WOW! is right

I guess it's good for the Center to have the Right think there is no fire in the belly of a centrist. It's precisely that sort of thinking that makes it easy to dismiss the radical right as being out of touch. The extra millions of individuals who registerd to vote- and who actually voted- were not being milquetoast about it.

The enthusiasm that Hillary and Obama met on the campaign trail was not apathety. What is different, and I believe difficult, for the Right to realize is that being enthusiastic is not necessarily the same as being angry or venomous on the campaign trail.

Oh sure, I'll scream out "fascist" or whatever in a personal discussion or blog, but you won't hear phrases like "Kill Him!" at most Democratic/centrist rallies.. Do not confuse quiet reserve with lack of fire.

This country is in fact a rather Conservative nation. The center leans more to the Right than it does to the Left. How? Well, in comparing ourselves to the rest of the "Developed" world, we don't have general Socialism as a national goal. Our political parties are truly tame compared to the radical parties on the Left in Europe. Our relatively mild swings between Democrats & Republicans do not bring down entire governments. In fact, even the occasional "powerful" course correction- FDR, Kennedy, Reagan and Obama do not really alter the structure and function of government too radically, only it's desired outcomes.

TORT REFORM- Can someone explain- and I'm totally serious here- why it is that the same "Free Marketers" who chastise any attempt by the government to limit salaries or profits, suddenly jump to their feet and cheer at "tort" reform? Why shouldn't lawyers be permitted to make whatever living their entrepreneurial spirit allows them to? Certainly, I pay more for gasoline because the top 6 CEO's in the oil companies make almost $2 billion a year. Certainly, jobs are lost because Wal-Mart and others out-source their labor to countries using children or prisoners, and pay them slave wages.

So seriously, why is tort reform considered All-American when it is diametrically opposed to the concepts of a free market system? Wouldn't Capitalism and competition guide one to find the best lawyer for the most reasonable fee? Isn't this the whole excuse behind talking about privatizing Social Security or Health Insurance?

ABORTION-Finally, Steve says, "The problem of abortion has always been "when" should it occur. During the first trimester, the second, or the third? How about within three months after birth, or six months, or any time up to age 18 years? Where is the bright line and who should choose it?"

I agree with you. Unfortunately the radical right and the Catholic Church do not. Personally, I am not oposed to the death penalty, especially now that DNA can help clearly determine the guilty or innocent.

Both the radical right and the Pro-choice radical left have boxed themselves into ideologies that defy common sense or compassion. I'm pro-choice, but not in the sense that abortion is ok whenever the woman chooses to have one. Scientific viability has changed dramatically in the past ten years, and has outstripped our civic morality. My cousin had a 1lb. 5oz. baby girl who is now 3 years old and perfectly healthy. What is viable? Little Hailey is viable.

Even a few weeks is now viable. But a fertilized egg- two cells is not viable. It is potentiality. Consider that these groups don't even permit birth CONTROL let alone an overnight RU486 option, and you see the hypocrisy from the right. Talk about late term, whatever that means now, and you get ideologues on the left screaming, "Women's Rights!"

No clear answer for me. BUT it is irrefutable that since 1968's Humanae Vitae, the Church (including right wing Protestants ) has simply outlawed, outlawed completely, the use of any contraception- including that in the intimacy of a legally married heterosexual couple. The Church INCONTROVERTIBLY states that the mother's life should be taken to save the embryo. So what does that mean in our Brave New World? It means that a mother's life must be taken if it puts a 1lb 5oz. baby fetus at risk.

Unfortunately Steve, there is no when with these ideologues. You and I can rationalize and say, "Oh, come on, common sense says that you wouldn't sacrifice a mother's life for a two week old fetus." But that's not what they say. Their dogmas are not open to human interpretation. Period.

It's sad that both sides are so intransigent, but it is the reality of our culture.

Rob