Iraq was next to Iran. Is there no possibility that having a US military presence within striking distance of Iran - and at the moment that means from both Iraq AND Afghanistan - while the mullahs are calling the shots is a good thing?

What happens to keeping Iran in its box if we completely remove our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan? Does Israel just nuke Tehran and be done with it? Would that be in our best national interest - a nuclear war between Israel and its Muslim neighbors?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the price of oil might go up a notch or two if there's another shooting war in the Middle East. And if we pull out, what's to keep the mullahs from fulfilling their promise of attempting to...

A private enterprise depends on both referrals and repeat business. If a company "screws" too many customers those customers go away, they tell others not to do business with that company, and the company goes out of business. That is how private enterprise is self-regulating.

I somehow doubt that you buy anything of consequence without asking around about what is the best deal, best performance, best service, etc. If you don't, you are likely to get "screwed."

Government regulation can't prevent people with blinders on from getting "screwed." There were plenty of regulations and regulators in the financial industry when Bernie Madoff managed to bilk the best and brightest out of billions. Why? Because no one did their...

None - not one - of the discussions I've heard on the topic addresses how much could be saved and what efficiencies could be restored if the added costs and imposed inefficiencies resulting from government regulation and other requirements were removed. Same is true for the auto industry and business in general in the USA. We have so many arbitrary and often conflicting rules and regulations, not to mention tax incentives and disincentives, that American businesses cannot make sound business decisions and cannot operate at maximum efficiency.

So, I believe the first thing that should be done when addressing any government interference into private enterprise is determining what existing government measures can be ended which in...

By libertarian limbo, I mean that there is no political party that I feel completely comfortable with. I have generally voted for the Libertarian candidate whenever that option was available; however, the Libertarian Party is filled with ideologues who prefer to hold on to the most extreme positions with no sense of incremental progress. In other words, I think they lack the necessary pragmatism to temper their message so that it might attract disaffected voters. And they are sorely wanting of a real PR campaign spearheaded by a Clint Eastwood-type personality who can make the libertarian case. So, unlike you, I generally feel like a man without a party.

Welcome to Libertarian Limbo.

I think your wife is absolutely right.

The war on drugs is jobs program for law enforcement and prison guards. Time to change tactics and put those people to work ridding our country of illegals.

The war on drugs is a lost cause. Time for a better plan: Legalize all drugs. Sell them like we sell alcohol and cigarettes. Tax them to the limit of what the market will bear. Fine people for public intoxication; jail them for driving under influence. Buy the opium from the Afghan farmers. Put Al Qaeda out of business. Pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Put the DEA into immigration and border control.

If Al Qaeda is the enemy and Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan, why are we risking troops there? If we have the ability to use drones and aircraft to take out
Taliban and other enemy positions along the border, why are we risking troops? If Afghanistan is an artificial entity primarily occupied by marauding tribes, only one third of which is under control of the "national" government, why are we bothering with a mission that has almost no likelihood of succeeding?

I supported ousting Saddam and re-establishing a civilized society in Iraq, the cradle of civilization, for a long list of reasons. But we can not re-establish something that has never existed in Afghanistan - civilization. If we can put a tactical force along...

Hate to disappoint, but I'm among those who believe the Founding Fathers to have been Deists or at least had Deist leanings. Consequently, I have a somewhat different take on how they viewed morality.

I obviously disagree.

To me the big picture, as I said above, is: Should poor kids be neglected and allowed to incur unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and HIV because the subject matter is uncomfortable for some people? My answer is still no.

And for the record, I think the proposition that school districts around the country are going to adopt some UN proposal unamended is a lark. In San Francisco, maybe. Mt Jackson, Virginia, I don't think so.

"Question. We've been teaching sex ed in public schools for some time now. How is it working out? Lower incidence of STDs, HIV, unwed pregnancy/abortion among teens?"

Hard to say. Things might be far worse had those programs never been implemented. How many need to be turned around to make it worth while? Are you willing to risk things get even worse by eliminating the one source some of those kids might have for that information? Should we just throw in the towel and not worry about it?