What’s wrong with the following iconic image for dating tips, which I nabbed off of the front page of Friendster a couple days ago?

If you don’t notice anything off the top of your head, it might help to consider the date today.

(Thanks, Vanessa at feministing [2005-10-07].)

In Indiana, state Senator Pat Miller has decided to withdraw a bill that would have required government parenting licenses for people who want to conceive through artificial means.

Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis says the issue has become more complex than she thought. So she is withdrawing it from consideration.

Actually, the issue is not complex at all. This is complex:

Sec. 5. (a) A petition to establish parentage may be filed by an intended parent.

(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spouses must be parties to the action to establish parentage.

(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

Sec. 6. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be filed in triplicate.

(b) The original copy of a petition to establish parentage must be verified by the oath or affirmation of each petitioner.

Sec. 7. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be made under oath and specify the following:

(1) The:

(A) name, age, and place of residence of each petitioner; and

(B) place and date of marriage of the petitioners.

(2) The name and place or residence, if known, of the donor or donors.

(3) The name and address of the agency that performed the assessment under section 12 of this chapter.

(4) The name and address of the physician who performed the medical procedure that resulted in the pregnancy of the child who is subject to the parentage action.

(5) The type of assisted reproduction procedure that was used.

(6) Whether a petitioner has been convicted of:

(A) a felony; or

(B) a misdemeanor relating to the health and safety of children;

and, if so, the date and description of the conviction.

(7) Additional information consistent with the purpose and provisions of this chapter that is considered relevant to the proceedings.

(b) The following documents must be attached to the petition to establish parentage:

(1) The consent of the petitioners required under section 13 of this chapter to the medical procedure that resulted in the pregnancy for the child who is the subject to the parentage action.

(2) The consent of each donor, if known, to the use of the donation for the assisted reproduction medical procedure.

(3) The certificate of satisfactory completion of the assessment required under section 12 of this chapter.

(4) The certificate of the physician required under section 14 of this chapter. …

Sec. 11. … (b) A physician may not commence an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of the assessment required under section 12 of this chapter. …

Sec. 12. (a) Before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction, the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing agency in the intended parents’ state of residence.

(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:

(1) The intended parents’ purpose for the assisted reproduction.

(2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.

(3) An acknowledgment by the intended parents that the child may not be the biological child of at least one (1) of the intended parents depending on the type of artificial reproduction procedure used.

(4) A list of the intended parents’ family and friend support system.

(5) A plan for sharing any known genetic information with the child.

(6) Personal information about each intended parent, including the following:

(A) Family of origin.

(B) Values.

(C) Relationships.

(D) Education.

(E) Employment and income.

(F) Hobbies and talents.

(G) Physical description, including the general health of the individual.

(H) Birth verification.

(I) Personality description, including the strengths and weaknesses of each intended parent.

(7) Description of any children residing in the intended parents’ home.

(8) A verification and evaluation of the intended parents’ marital relationship, including:

(A) the shared values and interests between the individuals;

(B) the manner in which conflict between the individuals is resolved; and

(C) a history of the intended parents’ relationship.

(9) Documentation of the dissolution of any prior marriage and an assessment of the impact of the prior marriage on the intended parents’ relationship.

(10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.

(11) The intended parents’ child rearing expectations and values.

(12) A description of the home and community, including verification of the safety and security of the home.

(13) Child care plans.

(14) Statement of the assets, liabilities, investments, and ability of the intended parents to manage finances, including the most recently filed tax forms.

(15) A review of the local police records, the state and violent offender directory, and a criminal history check as set forth in subsection (c).

(16) A letter of reference by a friend or family member.

(17) A written consent from each donor, if known, to use of the donation in the assisted reproduction medical procedure.

(18) The recommendation for participation in assisted reproduction.

… (f) After completing the assessment described in this section, and if the child placing agency approves the intended parents to commence the assisted reproduction procedure, the agency shall issue a certificate that the intended parents have satisfactorily completed the assessment and are ready to commence assisted reproduction.

(g) A certificate issued under subsection (f) is valid for two (2) years.

(h) A physician may rely upon a certificate issued under this section to commence assisted reproduction with an intended parent.

(i) A certificate issued under subsection (f) must be filed with the petition to establish parentage.

… Sec. 14.(a) After a viable pregnancy has been achieved by artificial reproduction, the physician who performed the artificial reproduction procedure shall issue a certificate to the intended parents stating:

(1) the child was conceived under the care of the physician;

(2) the type of artificial reproduction procedure that was used;

(3) whether the donor is known or anonymous; and

(4) whether the physician is aware of any compensation being paid to the donor.

(b) The certificate must be:

(1) on the physician’s letterhead stationary; and

(2) notarized.

(c) The certificate required under this section shall be filed with the petition to establish parentage.

(d) form by x agency?

Sec. 15. (a) If the court finds that:

(1) the petition to establish parentage satisfies the requirements of this chapter;

(2) the certificate from a licensed child placing agency required under section 12 of this chapter has been filed and meets the requirements of this chapter;

(3) the certificate by the physician required under section 14 of this chapter has been filed and meets the requirements of this chapter; and

(4) the consent required under section 13 of this chapter has been obtained; the court shall grant the petition to establish parentage and enter a decree establishing parentage without a hearing or further court action unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that granting the petition is not in the best interests of the child.

(b) The court may deny the petition to establish parentage if a petitioner has been convicted of a crime described in section 7(a)(5). …

Sec. 17. (a) If the court dismisses a petition to establish parentage, the court shall determine the person who should have custody of the child. …

Sec. 20. (a) An intended parent who knowingly or intentionally participates in an artificial reproduction procedure without establishing parentage under section 15 of this chapter commits unauthorized artificial reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.

… but the issue is simple. Our bodies are not public property; reproductive totalitarianism is wrong; the State has no business imposing a ridiculous set of requirements like that on anybody. And movement conservatives’ idea of limited government and ordered freedom is a government that limits and your freedom to take orders from it.

Good thing they lost this one.

Everything old is new again.

Here’s how principled conservatives in the Indiana state legislature propose to follow through on the Republican promise of making the government accountable to the people, not the people to the government: a suggested law to require government parenting licenses for people who want to conceive through artificial insemination. Queahs and single hussies need not apply:

Sec. 5. (a) A petition to establish parentage may be filed by an intended parent.

(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spouses must be parties to the action to establish parentage.

(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

And nothing says small government like government-controlled reproduction and piles of bureaucratic paperwork to manage it all!

Sec. 6. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be filed in triplicate.

(b) The original copy of a petition to establish parentage must be verified by the oath or affirmation of each petitioner.

Sec. 7. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be made under oath and specify the following:

(1) The:

(A) name, age, and place of residence of each petitioner; and

(B) place and date of marriage of the petitioners.

(2) The name and place or residence, if known, of the donor or donors.

(3) The name and address of the agency that performed the assessment under section 12 of this chapter.

(4) The name and address of the physician who performed the medical procedure that resulted in the pregnancy of the child who is subject to the parentage action.

(5) The type of assisted reproduction procedure that was used.

(6) Whether a petitioner has been convicted of:

(A) a felony; or

(B) a misdemeanor relating to the health and safety of children;

and, if so, the date and description of the conviction.

(7) Additional information consistent with the purpose and provisions of this chapter that is considered relevant to the proceedings.

(b) The following documents must be attached to the petition to establish parentage:

(1) The consent of the petitioners required under section 13 of this chapter to the medical procedure that resulted in the pregnancy for the child who is the subject to the parentage action.

(2) The consent of each donor, if known, to the use of the donation for the assisted reproduction medical procedure.

(3) The certificate of satisfactory completion of the assessment required under section 12 of this chapter.

(4) The certificate of the physician required under section 14 of this chapter. …

Sec. 11. … (b) A physician may not commence an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of the assessment required under section 12 of this chapter. …

Sec. 12. (a) Before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction, the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing agency in the intended parents’ state of residence.

(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:

(1) The intended parents’ purpose for the assisted reproduction.

(2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.

(3) An acknowledgment by the intended parents that the child may not be the biological child of at least one (1) of the intended parents depending on the type of artificial reproduction procedure used.

(4) A list of the intended parents’ family and friend support system.

(5) A plan for sharing any known genetic information with the child.

(6) Personal information about each intended parent, including the following:

(A) Family of origin.

(B) Values.

(C) Relationships.

(D) Education.

(E) Employment and income.

(F) Hobbies and talents.

(G) Physical description, including the general health of the individual.

(H) Birth verification.

(I) Personality description, including the strengths and weaknesses of each intended parent.

(7) Description of any children residing in the intended parents’ home.

(8) A verification and evaluation of the intended parents’ marital relationship, including:

(A) the shared values and interests between the individuals;

(B) the manner in which conflict between the individuals is resolved; and

(C) a history of the intended parents’ relationship.

(9) Documentation of the dissolution of any prior marriage and an assessment of the impact of the prior marriage on the intended parents’ relationship.

(10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.

(11) The intended parents’ child rearing expectations and values.

(12) A description of the home and community, including verification of the safety and security of the home.

(13) Child care plans.

(14) Statement of the assets, liabilities, investments, and ability of the intended parents to manage finances, including the most recently filed tax forms.

(15) A review of the local police records, the state and violent offender directory, and a criminal history check as set forth in subsection (c).

(16) A letter of reference by a friend or family member.

(17) A written consent from each donor, if known, to use of the donation in the assisted reproduction medical procedure.

(18) The recommendation for participation in assisted reproduction.

… (f) After completing the assessment described in this section, and if the child placing agency approves the intended parents to commence the assisted reproduction procedure, the agency shall issue a certificate that the intended parents have satisfactorily completed the assessment and are ready to commence assisted reproduction.

(g) A certificate issued under subsection (f) is valid for two (2) years.

(h) A physician may rely upon a certificate issued under this section to commence assisted reproduction with an intended parent.

(i) A certificate issued under subsection (f) must be filed with the petition to establish parentage.

… Sec. 14.(a) After a viable pregnancy has been achieved by artificial reproduction, the physician who performed the artificial reproduction procedure shall issue a certificate to the intended parents stating:

(1) the child was conceived under the care of the physician;

(2) the type of artificial reproduction procedure that was used;

(3) whether the donor is known or anonymous; and

(4) whether the physician is aware of any compensation being paid to the donor.

(b) The certificate must be:

(1) on the physician’s letterhead stationary; and

(2) notarized.

(c) The certificate required under this section shall be filed with the petition to establish parentage.

(d) form by x agency?

Sec. 15. (a) If the court finds that:

(1) the petition to establish parentage satisfies the requirements of this chapter;

(2) the certificate from a licensed child placing agency required under section 12 of this chapter has been filed and meets the requirements of this chapter;

(3) the certificate by the physician required under section 14 of this chapter has been filed and meets the requirements of this chapter; and

(4) the consent required under section 13 of this chapter has been obtained; the court shall grant the petition to establish parentage and enter a decree establishing parentage without a hearing or further court action unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that granting the petition is not in the best interests of the child.

(b) The court may deny the petition to establish parentage if a petitioner has been convicted of a crime described in section 7(a)(5). …

Of course, covenants without the sword are but breath:

Sec. 17. (a) If the court dismisses a petition to establish parentage, the court shall determine the person who should have custody of the child. …

Sec. 20. (a) An intended parent who knowingly or intentionally participates in an artificial reproduction procedure without establishing parentage under section 15 of this chapter commits unauthorized artificial reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.

You can read the whole damn thing, if you’re into that sort of thing.

The proposed bill is the work of State Senator Pat Miller (R-Indianapolis). Here’s what she had to say on its behalf:

Miller said the state often reacts to problems and she instead wants to be proactive on this issue.

We’re not trying to stop people from having kids; we’re just trying to find some guidelines, she said.

She did concede it would stop single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family — a mother and a father.

Meanwhile, her Republican colleagues recoil in horror at the existence of an unregulated industry:

Sen. Gary Dillon, R-Pierceton, is a member on the commission and said parts of the legislation have valid points. He does have some reservations about limiting the reproductive rights of single people [that’s awful big of him -RG] but quoted the same studies as Miller about the health of a child in two-parent homes.

There’s a concern that there’s no regulation over this whole industry, he said.

You can let Senator Miller know what you think at:

Senator Patricia Miller
(317) 232-9400
(800) 382-9467

Let’s kill this thing dead.

Meanwhile, I’m just waiting with baited breath for some federalist libertarian to come along and tell me how the real evil would be for the federal courts to strike this down on the obvious privacy grounds. Because, you know, it’s not so bad, as long as a state is doing it.

Further reading

• Dr. B.’s Blog 2005-10-05: I Went to Sleep in IN and Woke Up in The Handmaid’s Tale
• Pandagon 2005-10-04: Put down that turkey baster and put your hands in the air so I can see your wedding ring
• feministe 2005-10-04: Holy shit, Indiana

Hey, you Beltway liberal types? Look, I’m bored silly by obsessively tracking every little move in the gladiatorial arena of DC, and I even think it’s destructive of serious politics. But I was with you on this whole weird Jeff Gannon / James Guckert story. Republican red herrings to one side, there was a real story here. The story was about how Gannon–a man who had no journalistic qualifications whatsoever and who engaged in some pretty transparent deceptions to try to cover over his life as a gay prostitute–was nevertheless clearly maneuvered, through immense administration favoritism, into the inner circle of the White House Press Corps, because he served as a useful administration-designated plant in the audience at press briefings. The story wasn’t about prostitution, much less homosexuality; it was about yet another glaring example of the Bush Administration’s willingness to institute the mechanisms of an overt propaganda machine–including using tax resources to exert control over the press corps through pay-offs and privileges to useful reporters and commentators. Or, here, creating a useful reporter out of thin air.

That’s an interesting (and depressing) story about the shamelessness of this administration. That’s why I was willing to get your back on it. But, hey, folks? This?

(Update: The reward is now $20k as of 03-02-05)

Have you seen this man?

A wealthy Washington socialite is offering a $10,000 reward for proof that Jeff Gannon (pictured), an allegedly gay kinky-sex prostitute / escort / white house reporter / GOP operative, has had any type of sexual, or romantic, relationship with any top-ranking Washington official(s) — or proof that he engaged in any illegal sexual activities or favors.

…

A local socialite, who wishes to remain anonymous, has teamed up with this site to offer a $10,000 reward to anyone that can provide hard proof.

We are looking for evidence (photos, phone pictures, locks of hair, DNA on a suit) that Jeff Gannon had any type of sexual, or romantic, relationship with any top-ranking Washington official(s) — or proof that he engaged in any illegal sexual activities or favors.

— Reward: Jeff Gannon information. Washington Socialites 2005-02-23

This is not an interesting story. This is gay-baiting. You are trying to dig up dirt on prominent officials’ sexuality and you are aiming to out them against their will–in order to destroy their political careers. That’s fucked up.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t object to destroying some dumb jerk’s political career. If I had my way, everybody’s political career would be destroyed. What I do object to–and what any one who claims to take homophobia seriously as a social problem should object to–is the fact that the tactic being used for destruction here is to out men who’ve been having sex with men before they are ready to come out, and the reason for outing them is to pander to the homophobia of hard Right voters. If that homophobia didn’t exist, and if the homophobes weren’t willing to ruin people’s lives over the gender of their sex partner(s), the plan wouldn’t work. But it does, and they are, and you’re willing to make use of it to try to score political points. That’s fucked up.

You might claim that the issue here is prostitution, not gay prostitution specifically. Horsepucky. It’s an open secret that powerful men, including some powerful Republican officials, have made a habit of patronizing women in prostitution. But there isn’t a bounty out for information on proof that some Administration official somewhere paid for heterosexual sex, is there? And you’re not musing on your blogs about it, are you? That’s because you’re not concerned about any of the ethical questions involved in the many different kinds of prostitution in the world; you’re concerned about political leverage, and you’re more likely to score a clean kill if you can out someone as gay. And that’s fucked up.

Get your heads out of the Beltway. Just stop it.

Ward Churchill and Hans-Hermann Hoppe might not enjoy coffee together very much. I can clearly see the meeting ending in blows. But they do have some things in common, sure: both are radical critics of the State and the social status quo; both are tenured professors at state Universities in the West; and both have recently found themselves in administrative hot water for making controversial public statements.

Churchill’s case, so far, has been more widely reported. Thanks to the heroic efforts of a student journalist using Google, the Know-Nothing blowhard brigade finally discovered that Ward Churchill wrote an essay called Some People Push Back–which has been distributed on the Internet since 2001, and was expanded into a book-length treatment in 2003–in which he described the September 11 attacks as chickens coming home to roost, pointed out that the plane flown into the Pentagon was striking a military target, and that As to those in the World Trade Center … Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. You’re hearing about all this now because Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, was scheduled to speak on a panel at Hamilton College in New York on The Limits of Dissent (because God is an ironist, I guess), and after a journalist at the student newspaper dug up Churchill’s essay and wrote a story on it, the Right-wing commentariat saw something they’ve been salivating over for a long time: a perfect opportunity to sink their teeth, hard, into the (allegedly Left-dominated) world of academia. So they deployed a predictable combination of media hue-and-cry and outright threats of violence, and managed to mau-mau Hamilton into cancelling the panel. Now, in hopes of a second victory for silence, they are pushing for University of Colorado at Boulder to follow it up by firing Churchill from his (tenured) professorship. The University’s Chancellor has so far agreed to bring a thorough examination of Churchill’s opinions before the Holy Inquisition:

And Colorado’s DiStefano, after an angry grilling from the university’s Board of Regents — an elected body dominated by conservatives — reversed himself and announced a 30-day investigation of all of Churchill’s lectures and publications. This is the first step, the chancellor said, in the legal process required to fire a tenured professor.

Meanwhile, there have been Web site calls for the resignation of Stewart for allowing Churchill to be invited in the first place.

— Washington Post 2005-02-05

Just a few days later, in Las Vegas, because–again–God is an ironist, anarcho-capitalist economics Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe found himself brought before a disciplinary hearing by the administration at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. Hoppe had a formal complaint filed against him by a student for his comments in a lecture on the economic concept of time preference, in which he decided to illustrate the concept by examples, and claimed that homosexuals, as a group, tend to have higher time preferences than heterosexuals–that is to say, that homos tend to prefer immediate gratification over deferred rewards more strongly than straights. He went on to insinuate that the emphasis on short-run effects over long-run equilibria in J.M. Keynes’s economic theories might be explained by Lord Keynes’s fondness for gay liasons. In response to the student’s complaint, UNLV is demanding Hoppe accept a letter of reprimand and a dock in pay in response to a formal complaint filed by a student in one of his economics classes; Hoppe is striking back with a letter-writing campaign and legal assistance from the ACLU.

The anarcho-capitalists who are coming out for Hoppe and the lefty anarchists who are coming out for Churchill might not want very much to do with each other. But both camps are right to point out that both of these cases represent dangerous threats to academic freedom. (Note: threats to academic freedom, not freedom of speech. The two are importantly different concepts, although both are valuable.) Unfortunately, both camps have also developed a maddening tendency to smother the point about academic freedom (or open debate more broadly) in a bunch of rally-’round-the-black-flag nonsense.

Hoppe and Churchill should not be punished by academic Inquisitors for the contents of their arguments. Academic freedom is absolutely vital to the functioning of a University (as a place of education rather than an indoctrination camp), and it’s absolutely vital to maintain a climate of vigorous, open debate in our culture. But it’s important to note that the reasons for protecting academic freedom apply to bad arguments as well as to good ones: defending Hoppe’s and Churchill’s freedom to make arguments without fear of professional reprisals doesn’t require defending the arguments they make. And that’s a good thing, because Ward Churchill is a dick, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe is a homophobic bigot. Their arguments shouldn’t be defended, because those arguments are indefensible.

It ought to be transparent why Hoppe’s claims are offensive–and I’m frankly tired of seeing libertarians play innocent on the matter. Hoppe’s latest comments are only the latest in a long record, and I’m frankly baffled that Ilana Mercer or anyone else would take seriously the notion that describing the comments as only a generalization about how homos usually prefer immediate gratification more strongly than breeders is supposed to make it less offensive. Does anyone think that Hoppe’s left-field ad hominem argument–insinuations that poofery might explain errors in Lord Keynes’s economic thought that Hoppe finds particularly grave–is really a vital teaching tool? Or that it doesn’t make his other comments on homosexuality and gratification seem just a little, well, bigoted?

Churchill’s essay, for its part, is a farrago of confusions, logical fallacies, and flat-out lies. Most of the nits aren’t worth picking here; what is worth pointing out is that the central theme of the essay depends entirely on the claim that when America–that is, the American government–goes on a rampage around the world, we are acting like bullies, and so we have no grounds for complaint when we are ruthlessly slaughtered by people [who] push back. The problem here is that the people picked out by the we changes with every use: the people who did the rampaging and bullying are the government and its agents; the people who are complaining are, I guess, ordinary Americans; the people who were ruthlessly slaughtered were a couple of thousand workers, the overwhelming majority of them neither involved with the military nor holding any foreign policy position in the U.S. government, who happened to commit the terrible crime of going to work one Tuesday. But the people are not the government, and they are not owned by the government. They are mostly–we’re anarchists here, remember?–the victims of the government. We didn’t attack Iraq; we rarely if ever have meaningful control over the war-policy machine that has wrought so much misery in the Muslim world. The crimes of the United States government do not license crimes against civilians who happen to be in the United States; any more than the crimes of Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein license crimes against civilians who happen to be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or whatever other part of the Muslim world the Leviathan is planning to stomp through next.

Churchill’s critics have repeatedly been accused of misunderstanding his arguments and taking his words out of context. Now, I have read the whole essay through several times, but you never know. So perhaps one of Churchill’s defenders could explain to me exactly what the proper, contextual understanding of this is:

In sum one can discern a certain optimism — it might even be call humanitarianism — imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11.

Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name — indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it — mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Or, while we’re at it, this:

And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad — or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the “terrorists”‘ own schedule, and at a place of their choosing — the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here at home.

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?

That, too, is their choice to make.

During the HUAC era, many people in the U.S. were drummed out and blacklisted from teaching because they were genuinely associated with Stalinist parties in the United States. That was wrong; but you shouldn’t have to act like Stalinists were anything other than dupes or bloody-minded opportunists to make the case that the blacklisting and the anti-Communist witch hunts were wrong. The case for their academic freedom shouldn’t have been contingent on their having the right beliefs. And the same is true for both Churchill and Hoppe: the fact that they are wrong does not mean that they should be fired.

I’ll be writing a letter on behalf of both of them; defending both Churchill and Hoppe from the administrative goon squad is important. But we shouldn’t let a siege mentality dull critical thought. The reason Churchill and Hoppe are in hot water is that they made controversial statements which are rationally indefensible and deeply offensive. The problem is the administrative response to the controversy, not the controversy itself; the way to respond to terrible arguments, among rational adults, is with other arguments, not with politically-driven intimidation.

Let’s begin.