Musings on Current Events

Over the past two weeks, two events have occurred concerning our government that have been and continue to be particularly troubling. I'm referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision regarding the ban on "partial birth abortion" and President Bush's reluctance to accept any sort of spending bill to fund the continuing saga in Iraq that includes language regarding a date to start withdrawing troops from what as been long evident to most people as a lost cause in the region.

First the spending bills. Bush promises to veto any bill that makes its way to his office. Both the House and the Senate have approved their respective bills and both majority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seem poised to enter a battle with the president, which is what I as a Democrat would hope they would do. One aspect of their strategy, which I agree with, is to make the war the president's and his alone. If he should veto the bill, and there's no reason to believe that he won't, then it serves notice to the American people that both he and Vice President Cheney are unwilling or incapable of recognizing the war for what it is, a lost cause that never should have been entered into in the first place.

I find this troubling for many reasons, but the primary of which is that the longer this goes on the more it seems like we're entering into an unreality of sorts. I don't deny that the president and his enablers actually believe that we're doing the right thing by staying in Iraq. In some twisted logic, the belief that by fighting the enemy (al Qaeda, Islamofascists, etc.) on their home turf we are avoiding the fight with them here at home, which makes perfect sense only if one doesn't consider the fact that we weren't actually attacked by anyone or group that resided in Iraq. Now, after what has occurred there, what the president is saying is without a doubt true. Iraq has become nothing more than a breeding ground for future terrorists who would attack the United States.

What's also troubling is that after four plus years with little or nothing to show in terms of progress, the president insists that 1. there's so many positive stories emerging from Iraq that go unreported because the media is fixated on the tragic death spiral that consumes Iraq on a daily basis 2. the surge will work if given adequate time. Neither of these scenarios seem likely or correct in terms with the actual reality on the ground. I'm sure some of our tax dollars are being used to build schools and other important projects that will, hopefully, go towards rebuilding the basic infrastructure of the country, most of which I'm sure is being handled by Haliburton. Yet, the fact of the matter is there are bombings daily throughout the country that continue to take massive amounts of human life and that, I'm sorry to say, takes precedent over any manner of uplifting human interest development that might be occurring concurrently. Finally, the troop surge is nothing compared to the amount of troops truly necessary to contain the country. It's not even worth it at this point to make an analogy about band-aids and mortal wounds.

"Partial birth abortion" is the crude terminology for what is medically known as intact dilation and extraction. The procedure is rather gruesome in detail, so regardless of whether you choose to refer to it in the technical terminology or the politically charged layman's term, it doesn't lessen the notion of its inherent brutal nature. Knowing what the procedure entails could sway any supporter of abortion rights to the other side, but I don't think it's necessarily an issue that's common enough to really warrant the debate. In fact, the procedure is so rarely done that it's almost an afterthought with regard to larger debate. The circumstances that surround the necessity of such a procedure occur so infrequently that the ban may not be something to become truly troubled about, especially when one considers that many states are promoting exceptions to the rule that would allow the procedure to occur under special circumstances.

So why am I troubled by this? I'm not so much opposed to banning a procedure that happens pretty infrequently. In fact, I'm sure it gives the pro-life camp a small victory to taut that may or may not serve as fodder for the greater debate over abortion. No, I don't really care about that. What I do care about is the fact that all of the decisions regarding abortion are made by predominantly male-centered courts. Unless I'm missing something regarding basic biology, I don't think males can reproduce without the female to bare the child, right? My thinking is that if it should reach the point where there is a national referendum on abortion, then the voting should be solely for women only. If the majority of women decide that abortion is a right they can live without, then so be it, it should be repealed. Why males have such a huge say in this issue is beyond me.