9:45 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

The Speech You'll Never Hear (Alas!)



Okay, there are things in this piece I don't agree with. But one paragraph has my
complete agreement:

Likewise, I am asking for a review by our new Consitutional Council of
all gun control laws currently on the books, and for suggestions on how
laws that violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment as so clearly
enunciated by the Founders may be vacated or reversed. Gun control laws are
based on fear and ignorance, and plainly conflict with the intent of the
Founders as clearly expressed in their writings on the subject. They
reflect the aforementioned mistrust of the competence and judgement of
the American people, in the face of the fact that the overwhelming
majority of gun owners are responsible and competent. The federal government
estimates that there are 65 million gun owners in the US, and with so
many guns in private hands, the average American is still more than
seven times as likely to die from poisoning, ten times more likely to die
from a fall, and thirty-one times more likely to die in an automobile
accident than from an accident involving firearms. This speaks volumes
about the necessity to trust in the American citizen's ability to own
guns and use them responsibly. Gun control has also proven to be
singularly ineffective in its stated purpose of reducing crime. The anti-2nd
Amendment hysteria must stop, and my administration will work diligently
to see that it does.


Go read the whole thing
|W|P|89538671|W|P||W|P|9:40 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Read, and Learn



Peeking behind the curtain
|W|P|89538463|W|P||W|P|9:35 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

My Main Advice To Everyone



Be proactive in your life, and in the problems you face!
|W|P|89538258|W|P||W|P|9:34 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Drug Prescription Plans



*Sigh*

Everyone agrees that drugs are getting more expensive. Everyone is talking about how seniors and poor cannot afford the drugs they need. We have horror stories of people eating cat food to afford their drugs, transplant anti-rejection drugs not taken because states don't help, etc.

Some people say we need more coverage for seniors particuarly. No matter how much it costs. Some people blame it on the evil, greedy drug companies, and want us to legally restrict profits that drug companies can make. THAT would be killing the goose that layed the golden egg. Think about it, and you'll see what I mean. I'll spell it out if I have to, but I trust my readers are intelligent enough...

Drugs have gotten more expensive for three reasons, as I see it.

1) Drug companies are allowed to advertise. This means that they now budget for advertising, which can't be considered cheap. I won't say it takes away from profits, though, because advertising results in more profits by increasing demand. And that's exactly the problem. Patients ask for drugs by name instead of taking cheap generics. Patients go in and ask for drugs that they aren't even sure they need. Doctors, afraid of malpractice lawsuits, tend to try to give patients what they ask for, as long as it isn't actually dangerous. So the drugs people get are more expensive than they have to be. Drug costs started spiraling about the same time advertising was allowed. Make it illegal again.

2) Sometimes generics aren't available. Okay, a drug company that puts billions into research should have a limited monopoly for a short amount of time. But about the same time advertising was made legal, drug companies started figuring out less-than-honorable ways to extend their drug patents, and also started going to greater lengths to enforce those patents. And congress helped them. Why? Well, since advertising can increase demand, a successful drug that can be milked for profit far longer is worth that much more. Solution: start enforcing patents and clean up the laws to prevent illicit practices that serve the companies, not the public.

This will mean that a pharmaceutical company's best chance for profit is again to develop new, effective drugs, not just in guarding patents and increasing demand through marketing.

3) Our seniors (and others) are over-medicated. My evidence of this is the number of people who have been killed or hospitalized from overdoses or mistakes in medication uses (because they have so many they cannot keep them straight). It's time to face the fact that aging is not a disease, it is a natural process. Drugs should be taken to preserve life or manage pain. They should not be used to eliminate discomfort, as they are used now. The advantages of alternative medicine, like massage, acupuncture, etc, should be investigated and used. Many drugs have adverse side effects that alternative practices do not, and often more drugs are prescribed to treat the side effects of the original drug. Unnecessary medication wastes money for everyone. Put a stop to it.

So seniors, get involved with your medication. Ask your doctor if they are really necessary. Ask your doctor when/under what circumstances you can stop. Talk to your HMO or medicare about alternative therapies being covered. (Example: music provides an amazing amount of pain control...patients who listened to music before surgery needed 1/3 less anesthesia!).
|W|P|89538238|W|P||W|P|9:12 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Another Reason Why Your Healthcare is So Expensive



(Hint: it's not greedy doctors or HMOs)
Michelle Malkin writes in her column:

New York medical providers have peformed dozens of organ-transplant
operations - and even sex-change operations-- to illegal aliens. The costs
of such "charity" care typically are shifted to insured patients,
resulting in higher health insurance premiums.

The whole thing can be found here
or here,
and is worth reading.
|W|P|89537319|W|P||W|P|9:09 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

More of what I believe



1) In an overwhelming majority of cases, the situation adults find themselves in is of there own making or choosing. Although it does happen, very rarely do people have no choice in what to do in response to a problem, very rarely is there no hope, no way to improve.

2) Education is the only way to success in life. It doesn't have to be formal education (and, in fact, probably shouldn't be). So go read. Evaluate what you read. Discuss it with others, both those who agree and those who disagree. Read history first, because you must understand what has happened to make predictions about what will happen. Study a foreign language, for it will open your mind to the inadequacies of the word versus the concept you are trying to communicate. Study one foreign nation closely, becuase then you can relate new information about other new countries/cultures/people to the differences/similarities between the US and the nation you decided to study.

3) The combination of representative democracy and liberty and capitalism in the United States has created the best life for the greatest number of people ever before in history. We have more leisure and more luxury, and have spread this wealth, to more of the world than ever possible. Consider the telephone, the computer, commercial satellites, the internet, television, the entertainment industry, sanitation. We are world leaders in all these areas and more. We don't hide information, we share it. And the people of the world know the United States, for all of its problems, is still the best place in the world for opportunity, because they still flock here more than anywhere else.

4) Whatever is punished, reduces. Taxes are a form of punishment. Those two statements would predict that higher tax rates stifle upward mobility, opportunity, and incentive to make your greatest effort. Reality has confirmed this. As such, every effort should be made to keep taxation as low as possible.

5) I emphatically do not believe that "the best government is the one that governs least". I am not libertarian. I do believe, however, that the government is most effective when it restricts itself to issues that state and local governements and individuals cannot do for themselves: nationwide policy on some issues (like abortion and gun control); foreign policy; national defense; much of crime and punishment; disputes among states.
5a) What government does not do well is welfare, education, housing, subsidies, civic projects, etc. These are best done by local and state governments, because no one solution can work nationwide. In fact, solving the problem at the lowest level is usually the most effective, with the least waste. Welfare should be done at the community level, and paid for at the community level. Charities and religious organizations and civic organizations waste the least money and are the most effective, because they can be flexibile to individual needs and make judgements on individual situations. So note: I'm not saying to cut off welfare, I'm not saying people don't need to be fed or clothed or housed. Just that the federal government is THE WORST possible method to resolving the problems communities face.
5b) Starvation, poverty, and homelessness are community problems, not national problems.

6) Actions have consequences. Think about the consequences before you act. Most federal programs should be replaced with efforts to educate people about the consequences of their choices.

7) As a society, the United States does emphasize rights far too much and responsibilities far too little.

8) Everyone has problems. I may not be able to imagine the problems a black female growing up in the innercity faces. On the other hand, neither does she understand the problems I face. You don't understand the problems either of us face. If I cannot judge the difficulty she faces, neither can you decide the difficulties I face are not as great or greater. Therefore, we are left with choices and consequences. When faced with adversity, what choices did the individual make? On the basis of what information? Judge people's situations from that perspective, and solutions and required actions become clearer.

9) Anyone can go to school. With financial aid, grants, distance learning, federal funds, welfare, and flexible class scheduling, there is no situation in which someone cannot get their GED within 2 years or a Associate's degree within 6 years. Unless they simply choose not to try. So, there's no excuse for not getting the formal education necessary to get a salary several thousand dollars above the poverty line. It may take you awhile, but you have no excuse for not always moving in that direction.

|W|P|89537195|W|P||W|P|8:41 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

I'm disturbed



Yeah, thought you'd like that easy set-up.

No, what I'm disturbed about is:

How liberals have so little confidence in their professed goals/beliefs/logic. How can I say this? Well, I believe in the people of the United States. I feel confident that if all views are put forth by intelligent, reasonable people, enough people will be convinced of the correct action that good will be done. Sure, sometimes we, as a people, make mistakes. But we've corrected our mistakes (like slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights, the Prohibition) if given enough time. Enough people want to do the right thing, if you work at it, you will persuade enough people to agree to get your idea done.
So if enough people don't agree with what I say, maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe I need to rethink how I present it.
But it would never occur to me to subvert the democratic process to try and achieve my goal. But that's exactly what judicial activism (a main weapon of liberals) does. It uses 'interpretation' to write laws without giving the people any chance at all to provide any input or guidance.
Another main weapon of liberals is attempting to pressure opponents into silence. I can't tell you how many times I've been told I don't have a right to an opinion on affirmative action because I'm a white male, or abortion because I'm male, or homosexuality because I'm heterosexual. I've been accused, on the basis of scant sentences, of having no compassion, of having lost my humanity, of being close-minded. All because I didn't agree with what my opponent said.
I've never used those techniques, and I have to say anyone who does has no confidence in their own view. Democracy in America has a better track record of eliminating poverty, racism, sexism, abuse, torture, and injustice than any other nation or system. Do we still have a long way to go? Sure, but we're getting there faster than any place else. So I trust Americans. I trust people. I trust the great unwashed masses, if you will. My belief system allows for selfish people, stupid people, racist people, people who hate, brainwashed people, because enough people with sense and compassion and intelligence have almost always done the right thing, in time. In contrast, no group of professional politicians in any governmental system can ever do much more than look out for their own interests.
So if you disagree with me, bring proof. Failing that, bring evidence. Can't? Then at least bring logic/reason. I haven't found many liberals that can actually persuade much because most display an apalling lack of knowledge regarding history and math. Go read, and evaluate what you've read, and discuss. You'll be better for it, and much more persuasive.

I'll gladly pit my logic and reason, my premises and evidence leading to my conclusion, against anyone's. I won't convince many. But I won't use emotionally-charged labels to try and silence/discredit your position, either. I will ask you for evidence, and I will ask you to stand behind your own thoughts and words. If you don't appreciate that, there's nothing I can do for you...
|W|P|89536095|W|P||W|P|6:38 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Nomenclature Change



Since people have pointed out that the use of chemical weapons probably wouldn't result in mass casualties (unless the user got really, really lucky), biological warfare is nearly as uncertain, and people insist on using the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" improperly, can we please start calling nuclear, chem, and bio weapons "Weapons of Terror"?
|W|P|89497630|W|P||W|P|6:23 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

My Dream



Someday I'm going to be browsing on the web. I'm going to follow some link from Instapundit or someone, and I'm going to find someone new whose thoughts and writing impress me...and then I'm going to glance at their blogroll and see Brainfertilizer there.

Hey, it could happen.
|W|P|89496916|W|P||W|P|6:19 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Dunno



From all the posts I've read on the way liberals/socialists would like things to be, I'm convinced that you (socialists) want to ignore the way we achieved prosperity and freedom and spend that same prosperity and freedom trying out your theories. Meaning, you criticize the way we use the environment, conduct foreign policy, our tax rates, our govt budget priorities, and would replace them with well-meaning socialist/liberal mechanisms. That completely ignores the fact that you have a computer and an internet and phone lines, and electricity, and time and freedom of speech to actually post these things where other people can see it PRECISELY BECAUSE of all the mechanisms you criticize. No socialist nation developed computers or the internet. No socialist nation ever got the majority of its population enough wealth to own a telephone and television, much less internet, cable TV, and air conditioning. Or a car.

I also noticed some people claim to want anarchy. It seems to me that the people who do want more freedom for their own actions without realizing what that implies about other people's actions. Do you realize that if you ever achieved it, anyone could kill or torture your kids, and the ONLY thing stopping them would be your willingness and ability to use force. I can only assume that a desire for anarchy is really only a desire for everyone else to be constrained with rules while you yourself are freed from constraint.

Because there are people in the world who are slaves to their appetities, and those who thirst for power. And these people will use violence to get what they want. A society is able to restrain these negative impulses only to the extent that it is willing to use violence as a deterrent or punishment.

I'd like to hear arguments against all this. If you do, promise I won't belittle or dismiss your thought process.
|W|P|89496726|W|P||W|P|5:59 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Analogy



In my opinion, it's not a good idea to join a gang. There's a small but distinct minority of teens who do, though, and they have many arguments. They say that being in a gang isn't harmful, that it's just as valid as joining the YMCA. They point out that people who aren't in gangs murder and steal and terrorize the populace as well. They say that they were born to be in a gang, that they were made for it (but they still go out and pressure other kids to join the gang). Some have attempted to get their gangs registered as social organizations so they can get money from the government and charities.
But from my position, gangs are dangerous. While not every gang member is actually violent or murderous, there are far too many violent acts perpetrated by gangs for me to agree that it's a valid choice in life. There are significant subcultures of hate, violence, robbery, and rape among gangs. I couldn't tell you what the rates actually are, but every study I've seen indicates at far greater levels than in the population at large. That doesn't mean there aren't people that do that sort of thing on their own, and it's just as wrong when anyone does it...but in this post I'm trying to point out that gangs are not a good thing, no matter what anyone says. Sure, you can argue that it provides a sense of belonging, that they have the choice to do what they want, that what they do in the privacy of their own neighborhood is no one else's business. Maybe it's not. I am concerned on two levels. I don't want my son or daughter (or anyone!) to get involved with gangs, because I'm sure they would get hurt. But I also want to attempt to make the gangmembers realize how what they do hurts themselves and others. Sure, they won't listen. I'll be called a racist. I'll be told I don't understand. I'll be called inhumane, a jerk, an idiot. I'll be completely ignored, my arguments will be distorted. But I won't stop saying what I believe to be true.
I have been approached by gangmembers several times. Despite the fact that I'm clearly not a gangmember, several have attempted to get me to join them. I encountered one once when I was pretty lonely and vulnerable. He was the nicest guy you can imagine. At that time, I actually considered joining. But I thought about it, and decided not to. It wasn't the direction I wanted to go in my life. The more I learn, the more glad I am I didn't take that step. This guy, this really nice guy, is probably dead right now. He probably engaged in some of the behaviors I've already talked about. He probably would have wanted me to, as well. Had I made that choice, I wouldn't have the happy, satisfying relationship I have with my wife, my two wonderful kids wouldn't exist. And I would probably be dead, too. I really cared for him, and I pray God has mercy on his soul.
Does anyone need this spelled out, or is it clear enough?
|W|P|89495941|W|P||W|P|5:31 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

From the Dept of Irony




Implants ban on under-18s
By Maxine Frith, Health Correspondent, Evening Standard
19 February 2003
Girls under 18 could be banned from having breast implant surgery
following a vote by Euro MPs.
Tough new regulations on cosmetic surgery have been backed by the
European Parliament and could come into force by the end of next year. They
would ban women under 18 from undergoing cosmetic surgery such as
breast enhancement, amid concerns that teenagers are having the operations
while still going through puberty.


WHAT? Isn't Europe much more sophisticated about issues like this than
the US? It's their body, after all, isn't it???
So let me get this straight: a 14-year-old girl should be able
to get an abortion without her parents even being notified afterward,
but shouldn't be allowed cosmetic surgery under any normal
circumstances? Priorities, priorities...
|W|P|89401549|W|P||W|P|5:24 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Poverty In America



Some excerpts from a great article
by Walter Williams

If you're a poor adult in America, for the most part, it's all your
fault.

According to the definition the U.S. Bureau of Census uses, a family of
four with an income over $18,244 is not poor.

Is poverty pre-ordained? I think not. A married couple, both working
full time at a minimum-wage job that pays $5.15 per hour, would earn an
annual income of $20,600.

Let's look at poverty in female-headed households. Divorce and death of
the father might explain a small part of why there're so many
female-headed households. But the bulk of it is explained by people having
children and not getting married in the first place.

Having children is not an act of God. It's not like you're walking down
the street and pregnancy strikes you; children are a result of a
conscious decision. For the most part, female-headed households are the
result of short-sighted, self-destructive behavior of one or two people.

Most middle-class Americans, including black Americans, are no more
than one, two or three generations out of poverty. How did they manage
this feat; what's the secret for avoiding poverty?

Finish high school and take a job, any kind of a job.


Go read the whole thing.
|W|P|89401222|W|P||W|P|5:24 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

I wanted to quote excerpts, but...



...the whole thing is too good. If you hate the slant of the piece, at
least pay attention to the facts, okay?


Michelle Malkin

Thank goodness for conservative college student journalists. They
bravely blow the whistle on the cultural rot plaguing the nation's
institutions of higher learning. And they alert the public to the ugly truth
about campus hedonism, which is downplayed by clueless administrators,
admissions flacks, and faculty enablers.

Just how dangerously out of control has the campus social environment
become? A recent report by student journalists Seth R. Norman and Ashley
Rudmann of the California Patriot, the
conservative journal at the University of California-Berkeley, provides
some hair-raising answers.

According to Norman and Rudmann, anonymous gay sex seekers are using a
university-sponsored Web site to locate partners for high-risk trysts
in Berkeley campus bathrooms. Partitions between the stalls have been
vandalized with so-called "glory holes" that are used "to peer into the
stall next door to see if it is occupied by a man interested in sex. If
it is, the student will cross into the stall and engage with him
sexually, usually without any mutual acquaintance."

The reporters note that as many as 18 glory holes, which are used for
much worse than peering, have been drilled across the Berkeley campus,
including at men's bathrooms in two major lecture halls.

The UC Berkeley Queer Alliance/Queer Resource Center publishes the
school-sponsored web site where glory hole locations and homosexual sex
solicitations are posted. ("Find that special someone (or three)!" entices
an ad, illustrated with three young naked men embracing, on the site.)
The group receives free office space and over $9,000 a year from the
student government.

Among the messages left on the Queer Resource Center online forum
board:


The maps to the Cal Holes are the best map you can get this term. Full
of fun and yum yum and good time.. we have the best holes in the UC
system.!!

By mistake I have been in like Stephens (Hall) last year and there were
these two hot guys... in there. I joined. It was hot!

I have heard so much about the wheeler hole? is there one? and if it is
can an undergrad tell me about this? - if the G Hole is real I want to
join other wheeler boys their this semester!!


You might think that homosexual activists, always first in line to
clamor for government funds to preach "safe sex," would be most alarmed at
this perilous and promiscuous trend. This is a public health hazard.
(As with bathhouse enthusiasts, anonymous thrill-seekers in public
restrooms are not likely to use protection against sexually transmitted
diseases). This is also a public safety threat to other students unknowingly
using these marked bathrooms for what they were intended, while
lecherous strangers ogle nearby.

Campus police told the publication that the situation was much worse
than portrayed.

School officials have an obligation to clean up this mess. The
university's Student Code of Conduct prohibits "conduct which threatens or
endangers the health or safety of any person." UC policy also forbids the
damage or misuse of university property. But the California Patriot's
publisher, Robb McFadden, told me last week that "to our knowledge, the
University has taken no further action to stop this problem."

In typical Berkeley fashion, homosexuals on campus see the bathroom
bacchanalia as a sacred celebration of Free Speech and Diversity. John
Mendoza, co-chair of the UC Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex
(what?) Association, enthused that the Queer Resource Center message
board is "a great place for people to express themselves."

"It's a great portal to campus events," he said.

Anyone who challenges this behavior is, naturally, labeled an
intolerant homosexual-basher. The California Patriot was the target of an
anonymous satirical "hit piece" snidely accusing the lead reporter on the
bathroom story of being gay. Student Justin Wong of the "Queer Council"
complained that the article was the result of a "witch hunt." And one
news editor was told by a Berkeley administration official that Norman and
Rudmann's article was "homophobic."

A deviant practice common at filthy truck stops has infected the
hallowed ivory tower, and all the campus Left can do is blame the messenger
and play the victim card? Welcome to Sodom & Gomorrah University: "...
and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." -
Genesis 19:28


|W|P|89401180|W|P||W|P|5:20 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Indeed



Gotta say I agree with this sentiment:

I'm not a big one for pointless displays of solidarity. I don't display
little ribbon icons on this web site, and its background doesn't turn
black for a day. I don't drive with my headlights on for the day they
say I'm supposed to. (Actually, on my car they can't be turned off, but
that's beside the point.) I didn't buy a patriotic bumper sticker in
October of 2001. These kinds of things are examples of how we've become
addicted to the idea that doing something simple and easy and painless
can solve a problem. As an engineer I know better: really tough problems
almost always cost a lot to fix. The only real point to these kinds of
simple gestures is that they give the people involved a warm feeling of
having somehow participated. But it's a cop out; it's a way of salving
your own conscience for not really making a sacrifice when one is
needed.


The whole thing can be found here
|W|P|89401009|W|P||W|P|5:19 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

From the mouths of diplomats...



"We certainly have seen the results of appeasement. It's much easier to
tolerate a dictator when he's dictating over somebody else's life and
not your own." - Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga

(link via : USS Clueless
|W|P|89400951|W|P||W|P|5:18 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Message To the Anti-War Activists



From Juan Gato's Bucket O' Rants

[It's] rather hard to take you seriously when you refuse to acknowledge that your position requires that people continue to suffer and die and live trapped lives. It's something that must be faced when one chooses to be anti-war, just like those who favor military action must be accept that some innocent people will die. You cannot ignore consequences of your position just to make yourself feel better.


|W|P|89400892|W|P||W|P|6:13 AM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Comment Functionality Restored!



Just click on the little hotlink there at the bottom of each post to express your outrage and fury in an appropriate manner.
|W|P|89369668|W|P||W|P|5:37 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Bill Clinton



My friend Dan came through first with a good thing Bill Clinton did:

[Clinton] did stop the tail end of genocide in Bosnia. This would have required moral courage or else lying to the American people, because ruling by opinion poll clearly indicated Americans only supported intervention if we would leave very soon thereafter, and anyone who actually knew anything about it knew that was impossible. Lacking the first resource, Bill used his superabundance of the second, and flat-out said it would take under 12 months, thus enabling American protection to be offered to hopeless Bosnian civilian victims.


That seems pretty persuasive to me. Thanks. Anyone else?
|W|P|89341953|W|P||W|P|5:32 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

Want Some Hard Evidence?



For those of you who think I'm sort of anti-gay barbarian:


Tell young and reckless that HIV can be a killer



Palm Beach Post Editorial
Monday, February 17, 2003
New research suggests that after a decade of relative containment, the AIDS epidemic may be growing again in the United States. Worse, public health officials worry that human behavior is to blame.

Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's AIDS division, says that the incidence of new HIV infections diagnosed among gay men climbed 14 percent between 1999 and 2001, compared with the 8 percent increase among the overall U.S. population. In Palm Beach County, the number of new infections went up 44 percent last year, a higher rate of increase than in Broward (30 percent) and Miami-Dade (18 percent.)

Studies have identified two behavioral factors. One is the use of Internet chat rooms that promote high-risk sexual encounters. Another is the high likelihood that newly released prisoners will have unprotected sex. An Internet survey of nearly 3,000 gay men, most of them under 35 and college-educated, found that 84 percent had met sex partners online and that they were more likely to have unprotected sex than men who met partners elsewhere. The suggestion is that the Internet has replaced the bathhouse as a conduit for spreading infection.

As for ex-inmates, the University of North Carolina surveyed 86 HIV-infected men and women and found that one-quarter had sex without condoms with regular partners within a month of their release. Dr. David Wohl, head of the study, put it this way: "Prisons in many ways facilitate the transmission of HIV. Our experience is that when people get out of prison, there are two things they want to do, and one of them is get a Big Mac."

The Bush administration's commendable proposal to spend billions more than previously budgeted to fight AIDS in Africa and elsewhere would seem to have little chance of success without a significant campaign to influence behavior. Money devoted only to abstinence promotion won't be any more effective in Nigeria than in New Jersey. The administration should change its emphasis from persistent warnings about the shortcomings of condoms to acknowledgment of the critical role they can play in preventing the spread of disease.

Health officials hope the nation's 1 percent increase last year in diagnosed AIDS cases is a short-term aberration. Unfortunately, reckless behavior seems here to stay. Government never can cure that, but the right kind of education could help.



Please keep in mind that I'm condemning the action, not the actor. I don't think God just decided to make homosexuality a sin to confound anyone, I think He knew that some people would be taken in by the attraction of the forbidden fruit, and knew that the action would be damaging and warned us against it.

I think it informative that Jesus took the 10 commandments and restated them simply: Love your God as yourself, and love your neighbor as yourself. How can you be considered to love your neighbor if you declare the person evil and unworthy of life or love? On the other hand, how can you be considered to love your neighbor if you do not point out the evil of their actions.

All people sin. One of the main differences between me and homosexuals is I'm not trying to claim that losing my temper with my children is a valid alternative lifestyle choice.

I endeavor to ensure no one labors in ignorance of their actions. I try to point out the consequences of their actions. Feel free to help me see the consequences of mine.

'nuff said.
|W|P|89341663|W|P||W|P|12:03 PM|W|P|Nathan|W|P|

For the Ladies



From Chinese Women Today

How do you show your man you really love him? We conducted an informal survey and asked participants to tell us what they wish their woman would do to express her love. Here's what they told us:

Appreciate the things I do rather than focussing on the things I don't do.
Be my greatest supporter.
Take more initiative to set up special times together.
Accept my weaknesses and love me unconditionally.
Allow me some time to myself.
Express appreciation when I help you.
Be spontaneous with hugs, kisses and saying "I love you."
Give me a chance to drop my briefcase, say "hi" and relax before you give me your concerns and problems.
Cook my favourite meal
Greet me with a smile
Make a big deal about my birthday.
Gently correct me in private rather than contradicting me in front of others.
Just listen to me without assuming what I'm thinking or about to say. Don't interrupt.
|W|P|89198506|W|P||W|P|