Friday, March 31, 2006

The Face Of A Civil War

From RCP comes this piece by Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy. It is entitled, "What Would Civil War in Iraq Look Like?"

In talking to critics of the Bush Administration, I always seem to hear the old "Iraq is in the midst of civil war" argument, over and over again. To which I usually reply, civil wars historically have been fought for the specific purpose of gaining/retaining control of a country's government and usually are much bloodier than what we are witnessing right now, in Iraq. But that is not to say that it isn't bloody. It is. And it certainly does not mean, it isn't close.

But the question remains, what constitutes a civil war?

The answer isn't a simple one; it differs from nation to nation, case by case. Each country that has suffered a civil war has its own unique set of circumstances that figure into the equation. One only needs to read any credible history book about the U.S Civil War, to understand this. The thing that stands about that war was one side wanted out and the other didn't want them out. It wasn't just over slavery (though that was a secondary maybe even tertiary component), it wasn't necessarily over the attack on Ft. Sumter either. No, the main reason was to "preserve the union". At least, that's what Lincoln said.

Americans fighting Americans, brothers fighting brothers, the toll was horrendous. In this respect, it was not unlike many other civil wars. But, one of the major differences there was very little outside coercion (if any at all), as was the case in Vietnam; where arms, advisors, and troops were supplied from outside sources on both sides.

So what about Iraq? Just what would a true definition of civil war look like, there? Mr. Bremmer lists three distinct points that he thinks could/would happen, if this were truly the case. Here they are, with my comments (you can read his in the article):

First, an Iraqi civil war would imply the complete collapse of the country's central government.

I would never discount this from being a distinct reality, if the central government does not begin to rise to the occasion, much more so than it has to date. I know we have made strides. But, this is one of several issues I have been critical of the Administration. Number one, they should never have totally disbanded the Iraqi army and police force. And number two, because of this miscalculation, they have spent more time trying to get people recruited (and trained efficiently enough to take charge) than they had anticipated. But as of this moment and inspite of all of this, the Iraqi government has not collapsed and from the periphery does not appear to be in any imminent danger of doing so, soon.
Second, a civil war would raise the specter of Turkish military intervention in Iraq's Kurdish northern provinces, but would not, as some claim, provoke an all-out war.

This would certainly be a consideration well worth thinking about, but in my opinion (like Mr. Bremmer), this is a more of a remote possibility, than some currently believe. The main reason I think so is, I do not believe that Turkey would risk blowing any chance of getting into the EU, unless they are rejected before this potential civil war erupts. In which case, I believe they will not care anymore and go for broke.

Third, an Iraqi civil war would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the region, but is unlikely to produce any sudden, dramatic surge in their number or intensity.

This may be true, on this point alone. But I do think that there will be more widespread urban street fighting between factions, if the government cannot provide security, once we do finally leave. Additionally, I think that vigilante death squads will increase exponentially.

But how would this play out if the government does collapse? Mr. Bremmer theorizes:

Most troubling, other states in the region would scramble to fill the vacuum of power left by the central government's disintegration. Iran and Saudi Arabia would finance and support warring Shiite and Sunni militias in the country as proxies for their regional rivalry. If Iraq indeed becomes a regional battleground, the fighting there would deepen the political conflict between Sunnis and Shiites elsewhere in the region and provoke a surge in conventional military spending throughout the Middle East.

Just like Vietnam, outside sources will (by proxy) compete with each other for control. And although the Machiavellian play book would say, let them fight each other so that they are preoccupied with each other more so, than they are with Israel and America. But, to do so would risk the price of oil skyrocketing through the ceiling, to highs never before contemplated. The Eurasian land mass nations would suffer greater, but all would suffer high prices and massive shortages.

So, it would certainly be in the best interests of the nations that consume Middle Eastern oil, that this government succeed. And in my estimation, the more we hear that Iraq is already in civil war, the more that success is impeded, because it gives life and hope to what would otherwise be a beaten enemy. But at the same time, the Bush Administration needs to be more forthcoming in and keep us posted on both the successes and failures.

There are a million and one things that they need to keep secret (for some very good reasons) and that should be understood by most intelligent people, but some things need to be communicated and done better than they have, up to this point in time. They must remember that the left has been spinning massive amounts of negatives, which is all the more reason to step up and counter those things with straight and forward information. If they do not pick up the pace, they will run out of time with the American people, causing the pendulum that sits just right of the center, back toward the left.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Today's Funny

Not every day has a funny. In fact when you get my age, funnies are fewer and farther in between. Occasionally, there is a moment in time when something funny is sorely needed (in the midst of unrelenting stresses and pressures). Today was one of those moments and AICS of the Logic Lifeline has hit the funny bone of yours truly with this quip; which is in response to the debate on whether or not the departure of Andrew Card is (or is not) the beginning of a shake-up.

Now if the cook and the gardner leave we will know there is a shakeup.

You have to love this and no matter what you may or may not think, I think he is onto something.

Keep digging AICS, keep digging.

De-linking Is Sad

It is with great sadness that I announce the de-linking of some blogs from the PYY blogroll, due to the lack of activity.

In The Middle Of America

Nickie Goomba

TranSient's Watch

I will miss them greatly. I will, however, maintain their sites on my favorite places and will check back with them, from time to time. If they ever come back to active status, I will immediately re-link them.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Some Fast Paced News For A Tuesday

When the news is slow it's hard to get inspired, but when it gets faster, it gets difficult to decide what to post. But, throw in some time constraints to that equation and you will find the decision to be an easy one. Post the old montage, throw in a few comments, and then call it a post.

So here we go:

The Big Story

Today, French unions participated in a general strike that crippled transportation in that country and spurred massive protests throughout. This is something that just does not seem like something that is going away, at least not anytime soon. Being a market capitalist, I cannot agree with the students, because I strongly believe that market driven is better than regulation any day. And that includes labor.

But I know that when a society has been highly dependent on socialist labor laws for many years, it's going to be a tough sell to convince those that were looking forward to a certain way of life, that this new way is going to be better.

President Bush Picks Bolten to Replace Card

This comes as no surprise, but I would caution that this should in no way be regarded as some big deal. One position change does not constitute a shake-up. Additionally, this job is not one targeted by the Democrats in their daily rantings. But I am sure they'll take it and will call for more.

Pope Wants To Visit China

The Vatican announced today that Pope Benedict is hoping to visit China soon. If it does happen, it will be interesting to see just how the Chinese leadership will receive him, seeing how the Chinese are officially atheist. They tolerate some religion, but mostly churches that do not get involved too much, in government and in politics. it is interesting to note that far-western China is Muslim. Jihad has yet to come to China, but I believe that it will at some point down the road.

Australia Braces For Another Cyclone

I can hear it now, Allah is wroth with Australia for not allowing Sharia law on its soil. How utterly horrible it is, to think that Australia would want to remain Australian. Brace yourselves Aussies, we Americans feel for you.

Olmert Declares Victory In Israeli Elections

He says he is ready to cede more land. But the interesting thing to note is, Barak gave the Palestinians everything they wanted except Jerusalem, they rejected it. So, what's next, Jerusalem?

Monday, March 27, 2006

Introducing The 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Final Four

Congratulations to LSU, UCLA, George Mason, and Florida, for reaching the Final Four.

I can honestly say that I am only surprised at GMU making to the final set, the rest are very good solid teams that you can never count out, especially in this era of parity. The interesting thing is, of those that remain, there are no number one seeds left and perennial media darlings Duke and UConn are out. (If Duke would have won a championship every year that Dick Vitale has picked them to, they'd have UCLA beat by now.)

I am not sure who will win it. But there are four teams left and all four have earned the right to be there, that much is for sure. My sentimental favorite is UCLA. Living in the LA area as a boy, I thought the NCAA Tournament was the UCLA Invitational, for years. Those days are now gone, but they do have a bunch that can play defense. How else can we explain one of the best team of athletes (Memphis) around, scoring only 45 points in a 40 minute game (that's a little over one point a minute)? With that kind of defense, all that was needed was a "whopping" 50, by the Bruins.

I did not see the LSU-Texas game, but form what I have heard from those that did, LSU looked pretty good. I did see them beat Duke and they looked pretty good doing it, from my vantage point. (My favorite time of the tournament is, when Duke gets eliminated.)

Florida looks like they are serious, as well. The height advantage really helped them stick it to Nova, who just couldn't get the threes going. The inside game was thoroughly dominated by the Gators and George Mason will really have their work cut out for them, on Saturday.

But everyone that has no dog in the fight will most likely be pulling for GMU, the giant killer. Trust me, I have seen them play a little here and there during this tourney, they deserved this bid. They have beat Michigan St., North Carolina, Wichita St., and now the #2 media darling, UConn. A fluke would have been gone by now.

This is one good tournament. So stay tuned.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The Strategy Of Good Vs. Evil As Portrayed My Madeleine Albright

From the LA Times comes this op-ed piece by Madeleine Albright, entitled, Good versus evil isn't a strategy. In this essay, she criticizes the strategy of portraying this war as a battle, between good and evil. She also attempts to link it to the issue of Iran's current behavior. Here is a snippet:

(All emphases, in all quotes, are mine)

THE BUSH administration's newly unveiled National Security Strategy might well be subtitled "The Irony of Iran." Three years after the invasion of Iraq and the invention of the phrase "axis of evil," the administration now highlights the threat posed by Iran— whose radical government has been vastly strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. This is more tragedy than strategy, and it reflects the Manichean approach this administration has taken to the world.

It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.

I am sure her heart is in the right place; but as usual, I must take her views to task, as they are not based on sound logic and judgement. I have two major points on this:

1. Look at this map. From a military-ground forces standpoint, what country is flanked by countries with U.S forces inside? Strategic advantage: United States. Strategic disadvantage: Iran.

Doesn't look so bad, now does it?

2. Madeleine seems to have some problems with short-term memory. In 1999, she used this argument to justify U.S. involvement, in the NATO action conducted against Serbia, while ignoring the looming threat of Islamofascism.

So, with that said, let's zero on this aspect of the debate.

In her book, Madam Secretary: A Memoir, chapter 22 is entitled, A Special Kind of Evil. Reviewer Robert D. Steele notes the following:
Most troubling to me is the chapter on terrorism, chapter 22, titled "A Special Kind of Evil." In exactly 17 pages (.03 of 512 text pages), Albright manages to gloss over the fact that she deliberately and repeatedly sided with Sandy Burger in constantly suppressing intelligence that warned suicidal terrorism was on the rise, and took a back seat--or no seat--on the subject of devising a national grand strategy for counter-terrorism. She is proudest of getting $1 billion for turning our Embassies into bunkers, something 9-11 demonstrated to be inconsequential.

Note how she calls it evil. But as we know from watching the Clinton Administration in action, they did not treat it, as such. In fact, as Mr. Steele states, there was no inclination by that administration to treat it as a "war" issue. Instead, it was treated purely as a "law enforcement" issue, from the eyes of a defense attorney, whose primary objective is to defend the perpetrators. Case in point, we were offered bin Laden, but the President didn't think we had a legal basis to hold him.

In 1999, during an interview with Jim Lehrer, while trying to justify the decision to bomb Serbian targets, she referred to Milosevic as "evil".

JIM LEHRER: But you take your knowledge of the... of what is intended militarily and what your knowledge... what you know diplomatically on your own and through Holbrooke and Hill and others who have been on the ground there, etc., been involved in this, you've been involved in this a long time, do the two come together? In other words, it adds up to you that this military action can cause this diplomatic result in terms of Milosevic?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that if you put together all the calculations as you've discussed them, there is the very best chance that this will happen. One of the hardest parts here is dealing with a cruel and evil man like Milosevic who is only interested in maintaining himself in power and doesn't care at all about his people or even what the world thinks of him. But I think that if you calculate this on the basis of what we have been trying to do diplomatically and the strength, the force that we're putting in there, we believe that the objectives that I've outlined deter and damage our are achievable.

Hmmm. Milosevic was evil. And it was okay to refer to him as evil, so as to effectively sell the concept of bombing a sovereign nation. So what's the difference between Milosevic and Saddam? Did not both kill, innocent people? In fact, if you could get an accurate count, you would most likely find that Saddam was responsible for far more deaths than Milosevic. So then, why does the term evil apply to Slobodan, and not Saddam?

Not convinced yet? Try this.

In a BBC report by Alan Little, let's look at how she refers to Milosevic:


The western world was still haunted by a profound collective guilt: it knew it had waited too long to intervene in Bosnia. Now one woman resolved not to make the same mistake again.


I believed in the ultimate power, the goodness of the power of the allies and led by the United States. We were dealing which such a basic evil, that could not be tolerated.


That evil was the Milosevic regime. For more than a decade, he had wrapped himself in the symbols of Serb identity. He'd persuaded the Serbian people that they were surrounded by predatory enemies, and led them to war against their neighbours. Milosevic needs conflict to stay in power. The world had failed to defend the Bosnians against Milosevic. In 1995, Serb forces marched into Srebrenica and murdered seven thousand Bosnian Muslim men and boys. In the west, many came to believe that the lessons of Bosnia could now be applied to the very different circumstances of Kosovo.


Milosevic was the same, evil Milosevic who had started this whole thing actually in Kosovo by denying them of their rights. And that we just had to stand up.

We could go on and on. But the bottom line is simple, the best way to lose credibility with the American people is to openly practice hypocrisy. That being the case, it's easy to see that this essay in the LA Times is nothing more than a feeble attempt to keep partisan politics in the news and to discredit the President for making his stand against the "evil" he perceives that we are facing in this day (just as they acted against what they saw was an "evil", in their day).

We can add to that the fact, the evil event of our day could have possibly been prevented, with a little more attention turned towards it, rather than just trying to get Monica Lewinsky's name off of the front pages of every major newspaper, in the country.

It all comes down to priorities.

So, as anyone with half an analytical mind can see, there definitely is a double standard being applied by the MSM, the former Clintonites, today's Democratic Party, and the rest of the leftist hacks (that get an audience with the MSM). In this case, it was the LA Times that bit into this one.

There is also another double standard being applied here that is more subtle and gets overlooked by the left, more often than not. When Europe wants military action in a country with leadership that it has deemed evil, it's okay. But when the U.S.wants it, it is wrong.


The good vs. evil argument does not apply, when a Republican inhabits the structure at 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue, but is justified, when it's a Democrat.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Criticism OF MSM's Iraq Coverage Abounds

Tom Bevan of RCP has a good piece on the media backlash on the MSM's handling of the war in Iraq, and definitely makes some interesting points.

When people are sold a bill of goods over and over/ad nauseum , there are a certain amount of people that are going to buy into it after awhile.

"I keep hearing this, it must be true", may be a passing thought of many people, these days. The soccer mom, the little league dad, the busy career person that must absorb themselves into their jobs (in order to remain employed), and other people that have very little time to properly analyze news, all are vulnerable targets of the very subtle (and in some cases, not so subtle) manipulations of the mainstream news media.

But as Tom points out:

(Emphasis mine)

...nobody is blaming the media for the situation on the ground, only for largely failing to present a balanced picture of what's taking place in Iraq. There is also an implication, however, that by providing so much of a one-sided, negative picture of the war the media is buoying the hopes and spirits of the insurgents and making things harder on our troops, as well as depressing public opinion back here at home.

This is precisely why Fox News is killing both CNN and MSNBC, in the ratings. They (Fox)are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and are certainly worthy of criticism, from time to time. But on the whole, they have been much closer to what a news organization should be.

The lack of balance has not only been a catalyst in the rise of FNC, but the blogosphere, as well. When bloggers began harping on the pre-election fraud committed by both Dan Rather and CBS (the Guard paper forgeries), they established themselves as a force to be reckoned with.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Is There Another Story To The Captivity Of The CPT Activists?

AC of Fore Left has some thoughts about this "ordeal" and some interesting questions have yet to be answered. You can read it here in his post, and you can follow his links for what information exists.

Now, I realize that I am sometimes both a cynic and a skeptic. But does anyone else wonder whether or not they staged this? And it somehow, backfired on the guy that was murdered?

More Evidence Of MSM Bias?

From Drudge, comes this story about a prominent ABC news executive's embarassing e-mail.

First of all, he has the right to say what he wants and the company that employs him has the right to allow him to say what he wants. I am fine with that. He has the right and if he doesn't violate any company policy, he can say whatever. He has committed no crime.

But, can anyone really look me straight in the eye, with a straight face, and tell me that the MSM isn't grossly biased? If you can, I have a cabin in the mountains of Florida, I will sell you cheap. Or maybe even time-share it out to you?

Reid Threatens Filibuster On Immigration Bill

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has threatened a filibuster on the new immigration bill.
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would "use every procedural means at my disposal" to prevent Frist from bypassing the Judiciary Committee. Frist, R-Tenn., has made clear the Senate will take up his proposal next week if the 18 member committee fails to complete a broader bill.

Anything we can do to make Congress anymore inefficient? It's beyond me, folks. They say the GOP controls both houses, but you'd never know from reading this.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Some Flawed Poll Conclusions, As Presented By The MSM

My friend Super Frenchie has a post that contrasts the French people's willingness to protest against the American people's lack of willingness. You can read it here.

Now, I am not trying to front Frenchie out, in any way, shape, or form. But in my opinion, he, like many others, has come to assume that certain polls indicate certain things, because the MSM presents them in a false light. And if not properly scrutinized, they presume they will be given credibility and you will fall for their skewed results, hook, line, and sinker..

Let's look at the first part of his post. It refers to a poll that asked the question:
". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

From that one question that we see so often plugged as an indicator by the MSM of support for/against the war, we get an assumption that those that disapprove of the way the war is being handled, are actually against the war. It does not indicate that, as it does not take into account that many that disapprove may be for more aggressive tactics, instead of the politically correct campaign that is now going on right now. I am one of those people that disapprove, but am not ready to oppose it just yet.

If the Bush Administration continues to allow public opinion to dictate the strategies, then I might become inclined to oppose it. And if at some point, when I feel that we are making no progress (because of this politically correctness philosophy that Bush seems to feel the need to follow is not working anymore), then I might become inclined to oppose it. But I am not at that point, yet. So, to lump me in with the anti-war crowd, is a faulty attempt to manipulate data, for the specific purpose of steering public opinion in their direction.

Study Claims Whiny Children Grow Up To Be Conservative; Confident, Resilient, And Self-Reliant Children Become Liberal

Here is the report by the Toronto Star.

Looks good on paper right? But on closer examination, this study is certainly flawed. Many longitudinal studies are, because they focus on one group of kids in one area, and they do no account for the prevailing culture of that area.

This study follows kids that grew up in the Berkeley area, which has been a den of leftist thought for many years now. In fact, many consider Berkeley the birthplace of American leftist ideology. So with the kids growing up in an area that is predominately on the left side of the spectrum, it's no wonder that they internalized the values, they did. Knowing the leftists that I do, they do not like to share the stage with dissenting opinions. The kids that were the most confident were most likely the kids whose parents were of the majority, therefore they wielded the power. And with kids being kids, that left the kids from conservative families feeling shut out and whining is the only thing that some kids know to do, when they perceive they are not being listened to.

I bet the the study would have turned out differently, if the study had been conducted with kids from, say, the midwest or the south. There, the predominant culture is conservative and they are the ones in power, at least for the most part.

HT: Drudge

American Idol Returns

I know, it's been back for awhile now, but that's not what I mean.

I took the last year off after watching the first three years because I thought the talent was declining with each passing year. In fact, I even began to wonder if they had already flushed out the best nobodies.

But this year, is an outstanding showcase of some real good talent. From my standpoint, it is the best group ever. And, if you haven't seen it this year because you were beginning to feel the way I did, you owe it to yourself to check it out. These kids are great.

Last night, all but one was worthy of moving on to the next round. And two really stood out. One was Mandisa and the other was Chris Daughtry. It was 50s Night and Chris took a huge risk in taking Johnny Cash's, "I Walk The Line" and molded into an alternative song. And, he did it masterfully. I am not a big altenative fan as a rule, but he did it so well, I think he could release the song tomorrow and be a hit. As for Mandisa? She's awesome, both with vocals, performance, and appeal.

The rest are pretty darned good too. You have to be to get to this level. But someone has to go tonight, I predict it will be Bucky.

Laura Ingraham Cleans David Gregory's Clock

I didn't see it as it happened.That's because I rarely watch the Today Show, primarily due to the heavy bias it shows and secondarily, I am not a fan of Katie Couric in the least. But I have seen snippets of it and she really blitzkrieged him, just as he likes to do to Scott McClellan. There always comes a point in time where you receive as you have given, and this looks like one of Mr.Gregory's moments, in that very predicament.

NewsBusters has the trancripts and the video.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Labor Unrest To Continue In France

The IHT is reporting on what they term, a "very large" strike that is looming in France.

Now, I don't know and will not pretend to know all of the intricacies of this issue. And it doesn't really affect me as much as it does someone from France. But what I do understand is that March 28th is the date that has been set, for students and unions opposed to the new labor law that allows more flexibility in terminating younger workers, to strike. And I do understand, the business community is contending that they will be able to hire more young people on a trial basis, instead of using temps.

But I cannot understand what the big deal is here. In America, this is the norm. In fact, most places that hire young people in this country have a 60-180 day probation period, which is substantially less time than two years.

Regular readers know how I feel about
socialism and the sociological attitude it creates among the work force, on a macro level. If you are relatively new to PYY, here are some past posts that I feel both illustrate and demonstrate my feelings, with very lttle doubt.

But, understanding that there is no pure capitalism and no pure socialism (except on paper), we must understand that the answer is lies somewhere in between. Where the contention lies is: Where does the pendulum need to rest?

But before we can answer this question, we have to imagine a spectrum similar to the pH scale in chemistry, with the socialism on one end and the capitalism, on the other. In chemistry, all matter and all compounds fall somewhere between the extremes (bases and acids). And so it is with political and economic spectrums, in that, all ideologies, philosophies, and policies fall somewhere in between the left and right.

Europe in the post-modern era has leaned to the left of center, with the pendulum more towards labor, than business. Some EU countries are more so than others. For example, the continent leans further left than UK and Ireland and the eastern continent leans even further, than the western part (
which is why Eastern Europeans are trying to migrate westward). Britain and Ireland lie to the right of the continent and yet to the left of the U.S. (which has vascillated somewhat in the post WWII era and rests just right of center, here in the present day).

Looking at the unemployment rates for the EU (figures in this link are from July 2005), we can see that those countries leaning more to the the left of center (towards labor), tend to have a higher rate, than those states more toward the right (towards business). The U.S. during this time period was somewhere around 5.4%, if my memory serves me correctly. I have often wondered, how is it the Europeans are more willing to tolerate a higher rate than what we in the U.S. are willing to tolerate? Additionally I have wondered, just how long will they continue to tolerate it, without taking some measures to swing this pendulum back toward the right?

France appears to be willing to do this, but as you can see from the labor unrest they have been experiencing, they are meeting a good amount of resistance to this new law. Something has to give. If it doesn't, with France just under the 10% point, may very well see unemployment back in double digits real soon.

Monday, March 20, 2006

What Is A Civil War?

Dr. Steven Taylor from Poliblog has posted a practical definition of civil war that everyone should read. Whether or not Iraq is in a civil war, depends on who you ask. As he points out, today it is being used as a political term, from that perspective, more so than from a pure political science one. Democrats say yes, Republicans say no.

To get a better understanding of this, I highly recommend taking a look at this essay and the one that preceded it, on the same topic.

I am not sure if Dr. Taylor would agree with me or not; but I would say that if we accept his definition, it is not quite there yet. The goal of the attacks appear to be aimed at starting a civil war and not conducting one (at least from where I sit it does). The latest wave of violence is pitting Sunnis against Shiites (and vice versa) and not directly against the Iraqi government. The reasons behind this violence is more religious than political, at least at this point in time. However, I must stress that if they are not there yet, then they are as close to it as they can be, without really being at that point.

Check it out.

Third Term For Bush?

Well, not exactly.

Fred Barnes explains how the Bush Administration can make the last two years of his Presidency look like a third term, by shaking things up a little.

From a strategy standpoint, it's a crap shoot. Doing it does not guarantee an instant rise in popularity. In short, it does not come without risk. If he does shake things up a bit, some will say that he put his finger into the wind and reacted to the wind shift, too easily. The Dems will claim that the changes indicate that he is backtracking and responding to heavy media pressure, which has been predicting changes and trumpeting them, loudly. They will also say that he is playing to the polls, something he hasn't done much of during his watch.

I am not sure that it will happen. It may happen to some degree, but not as pronounced as what Mr. Barnes is recommending. But Mr. Barnes is certainly more in the loop than me. So, I guess this is just another classic case of "what do I know?".

Real Clear Politics

Finally, Some Civility And Respect

The recent performances that I have witnessed from the White House Press Corps (some of which can be seen here with Laura Bush and an unidentified lady), have sounded more and more like crime interrogations, than press conferences. David Gregory, who honestly believes he is a journalist in the molds of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson, has been one of many White House reporters that actaully think they are doing the country a service, by conducting their end of the press conference similar to a hostile cross-examination. (The Logic Lifeline has a short piece worth reading, on this very subject.)

So, imagine how refreshing it was to hear some intelligent questions put to him and asked with respect, from some members of the City Club of Cleveland, where he spoke earlier today. These were normal people that do normal jobs and contribute much more to the well-being of the nation, than any of the Press Corps could hope to do. Gone were the bitter tones and the nasty remarks that usually are so prevalent, when the President is involved in a question-and-answer session.

Even the questions from people that gave the distinct impression they did not support him, were intelligently asked, issue based, and were respectfully delivered. They appeared to be sincere and were not trying to trip the man up, for the sole pupose of spinning a quote for a story and to advance their own personal agendas.

The Press Corps was there, they saw how it was done. But what do you want to bet that they learned nothing? What do you want to bet, they probably either slept or sat there seething, because they could not be the story? I wish the cameras would have included some shots, I bet it would have been a sight to see.

Sheehan: Mother Of A Movement?

It has been reported that Susan Sarandon will play Cindy Sheehan in an upcoming biographical movie.
After stops for protests in New Orleans and Washington, D.C., she will breakfast in Manhattan with actress Susan Sarandon, who is set to portray her in a biopic movie.

You know, the Hollywood elitists are wanting this woman to be a modern-day folk hero, in the worst way. They portray her as the mother of the anti-war movement.

Well let's take a look at what this movement has become, shall we?

From the Salt Lake Tribune comes word of a dismal turnout at a "peace rally".
By the time the war protesters began their march Saturday morning in Salt Lake City, only about 50 people had gathered. Their numbers had swelled to about 200 by noon - and that was with a little high-tech help from a marcher who text-messaged friends to join him.

You can also check out some other stories about some pretty dismal turnouts from MSNBC and from the Associated Press too.

But one thing we can surmise from all of this is, this is not nearly the movement that Hollywood and the MSM wants all of us to believe. There appear to be very few people willing to give up their Sunday afternoons to protest.

Oh, I know the polls all show a lot of dissatisfaction with the way the Bush Administration is handling the war in Iraq. But let's not forget something in the midst of all of this:

As a rule, most of the polls do not tell why the people are dissatisfied, only that people are satisfied or not satisfied. Many that do not agree with how the President is handling the war may very well feel like I do, in that, the Administration is trying to fight a politically correct war and should be more aggressive, instead of trying to please the leftists in Hollywood and the MSM.

These are just more skewed results from manipulative pollsters that are trying to shape public opinion, while hoping that many are too busy to do their homework, and see their follies. Meanwhile, the proof that there are not nearly as many rabid anti-war opponents, as the Move On bunch would have us all believe continues to manifest itself. This is quite contrary to the picture being painted right now, wouldn't you say?

Saturday, March 18, 2006

The Road To Peace

There are many things that come our way as we go throught this journey called, life. There are things that make us happy, things that make us sad, and things that make us mad. We have things that encourage us, things that discourage us, things that give up hope, and things that cause deep despair, factoring into the equation, as well. But through it all, I have found that all things will pass and a new phase is always just over the horizon. And it's a relatively simple equation to solve, but only if we can believe it and implement it.

When things are going good and we are seemingly on a roll, there is that human tendency to get complacent. We can, and often do, get into a mindset that will push us to a point where we think that we are in a zone, and as a result, many can and do become arrogant.

(Let's be clear on something here, arrogance is not the same as confidence. Arrogance is a state of mind where thoughts can and often do turn into actions that are considered overbearing to those around. Confidence is a steady sureness that does not waver much in the face of adversity and though it does not back down from it, it does not lash out, either. Confidence is a defense, arrogance an offense.)

When I was growing up, my adoptive father used to say, "Just when you think you have it made, that's when you need to watch out.". He explained it something like this:

When things are going good, when things are just grand, people tend to let their guards down. If we are only receptive to the good things, we come to expect them. And if that's the case, we can and often do overlook early warning signs, of an impending catastrophe, disaster, or at very least a major inconvenience. He has been gone 9 years now. But I still hear his voice in my head, saying this very thing. Not only do I hear it, it echoes. Not only do I hear it, I listen. Because, I have found this to be an inherent truth, very worthy of constant consideration.

But, what if we are not on a roll? What if we are in a losing streak, a stroke of bad luck, or just overhwelmed with stressful life events that seemingly have no end in sight? Do we act happy as if nothing is wrong? Do we go into denial? Do we cave in and give up?

With the rough times, the principle is the same as the good times. Just as we want to guard against arrogance when the dice are rolling your way, we must keep ourselves from getting into a state of despair, depression, and hopelessness. This we must do, no matter what challenges we face, if we are to maintain a level head. Keeping our heads level will help us see our way through the difficult moments and help us develop a strategy to counter the adversity.

Just as my father's words resound in my head almost daily these days, so do the words of a late minister that I just loved dearly and knew me from my toddler years, up until his death. He said, "Peace is an understanding, not an emotion".

Let's think about that for a minute.

Peace is not a sense of well-being, in fact, it is not a feeling at all. It comes from knowledge, wisdom, and experience, which creates an understanding within us that better assists us in our problem-solving skills. That understanding we gain in turn, helps our confidence grow. And as our confidence grows, then our peace (true peace) can grow and steady us, in the midst of the storms; and can temper us, when we become too proud, haughty, and highminded.

In closing I say, I hope this finds someone that can use the encouragement. I cannot pay these men back for the wise words they gave me, but I can pay it forward.

And as for me today, I have been in a tough spot for the last few weeks, due to the fact that my mother-in-law's health is deteriorating more rapidly than before, and some decisions will probably need to be made soon about where she will need to be living. Add to that the usual things that we deal with day-to-day anyway and it can/does get a little overwhelming at times.. But, it is that peace that passes all understanding that has sustained me throughout my life, and will continue to sustain my wife and I through this.

So, if you got an extra prayer, we'll take it and we will thank you for it. Oh yes, and one more thing:

Peace be with you.

Cross posted at The Wide Awakes

Friday, March 17, 2006

Easy Home Abortions: By Molly

From the Molly Saves The Day blog comes the post, For the women of South Dakota: an abortion manual. I spoke of this very thing just last week in my post entitled, Will Banning Abortion Usher In A New Era Of Prohibition?

What we have here is the beginning of the underworld black market trade in abortions. But, please understand that this is only the beginning. This is the training phase for all of the butchers that will soon be surfacing like a swarm of cockroaches. For right now, it's going to be centered in South Dakota, but as more states are emboldened to make this acute move, they will spread. This is just tip of iceberg status, wait until young desperate girls and women start getting sterile, septic, and dead.

This is why I say, keep it legal and treat it on the demand side, not the supply side. They will find ways to get them, legal or not.

Make no mistake, this Molly is despicable. Putting this on the internet so anyone that is impressionable can see it and possibly try something like this, has to be a real sick individual. And I am not altogether sure that this is criminal or not, but that aspect of this post certainly should be looked at.

But at very least, there will be some blood on her hands, before this thing is all over. Maybe, someday, when it is known that someone did this as a result of her how-to-do-it instructions, she will be held responsible in both criminal and civil court.

Hat Tips: Drudge and NNS

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Life Comes At You Fast

So the commercial says.

And right now it's coming fast at me. So consequently, I have had little time do much new posting. But, I have had a moment to look at some other posts and would like to share them.

Jason at Liberty and Culture has written an excellent piece that draws the distinctions between Islam and Judeo-Christian principles, and then Islam and secular humanistic ones. Don't miss it.

Always On Watch has some thoughts posted on the shelf-life of democracy. It highlights the growth and development of a stable and healthy democracy, as well as the deterioration.

A.C. from Fore Left has posted a couple of differing perspectives of what life on the street in Baghdad, is like.

Monday, March 13, 2006

More Mixed Messages From Russia On Iran

Earlier today, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed disappointment at Iran's conduct in the nuclear talks.

"We are highly disappointed with Tehran's conduct during these (nuclear) talks. Iran is absolutely failing to help those who are seeking peaceful ways to resolve this problem," Sergei Lavrov was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS.

Sounds like they are serious, right?

But then, later on, we received the report that both China and Russia have rejected proposals to produce just a statement on Iran.

Russia and China have rejected proposals from the United States and other veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council for a statement demanding that Iran clear up suspicions about its nuclear programme, which Washington contends is meant to produce an atomic bomb, diplomats said.

So, what's a person to believe, anyway? It's just a statement, right? It's not like we are asking for sanctions at this time. It's not like we are asking for military threats and/or action. It's a statement that merely says that the U.N. is demanding that they clear up suspicions about the nuclear program; it is not a statement demanding that they stop the enrichment of uranium, altogether. We just want them to verify that they are doing, what they say they are doing.

So, one cannot help ask, how serious are the other developed nations about the Iranian situation, anyway? Russia, China, and Europe are more endangered than the U.S, on the basis of their closer proximity to the rogue state. You would think they would be a little concerned. You would also think that some progress needs to be made, and by that I mean, Iran has to bargain in good faith and actually sit down to talk without having their minds closed, before the discussions even begin. They aren't and it's becoming more and more apparent, they won't. In fact, it is becoming plainer and plainer that they have no intention of doing so, not now, not ever.

So? What's next? More talks about having talks? Russia felt it could help, so okay, they took a shot. It was worth a try, right? The EU has already failed, China doesn't care, and the U.S. has no bargaining power. So what's a world to do, in a case like this?

Well, I can't say that I have the answer. But, I can feel safe to draw at least a few conclusions, from all of this:

So much for this false utopian dream of "one world, one planet, and one people" garbage, pitched by the Marxist left-wingers. So, much for the belief that diplomacy and pacifism always works better than force. And, so much for the worthless entity that the UN has become.

Some Thoughts On Today's Humor

Over at The Quietist, Pedro has some very poignant thoughts about today's humor and its relationship to today's pop culture. It is a brilliant analysis, one that I highly recommend and one that needs no further comment than that. But I will warn you, it's a little lengthy and there is some salty language/mature themes, but only as such, as is relevant for the support of his claims.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Time For "March Madness"

Everyone that has an ounce of consciousness and/or awareness in this country must know that it's "March Madness" time, in America. The NCAA College Basketball Tournament is about to begin. And judging from responses (or the lack of) I usually get from the (ever so) occasional sports posts, I realize I should keep this brief.

The one team to watch is, Ohio State, the #2 seed in the Minneapolis Regional.

It's not because I think they will necessarily go all the way, mind you. But the significant thing to note about OSU's team is about next year. Greg Oden (the 7' center from the Indianapolis area's Lawrence North High School and best HS player in the country), along with an excellent guard by the name of Michael Conley (from the same team), will be playing for Thad Matta's Buckeyes. And although the Bucks will graduate most of the starters from this season, the deeper they go, the more experience the underclass bench can get in the "big dance".

I predict that next year, they will dominate the Big Ten and possibly the entire NCAA, after Oden and Conley adjust to the college game. These guys are good and they know each other well, which will make it easier, in the team chemistry department.

But as for this year, let the office "bracket pools" begin.

Anti-Bush Movies To Continue

Reuters is reporting that a new anti-Bush movie is soon to be made. The Hollywood elitists appear to believe that this could very well be a money-making trend.

Naturally, I would advise them to think twice about it. Besides that, I would inform them that if they ignore my advice to think twice, then they need to make damned sure they keep their budgets low. Because if they don't, they may be underestimating the spending power of conservatives. When massive amounts of dollars are taken from one entertainment medium and switched to another, recovering costs of a high budget propanganda piece may be difficult.

Overall, box office sales have plummeted in recent years. But they might drop even further, if enough people quietly decide to spend their money on other things.

An Outstanding Examination Of The Pinochet Era

Dr. Steven Taylor (Poliblog), an associate professor of political science has outlined some very interesting points concerning former Chilean leader, Augusto Pinochet. And I must say, it is quite informative. Dr. Taylor's area of speciality within the discipline of Poli-Sci, just happens to be Latin America.

The post simply titled, "On Pinochet" is a good solid, fact-based history that features a comparison of Pinochet's regime, with other right-wing governments, in Latin America. However, like many blog posts, there is a fair amount of opinion and conjecture intermingled in (which is okay when it is knowledge-based).

Especially interesting is his take on whether or not, the CIA had an active role in Pinochet's coup. But the main question he tries to answer in all of this is, just why does the left hold this man in such contempt, especially when there have been more brutal dictatorships, throughout the history of this region?

So if Latin American political history interests you, in any measure, I highly recommend reading this piece. Not only is it relevant because of Chile's new president being sworn in, but because the left is now worried that Pinochet will die having never been brought to justice, as in the case of Milosevic.

The Parasitic Nature Of Unions

During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry made joblessness a big issue. He compared the time we were living in to the Great Depression, and believe it or not, a lot of people bought into it. And yet today, every now and then, some Democrat (prominent or otherwise) cannot resist the opportunity to portray U.S.unemployment picture, dismally. When that happens it helps to be prepared. So, let's take a look at some figures, shall we?

The U.S. unemployment numbers for February 2006 are
here. The national rate was 4.8%. (HT: Gindy)

Germany's numbers for the same time period,
here. Their rate was 12.2%.

France's rate has been around ten percent for some time according to Bloomberg
, it is now around 9.6%.

Spain hovers around the 10% range
and was there for 2004 and 2005. In addition to that, let's look at what this site says about where unemployment was in Spain, at this time last year:

Despite the recent, positive performance of the Spanish economy, the country will face many economic challenges in the coming years. As mentioned above, Spain's unemployment rate has dropped significantly in the past 8 years, but it still remains well above the Eurozone average of 8.8%.

Dropped significantly and still double digit? And still above the EU average? With this statement and this statement alone, it would easily seem that Continental Europe accepts and tolerates a much higher rate of unemployment, than the leftist union bosses of the U.S. are able to endure.

Now, let's look at some real interesting data, shall we?

Back to Germany. By looking at
this table, one can plainly see that the former West Germany had a much lower rate than its counterpart in the east, for the year 2004. These numbers seem to indicate that the former East Germany has rates, near the rates experienced here in America during the Great Depression, when the rate was around 25%. At 20.1%, a fifth of the workforce currently does not a job, compared to a quarter for the depression-era U.S.

The same can be said for other former Soviet satellites. Poland checks in April of last year, at 17.9%, while Slovakia for the same period was at 15.6%.
Reference is here.

With all of this said, you can now plainly see that in comparison to other developed western nations and former communist states, the U.S. has one of the better rates. And if you compare the current 4.8% rate with rates from the past, you can also see that whenever the rates were in the 4% range, the nation was considered have a booming economy. And such is the case today.

But not only that, if you look at the nations where unions are much more powerful than here, you see that having a strong union does not guarantee a low jobless rate, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it would appear that unions want a high jobless rates, so they can sell their significance and relevance to those that have jobs and fear they may lose them.

In summary, those people that claim the U.S. needs jobs more than anything else, are union bosses and those whose pockets are lined by them. There are jobs to be had, but there are just not enough jobs that the union leaders can collect dues from and pay their huge salaries and fund their cushy lifestyle. (That's precisely why the unions are going after Wal-Mart.) But more than that, always remember this, a union never created a job that wasn't dependent on another's. Unions do not create jobs in and of themselves, except for the leeches that run them. Businesses create jobs. Businesses pay the salaries. Unions take, businesses give.

Unions are parasites and the hosts are businesses and workers.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Milosevic Dead

At the IHT is coverage of the death of Slobodan Milosevic.

I thought it odd that this comment was made:

Leaders in the region and in Western Europe immediately expressed regret that he would never be convicted for his role in the disintegration of Yugoslavia and in three wars in the region during the 1990's.

Why odd?

Well, just how many years does it take to "convict" someone in a UN court, anyway? Not only that, what would they have done with him anyway? Life imprisonment? He got that, already. Think about it. He has been locked up, since he was locked up, right? He died locked up, right?

Life Imprisonment.

Sentence Served.

Game Over.

Long story, short. Problem solved.

Weekend Funnies

If you are in the mood for some humor, after a stressful week check this piece out, entitled, Genius Or Idiot?. I must warn you that there is some salty language and mature themes, scattered throughout. But usually, it is not the central theme and in my opinion, it does not detract from what is.

Note: I have been reading this guy for awhile and find him to be very funny. The only drawback is he doesn't post very often and they often are not very long. But his posts are usually worth waiting for.


Some Advice For Republicans, From A Republican

Over at The Wide Awakes and at Mike's America, Mike has outlined some points for the GOP to keep in mind for the upcoming election in 2006. I will say that it not only applies to 06 but 2008, as well.

Many Republicans are anxious, but they must remember to articulate their message. Because the Dems lack one. The one with the message will always stand out.

Read his essay, as well as my comment at TWA.

Friday, March 10, 2006

Farris Hassan Exposed?

Over at GM's Corner, GM has some surprising information. Well, maybe not surprising for everyone.

Remember the 16 year old kid from Florida that took off from Florida to Iraq for some "immersion" journalism? Take a look at GM's post and follow the link toward the bottom of the post. And you wonder why most people in the blogosphere do not trust the MSM. Granted, it may not be altogether true (or it might) but, what if it is? There's no scrutiny, because the MSM is more eager to embarrass a sitting President, especially, on things that are null and void.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Slate: The Three Stooges

Here is a brilliant article that illustrates just how much in disarray the Democratic Party is in. The usually liberal Slate has it. And just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, this time Slate gets it right.

Right now, Bob Beckel is on Gibson's show and all I can hear is tap dancing to the tune of "Tea For Two". Just between you and me, I think Bob knows that this is an uphill battle that may not be won. But being a good party man, he doesn't want to come out and say it. His countenance has given him away though, it's in his eyes and nervous smile.

You have to read this one.

Hat Tip to Real Clear Politics

French Unemployment Remains High Among Younger People

As the title says, France still has some problems with unemployment, especially among the twenty something workforce. The CSM has the details. (Hat Tip to Gindy on this one)

To shed a little more light (from a French view) on this, check out the post, by Super Frenchie.

Me? I think that any solution is going to require an overhaul of economic thinking, with risk as key component. I explain further in my comment to SF's post.

UPDATE: Here is a breaking story from the AFP.

LE MANS, France (AFP) - An unemployed teacher took 18 students, a teacher and another man hostage at gunpoint at a high school in western France.

Whether or not the unemployed status of this man plays into the motive or not, remains to be seen. But I wouldn't discount it. Some people do desperate things, when they have no purpose in life. And a job does fulfill one purpose in a multi-faceted life.

UPDATE II - All's well. Standoff ended with hostages unharmed.

AP: Arizona Governor Orders National Guard To Border

From the AP comes this story.

(via Drudge)

Sounds like a brave, decisive, and bold move, right? The AP leads us to believe it in the lead-in.

But closer inspection of the article reveals that no matter how hard a Democrat wants to make it appear that they are on our side on this, they still can't resist the urge to make a political game out of it.

Read the article. It's short but demonstrates that politics is a game, sometimes.

But hey, if the end result is more border security, who am I to criticize?

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Good Exchange At TWA

Over at the Wide Awakes, I cross posted my last post. Carol, an argumentative leftist well known to the group, has decided she didn't like one paragraph and has built her rant on that. If you are feeling bored and would love to read a good exchange of differing opinions, check it out. And leave your own, if you like.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Is Iraq On The Brink Of Civil War? Or Not?

Back on February 23rd I asked the question, "Is Iraq On The Brink Of Civil War?". I got a few mixed comments, but all in all, the jury is still out. I guess it all depends on who you read and/or listen to.

For instance, if you read the Washington Post, then you will be more inclined to believe that it is.
This article claims that the majority believes that it is likely. And they have conducted a poll that they claim validates that assumption.

An overwhelming majority of the public believes fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war and half says the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 80 percent believe that recent sectarian violence made civil war in Iraq likely, and more than a third say such a conflict was "very likely" to occur. Expectations for an all-out sectarian war in Iraq extended beyond party lines. More than seven in 10 Republicans and eight in 10 Democrats and political independents believe civil war was likely.

Now, one has to ask, "where is a link to that poll?". Could it be that they are afraid their methodology will be scrutinized and as a result, their results considered skewed, just as they were in the
recent CBS poll? You know the one, the one that weighted the sample with 409 Democrats, 337 Independents, and 272 Republicans. So, as you can plainly see, anyone that puts a lot of faith in a poll conducted by any media outlet in the MSM, will be open to strict scrutiny.

But if you read personal accounts from people that have been there and seen the place with their own eyes, you get a very different picture. Take
this article that appears in the NY Post, for example. It is a scathing indictment on the journalists that are there in Iraq, and insist on exaggerating the scene to the degree that it appaers that there is mass chaos, fighting daily on the streets, and that the streets of Baghdad are full of armed insurgents just waiting to kill innocent people, to include American journalists.

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

You really should read the whole thing, it does not speak highly of many of the American journalists' information gathering techniques.

Now, do not get me wrong on this. This is still a very sticky situation that can go either way, especially as the WaPo points. Once the U.S. troops leave, will be the real test. But what kind of chance will the new Iraqi government ever have, if the MSM continues to portray the conflict as a resounding defeat for the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqis.? What chance will they have if they keep getting skewed polls, inaccurate data, and a constant flow of deliberate misinformation?

Answer: Not much.

But as for me, I will rely more heavily on a journalist that gets out into the field and sees things for himself, rather than relying on one that sits at his cushy newsroom desk or one that gets his information delivered to his hotel room in Baghdad, via the rumor mill.

Cross-Posted at
The Wide Awakes

Monday, March 06, 2006

Will Banning Abortion Usher In A New Era Of Prohibition?

Author's Note - Before composing this essay, I put a lot of thought with much trepidation into whether or not it would inflame more passions of those that I usually agree with, on most things. It is a sensitive topic and the gulf between both sides is so far and wide, it is likely that it will never come close to being closed. So without further adieu and at the risk of being condemned to hell by zealots from either side, this is my take on the subject.

America in the 20s, can best be described as a period of time when people didn't drink alcohol, because the federal government had said that it was bad, it caused many social problems, and drinking it was not going to be tolerated. And of course we all know how willing the vast majority of the citizenry was to surrender their booze and sober up. Right?


The truth is, history tells us in no uncertain terms that this was not the case. In fact, the booze flowed every bit as free after the law took effect, as it did before the ban. As a result of this, many of the era's criminal cult figures of that day were booze runners in the black market and got quite rich because of it. (SEE: Al Capone and Joe Kennedy) But what it was designed to do and what it did do, were two totally different things.

You see, prohibition created a new social ill that turned out to be worse than those that had already existed beforehand, aka gangsters. All you had to know was the right people in any given town or city, and you could find liquor. Illegal speak easies cropped up all over.

Prohibition demonstrated to everyone that making something illegal, after it has been legal, is useless. From a supply standpoint, you force the business into the black market. Because as long as the demand is there, someone will be willing to take the risks of arrest and prosecution, to provide the product or the service.

Now let's bring that up to today and attach this very same principle to the ultra-sensitive subject of abortion.

First, let me say that I am not for abortion. I think it is barbaric and murderous (and that goes double for Partial Birth Abortions). Anyone that would choose to kill a unborn child, is not with it, at least in a moral sense. I cannot imagine doing such a thing, no matter what the circumstances entail. But not everyone is like me. Not everyone has the mindset, I have.

In fact, many that choose abortion are in a situation that I have never been in. And I realize that they may not have the ability to think as clearly as me, and probably aren't aware of the resources available that provide alternatives.

With that said, now would be a good point in time to announce that
South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has signed into law a statewide ban on abortion. Mississippi, a state that has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, is also considering an outright ban. And now, Indiana's state legislature is thinking about taking up this debate, as well.

By outlawing abortion, it is inviting the back-alley butchers to reappear, because law does not ban the demand for them. If the demand remains (such as the case of booze, in Prohibition), the suppliers will go underground. At that point, it cannot be regulated. As a result of no regulation, unsafe and dirty instruments will be used and women will die from sepsis and infections.

No, I am afraid that my friends on the right, are not looking at this particular angle, as they seek to send an immediate challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court, to get Roe vs, Wade overturned. In their zeal to protect the unborn, they are overlooking the potential outcome of this, and as a result, they miss the obvious fact that the return of the black market abortion syndicates will bring more grief than it will prevent.

Even though it is a barbaric act in itself, banning it will not yield the results, intended. It will not stop abortion, it will not reduce the demand, and it will create more deaths. Who will protect the women that find themselves in a mess and opt to terminate a pregnancy, because they feel they have no other option? If they are truly in a crisis, feel isolated, and feel alone in the world, they will seek it anyway. And they will find it.

So, what's the answer?

Reduce the demand through education. Reduce the demand, in anyway you can. Bombing clinics and outlawing suppliers will do nothing. But, if every minister would teach against it, every parent would teach against it, and if organizations like Planned Parenthood would present every possible option other than abortion, it would not have an immediate effect; but over time, you could plant the value of human life in more people, so that when the time comes for this to be a decision, other options will look more preferable. If demand goes down, abortion clinics will close, on their own, without any intervention.

I would ask my readers that feel the way I do concerning the barbaric nature of this practice, if they would only consider this argument I have submitted here today. And before they get on the bandwagon with these lawmakers in SD and the other states that are looking for an outright ban, if they would only consider the potential ramifications, of implementing this drastic measure.

Rest assured that if you could convince me that this would not happen, I would be all for it. As I said earlier, I don't like it, not one iota. But until that time, I am content to regulate it more strictly and keeping it as an option, only after every other option is presented. I do support a complete ban on partial birth abortions, no exceptions allowed. Not rape, not incest, not to save the life of the mother.

And for the feminazis that would love to use this as a basis for their weak and faulty arguments, think about this. The whole basis of the feminists' argument is, it's the woman's body and the fetus is not a viable human being. But the twins carried in Rebekah's (Isaac's wife) womb, were counted as two nations, by God. Two nations, that started with two people, two human beings, while they were yet unborn. Sounds pretty plain to me.

So, now it's your turn to tell me your opinion, if you wish. So I will ask you, my readers: Where am I wrong?