I’m coming a little late to these discussions, Derb. I’m inclined to agree in approving the Jackson acquittal on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it your position that even if guilt could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, this case should not have been pursued? (I assume that you don’t believe that the law should be amended to allow the molestation of children where it can be somehow shown to be “harmless.”) On the euthanasia front, meanwhile, are you suggesting in those closing remarks that pro-lifers are not fond of the Golden Rule?