In November, 2004, I responded to Liz Donovan’s InfoManiac Blog. At that time, she worked for The Miami Herald.

INFOMANIAC WEBLOG <a href=”http://heraldresearch.blogspot.com/”>Infomaniac: WeBlog</a>

I, too, had a difficult time fitting in with the Democratic party.

Oftentimes I feel like a three-headed beast with features from the Libertarian party, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It’s no wonder I am NPA registered.

Liz up at The Miami Herald posted a letter from a woman who did not want to be identified but who, like me, felt a bit out of place in either of the two major parties. She says, “I’m not for gun control. I think people should be responsible for their own actions if they own a gun. They should obey the law. If kids get guns and misbehave, they can die, injure or kill. Their parents know better. They know better.”

I’ll take it one step further because “knowing better” doesn’t presume any consequences, and there should be consequences. Being responsible for one’s own actions means being accountable. Accountability refers to owning your actions and accepting the consequences. So, no, I am not for gun control. I’m for gun consequences.

For parents who lose a child because their child found their gun and shot themself with it, they have already accepted the consequences; why should society impose further consequences on those parents? To what end? However, the parents whose child kills another child should be accountable to our society and to the parents of the other child. Adults who kill other people with guns should be similarly accountable.

She also stated, “I don’t want Affirmative Action any longer. I was very much for it in the past and it did its job. Two generations of people were given opportunities they deserved. That was good. It’s time to end Affirmative Action. I worked for everything I have. It took education, determination and hard work. The government didn’t affirm me. I did.”

Is it the role of society to ensure that all members of that society are not discriminated against with regard to a job application? If you, personally, did not take the financial risk or the sweat equity risk to start and succeed in your own business, who are you to tell another business owner how many blacks, women or minorities she must employ in her business? I have to agree with her on this one, although my Mom will probably not talk to me for a week…

Liz’s unidentified writer also says, “I’m not for federally funded abortions. If someone wants to have an abortion, they should pay for it.”

Agreed, again. But I like the fact that the federal government - the people of this great nation - can fund abortion. It legitimizes the procedure; certainly the government won’t fund any illegal activity! And since abortions are legal, the doctors performing those abortions can be held to a standard. So, legal means safe. And I am FOR funding abortions AND all legal methods of contraception.

We get in to a bit of a diffrence when the anonymous writer comes out with, “I’m not for gay marriage. If a couple doesn’t get the financial or legal benefits of a marriage, they can deal with it. Many people are not married–like me–and don’t feel legally persecuted.”

Here is where we part ways. If two people who live together receive a financial benefit from their cohabitation and that benefit is derived from the federal government, then ALL people who live together should be entitled to that benefit. At least that’s how it is here in Val’s World. But there is another issue here.

Marriage is a recognized union between two or more people. And it is that word, “recognized” that is causing so much consternation. “Recognized” means that the assets of the couple are recognized as belonging to the couple (and not the State or one of the couple’s parents or children). “Recognized” means that the health of each is the responsibility of the other. “Recognized” means having a status. That status entitles the married couple to the aforementioned benefits.

Society provides the ritual of marriage so we all have a clear understanding of “who benefits” from that union. We attach to that union ideas of “’til death do us part” and we all feel comfortable that having passed through that ritual, the “recognized” couple has a commitment beyond “just for tonight.” And so we, as a society, convey those benefits.

Now, some people want to specifically exclude same-sex couples who are willing to make that legal commitment from that legal commitment. (you might want to re-read that one)

My question to those people is this: How does it harm YOU if two same-sex people marry? It doesn’t. So move out of the way and let those who are willing to make the legal commitment do so.

On to Education. I am a firm believer in federally-funded education and accountability. High quality public education is needed to keep our economy strong. Unless, of course, you want a nation of service workers and consumers. In which case, forget public education. Let’s teach our kids how to use credit cards and buy.

Let’s talk about those taxes. I’m for NO Income Tax and NO Property Tax. I like User Pays Tax if we must tax. Flat tax, at first blush is appealing because we all get all warm and fuzzy thinking that we’re all “on the same level playing field.” But that just isn’t so. $1,000 taken from a woman with two kids and a $25,000 per year job means more to her than $1,000 taken from a woman with two kids and a $125,000 per year job.

User pays.

No more income tax - that is so antiquated! Some of those user pays tax revenues can be used to fund those abortions and education. Hey - why not allow me to choose which social ideals I wish to fund? Give me a choice. Maybe something like… Please circle the three social programs you would like to support:

• Federally-funded Abortion
• Interstate Highways
• Contraception
• Social Security
• Failing Public Schools
• Law Enforcement
• Overzealous and Uneducated TSA Homeland Security

Now you know why I feel like a three-headed monster. There just isn’t a party out there that I fit into…