I don't understand why anyone would think this is heavy handed. Is it heavy handed to portray the truth?

We have the largest economy in the world, and we're broke. For decades, foreign laborers have been slaving away to build us dirt cheap stuff and we're still broke. International billionaires have been shoveling trillions into our economy and we're still broke. We overdraw our fiscal coffers every single year and China covers us, and we're still broke.

And look at the claptrap politicians are feeding us. They keep saying, stick together, we're Americans, we're invincible, we'll fight through this.

Really? We aren't fighting through anything unless we change. And not the cotton candy change Obama is talking about. We have to really suck it up and live within or means. We have to tell our leaders to stop borrowing money to finance foreign wars. If our government can't be responsible, Wall Street won't either.

That's why this cartoon is so spot on. Our country is full of people who are willing to "fight," but they think fighting through tough times means doing things the same old way, just with a little more grit.

This time, grit won't git it, folks. You don't tough your way through alcoholism, you kick it. The way I see it so far, nobody has the stomach to kick anything.

When I watched the presidential debate the other day, I felt a gnawing despondency grow inside me. I knew, as I watched Obama and McCain debate, that the economy would sweep many vital issues under the rug.

Health care reform is dead. All of the scandals that led up to the Iraq War will not be followed up. And there will be no one home to review FISA violations when the next Congress goes into session.

When Congress approved the last FISA bill, they buried the issue forever. But I think that was their intention.

Barak Obama will win the election, but Mr. Constitutional Law Professor will always be too busy to review this matter. And I see no reason why, since the powers Bush took will then be his, that he would voluntarily choose to give them up. Like all do-gooders, Obama thinks dangerous powers are safe as long as they are in his own hands.

I don't live in California, so in one sense this isn't my fight. But . . . .

On the gay marriage ban: This amendment exists because judges keep giving gays the right to marry. Such a decision lies with the voters, not with the courts. Personally, I don't care if gays want to marry or not, but there are some legal/social ramifications to legally it. For example, it would mean adoption agencies cannot discriminate against gay couples in any way. Marriage really exists for the protection of women's and children's rights. Since neither applies in a gay union, there is no reason for the state to get involved any further than the protection of property rights, and for the right of gay spouses to participate in medical decisions. Legal marriage is not needed.

The non-existence of gay marriage only bothers people who equate legality with morality. I think they are different. If a gay union is moral, who cares if it has the government's seal of approval?

As for the abortion proposal, as I doctor I have always found it appalling that I cannot give a 15 year old a tetanus shot without parental consent, but an abortion is no problem. The idea that making reproductive matters an exception to consent laws that apply in every other case makes abortion an anomaly in medical care. It should be consistent with the rest.

Just to take an example, a child with sickle cell anemia needs a transfusion, but the mother is a Jehovah's Witness, a religious group that forbids blood transfusions. The mother's will goes, and it is illegal for doctors to transfuse the patient without a court order. So most of the time, doctors get a court order. The point is, if the law applies in this way in life threatening cases, why not in the case of elective abortions?

As anyone knows who looks at these situations, teenagers who get pregnant usually end up ceding most of their parental responsibilities to their parents. I see it all the time. For parents to have zero input into a matter they will probably have to pick up the mess after is completely unfair.

Minors are called minors for a reason. Adolescents do not have mature decision-making skills and should not make the decision to have an abortion without adult supervision. I know sometimes parents are incompetent, but that is what the courts are for. With sickle cell patients, this is done all the time.

Families are dysfunctional, but I have news for you. Legally limiting the ability of parents to supervise their own children is not going to make the situation better. I am frustrated with people who think the state loves children more than parents do.