17 Year-old Girls are now Adults According to the FDA.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/22/plan.b.age/index.html

The Honorable U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York today ruled that the FDA must make the "morning after" drug (Plan B or Levonorgestrel) available as an over-the-counter medication to17 year-old girls.

In making this decision, the judge determined that the FDA had failed to follow it's own guidelines and rules with respect to this drug and the intention to make it an OTC drug for women 18-years of age or older.

While I can understand how the judge came to the conclusion concerning the enforcement of FDA rule consistency, I completely fail to understand how the judge can be so blind as to the enormous moral and social implications that this decision will result in.

Essentially, what the U.S. District Court has done is make it significantly easier for a child, who is the responsibility of a legal parent-guardian, to engage in illicit sexual activity, which is clearly considered a "mature" or "adult" act and to hide this activity from her parents. In other words, by order of the courts, U.S. parents are yet one more step removed from being able to legally supervise or monitor the behavior of their legal wards.

In his opinion, Judge Korman cited that since the FDA had research that concluded that a 17 year-old can use "Plan B" without danger of serious side effects, and in fact the FDA had solicited an application from the drug's manufacturer to apply for a permit to sell the drug OTC to 17 year-olds, then the FDA's current rules with regard of the availability of "Plan B" to 17 year-old girls was "inconsistent" with it's own findings. This is certainly technically correct.

But technicalities are only one side of this issue. What about the social, moral and cultural implications?

Essentially, within the narrow scope of his ruling, the Honorable Judge Korman has essentially made the 17 year-old independent of her parent's or legal guardian's wishes concerning her sexual behavior by making it possible for her to buy "morning after" pills without their consent or knowledge.

Doesn't this make the 17 year-old an adult? Isn't the decision to perform the sexual act and accept the risk all the consequences thereof primarily an adult decision? Doesn't this relieve the parents of their responsibility of their wayward child in this regard? And if so, why do we continue to employ a legal double standard? How come a 12 year old child has to pay adult prices to go see a movie at the theater but cannot drive a car? How come a 16 year old child can be trusted with driving a 3,000 thousand pound car but not smoke a cigarette? How come an 18 year old can be trusted to serve the United States armed services but they can't enjoy an alcoholic beverage? How is it that a judge can permit a 17 year old to buy "morning after" pills because she is having sex but she cannot enter into a legal and binding contract?

If the government isn't going to allow me to be responsible for raising my child, and requiring society to help me to keep my child accountable (like pharmacists who provide birth-control to minors), then please please please allow my child to become an adult at 17 or 16 and be done with it.

(1) http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf

Right-wing Radical Threat Assessment

The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) released a 9-page assessment yesterday that included disgruntled former military personnel as a potential for "homegrown terrorism" (ala Timothy McVeigh), especially in light of the sweeping changes in American society and politics and the ascension of a non-white to the Presidency of the United States.

I will not deny that like any other human institution there are people who currently where the military uniform that are capable of performing unspeakable acts of violence against the very people they were sworn to protect. People like Timothy McVeigh, or Lee Harvey Oswald. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of service personnel are people who see the United States as it currently exists as something worth preserving, worth dying for. Without any facts to back me up (because I really have NOT done the research) I would still opine that the very nature of the kind of person that would perform military service makes them far less likely, even with the very specialised training that some of them receive, to perpetrate an act of violence against their own people. The very thought of somebody who is willing to put themselves between their nation and war's desolation then returning home to do damage to the very thing that they risked all for seems pretty far-fetched to me.

As an illustration, look at the video evidence of the confrontation at the Berkely USMC Officer Selection Station between radical leftist organizations like Code Pink and pro-American civilians and military personnel. The leftists were far more likely to be provocative and use abusive language to express their opinions. Also, the acts of vandalism that took place during the pro-USMC rally at Berkely city hall were all by persons that were there to oppose the rally.

Based on this very small, but typical incident, I would assess that while the special training received by certain segments of the military give them a capability to perform domestic violence, I would also include in that assessment that those same individuals are, by their very nature, less likely to do so.

While I am NOT a fan of Dr. Michael Savage or his talk show, he got it right when he said that the DHS is basically saying that they are concerned about people who are concerned about "illegal immigration, the increasing power of the Federal government, gun grabs, abortion and the loss of U.S. national sovereignty. In other words, anyone who is worried about our borders, language or culture is now on 'Big Sis' ' watch-list."

However, I would definitely agree that if the current administration continues to move the nation left towards socialism or smiley-face facism that then the current administration would have a just concern of how the large conservative population (roughly 50% of us) will react. Which simply means that the current administration would do well to not take us very far down that path.

Liberals Don't Understand the Tea Parties.

I am a conservative right-wing political junky. I listen to news radio during the day while I work. I watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News in the evenings and during my lunch break. I scan websites like DrudgeReport, DailyKOS, DemocracyNow!, FoxNews.com while I'm waiting for test results.

And with the exception of Fox News nearly every news source I've listened to for the last four days are blasting the Tea Parties (tax revolts) that have been organized all over the United States today. Except for Fox, they all say that these "conservatives" are unfairly protesting Democratic spending initiatives while having ignored massive increases in Federal spending that occurred during the hated "W"'s administration.

As an example, on CNN's website the following statements were made:
"Liberal tea party critics aren't buying it. They call the protests "Astroturf," saying they aren't real grassroots events, but are organized by old-fashioned Republican Party bosses."
Sorry, I'm not buying it. The Republican party couldn't organize itself out of a wet paper bag right now, it's in such a sad state. This is truly a grass-roots effort that started with CNBC's Rick Santelli ranting about government spending and transferring wealth to people and businesses that made bad decisions. Go to 912project.com if you don't believe me.

"The White House has plans to counter the tea party message with an event to remind Americans that the president cut taxes in the stimulus package."
Yes, but the President is certainly taking advantage of this situation to push a HUGE social agenda. I actually agree that temporarily that the government is going to have spend tax dollars in order to keep our economy from falling apart, but what he is doing is instituting HUGE legacy social programs that will continue to exist long after this crisis is over. Most fiscal conservatives are against this.

"In remarks in Washington on Wednesday, Obama said he'd been true to campaign promises to lessen the tax burden on most Americans."
To repeat, LESSENING the tax burden is a side-show element of the tea-parties. We are protesting indiscriminate and completely unaccountable government spending.

At least for myself, I acknowledge that a certain level of taxation is necessary to allow government to perform it's necessary functions. But I look at TARP, ARAP, and the Federal Budget proposal for 2009 and what I don't see is a significant investment in our infrastructure. Roads, bridges and dams are all falling apart and there is not nearly enough money for these VERY necessary and Constitutionally mandated government functions. But we seem to have plenty of money allocated to redesign our health care system.

Rasmussen Poll: Democrats Prefer Socialism

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism

Never in my life have I said this. Until now. The American Experiment is over. And it has failed. It has failed.

Nearly 1 out of every 2 American adults now feel that Socialism is better than Capitalism as a means to prosperity.

I am only somewhat assuaged that people that are affiliated with the Republican party, a party that pretends to be conservative are 11 times more likely to prefer Capitalism.

"There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism."

Rugged individualism is apparently on life support in this nation. A capitalistic society requires a citizenry that is willing to take risks, is willing to fail, is willing to learn from failure and take responsibility for failure. For from failure comes the knowledge and wisdom to adapt, overcome and in doing so become a winner.

But apparently, 47% of us want the government to tell them what they will do in life, how they will do it, take half or more of our pay and then give it back to us with social education programs, social healthcare programs, social welfare programs, government housing programs and government-sponsored and governed retirement programs. Because somehow the American people have come to the conclusion that they want a nanny state where Uncle Sam will provide for them from cradle to grave.

OK. So point out which great socialist nation has produced more billionaires and millionaires, produced more medical miracles, produced more food per capita, created greater scientific achievement than the United States? China? Over 1.5 billion of her people live in rural squalor. Russia? Home of the greatest nuclear accident in history. Both countries have ruling elites that live in opulence and luxury while the laboring classes live in tenements and flats. How about Venezuela? Ok, maybe not. How about France? Oh yeah, their socialist system is about to go completely bankrupt because they have more people taking out of the system than are paying into it. Great Britain? Their health care system is so poor for routine medical care that many Britons fly to the U.S. to get their medical needs addressed.

If you look at any nation in the world as a whole and compare that nation to the U.S., you will still not ever find a single example where there are greater opportunities for success than here.

But the current generation of wimpy crybabies wants to suckle at the the government's tit.

I'd love to move somewhere else, because the current generations of American's sickens and disgusts me. Unfortunately, as bad as it is here, it's still not worse than living anywhere else. Even more unfortunately, I do not believe that this will always be so.

President Obama's Bowing to King of Saudi Arabia.

Oh for crying out loud!

There are times when I think American protocol is arrogant and misshapen and the newshounds that watch for each faux-pas, misstep are just a bunch of sadistic vultures.

During the G20 summit last week, President Obama made an apparent "bow" to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. NOT, as the Drudge Report put it: "White House Denies Bow to Saudi Prince".

First, the act of bowing to someone can be interpreted to mean several things. It can be the act of deference when performed by a person who is clearly inferior to another. It can also be used by equals to show respect and friendship, similar to the usage of a handshake or a salute.

I know that U.S. protocol has established that no American President should bow to royalty. I think that this particular position is pernicious and arrogant.

Had President Obama bowed to a subordinate member of the Saudi Royal family or any other Saudi who is not the head of the state, I would join many of the people who are decrying this act. However, King Abdullah is the undisputed ruler of Saudi Arabia. Much more importantly, the act of clasping hands or otherwise touching the person of a high position or title is very alien to many cultures outside of Western Europe.

Therefore, for two head of states to bow to one another while in a multi-cultural setting is totally appropriate and shows sensitivity to their culture. The same act of President Obama bowing to King Abdullah were he visiting the White House in Washington would probably be inappropriate, because in that setting he would be expected to be sensitive to our culture. When in Rome....

Something else does bother me though. It would appear that King Abdullah either did not believe that President Obama actually bowed to him ( which would support the White House' claim that President Obama did not bow to him ) or King Abdullah did believe he received a gesture of respect from one head of state to another and failed to reciprocate by returning the bow. If this is true, then it is King Abdullah who has failed to measure up to protocol by failing to recognize the respect given him by a head of state of a foreign nation, an equal.

Stolen Cessna Invades US, is Allowed to Land and Pilot Escapes.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/06/stolen.plane/index.html

At the time that I write this blog entry, this story is only a couple of hours old. A stolen Cessna 172, flying from Candian airspace is allowed to enter U.S. airspace. The flight is tracked by NORAD and is also escorted by fighter jets of the United States Air Force.

Here's the part that blows my mind. After flying in U.S. airspace for several hours, the pilot fails to acknowledge any radio transmissions from NORAD or the escorting fighters. While the pilot behaved in a manner that indicates that he was aware that the escorting fighters were present, he failed to acknowledge any of the visual signals or cues from the escorts. Finally, with experts estimating that he only had another 30 minutes of fuel left, he landed his aircraft in Southern Missouri near the town of Ellsinore.

We are being told that this individual is a naturalized Candian citizen and that he is an "unhappy individual". Nonetheless, even though he landed the aircraft safely near Highway 60 and has escaped on foot, his identity is being withheld.

Why is his identity being withheld? In my opinion, this person poses a significant threat to U.S. national security. I believe this because my government has not given me enough information to believe otherwise. While there is no question that this person, if he shows up in Ellsinore, will stick out like a sore thumb ("You ain't from around here, aintcha?") the fact is that depending on what his "mission" may be, he may have enough provisions on him to survive for a week or more. Long enough to either potentially evade capture and if possible, link up with others in this country that are sympathetic to him.

In my opinion, this aircraft should have been forced down. I realize that I do not have all of the facts in this case, but I know this: That the U.S. should adopt an iron-clad policy that any aircraft entering U.S. airspace without authorization that fails to obey the instructions of escorting U.S. Air Force aircraft will be shot down. We do not need any more buildings destroyed by foreign invaders flying stolen airplanes, be they 110 story towers of steel and glass, or alocal city hall, grocery store or school building.