We Got a Kinder, Gentler Machine-Gun Hand...

1) Dad and I traveled to the county courthouse today to research the history of our house. The amount of information within the Register of Deeds office is incredible. Our research led us from a volume numbered in the nine-hundreds all the way down to the third page in volume three, which was the original purchase of the property written in hand in 1909. We even found the original lot lines for the neighborhood, which have changed considerably.


2) Dad purchased a re-manufactured carb for the Camaro! The electric vehicle idea is out the window....for now.


3) Being on Christmas break for the past week and a half has made me somewhat irritable. The first two days of break were spent wandering through the house searching for something productive to accomplish. Blegh. Car projects are limited because of funds, drawing lasted for only an hour, piano grows old quickly, schoolwork...Well, schoolwork has an appeal to it again.

“I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often….And that is an objective assessment...”

Media Research Center’s Best Notable Quotables of 2008!


http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2008/press20081222.asp

This Place is Crackalackin'...

Happenings....


1) The carburetor on the Camaro died Saturday morning. Dad and I are hypothesizing about what should be done with the thing. The motor is still original and has oh-so-many miles, so rebuilding it is an option. However, considering the cost of such a project why not convert the entire drivetrain to electric power? (His idea, not my own...)

2) Three colleges have sent acceptance letters: Embry-Riddle, The Citadel, and VMI. NC State will not send out any information until January 31, so I am still playing the waiting game. And no, I do not have a top choice out of the five ROTC colleges that have I applied to.

3) My friend and I were preparing to leave for church this past Sunday. His parents left beforehand to prepare for music, so he and I were taking Little Wing. Upon turning the key in the ignition, the car would not start. "Great. My battery is dead and we'll have to jump it in this pouring rain." I called my dad to make sure my memory was correct on the procedure.

"I turned the key in the ignition and the car will not start. I think the battery's dead. Wait...my interior lights are on..."

"Make sure the car is in park."

"Oh! Never mind..."

Not only did I park the car in drive, but I also drove ten miles to church before I realized that my hood was not closed properly. I had pulled the latch thinking that we were going to jump the battery, so it was unlatched most of the drive.

4) Quantum of Solace was...uneventful.

Top Songs for this Week

Wild Horses - The Rolling Stones
America - Neil Diamond
Rockin’ in the Free World - Neil Young
My Jesus - Todd Agnew
Angel - Aerosmith
Macrotus (Batman Begins) - Hans Zimmer
Hey Jude - The Beatles
Copperhead Road - Steve Earle
Time - Pink Floyd
Some Kind of Wonderful - Grand Funk Railroad
Bullets - Creed
Last Breath - Creed
All I Want is You - U2
Soulshine - Allman Brothers
Save Me from Myself - Head
Love is Not a Fight - Warren Barfield
Burning the Past - Harry Gregson-Williams
Ecstasy of Gold - Ennio Morricone, Metallica (Both Versions)
O Come All Ye Faithful - Twisted Sister
O Holy Night - Josh Groban

My Pappy Said, "Son You're Gonna Drive Me To Drinkin' If You Don't Stop Drivin' That Hot Rod Lincoln..."

A brilliant piece by my man, Walter Williams.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2008, AND THEREAFTER



Bailouts and Bankruptcy



Let's not allow Congress and members of the bailout parade panic us into allowing them to do things, as was done in the 1930s, that would convert a mild economic downturn into a true calamity. Right now the Big Three auto companies, and their unions, are asking Congress for a $25 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. Let's think about that a bit.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt? One thing that does not happen is their productive assets go poof and disappear into thin air. In other words, if GM goes bankrupt, the assembly lines, robots, buildings and other tools don't evaporate. What bankruptcy means is the title to those assets change. People who think they can manage those assets better purchase them.

Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, where the control of its business operations are subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court, gives companies a chance to reorganize. The court can permit complete or partial relief from the company's debts and its labor union contracts.

A large part of the problem is the Big Three's cozy relationship with the United Auto Workers union (UAW). GM has a $73 hourly wage cost including benefits and overtime. Toyota has five major assembly plants in the U.S. Its hourly wage cost plus benefits is $48. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out which company will be at a competitive disadvantage. Then there's the "jobs bank" feature of the UAW contract where workers who are laid off workers get 95 percent of their base pay and all their benefits. Right now there's a two-year limit but in the past workers could stay in the "jobs bank" forever unless they turned down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. At one time job bank membership exceeded 7,000 "workers." GM, Ford and Chrysler face other problems that range from poor corporate management and marketing, not to mention costly government regulations.

Two vital marketplace signals are the profits that come with success and the losses that come with failure. When these two signals are not allowed to freely function, markets operate less efficiently. To be successful a business must take in enough revenue not only to cover wages, rents and interest but profits as well. In order to accomplish that feat executives must not only satisfy customers but they must do it in a manner that efficiently utilizes all of their resources. If they fail to cover costs, it means that resources are not being used efficiently and/or consumers don't value the good being produced relative to some other alternative. When a firm routinely fails to turn a profit, there are bankruptcy pressures. The firm's resources, workers, building and capital become available to someone else who might put them to better use. When government steps in with a bailout, it enables executives to continue mismanaging resources.

How much congressional involvement do we want with the Big Three auto companies? I'd say none. Congressmen and federal bureaucrats, including those at the Federal Reserve Board, don't know anymore about the automobile business than they know about the banking and financial businesses that they've turned into a mess. Just look at the idiotic focus of congressmen when the three auto company chief executives appeared before them. They questioned whether the executives should have driven to Congress rather than flown in on corporate jets. They focused on executive pay, which is a tiny fraction of costs compared to $73 hourly compensation to 250,000 autoworkers. The belief that Congress poses the major threat to our liberty and well-being is why the founders gave them limited enumerated powers. To our detriment, today's Americans have given them unlimited powers.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.



COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

And All Through The House...

Twas the month before Christmas,
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying,
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
"It might hurt people's feelings," the teachers would say,
December 25th is just a "Holiday".
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks, and credit,
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it.
CDs from Madonna, an XBOX, an I-pod,
Something was changing, something quite odd.
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa,
In hopes to sell books by Franken and Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down,
At Lowe's the word Christmas was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears,
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty,
Are the words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen,
On Boxer, On Rather, On Kerry, On Clinton!
At the top of the Senate there arose such a clatter,
To eliminate Jesus in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word as they took away our faith,
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded,
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree",
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say,
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS,
Not Happy Holiday!


(Ya Politically correct idiots...)

When You Lie With Dogs...

You Get Their Fleas....


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081206/D94T8T200.html


By TOBY STERLING

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - Amsterdam unveiled plans Saturday to close brothels, sex shops and marijuana cafes in its ancient city center as part of a major effort to drive organized crime out of the tourist haven.

The city is targeting businesses that "generate criminality," including gambling parlors, and the so-called "coffee shops" where marijuana is sold openly. Also targeted are peep shows, massage parlors and souvenir shops used by drug dealers for money-laundering.

"I think that the new reality will be more in line with our image as a tolerant and crazy place, rather than a free zone for criminals" said Lodewijk Asscher, a city council member and one of the main proponents of the plan.

The news comes just one day after Amsterdam's mayor said he would search for loopholes in new rules laid down by the national government that would close marijuana cafes near schools citywide. The measures announced Saturday would affect about 36 coffee shops in the center itself - a little less than 20 percent of the city total.

Asscher underlined that the city center will remain true to its freewheeling reputation.

"It'll be a place with 200 windows (for prostitutes) and 30 coffee shops, which you can't find anywhere else in the world - very exciting, but also with cultural attractions," he said. "And you won't have to be embarrassed to say you came."

Under the plan announced Saturday, Amsterdam will spend euro30 million to euro40 million ($38 million to $51 million) to bring hotels, restaurants, art galleries and boutiques to the center. It will also build new underground parking areas.

Amsterdam already had plans to close many brothels and some coffee shops, but plans announced Saturday go further.

Asscher said the city would reshape the area, using zoning rules, buying out businesses and offering assistance to upgrade stores. The city has shut brothels and sex clubs in the past by relying on a law allowing the closure of businesses with bookkeeping irregularities.

Prostitution will be allowed only in two areas in the district - notably De Wallen ("The Walls"), a web of streets and alleys around the city's medieval retaining dam walls. The area has been a center of prostitution since before the city's golden shipping age in the 1600s.

Prostitution was legalized in the Netherlands in 2000, formalizing a long-standing tolerance policy.

Marijuana is technically illegal in the Netherlands, but prosecutors won't press charges for possession of small amounts. Coffee shops are able to sell it openly.

The Change That We Have All Hoped For...

This is the Senate version of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)that Obama has promised to sign.


"Freedom of Choice Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 1173 IS


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1173
To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 2007
Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act."


Can anyone please give a non-subjective definition of "viability" as referenced in Secs. 3 and 4? Didn't think so...

The Old Man is Computer Illiterate

From the NRO:

Wondering No More [Jonah Goldberg]


Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

In a similar vein I guess it's an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Paterson doesn't know how to drive a car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it's like to navigate New York's highways.

Do not question Obama's dedication to this country. But please, whatever you do, criticize the dedication of the man that spent several years in the Hanoi Hilton even after he was offered an early release.

Keep digging your own grave, Obama, because I know you are at least an expert in that.

But the Memory Remains...

1) I received a hearty blow to the head a while back at soccer practice. After colliding with another player while in pursuit of the ball, I found myself sprawled on the grass with no memory of the five minutes prior. In fact, I still do not remember much of what happened several minutes afterwards. I do remember looking down at my penny because I had no memory of what color team I was on.

I'm wearing a yellow penny so I must be...Oh, I'm wearing my red Korean Marines shirt today and my blue running shorts.

Yeah, you could say that I was a little out of it. I knew that I was at school and at the soccer field on which I had spent dozens of hours, yet my eyes took in the scenery like as if I was there for the first time. Essentially, I was trying to remember but could not find myself to place it.

So the next day, with an Advil Gel quickly dissolving into my system (or so I hoped) and a Sudoku sitting in front of me, a question popped into my bruised and drugged brain.

Why do we have memories?

The only real convincing answer was this, and it came with surprising speed: So that we may remember the things God has done for us.

I thought the thought (ha) was interesting.


2) I have finally figured out why The Dark Knight was not really my cup of tea.

I will concede that The Dark Knight was one of the most intriguing and exciting movies I have seen in a long time. The plot, special effects, and acting were all simply amazing. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was, shall we say, convincing. It almost makes you wonder if a little bit of the Joker was in him.

But that's not what disturbs me.

The part that bothers me is that they made the Joker so disgusting without providing a contrast to his character. Even though Batman and Gordon want to keep the Joker from having the last laugh by way of his creation, Two Face, the Joker makes everyone compromise in order to defeat him. And there is no redemption for that compromise. That is what bothers me. Yes, the Joker exemplifies nihilism, but there is nothing to contrast with it. The fearless, unwavering Harvey Dent falls and dies with his second face still on. Batman faces severe doubts and compromises his reputation in order to keep the Joker from winning. But since there is no redemption for Batman, wouldn't the Joker be fine with either result? Either Batman or Harvey Dent will be seen by the public as a murderer, so in my mind the Joker still has the last hurrah.

Those are my two cents, and if you weird fans do not like it, go spend eight bucks and see the movie again for the heck of it.

3) I believe that Sarah Palin is exactly what the Republican Party needed to gain energy for this fierce election that is looming over the horizon. Most people thought it was not worth it to support McCain, but hell, it is going to be a brawl now that SHE stepped into the ring!

4) I have vowed to listen to nothing but instrumental music for the next week. Rock, Rap, and Electronic are not exceptions (which boils it down to...classical and soundtracks). We shall see how that goes.

China and Russia’s Geographic Divide

An interesting analysis from Stratfor. http://www.stratfor.com:80/weekly/china_and_russia_s_geographic_divide

By Peter Zeihan


Since the Soviet fall, Russian generals, intelligence chiefs and foreign policy personnel have often waxed philosophic about the inevitability of a global alliance to hem in U.S. power — often using the rhetoric of a “multipolar world.” Central in all of these plans has been not only the implied leadership of Russia, but the implied presence of China. At first glance, the two seem natural partners. China has a booming manufacturing economy, while Russia boasts growing exports of raw materials. But a closer look at the geography of the two paints a very different picture, while the history of the two tells an extraordinarily different story. If anything, it is no small miracle that the two have never found themselves facing each other in a brutal war.

A Hostile Geography
Russia east of the Urals and the Chinese interior are empty, forbidding places. Nearly all of Russia’s population is hard up on its western border, while China’s is in snug against its eastern and southern coasts. There is an ocean’s worth of nothing between them. But while ships can ply the actual ocean cheaply, potentially boosting economic activity, trade between Russia and China does not come easy. Moscow and Beijing are farther apart than Washington and London, and the cost of building meaningful infrastructure between the two would run in the hundreds of billions. With the exception of some resource development and sales in the border region, integration between the two simply does not make economic sense.

Yet, distance aside, there are no real barriers between the two. Southwestern Siberia is a long stretch of flatness that flows seamlessly into the steppes of Central Asia and the highlands of western China. This open expanse is the eastern end of the old Silk Road — proof that luxury trade is often feasible where more conventional trade simply cannot pay the transport bill. But where caravans bearing spice and silk can pass, so can armies bearing less desirable “goods and services.”

Ominously for Russia, there is little to separate the Russian Far East — where most of the Russian population east of the Urals resides — from Manchuria. And not only is there a 15:1 population imbalance here in favor of the Chinese (and not only has Beijing quietly encouraged Chinese immigration across its border with Russia since the Soviet breakup), but the Russian Far East is blocked from easy access to the rest of Russia by the towering mountains surrounding Lake Baikal. So while the two parts of Russia have minimal barriers separating them from China, they do have barriers separating them from each other. Russia can thus only hold its Far East so long as China lacks the desire to take it.

Geography also drives the two in different directions for economic reasons. For the same reason that trade between the two is unlikely, developing Russia would be an intimidating task. Unlike China or the United States, Russia’s rivers for the most part do not interconnect, and none of the major rivers go anywhere useful. Russia has loads of coastline, but nowhere does coast meld with population centers and ice-free ocean access. The best the country has is remote Murmansk.

So Russia’s development — doubly so east of the Urals — largely mirrors Africa’s: limited infrastructure primarily concerned with exploiting mineral deposits. Anything more holistic is simply too expensive to justify.

In contrast, China boasts substantial populations along its warm coasts. This access to transport allows China to industrialize more readily than Russia, but China shares easily crossed land borders with no natural trading partner. Its only serious option for international trade lies in maritime shipping. Yet, because land transport is “merely” difficult and not impossible, China must dedicate resources to a land-based military. This makes China militarily both vulnerable to — yet economically dependent upon — sea powers, both for access to raw materials and to ship its goods to market. The dominant naval power of today is not land-centric Russia, but the United States. To be economically successful China must at least have a civil and neutral relationship with the $14-trillion-economy-wielding and 11-aircraft-carrier-strike-group-toting United States. Russia barely even enters into China’s economic equation.

And the way Russia does figure into that equation — Central Asia — is not a positive, because there is an additional complication.

Natural gas produced in the Central Asian states until recently was part and parcel of overall Soviet production. Since those states’ infrastructure ran exclusively north into Russia, Moscow could count on this captive output to sign European supply contracts at a pittance. The Kremlin then uses those contracts as an anvil over Europe to extract political concessions.

“China” has been around a long time, but the borders of today represent the largest that the Chinese state has ever been. To prevent its outer provinces from breaking away (as they have many times in China’s past), one of Beijing’s geopolitical imperatives is to lash those provinces to the center as firmly as possible. Beijing has done this in two ways. First, it has stocked these outlying regions with Han Chinese to dilute the identity of the indigenous populations and culturally lash the regions to the center. Second, it has physically and economically lashed them to the center via building loads of infrastructure. So, in the past 15 years, China has engaged in a flurry of road, pipeline and rail construction to places such as Tibet and Xinjiang.

Merge these two seemingly minor details and it suddenly becomes clear that much of the mineral and energy riches of formerly Soviet Central Asia — resources that Russia must have to maintain its energy leverage over Europe — are now just as close to China’s infrastructure network as they are to Russia’s. And obtaining those resources is one of the few possible means China has of mitigating its vulnerability to U.S. naval power.

All that is needed are some pieces of connecting infrastructure to allow those resources to flow east to China instead of north to Russia. Those connections — road, pipe and rail — are already under construction. The Russians suddenly have some very active competition in a region they have thought of as their exclusive playground, not to mention a potential highway to Russia proper, for the past quarter millennia. Control of Central Asia is now a strategic imperative for both.

A Cold History
The history of the two powers — rarely warm, oftentimes bitter — meshes well with the characteristics of the region’s geography.

From the Chinese point of view, Russia is a relative newcomer to Asia, having started claiming territory east of the Urals only in the late 1500s, and having spent most of its blood, sweat and tears in the region in Central Asia rather than the Far East. Russian efforts in the Far East amounted to little more than a string of small outposts even when Moscow began claiming Pacific territory in the late 1700s. Still, by 1700, Russian strength was climbing while Chinese power was waning under the onslaught of European colonialism, enabling a still-militarily weak Russian force to begin occupying chunks of northeastern China. With a bit of bluff and guile, Russia formally annexed what is now Amur province from Qing China in the 1858 Treaty of Aigun, and shortly thereafter the Chinese-Russian border of today was established.

China attempted to resist even after Aigun — lumping the document with the other “unequal treaties” that weakened Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity — and indeed the Russians had more or less swindled China out of a million square miles of territory. But Beijing simply had too many other issues going on to mount a serious resistance (the Opium Wars come to mind). Once the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed early in the 20th century, Russia was able to back up its claims with troops, and the issue definitively moved to the back burner — especially as the rising colonial aspirations of Japan occupied more attention than China had to spare.

The bilateral relationship warmed somewhat after the end of World War II, with Russian energy and weapons critical to Mao’s consolidation of power (although notably, Stalin originally backed Mao’s rival, Chiang Kai-shek). But this camaraderie was not to last. Stalin did everything he could first to egg on the North Korean government to invade South Korea, and then to nudge the Chinese into backing the North Koreans against the U.S.-led U.N. counterattack. But while the USSR provided weapons to China in the Korean War, Moscow never sent troops — and when the war ended, Stalin had the temerity to submit a bill to Bejing for services rendered.

Sino-Soviet relations never really improved after that. As part of Cold War maneuvers, Russia allied with India and North Vietnam, both longtime Chinese rivals. Therein lay the groundwork of a U.S.-Chinese rapprochement, and rapid-fire events quickly drove the Chinese and Soviets apart. The United States and China both backed Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistani wars. Some 60,000 Uighurs — a Muslim minority that the Chinese still fear hold separatist aspirations — fled across the Soviet border in 1962. In 1965, the Chinese energy industry matured to the point that Soviet oil was no longer required to keep the Chinese economy afloat. Later, Washington turned a blind eye to the horrors of the Chinese-bankrolled Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to destabilize Soviet-backed Vietnam. When all was said and done, the Soviet Union faced a foe to its south every bit as implacable as those on its western and eastern flanks.

But the seminal event that made the Sino-Soviet split inevitable was a series of military clashes in the summer of 1969 over some riverine islands in the Amur.

Today
China and Russia are anything but natural partners. While their economic interests may seem complementary, geography dictates that their actual connections will be sharply limited. Moreover, in their roles of resource provider versus producer, they actually have a commercial relationship analogous to that of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries versus the United States — with all the angst and distrust that suggests.

Strategically, the two tend to swim in different pools, but they still share a borderland. Borderlands — where one great state flows into another — are dangerous places, as their precise locations ebb and flow with the geopolitical tides. And the only thing more likely to generate borderland friction than when one side is strong and the other weak is when both sides are strong. Currently, both China and Russia are becoming more powerful simultaneously, creating ample likelihood that the two will slide toward confrontation in regions of overlapping interest.

So why Stratfor’s interest in the topic? The primary reason the United States is the most powerful state in the international system is that it faces no challengers on its continent. (Canada is de facto integrated into the United States, and Mexico — even were it stable and rich — would still be separated from the United States by a sizable desert.) This allows the United States to develop in peace and focus its efforts on projecting its power outward rather than defending itself. For the United States to be threatened, a continental-sized power or coalition of similar or greater size would need to arise. So long as China and Russia remain at odds, the United States does not have to work very hard to maintain its position.

Which brings us back to the island battles that cemented the Sino-Soviet split: Russia is giving them back.

On July 21, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put Russia’s final signature — in a deal already signed and ratified by both sides — to a deal that commits Russia to the imminent removal of its forces from 67 square miles of territory on a series of Amur riverine islands. The Russians call them Tarabarov and Bolshoi Ussuriysky, the Chinese call them Yinlong Dao and Heixiazi Dao. These are two of the islands over which the Chinese and Soviets battled in 1969, formalizing the Sino-Soviet split. The final pullout of Russian forces is expected within a month.

When two states enter into alliance, the first thing they must do is stop treating each other as foes. There is a bit of wiggle room if the two states do not border each other as the United States and Soviet Union did not during World War II. But in cases of a shared land border, it is devilishly difficult to believe that those on the other side of the line have your back if they are still gunning for a piece of your backyard. If China and Russia are going to stand together against the United States — or really, anyone — in any way, shape or form, the first thing they have to do is stop standing against each other. And that is just about to happen.

There are still plenty of reasons to doubt the durability of this development. In terms of modern warfare, the islands are strategic irrelevancies, so their surrender is not exactly a huge gesture of trust. Achieving any semblance of economic integration between the two powers still would be more trouble and expensive than it would be worth, making any deepening of the bilateral relationship difficult. Russia’s demographic slide instills a perfectly logical paranoia in the Kremlin; Russians are outnumbered 7 to 1 by their “partner” in terms of population and 3 to 1 in terms of economic size — something that Russian pride will find far harder to accept than merely handing over some islands. There is no substitute to the American market for China. Period. Sharing Central Asia is simply impossible because both sides need the same resources to achieve and maintain their strategic aims. And neither power has a particularly sterling reputation when it comes to confidence building.

Yet while Moscow is known for many, many things, sacrificing territory — especially territory over which blood has been shed — is not on that list. Swallowing some pride to raise the prospect of a Chinese-Russian alliance is something that should not pass unnoticed. Burying the hatchet in the islands of the Amur is the first step on the improbable road to a warmer bilateral relationship, and raises the possibility of a coalition of forces with the geographic foundation necessary to challenge the United States at its very core.

Such a Chinese-Russian alliance remains neither natural nor likely. But, with the territory handover, it has just become something that it was not a week ago: possible.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb...

This is why Obama should never be Commander in Chief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E

Obama yo Mama Pt.1

All of this is from http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm.

First up is the critical and often ignored issue of abortion. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

Undecided on whether life begins at conception
Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?
A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

If “potential life” is something that holds a moral weight to it, why hasn’t Obama come to a firm resolution on it? What if other decisions come up that hold a moral weight to them and he cannot come to a resolution on them? Obviously, Obama has decided to not decide. On this issue, he is a man of indecision. If he does state that life begins at conception, the pro-lifers will wonder why he’s rated 100 by NARAL. If he states that life does not begin at conception, he loses some of that attractive polish that goes along with his indecisiveness.

OBAMA RECORD
Throughout his career, in both the Illinois Senate & the US Senate, Obama has stood up for a women's right to choose, consistently earning 100% ratings from pro-choice groups.
Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 35-36 Feb 2, 2008
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
Source: NARAL voting record, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org Jan 1, 2008

Self explanatory.

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases
Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:
Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
Ensure Ethical Standards
Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

Yes, regular stem cell research is fine. Embryonic stem cell research is not. Also, how is it guaranteed that those “left over” embryos would otherwise be discarded if not used for embryonic stem cell research? The fact about the whole issue is this: Adult stem cells hold more potential than embryonic stem cells. If the evidence points in favor of adult stem cells, and if we really care about finding news ways to cure diseases and such, how come the media and liberals are adamant on embryonic stem cell research? It almost reminds me of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century.

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"
I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.
"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006

Just one question comes out of this: Who says that legalized abortion equals safe abortion? Read Lime 5 and tell me that legal abortion means safe abortion.


Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism.
When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006

This is downright frightening. The Constitution is a dead document, plain and simple.

1. Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.
Obama scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Next, the economy. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq
The fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. McCain is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008

Maybe if Obama studied the information, he would see that the money we are spending in Iraq isn’t as much as he thinks. Yes, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. But how does that compare to our current GDP? Hmmm….

“Critics of the war in Iraq often complain about the 'escalating cost of the war.' Listening to them, you’d never know that the war is one of the least expensive in American history.
Robert Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University, has measured the cost of each major American war up through the first Gulf War. We took these costs and compared them to the cost of the Iraq war and found that the Iraq experience has consumed a smaller percentage of GDP (just 2 percent of one year’s wealth creation) than every other American war except the first Gulf War (which measured just 1 percent of GDP).
This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam experience, which opponents have often attempted to liken to the Iraq war. Vietnam comprised a much heartier 12 percent of GDP at the time. Other conflicts, such as World War II, took a remarkable 130 percent of a year’s GDP to see through to success.”

Check out the article. It has a nice little graph, too. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200601230854.asp

Besides, the health care reforms that Obama and Hillary want to push would probably break the bank. You want change? Good, because that is all you will have left in your pockets.

Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out
Q: Would it be a priority of your administration to balance the federal budget every year?
A: Over the last seven years, what we've seen is an economy that's out of balance because of the policies of George Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Not only do we have fiscal problems, but we've got growing inequality. People are working harder for less and they're seeing costs go up. So what I want to do is get the long-term fundamentals right. That means that we are investing in education & infrastructure, structuring fair trade deals, and also ending the war in Iraq. That is money that can be applied at home for critical issues.
Q: So a priority to balance the federal budget, or not?
A: We are not going to be able to dig ourselves out of that hole in 1 or 2 years. But if we can get on a path of sustained growth, end the war in Iraq, end some of the special interest loopholes and earmarks that have been clogging up the system, then I think we can return to a path of a balanced budget.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate Dec 13, 2007

Last time I checked, Congress is as involved with the budget-making process just as much as the President. Wait, isn’t Congress the same bunch that included so many earmarks and pork-barrel spending? Shouldn’t Obama be addressing his fellow congressmen instead?

Rejects free market vision of government
In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest. According to Obama, "We're going to put more money into education than we have. WE have to invest in human capital."
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.155 Oct 30, 2007

This made me laugh for a significant amount of time. According to Merriam Webster online, Social Darwinism is defined as:

“Main Entry: social Darwinism
Function: noun
Date: 1887
an extension of Darwinism to social phenomena; specifically : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence.”

I don’t think competition in a capitalist system can be defined as Social Darwinism. It is a stretch to say the least. I think it is more along the lines of the government allowing you to take the resources you have and use them as you wish like a dignified human being. Obama’s idea of the government’s role is for those who want to suck up to the government for help, for those who want the government to run their lives for them. I cannot put it any other way.

Time for some civil rights. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

People want to move beyond our divisions
I am absolutely convinced that white, black, Latino, Asian, people want to move beyond our divisions, and they want to join together in order to create a movement for change in this country. I'm not entirely faulting the media because, look, race is a factor in our society. There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African-American, and a woman, and there's no doubt that that has piqued interest. They are desperate to move beyond the same, old arguments that we've been having and start actually getting something done in this country. The Republicans may have a different attitude, because they haven't been appearing before forums that are diverse. The policies that they have promoted have not been good at providing ladders for upward mobility and opportunity for all people. That is a fight that all of us will fight. But I don't want us to get drawn into this notion that somehow this is going to be a race that splits along racial lines.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

Maybe you should give your pastor and former congregation a little lesson in how we need to move on, Obama.

Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants
Q: You said about affirmative action that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children should get special consideration.
A: The basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? Race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities to say, "we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or women..."
Q: Even if they're wealthy?
A: I think that's something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

I agree that Affirmative Action should not be a quota system. I will go further, though: It shouldn’t be a system at all. Affirmative Action is just another form of discrimination in our society. If you are black or latino, they will look at you and say, “This person may have been disadvantaged throughout their life because their skin color is different.” Affirmative Action is a way for the college systems and government to encourage a feeling of victimization; by acknowledging Affirmative Action, you are letting the government classify you as someone who is “under privileged” simply because of your race or skin color.

Q: You had one supporter on a Bible tour in South Carolina who said that homosexuality was a curse and that he had been cured by prayer. Do you believe homosexuality's a curse?
A: No.
Q: Do you believe that it is something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?
A: I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice. And so I disagree with [that supporter]. But part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don't agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile. We haven't been reaching out to them, and I think that if we're going to makes significant progress on critical issues that we face, we've got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don't like. I've tried to do is to reach out to the evangelical community and tell them very clearly where I disagree.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 11, 2007

To put it simply, homosexuality is a choice.

Q: If you were back in the Illinois legislature where you served and the issue of civil marriage came before you, how would you have voted on that?
A: My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word "marriage," which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

How, then, does that change things? If it’s simply a matter of receiving benefits and not being socially accepted as being in a “marriage”, how come others do not say the same thing as Obama? Simply stating that a recognized homosexual union is for the benefits of “marriage” and not the condition of being “married” waters down the severity of the debate.

Q: Would you put the fight among gays and lesbians for civil rights on a par with the civil rights movement for African-Americans?
A: My attitude is if people are being treated unfairly and unequally, then it needs to be fixed. So I'm always very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology. You know, the issues that gays and lesbians face today are different from the issues that were faced by African-Americans under Jim Crow. That doesn't mean, though, that there aren't parallels in the sense that legal status is not equal. And that has to be fixed. I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black. I'm going to be more sympathetic because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life, making sure that everybody's treated fairly and that we've got an expansive view of America, where everybody's invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America that we want for the next generation.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

The major difference between homosexual rights and civil rights is the nature of the subject of discrimination. With civil rights, you had people being discriminated against simply because of their skin color. That is a maddening social travesty. With homosexual rights, people are being discriminated against because of a personal lifestyle choice. For example, not hiring a homosexual on the grounds of a belief that it is immoral is no different than refusing to hire a pusher.

Time for Corporations. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Corporations.htm

Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving overseas. Obama will fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies committed to American workers.
In today's economy, American workers have to compete against high-skilled workers across the globe. Obama will make long-term investments in education, training, & workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths--our ingenuity & entrepreneurialism--to create new high-wage jobs
Source: Campaign website, BarackObama.com, "Resource Flyers" Aug 26, 2007

So then let American workers compete! Instead of enforcing ways to hurt companies if they go somewhere else, be appealing to them so that they will not want to leave. Also, outsourcing of jobs here (and overseas, mind you) allows for specialization. If the US isn’t the best place to make automobiles, let someone make them in a place where the environment is pristine auto manufacturing! In the end, everyone will benefit from trade and specialization…that is, if you allow it to happen.



More to come soon! I am extremely busy right now and I just don’t have time to complete all of this in one sitting. I’ll post more Obama stuff later and that will be followed by McCain the Pain.

The SLED Argument and Abortion

I first discovered the SLED argument against abortion when I heard Scott Klusendorf speak at a worldview camp one summer. It is an argument to define the humanity that lies within the womb. It speaks nothing of “choice” or women’s rights; it merely appeals to reason and observation. I love it because it is easy to remember and can be employed with ease. Anyways, here it is in its most basic form. Feel free to take it and build off of it even more than what has been done here. If any other arguments come out of this and hit you like a semi, please (please!) share them. We’re talking about human lives here.

Size – Human beings differ greatly when it comes to the size of our bodies. Sometimes our proportions are different, our weights may differ, or one person may simply be taller than another. No matter the difference, however, it is only reasonable to conclude that the difference does not dictate who is a human and who is not. Andre the Giant is much larger than Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean that Hillary Clinton is less human or inhuman at all based simply upon the fact that she is the smaller of the two. In the same way, how does the size of a fetus (or human embryo, for that matter) determine whether or not it is indeed a human being? In our early years, we typically grow in huge amounts up until adulthood. When we reach our senior years and our body starts to whither, our size can even decrease by certain amounts. The fact is this: Human beings will always differ when it comes to size, and that size is typically determined by age. Why, then, should size decide who is fit to live?

Level of Development – Many see the fetus and human embryo as underdeveloped organisms; it is obvious to see why. However, should we simply eliminate those with mental disabilities because they are “underdeveloped”? What about children who have been born? A toddler is obviously less developed than a physics professor at MIT, but is that reason to kill the toddler over the professor? What about those who choose not to develop themselves? Should we kill the high school drop-out instead of the college student? Does the embryo or fetus have the choice to develop itself? If the high school drop-out has decided not to develop himself, how should we compare him to the fetus? The answer is obvious: Human life should not be valued according to the level of development. If we are going to kill the fetus, which at the point in time has no say in the matter of development, shouldn’t we also be considering the burden that high school drop-outs pose? Of course not.

Environment – Just because the fetus is in the womb doesn’t mean that it is not human. Since we were all in the womb at one point in time, when did we suddenly become human? Did our trip several inches down the birth canal miraculously make us human? Does “Ye Olde C-Section” also make us human? It would be absurd to think so. An actor that lives in a mansion in Beverly Hills is worth no more than a refugee fleeing from the Janjaweed in Sudan. To believe that a human’s immediate surroundings are the measuring stick for the value of life is implying that our value fluctuates throughout the day depending on where we go. Go ahead and laugh, the argument is freakishly illogical.

Degree of Dependency – Because the fetus inside the womb is dependent upon the mother in order to survive, some say that it is not technically “alive” or “human”. However, some documented cases have shown that children can survive outside the womb earlier in term than some think. Also, let me trot out the toddler again: If a four year-old is dependent upon his mother and father for the roof above his head and three square meals a day, should we kill him if we had the choice between him and an independent college student? The answer is obvious.

This is the SLED argument in a nutshell. In a very logical and concise way, it shows that the life inside the womb is indeed precious and no different in its humanity than anyone else. Please feel free to add any arguments for or against it as the topic being covered is of the highest importance.

At what cost?

WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000
Where abortions occur: 78% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 22% occur in developed countries.
Legality of abortion: About 26 million women obtain legal abortions each year, while an additional 20 million abortions are obtained in countries where it is restricted or prohibited by law.
Abortion averages: Worldwide, the lifetime average is about 1 abortion per woman.
© Copyright 1999-2000, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)
UNITED STATES
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
Who's having abortions (age)? 52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.
Who's having abortions (race)? While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.
Who's having abortions (marital status)? 64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.
Who's having abortions (religion)? Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
Who's having abortions (income)? Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.
Why women have abortions: 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
At what gestational ages are abortions performed: 52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Likelihood of abortion:An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
Abortion coverage: 48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.
© Copyright 1998, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)© Copyright 1997, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org)© Copyright 1995, Family Planning Perspectives© Copyright 1988, Family Planning Perspectives

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Tip of the iceberg. Much more to follow.

Why I Am Not Watching the Olympics

First off, let me tell you a short disclaimer to what I'm about to write. I greatly respect all of the international athletes that are going to participate in this summer's Olympics. I respect their hard work and determination to enter into the world's greatest international athletic competition and their desire to represent their countries.

However, I am still not going to watch the Olympics. I do not know what the IOC (International Olympic Committee) was thinking when they decided on Beijing, but I do know why many people have a problem with it.

1) China is one of the world's worst violators of human rights. Not only is China known for persecuting Christians and persons of religious beliefs, but it is also supporting other governments that possess equally reprehensible human rights records. For example, China is the primary customer of Sudanese oil. In fact, Khartoum, Sudan's infamous capital that was once the home of Osama bin Laden and Carlos the Jackal, has been experiencing economic growth thanks to China's purchasing of Sudanese oil1. Because of these purchases, China is supporting the same government that has equipped the janjaweed to massacre Christians and others in what has become known as the Darfur Genocide. Near the beginning of the conflict, the Sudanese government appeared to be the major source for the janjaweed's firepower. However, because the Sudanese have supplied China with oil, the Chinese have in return supplied the Sudanese government with arms (if you thought Russian Kalashnikovs were bad, try a Chinese knock off). Where do you think these weapons are going? To the janjaweed. It appears that China will do anything to satisfy its ever-growing hunger for black gold, going so far as to arm radical Muslims that are murdering and raping thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

2) Besides supplying arms to Sudan, reports have also indicated that China has been sending arms to Zimbabwe. In the past, Zimbabwe was the so-called "breadbasket" of Africa because of its ability to grow large amounts of food; enough food to feed the people of other African countries. However, after Mugabe's election, the farmers and those associated with Zimbabwe's excellent food production were driven out and replaced with those unable to tend to the land2. Zimbabwe now cannot even feed its own people and was recently in the midst of hyperinflation3. China has been sending arms to Zimbabwe, and recently a South African port refused to unload a shipment of Chinese arms headed for Zimbabwe4. Zimbabwe is (was) known for being the breadbasket of Africa, so a possible conclusion to come to is that China is trying to bring back the infrastructure that once existed in Zimbabwe. Why? Well, if Zimbabwe has the capability to affect the food supply of nearly an entire continent, imagine the influence China could have in the continent if it assisted in bringing back Zimbabwe's infrastructure.

3) In looking back at other controversial Olympic meetings (1936 Berlin, 1956 Australia, 1980s Summer Olympics, etc.) it is hard to find a direct comparison to the situation at hand with China. Currently, China possesses a terrible human rights record, has an iron grip on Tibet, and has its eye on Taiwan. Remember, we have vowed that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would draw an immediate military response from the United States. Among other things, these cases present an interesting situation that appears to be different from most seen in the past.

I could go on about some other issues, especially China’s domestic human rights record, but I think that that situation is pretty self-evident.

There is one point that I shall concede to anyone who wants to debate this issue. If the holding of the Olympics in China increases international awareness of China’s despicable human rights record, then so be it.

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html

2. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200312/power

3. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/world/africa/02zimbabwe.html?ex=1304222400&en=e4f95916b4e5d098&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

4. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3822568.ece

Wednesday Night Fights...

I was not able to view the entirety of the Democratic Presidential Candidate debate last night, but when I first turned it on I knew it was going to be interesting.

1) Bosnia – Apparently, the question was directed at Senator Clinton and her somewhat fictional account of her trip to Bosnia back in the 90s. “We were under sniper fire…We had to run…No welcoming party…” etc. Video taken by CBS shows that Senator Clinton was exaggerating just a little bit. Look it up and be prepared to laugh if you haven’t seen it already.

Of course, Clinton replied with the usual politician response that everyone makes mistakes here. Obama backed her up by pointing out that the cameras and tapes are rolling everywhere they go and, as humans, they are going to make mistakes. One must not forget, though, that Hillary told this story several times to several different audiences.

2) Obama was asked about his association with a former member of the Weathermen. If you don’t know who the Weathermen were, they were a far left domestic terrorist group during the late 1960s and early 70s that bombed government buildings and protested the Vietnam War. Anyways, Obama served on board of the Woods Fund of Chicago with William Ayers, who is quoted as saying, ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63

Mr. Ayers also contributed to Obama’s campaign. When this was brought up by Hillary in the debate, Obama replied back that President Clinton pardoned two former Weathermen prior to leaving office in January 2001. Which one is worse? You decide. The funny thing is that both of these candidates are covered in dirt by their dealings with those members of the Weather Underground.

3) Next, Obama said that he would raise the capital gains tax. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous both pointed out that government revenue increases whenever the capital gains tax decreases. Obama really didn’t have a good response to that besides something along the lines of, “We’ll look into it.” The problem with capital gains tax is that it taxes for inflationary gains. The numbers all say that decreasing capital gains tax is good for the economy. Besides, a tax on capital gains that is affected by inflation stinks.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/capgain/capgain.htm

4) Clinton: “I think that this is the first time that a President has gone to war without paying for it.”

Hmm…The government’s not trying to sell bonds like crazy, no one is planting Victory Gardens, I haven’t seen any recycling drives lately…Oh, wait! Look at this chart!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODJjN2ZlNDJlMDZmNDFiNTk2OGRmMmQwZmQ5YmY5MGY=

And this article!

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2545232

By the way, it’s not the President’s job to run the economy. Anyone who blames the state of the economy on the President needs a civics lesson.

Both Obama and Hillary said that they would try to fix the problem with the economy, with special emphasis on the housing market. Yet, neither one of them proposed how they were going to do it. It was the usual “go to my website” fluff.

These two need an economics refresher…

5) Guns. I love ‘em. The Second Amendment says I can have ‘em. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama failed to either fully agree or disagree with the D.C. Gun Ban. Clinton also said that she would reintroduce the absurd Assault Weapons Ban that reigned during her husband’s terms. First, liberals can’t seem to grasp the fact that criminals, those who are already set on breaking the law, aren’t going to give a hoot in hell about a gun control law. They are already breaking the law, why should another law stop them from using a gun? Instead, these laws are taking guns away from the citizens who use them lawfully and they won’t be able to defend themselves! Second, the target of the Assault Weapons Ban is not “assault weapons”, it is guns in general. Clinton cited the danger posed to our police forces when criminals have these “assault weapons”. Like I said, nothing is going to stop a crook from having one in the first place. If Senator Clinton knew the facts about guns and really cared about protecting police, then she would issue a ban on hunting rifles. An AR-15 (M16) owned by a civilian is nothing compared to a hunting rifle owned by the same. AR-15s shoot a varmint round: .223. In reality, the only major difference between an AR-15 and a .22 rifle is that the velocity of the AR-15 round is 3,000 fps. That’s it. If you want something that is designed to kill with one shot and cause as much damage as possible, you are going to use a hunting rifle, not a stupid AR-15. It’s that simple. It’s like putting a ban on 9mm pistols simply because the military uses them while leaving .45s outside the ban.

Senator Clinton also expressed that as President she would push for better tracking of illegal guns. Think about that and tell me if that makes sense. We can’t even track an illegal immigrant in this country, how on earth are we going to track an “illegal” gun?

6) On the topic of Affirmative Action, Senator Obama stated a couple times that race is still an issue in our society. I would just like to say that if Obama cares so much about race issues in America, he needs to remember a man by the name of Jeremiah Wright.

7) Both Senators Obama and Clinton stated that we need to look into the oil market to see if there has been any market manipulation concerning gas prices. Does supply and demand maybe ring a bell? Also, Senator Obama stated in one of his radio ads that Exxon is making $40 billion in profits while our prices still go up. Anyone who isn’t foolishly paranoid of this fact is smart enough to realize that those numbers do not reflect Exxon’s gains after regular business costs (maintenance, paying workers, new technology, etc.). To put the blame on the oil company simply because it’s making money is not a capitalist attitude; it’s more socialist than anything else.

Senator Clinton also proposed that we as the U.S. should stop putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and leave that extra oil in the market so as to reduce international prices. How on earth is the normal SPR supply going to reduce international oil prices enough where the sacrifice of neglecting the SPR will be worth it?

8) When asked if a direct attack on Israel by Iran should be taken as an attack on the US, neither candidate had the guts to say either yes or no. They both stated that such an attack would have serious implications, but they did not say that we as the US should interpret an attack in that way. On the topic of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the candidates presented ideas for diplomatic discussions and talks with Iran. Neither mentioned military action against Iran. As I sat watching the debate, I kept thinking of Neville Chamberlain before WWII.



Thoughts?

In Sickness and in Faith

This is from March's Breakpoint Worldview magazine. I wanted to share it with you guys because it really touched me.

In Sickness and in Faith
By Kim Moreland

Overcoming the Darkness

What should have been for me a relatively simple operation turned into a 15-day hospital odyssey because of a life-threatening infection. The great torment in my soul increased my miseries—I felt that God had turned His back on me. Further, I became plagued by medicinally induced nightmares of doom and dying. After the medication was discontinued, the nightmares ceased, but the darkness persisted.[1] Fervently, I prayed and pleaded with God to give me peace and show me His light. His answer was a continued sense of impenetrable blackness.
My experience—the darkness of my soul—is not uncommon for Christians. The key question is not whether we experience it, but how we react to it when we walk through those terrifying and soul-struggling times. Does the blackness of the moment trigger a person to denounce or lose his or her faith after such a shattering experience? Or does he or she continue believing in God’s divine sovereignty, through faith and hope, despite impenetrable darkness?[2]

SEARCHING FOR LIGHT
All things being equal I felt okay when I first woke up from surgery. My husband, Terry, was waiting for me in my room and spent the first two nights with me, which gave me a great sense of comfort. My daughter, grandson, and some siblings showed up the next day to sit with me. Sometimes I was awake and sometimes I was drifting during their conversations, but it did not matter because their chatter sent waves of peace through me. My son, more siblings, nieces and nephews, and aunties visited too. Relatives who lived too far away to visit called daily, and friends came to cheer me up. Their visits generated in me a wonderful sense of well-being.
However, instead of getting better, I was beginning to feel worse. By day five or six, I was having trouble pushing my IV pole through the halls to exercise, and in my mind, a sense of darkness and panic started descending.
Sickness is a very messy business. A day after surgery, my left arm started to hurt. I had developed phlebitis, an inflammation of the vein, which is painful. A nurse had to start another IV in a different site. After a day or so, that site became too inflamed to keep the needle in place, so they had to start a third IV. Around the time of the fourth IV insertion, with both arms inflamed, my chest started to hurt, and it became difficult to breath or move.
Images of blood clots flooded my mind, despite being injected with blood thinners. My doctor ordered a CT scan of my lungs and abdomen. My stomach started hurting, and an intermittent fever became a steady fever.
Steadily through this process, dark thoughts of dying crept into my mind. The only Scripture that I could remember was Psalm 23, and those six verses that should have brought me succor and peace did not.

A PERSISTENT DARKNESSAs I lay there feeling utterly sick and helpless, I ruminated on Chuck Colson’s and Richard John Neuhaus’s reflections about their experiences with life-threatening diseases. Why did I not have a feeling of calmness and peace like they did?
In the March and April 1987 issues of Jubilee, my friend (and boss!) Chuck Colson wrote his reflections about his ordeal with stomach cancer and infection. “I saw in the confrontation with fear and suffering that there is nothing for which God does not pour out His grace abundantly,” he recalled. “I felt total peace—and great thankfulness that a merciful God had brought me to that recovery room.”
Chuck, too, developed an infection and had a reaction to pain medication that gave him hallucinations like “dark creatures climbing walls, buildings collapsing, endless tunnels.” But when his medication wore off, he stopped having hallucinations. My darkness persisted.
A number of years before my dreadful illness, I had read Neuhaus’s book As I Lay Dying. Neuhaus suffered a multitude of traumas, starting with an exploding tumor and, a very short time later, a splenectomy. His ordeal included a coma and a visitation by two angels, or “presences” as he put it. The “two ‘presences’” told him, “Everything is ready now,” giving him a decision to stay and finish his ministry, or “go with them.” If he had gone with them, Neuhaus knew that “something would happen between here and where we were going, and that something is called death.”[3]
“At the time of crisis and the months of recovery following,” Neuhaus writes, “I was never once afraid.”[4] But I was desperately afraid. I did not want to die and leave my husband, my children, my grandchild, my beloved extended family, or my wonderful friends. I could not pray: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death.”[5] I was unable to articulate consciously what I felt. Theologian Vigen Guroian, however, ably expresses it in Life’s Living toward Dying: “Death would not be so bitter were it not that love makes life so sweet. Nor would death inspire such fear and dread were it not that it cuts us off from those whom we love and who love us.”[6] So while I could think of no other verse but Psalm 23, and was unable to pray or recite it, like Job, I continued “to argue my case with God.”[7] God, where are you?

WHERE WAS GOD?
Finally, the CT and blood test came back showing I had a massive infection called peritonitis. That morning with scalpel in hand, my doctor along with a nurse came to drain the infection. After my doctor reopened the incision, a thick yellowish-brown puss oozed from the wound. She pressed on my abdomen for a long while, forcing as much of the killer infection out. An hour later, another doctor and team inserted a PICC line into my arm.[8] Later, I was to have a second CT to see if I would need a second surgery. But where was God in my time of darkness and desperation?
I waited for news. Thankfully Penny, one of my siblings, came and sat with me for two days. She helped me to the bathroom, held my hand, and waited with me. Other family and friends came to visit, helping me with various needs. My beloved husband was there everyday after work, but where was God?
After being released to recover at home, I contemplated my fear and sense of God’s desertion. I pondered God’s purposes.[9] I pondered Christ’s suffering and resurrection, and I pondered His promise to send the Comforter. But where were They?
Then slowly as the days and weeks went by, I started realizing that though God was silent, He was still there. He was there when my wonderful family and friends came to visit and comfort me. He was there when each person helped shoulder some of my suffering. He was there morning and night, day after day, week after week, month after month, when Terry cleaned and repacked my wound.
In a search for greater understanding of my plight, I read different prayers and devotions like this section from a Puritan prayer, “The All-Good”:
Grant me to feel thee in fire, and food and every providence,and to see that thy many gifts and creaturesare but thy hands and fingers taking hold of me . . . [10]
Providentially, years before I became sick, God had already given me a gift that would help calm my mind during my recovery. In a 2003 First Things article, Carol Zaleski wrote about Mother Teresa’s struggle with spiritual darkness. Mother Teresa had answered God’s call to minister to those who lived in the gutters of India. After she started her new ministry, she experienced, writes Zaleski, “feelings of doubt, loneliness, and abandonment. God seemed absent, heaven empty, and bitterest of all, her own suffering seemed to count for nothing, ‘ . . . just that terrible pain of loss, of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing.’” [11] In the newest biography of Mother Teresa, I learned that despite her “terrible darkness,” this extraordinarily faithful woman would “refuse nothing to God . . . ” She continued her work in the gutters of India bringing Jesus to the poorest of the poor, and in “loneliness” and “doubt” she continued to worship and glorify Him. [12]

GROWING THROUGH SUFFERING
Months later, when I remembered Mother Teresa’s experience, it dawned on me that, instead of directly giving me a sense of peace or sending heavenly angels of comfort, God allowed me to experience His silence so I could grow in Him. As we ought to express our utmost gratitude to God despite suffering, I endeavor to do so. I am also eternally grateful for others, like Mother Teresa, having traveled through the travail of God’s silence, because their words have been a source of strength in the face of my feelings of abandonment.
If it be consistent with thy eternal counsels,the purpose of thy grace,and the great ends of thy glory,then bestow upon me the blessings of thy comforts;If not, let me resign myself to thy wiser determinations. [13]
Thirteen months later, I can see my suffering in a clearer light. As Oswald Chambers writes, “Has God trusted you with a silence—a silence that is big with meaning? God’s silences are His answers . . . His silence is the sign that He is bringing you into a marvelous understanding of Himself.”
My fright, mourning, and confusion have mellowed to gratitude. I have mourned the blackness and scariness of God’s turned shoulder and silence, but as Chambers asserts, “you will find that God has trusted you in the most intimate way possible, with an absolute silence, not of despair, but of pleasure, because He saw that you could stand a bigger revelation.”[14]
My God, let me resign myself to thy wiser determinations.
While I have given a great many nods to living in the present moment and trusting completely in God’s design and purpose, oftentimes I found myself trying to straddle the past and future: “I should have done this or that, or I hope this or that does or does not happen.” As for an encounter with death, “[t]he worst thing is,” writes Neuhaus, “not to be changed by the encounter.”[15]
I have changed. Living in the present moment has become easier. I am truly grateful to God that He put loving people in my life to help shoulder my burden, and I am utterly grateful that He allowed me to live.
Oh blessed Father, help me to resign myself to thy wiser determinations.
Lastly, I have made the very personal struggles of my body, mind, and spirit public so that when you or someone near you walks through dark and scary times, you will remember or share with others that God is there even if He is silent. Continue always to have faith and hope in Him, despite the fears, doubts, and soul-struggling bleakness you experience, because God is carrying out His divine plan for you.