An ethics question I recall from college involved a case of a young man in California who went to court to avoid the Viet Nam war. I'm a liberal. But being a liberal, I thought of Thoreau, who tried to refuse to pay his taxes on the ground they supported a war he opposed.

I argued that a Califiornia judge might rule that this young man, on his religious convictions, should be exempt from service, sure. That's what California judges are for. Sidebar: If you are a lawyer, you might try not to cite case rulings from California if you want to bolster your case. But the argument that the man wanted nothing to do with it didn't work for me. I can quite respect a draft-dodger, much easier than the man in this case. He was just innately above it all. I don't know what happened in the case.

   It's not a cartoon of mindless patriotism to recognise that being willing to do something or risk something in the way of your convictions sometimes counts a little more than proclaiming your high ideals, and wanting a pass. But sometimes it just does. Maybe not always, but sometimes.

I was not in favor of the war, but I live in the US and I paid my (rather stiff) taxes. So. Well, I really don't believe those notions that if you buy this, you're responsible for that. You're only responsible for what you do, and intend, and all those considerations, for better or worse. But still, I'd rather hope that Iraq does become significantly liberated, than be right about any doubts or fears I might have.