Kick Her Out At Our Own Risk.

       Whatta you think about the accusations against A.G. Kathleen Kane? If true, I think she has no right to be the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. That's the beauty of our democracy. We have the tools to remove her from office. Unlike some of our most noted adversaries, we remove those who refuse to obey the law. Those are the rights associated with a democracy.
       But what about the responsibilities of a democracy? In America, you are considered innocent until proven guilty. And that is a very good thing. It's a rule not present in those noted adversaries. That being said, it seems premature to demand the ouster of Ms. Kane from office just yet. Shouldn't we wait until she's found guilty, assuming she will be?
       I know, it makes us look bad to have such a high ranking elected official fall under such accusations, but how bad would it look if we kicked her out only to find out she's not guilty. What if it really is a case of political vendetta against her instead of the other way around? Without taking sides, I'd like to point out that neither side of the political spectrum would be above such dastardly demonizing.
       The point is, it could just as easily be as Ms. Kane has suggested, than as her detractors suggest. So, shouldn't we let the courts sort it out first before we decide who to kick out of office? At this point, it does sound like somebody's head should be on the platter, but not until it's determined just whose head that is. An example does need to be made, but if we're going to decide a case like this before there is a fair hearing, then what do we have courts for anyway?
       Slippery slopes are great for skiing, but not so great for climbing.  It's easy, sort of, to slide down a slope, but climbing out of a mistake is a lot harder. Let's not make any such mistake just yet. Let's show everyone that we're smart enough to allow the system to work.
      

Pro-Birth.

       Did you happen to watch the two Republican debates on Thursday? I know, I know, it's way too early to bother wasting time on such things, but it did point out one item that they all agreed on. Well actually there were several. Hate anything Obama, hate anything Clinton. There was that other one. You know, the one about the Pro Birth thing.
       If there's one thing that isn't Obamaish or Clintonesque, it's the Anti-Choice movement. the Pro-Birth movement. Oh I know, they like to call it the Pro-Life movement, but as has been pointed out, you can't call yourself Pro-Life if your only concern is that those babies get born.
      The thing is, though, if you tend to forget about those babies once they're born, if you don't demand funding for the programs that look after the health, nutrition and education, as well as affordable housing and a host of other necessities for those babies, then you really aren't Pro-Life-After Birth, are you now.
       It's a fine thing to want to protect an unborn child. After all that child can't protect itself. But seeing that the child has a chance to be born isn't even half the job. If the child is part of an affluent family, they're in good hands. But if they happen to draw a poor single mother struggling to stay afloat by herself, don't you really have to see that that infant and later, the young child and teen has the helping hands to prepare him or her for a fruitful life as an adult?
       That's the rest of the job of being Pro-Life. And if you're not prepared to do those things, then do you really have the right to call yourself Pro-Life? If not, then at least be honest. Call yourself Pro-Birth and be done with it.