Today, Scott Peterson was arrested for the murders of his wife, Laci Peters on and their unborn child. No problem with that if, in fact, he is guilty of the crime. I am content to allow twelve good men and women to make that judgement in a properly constituted trial in a court of law. However I do have a problem with the obvious double standard which exists in this area. I say this while painfully aware that under current abortion law which is based on Roe v. Wade which has been the law of this land for years, if it had been Laci Peterson who had wanted to end the pregnancy with an abortion, she could have received the procedure immediately upon request with absolutely no problem. Without even notifying her husband of her decision. The feminist groups have effectively seen to that. There would have been no problem under current law. The writer is one of those who considers fetal viability to be the standard, which would make the question, "Were this fetus to be born today, would it be capable of surviving outside of the womb with minimal life support?" understanding that even in normal births some minimal level of assistance might be required by the baby once outside the womb, including oxygen or something like that. However, wouldn't it be interesting to see these two cases submitted to and taken up simultaneously by the U.S. Supreme Court (It is suggested that the trial be conducted with the pro-life position being the plaintiff and the right to self-determination/abortion position as the defendant) for their consideration resulting in a decision which would undeniably be of Solomonic proportions. The sole question would be, 'which is it going to be?'. If the fact that a fetus, in utero, dying because its mother is murdered, makes the crime a double murder as it does under California law, then how can one allow abortion except for the life ( which would make it a matter of self-defense), or physical health of the mother. Admittedly the writer is severely conflicted in the case of rape although any abortive action which would be taken under such circumstances, normally, would be taken almost immediately, long before any viable fetus would be present.

II. TO WHICH THE OBVIOUS PROUD RESPONSE IS AND/OR SHOULD BE: THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

In print, in electronic media, in private conversations and public speeches by any number of politically liberal individuals, (who never seem to be able to come up with a solution but rather expend their time criticizing, fault finding, and whining) Mr. George W. Bush (43), like his father George Herbert Walker Bush before him, to an even greater extent, has been called a 'cowboy' multitudinous times. Especially by the left and those in other countries who are jealous because they are not capable of doing and being. They the complainers have proven themselves to be incompetent to achieve even half of what this Country has become since 9/11. I hope that he takes the appelation as a compliment. I remember the 'cowboys' of my youth. Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Hopalong Cassidy, Sky King, Will Rogers, Randolph Scott, and lest we forget, The Lone Ranger and John Wayne. Each of these men were icons. Yes, all of them were playing a role in the movies or at a personal appearance somewhere but, because they felt a duty to be role models to the succeeding generation, they conducted themselves appropriately in their own personal lives as well. They were our role models. We learned through their example. They taught us that there is an immutable standard of conduct. There are unbending non-negotiable standards of conduct and morality. That individual duty and responsibility were at least as, if not more, important than one's individual rights.(and perhaps some time boys and girls, if you be have yourselves, I shall relate to you the incident in Sheboygan, Wisconsin when the circus came to town and I kidnapped Sky King.)

The alternative view which is obviously held by many, both individuals and countries, is that they can do whatever fits the occasion. The term used is "situation ethics" which to the mind of the author is no ethics at all, rather the antithesis of ethics. For example, we currently are just mopping up a mess in the Middle East. We are dealing with individuals, international political entities, and countries who and which one day vote for sanctions and corrective actions against a country in which 'life' could and can only be/have been described as a living hell, and the next sell the government of that country anything it wants, sanctions be damned!!!

Yes, Mr. Bush you have proven yourself to be a cowboy. A fact of which you can and should be justifiably proud.

Perhaps this is why those who hate Mr. Bush and all that for which he stands regard and refer to him thusly. My reading, listening, and viewing all give me just one conclusion. Remembering that the Roman Empire fell from with in and; remembering that the United States is the first democratic society to survive in its original form with its original founding charter and documents for more than two hundred years. Perhaps it is just old fogy-ism, but what seemingly presents itself daily is a total abandonment of any consideration of duty or decency, and we can totally forget about ever witnessing any respect or responsibility for practically anything from a great percentage of the population. All that most concern themselves with are RIGHTS. And then the 'crime' is compounded by the holding that because one has abandoned any vestige of rules, then they have 'matured', 'grown up', somehow bec ome 'more socially acceptable'. We might take a peek at the conduct of his predecessor which will not be paraded here, except to note that whatever that might have been, it was carried on in the White House, the Seat of Government for the most powerful nation on earth. The least we might have expected is that he take it elsewhere, like a hotel. That, in my mind, would have made it a 'private and personal matter beyond the scope of Presidential duty, making it somewhat less disgraceful. But then, to many, I am just being picky and vicious, and immature by caring enough to point this out, aren't I?

III. JUST WHAT IS THEIR ACTUAL PROBLEM

As noted in previous writings, there is a certain portion of the population who are spending their lives totally focused on attempting to insure, through Court actions and other measures, to destroy/erase any and all ties bet ween the State and (any even whisper of a vestige of a wisp of a link) the Church, any church, any religious identification. Any reference to a Higher Power, a standard of conduct, responsibility.......

We now have evidence that there are those who are obviously absolutely and especially paranoid about that separation of Church and State in the Constitution. Certain groups (read 'usual suspects') have brought suit in Federal Court which is intended to force the appropriate officials of the city of Corpus Christi, Texas to change that city's name on the grounds that the name violates the 'Constitutional Doctrine of The Separation of Church and State'. For those who are of the opinion that this is of no importance. Those who consider this to be a minor inconvenience. Might we all take note of the fact that there are literally hundreds of cities in our 50 states, from Sacramento, California to St. Augustine, Florida (not to mention Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Angelo, even Phoenix which could be construed as the identity of an ancient religious symbol)) in between which would be affected.

IV. WHAT OF THE BEAM IN YOUR OWN EYE

The French are complaining. They are fretful because the unofficial boycott of French products, publications, and companies by U.S. citizens is beginning to have an effect on that Country's income. Reports put that decrease in our purchasing at up to 40%. As noted, this is an unofficial boycott which merely affects their pocketbook. Let's take a trip and see what is going on over in France.

1. Businesses which are there which are United States based are being burned.

2. The graves of the brave U.S. soldiers who died in the process of liberating France (cf: D-Day and its aftermath) are being desecrated with spray paint or damaged. Yes, Virginia, irrespective of the bleatings of French officials and their sympathizers here, there IS a difference between a boycott and acts of vandalism. It is a LARGE DIFFERENCE. No Virginia, the boycott and the vandalism are NOT COMMENSURATE.

Opinion Piece # 25 in progress

Home / List of Topics