Flawed

I have no illusions about the "greatness" of this country. We've done great things, and we've done terrible things. There's never been a "perfect" time in our history, and there never will be; we are, after all, simply human. But I tell you, I want MY country back, and by MY country, I mean one that never heard of, much less approved of, Donald J. Fucking Trump. While it's true that he's more a symptom than the root cause of where we stand in the world, he — and behind him, his fascist puppeteers — are absolutely responsible for opening the floodgates and making it not just okay but laudable to be an utter piece of shit and willing to advertise that fact to the world at large.

In no way, shape, or form am I a perfect person. I realize that I'm flawed, sometimes beyond my own ability to believe. But through thick and thin, every single day, I carry with me the fact that I was raised to be a decent human being, and whatever my failings, I could never, not in a billion years, embrace the sheer awfulness of Donald J. Fucking Trump and every last soul in his administration. To my mind, supporting this regime and being a decent person are mutually incompatible.

And if that's a personal flaw of mine, then by god, I'm okay with it.

A Challenge

Philosophically, I am in absolute agreement with my wife, Kimberly, whom I shall quote below. That said, if things transpire as they seem destined to, and she can't get the health insurance she needs, then the grudge I hold will be profound. And that's just one wee part that might affect us personally and gravely. Many, many others are going to be hurt, badly and so needlessly.

I'm going into this Trump presidency with exactly the same attitude I did the last one. People who have voted for Trump said he will make our lives better and the United States better. Prove it to me. And prove it to me with things that aren't already on the upswing...immigration is now at the same level as it was when Biden/Harris took over, inflation has slowed, and violent crime is down. (I've fact checked these statements with multiple sources.) So Trump ran on a platform that he would fix things that are already fixed. Prove it to me that he will improve my healthcare. Prove it to me that he won't be an authoritarian dictator who takes away the rights of so many people. Unlike many, I can absorb information and change my views according to that information. I'll be waiting for proof."—Kimberly Ann Brugger

There are a million issues I could talk about, vent about, but I fear it would be belaboring the obvious for anyone with eyes to see, and simply fatigue me further. I have no illusions that we, personally, as well as the entire country are going to have issues challenges to confront that we certainly would not if the election had gone the other way. But that's a non-issue now.

Yesterday, I headed out early to work the polls for local city council candidate — and winner — Julian Mei, an acquaintance of mine who I believe will be a fine shot of tonic for Martinsville. There were five candidates for three positions, and sadly, the other two were not his first choices (or mine), but I believe the council will still be in a much better place in the coming year.

Last night, Brugger and I went to Wild Magnolia, one of our local pubs, to watch the city council election results and hang out with some of the candidates. It was, as you might expect, both rewarding and disappointing.

Today, my stress/anxiety level is down some from yesterday simply because certain unknowns are now known. There are plenty of unknowns to come, but we'll just have to deal with them as they come down the pike. This morning, I had business to take care of at the bank in uptown, so once that was done, I took a long, relaxing walk partly through town and partly on the nearby Dick & Willie Trail. The temperature out there is ridiculously warm for November (yet climate change is "not our problem!"), but some of the foliage remains purty.

Mis-Inflammation

Long post warning. I will preface it by stating that, in the wake of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, in no way am I condoning or excusing violence. This was a heinous act that can't possibly bear good fruit; quite the opposite, in fact. This is evident in subsequent — and understandable — anger about the act. However, the resultant vitriolic blame for the mounting circumstances, both before and after the shooting, strikes me as, in many cases misdirected. I am not talking about conspiracy theories. I will elaborate. No, I'm not out to lose friends or insult people who don't necessarily think as I do; quite the opposite. But I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and if you're inclined to write me off, then that is entirely your prerogative

Here, I am not focusing on anything other than language and its ramifications in this emotionally charged climate and very little else. Not the fitness, or lack thereof, of either candidate; not the merits, or lack thereof, of their respective platforms; specifically, the power of language and general expression. While no single side is entirely blameless for fiery rhetoric, the vehement, exclusive blaming of the left for its "hateful speech" and "inflammatory name-calling" by such a vast segment of the right shows an amazing lack of critical thinking and self-awareness. It's selective memory to the point of willful blindness.

I invite you to think back to the pre-Trump days, when pejorative epithets like "libtard" and "snowflake" became standard speech for conservatives, and one didn't have to occupy an extreme left position to find oneself painted with this brush. Then "Socialist!" became the all-encompassing catch word that applied to anyone with views a half-inch left of Ronald Reagan. Then "Communists" and "Marxists" who "HATE AMERICA!" slid into widespread usage, goaded by Fox News and its ilk, never mind that the vast majority of those using those terms clearly have no earthly idea of their actual meaning — and that little could be farther from the truth. Stoking fear increases ratings, and no one does that better than the right-wing media. (Yeah, I've watched more than plenty of it, thank you.)

No, I am not an extreme leftist; the only "extreme" thing I qualify to be is a horror writer. Still, as a proponent of women's rights and absolutely of the conviction that a woman (and her physician) should have more say over what happens to her own body than the government, particularly in cases where her life or health might be in jeopardy, in some circles I've been painted as a radical leftist, never mind that a healthy majority of Americans share this belief. Really? I consider this view simple common sense, as I believe most reasonably intelligent members of the species do. Or should, if they have the temerity to call themselves "pro-life."

So, enter Trump, who immediately set about raising the bar to unprecedented levels for fiery, vitriolic, even hateful rhetoric. Trump has used — and continues to use — derogatory, accusatory language to demonize and dehumanize those who oppose his views. None of this can by any stretch of the imagination be attributed to incomplete or erroneous context or, in the right's favorite terms, "liberal media brainwashing." The man's words and actions are easily verifiable and have been right out there for the world to see and hear unfiltered.

A few from rallies, where protestors were present: "Maybe he should have been roughed up."—November 2015. "I'd like to punch him in the face."—February 2016. "Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees."—February 2016. "You know, part of the problem is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right? They're being politically correct the way they take them out, so it takes a little bit longer."—March 2016. "If you do hurt him, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."—March 2016.

I was flabbergasted when Trump attacked Senator John McCain, whose politics I vehemently disagreed with but whom I respected as a person, particularly for his endurance as a PoW in service to the United States. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured."

Whatever one might think of Hillary Clinton, was it appropriate for Trump to suggest, jokingly or otherwise, that the "Second Amendment people might take care of her court appointments" should she have won? If that was okay, then surely, so was Biden saying Trump needed to be in the crosshairs (which he actually apologized for in the wake of the shooting). Speaking of Clinton, I recall the debate with her in 2016 when Trump crept and paced around the stage behind Clinton like some kind of unhinged stalker. I think it was then and there that I knew that in no sane world could this man be a realistic candidate for the highest office in the land.

Yet, here we are in 2024.

Who can forget the lovely sentiment of all too many of Trump's followers, in reference to folks decrying the sheer, unbridled venom of Trump's tweets over the term of his presidency and beyond: "Fuck your feelings!"

Lately, all I have to is do go out and about town to see "Let's go, Brandon!" and "Fuck Biden — and fuck you for voting for him!" in yards and on bumper stickers. Do you see this as enthusiastic support for Trump or the Republican party? Me, I see it as unbridled hate, facilitated by a figure whose contempt for civil conventions long ago went out the window.

It's all such sincere Christian stuff, I must say. I mean, much if not most of this vitriol shares its space with signs reading "God Bless America!" and "Christian Patriots Live Here!" and "God, Guns, and Trump!" Let me tell you, I grew up in the church, remained active in one congregation or another well into adulthood, and studied the Bible both in church and on my own. I can safely that I have forgotten more of the tenets of Christianity than many of these folks have ever known in their lives.

Now we have the words of the Heritage Foundation's Kevin Roberts, in reference to Project 2025, the guidebook for a conservative government if/when Trump is elected: “The Second American Revolution will remain bloodless if the Left allows it to be.” Wow. Do you see this as anything other than a less-than-cryptic threat that it's their way or the bloody way? Is this an okay thing in our America? America is supposed to be, after all, yours, mine, and ours — not just YOUR America.

Wisely, both Biden and Trump, since the shooting, have called for Americans of all persuasions to tone down the rhetoric. I have no doubt that Biden is sincere. I would love to think that Trump is every bit as sincere. Truly I do. It's not bemusing at all that the Republican convention's theme is now "National Unity" and the first speaker up and called the left a "clear and present danger" to the country. Not too hypocritical, eh? I will categorically state that he is wrong. One-hundred percent wrong.

I have not written all this without full realization that people have their reasons for being angry and for acting out against that which angers them. I certainly do. But if we dehumanize and demonize everyone whose views, whose lifestyles, feel diametrically opposed to our own, we cannot respect each other. And without respect, we are pretty well doomed. Because this country truly is that proverbial melting pot, and the diverse views and people are not going anywhere. Unless we succumb to the unthinkable and begin to shed the blood of our fellow Americans.

If you don't agree with a word I've said here, I'm sorry for that, but I have to live with my conscience and my convictions. It's the former that shapes the latter. I do my best to be fair to all, and it is with that in mind that I feel absolutely compelled to illustrate how so many of us, as Americans, have too readily succumbed to anger and hatred — God knows, my temper has been running high lately — and it's anything but confined to the left. So, if my tone seems snarky, it's born of frustration with such widespread willful blindness, disrespect, and outright lies.

There's a lot — a fucking lot — more I could carry on with above and beyond how we interact with each other. But that's for another day.

The Project 2025 Monster

Sometimes, I need to get on my soapbox about something other than books, movies, geocaching, travel, and cooking. So...

In the words of the Heritage Foundation's leader, Kevin Roberts, Project 2025 is a guidebook for a second American revolution, which will be bloodless only if "the left allows it to be."

I've spent a great deal of time perusing the document, and it really is a monster, which uses a lot of bland terminology for extreme (and I mean extreme) right-wing policies. These are ostensibly its aims:

1.  Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
2.  Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
3.  Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4.  Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”

So, is Kevin Roberts' statement hyperbole? I would say no. I absolutely take it at face value.

It's not an exaggeration to say that, in my view, once you begin looking at the details, it is as close to a fascist treatise as any guidebook could be. Whatever you take "wokeness" to be, this is the declaration of war against it (and what the right calls "woke" has been so perverted from its original connotation that it's unrecognizable; to the extreme right, "woke" basically means any attitude, policy, or program that helps more people than it harms). If you truly value your personal freedoms, a healthy environment, a healthcare system that isn't in absolute disarray (if you think it is now, just wait), and an economy that's not going to crash for everyone but the super-wealthy, educate yourself about this extreme viewpoint accordingly. Believe me, it affects everyone, right, left, or wherever you stand.

Here's a fairly balanced summary from The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4753684-heritage-foundation-project-2025/

Here is a view from that left-wing champion Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffraikes/2024/07/01/project-2025-is-a-blueprint-for-business-disaster/

Here is the document itself (a gut-wrenching 900+ pages): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise

The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum

This was (partially) my response to a thread Facebook, but I'm gonna drop it here because it seems the thing to do. This is not up for debate. This is just how it is from my end. Take it or leave it.

Facebook Poster (male) in question:

"If they are raped, they can have the baby and give him or her for adoption."

Mark (who, at this age, has zero personal stock in the abortion issue — other than the critical issue of women's rights, and as a human being, that means I have stock in it):

It's so easy for a male — who can never step into a woman's shoes and know what carrying a baby means — to say, "Oh, you can just do this." As if it's like taking off your fucking shoes before you step into the house. Every pregnancy poses risk, physically, emotionally, and psychologically. What about fetal defects that will result in extreme risk to the mother — especially those such as anencephaly (about a 1 in 4,600 chance)? What about a woman who has physical conditions that might result in -her- death if the baby is carried to term? What about in-vitro fertilization, in which some fertilized eggs are most likely going to be eliminated? You're not even close to "pro-life" if the mother's life and health aren't tantamount. Yes, I know, the percentage of such severe risk is relatively low. But we're still talking about human lives. Because their numbers aren't overwhelming, do those women's lives not matter?

Now. There is a difference — generally unrecognized by the blind zealot — between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. I'm not arguing for "murdering babies." I'm absolutely opposed to abortion (after fetal viability) simply as a means of birth control; there are other, far better options — at least until the blind zealots take things to the next level; which they will because that is what blind zealots do. But I'll trust the decision of the poorest, most misguided woman any day and every day over the deaf, dumb, and blind enforcement of regulations over that woman's body. (And of course, it's a whole 'nuther issue, but turn the discussion around to weaponry, and suddenly regulations "NEVER FUCKING EVER work and it impacts ME ME ME!")

As far as I'm concerned, the rights of every human being already born far exceed the rights of a bunch of not-as-yet-sentient cells to exist. "Pro-life" is, for all practical purposes, a euphemism for "pro-birth, and fuck everything that comes afterward because it doesn't really affect "ME ME ME."

Well, it might, if you were forced to raise the child that otherwise would not exist.

Listen

Being a writer of fictions and foolishness of all sorts, I express myself in words, probably too many for some people's liking. Over the years, I feel I've become a better writer by reading, experiencing as much of life as I can, reading, meeting other writers, and reading. I tend to absorb massive amounts of information and am, by nature, compelled to regurgitate it in what I hope is a creative, engaging manner.

By the same token, I feel I've become a better person by listening. Listening more than talking. This is hard for me because I have a lot of pent-up stuff to talk about. I like expressing myself. I like to communicate. Listening can be difficult because all that inner noise gets in the way. But I'm trying to become a better listener. Every opinion I have, every conviction, comes from listening, evaluating, and collating. I try to make decisions, not in a vacuum or echo chamber, but based on the best information I can absorb. Lately more than ever, I feel it has been a time to listen. To—at least occasionally—shut the fuck up and just listen. To voices that I ordinarily might not hear. That I might disagree with. That I might find offensive. That impart wisdom based on experiences I can never know.

Social media allows everyone to have their say. Unfortunately, now more than ever—likely because 2020 has dealt us more than a few serious boots to the head—it seems to me that way too many people are yammering when they should be listening. The signal to noise ratio is bad. Very bad. Blind, dogmatic BS, shared because it simply fits a convenient but mindless narrative. So, I'm going to ask, nicely, that some folks take a breather, suck it up, and just freaking listen. Me, I am not egotistical enough to think I have all the answers. A lot of times, I don't even have the right questions. But can you—will you—listen? You might learn something. I sure have, and I plan to continue.

Bear in mind, listening does not mean blindly accepting; far from it. It means critically examining and filtering. That is how we build convictions.

And that, in perhaps too many words, is what's happening upstairs today. Thank you for listening, and I shut up now.

Inauguration

It is with a heavy heart I say farewell to President Obama and his family. I have admired him, disagreed with him, sometimes sworn a little at him, praised him, laughed with him, and been shocked for him. I know a lot of people will disagree when I say that he and the first family brought a much-needed sense of dignity to the White House; but when you consider the relentless obstructionism from his political opponents, the unwarranted personal attacks by the ignorant masses he and his family suffered, and the unknowable challenge of being the first US President of African American heritage, down to the end, he refused to stoop to the level of his detractors. From day one of his presidency, his opponents brazenly boasted of their intent to make him a one-term president, and despite one attempt after another to reach across the aisle to them, the president was forever rebuffed, derided as "divisive," and subjected to increasingly ridiculous attempts to discredit him (birth certificate, anyone?). He was and is blamed — quite wrongly — for racial divisions that have come to the forefront of our national consciousness. There is all kinds of fault to go around, to be sure, but at the end of the day, we, not the president, are responsible. And yes, I know many of you disliked his policies, not his skin color, but racism was, in fact, a horrifyingly huge component of the hatred heaped upon the Obamas. For god's sake, I have personally witnessed racists coming out of the woodwork way too often, not just on social media but in the world at large. I stopped going to one local establishment I had frequented for years because, since 2008, the owners and staff constantly bitched and moaned about the "Muslim nigger from Kenya." Those exact words. Over and over and over. And that was just the tip of the iceberg.

I have disagreed with President Obama on any number of issues; he did spend too much, he tended to go for over-regulation rather strike a fair balance between necessary protections — for the environment, for minorities, for labor issues — and executive overreach. I think he too often caved to special interests rather than stand up for the middle class. That said, however, the more he braved the slings and arrows of his detractors, the more I admired him. When his initiatives failed, he was derided as weak and ineffective; when they succeeded, he was vilified as a tyrant. From the right, no consistency, little logic, and never a reasonable alternative proposed. Nothing he did could please his detractors. And again, the uglier his detractors become, the more I came to admire him. Little illustrates the ridiculousness of the prejudice against him than the right's condemnation of his farewell address (to which I was going to link, but the White House site has apparently removed it), in which Obama's usage of the first person was condemned as "narcissistic." I did a little math on this myself. The speech ran approximately 4,800 words long. Obama referred to himself in the first person 75 times. That's 1.5 percent of the word count. To those of you in opposition, I defy you to produce a 4,800-word missive detailing one's eight-year tenure, one's accomplishments, one's failures, one's hopes, one's recollections of how it personally impacted one's family, one's forecasts for our nation, without mentioning yourself using no more than 1.5% of the total word count. I defy you.

"Oh, but the speech shouldn't be about him, it's about us." Next breath: "We never could get to know Obama because he was distant and disconnected." Sure. Sure thing.

A personal disappointment: more than anything, having seen the complete, utter failure of our pre-ACA health system to address severe, chronic illness — up close and personal — I truly wanted Obamacare to succeed. There are so many positive tenets of the plan, it's a damn shame it was implemented so poorly; I have never felt it beyond repair, however, and I fear the direction we'll be going in the coming days with healthcare is going to be an even greater disaster. I hope I'm wrong.

In fact, when it comes to President Donald Trump, I hope I'm very, very wrong in my, oh, maybe slightly negative evaluation of him. No, really. I have, with more than due conscientiousness, evaluated every conceivable rationale for accepting his shortcomings, every argument for his strengths, and I'm sorry, but there's just nothing there. Nothing. What we have today is a narcissistic, immature, tone-deaf bully, who has assembled the least-qualified bunch of clowns to staff his cabinet positions that any sentient being could imagine. I can't see any good coming out of this, and if you can, you must give me the name of your eye doctor.

All that said, I do not want to see Trump crash and burn. Our country, our fortunes, our lives depend on this man being an effective leader, a respected player on the world stage, a partner in the success of the United States. But at the end of the day, Trump works for us, we Americans who put him where he is, however unwillingly. Me, I will oppose his every utterance that does not reflect my values. As I have from the day I reached legal voting age, I will speak with my vote as well as whatever ability I might possess to influence rational, reasonable people to see what I see, as objectively as possible. If Trump follows through with his promises to bolster the middle class, to present a workable health plan that does not leave the most vulnerable of us to the wolves, to boost a still-struggling economy, to keep America a respected world power without thrusting us into yet another avoidable conflict... I will say to you, to the world, to Trump, to anyone with an ear to hear it... that I was wrong in my evaluation of his abilities. My ego has no vested interest here. But my well-being, and the well-being of my loved ones does. However, I will never apologize for condemning this man's lack of character, not only admitted to but celebrated by his most rabid supporters. Given that a disproportionately large number of Trump's supporters are diehard Christians... I'd call that an irreconcilable absurdity. Wouldn't you?

Yeah, I understand a dislike of Trump's opponent. Hillary Clinton brought enough baggage with her to kill a train of pack mules. But I tell you this, I'd vote for her again in a heartbeat over what our now-President Trump brings to the table.

If you don't see things as I do, I'm fine with that... up to the point that you and I get thrust into a void from which we can never return. I'm not fine with that. And truly, despite having been brought up in a period when fallout shelters were ubiquitous and we rather amusingly learned how to drop, duck and cover, this chapter of life is one that brings with it a unique trepidation, a sense that the territory into which we're treading is anything but Great.

No, I'm not religious, but I pray that I am the wrongest son of a bitch to ever walk this land. I pray this. If I'm wrong, in four years, you can have a front row seat as I eat humble pie. Deal?

Tree Peepers, Bedlam, and Adolescent Classics

As I'm having to spend more and more time with my mom, going with increasing frequency to my old hometown to care for her, I find myself growing very protective of those old things in her house that still remain from my childhood. There aren't that many, not like there used to be. There's a small corner of the attic with a few toys, books, artwork, and other miscellaneous objets d'arte that belonged to my brother and me, some going back to our pre-kindergarten days. In the back room on the main floor, Mom has graciously saved a bunch of barely intact books that I valued as a kid — I am now mighty glad they didn't get chucked out along with so much junk over the past few decades. That photo you see above is a fair representation of my "literary" appetites at about age twelve. Of course, that's just a tiny sampling, as I became a voracious reader the moment I managed to comprehend two consecutive sentences. Everything from James Bond to Alfred Hitchcock's Three Investigators to Mad magazine to Whitman's Big Little cartoon books to Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. A regular borgasmord, to quote a young Mason Reese. (You remember him, right — the ugly little red-headed dude in the Underwood Deviled Ham commercials from the early 1970s?)

It's been a stressful few days for me, what with Mom's condition always preying on my mind, and out there in the world, bedlam reigning perhaps a bit more than usual. You've seen the meme, I'm sure, that reads "My desire to be well-informed is at odds with my desire to remain sane." That's pretty much it. It's depressingly difficult to find even slightly unbiased coverage about events in the world, particularly since every soul alive has an outlet to air his opinion, whether measured and well-informed or vicious and ignorant. I stubbornly remain connected via Facebook since it's the handiest tool for keeping up with the people with whom I most want to keep up. Still, at the best of times, my blood pressure runs a little high, even when on meds. I've come to the conclusion that ordinary bedlam raises it to around 140/90, whereas Bedlam + Facebook = BP 180/100. Bedlam needs to take a breather.

As always, geocaching proves itself the best mitigator of high blood pressure. I've been fortunate in that local cachers have kept new ones coming out between here and Martinsville, so that I can usually hunt a cache or three when I'm coming and going. One that I found today earns a favorite point for its high novelty factor — not an uncommon type of hide, but its placement was a lot of fun, particularly in that it was being watched over by a little tree peeper. I saw him perched atop an open fence post, so while I hunted, we had a friendly conversation. After a while, I saw he had gone, and I hope he didn't actually go down into that fence post, as he might end up stuck. On the other hand, given that he was resting quite comfortably on it, perhaps it's one of his favorite hangouts.

Peace be with ye.

Illegimate Rape?

If you're a regular visitor around these parts, you know that I very, very rarely wade into politics and emotion-charged social issues. Not because I don't have strong positions on such matters but because commentary is bleepin' everywhere; you can't get away from it — though way too much of it is simply gross regurgitation of meaningless sound bites. More than anything, there are limited hours in the day, and mine are usually pretty damn full. Posting on political topics most often leads to yet more emotionally charged "discussion," which, should I  go whole-hog into it, eats up ridiculous amounts of time and usually just pisses me off.

In the case of the very recent, very stupid remarks by Congressman Todd Akin (R, MO), however, I'm going to make an exception and express some personal feelings. Feel free to respond if you wish, but if you're just going to blurt out crap like, "Well, you liberals think blah blah blah," you might as well not bother. First and foremost, I'm hardly a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Nor am I anywhere near a staunch conservative. I hate labels. Opposing sides on many complex issues oftentimes bring well-considered points to the table, and rarely are they as cut-and-dry as partisan sound bites portray them. My own problem is that I try to educate myself on the various sides of just about every issue, and the information overload drives me freaking mad. But that's a whole 'nuther issue anyway.

As for Congressman Akin, I'm sure you know what he said about pregnancies resulting from rape, but here's the primary offending remark: “It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

Legitimate rape. Now there's a fine term. That, to me, appears to stem from a condescending — if not contemptuous — attitude toward women. As if there's such a thing as "illegitimate" rape. While Akin claims he "misspoke," I don't buy it. I think his off-the-cuff remarks expressed exactly what he thought. My real problem here is less about Akin as an individual than the socially conservative mindset of which he is representative.

First and foremost, I, as a male, can only imagine the trauma of a rape, particularly one that results in an unwanted pregnancy. Same goes for Akin and every other male lawmaker, on whichever side of the political aisle. But I'm going beyond this single example to express some thoughts on abortion overall. My main thought on the topic is this: if you're a conservative and favor smaller government, then you and your lawmakers should butt the hell out of the issue. Leave the decision to made by individual women and their doctors.

Or do you believe that they are simply too stupid to know better than you what they should do? Some conservative, you.

In situations where a woman has been raped, or has a fetus that is not viable outside the womb, or faces a life-threatening situation, a state that denies her the right to make her own choice is absolutely monstrous. Yes, I am aware that there are at least some conservatives who would make exceptions in those extreme cases, and I applaud them. But particularly as of these past couple of years, the voices of those who would make no exceptions have clearly increased, if not in number, then in the shrillness of their trumpeting.

Now, from a simply rationalistic perspective, I don't buy personhood beginning at conception. What you have there is a mass of cells that, without interference, will eventually develop into a human being. Life, yes, but not a full-fledged, aware, and — dare I say it — soul-possessing human being. That said, psychologically, for a woman — and an involved male partner — the decision to have an abortion is murderous enough (pardon the crass expression). Indeed, if my significant other were in the position of having to make such a decision, I don't know whether I could handle the trauma of terminating the life inside her.

But it's not my body. It's not for me to say how she can or cannot deal with it. A woman should have the freedom to deal with it as her conscience guides her. You tell me, is that not the true conservative ideal?

Okay, yeah, well, I know, we've got to protect those precious babies, right? And the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply, yes? While I am anything but a social Darwinist, I am a pragmatist. Back in those fabulous days of yore, the earth was an almost infinite place; as an added bonus, disease and pestilence made for effective population control. You needed to multiply in order to assure a future for your family, your community, your civilization.

Nowadays? Eh... not so much. We're a species struggling to find room to thrive. We fight for our limited resources. We're living longer. So we're eating the earth. Quite frankly, when it comes down to it, I favor the rights of those who are already here. Little, to me, is more wicked than forcing a new life into this world, particularly when, in the interest of your own selfish well-being, you don't want to put your money where your mouth is and take care of the young one that might otherwise have been aborted — and you sure as hell don't want to be made to share by the government.

If you are absolutely anti-abortion, and you have adopted or sponsored a child that would have been aborted, then you are saintly, and your existence is worthy. You are a true philanthropist. However, if you would force a woman to have an unwanted child, to likely perpetuate that which you find so offensive — a human being that the odds do not favor becoming a productive, positive member of society — and you are not actively supporting the life that would have been terminated otherwise, you are simply talking out your ass and really not worth the time of day.

All that said, none of this should be construed as meaning I favor abortion. I absolutely do not. I do not condone abortion simply because a baby is inconvenient. Even in a worst-case scenario, if a woman makes the choice to keep a baby conceived by rape or incest — or even has the baby and offers it for adoption — then that is clearly wisdom. More power to her; it's the most likely means of preventing deep regret later. I do not feel she should be forced into that situation.

And that, as they say, is that, from the old prehistoric radioactively mutated flying rubber reptile, who is now going to go back to writing a novel.