I was driving with my two young sons in their carseats. I pulled up to a stopsign where a father and his daughter were about to enter the crosswalk in front of me. She was sitting on her bicycle seat and walking the bike across. I smiled at them. (Melancholy hits me sometimes knowing I'll never have a daughter.) I waved them across. The other father smiled back and waved.

Because I have kids, I know firsthand what it is like to walk a child across a street. All the things you have to watch for and worry about.

Do people without kids cherish life, respect life, understand as much about the miracle that is life, as much as people with kids? If you have always wanted to be a parent and cried with joy when that kid finally came into your life, and have devoted endless hours to their health and safety, do you care more about life in general?

More to my point: Do women contemplating abortion for convenience's sake realize that this kid will give them untold greater understanding of the wonder and beauty of life if they simply let it come into their lives?

Closed minds and disrespect for those with differing opinions is what divides people; nothing else, not race, class, or any other superficial dividing line.

When someone says to you, during a discussion, that "we simply should agree to disagree," they are actually saying that they can't rebut what you just said but they're not going to concede the point either. They can't admit to themselves that you're right, they don't respect a differing opinion, and they can't accept that they're wrong. That would require re-thinking their entire world view.

If you suggest to someone agreeing to disagree, look inside yourself.

The issue of Gay Marriage is taking the same path that the issue of Abortion took 40 years ago. Currently it's a States' Rights issue (notwithstanding the Defense of Marriage Act), as Abortion was before Roe v. Wade. That is, individual states are determining their policy democratically. Some states that have chosen to deny the freedom to marry whomever one chooses are being challenged in the courts. Courts, such as California's, are moving toward striking down the restrictions based on constitutional principles of Equal Protection and Due Process. Roe v. Wade and the Right to Privacy (upon which the decision was based) were both made on those principles.

Without a huge twist of logic however, these principles don't support the resulting decisions. Equal Protection simply means that our laws should apply to all of us equally, that no one is above the law. Due Process establishes that there is a process that is due all who are accused of a crime. Namely, being told the crime one is accused of committing, the right to confront the accuser, the right to a speedy and public trial, legal representation, etc.

The fact is, the Federal Government was never granted the power to regulate, deny, or forcibly allow privacy, abortions, or marriage. It simply has no say in these matters. These are, by default, issues "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amemendment) We, the people, are allowed to make laws in these areas as we see fit, as long as we don't run afoul of true constitutional principles. The Federal Government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down by the Supreme Court. It simply has no jurisdiction.

Freedom will eventually win this battle and people will be allowed to marry whomever they like, either through principled legislation or further distorting the Constitution. The question is are we going to act like respectful adults and stop trying to deny others the Pursuit of Happiness, or are we going to further pervert the constitutional principles of Due Process and Equal Protection?

Our Constitution provides for us if we'll simply adhere to its principles. Let us be respectful of it and of everyone's Inalienable Rights.

Let Freedom Reign.

Fixing the Healthcare Problem is simple, no socialism required. Here's what needs to happen:

1) Health Savings Account available to ALL. People can lower their premiums and spend toward deductible more wisely. This will lessen demand.

2) Allow all insurers to sell in all 50 states. The cross-border competition will drive premium prices down due to increased supply.

3) Allow ALL to deduct premium expenses from their taxable income.

This will create less demand for health care, more supply, and level the playing field for tax deductibility.

A proposal to encourage financial independence and responsibility, and to reduce the government's role in our lives: Instead of income tax being withheld from our paychecks, allow workers to save that money in savings accounts and CDs, and allow the interest earned there to be tax-free.

Then the worker gets to choose how much is put away every month, not the government. The worker gets to earn interest tax-free all year on his/her contributions, then pay the tax due on April 15th, and have a little left over to get a headstart on next year. The IRS could put a calculator on its website estimating how much to save monthly given different levels of income.

Two policies need to change. 1) Make withholding optional. If you don't trust yourself to save, you can continue the current method of paying taxes. 2) Allow interest on all savings accounts and CDs to be earned free of tax. This would also be a great way to encourage savings in general and to recapitalize the banks without doing it through Stimulus Plans.

News item today: Consumer spending down.

Seems to me that's a good thing. Maybe people have been scared into living within their means. Maybe this will lead to people saving money.

By the way, one way to improve our nation's overall economic health and inject money into the ailing banks: stop taxing savings. How about if we made all interest earned in savings accounts and CDs tax free?

Taxing something is a way of discouraging it. China's savings rate, as reported by CNBC on 10/30/08, is 24%, and they don't tax it. In the US, it's less than 1%, and here interest is taxable as ordinary income.

I believe in freedom for all. The political left in this country favors freedom in social policies (allowing abortion and gay marriage, for example), in general, but favors restrictions regarding economic policies (tax more and redistribute income). The political right generally favors freedom in economics but is more restrictive with social policies.

True progress and unity will be found in the political arena when someone stands up to say they favor freedom in all areas. "Keep your laws off my body and off my 401K!" "Allow consenting adults of any persuasion to marry and allow consenting adults to opt out of Social Security, forfeiting their obligations to it and their benefits from it." Taxes should be as flat as the figurative level playing field of social policy.

Both political sides will have to "give" a little on those restrictions they hold dear, but give them time and they will see the wisdom of granting freedom to all.