Impossible Scissors

It appears that South Dakota will ban all abortions, expect for those that will save the life of the mother. While I appreciate South Dakota's willingness to challenge the judicial activism of the Roe v. Wade ruling, the legislation is too restrictive to stand, even in the unlikely event that it survives the Supreme Court challenge. For that reason, it is not likely to be taken seriously by the Supreme Court, even if new justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito uphold the bill.

Personally, I view abortion as a morally reprehensible act that is unjustified in over 99% of the times it is performed. At the same time, the law must be written to uphold social order, act in support of the common good, and appeal to the values of a majority of Americans. While most Americans feel that our abortion laws are too liberal (permitting about 1.3 MILLION abortions per year,) they do not support the total abolition of the gruesome act.

For that reason, we should adopt a legal definition for the beginning of life. For too long, America has lived in deliberate ambiguity over the issue. The Warren Berger court left the question open so it could rewrite the abortion laws of 45 states; it's time that the legistlature and the president close this loophole.

As medicine has improved, we have redefined the end of life from the cessation of heart function to the cessation of brain function. Logically, if we use the brain as the metric of life's end, shouldn't we use it as the metric for life's start? It was this line of logic which led me to use the term "brain life."

Essentially, we should take a libertarian attitude towards abortions performed during the first 50 days or so of pregnancy, before the brain has begun to form. Regardless of the grounds for an abortion (financial, convenience, rape, etc.,) the fetus isn't legally a person, so it isn't afforded any legal protection (unless the fetus is inside a minor who is too immature to make such a decision.) After those fifty days are up, it's too late for an abortion, unless the pregnancy poses a significant health risk (including death) to the mother.

In my mind, the stuff that makes us unique is with us from the moment of conception, and we have a moral obligation to protect it. However, certain faiths (Judaism and Islam, in particular) do not believe that life begins immediately after conception. In this religious sense, the "brain-life" definition appeases the largest number of faiths. In a secular sense, it meets the needs of a nation that wants some degree of reproductive freedom, but less than it currently possesses. The "brain-life" proposal satisfies me because it is an improvement over the abortion free-for-all that currently exists in this country.

For that matter, why do appellate courts insist on requiring an "incest" clause on any abortion restriction? If the act of incest occurred without consent, it is the same as rape, and does not need a separate clause. If the act of incest was between two consenting adults (a scary thought in all states but Kentucky,) it does not constitute grounds for an abortion as far as I'm concerned.

In aerodynamics, "Max-Q" is the name for the point where the dynamic forces on a vehicle are greatest. If the vehicle hold together during Max-Q, it can expect to see lower forces during the rest of its flight. If not, the vehicle is destroyed.

The Shiite Mosque Bombing in Samarra is proving to be Iraq's Max-Q, and whether the country emerges or disintegrates remains to be seen. The only thing for certain is that the status quo will not be preserved. Either Iraqi unity will be strenghtened or totally shattered when the dust has settled.

The mosque bombing has mobilized Shiite militants in a way that no other single terror attack has during the course of the nearly 3-year insurgency. It appears that al Qaeda has thrown a "Hail Mary" pass in hopes of scoring its version of a touchdown: full-blown sectarian conflict. While the media is all but ready to declare a civil war, there is still an even chance that the tensions will settle over the next few days.

Key to solving the mosque bombing crisis will be the actions of the Iraqi government and security forces. While they have declared a daytime curfew to quell the violence, the effectiveness of the move remains to be seen. If the mosque-realted violence subsides, the Iraqi government will gain substantial credibility among all Iraqis.

Iraq's achilles heel remains the myriad Shiite militias, which rival the official army and police forces in terms of influence and firepower. For instance, Moqtada al Sadr has deployed his militia to protect Shiite holy sites. While this move has been viewed as a positive by Rush Limbaugh in his desperate attempt to put a positive spin on the situation, al Sadr's power remains an impediment to truly national government in Iraq. So long as al Sadr lives, he will be a force for violence and extremism amongst Iraqi Shiites. By the same token, as long as Shiite militias exist in Iraq, they will only preserve the mistrust that Sunni Arabs hold towards the Shiite community and the Shiite-dominated government.

Optimistically, the violence will die down, and Sunnis will rejoin the talks on forming a coalition government, while Shiites will be encouraged to take a proactive role in the fledgling democracy while supporting the national army and police forces. However, there is still a good chance that the tensions could spiral out of control into a violent, chaotic, but ultimately decisive civil war for control of Iraq. The mosque bombing and its aftermath will force the US hand and shape the appearance of the eventual end-state in Iraq.

...because Sen. Chuck Schumer and some other Democrats are actually promoting Halliburton!

Specifically, they are advocating Halliburton (and its Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary) to administer the six ports that are scheduled to be handed over to a firm in Dubai. It just illustrates what I've always said about Halliburton: whether you love or hate them, they do massive and difficult jobs that few other companies are qualified to do.

Three men from Toledo, OH stand accused of planning a jihad against American and allied soldiers and marines in Iraq. Rather than execute these treasonous bastards, I'd rather put them away for life in pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Let prison justice do the rest. They'll be beaten and used as shower pin-cushions. Sounds like a fitting punishment for an Islamic extremist.

Ever since our American wakeup call on 9/11, port security has remained an achilles heel in America's security shield. The massive volume of cargo that enters each port poses a challenge that can easily be exploited by terrorists seeking to smuggle weaponry into the country.

Our Commander-in-Chimp has made a terrible error by allowing a firm based in the United Arab Emirates to oversee the security of America's six major seaports. For that matter, it made a terrible error by allowing a British firm to do it in years past. It's a bad policy decision to entrust the security of American ports to any foreign company. While the United Arab Emirates remains one of our best partners in the middle east, it is not immune to the Salafist philosophies of Osama bin Laden. After all, several 9/11 hijackers lived for many years in Dubai.

The ports decision reeks of so much awfulness that Jimmy Carter is supporting it. Mr. President, Conservatives will eat you alive (even worse than they did with Harriet Myers) if you don't toss out this rotten egg of a proposal.

One of my favorite blogs is Dan Darling's Regnum Crucis. The topics focus on all things mideast and terror-related. A favorite polemic used in Regnum Crucis is that the Bush Administration does not have a coherent Iran policy.

Bearing this in mind, and drawing lessons from Iraq, I submit for your approval an Iran policy that might actually work.

1) Regime change is an unrealistic fantasy. Just because the Iranians hate their government, it doesn't mean they will like us. It also helps to take a broad look at the region. We have Turkey and Israel in the west, India in the east, and no democracies in between. The region is a wasteland of anarchies and authoritarian rulers. The Iranians (or the Iraqis, or any other people in the region) will only have democracy when their cultures have matured to the point where democratic virtues are embraced. The best we can hope for, over the near term, is a benevolent dictatorship in Iran (think "Shah Part Deux.") While Ahmadinejad is a madman, we can hope that the next election will bring about a reformer in the mold of Mohammed Khatami.

2) It's okay to deal with the devil. The practice of breaking off diplomatic ties with governments we don't like dates back to the Wilson administration. It was foolish then and it's foolish now. The key is engagement, as some progress is always better than no progress. When America breaks off ties with rogue governments, it only legitimizes those governments in the eyes of people who hate America. It's worked for Castro and Hugo Chavez, and it's working with the Iranian mullahs as well. If we want peaceful resolution to the nuclear "crisis" and Iranian support for terrorism, we will need a diplomatic dialogue with the Iranian leadership.

3) Fight fire with fire. We have strong evidence to suggest that Iran is playing havoc with American forces in Iraq. Iran has used Shiite militias as proxies, and it has smuggled armor-piercing IED's to the jihadists. As a country, we have been too tolerant of this. The only way it will stop is if we give the Iranians a taste of their own medicine. That means sponsoring terror groups like the People's Mujahedeen who want to bring down the Iranian government. It should not matter to us that the People's Mujahedeen is a group of fanatical Marxists. It certainly doesn't matter to the Iranians that they are supporting Moqtada al Sadr (who is anti-Iranian in his rhetoric) or Sunni militants (who view Shiites like the Iranians as "innovators" and almost as un-Islamic as Christians or Jews.) We should support anti-Iranian terrorism to send a message: We will not tolerate terrorism against American soldiers and Marines in Iraq, and we will end our support for the People's Mujahedeen when Iran ends its support for Iraqi terrorists.

4) Time is on our side in the nuclear crisis. Estimates of Iran's nuclear knowledge estimate that they will acquire an atomic bomb in the 2010-2015 time frame. This gives us a lot of time to try different diplomatic approaches to ending the Iranian nuclear program. It also means that the fanatic Ahmadinejad will not be the Iranian president if Iran does build a nuclear bomb, as his term will have expired. It's far too soon to call this a crisis, although diplomatic action now is still prudent.

5) Israel cannot attack Iran without US support. Many people think it's wise for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, so it gives the US government plausible deniability. In reality, it will only make the US look worse. While Israel has planes that can fly to targets in Iran without refueling, they would likely have to fly over Iraq. Israel would legally have to ask the Iraqi government for overflight permission (which will almost certainly be rejected.) Because we control the Iraqi airspace, we have a duty to intercept Israeli planes if they overfly Iraq without permission. Don't forget that it was "The Great White Satan" who sold Israel their warplanes to begin with. It's not too hard to imagine the reprocussions of airstrikes against Iran, such as Hezbollah attacks against Israel, Iranian missile strikes against Israel, or terror attacks against Americans in Iraq and other Persian Gulf states.

6) Sanctions work, but only if the whole world cooperates. Now that we have captured the Iraqi leadership and read their documents, we know that sanctions prevented Iraq from reconstituting its weapons of mass destruction--and that Saddam desperately and successfully tried to weaken those sanctions. After French and Russian support for sanctioning Iraq collapsed in 1997, Iraq went about purchasing military equipment from China and through a vast black market of arms dealers and parts suppliers in the former Soviet block. Similarly, we should try sanctioning Iran with a trade embargo--but only if we can get all the major international players on board. They need to be convinced of the danger currently posed by Iran, and the even greater danger that will result from a nuclear Iran.

7) Nuclear deterrence isn't dead. With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power, it would appear that Iran cannot be deterred from using nuclear weapons. Everybody who has studied him believes that he wants to "prepare the battlefield" for the 12th Imam--the Shiite Messiah. At the same time, the mullahs (and any successor to Ahmadinejad) are bound to be a bit more pragmatic. We must send a not-so-subtle message to the Iranians: If Iran uses a nuclear weapon against anybody, we will deploy the full US nuclear arsenal and ensure that nothing ever lives in Iran 'til the end of eternity. We must also let Iran know that if any terror group uses a nuclear weapon, we will direct our nuclear retaliation against Iran.


Over time, we may be able to come to a diplomatic detente with Iran. The election of a pragmatic government that can earn some degree of trust with the US will be the start. It will need to be followed with a deal that would end Iran's nuclear program in exchange for scrapping Israel's nuclear stockpile (currently estimated at 60-80 warheads, according to Rumsfeld's War by Rowan Scarborough.

The idea of diplomatic engagement with Iran may have been on the table during the Khatami days, but appears to be a distant fantasy since Mahmoud "The Fanatic" Ahmadinejad became the Iranian president. Nevertheless, time is not on Ahmadinejad's side, and we can exploit Iran's weaknesses. Our failures in Iraq should lead to a focused, coherent, and effective Iran policy that fights nuclear proliferation and fosters greater stability in the region.

It's not surprising that Kofi Annan and the UN would release a report this week which urges the US to close Guantanamo Bay and either release the prisoners or put them on trial. Nevertheless, Americans should recoil at the UN's new definitions of torture.

The UN report accuses the US, among other things, of denying prisoners their religious freedom, forcing them to eat, and torturing them through extended solitary confinement. Of course, the UN definition of torture still permits the US to be called a torturer even though we give the prisoners a Koran, a balanced diet, prayer time on five occasions during the day, and adequate medical treatment. Compared to POW camps in Japan, the USSR, Korea, China, Vietnam, and Saddam's Iraq, Gitmo looks like a resort.

For the UN, it's not enough for Guantanamo Bay to be better than historical prisons that were used for lawful combatants (as per the Geneva Accord.) The UN wants us to treat these unlawful combatants to an all-expense vacation in sunny Cuba. The torture practices the US stands accused of would constitute the "diet coke" of torture, if they can be called torture at all.

The Saddam Hussein audio tapes obtained by ABC News provide a fascinating window into the mind of the dictator, and raise more questions than they provide answers.

The tapes are a record of Saddam's meetings with his inner circle in the mid 1990's. Topics of discussion include the attempts to fool UN inspectors and the inevitability of a terrorist attack against the US using weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam is surprisingly good about predicting the future. He believed at the time that a non-state player would attack the US, and that Iraq would be the first to be blamed. Saddam laid out the scenario that would unfold on 9/11; alas, Saddam did nothing to actively dispel the Iraq-9/11 link--his first speech after the attacks included the antagonistic line "The US has reaped the thorns it has sewn in the earth."

Saddam's tapes beg the question, "What did Saddam know, and when did he know it?" After all, Saddam's government had low-level contacts with bin Laden (via Farouk Hijazi) going back to 1993, which might have revealed to Saddam what bin Laden was truly capable of. Also of interest is the time frame of the tapes. Some were recorded around April 19, 1995, when the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. Jayna Davis believes that the Iraqi government and Islamic militants were both involved; Susan Lindauer claimed that she learned from Iraqi intelligence agents that Islamic militants were responsible for the plot.

The tapes also provide tragic foreshadowing for the fate of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. His open concerns about Iraqi concealment of pre-1991 bio-weapon programs would play out in his confession when he defected to Jordan just a month or so after the tape was recorded. The bio-weapon revelations emboldened the UN inspectors, who were prepared to end their active inspections on the belief that Saddam had disarmed. Saddam was so alarmed by Hussein Kamel's revelations to the west that he lured his son-in-law back to Iraq with promises of forgiveness, only to have him executed.

In spite of tantalyzing revelations in these tapes, there are countless more that have yet to be made public. Much like the documents taken from Iraq and still waiting to be translated, there are many secrets still unanswered about the Saddam Hussein regime. How deeply was Iraq involved in supporting Islamic militants, especially Palestinians and North Africans? Did Saddam keep prisoners of war secretly stashed away? Which French and Russian officials were complicit in undermining the UN sanctions? Someday we will hopefully know these answers; the only way it will happen is if these records go public.

I can't help but be amused at David Gregory and the rest of the White House reporters who tore into Scott McClellan for 'not telling them sooner' about the vice president's accidental shooting of a hunting companion. Do they really expect the White House to willingly surrender embarassing, even damaging, information?

For that matter, must the Washington press corps rely on a White House spokesman to tell them what is newsworthy? Whatever happened to old-fashioned things that reporters used to do, like developing sources, interviewing people, and doing research? I guess these things are all inconsequential. After all, TV journalists are mainly paid so they can look pretty on TV.

The Iraqis have nominated Ibrahim al-Jafaari to be their Prime Minister. If his previous term in the interim parliament was any indication, Iraqis will have to look forward to many more years of ineffectual leadership. It is this leadership vacuum that fuels insurgency.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether there will be reform in the interior ministry. This has been the main rallying point for the Sunni Arab parties as of late. They are deeply suspicious of the interior ministry, want to wrest it from control of the Shiite parties, and end the reprisal killings and torture rooms that have been associated with the interior ministry. At the same time, I would not trust the Interior Ministry in the hands of the Sunni Arabs, as the body would probably turn a blind eye towards Sunni violence. Would all sides involved be amenable to a Kurdish-controlled interior ministry?

Obviously, my faith in the Muslims has taken a serious blow due to the Mohammed Cartoon riots. However, I have recently looked inwards to realize that, in certain ways, we are not that different after all.

I asked my Pittsburgh friend how the city reacted to the Steelers' Super Bowl win. Obviously, there was looting and other forms of violence that traditionally come after an American sports team wins a championship. Good grief. In terms of an excuse to riot, a sports championship is no better than an offensive cartoon.

The moral of the story is that man is descended from apes, and he really doesn't act any better from the apes. The most savage acts committed by one group of people are within the capacity of any group of people, given the right conditions. More than ever, I am ashamed of being human, thanks to these rioting knuckleheads.

One of the motivations behind every Islamist suicide bomber is the promise of 72 virgins in paradise. Perhaps, if we understood this desire a little bit better, we could deter future suicide attacks. We just need to make them a better offer. For every angry Muslim man who chooses NOT to kill infidels, we should offer him 82 virgins. I mean, Allah has nothing on us.

For that matter, the extreme prudishness that Islam encourages must be a motivator behind all of the mideast conflict. Is it any coincidence that the most violent region in the world is the same region where access to alcohol and pornography is most restricted?

The US can win the terror wars through airpower, but not by bombing the Muslims back into the stone age. The solution is to take all of the C-5 and C-17 cargo planes the Air Force can muster, load them up with good beer (not the piss water that comes in cans) and dirty magazines. Air-dropping these contraband items into Islamic countries is certain to liberate the people from their culturally-imposed repression.

If you can't tell by now, this post was partly a joke for your amusement. Yet the theme of cultural repression should not be too far from our minds as a subtext for Islamically-motivated terrorism.

The worldwide reaction to the Mohammed cartoons, originally published in a Danish newspaper back in September, has laid bare the extremeism that permeates the Islamic world.

Americans have seen the violent protests that have broken out worldwide, with the Danish embassies in Syria and Lebanon being burned (in addition to Maronite Christian churches in Beirut.) The Iraqi government has cut off all business with Denmark (while the Iraqis can at least be given credit for not stooping to the level of violence seen in Syria and Lebanon.) Nevertheless, no Muslim country has gone untouched by the riots sparked by these caricatures of The Prophet.

If a cartoon or another form of art lampooned Chrstianity (as we have seen repeatedly in the American media, such as the depictions of Jesus on South Park,) Christians would express their anger (and rightly so,) but they could be trusted to largely abstain from violence.

In the Islamic world, there is little precedent for keeping violence out of protests. Muslims do not have a Thoreau, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King to inspire them. They instead look towards Islamic figures like The Prophet, who used violence and warfare to spread the message of Islam. Throwing stones and firing weapons are an integral part of most protests in the middle east. While Muslims have every right to be angry about the cartoons, they have no right to incite violence.

If any irony can be found in this sad situation, it is that the violent protests only validate the message of the cartoons. One of the 12 caricatures featured The Prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban, with the implicit message that Islam is a religion of violence. The protesters in Damascus and Beirut are doing an excellent job perpetrating that message.

Daryl Hannah appeared on Brian Wilson's Sunday program (on Fox News) to promote alternative energy. Unlike Hollywood celebrities and liberal politicians who pay lip service to the idea but don't practice what they preach (like the wind farm near Martha's Vinyard that is being bloocked by Walter Cronkite,) Daryl has been putting her money where her mouth is.

While hybrid cars have become a popular political statement among the Hollywood elites (like Tim Robbins and his mother/girlfriend Susan Sarandon,) Daryl Hannah is doing them one better: her car runs on biodiesel fuel, made from vegetable oil and other leftover greases. She also produces home electricity from the sun and sells it back to the grid in times of over-production.

Impossible Scissors salutes Daryl Hannah's advocacy of biodiesel over far-term solutions like hydrogen. We also take positive note of the positive example she is setting when compared to the empty rhetoric from most of Hollywood regarding this issue.

I'm in agreement with John Brown about our new House Majority Leader. With elections just nine months away, it's time for the Republicans to let their dirty laundry out now, throw the guilty to the dogs, and clean up their act. Is Rep. Boehner up to the task, or, like Rep. Delay, will he be another fox guarding the proverbial henhouse? If he doesn't act fast, he may soon find himself as House Minority Leader, while Nancy Pelosi (gasp!) becomes House Majority Leader.