I wouldn't say I am "surprised" - nevertheless I am saddened to see how many are accepting having a baby outside of marriage. Having two loving parents raising a child is tough enough. For one person - and usually a person who doesn't have significant financial resources - do so is extremely difficult. Surely we can judge that although a woman shouldn't have to wear the "Scarlet A" for having a baby out of wedlock - we still should recognize that babies need two parents!

No, it is not appropriate to keep the money. You know who the owner is; it's his money - not yours. If you were to find money without identification, and didn't really know how to find out to whom the money belonged - that would be a different story. Here, however - it's clear. It's not right to keep the assets of others, whether you find it on the ground or you are the government thinking it's "OK" because someone is wealthy.

I, too, honestly do not mind what the Pope said. Nothing wrong with having or accummulating wealth. Yet, none of us should worship it above all else. And - I do believe that what we do with what we have matters, also. Bill Gates is giving away a huge percentage of the fortune he has built. Nevertheless, even with his immense largesse - he will remain one of the planet's most wealthy people. Nothing wrong with that - and - he should be applauded for the good he does. As an outside observer, it seems that the Catholic Church does do much good. Still - I would like to see some reforms - particularly with its problems with child abuse by clergy and handling of crimes. Yes, a little bit of "Doctor, heal thyself" there.

#5. Yes, the Gosnell story is very important, as is Benghazi and terrorism (Boston). But to have our own government using its power and might to intimidate, influence elections, perhaps, reward Friends of People in High Places and harm enemies is really big stuff. It corrodes the very core of our set of laws and our nation. I am terrified and fascinated to see what unfolds.

Some super shots here, Keith!

Great shot of everyone, Professor!

I heard Rush discussing this the other day. Apparently a fairly well known sportscaster who adores football said this would happen. Players come from high schools - and the damage done to young brains can harm an individual forever. Although the sportscaster loved football - he said he wouldn't allow his children to play. He predicted more and more parents would follow this path - and eventually, the sport would die out. I've always preferred watching football to baseball (sorry Keith!) - but - perhaps Keith and others are correct about football.... for one reason or another!

Wow, Gerry. I agree that some items are silly. But - what would happen if everyone took your attitude about current law? It's one thing to not obey a law that you feel strongly is morally wrong. I like to think that I might have used civil disobedience had I lived in the South during the era of Jim Crow. Yet, if we all pick and choose laws based upon whether we think they are good or not, then don't we ultimately end up with a chaotic society? Seems that way to me.....

Keith - I must admit that some of these "moral questions" leave me a bit puzzled. Is there anyone out there that wouldn't think this is cheating? Now - some may do it. Yet, even the perpetrators I would think recognize they are cheats!

It is cheating. Some do it and say "everyone does it." And - I must admit that I engage in activities like going 7 miles above the speed limit on long distance highways. I would feel wrong, however, about lying about my education or job history or accomplishments. And - even if it didn't feel wrong - people should worry about the matter of an employer finding out! Some ethically wrong actions can also have bad practical consequences.

Keith - here is the best explanation I have read about why marriage should be extended to all consenting adults - irrespective of sexual orientation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324504704578410452988243678.html I might add that I think the ideal situation would be to have government only have jurisdiction over civil unions - and leave "marriage" to religious entities. As a practical matter, however - I don't think that this would ever happen. Ergo - best to let any two competent adults marry one another if they wish. As we all know, arguments like "marriage is for raising children" - while true in many marriages - is not applicable to all. Heterosexual couples have zero requirements to show that they are going to become parents. So - why should not being parents exclude gay couples? (And, I might add that I know more than a few gay couples who are parents!)

Philadelphia? You mean - cheese steaks? Yeah - I know what you meant, J. Reed. None of "them" want to even think about that.

I still maintain that waterboarding is not torture. Our military waterboards our own troops. Nevertheless, they do not cut off limbs, use hot pokers on body parts, etc., etc. If waterboarding were to rise to the level of actual torture - then we would not subject our own people to it. That being said - I personally would think that in (almost all?) circumstances, true torture should not be used - for a few reasons. What else did our nation purportedly do that was described as torture? I'm not aware of acts that I define as torture.

Not to mention that the earth's climate has changed since the beginning of time. Does this moron think that it is ONLY going to warm forever - if indeed it is presently warming at all?

LOVE this song!

While I did not agree with all that Mrs. Patton had to say, why is it that so many continue to distort her point? Her point was not that women shouldn't have careers, that women aren't capable and smart, etc., etc. Her point was not that women "must" have a man to "complete" them. As I understand it, however, Patton's point is that an Ivy League school is a good place to find smart and capable husband material. And - that there are downsides to waiting and waiting and WAITING to find a man and get married. Do so many people find this ideas offensive? I sure don't. Now, I agree that there are downsides to "finding a guy" and marrying early. Nevertheless, why can't people accept what Patton is saying for what it is - and not excoriate her for expressing some truths?

Very cute pic - but - heavy on the pink! (Send it to me and I will adjust for you) :)

I like the photo as it is. A beautiful, soft gauzy look to it. You seem so much happier now that you are in love, Keith. Simply wonderful!

Most of it is, Carol....

You got lucky, my friend! Beautiful photo of you and your lovely wife.

I got this at Mom & Dad's (south Florida). Download Speed: 11.93 Mbps (1.49 MB/sec transfer rate) Upload Speed: 2.81 Mbps (0.35 MB/sec transfer rate)

The most critical difference between you and Lance Armstrong is that you are a moral person - and Armstrong is amoral. Yes; it's that simple.

Though they don't realize it, I find many atheists to be as rigid and didactic as the "religious" upon whom they look down - if not more! Susan Jacoby does have an most limited - and thus incorrect - view of the religious. While some fit this description, tens of millions do not. Much easier, however, to denigrate someone or something when you are not being true and accurate. Ms. Jacoby and her fellow atheists are entitled to their beliefs. So are those who are religious. And neither deserves to be mocked - nor have what they do believe misrepresented.

I did live in Madison, WI for 4 years!

Why does Mr. Baker think that charitable contributions should be "personal and voluntary" - and that taxation can be high and go to all sorts of wasteful and ridiculous costs that many would not wish to support? He seems to assume that whatever the government wishes to confiscate ought to go to the government - without any challenge whatsoever. I might be willing to support changes in the tax status of our charitable contributions if what we had to give to the government was much more charitable!