounts under $50,000 in order to encourage people to save. The US has the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation. Additionally, this would make more money available to loan and would help keep interest rates low. While Social Security would be remain intact, individuals would be allow to invest up to 50% that amount themselves---with a signed "no-harm" agreement.

With respect to national healthcare, I do favor some form of minimum national healthcare. The fact is that some individuals simply can't afford healthcare on their own and small businesses can't afford to offer it, which is key in attracting and keeping qualified applicants. Therefore, I would support a single payer which offers a guaranteed minimum coverage with an option to buy additional insurance in the marketplace if you so desire. This makes it easier and cheaper to operate, help those unable to acquire insurance otherwise, and keep small businesses competitive in the employee marketplace. All federal employees, including elected officials, will be on the same plan. Lastly, members of Congress and the Presidency would not receive lifetime salaries. They would receive what any other federal employee receives for the same length of service. The Presidency will have the option of either using two Secret Service agents for a maximum of five years or hiring private security for the same costs.

Speaking of employment, non-citizens (aka illegal immigrants) should be deported. While we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws, and those laws must and will be enforced. Anyone assisting these individuals violate US immigration laws will be fined, starting with the first offense. Repeat offenses will result in steeper fines and jail time. Employers will face suspension of their business license starting at 90 days. Repeated violations will extend to six month suspensions, one year suspensions, and finally, a permanent suspension. The company president and senior board officers will also face up to six months in jail. In addition, no federal business will be conducted with any company if these individuals serve as a corporate officer. Any religious or non-profit institution or business will face a loss of their tax exempt status and business license starting with 90 days and continuing along the same lines as the corporations. Anyone who wants to be here needs to have a work permit. Anyone who wants to stay here had best take the appropriate legal steps to do so. No individual here illegally will be allowed to use any taxpayer services. By the way, the forms will be in English. In addition, all illegal immigrants will be fingerprinted and photo scanned along with a DNA sample to aide in future detection (this would be especially useful for those who are members of criminal gangs or have a felony record). They would then be taken to the nearest embassy of origin and deposited there for deportation. The cost of processing the detainees would be deducted from any aid provided to that country, so there would be no need for a wall.

Continuing with the topic of immigrants, I'm not sure I would follow President Trump's travel ban, which seems to keep hitting legal roadblocks. Of course, the idea to restrict travel from nations with large pools of potential terrorists isn't bad. Nevertheless, I don't think I would impose an outright ban. I would, however, impose stricter security screening on individuals who come from certain countries with high incidents of terrorist and extremist activity, including nations like Saudi Arabia since that's where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from as well as Ben Laden. We should, however, allow individuals such as the Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds, who are being aggressively persecuted by hate driven terrorists like ISIS or Al Qaeda, and prohibited by countries like Turkey and Syria from leaving, a preferred immigration status. In conjunction with this, I would employ a similar scanning procedure as used by the Israelis. They utilize a profile type visual scan and a relatively simply monitoring process. To date, the less evasive Israeli procedure has been highly successful everyplace it's been employed.

One more thing on this topic. In accepting immigrants, we need to take a look at culture and religion. While some will choke on the terms "racist" or "Islamophobia" or some other popular buzz word, we have to realize that some religions and cultures are simply not compatible with Western democratic values. When they demand a second or third class status for women, demand others refrain from flying an American flag, infringe on others (notably females) walking down the street or practicing their religion, so-called "honor" murders, saying the US Pledge of Allegiance, female genital mutilation, selling certain products, or even that we adapt to their religious laws and/or language, they're in the wrong place. If you come to this country, we will try to be tolerant. However, do not expect us to conform to your laws and traditions --- religious or otherwise. If you can't do that, don't bother coming.

With respect to the prison system, we have some serious work to do here. The US incarcerates more individuals than any other nation in the world. True, we have a lot of crime, especially in the inner cities. But we also have some outdated laws and some outdated notions about punishment. First, all first offenders of misdemeanors should not be housed with harden criminals. The emphasis here should be on getting these people back on track. Most flunked their way through the public education system, which also has to change. Nevertheless, remedial education to reach at least a 10th grade level should be required if they graduated or assistance with getting a GED if they didn't. Next, learning a productive trade like dry walling, painting, carpentry, etc., followed by a job assistance and mandatory counseling program which includes avoidance of drugs, writing resumes and developing interview skills. As for felons, if the crime is non-violent, they should be eligible for the same program after 1/3 to 1/2 of the time is served.

In addition, if they stay out of trouble for one year, all voting privileges should be restored (it should be automatically restored if they serve all their time and remain out of trouble for one year). For life sentences, violent offenders or repeat felons, they should have the option of entering a long term rehab program to learn a skill to be used within the prison and/or the opportunity to earn a GED and to take various continuing education courses. For those who fail this program or opt not to enroll, they should be used for state projects such as picking up waste, working on roadways, etc. All federal prisons should be as self-sustaining as possible, that includes growing their own vegetables, laundry, data entry, etc. I would, however, remove all gym equipment. The last we should want is felons having the time to beef up and become physically stronger than the guards. All prisoners should also receive "salt peter" or other medication to reduce any "anger issues" or other aggression. Lastly, as "King", the drug policy in this nation would need to be seriously overhauled. Certain drugs like marijuana should be decriminalized (and those convicted released), while alcohol, perhaps the worse drug of all, should receive a harsher penalty on par with hard drugs instead of a "wink and nod".

So, what about other issues? In area of foreign relations, as I alluded to above, the emphasis would be on Fair Trade. I think we should seek out commonalities with other countries and focus on ways to grow and expand that, provided it's a reciprocal! As for these whinny-ass countries like North Korea who've learned to survived by blackmailing the West, I say too bad. I wouldn't hesitate to call their bluff. Either they'll attack like they've been threatening to do ...and lose...so we'll be done with them once and for all, or they'll lose credibility and face being overthrown, so again, we'll be done with them (of course, we'll do our best to help the people). We will stop interfering in foreign affairs; specifically in overthrowing governments the ruling corporate Oligarchy dislikes. We will NOT jump through hoops to appease any religious or racial minority. This is America, learn to accept it or leave it. We don't own you anything for simply existing except the opportunity to make your way. If you have any questions, please refer to our instruction manual---the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Regarding gender matters, I don't really have a problem with same-sex marriages or unions; call it what you like. I also don't need it waved in my face all the time either. Some argue that "God", "Jesus", "Allah" or whoever disapproves, you should remember that it's unlikely these individuals believe your deity, and no one has the right to impose their religious or moral interpretations on anybody (that's the problem we're having with Islamic extremists remember?). Besides, love is love and if there's one thing there is a shortage of, that's it. I can't see any god having an problem with that can you? Now for transgender, "undefined" genders, "gender neutral", and so forth. You are born with either a dominate "Y" or "X" chromosome. That means that no matter how you "self-identify", you're biologically either a male or female. If you're male, use the men's room. If you're a female, use the women's room. A compromise would be use of gender neutral public restrooms or dressing rooms. They'd be easy enough to set up, and most place already have them. As for the Armed Forces, we have an all voluntary military. If you join, don't expect any special treatment. You will be treated just like everyone else, which is as it should be. If this "offends" you, then maybe you're not ready to go out in public yet.

Well, there you go. Now you know how my "royal" reign would play out. What would you do? In reality, little to none of it would ever come to pass. There are far too many special and vested interests to see any real change. Besides, power is never willingly surrendered. In our current Oligarchic system, the figureheads are replaced while those who actually control the power and wealth in this nation remain behind the curtains. Could things change? Without a doubt. If were any other way, the Oligarchy wouldn't be so desperate to divide and confuse us. They spend a great deal of time and money to pit us against each other; to divide us along every conceivable line possible. They've ensured that they control the elections; the media; and as much as possible, the public message. This last election showed just how flawed their system is. Their "chosen one" failed to be "crowned"; an usurper was elected instead. Now they will devote their efforts to discredit and delegitimize that individual and their administration as much as possible, and in doing so, to set the stage for a dramatic comeback fitting of any epic from the golden years of Hollywood. So, grab a box of popcorn and something to drink everyone. The prequel is starting. The Empire is about to strike back.




Another Opinion: It's Good To Be King Part I

Sacred Cows

I've never been accused of being a conformist. I think going my own way or thinking my own thoughts was just something I was born with, much to the exasperation of my teachers, bosses, and my mother (for which, I'm sure, accounts for more than a few white hairs). Perhaps I am a noncomformist, but it has never been a matter of being "rebelling" simply for its own sake. I've always preferred thinking and doing out of the box, and I'm sure the results always spoke positively for themselves. I've never been afraid of questioning an assumption or challenging a tradition, and questioning presumed authority (or authority figures) for that matter. Times and circumstances are constantly changing, and we must change and adapt with them or be swept away by them.

Ironically, despite this, I'm still a fairly conservative guy, at least concerning most things. For instance, I ardently believe in the foundation established by our Founding Fathers, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, some in Washington and elsewhere are saying that the Constitution is too "restrictive" or too "inflexible" for today's vastly more complex problems. Perhaps that's because today's problems have become more complex because of over regulation, over legislation, and over taxation. Perhaps what we need is a more simpler approach to government. By that I mean, perhaps the federal government should govern less and allow states more authority to deal with situations closer to home. It seems like the government's solution to everything is to legislate a situation to the point where it needs additional legislation to correct new problems which arose out their efforts to solve the original problem in the first place, while at the same time, leaving rather convenient loopholes for their corporate masters to exploit at our expense. After all, haven't we been told that money is free speech and those with the most money get to speak the loudest, and it's the loudest who get Washington's attention right?

But that's not what I'm wanting to discuss at the moment. What concerns me is that many conservatives are so stuck with preserving the past, they've lost sight into what's important. Let's look at the marriage issue briefly. I grew up (and believe) that marriage is between a man and woman. It's the basic foundation not just of America, or Europe, or even Asia, but of society itself. It's the core around which civilization itself has been built. But, as society has become more complex and gender roles have evolved, not to mention technology and self perception, so too has the concept of what constitutes a "family" , and by extension, a marriage. If two individuals---two adults---happen to be attracted to each other and want to make a lifelong commitment, who am I to say "no"? Sure, I could cite some biblical verses, but what does my faith have to do with theirs?

For that matter, let's not forget that the religious texts used by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, as well as Muslims and their Koran, were written thousands of years ago, in another time and place, and for another people who had different societal needs and values. Providing a stable loving relationship seems to me to be more important than whether I agree or not with their choices. Who am I to decide who someone can love or not? And what if a particular church or other religious institution is willing to sanctify the union? How does that say about other religious institutions who don't? My own pragmatic conservatism (and touch of libertarianism ) also tells me it's none of my business or anyone else's.

Speaking politically, conservatives are getting their collective clocks cleaned where same-sex marriage has become an issue simply because the largest voting bloc, the Millennials, see this a critical issue. Overwhelmingly, the Millennials--those 30 and under---see no problem with gays, lesbians, or transgendered individuals, and certainly they have no issue with gay marriage by a wide margin---70%. Those that do tend to be the 40 and older crowd, which also happens to be a shrinking demographic while Millennials are the largest segment to come along since the Babyboomers (and as group, are more numerous than Boomers). Therefore, the party which accepts this political reality (whether or not they agree with it personally), will thrive while the other party will find itself repeatedly punished at the ballot box, perhaps to the point of political irrelevancy. This also speaks to the increasing candidacies of individuals running independent of party; something Millennials also favor by large numbers.

Let's take another issue--global warming. Those on the political Right insist that at best, global warming is myth; an attempt by the some in the government and certain industries, to tighten the noose around our energy policies. At worse, global warming, if it exists, is a natural cycle. A minor hiccup. Either way, Man doesn't play any significant role. Yet, most of those behind these claims are those business most likely to be negatively impacted, such as coal, oil, gas, and automobile industries. Some of those on the Left want much greater regulation of these industries it is true. They haven't met a regulation or tax they didn't like. They too dance to their own puppet masters.

My thoughts on global warming are this---the overwhelming majority of climatologists and other scientists---97%--- agree that the earth is getting warmer. The polar ice caps, which are not only our largest sources of fresh water, but also reflectors of solar heat, are melting; especially the Arctic (think of it as the earth's thermostat).The oceans are becoming warmer...much warmer...and less salty thanks to melting Arctic. Storms are becoming more frequent and more violent. Fertile lands are becoming more arid. Ocean life is dying. Water shortages are becoming more severe, more frequent and lasting longer. Co2, especially the type which has the chemical signature produced by manufacturing, and is the primary culprit in global warming, has dramatically increased over the last 100 years. Although I believe Man is the main cause of global warming, it really doesn't matter to me if someone else thinks it's all part of a natural cycle. The fact of the matter is that it's real; it's happening now; and we're all at risk.

So, Man-made or cyclical, we need to do whatever we can now to keep it from spiraling out of control. That means cutting CO2 emission anyway we can. For states which depend on coal production, they're going to take a huge economic hit. That's why they need to be preparing now before they become the proverbial buggy makers in the horseless carriage age (yes, I appreciate the irony of that analogy). Those states need to invest heavily in alternative income producing sources sooner rather than later. The auto industry needs to be given an ultimatum---produce exclusively vehicles with low to no CO2 emissions along with a non-moveable "drop dead" date which carries a stiff fine for each day missed. Other countries already have widely available and low emission mass transit (such as Iceland, whose mass transit vehicles run on hydrogen fuel cells. Their only emission is water vapor), so why don't we? The same goes for any industry which pumps CO2 into the air. Stiff financial penalties for any industry which fails to comply. Activists too can participate by bring pressure on corporations not just by protesting and bring attention to non-compliant companies, but by also becoming stockholders and speaking out at stockholder meetings. Meanwhile, the US needs to make alternative energy a national security issue. After all, we've been talking about it since Jimmy Carter and the original oil embargo in the mid '70's.

Smaller countries such as Germany get a substantial amount of their energy--27%-- from alternative energy sources, principally solar and wind. We have almost 1/3 of the country which would be ideal for solar energy production. We have more than ample offshore areas which would be excellent for energy producing windmills, yet we generate only 13% of our energy needs through alternative energy sources. Solar panels could be required for all new resident and commercial projects; planting green gardens on buildings and high rise tops to help adsorb CO2 emission. Planting of more CO2 absorbing trees and developing better means of conservation. Encouraging more home gardens, rain water conservation, and "buy local" projects in order to cut back oil and gas consumption as well as vehicle emissions.

No, the US can't do this alone, but it doesn't have too. There are already dozens of nations engaged in some form of CO2 reduction. A few countries, like China, aren't. Economic and political pressure needs to be applied to those refusing to comply. If we fail to act, and soon, we will be facing not just more deadly storms, rising water, or hotter temperatures, but an increase in brownouts or blackouts, higher prices for gas, oil and electricity. Food and water prices will skyrocket to the point where even basic commodities are unaffordable for the average family, and I wouldn't rule out food shortages or water rationing, which are already happening in some parts of the world. And let's not forget that the increased temperatures melting the polar ice caps are also killing off some species, and thawing areas frozen over for tens of thousands of years, releasing dormant and potentially deadly bacteria from its hibernation, as well as an increase in insect infestations (and who needs more spiders, flies, or mosquitoes?).

Now if these aren't reason enough, remember that global warming is of key concern to Millennials. After all, it will be their generation more so than ours how will be impacted the most. Once again, the party or individual that best embraces this will be the party which will succeed. At present, the Left may have the advantage since they accept global warming as the problem it is. Left on their own devises, they will gladly over regulate and tax. However, on the Right, they are heavily populated by the religious Right. I would assume they would embrace a biblical stewardship of the earth and demand changes in current environmental policies. The same would hold true for most other religions too. As for me, conserving the environment couldn't be any more conservative an ideal since it protects the planet, the air, the water, the animals and humanity while at the same encourages innovation for safer and longer lasting energy sources (besides, how much safer or longer lasting can you get than the sun and wind?).

Topics as diverse as these are sacred cows to those who oppose or resist change. Change isn't easy to embrace, especially when it affects our moralistic or economic self interest. However, all things change and evolve. It's a fact of nature. Those that do not adapt will wither and die. Be it an individual, a nation, or a world. That too is a fact of nature. We must adjust our perceptions of what it means to be a family just as must examine the environmental footprint that we leave, individually and as society.

Why the fight over same-sex marriage is over
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/10/why-the-political-fight-over-same-sex-marriage-is-over-in-1-chart/


5 Reasons Millennials Are Going To Save The World
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/05/millennials-save-the-world_n_4174079.html


NRDC and Global Warming
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/


Iceland: 100% renewables example in modern era
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/iceland-a-100-renewables-example-in-the-modern-era-56428



Iceland phasing out fossil fuels for clean energy
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/18/driving.iceland/index.html?iref=newssearch


Germany Sets New Record
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/


Climate Hot Map
http://www.climatehotmap.org/


NOAA & Global Warming
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php