Graphically Making My Point

My folder of post ideas is busting at the seams but I just can’t find the time to write a coherent post; my goodness, tonight we celebrated Father’s Day in my house and I wasn't even traveling the last three days!

So, while I work through some busy days, let’s try something different with tonight’s post; how about if the readers do most of the writing until the weekend? I ask the loaded questions and the readers supply the answers.

So, what do you guys think of only allowing African-American women to kill their unborn babies (try to answer this question without considering what Sen. Robert C. Byrd and his friends in the KKK think)?

Is there a difference, philosophically, between only:none and 3:1? As in, is supporting only blacks killing their unborn babies while denying whites that "right" any different than supporting a murderous activity knowing that black women, across all age groups, kill their unborn babies about three times the rate that white women, across the same age groups, kill their unborn babies (Centers for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics System, Revised Pregnancy Rates, 1990 – 97, and New Rates for 1998 – 1999: United States, Vol. 52, Number 7, October 31, 2003)?

Fueled by black racial-arsonists and their liberal enablers who cry racism at the mere mention of trying to help save Social Security by raising the retirement age, I’ve thought an awful lot about the questions I ask above.

Somewhat related, and especially directed to those who support human embryonic stem cell research, would it bother you if embryonic stem cell research was conducted only on the destroyed embryos of blacks (assuming there is absolutely no bias on the test results)?

I have to work a super-long day tomorrow so I’ll let your Comments collect; I’ll probably not be able to comment until Friday night but I look forward to having this conversation. If there are no comments for me to respond to, I'll answer my own questions in a weekend post.

Elsewhere, the first sentence of the Boston Globe’s lead editorial today was, “If voters last fall hoped that putting Democrats in charge of Congress would guarantee a progressive energy policy, they had better keep the pressure on over the next few days (An energy bill with no justice, A10)”.

Wow, the Boston Globe gives the impression that voters had other things on their mind last November besides the war. Hmmmm, where have we heard that before? Oh, I know, my first three or four posts after the November elections and my posts of December 16, 2006; March 23, 2007; April 19, 2007; May 3, 2007 and May 26, 2007. Being ZACKlyRight never gets old.

Of course, voters did have an awful lot of things on their minds beside the war and the Boston Globe and other liberal extremists certainly know this despite their rhetoric about “mandate to end the war” but I can assure you that not one American pulled a lever in a national election based on the primacy of his/her energy policy beliefs. The suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous . . . but, then again, as we all know, the Boston Globe is ridiculous.