I'm taking a break from working on my recital (today I am assembling the Program and Program notes, whee!) to answer this, it'll give me a much-needed break.
Commissions and art gifts are still coming!
Anyways, on with the question:
 Do you have the guts to answer these questions and re-post?
 Would you do meth if it was legalized?
No, I do not use anything that would seriously impair my judgment nor ravage my body. The closest thing to an addictive substance I use is caffeine, and I have actually very little desire to drink it except when the mood hits me. Alcohol, I only drink in very rare occasions- simply because I am not a huge fan of it.
 Abortion: for or against it?
For it. As Rand put it, " One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."
 Do you think a country would fail with a female president?
It depends. With a Margaret Thatcher? It would thrive. With a Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton? It would inch closer still to disaster.
 Do you believe in the death penalty?
Yes, but only in cases in which there is proof beyond reasonable doubt (and even a strong certainty) as to the accuracy of the evidence. Without strong factual evidence you risk the possibility of sending an innocent to the chair. When there is no certainty, life sentence would be preferred on principle.
 Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
The government has no role in prescribing what an individual may or may not use. He is free to do whatever he wishes with his body as long as he is not harming the rights of others. Minors, of course, by their nature are to be protected from exposure to drugs until they reach the age of adulthood and can make their own rational or irrational decisions on the subject.
 Are you for or against premarital sex?
Not a proper question. The real issue of the question should be "Is sex to be approached through hedonism, or through a meaningful relationship?" I believe sex when engaged as a hedonist endeavor loses its significance--- it is an act of tremendous intimacy, and to engage in it with someone with whom you do not have a special relationship is to do yourself a great disservice. One may have sex with a significant other, but also with friends who are very significant to you as well- but again, it must be born out of a desire to share an intimate connection, not as the mindless search for physical sensations.
 Do you believe in God?
No. I believe I have discussed this.
 Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
Yes. However, the question is phrased incorrectly: Marriage is not a function of government, and it is improper to make it so. When two (or more, possibly) individuals wish to share their lives and assets, they enter into a contractual agreement-- that is what we nowadays call a marriage contract or license. The current laws delimiting who may or may not enter into such contracts among consenting adults is an unconstitutional delimitation of the citizens' private lives by the government. Anyone, be they heterosexual or homosexual, under the constitutional rights of the United States, has the right to enter into whatever contractual agreement they desire as long as it does not entail the violation of the rights of another person. And, as I have explained at length in my article "Romantic Love, Victim to the Tyranny of Tradition" (http://tinyurl.com/Lighthousearticle) there is no right that allows a person to infringe upon the contractual agreements of another.
Therefore the question here must be: Does the government have the right to infringe upon the contractual marriage of two same-sexed individuals? The answer here is no, and just like freedom of speech and its allowance for any idiot to say whatever they wish, you may not like it, but you have to deal with it.
 Do you think it's wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?
No for one specific reason: The immigration system is broken. I know this as an immigrant myself. The issue here is not that Hispanics are moving here illegally into the United States, but rather that the current system criminalizes individuals who are not, actually, criminals. Why is this so? Government, to appease Unions, seeks to dictate who the owner of a business can or can't hire-- forcing that owner to go through a tremendously expensive (in the heights of $6000 or more) process to appease the federal government, the Board of Labor and the Unions and so that he may finally hire whomever he wants. This is an improper influence of government, since Government has no right telling individuals whom they may or may not hire, that decision must be left solely to the individual and his judgment.
There are many other issues as well, as I explained in my Lighthouse article (http://tinyurl.com/lighthouseimmigrant), but the old warhorse Republicans use to justify a closed-borders stance is that terrorists may get in. Well, of course they can get in, that's a no-brainer.... why can they get in? Just like the Arizona fiasco, with a broken immigration system that tags people as criminals simply because they cross the border (stay with me, don't lose your head just yet, more on that later) and which makes it nearly impossible to immigrate here legally, you have a massive number of people hopping the border. Hidden among these massive non-lethal immigrants, a terrorist can easily hide in the safety of numbers. The border patrol, stretched as it is having to arrest immigrants who, on principle alone, have committed no true crime (more on it later), will necessarily end up not arresting a large number of those terrorists who are wolves disguised as sheep, running with the herd.
So what is the proper system? Harry Binswanger in his brilliant article on Capitalism Magazine (http://tinyurl.com/Binswangerarticle) calls for an open system of immigration. This, actually, is the most intelligent proposal. Firstly: there is no collective ownership, there cannot be such a thing, for there is only private property. As such, there is no-one person or group of people that owns the totality of a country, it can only own the private property for which it has transacted. There is no right that allows people to prevent others from coming into non-private territory as long as they prove no threat to their individual rights.
As Thomas Jefferson put it "Our ancestors possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societie." (Rights of British America, 1774) In a letter to Hugh White, Jefferson said "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."
The problem, of course, right now lies with the laws themselves. The immigration laws are improper, in that they seek to exert the force of government into a realm in which it has no right to exert: Preventing the mobilization of individuals who are neither criminals nor terrorist threats to the dwellers of its nation. The government does have the right to stop a career criminal or a terrorist in his tracks and impede his entry into the United States-- it falls under the government's function to protect individual rights and its population from the threat of force. However, it does not have the right to impede a non-criminal individual from crossing its borders, and to label an individual a criminal simply because of that border crossing is an improper and unprincipled perversion of the concept of private property and the protection of individuals.
So what is the answer to this question? Binswanger proposes the basic of the system (if you read his article... which, honestly, you should if you're going to try to debate me on this subject. If you don't read it, I will know, and I won't waste my time talking to you), and I would like to propose a more structured approach based on his proposed principle:
"Open Borders" in the sense that anyone can enter the United States, provided they undergo a criminal background check (for which, of course, they must pay-- and only what the process itself costs, not he over-inflated prices of a bloated bureaucracy trying to squeeze every penny out of everybody) and come out clean. They do not get citizenship, but they are allowed to come into the country and work. They may apply for citizenship after a certain number of years (by going through a green card process first, then citizenship.) Suddenly you will have a completely different situation: if anyone who wants to work and live in the US, and who is without a criminal record, can suddenly enter after a short and rational process (trust me: the current process is anything but rational or effective), suddenly you won't have hordes jumping the border... and suddenly you won't have those hordes to provide cover for the terrorists to use as their hidey-holes. Suddenly, you can tell the real criminals from the fabricated ones. Ain't that a marvel?
As for the cliched and obligatory arguments of "They'll take our jobs away!" and "they'll overcrowd the country!", please do refer to Binswanger's article. He does address them there--- see? I told you you should have read it.
The one valid point is this: "They will abuse the welfare system!" That is true only in this: That the Welfare system is a system that is perfectly set-up for abuse... indeed, it is abused every day by millions of American-born citizens who defraud the government and swallow up taxpayer money (money that is forcibly stolen from you by the government). Do not use the straw-man argument that immigrants will burn up your tax dollars, when the issue itself is that the Welfare system is unconstitutional to begin with, it does not matter who abuses it, what matters is that it is there to be abused in the first place. If you really have a stiffy for this issue, you need to realize that the proper course of events is not banning immigration, it is getting rid of the Welfare state!
Furthermore, without Welfare statism, you suddenly will have a completely different group of immigrants coming into the country: People who want to come here to work, who ask for nothing except to be left alone to strike out their paths (very much like me), and who demand no help from government. Precisely the same kind of immigrant that came to this country to make it great, not to leech from it.
So? Very simple: Institute the Open Border (with background check) system and get rid of the Welfare state. Pretty simple solution, but no politician out there has the brains or the integrity to do it, because it isn't a popular measure with people who tend to froth at the mouth instead of thinking critically about the issues at hand.
 A twelve year old girl has a baby, should she keep it?
No, she shouldn't. Read Rand's quote above, but also there is another issue here:The 12 year old is a minor. A minor is under the responsibility of her parents, who agreed (when deciding to keep her after conception) to take care of her and provide for her, and protect her. The fact that she not only obviously had sex but got pregnant indicates a failure of the parents to do what they agreed to do. Child services should become immediately involved (one of the few instances of the government doing what it should be doing, since the child is obviously at risk under such parents).
 Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?
Yes. While government has no right to dictate what consenting adults do, a minor is not a consenting adult. Metaphysically, the composition of a minor's brain is not the same as an adult-- they are more prone to bad judgment calls, hormonal instability and similar hindering issues. Until they reach adulthood, a minor is in the care of the parent who must see to the minor's well-being and correct upbringing. At the age of adulthood they must make their own decisions, but until they are regarded as consenting adults they are under the supervision of the parents. This isn't an issue of the government telling others what to do, but of actually acknowledging the metaphysical difference between an adult and an immature human being, and of the responsibilities of the caretaker.
 Should the war in Iraq be called off?
It should have been like this:
* Go in* Get Saddam
* Get Out* Get Iran
Instead, we are still in Iraq while Ahmadinejad and Iran continue to back terrorist groups and openly stifle the lives of people living under his regime (remember Nada Soltan?)
 Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?
No. An adult has the right to determine his own life. His relatives can choose to interfere, but the government has no right penalizing something that happens between consenting adults.
 Do you believe in spanking your children?
Yes, with a limit and a cause. Whacking your child around for no particular reason leads to disaster... however, if a child resists to all argument and authority of the parent, and is in absolute open defiance and nothing else seems to work, a good spanking might be in order (not a brutal one, either, just enough to drive the point home.) However it is very important to realize that many parents may choose spanking as a substitute for authority, and thus one must be very careful.
 Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
This presupposes that burning the flag is an evil thing.
The freedoms that the founding fathers gave the country they created allow you to burn the flag as a demonstration of freedom of speech. The very liberties represented by the flag itself allow you to burn it without repercussion, under freedom of speech.
In fact, I think there is something incredibly beautiful in that. Actually, Penn and Teller have burned the flag in celebration of the very same thing countless times in their Vegas act:
And here is their appearance on "The West Wing" where they go even into more detail explaining the principles behind it.
 Who do you think would have made a better president? McCain or Obama?
This is a case of the Young Girl or the Tiger. The answer is: Neither.
 Are you afraid others will judge you from reading some of your answers?
I am not afraid to judge or be judged. I quote one of my favorite exchanges from a Terry Pratchett book where Granny Weatherwax (the closest thing to an objectivist character in a non-objectivist fiction) talks with the priest Mightily Oats:
'A bit judgemental, my grandmother.' said Oats.
'Nothing wrong with that. Judging is human.'
'We prefer to leave it ultimately to Om,' said Oats and, out here in the dark, that statement sounded lost and all alone.
'Bein' human means judgin' all the time,' said the voice behind him. 'This and that, good and bad, making choices every day . . . that's human.'
'And are you so sure you make the right decisions?'
'No. But I do the best I can.'
'And hope for mercy, eh?'
A bony finger prodded him in the back.
'Mercy's a fine thing, but judgin' comes first. Otherwise you don't know what you're bein' merciful about. Anyway, I always heard you Omnians were keen on smitin' and crushin'.'
'Those were . . . different days. We use crushing arguments now.'
'And long pointed debates, I suppose?'
'Well, there are two sides to every question. . .'
'What do you do when one of 'em's wrong?'
The reply came back like an arrow
'I meant that we are enjoined to see things from the other person's point of view,' said Oats patiently.
'You mean that from the point of view of a torturer, torture is all right?'
'Mistress Weatherwax, you are a natural disputant.'
'No, I ain't!'