Abortion

Abortion is an issue that has ripped apart the nation and effectively ruined American politics. Is it a woman's right to choose whether to be rid of the growth inside of her, or is it in the common interest of the people to let the unborn child live? This issue has been brought to the forefront of my mind by the national pro-life rally that was held outside my office building (at the Capitol) just yesterday. Millions of people came from all over the US of A to protest what they view as an unfair ruling by the Supreme Court that allows women to seek abortions in the first trimester of their pregnancy. Besides making traffic difficult for me and leaving pounds of trash on the sidewalk, these people didn't do much for me.

My view on abortion stems not from a religious argument but from one of natural right and one of the limits of power for the Federal government. Let me start by saying that I do not support abortion in any form, but I also do not support the Federal government mandating that to me through law. My argument is very simple. There is an unborn human child growing inside of a pregnant woman. Not a tumor and even though it may have the brain composition of a fish (or whatever the argument is); it is still a human. Now it may not be a human with the right to vote but it certainly has the right to grow up and either succeed or fail in the world- the same way everyone else has. A woman and a man have the choice to either have sex or not have sex, and if pregnancy is the outcome, then they must live with the consequence of that choice. They have the option to use contraception and if they forgo that option it is not in the public interest to "let the mother off the hook" or whatever you may call it. After conception, there is a human life growing inside a woman and we should recognize that.

Now, it is not the job of the Federal government to dictate what is right and wrong to me. It is there jobs to recognize the rights we have as Americans and to make sure that those rights are not being violated by the laws that they pass. We do not have a right to kill unwanted children, but we do have the right to life, which begins at conception. If it is determined that we, as children in the womb, do not have the right to live( which has already been done by the Supreme Court, to a certain extent), then any laws passed should be done at the state level. As I said before it is not the job of the Federal government to bail people out for their poor choices.
Now, undoubtedly, the issue of a woman being impregnated after raped will be raised and this is a valid point. But consider this, it is not the fault of the future child that he/she was conceived in such a heinous fashion, so should they be punished? For those of you who don't understand the use of a leading question; the answer is no.

To be sure, abortion is an issue that inflames the sensitivities of the general public and gets politicians elected and ousted. It is a shame that such a thing has been allowed to blow up as big as it is and turn our political system into a mockery that is divided along religious lines. This is not a religious issue, it is a human issue. To conclude I would remind my readers that we too were once fetuses in the most vulnerable of stages. We turned out pretty good, and some people don't. If a couple or woman does not want the child then let her put them up for adoption. That way at least the child has a chance. Ultimately this issue will be decided by women because, most of all, it effects them. I don't see a resolution coming from anywhere other than the Supreme Court in the future so let us hope that the Judges understand that it is their jobs to define rights as opposed to defining sensibilities.

We stand to protect human rights around the world, so let us do it at home by protecting the rights of future generations.

The Media War

The Israeli struggle against Hamas is one that is taking place more so in the media than it is on the ground. Every publication that considers itself to be informed is weighing in on one side or the other, trying to convince its audience that it, above all, knows right from wrong and supports the correct side. The Israelis are portrayed as land-hungry war mongers who will kill men women and children just to make life hell for those who live in Gaza (I'm obviously oversimplifying). Palestinians, on the other hand, are portrayed by the Israeli sympathizers as being terrorists and shunning peace time and a gain. For the Israelis this struggle was a last resort after all other options were exhausted. So the question is, who is right in all of this?

I think that the answer lies somewhere between all of the propaganda that we see and read in the news. The Palestinians want peace, but they aren't willing to agree to all of Israel's terms. Israel probably doesn't need this war since it takes international focus away from their dealings with Iranian nuclear ambitions, but they felt it was necessary to stop the incessant Hamas rocket attacks. Many argue that Israel, and by default the rest of the international community, needs to recognize Hamas as the legitimately elected government of Gaza, and to a certain point I agree. They were elected democratically, which is exactly what the US government wanted (democratic elections, not Hamas to be in power).

This conflict basically boils down to the Palestinian people accepting the consequences of their actions. I believe that Israel is completely justified in their incursion because of the daily rocket attacks on its soil. I believe that the Palestinian people had a choice during the last elections and they made the choice of Hamas- full well knowing that Hamas was a militant group who would use combative tactics against Israel. Therefore they are now, unfortunately for the innocent bystanders, living with the consequences of those actions. It boils down to the old adage that you reap what you sow. The people of Gaza voted in Hamas and Hamas did what they always do. Israel retaliated and no one should really be surprised. I therefore am going to go ahead and side with Israel on this one. The media has chosen who it supports, and now so have I.

Long-term counterterrorism strategy (not just "where do we point the army?")

Thank you everyone for your comments regarding where this blog should go for the new year. To begin, I will address a topic suggested to me by "agga". This is a short post for me, but I look forward to explaining my points further in the comments section.


America's new counterterrorism strategy needs to be one that reverts back to the "soft power" of the Carter years. Military intervention in the pre-emptive fashion has been largely disproved and we need to stay away from that. The seeds of resentment against Western might were sown in the Middle East because of the scores of military bases the US keeps there. Meddling in the foreign affairs of sovereign nations has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths, demonstrations, and political unrest in that region. We need to finally realize that stability will come through economic investment in infrastructure and not through occupying countries. I can point to the many failures of the past including Iran, 1953, Iraq, Lebanon and Israeli-Palestinian peace, but it is the successes that need to be evaluated.

The first major success has not to do with terrorism, but the defeat of another radical idea. Many lessons can be learned from the defeat of communism and the rebuilding of Europe after WWII. The Marshall Plan was largely responsible for this victory. Billions of dollars were spent to rebuild countries that were destroyed by war. There was great risk that these countries would go Communist, but through economic investment- not military occupation- Capitalism triumphed. In the countries of the Middle East, this lesson can be applied in such a way that will bring about the stability that will hopefully help our cause. America and international lending institutions are notorious for lending money with strings attached, so we should now lend money that is targeted at creating jobs and building countries, not tearing down governments and putting into power people that the West approves of. Stability and, hopefully, democracy will be a product of development.

America as a whole needs to realize that most people resent our involvement in their country's affairs. After all, that was one of the main causes of our own revolution. Change will take time, but it will come. A more recent example of success is Lebanon. Through the Doha Accords, a tentative stability has been reached-without the help of America. Now there is a Prime Minister who rules a country still very aware of the many crises it has been through, but with hope of leaving that period in its past. Peace came without the help of America. That is the point that needs to be drilled through the heads of those who would consider military involvement in other countries that run the risk of falling into turmoil.

Many Middle Eastern countries do not want to become Westernized. They have a much longer history than America and wish to hang onto it. So instead of pushing our relatively new values and ideas onto them, we should stand back and watch them create their own stability in a way that suits them. Like I've said before this will take more time, but the benefits will be more than worth it. That being said, if a country does happen to collapse, and innocent lives are being lost by the hands of a tyrant, then the US and the West will certainly be ready and willing to stand and fight on the behalf of the oppressed. Unfortunately, however, after the Iraq debacle, the world doesn't look at the West as a force for good anymore, so to push that onto people as we have done would be a grave mistake.