There is a simple misconception that seems to be bone-deep in liberals:

That if you do not like the idea of the government redistributing hundreds of billions in taxpayer money every year, you therefore must want the sick to die, the poor to starve, the children to go without schools, and all the rest. If A, then B.

Politician: "You don't like that I'm taking your money, and passing it out with great fanfare, and reaping allocades for my vast generosity and Concern For The People? You selfish, mean-spirited bastard!"

The underlying premise, of course, is that if the government didn't do (you pretty much name it) nobody ever would or could, and the nation would collapse in chaos.

While this is certainly true of some government functions, I can't help but be amazed by the number of things people have put into this category.

My "free market faith" has resulted in the most prosperity ever seen on this planet. Hundreds of millions living comfortable, safe and healthy lives in nations all over the world. The poor in America would be envied by billions. I'll gladly stand on that record. This was even true, compared to the rest of the world, long before Roosevelt, the Great Society, and all the rest.

That you don't believe this is not surprising. Our government, and its education arm, spend a lot of time convincing people that the world would end without their constant shepherding.

Short answer: I do not accept your premise of government social spending as the only definition of compassion, or even a valid one.

From your writings, you have done good work in your own life to help people. More power to you. Most people do the same things. Give them some credit.

Whatever doubts I have in Terri's case are related to the overreach of the government in handling this, and many conservatives are equally concerned.

As far as mice are concerned, if you have farms and fields nearby, all bets are off. Here in town I have the luxury of being able to haul them down to the local creek area.