Ms. Rockwell,

I'm a guy, so from a legal perspective, I really don't "have standing" on this issue. It seems to me that any decisions on abortion should be made by women, including legislation. I know that's not the way things work, but it is my wish.

I do have a little suggestion should worst come to worst. Spend some money on a national ad campaign that I think would be much appreciated by today's young women. It's kind of raunchy, but not completely crude, and it speaks DIRECTLY to the issue at hand. Print, electronic, and billboard ads would be something like:

"If you're not SURE you want the guy's baby, don't screw him. Get a girl friend."

And bumper stickers: "If you're not SURE...." Lots of bumper stickers.

Andrew,

Dude, you should have proofed this post. To criticize Ernst & Young as being "callow" (meaning self-interestedly mendacious) in the paragraph before you quoted a fellow named Sean Callow had to hurt.

You can be sure he won't be taking YOUR call again. ;-)

Anandakos

Glenn,

Someone may previously have pointed this out, but on point 4 there should be no dispute: the Iraq war and its foreplay have been an imperialistic venture since inception. It was in late 2002, five months before the first bombs fell, that an "anonymous administration source" -- who I recently read was probably Bush's Brain himself -- said to a reporter, "We're an empire now, and so we make our own reality".

They are hoist on their own petard.

P.S. The word "foreplay" was chosen above because the whole enterprise was entered on to "screw" the Democrats in 2004. If there was ever an abuse of power it is embarking on a war of aggression for political gain.

If Congress is not willing to prosecute such a demonstrably "high crime", it should just begin the process of repealing Article II, section 4 of the Constitution now and change the appellation of the chief magistrate to "His Majesty".

Andrew,

You pondered why plummeting prices for class A drugs have not resulted in a great increase in their consumption. I think it's easy to explain: a majority of adult citizens of those countries which do not have capital punishment for drug distribution who have come of age at some time during the past forty years will have come in contact with a source for those drugs at some time. Those who have seriously addictive metabolisms will have experimented and become habituated or dependent on them. The rest can take it or leave it. The level of consumption is where it is less as a result of economic than biological forces.

Price is not really an obstacle, or poor black people would not succumb to crack nor poor whites and chicanos to meth. There seems to be somewhere between five and ten percent of most societies that will find some pathway to forgetfulness, regardless of the risks or economic duress. In the middle ages they age moldy rye and got St. Vitus' dance; during prohibition they drank methanol and went blind. Today they suck crack pipes or shoot meth as they waste away. But most people aren't interested.

Look at the Netherlands. Drugs are essentially deregulated there but the dikes are still standing, the poppies are still growing and the streets and fields are clean and orderly. The "War on Drugs" is just so much sock puppetry put on by cynical people to distract others from the REAL threats to humanity.

By the way, I DO know what I'm talking about. I was there on Haight Street in the Summer of Love, have dropped multiple Owsleys and even STP at all night concerts, smoked opium, snorted coke and heroin a few times, and generally walked right up to the edge for a good long while. What I observed is that a few people spiraled down to full time use of the "body" drugs, but most people were underwhelmed by them and moved on. They are interesting a few times and give the illusion that something is happening, but there's no involvement, no insight.

Ooops. My inner addict must have gotten loose there.