Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

Wellnow, that's the thing, isn't it. We're all of us here free right now, or we wouldn't be wasting time on online forums. None of us were vaguely Muslim-looking people that were, say, taking pictures of a reservoir on vacation, got arrested, and are now looking at deportation or Guantanamo. If there's anything that fascism has taught us (not that Bush is yet a fascist), it is those that are still relatively free must speak out for those that are not.And on another note, pregnancy is not easy. Why would you carry a baby to term only to kill it at the last possible minute unless there was a compelling medical reason? Most states have "No questions asked" laws regarding unwanted live babies dropped off at hospitals. Almost all third trimester abortions are for medical reasons - the mother's health is actually jeopardized by a third-trimester abortion, so, lacking concrete figures, I would really have to doubt that most partial-birth abortions were the result of an arbitrarily chosen abortion date.

Oh, yeah, I have lost the freedom to walk through my city without having to submit to arbitrary security checkpoints and blockades. Especially since any terrorist that really wanted to bring New York down could bring a coordinated attack on the bridges and tunnels. A couple of years after that happens, New York is going to be the equivalent of Witchita, KS.

I would actually like to see a system like there is in Britain. Only two parties are really viable, but the others hold a fair amount of sway (unlike, say, the Libertarian or Green parties in this country). There is much less of a reason for these small types of parties to be co-opted by corporate interests, because it is very rare that people in these parties would be in decision-making positions. However, these small parties hold enough sway that they can introduce issues into political races that would not otherwise be taken seriously by the ruling parties.At this point, I would be happy if either the Libertarian or Green party found themselves in the position of small party rather than ineffectually useless party. Despite the continual vitriol in the media, there is not that much of a difference between the two parties. I would really like to see some actual progress in this country, and that is not happening in our current system.The Libertarian party might have endorsed tax cuts that were not solely biased toward the rich (ie, a lowering of property taxes or an end to the insanely high tax breaks for corporations). The Green party might have made it possible, through virtue of an alliance, for there actually to be an anti-war Democratic candidate. Whatever your politics (and I am sure that they are different than mine), you must agree that under the current system, the modus operandi is 'Business as usual.' Even if you are looking for a family-and religion-friendly political system, despite the lip service paid to this, the current federal government does not operate this way.This message has been edited by zyncod, 05-26-2005 01:22 AM

Many people who are not Catholic and even atheist send their children to Catholic school - the religious content in most Catholic schools is minimal and some parents may agree with the more disciplinarian approach to education. I know three or four Episcopilians (sp?) that went to Catholic school.And as far as government-sponsored forums, like public airwaves and, yes, high school commencements, the government is free to apply whatever arbitrary standards it chooses. Women are free to walk around in public without their tops on, but let a nipple make a two-second appearance on the airwaves, and that's a million-dollar fine from the FCC. Similarly, at a commencement, do you really think that a commencement speech that consisted of many repetitions of the word 'fuck' would be allowed? It's not exactly an example of the highest level of discourse (then again, neither is Celine Dion), but any difference between the profanity-laden speech and the song is essentially arbitrary.That being said, the government does have the responsibility not to use these admittedly arbitrary standards not to silence serious viewpoints - it should not be in the business of taking programs critical of the government off the air. I will admit tacitly that Christian viewpoints in general are being mostly excluded from schools. I do not think that is a problem - free speech laws were designed to protect minority viewpoints and Christianity is in no way a minority viewpoint.However, you have every right in the world to lobby against encroaching secularism in schools. But to take the example of a song at a commencement as an example of this secularism is silly. Commencements are as sanitized as the school board can get them. Christians delegitimize their own arguments by using these types of things - like no Christmas songs at holiday pageants. Who really cares if you don't hear 'Silent Night' for the umpteenth million time? For the same reason that not many people really care if the FCC is encroaching on Howard Stern's 'free speech' rights, not many people really care if Celine Dion (who gets too much airplay as it is) or Silent Night is not sung in public schools. All I'm saying is - pick your battles. Wait until schools do something like cancel extracurricular prayer circles. Until then, you're just the boy who cried 'wolf.'