On The Counting Of Chickens

There is an old rule of thumb in engineering that goes like this: on any given project, 90% of the project is completed with 10% of the work. The other 10% to complete the project takes the other 90% of your effort. Another manifestation of that rule of thumb is the old saying that the devil is in the details.

A while back I noted that some Democrats appeared to be counting chickens a bit on the early side. In fact, I commented about it several times. Today, I read this little gem from the Associated Press. Some politicians have visions of landslides dancing in their heads.

Republicans are three steps from a November shellacking _ each a grim possibility if habitually divided Democrats get their acts together.

First step: Voters must focus on the national landscape on Nov. 7 rather than local issues and personalities that usually dominate midterm elections.

That would sting Republicans, who trail badly in national polls.

Second step: Voters must be so angry at Washington and politics in general that an anti-incumbent, throw-the-bums-out mentality sweeps the nation.

That would wound Republicans, the majority party.

Third step: Americans must view the elections as a referendum on President Bush and the GOP-led Congress, siding with Democrats in a symbolic vote against the Iraq war, rising gas prices, economic insecurity and the nagging sense that the nation is on the wrong track.

That would destroy Republicans, sweeping them from power in one or both chambers and making Bush a lame duck.

Less than six months out, most Democratic and Republican strategists say the first two elements are in place for now _ a national, anti- incumbent mind-set _ and all signs point to the third.

Still, many Democrats worry that their party has not closed the deal.

Five or six months is an eternity in politics. Things may not be quite what they seem right now. A lot of the polls are using badly skewed sampling (I've written about that repeatedly) and some of the antics by both parties are damaging everyone. So there's an element of whistling past the graveyard in this article. The Democrats who are expressing a bit of nervousness right now are probably seeing that things are not quite the lock it would appear.

Chuck Schumer says this: "I think if the election were held today, there is a 50-50 chance of taking the House and the Senate and a very high percentage of gaining a significant number of seats," Schumer said.

"But things change."

Yes, they do, and I think any poultry counting is probably not a good idea just yet.

Five or six months is an eternity in politics. Things may not be quite what they seem right now. A lot of the polls are using badly skewed sampling (I've written about that repeatedly) and some of the antics by both parties are damaging everyone. So there's an element of whistling past the graveyard in this article. The Democrats who are expressing a bit of nervousness right now are probably seeing that things are not quite the lock it would appear.

Chuck Schumer says this: "I think if the election were held today, there is a 50-50 chance of taking the House and the Senate and a very high percentage of gaining a significant number of seats," Schumer said.

"But things change."

Yes, they do, and I think any poultry counting is probably not a good idea just yet.

Perfection At The Cost Of Humanity?

The Daily Mail has a disturbing - no, that's wrong - appalling story that a fairly large number of late term abortions have been performed because the fetus had what are considered very minor, fully treatable birth defects.

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show. Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers.

Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy.

Details of the terminations emerged as new figures revealed an alarming rise in the use of an abortion pill that has been linked to 10 deaths.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.

However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.

'It is entirely treatable. I can only think it is lack of information.'

Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery.

Abortions have been reported as late as 28 weeks. Normal gestation is 38 weeks. Is having the perfect baby worth the cost of your humanity?

I have a brother with Down Syndrome. He has been a challenge at times for the whole family and for my Mother in particular while she was alive. But neither my Mom or any of the rest of us wished he had not been born. For all the problems pale in comparison to the person he is. He loves to laugh, he loves to dance, he is always charming to any lady he meets and he is a very good artist with a unique perspective.

He is not disposable.

It is such a shame that others, with fewer challenges, are disposable in some people's minds.

Good Taste, Yes. Good Sense, Not So Much

Weirdly related to the last post comes this bit of unusual news from Britain. While exhibiting a rare outbreak of good taste by banning singer James Blunt, in another part of England people showed a remarkable lack of, well, sanity by chasing wheels of cheese down a very, very steep hill. I swear I am not making this up.

Twenty-five people were injured in an annual cheese-rolling competition, where daredevils chase giant cheeses down a steep slope in western England, organisers said.

Dozens took part in the bizarre event at Cooper's Hill in Brockworth, Gloucestershire, before a crowd of some 3,000 laughing and cheering spectators.

They raced for 200 metres (656 feet) down the slope after the wheel-shaped Double Gloucester cheese, decorated in a blue and red ribbon.

Many slipped, somersaulted and tumbled their way to the bottom during five bone-crunching races over two hours.

No, we here at Blue Crab Boulevard like a good Double Gloucester as much as the next crustacean, but we draw the line at trying to obtain one by committing mayhem on ourselves. Really, it's not all that expensive, now is it?

Among the winners of the five races was Chris Anderson, 18, who knocked himself out to claim the title.

Afterwards, the dazed window fitter said: "I just ran, fell and hit my head. I feel sore but it was definitely worth it."

First prize in each race is a big circle of cheese.

People from as far afield as Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States travel to the hill every year to take part in the cheese roll.

The unusual event has been celebrated for centuries and is thought to have its roots in a heathen festival to celebrate the return of spring.

We definitely don't think much of the idea of literally knocking ourselves out to win a race. Or a Double Gloucester cheese wheel. Which of course raises the question; how hard could it be to win a race when someone who's been knocked cold is declared the victor? We suspect gravity rather than skill played a large role in the victory.

We also don't think the event really originated in a heathen festival, either. We rather suspect a dare was involved.

Good Taste Breaks Out In Britain!

In an unusual move, a radio station in southern England has banned the playing of British singer James Blunt due to complaints from listeners. Listeners said they were quite fed up with listening to songs like "You're Beautiful".

Chris Cotton, programme controller of local radio Essex FM in southern England, said: "We don't have anything against James Blunt and we're pleased he has been so successful, but we really need a break."

The music industry exerts a lot of pressure on radio stations to play certain artists' music over and over again, Cotton said.

"Often this can be out of step with the audience's tastes, which results in songs being overplayed," he said. "We're happy to stand up to this pressure and follow the strong message listeners have given us. We encourage other radio stations to take the same step."

Frankly, every time that song comes on the radio, I need another tooth pulled. Or earplugs. Or both.

Minute Of Silence

Today at 3pm in observance of Memorial Day. I was clued in to this by Michelle Malkin who has a good roundup of Memorial Day post from around the blogosphere.

101st Blog Of The Day

My mission to visit one member of the Fighting 101st each day continues today over at Dr. Sanity. Pat has an outstanding essay about moral paralysis that is well worth the read. Her two-part essay on the political paranoia of the left is also a must read. Grab a cold one and sit yourself down for a good read.

Hitchens On Memorial Day

Christopher Hitchens has an essay about Memorial Day up over at the Opinion Journal. It reminds us of what the day means.

Since all efforts at commemoration are bound to fall short, one must be on guard against any attempt at overstatement. In particular, one must resist efforts to ventriloquize the dead. To me, Cindy Sheehan's posthumous conscription of her son is as objectionable as Billy Graham's claim, at the National Cathedral, that all the dead of Sept. 11, 2001 were now in paradise. In the first instance, we have no reason to believe that young Casey Sheehan would ever have supported MoveOn.org, and in the second instance we cannot be expected to believe that almost 3,000 New Yorkers all died in a state of grace. Nothing is more tasteless, when set against the reality of death, than the hollow note of demagogy and false sentiment. These things are also subject to unintended consequences. When Dalton Trumbo wrote his leftist antiwar classic "Johnnie Got His Gun," he little expected that it would be used as a propaganda tool by pro-fascist isolationists in the late 1930s, and that he would be protesting in vain that this was not what he had really meant.

"Always think of it: never speak of it." That was the stoic French injunction during the time when the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been lost. This resolution might serve us well at the present time, when we are in midconflict with a hideous foe, and when it is too soon to be thinking of memorials to a war not yet won. This Memorial Day, one might think particularly of those of our fallen who also guarded polling-places, opened schools and clinics, and excavated mass graves. They represent the highest form of the citizen, and every man and woman among them was a volunteer. This plain statement requires no further rhetoric.

We have the freedoms we have today because of those who served. We owe them our respect.

Iranian Revolution?

I linked to Gateway Pundit's roundup of Iranian unrest earlier. Now Pajamas Media has even more links and news from all over on the situation. Things are looking very unstable at the moment over there. Why is our main stream media silent on this?

If a revolution starts, won't the NYT, et al, look pretty stupid for having ignored it?

Just asking.

UPDATE: Middle East Times coverage.

Wishful Thinking

The New York Times reports that some unnamed European Diplomats are seeing a slowdown in the Iranian nuclear enrichment program. These sources are interpreting that to mean Iran really wants to negotiate.

The diplomats say the slowdown may be part of a deliberate Iranian strategy to lower the temperature of its standoff with the West over its nuclear program, and perhaps to create an opening for Washington to join the negotiations directly — something President Bush has so far refused to do.

Later in the article they also mention that some nuclear experts don't see it as a diplomatic ploy but rather as a technical issue. Having spent a goodly number of years in the nuclear field, I can attest to the fact that while the theory of how to perform enrichment is pretty straightforward, the execution of the process is very technologically challenging. I rather suspect that experts are correct, the Iranians are having difficulties with their equipment or execution. It's not a diplomatic ploy.

I rather suspect the diplomats in question are indulging in wishful thinking. Perhaps they should concentrate on realities instead.

A Crisis Of Expectations

Owen West, Iraq war veteran,  major in the Marine Reserves and founder of Vets for Freedom, writes an op-ed in today's New York Times that is really a must read.

We are at the outset of a long war, and not just in Iraq. Yet it is being led politically by the short-sighted, from both sides of the aisle. The deterioration of American support for the mission in Iraq is indicative not so much of our military conduct there, where real gains are coming slowly but steadily, but of chaotic leadership.

Somehow Operation Iraqi Freedom, not a large war by America's historical standards, has blossomed into a crisis of expectations that threatens our ability to react to future threats with a fist instead of five fingers. Instead of rallying we are squabbling, even as the slow fuse burns.

West says the same thing I have said around here many times. We are fighting among ourselves and showing disarray to the world. That emboldens our enemies while dismaying our friends.

In the past, the American public could turn to its sons for martial perspective. Soldiers have historically been perhaps the country's truest reflection, a socio-economic cross-section borne from common ideals. The problem is, this war is not being fought by World War II's citizen-soldiers. Nor is it fought by Vietnam's draftees. Its wages are paid by a small cadre of volunteers that composes about one-tenth of 1 percent of the population — America's warrior class.

The insular nature of this group — and a war that has spiraled into politicization — has left the Americans disconnected and confused. It's as if they have been invited into the owner's box to settle a first-quarter disagreement on the coach's play-calling. Not only are they unprepared to talk play selection, most have never even seen a football game.

Here he's really hit upon something. Even with the advent of milbloggers, it is very hard indeed to get the word out to the general public. It is hard to get past a media that has chosen sides and decided how it wishes to spin stories. The American military is the best the world has ever seen and yet it is also very small in proportion to it's lethality. That works against those of us who want the entire story out there, not just the media selected slant.

This confusion, in turn, affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war. Iraq hasn't been easy on the military, either. But the strength of our warriors is their ability to adapt.

First, in battle you move forward from where you are, not where you want to be. No one was more surprised that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction than the soldiers who rolled into Iraq in full chemical protective gear. But it is time for the rest of the country to do what the military was forced to: get over it.

If we can put 2003's debates behind us, there is a swath of common ground on which to focus. Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq. The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.

Second, America's conscience is one of its greatest strengths. But self-flagellation, especially in the early stages of a war against an enemy whose worldview is uncompromising, is absolutely hazardous. Three years gone and Iraq's most famous soldiers are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England, a victim and a criminal, respectively. Abu Ghraib remains the most famous battle of the war.

Soldiers are sick of apologizing for a sliver of malcontents who are not at all representative of the new breed. But they are also sick of being pitied. Our warriors are the hunters, not the hunted, and we should celebrate them as we did in the past, for while our tastes have changed, warfare — and the need to cultivate national guardians — has not. As Kipling wrote, "The strength of the pack is the wolf."

I hear this from my son. He was deployed in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib hysteria in this country was at it's greatest. Now he's over there when the latest rush to judgment on Haditha is taking place. We can, and we absolutely must, make sure no soldiers commit crimes and are fully accountable if they do so. We must also keep from blaming all soldiers for the acts of a tiny minority. We can require that accountability without requiring self-flagellation. We can do so in a manner that does not expose our men and women deployed over there to additional danger.

We must do this as much for ourselves as for our troops.

Memorial Day

Too often these days we all take some things for granted. Too often these days holidays have just become a day off with no real thought given to the day itself and what it means. It's important to remember what Memorial Day means.

Read this. A very simple and eloquent reminder.

AP Notices Alaa

The Associated Press has noticed and written about the plight of imprisoned Egyptian blogger Alaa Abd El-Fatah. Even though they are quite late to the party, it is a very welcome bit of news. The article is quite well written and has a large amount of background about the entire situation.

The 24-year-old Abdel-Fattah's blog, which he does with his wife Manal Hassan, has become one of the most popular pro-democracy voices in Egypt. He has continued writing despite being arrested in early May during a street demonstration in Cairo — part of a crackdown on reform activists by Egyptian security forces.

"We covered the walls of our cell with graffiti of our names and slogans and Web site addresses," Abdel-Fattah wrote one time, referring to himself and fellow imprisoned activists. "We chanted and sang and the mood was great."

But another posting was very different. "I'm sitting here terrified they'll move me to a worse cell or cut off my visits. What should I tell you — that the day will come for them (the regime)? I'm afraid our grandchildren won't see that day, much less us."

Please read the whole thing. Please help do what you can to help Alaa and all his fellow prisoners. Support freedom.

Reality

Would it be better for the Democrats to actually have to take ownership and responsibility for American foreign policy? Robert Kagan, writing in the Washington Post believes it would be. Having been too long in opposition, the Democrats have descended into knee jerk criticism of all things Bush.

Could the United States be better off with a Democrat in the White House in 2009? Here are a couple of reasons the answer might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat.

The Democrats need to take ownership of American foreign policy again, for their sake as well as the country's. Long stretches in opposition sometimes drive parties toward defeatism, utopianism, isolationism or permutations of all three. What starts off as legitimate attacks on the inevitable errors of the party in power can veer off into a wholesale rejection of the opposition party's own foreign policy principles. Republicans in the 1990s, after supporting an expansive internationalism under Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, drifted toward quasi-isolationism against the Clinton administration's quasi-internationalism. During Woodrow Wilson's two terms, the internationalist party of Theodore Roosevelt began transforming itself into the isolationist party of William Borah. During the Nixon-Ford years, the party of John F. Kennedy became the party of George McGovern.

It's an interesting proposition. The reality of the world is not necessarily what the critics of the administration like to try to say it is. Kagan point that out.

The case for electing a Democrat is not only to save the party's soul, though that's a worthy task, but to pull the country together to face the difficult times ahead. The last time the Democrats were in office, the world seemed a comparatively manageable place. They have not yet had to deal with the post-Sept. 11 world. Since the only post-Sept. 11 foreign policy Americans know is Bush's, many believe — especially many Democrats — that if only Bush weren't president, the world would be manageable again. Allies could be easily summoned for the struggle against al-Qaeda or to bring pressure on Iran or to replace American troops in Iraq. Threats could be addressed without force, through skillful diplomacy and soft power. Maybe some of the threats would disappear.

This is fantasy. The next president, whether Democrat or Republican, may work better with allies and may be more clever in negotiating with adversaries. But the realities of the world are what they are, and the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy are what they are. The diffuse threats of the post-Cold War world simply don't unite and energize our European allies as the Soviet Union did, and even a dedicated "multilateralist" won't be able to get them to spend more money on defense or stop buying oil from Iran. A smarter negotiating strategy toward Iran might or might not make a difference in stopping its weapons program. Soft power will go only so far in dealing with problems such as North Korea and Sudan.

And there it is, really. The world is not the black and white that opponents portray it where literally every choice Bush makes is automatically wrong. Sometimes it comes down to choosing the least worst option. Still, to be electable in this country, I think a candidate cannot be too far over to either extreme. I really think the Democrats would be very wise to shy away from an avowed anti-war candidate. That would be a recipe for the party to descend into total irrelevancy in the reality of the post 9/11 world.

Non-Nuclear Ballistic Missile Warheads?

The New York Times reports that the Pentagon is seeking funding to develop a non-nuclear warhead to be fitted onto a Trident II missile. Planners believe this will give an additional means of addressing a threat without resorting to nuclear weapons.

The proposal has set off a complex debate about whether this program for strengthening the military's conventional capacity could increase the risks of accidental nuclear confrontation.

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a new nonnuclear warhead atop the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, military officials say.

If fielded, it would be the only nonnuclear weapon designed for rapid strikes against targets thousands of miles away and would add to the United States' options when considering a pre-emptive attack.

Critics worry about how other nations will be able to tell what kind of weapon the submarine is firing.

"There is great concern this could be destabilizing in terms of deterrence and nuclear policy," said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It would be hard to determine if a missile coming out a Trident submarine is conventional or nuclear."

Reflecting the worry that Russia and other nations might misinterpret the launch of a nonnuclear Trident as the opening salvo in a nuclear barrage, lawmakers have insisted that the Bush administration present a plan to minimize that risk before the new weapon is manufactured and deployed.

Which is certainly a valid consideration that needs to be taken into account. I think that such a warhead has got real potential to be used in certain, limited instances, providing a way to make sure nobody mistakes the launch for a nuclear strike is also perfected. Which, of course, is the stickiest issue. We'll see.

Frist Comes Down On The Right Side

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist came down on the right side of the issue over whether the FBI's search of Representative Jefferson's offices were constitutional. They were.

In a break with his counterparts in the House, the Senate's leader said Sunday the FBI was within its right to search the office of a congressman under investigation in a bribery case.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

Frist, R-Tenn., was responding to the search conducted May 20-21 in the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La. FBI agents carted away computer and other records in their pursuit of evidence that Jefferson accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping set up business deals in Africa.

I think that's a good position. I'm still watching this issue to see if there is a deeper reason for some members hot button reaction to the search.