Since the word "liberal" has been poisoned by conservatives, and since traditional liberalism seems to be losing its old political power, many have adopted the word "progressive" to mean a supporter of the whole slate of left causes: racial equality, sexual equality, protection for the working man and woman, access to education, and a non-insane foreign policy. This is a different meaning of the word than a century ago. Teddy Roosevelt was a "progressive." He was for a "progressive" Republicanism, for the little man, for things like the FDA, against things like child labor. On the other hand, he was an unabashed imperialist, inheriting McKinley's war in the Phillipines but pursuing it doggedly; stealing Panama from Colombia, and so on. So the word "progressive" can change over time, and also, calling yourself a progressive or a conservative or a Christian is no insurance against doing something wrong. Margaret Sanger was a brave reformer, making birth control available to all women, who unfortunately was also a eugenicist. But you can cite a long list of British Lords, eminent scientists and the like, and a number of Southern preachers, who also adopted this revolting "cause." Look up "eugenicists" in Wikipedia, and you get a long, long list, with little American flags, little Canadian flags, little British and Nazi flags too. It seems to have been a disease of the Anglo-Americans in particular, and largely an expression of racial superstitions and white man panic more generally. You can argue, in fact, that the British aristocracy (You remember that? It was kind of like a system of ugly celebrities.) was a primitive attempt to control genetics.

And, finally, controlling genetics in some sense is not all bad. There have been programs to test for Tay-Sachs disease and others, with the mother given the option of abortion if the problem gene is found. It is brutal, but it is having considerable success with some diseases. Okay, that may be too much for a lot of people, but how about if genetic therapies were available to cure problems like this before the child was born? Most people would take that, I think.

Farhad, I don't think you can live in the era of the "Bell Curve," and the adoption of an aristocratic world view by many conservatives -- including Thomas Sowell -- to think that the problem is with "progressives." For progressives, eugenics is a warning to not get swept up by every trendy idea.

Would have an entirely different meaning, as in, into the end or tail. Once again, Hal says, "into the breach," while we take one in the breeches.

Perhaps Prince Hal belongs in the breach, used as fill for the breach in the levee.

Never trust a man who stops drinking, Falstaff.

Next this guy will wearing a dress like that annoying little spaniel who appeared on all the talk shows in a beard and a dress prattling on about "men's liberation."

What this ignorant bunch is calling for is man's right to be a dishonorable cad. Look, he had sex. Even with a condom, one of the problems you have to admit is, she might get pregnant. In the old days, a shotgun marriage was called for. Well, maybe not now, but the economic burden is still there, Mr. Playboy. In no way does a woman's right not to bring the child to term equate to men having a "choice" of whether or not to pay for their children. They don't have to marry the girl, fine. That's the end of their choice. If the child is born, they're responsible for it. Period. Fathers support the child, whether they intended the girl to get pregnant or not. Any other argument is equivalent to this: if you trick me into it, or if you want to have an abortion, or do something mean to me, boohoo, I'm off the hook! Your child will be an economic bastard, in the true sense of the word. Nope. Not in my United States of Manhood.

By the way, I'm a man. A long time ago, I married the girl. It didn't work out perfectly, but at least I tried to be a man. What are these guys? They make me want to take out my shotgun and march them up to city hall. Worthless masturbating fools.