Have you actually read the SC opinion? The balance is between a woman's right to privacy and the state interest in protecting human life. The tipping point is based on the viability of the fetus. Basically, the court found that if the fetus can live outside the womb, then the state interest outweighs the woman's right.

In 1973, the point at which a normal fetus was deemed viable was at the beginning of the third trimester. In 2008, younger fetuses are viable. We have the technology. Plenty of second trimester preemies have survived and are busily languishing in the public education system today.

In other words, the magic date for viability has moved. As such, the balance stated in the SC court opinion had been upset.

So, based on your reading of the SC opinion, is the balance still perfect? Why do you think so?

In doing a little more research, I found that my doubting the Roe v. Wade balance is itself pretty old news. The SC addressed it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) wherein the strict trimester formula was overturned. As such, I have to exit the discussion until I've read and cogitated some more.

We all get that kevin james is a tool. Amongst his talking points was another falsity that I often have to argue with my republican friends.

"Clinton didn't do anything!" That is a pure line of shit.

Operation Infinite Reach was the 1998 operation in which Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with cruise missiles. He also hit a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. One of the missiles hit Pakistan. Over on the right, we made fun of Clinton for attacking Pakistan, a fertilizer factory, and some camals.

I believe that was the response to the embassy bombings.

In 1996, the US, along with some allies, brought enough political pressure to bear that Bin Laden was had to leave Sudan - he moved to Afghanistan.

The US had current plans, drafted under Clinton, for attacking Afghanistan. Not the normal the normal type of attack plans, but ones where allies in the region had already been contacted. Many conspiracy types refer to those contacts to support a claim that we were planning to attack before 911 and that 911 was a trick to garner support. Clinton held back because he didn't want to saddle a new president with a war.

For those who think Saddam Hussein was so bad that someone had to do something, Clinton contained him with bombs and bullets. We regularly had reports of Iraqi anti-aircraft sites getting bombed. The Iraqi air force was grounded because it was shot at when airborne.

There's a chance that the father did exactly what he intended with the money. As Cary wisely put it, he met his needs. Perhaps he met those needs with his eyes wide open. Consider his options at that age.

When you get old enough, you start thinking about how you will die. If you're observant, you notice that your money - all of it - is going to end up going to some combination of managed care, nursing homes, and hospitals. You don't get government assistance until your money and assets are depleted.

Once your assets are gone, the level of care doesn't significantly change. You can't wither away in your own home because it's gone, but so what. Your home was empty anyway.

So,why not spend it all and then hit the dole? It is a far nicer path to the same place.

When I'm 65, if I have enough money, no wife, and can still get an erection then I fully intend to lose it to a "gold digger". I won't put her in the will though. I want to be worth more to her while alive. My heirs will have to settle for living the same way after I'm gone as they did before.

The father might not be excited about doing the "right" things to get that money back because he's following his plan. The reason he doesn't tell LW is because he doesn't think LW will get it.

That's another thing that happens with age. You quit trying to explain yourself to people who can't understand. It just riles them up. It's easier to wait until they sputter out, then change the subject. Unless, of course, it is fun to rile that particular one up....

I really enjoy this series of postings by Anna. Please, keep them coming.

The article mentions that the people say "Better, but we don't have these things...".

The format of the answer could well be a cultural thing that isn't very common in the U.S. The basic rule is to always, always, always say something positive first and only then suggest improvements. What many of us hear is: "Things are almost OK and thank you for the soccer ball. The streets are a mess. Someone died of dysentery." The message that was intended was: "We're dying! We're sick because we have to walk through shit!".

People tend to speak with utmost respect and subtlety when facing armed men who can "disappear" folks at will. The Iraqis have had that situation for a very long time.