Preface
Many people believe that a man does not have the capacity or qualifications to discuss certain subjects. This is one of them.

Is it murder?
It was a political event. Dinner preceded the program. You were seated between women friends of like mind, one your staunch friend, the other a dinner acquaintance. Brisk discussion landed on a polarizing issue that happens to be in hibernation, patiently waiting for the upcoming midterm elections. Abortion. It never fails to bring out a verbal brawl, with large helpings of indignation, hostility and intransigence. You freely admit that you fit right in with opinionated squabbles. But skip the prelude and get to the plaintiffs and their accusation. The like minded pair announced that abortion is murder — no exception for extenuating circumstances. Killing a fetus is murder. Life begins at conception. Factually, therefore, there can be no argument that ending life is murder. Before you stepped in it, your brain warned, “Don’t.” Almost like an onlooker, you heard yourself say, “So you want to indict and prosecute millions of people who are involved in abortion, including 15 year old’s and their parents? Another mistake. The question unquestionably was a counter accusation. Very quickly, “Look, I’m entirely against government sponsored abortion; but however true it may be, calling abortion murder can only lead to one place — a police state. Almost simultaneously: “You can’t deny it’s murder.” Eventually, the exchanges petered out when a voice introduced the evening program. Rescued from the warrior twins,  you followed the proceedings but couldn’t shake thoughts of abortion. Hours later, it followed you home, and here you sit, unqualified, induced once again to put a stake in the ground.

When does life begin?
Essentially, the first step in saving human life is to accept the undeniable truth that a fetus heartbeat is detectable 4-5 weeks after fertilization. Those who disagree that life begins with conception cannot deny that a 5 week-old fetus is a human being. Civilized medical, educational and legal institutions must instruct the populous of this scientific fact to bury the assertion that a fetus is an “undifferentiated clump of cells.”

Who is responsible?
The female human has as many as ten ways to prevent pregnancy and at least one way to eliminate fertilization. Once and for all, abortion is the sole responsibility of individual females. Their decision to abort is their obligation alone — to seek and pay for medical mediation. Abortion is not the province of society and should not be the obligation of governments or cost to American taxpayers. BTW, fathers ( husbands, boyfriends or acquaintances) of the unborn have no legal rights whatsoever in the abortion decision.

Do the States have a solution?
The Supreme Court finally made a right decision in the right direction by putting the abortion question in the hands of States. Unfortunately, many State lawmakers play politics, scared stiff of restrictive policies that might lose the women’s vote. In any event, state policies run the gamut — surprisingly, 14 states ban nearly all abortions, basically at conception; two states impose a ban when the heartbeat is detected (5-6 weeks); nine states ban between 12-22 weeks. Most of the other states have restrictions based on fetus “viability,” meaning a provider’s judgment. Tom Jefferson’s state says you can kill a babe in the third term, meaning at full term. Virginia should be included in the six states (and D.C) that have no term restrictions. You are left with the belief that abortion has no universal solution. You are left only with a compromise that still doesn’t satisfy your belief that life begins at conception. But it does eliminate the tyranny of various special interest groups that want to inflict varying degrees of supremacy over individual freedom.

Who should decide?
Not the Federal Government. Take the Fed out of the issue altogether. Primarily, there can be zero federal, state or local funding for abortion, including any funding to abortion clinics, or subsidies to individual citizens. For the time being, leave the issue with the States, the lesser of two evils. You would charge the U.S. Senate to convene public hearings with the greater medical community to recommend a universal policy.  At the very least, you would want to hear a national pronouncement that life begins with a beating heart; and thus suggest that no medical provider be free to abort a baby past six weeks. Accordingly, the greater medical industry becomes the proper authority to police itself by denying abortion beyond that limit. This assertion would not satisfy your critics, but the statistics show that the large majority of abortions already occur inside the 13-week window. Yes, you can hear the naysayers. A plan like this would take us back to underground abortions — to medical quacks, witchcraft and horror stories. As callous as it sounds or is, you prefer the individual casualty of a botched abortion to corporate baby factories, baby harvesting and the disdain for millions of human lives — nothing less than a modern day holocaust.

My body, my choice?
“My body, my choice” is a global slogan that represents the idea that a woman has bodily autonomy, freedom of choice and self ownership. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that a pregnant mother owns her pregnancy as well as her fetus at any stage of development. That ownership gives her the right to terminate the life of her unborn child at any time, considering that a fetus is totally helpless — without speech, thought, understanding, mobility and all the other attributes of a living person. If that summary of helplessness is true, you must ask: Isn’t it true of a week-old infant, a month-old infant, a year-old infant? Surely, a parent owns her totally helpless offspring during early development and even later. Yet, when a parent terminates the life of a helpless infant, she is indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned by the legal system. Evidently, human rights apply only to babies who can see the light of day. Unborn babies have no choice and no rights. Oh, you forgot, they’re not really babies.

Note: Obviously, there are considerations that may dictate abortion: rape, the life of the mother and fetus abnormality. Ed.

www.conventionofstates.com

Unfortunately you don’t have Warren Buffett’s coin — which is a mere 160 billion. You would settle for one percent of that pile — a paltry 1.6 billion. Preferably, half the amount would be liquid, since you want to fund your own major OTA Network, or smaller national cable television channel like CNN, ESPN, etc. Or you could also choose to go the IPTV route (Internet Protocol Television); but you believe crashing Legacy Media’s OTA playing field would be more irritating and effective, not to speak of a bloody blast. But don’t be misled. You would have no intention to personally organize and implement a new broadcast animal. All you could bring to the enterprise is the idea and somebody else’s money. You would have to hire top drawer execs who would procure killer technology, killer talent and killer content. The field test name for your new TV entity is Broadcast Bunk (BB). The primary purpose of BB would be to review reviewers and commentators — that is, the companies and people who own the national microphone — who are responsible for television and radio programming.  Likely, BB would concentrate on talk shows that are in the business of spouting non-stop opinions and analysis. Essentially, Broadcast Bunk would critique the broadcast industry product on a timely basis. You imagine BB would also devote time  to critique its own bunk. Broadcast bigwigs might dump on your idea this way: “The marketplace is the proper judge of broadcast programming and talent. If the people don’t like the bunk we dish out, they can tune out; and if they tune out, the advertisers simply wouldn’t spend their money supporting our bunk. It’s called free market capitalism.” As a capitalist, you would reply, “Exactly. Let the people decide.” For instance, they could decide if advertisers themselves aren’t in the dishing-out-bunk business. Since the BB concept is still under development, you’re not prepared to divulge specific programming and formatting; but you’re willing to share some initial concepts. Most likely, BB would resemble Gutfeld and other bold gabfests. However, BB would require a huge cast — hosts, permanent talent and a bevy of expert guests keen on audacity. Also likely, the daily content would consist of departments and/or categories like Politics, Advertising, Sports, Entertainment, etc. For instance, political prattle on shows like The Five or The View would definitely stand scrutiny as would the Sean (you know) Hannity Show on Fox, or his daily, three-hour (count it) syndicated radio broadcast. Since ESPN airs wall-to-wall chatter like Get Up, First Take, College Game Day, etc., the cliche-ridden channel is ripe fruit for picking. Advertising perhaps represents the most fertile plowing ground, since so much of it is impossibly insipid. Without question, BB must be funny, outrageously provocative, often offensive, devoted to the truth and religiously opposed to all things PC. The big question for this endeavor? Can it gradually build and sustain a large audience? Can the audience justify attracting advertisers, considering that most of them would be subject to ridicule? It’s simply too early to tell how the concept might jell. Let’s just say for now it’s a good idea — that it would motivate Mr. Buffett to send you the gravy asap, and that BB would stimulate the entire nation and entertain the brains of viewers who at this very moment agree that 80% of broadcast media is swill. However, if this particular fantasy fizzles, something else has to happen. Because the American Way needs defenders. Raped repeatedly, The Constitution needs restorative surgery. Journalism is in a coma. Group Identity tramples individualism. America’s soul — Her moral precept — is long forsaken. Hmm. Matilda, Buffett could pass on BB. It would be tough to identify 1000 people willing to shell out a million apiece. You have to face the very real possibility that BB is far-fetched. Charlie Kirk was headed in this direction. If people like Charlie, Tucker, Joe, JP and Elon, don’t see a place for BB, you have to face reality. Well, all you can do is wait. You really want to pummel MSNBC

www.conventionofstates.com

Generally speaking, all serious writers probe existential subjects — good vs evil, the human condition and the meaning of life. This assessment is true of literary giants 2000 years ago and also true of those who aspire to greatness today. Generally speaking, the first work of most serious authors is their crowning achievement, their magnum opus, while all of their other work, however equally brilliant, digs the same essential ground. This assertion is most evident in the works of writers like Dostoevsky, Hugo, Bronte, Pasternak, Austen, Marquez, Poe, Wilde, Sophocles, etc. Unfortunately, these legends didn’t live to cash it in with Hollywood and network television. But their genius has nonetheless been on full display for decades. Millions have flocked to stage and screen to witness their achievements, some even induced to take up reading, thinking and learning. Generally speaking, the modern era is also congested with fine authors, prolific authors. On the popularity front, many of them are darlings of the movie industry. The novels of Grisham, Clancy, Rowling, Sparks, Steele, Irving, Fleming ( J. Bond), King (of horror), Atwood and many other literary heavyweights, check all the boxes of human drama, with big helpings of love, hate, wickedness, courage,, intrigue and heroism. But, generally speaking, the publishing industry also has an abiding interest in the huge, lucrative, non-fiction category, although critics like you might suggest there’s a big helping of fiction in non-fiction. Especially in the autobiography category. Consider how  all manner of celebrities, including politicians, eagerly capitalize on their names. The publishing hucksters routinely create provocative book titles and dramatic book jackets well before the ghost writers complete a first draft. This reproach, of course, is not aimed at the political star who recently decided to put aside ego and give her adoring fans the  lowdown on a selfless loyalty to Joe Biden.  Generally speaking, 107 Days is likely the inside story of Kamala Harris’ self sacrifice — of her dogged determination to continue the fight, even to admit to one reporter that, during the campaign, “she was terrified about what this (her loss) would mean for the country and for democracy.”  Hmm, touching. Or more likely, touched. For personal reasons, you have decided to postpone a review of the book.  As Scarlett so often and so famously said, “I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.” After all, during the campaign, you did listen carefully to Kamala’s shrewd, penetrating wit, to her astute grasp of complicated issues, her bold solutions and spontaneous humor. What else can there be? You feel confident to guess at some of her back story. Certainly, the underdog complaint will surface — that 107 Days is a wink of an eye, so little time to prepare, so little time for people to know the real me, all the while facing the insults of a  former president who was also a media celeb.  Perhaps it didn’t occur to Kamala that, in fact, too many people might have come to know her too well in too short a time. Generally speaking, the political pundits are quick to weigh-in on a possible Harris rerun. Those who give thumbs down say that key Democrat power brokers are leaning to a photogenic, big State Governor who has the charisma to grow a diverse electorate. Now who could that be? you ask, tongue firmly in cheek. Others — fewer others — believe Harris still has credentials that appeal to a wide, assorted audience, not the least of which is the largest voting group in America. Take a guess, Matilda. Still other experts say she will decide, for private career reasons, to skip 2028. Face it, you have zero standing to have an opinion. If you decide to read 107 Days, you may find a clue lurking about. You may detect a combative resolve, or a vengeful remark, that exposes her intentions. While Kamala plugs her book on the requisite media stops, you discover another book that ranks #1 on Amazon, based on pre sales. Stop, in the Name of God, authored by Charlie Kirk, will be released posthumously in three months. Generally speaking, Charlie Kirk was no literary giant, no literary technician. He was no Dostoevsky, Dickens, Steinbeck or Rowling. But, as a self avowed disciple of Jesus Christ, he authored several best seller books** to remind a nation that America’s founding principals are precisely aligned with the principles of Christianity. You believe he would say the Founders got it exactly right, that The Constitution was immaculately conceived in its simplicity; then  summarily distorted and perverted to give a Central Government absolute power. The outpouring of love for Charlie Kirk was not for the shock of how he died, but for the realization of how he lived — hands outstretched to the young — his willingness to have conversations with anyone who disagreed with him. For centuries, great writers have observed and analyzed the human condition. Charlie reached out to touch humanity, face to face.  Gratefully speaking,  his splendid life speaks for itself.

** Note: Selected  works of Charlie Kirk: Stop, in the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life; Right Wing Revolution: How to Beat the Woke and Save the West; The MAGA Doctrine; Time for a Turning Point; The College Scam. Ed.

www.conventionofstates.com