Tough subject matter to be sure and one ripe with visceral reactions, some based on genuine concern for both the mother and "child" while some seem to be based on the love of finger waving judgement.

For those who consider abortion the first degree murder of a child, I have a question. I have a close family member who years ago had an abortion. I love this family member dearly and there is nothing I would not do for her. Since that time she has married and now has two beautiful children. She is fortunate and blessed to have them and they her. My question is as follows: Considering the fact that she had an abortion when she was 19 years old, should she have been tried and found guilty of first degree murder? If so, should she have received the death penalty? If not, why not? If a murder is a terrible act, how much more awful is it when the victim is a child?

Finally, the notion that God is so vehemently against abortion is interesting to me in that a number of miscarriages occur each year in this country. If God is responsible for every living soul and if abortion is unspeakable, to what should we attribute miscarriages? A miscarriage is, in many ways, an aborted pregnancy. While it is true that a miscarriage is not done by the hands of a mother or the knife of a surgeon, the result is very much the same.

I am not advocating a stance that suggests that abortion on demand is a good thing from a societal or personal standpoint. It can, and does leave emotional scars and there is a fair amount of guilt that some women have reported feeling for many years post-abortion. But if abortion were to be made illegal due to it being murder--then what should the punishment be?

-Drew

The old and now tired mantra of "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" is enough to make me cringe in a way usually reserved only for fingernails on a chalkboard. Some people in this nation are more concerned about trying to figure out how to get the "rich" to pay their share and I can't help but think that if a few more of them spent as much time and energy actually thinking of ways to earn their own money perhaps they would not have the time to spend trying to figure out how to get their hands on the wealth of others.

From the IRS in 2004, the breakdown is pretty clear.

The top 1% of earners pay 37% of the taxes.
The top 5% of earners pay 57% of the taxes
The top 10% of earners pay 68% of the taxes
The top 25% of earners pay 85% of the taxes.

Conversely, the bottom 50% of wage earners in this country pay a whole 3% of federal taxes.

I did not get these numbers from Rush's site or from FOX so I hope I'll not hear all about how these numbers are biased.

What strikes me as interesting is that the top 25% of this nation pays for this nation and yet those who don't pay much at all (the bottom 50% of wage earners) have in their ranks people who feel that it just isn't fair. Currently, I make enough to pay for my way and the way of several others. I am fortunate to have what I have but it was not "given" to me and no amount of ranting about the system being unfair made it any easier.

I don't covet that which I don't have. Barack Obama himself made over 4.1 million bucks last year and is able to send his kids to private school. He is a rich individual and that is fine with me. John McCain is also quite rich--again, good for him--good for them both. A-list Hollywood actors (both liberal and conservative) can make upwards of 20 million dollars per picture. Oprah is rich beyond measure as are a number of other Americans.

I am happy for them all. If they have a skill and work in a profession that allows them to court that type of money then a heartfelt, congratulations is all you'll hear from me.

But this notion that things need to be made "more" equal, that the rich should pay more (when they are already paying far more than their share) is nothing more than class-envy. It is wanting more of what someone doesn't have and not being willing to work hard enough or sacrifice significantly enough to make it happen.

I don't care if wealth "trickles down" as there is no constitutional provision that states that I should have that which I did not earn. I don't want to see hard work and sacrifice begin to be distributed in a way that creates disincentives for people to venture forth in this world and create something special.

Not every rich person out there is an arrogant a-hole. In fact, I know plenty of poor a-holes and a few too many who seem utterly consumed with what everyone else has while failing to consider that perhaps they have it, because they earned it.

I apologize for the pontification but this issue has been on my mind a great deal of late. If people want egalitarianism there are many nations in this world that work to that end. But this Republic is not one of them. Nowhere is such a measure supported and no amount of "it's not fair" mantra type jealousy is going to make it so.

-Drew

Winx,

I do understand what you are saying but having children is a choice and that choice (more than most) carries with it responsibilities. I have chosen to work on my career and forego having a family. I have made that decision and am OK with the result of having done so. As for my being younger when this all happened--well, yes, that is true but it really isn't the point. I have worked hard both while younger and as I've gotten older.

I also want to be clear that I while I agree that it is tough to live on minimum wage, that is sort of part of the point as it relates to working past such wages. Increasing minimum wage is the worst thing we could do (artificially inflating the value of work would simply cause an artificial rise in prices for goods and services, in essence zeroing out any gain) but I hope that people will continue to (regardless of their current circumstances) look for ways to better their lives and conditions.

It is not easy and I recognize that not everyone can become a surgeon or an accountant--but I fear that a lot of people have become very effective sales-personnel. They have sold themselves on the notion and idea that their lot in life is, by some decree, set; and that attempts to better themselves are dreams not worth pursuing. That to me is very, very sad!

-Drew

Look, I'm not going to make a stupid comment based on the notion that women are now treated with perfect equality in the workplace and that there does not still exist an old-boy network in some places. That said, I work along side some incredibly smart and capable women, some are doctors, some ARNPs and some Physician Assistants. At one point in their lives they might have been told that there were glass ceilings they needed to duck to avoid banging their heads on but if they were--they ignored the warnings and went out and accomplished everything they wanted leaving such celings a pile of shattered glass.

I work with too many women who make very good money and are very educated to believe that there is no hope or chance for women today. I have personally promoted many women while at jobs that allowed me those opportunities and have done so based on merit and quality of work.

I think in some ways you've convinced yourself that there is no hope in low paying dead-end jobs and that without a chance for promotion, the prospects are even more frustrating.

That type of reasoning sounds like a pretty good and well insulated way to stay right where you are. If you truly believe that there is no point in working to create a dream then you've given yourself every reason needed to stay right where you are.

-Drew

But Madison, the First Amendment to our Constitution does not guarantee the right to free speech so long as it is balanced. It does prohibit obvious things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater but as it relates to the expression of views (political and otherwise) there should be no limit on how those views are put forth. You have your views and there are a number of people with whom you agree. I have mine and there are people I am more inclined to agree with. The issue I have with the Fairness Doctrine is that it seeks to impose balance of thought. That is completely contrary to the idea of our Republic. As far as news reporting, I agree that we have not been served well but I think it is then incumbent upon us to avoid such news outlets. They are a business and if no one is watching or listening, they will eventually fail.

But to allow the government to regulate the content of airwaves is beyond scary. People have to be allowed to sort out what is true and what is fantasy and what makes anyone think that Government involvement in this situation would lead to "more" fairness?

Again, I want to make clear that while I don't agree with you on much of anything, your views should never be modified or altered to reflect equal time. I would fight (literally if needed) for your right to speak openly about anything you want to however many people you want. I value that freedom more than any other because once that freedom is compromised, it is only a matter of time before others meet the same fate.

-Drew

No--the Fairness Doctrine seeks to "balance" out radio and TV to allow market demand to be altered. We don't need it anymore than we need to count the number of posts here to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing/left-wing posts. I don't agree with you on much, or you with me but we both have a right (so long as we abide by the posted rules) to speak our minds. I don't think we should ever seek to quiet one segment of political thought simply because some don't like it.

-Drew

Well, if the right-wing thinks of them as news then that is an issue for the right wing--but that does not mean that it should be banned. My issue with the Fairness Doctrine is that I want free speech to be preserved for both the right and the left!!

-Drew

Well, it did happen. (I was wrong, he said thrill, not chill.) I'm surprised you have not heard about it as it was pretty well noted. Still, that does not answer the question. Was Chris Matthews comment what one would expect (or should expect) from good non-biased journalism?

Transcript of "Thrill up the leg" by Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

So, Oprah and Jon Stewart are entertainment shows and not media new per se? Well then are Rush, and Hannity (Alan Colmes has a show as well) and all of the other shows on radio. If we are going to say that the litmus test should apply only to "news" shows then fine--no worries but if entertainment is exempt then the Fairness Doctrine cannot touch shows like Larry Elder, or Laura Ingraham, Rush, Hannity or the like. None of those folks are "press" in the traditional sense. The aforementioned shows are entertainment and while I don't listen to Rush or Hannity myself, I support their right to voice whatever it is their listeners are willing to pay for via sponsorship just like I do any and all liberal shows. If people don't want to support liberal talk-entertainment then maybe the product they are selling is not something people are interested in buying. If that's the case then, Oh well--that's life.

"I work for Fox News as a commentator. I say whatever I want. I'm the blonde on the left, figuratively and literally - the one who's usually smiling because it's TV, not the Supreme Court or Congress, and I find civility more effective in any event.

Besides, why shouldn't I be smiling? Prior to working for Fox, I worked for ABC and NBC, spent a lot of time at CNN, and almost ended up at CBS. I worked for a bunch of local stations in Los Angeles and had a talk-radio show at KABC for six years. In other words, I'm fortunate enough to have been around, and Fox News is the best place I've ever worked." --SUSAN ESTRICH

-Drew

Madison--just so we are clear--you want CNN to have as many conservatives as liberals, and MSNBC as well? I get that you think that FOX is a monster but I want to make sure that you want ALL of the news reports to give equal time?

-Drew

So, when Chris Matthews said (acting as a reporter and not a pundit) that Barack Obama's speech gave him a chill down his leg--that was good solid non-biased news? Give me a break, Winx.

-Drew

Says you! If you don't like what FOX has to say, then turn the channel. No one is making you watch that channel and last I checked, Fox had a number of liberals on-air. But even that is not the point. MSNBC, CNN and the like are fine with me because that is how they wish to operate. I don't watch any one channel exclusively and I never will.

Why should any station be accountable to you personally? Madison puts up an icon here with Bush's face transparently joined with Hitler's and he has a right to do so! I don't think he's right but I would be mortified to live in a country where he was not allowed to simply because someone felt it "unfair."

You have a choice when it comes to TV, Radio and the like. Find one you like and stop worrying about FOX.

By the way--when Opera refused to allow equal time for McCain/Palin, many of you here were supportive of her decision. So, under the Fairness Doctrine, would it be fair that she had Obama on for an hour and McCain on for a second hour? I don't think so at all. It's her show and she should be able to run it her way. My posts here are consistent with that so why the change now?

-Drew

I want to be clear that my disdain for the Fairness Doctrine (aka, "The nobody likes what I'm saying so I'll cry until I get my chance to say it Doctrine) does not mean that I'm for slander on the air. If someone is slandered on air, a person has the right to bring suit against them for damages if they can prove that the statements were slanderous.

But if we adopt the Fairness Doctrine then National Public Radio needs to share equal time with conservatives, MSNBC, CNN, Air America, all of them need to make sure it is 50/50 down the line.

But most here will not agree with that. Madison, your support of the doctrine is especially troubling in that you seem to love to have the freedom to rip GWB at will. I think you SHOULD have the right and I don't believe anyone should take it away. But what if this site decided that for every liberal comment, there had to be a conservative one to balance it? What if that was the case on MTV or on any other channel?

It's ridiculous and I have not heard a thoughtful argument for it. Let people who own media companies have their say. If I you owned a company I might not want to support it but I would walk through fire to see to it that your right to say and act as you wanted (as it relates to free speech) was protected. That includes the rights for liberal talk.

This doctrine isn't about right v. left--this doctrine is about being told that the government has the right to dole out opinions to you in a fair and balanced way. That is ridiculous in every way.

-Drew

Oh please.....if a radio station wants to put conservative talk radio on 24/7 and they aren't asking the taxpayers to pay for it (like NPR) then what business is it of the government to regulate that? Whether you are a liberal or a conservative how is that not a limitation of free speech? If there is a market for liberal talk radio then people will support it through advertisers and fund it privately. If there isn't, then they won't.

I cannot even believe that we live in a nation where the "Fairness Doctrine" is being given intellectual consideration.

And I would be equally opposed to this if it were liberal talk radio that was so highly rated and they wanted to make it "fair" by forcing conservative talk to be present.

Oh, and what is next? Should we make sure that all TV shows are equally mixed with conservative preaching family value shows? And what about the movies? Should we institute that in Hollywood as well?

Come on--this is a ridiculous proposal. Liberal talk radio has not done well (yet they have done well where it really matters in that they have the Executive and both Legislative branches of Govt.) so can we please let this go. It's government mandating speech.

-Drew

You know, what gets me more than the issue of Welfare is the way that people sometimes view those "minimum wage, dead-end jobs." If a person begins a job with that mindset, that a job is "dead end" then there is a good chance that is exactly how they'll both view it and work it--a self-fulfilling prophesy of sorts. I understand people feeling that way to some point but there are other ways of looking at it.

At 13 I had a paper route and earned about 75 bucks a month. It was an early look at responsibility and making sure that people got their paper, six days a week, on time and dry. (Hey, I live in WA, wet papers made people cranky.)

I had a route through most of Jr. High and High School because it allowed me a bit of spending money while at the same time allowing me enough time to study and be a part of some of the school programs I really loved.

After high school I could not afford to go to college so I started working at a fast food place the day after I graduated. My job: Show up at 4:00 AM and clean six grease fryers, pick up the parking lot, empty trash and clean bathrooms. The pay: $3.10 per hour.

But the best thing about working there was that it was VERY big motivator for me not to want to stay. I knew that I could only go so far there and so I worked my A** off to get some experience and then move on. But again, the work ethic it instilled was good for me. Being told what to do is never fun--it's even less fun when at 17 I knew everything and had a "better" way of doing things. Surprisingly, they did not care nor did they want to hear my ideas. They wanted me to clean the fryers.

Through the years after that (I stayed in fast food for about two years total) I started working in landscaping (hard work but more $$ and more experience) and eventually was able to go to school--at least part-time.

Moving from there, I started working at a resort in Olympic National Park and started as a housekeeper. Nine years later, I was the General Manager and Human Resource director. That could have been a dead-end job but I made a goal to stay with it until I had advanced.

I work now for a hospital where I am a director of Emergency Preparedness and work in Environmental Safety and Sanitation. I enjoy my work and it pays decently. I am fortunate and I am grateful that I have today the things and experiences that I have.

But when asked which job has taught me the most, I always go back to the minimum wage, dead-end job of working with grease fryers. It was a huge motivator and it has helped me to remember 1. I can always do that type of work when and if I need to and 2. That I never wanted to settle, to just get by.

My point here is not to malign those on Welfare or to spotlight my own accomplishments. Compared to some, my accomplishments are very modest. No, my point was to point out that low-paying dead-end jobs don't always HAVE to be dead-end. They can (and often do) serve to help people move on to better things. They can motivate and inspire and if nothing else, they can pay some bills while one is looking for an preparing for something better.

-Drew

You saw through Palin? This happened after many conversations with her, right? I mean, you didn't rely on the media to form your opinions about her, right? The gaffes attributed to her were no good and I don't think she was qualified to lead the nation but neither do I feel that way about our President-elect. I do agree that people looked past race when voting for President-elect Obama but my point was that a McCain win would not have meant an ingrained racism--only perhaps that people did not agree with his politics. I've been after this issue because I did not vote for President-elect Obama and someone on another site stupidly attributed that to some form of deep seated racism. I yawned and then let it go because there is an axiom that suggests that one cannot disprove a negative. I will and have always voted for the person (regardless of gender/race) with whom I most agree.

It's really that simple.

-Drew

Tina,

You state:

"OK, so, here you are saying that you do not share the emotion of "hope" in the politicians. Then go on to say, the fellow citizens, whatever profession they have chosen, you have hope in them. You believe in them and would want to "hope" you could count on them.

Well, isn't our president one of us? Isn't he, too, a citizen, just like we are?"

You believe the president is "just like us?" Have you ever had 600 million dollars to spend on a campaign or owed back as many favors as are required in order to offer to return the favor? I submit that the president is far from "just like us."

The point here is that if someone wants to have hope in politicians it should, at the very least, be on the local level. Why not your state representative or your governor? They actually do more and pass measures that affect your day-to-day life in much more significant ways then the Chief Executive.

A president is one man serving a nation of over 300 million. Odds alone dictate that to him you are little more than a number, a part of a census figure.

But more to the point, what has President-elect Obama done to deserve a "hope" in him. My hope in fellow citizens is developed after having had some experience with them, some reason to be faithful to their cause or business. A man who four days ago was elected is someone I feel I need to give a chance but hope? I think the verdict is very much out on that--at least for now.

I don't understand political idol worship. They were supposed to be the people's servants--answerable to the people and accountable to us. Today they are accountable to the NY Times and the Washington Post but not to the electorate.

I guess to have hope I have to first develop a relationship...and it is tough to do that when only one of 300 million plus.

Far be it from me to rain on everyone's "Hope" inspired exhilaration or to dampen what is without a doubt one of the most meaningful events in our nation, but there are a few things I think worth mentioning about this election.

There can be no doubt now that America has experienced a proud moment. Electing an American of color to the presidency is not without powerful significance and provides a moment of great national reflection. It has been said however that President-elect Obama's victory on Tuesday night was an expression of how far we've come and a sign that perhaps the pitch of national racism has finally died down (if not out.)

Perhaps, but there is a non-sequitur inherent in such thinking. To believe that President-elect Obama was elected because of a lessening of racism is easy enough to say and feel because he won. The question that lingers however is what would it have meant had he lost? Would an Obama loss have indicated entrenched racism or would it have been explained away using alternative but slightly less accepted reasons?

If race truly does not matter as it pertains to electing people to high office then while I think it worth pointing out the cultural, social, and historical significance of President-elect Obama's victory, what truly matters should not be left out: That his being elected was because the majority of people in this nation felt that he was the best person to hold office--not in spite of his race and not because of it, but simply because of the "content of his character."

Personally, I hope for that day, for the day when we simply don't consider race when deciding who we feel best qualified to run the nation (or any other institution open for election.)

As for the sense of hope people feel, this is an emotion I simply do not share as it relates to politicians, regardless of party or mission. I have hope in my family, in my faith and in those people for whom I care. I have hope in random acts of kindness, both shown and received and I have hope for our nation, not because of government but in spite of government.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address said the following:

"I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. With experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this the greatest of all, I have learnt to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Without pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose preeminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country's love and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts."

Jefferson grasped that it was much easier to enter office "loved" than to leave office being offered the same good will. Hope in politicians is dangerous in that even the best politician is human first, a political operative second.

I believe hope should be reserve not for our leaders but for the system of government our leaders are charged with upholding. Our Republic can and has endured many hardships. It has thwarted some influences better than others but we should never allow ourselves to forget the role of elected officials is to preserve and protect that which our country was built upon. This is not a plea for religion or secularism, not for idol worship or unfounded disdain of elected leaders. It is simply a reminder that we are the government, we have no King and we don't answer to our leaders--they are charged with answering to us. Therefore, I find hope in the people of this nation, the people who on a daily basis commit themselves to bettering your life and mine. No matter the profession they have chosen or the amount of money that they earn, the hope I find is in counting on them, believing in them and trusting my fellow citizen to remember some wise words by the same man I quoted above: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."

Sorry for the book--I wish everyone a great weekend.

-Drew

I think to some extent it's because we have moved past many forms of racism that we now have President-elect Obama. That stated, I don't know that it was all about moving past anything as much (and I hope this is true) that it had to do with the feelings people had about his ability to do the job and to lead us in the right direction. To that end, do you mean to imply that had McCain been elected instead that you would have felt the nation still gripped by a sort of racism or could content of message been the point regardless of race?

-Drew

Right, Winx because as our Constitution clearly states, it is important that everyone "like us." That was Neville Chamberlain's approach too and it wor---wait, nope, it didn't work all that well.