Monday, October 6, 2008

Why do I occasionally post on politics?

From the comments in a few of my past posts, I can see that some of you don't want to see my blog discuss politics because it shows my biases. I have this to say:

1. Religion (and its making) is tied to politics. It is now and it was then. Watching what happens now, can help us to understand what happened then. Why do you think the Gnostics were thrown out? Because they held different beliefs? Or because the different beliefs they held meant that certain people could and could not be in power?

2. Objectivity is not neutrality. The press confuses these two, and in trying to be neutral (i.e., unbiased), they forget to be objective and call a spade a spade. So it is up to people such as myself to try to raise the objective observations above the fray. In this case, the objective observation is that Palin is not prepared on either a national or international level to become our next VP or President (should that happen).

3. Half of my readers are from the international scene. Many send me comments by e-mail, thanking me for my posts on Palin because all they get from the media is a crazy view of Americans who appear to not know what they are doing. These international readers are in total shock over the American reaction to this campaign. They cannot fathom how such an ill-prepared person as Palin can be so close to the White House. In fact, one of my international readers said that Palin makes George W. Bush look like an intellectual giant, something which he would have never thought possible.

4. This campaign is HISTORIC. Not only are we having to face sexism and racism, but we will be witnessing the hostile takeover of our government by the religious right if we are not careful. Too extreme? Consider the Supreme Court which is likely to lose at least two justices in the next presidency, and if they are replaced by conservative judges, there will be no more debates or controls in our government against the imposition of the values of the religious right on all of us. Is this what we want for our country?


José Solano said...

“Hostile takeover of our government”? This is not a coup de’etat. It appears Dr. DeConick that you do not care for our democratic process when it is not moving in the direction of the radical left. It’s ok for Obama to nominate judges that support the culture of death and depravity but not for McCain to nominate judges who oppose it. There’s absolutely nothing objective about what you are saying and your comments are really no more politically enlightened than Sarah Palin’s.


John Noyce said...

from an Australian perspective thats what makes this blog so fascinating to read each morning - the mix of cutting edge specialist research with insightful contemporary observations ... and served with a dash of spicy readers' comments.

Pastor Bob said...

I agree Palin is not qualified. My question is, what makes Obama qualified when Palin is not? Neither has the experience. This election would make more sense if Clinton had won or Biden was at the top of the ticket. Obama makes a great speech and I think is very intelligent but if the question is experience he doesn't have it.

Which makes me confused as a voter.

bulbul said...

pastor bob,

what makes Obama qualified when Palin is not
First, it's his intelligence. It might not seem like a big thing, especially after these past 8 years and the antiintelectualism so deeply ingrained in the American culture, but it is. JD from Harvard / Law Review is not all there is to it, but it's a pretty good indicator of Obama's ability to gather and evaluate information, react to unforseen circumstances and, most importantly, learn.
Second, it's Obama's experience. Anyone who belittles his years as community organizer simply doesn't have a clue about what it means. I don't require of my president (or prime minister, I'm an EU citizen) to have served in the armed forces or to have a Nobel Prize in economics - he's got people for that. But what a president should be able to do and do it well is negotiate, manage funds, solve conflicts, bring people together, get things done. All of that is something Obama is apparently good at and that's even more important than point 3, which is his experience in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate. That's just the cherry on the top which shows he can cut it in the big league, too. Plus, I've been watching his campaign for the past few months and I am deeply impressed at how well organized and effective it is.

How does Palin compare to Obama? I'm sure you can answer that for yourself. All I needed to know about her I learned when I saw how she reacts to a situation she can't control (be it an interview or a debate) - as Professor Connick so fittingly put it, she flirts.

Pastor Bob said...

I don't fault Obama's intelligence or his work at Harvard or as a community organizer.

I was referring to his experience at a national or international level. His time in the Senate was rather short before he began running for president and as far as I know he had no experience with foreign leaders before he began to run for president.

komfo,amonan said...

I think the idea that the religious right may be staging a "hostile takeover of our government" is a bit extreme. They have achieved their more influential position relatively honestly, by organizing effectively at the local level, directed by the RNC, over the last 25 years. Any hostility we see comes from their neocon allies. If they do attain the presidency in the person of Gov. Palin, they will have to get their Supreme Court justices through a Democratic Senate (which admittedly has been doing a whole lot of lying down of late).

That being said, I agree quite strongly with your first three points FWIW. And I'll second the eloquent bulbul, while I'm at it.

José Solano said...

“But what a president should be able to do and do it well is negotiate, manage funds, solve conflicts, bring people together, get things done.” Bulbul.

I quite agree, and those are exactly the areas in which Palin is clearly more experienced than Obama. She has executive experience as the governor of an entire state and has gained enormous support by uniting the people behind goals that her constituency favors. She understands the people’s interests and serves them. She is an extremely popular governor. She has managed the funds of her state magnificently. This is far more complex than addressing the needs of some neighborhood. Palin “gets things done” at the executive level.

Daldianus said...

I think it's good that you also post about politics.

And I agree, Ms Palin makes George W. Bush look like an intellectual!

Let's hope that sanity will prevail in the US and that the Democrats will win (which is what seems to be going to happen right now ...)!

bulbul said...

pastor bob,
I was referring to his experience at a national or international level.
I can see why you would be, as you say, confused, not so much in absolute terms as when compared to McCain. I, however, am not. He's worked on legislation with international impact (conventional weapons, WMDs, biological weapons, aid to Africa), traveled on official business to Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Palestine and various African countries, met with foreign officials before he decided to run and after (during his trip to Europe and the Middle East in July). I'd say that's plenty of experience, especially if you consider that the president does not rule alone.
And going back to your original question - what makes Obama qualified when Palin is not - well, this is precisely it. When you market a pit stop in Ireland or the proximity of your state to Russia as a part of your foreign policy experience...

José Solano said...

It looks Bulubul like you’ve decided to alter your criteria for being president as it’s been clearly shown that Palin has superior experience in those areas. Now you’re talking about “WMDs, biological weapons, aid to Africa” for which, as you said earlier, there are “people for that,” meaning experts in the field. You may also be confusing “voting” on legislation worked on by someone else and actually working on creating the legislation. The former is rather simple and the latter is generally done with others.

The other important issue is that people are forgetting is that Obama is running against McCain not Palin. If you wish to make a rational comparison you need to compare Obama with McCain, eh, and of course there is really no comparison in terms of experience. The people will support Palin because of the principles that she represents and she will get all of the help she needs is specialized areas.

paulf said...


Wow, sorry, I have to wipe the spit off my computer. People who say that must work hard to be so disingenuous.

Anybody who compares Palin's experience to Obama's is being deliberately dishonest. Ask Obama a question about foreign policy or economic matters or federal regulations, and he could talk for hours weighing pros and cons in an intelligent fashion. Ask Palin the same questions and she knows less than the average homeless person. Her experience in Alaska shows that she is petty, unconcerned with details or policy, and likes to break the law with impunity. She was mayor of a 5,000-person town and left it with $19 million of debt. She says the government should get out of the way of the private sector and in the next breath defends her earmarks and says we need more regulation. She is a complete moron, doggone it, but I betcha she can wink like the waitress at Hooters.

(As an aside, I love how Christian candidates can be so devoid of personal integrity.)

And McCain isn't much better. He is a hard-partying frat boy who would have been kicked out of the military except for his family connections. 899th in his class of 904. Where have we seen that before? He admittedly knows little about economics, his only policy over the years is to deregulate (look where that's gotten us), his ethics can be summed up in "Keating 5" and his foreign policy is the "bomb, bomb Iran" ditty.

Mark D B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
José Solano said...

Once again Paulf you degenerate into personal insults and slander comments. You are an embarrassment to the candidates you are trying to defend. You cost them votes every time you speak on their behalf.

Keep it up.


R.Eagle said...

... "there will be no more debates ... imposition of the values of the religious right [r-r] on all of us. Is this what we want for our country?"


Dear R-R people, please consider reality as your basis for truth (iow, Jesus Christ will not return on literal clouds with literal fire, etc, as you expect a literal, not ever!).

In other words, the r-r's tidy, little, contradictory concepts of so-called reality (past and future, cause they're never truly in the present if one holds-tight to such presuppositions) are as attitudinally dated as a flat earth.

Thanks for the forum, Dr. D!

Roadscholar said...

No, keep the political posts coming, at least until after the election. Yours is I think the truest discussion of some of the real issues that I’ve seen. And I don’t disagree about the “hostile takeover of the government by the religious right,” nor with the counter-response that they’ve done this legally with massive voter registration campaigns, etc. But now the left has seen and recognized the very real dangers, has had enough of it, and are coming out themselves to put a stop to it. Hey, “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” (Matthew 5:30)

paulf said...

Jose you are an embarassment to ... well, every debate you enter. You want to criticize others, but collapse into a ball and cry when someone calls you out? (I don't know why you are so sensitive, given that I didn't address my comments to anyone in particular.)

Your latest comments are hilarious. You have no idea what slander is. I guess using words without knowing their meanings helps you relate to Sarah Palin, she whose church leaders think that Alaska will be a refuge during the apocalypse when our loving God wipes out four-thirds of the earth in his anger, except all the Joe Sixpacks and hockey moms from Wasilla.

I am an embarrassment to Obama, and cost him votes? I suppose you were going to vote for him? Are you saying that Dr. DeConick is now going to vote McCain?

Methinks you make no sense.

José Solano said...

While we are on the issue of Obama’s neighborhood work experience we should consider his judgment on who to work with. He must have known who this person was and what he had done but it didn’t seem to matter. See

José Solano said...

Shelly Mandell, Los Angeles chapter president of the National Organization for Women and a life-long Democrat, endorses Palin. She calls Palin a "reformer who will break-up the old-boy network, buck the system and get Washington back on our side." She adds, “I know Sarah Palin cares about women’s rights, she cares about equality, she cares about equal pay.”

Pastor Bob said...

9:30 PM EDT Am watching both Obama and McCain. They aren't answering the questions. Is there anyone else running for president?

R.Eagle said...

That's very odd.

Doesn't Mandell realize that the Supreme Court is only one justice away from taking away a woman's right to choose.

And with as pro-business as this court has been, consumers will continue to get the short end of the stick.

José Solano said...

There is no “right” to murder your baby. This is a pure fabrication of a few individuals on the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter if the baby is living in your womb or in your house. It is the real rights of the baby to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that have been eradicated by the culture of death and depravity that Obama supports.

paul f said...

Jose, you think every democrat supports a culture of death and depravity? (Presumably you are referring to Dr. Deconick as well, since she seems to be on the side of depravity.)

That's, that's, that's.... so mean. Slanderous, if in fact slander meant what you think it does. It is so mean that if I call you a wingnut moron, I'm being nice in comparison.

So abortion is only legal because of a Supreme Court ruling? Do you know anything about law or history? I'm sorry, but the more you write the more ignorant you reveal yourself to be.

It must be nice to have the mental dexterity of a conservative Christian, who love to save fetuses and murder humans. Whose idea of economic policy is to create rules that lead to Enron stealing billions from California taxpayers and wiping out shareholders, and take away health care from the poor, deregulate the mortgage industry so banks can gamble trillions of dollars with borrowed money. Whose foreign policy is to torture and kill human beings and boast about it. Who encourage discrminination and diviseness.

If anyone is depraved, it is those who support so much evil.

leppahcetssalc said...

Okay, so I started to read the responses to this post, but I could be here all day.

Thank you for posting this...and thank you for your honesty. I think intelligent honesty catches some of us off guard at times, but it is nice to have a breath of fresh air every so often.

José Solano said...

Paul f. This is the last time I address you. You must be having a very difficult time and just ranting away falling deeper into vituperation and ad hominems desperately trying to enflame rational discourse and create animosity. You don’t understand what I’m saying and you don’t understand what you’re saying. I address issues and not persons except briefly when they become personally insulting.

I wish you tranquility. Adiós.

paulf. said...

jose can use big words, I'm so impressed. Sadly, jose, you still have trouble with comprehension.

You called every Democrat depraved and throw around phrases like "radical left" to describe mild Dr. DeConick and I'm the one using vituperation and ad hominem attacks?

You think you are a man of ideas, but don't rebut a single point I make, other than to call me names. Tell me how Jesus would support torture and war. Tell me why the most important "Christian" issues are abortion, which is not mentioned once in the Bible, or homosexuality, which is mentioned in passing a few times, never by Jesus.

I mock you because you are a parody of the typical Christian conservative. Hypocrite from head to toe, and what gets you to sputter at me is that you know it and know that I know it.

José Solano said...

I'm a life long liberal Democrat who does not support the culture of death and depravity.

paulf. said...

So you are a Fox News-style Democrat who hates Democrats. And all these years you vote for people that you say support the culture of death and depravity.

Maybe there is some kind of therapy for that.

Leon said...

I did not think that it was possible for any politician to have less intellectual curiosity than George Bush, but Sarah Palin seems to be that person. She knows that those who support her do not care about her experience or "ideas". She reinforces their beliefs. That's what they want. It's about ideology. McCain knows very well that she is not qualified to be President. He chose her because he believes she can get the religious right to swing his way. It was a callous move.

Leon Zitzer

lightseeker said...

Oh say it ain’t so, Jose, there you go again, spouting canned rhetoric with which you’ve dutifully programmed your herd-mentality brain when you feel your foundation been attacked by anyone who’s left of center. “A culture of death and depravity”?? That’s just as far out there in right field as a “hostile takeover of our government” is out there in left field (sorry, Dr. D., but it is a bit of a stretch!). Talk about having a beam in one’s eye, or straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel… Let’s center ourselves and get real. Perception, perception…

Perhaps the key word April used is “hostile” – maybe stealthy or is more apt at the move the r-r has made to put religion back into government (our wise forefathers separated religion and state for good reason!). But lately, maybe “hostile” is apt, and “death and depravity” seem to apply more to the virulent outbreaks at Republican McCain rallies. Angry, hate-filled and even bloodthirsty shouts of “terrorist,” “kill him” and “off with his head!” aimed at Barrack Obama, which McCain (thankfully!) realized were so wrong and over the top he’s had to quell them. (What century are we in, people? The 17th or the 21st? Makes one wonder…) McCain is a good lick behind in the polls, and Republicans are afraid – afraid that someone who seems different, even foreign (“Arab”) to them will end up in the Whitehouse as President of the most powerful nation in the world. To some of these people, it’s downright scary! They are afraid of real change. Change is downright scary, and they want to stay planted, immovable, right where they are, where it’s familiar and safe. That’s why Barrack Obama appears dangerous to these people.

But evolution can’t occur in a static environment. That’s why our government, our economy and finances, the environment, even our entire world, are in turmoil. Mother Earth is giving birth to a new world, and we’re in the midst of the bone-cracking labor pains. It’s a global shakedown, and those who are too fearful to hang on and ride this roller coaster will be shaken out along with all the old flotsam and jetsam. Out with the old, in with the new. McCain and many Republicans belong to the old school of thought that panders to fear – fear of a dangerous, unknown future – these are old visions, old ideas. Most of us have outgrown that fear-mongering mode of thinking, it no longer works, we’re starved for something new and better. Obama and many of his supporters are of a younger generation with a consciousness to instill hope for change, and the vision and ideas to take us into a future that is also unknown, but yet is exciting and with endless potential. Stay put or change. Fear or hope. Both choices face an unknown future. Choose fear and stand firm, stubbornly and blindly, in what will soon be the past, or – by having the courage to take a chance on someone who seems unfamiliar or different (“scary”) – choose hope and step courageously into a future with potential for great and wonderful change. It’s all in one’s perception, and a new paradigm is on our horizon.

Those who vehemently defend a pro-life stance so as to force their views upon others are really anti-abortion. Those, such as I, who are pro-choice are neither necessarily anti-life nor pro-abortion. I am pro-life and pro-choice. As a woman, I have given this subject a great deal of thought and depth of feeling; personally, if faced with an unplanned pregnancy, I would not be able to go through with an abortion; rather, I would offer the baby for adoption. I thank God or fate that I have not had to face such a decision, but many women and teens do. My own niece is about to give birth next weekend and will hand the baby over to an adopting couple who she knows will be able to give her baby a better life than she can; she's barely able to cope now as a single mom of two other children. Although her decision is painful for the family, I praised her courage, wisdom and big heart. She's giving this other couple a beautiful little girl they cannot have on their own.

I consider myself a follower of the teachings of Jesus. And yes, there’s that trite saying, WWJD? If you call yourself a Christian, then you believe that Jesus was God incarnate on Earth. Well, most Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) also believe God gave mankind free will. Like any loving parent, God (Abba, or Father, as Jesus called Him) tries to guide his children (by providing through His prophets Commandments and laws/rules), but He also has the wisdom to realize that a child can only truly learn what is wrong and what is right by exercising his or her free will. This is the path of real enlightenment, or The Way, as Jesus knew it. As Torah teaches, there are two paths, a path that leads to death, and the path (or Way) that leads to life (eternal Life) – by following the latter path, we are following God’s Will, walking in God’s Ways. We make choices during life, and if we find our poor choices lead us down a path of sorrow, poverty and destruction, we learn to change, to make better choices that will lead to a more joyful and fruitful life, as God intends for us all. One way is to heed Torah, like the faithfully obedient Elder Son, and never stray from the path of Life. Another way God’s children learn to walk in His Way is by experience. A Prodigal Son will hopefully, eventually make the better, wiser choice that brings him home to his loving Father. Therefore, how is one to learn if one is not given the right to experience the consequences of one’s choices in life? When you can actually say you’ve been there, then you know, and you’ve truly learned the difference between the two paths.

A young woman may be pregnant and not in an ideal position to deal with the pregnancy or a newborn. No one has the right to judge another’s life situation. Don’t judge, and don’t assume you understand what she feels or thinks unless you’ve at least walked a couple miles in her shoes. Yes, a fetus is a life – from conception, I believe, and all life is sacred. But – and this was especially true in Biblical times – that life most certainly is dependent on the life of the mother for survival. So until it is born and breathing and functioning on its own, the fetus is still a part of the mother’s life and body. So don’t dare presume to take away a woman's God-given right to choose what happens to her own body. Should she choose to abort, then that is a choice she has made between herself and God; she and God alone, together (for God is always with us whether we are aware or not), must bear the consequences of that choice. We can hope and pray she has learned from this choice and perhaps she’ll choose differently if there is a next time. WWJD? Jesus would guide lovingly but I’m certain would never force his own view (understanding of His/God’s will) upon a pregnant, and likely confused, distressed young woman; he’d also be very forgiving, no matter the outcome, no matter her choice.

Christians pro-lifers, you want to make it law, to make abortion illegal and punishable. What happens when the girl goes to a back alley or across state lines for an illegal abortion from some fast-bucks quack? What then when you’ve got the poor girl captured and cornered, and you’re wagging accusing fingers at her and calling her baby-killer? WWJD? “He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” The lesson is not to point fingers and punish, but to forgive, enlighten (instill wisdom) and trust that she (or he/the abortionist) who “sinned” (stumbled, lost his/her way) has learned and will now find the better Way that leads to Life. There are poor choices which lead us to stray (“sin”) off the Path and then there are better, wiser choices that lead us back.

To the Christian, conservative right: If you cannot take away the God-given right of free will, what can you do? Instead of taking, give. Give women the tools and knowledge so they are better prepared to make wiser choices: programs that teach teens and women how to prevent pregnancy in the first place(!), and in the event they do find themselves pregnant, educate them as to other choices besides abortion. She may not realize she doesn’t have to face angry, abusive parents who may throw her out of the home; there may be a shelter to take her in. It may never have dawned on a 17-year old mother-to-be that the life she’s carrying could be a blessed God-send in answer to the prayers of an infertile couple. Knowledge is power, and wisdom comes from Love. Give the gift of wisdom and education in order to make better choices, but do not take away choice, period. God understands this is how his children live and learn, through choice and experience, to follow in His Way.

To be pro-life is to be “for life” in all circumstances, including war and capital punishment. It is hypocrisy to wish out of one side of one’s mouth to force others not to kill human fetuses, but out the other side of that same mouth be cheering “Hooray for US, God's on our side” as young men (and now women) march off to die in senseless wars, and criminals are put to death on death row.

It’s fear of the unknown, of what another will do with their own free will – especially if that choice differs from our own ideology or what is familiar and comfortable – it’s this fear that leads us to want to take away free will (freedom!) from those who think or believe differently, who are “other” than us. Fear is not of God. Love is of God. Fear wants to take free will away; Love says yes to free will in order that we learn from our choices, freely made. By allowing another the freedom to make a choice, even if you disagree with it, does not diminish your own free will to choose what is right for you.

On November 4th, this election is about much more than a choice between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. It’s a choice about fear and remaining in the past (where it’s safe but familiar) or about hope and the courage to choose a different, new direction with unlimited potential for great and positive change. Use your God-given free will, and choose wisely. But remember, we’re all in this, learning to crawl, and to walk and then to run, TOGETHER. Together we stand, divided we fall. And the only thing we have to fear is FEAR ITSELF.

BTW, April, it's refreshing to read some politics on your blog. Keep on, do your thing!

Shalom, Love and Light to all.

José Solano said...

Oh say it ain’t so, Lightseeker, there you go again, spouting canned radical leftist rhetoric with which you’ve dutifully programmed your herd-mentality brain when you feel your foundation attacked by anyone who’s at the center of democratic and religious life. And you sure can spout.

You know nothing of either the canonical writings or those of the Gnostics if you imagine for a moment that they would not call supporters of infanticide and aberrant sexual behaviors a culture of death and depravity. A new term I recently encountered is “the culture of shamelessness.”

The baby has rights that no mother can take away. She has no right whatsoever to murder her baby because it’s in her womb or in her house. The baby is a person with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness yet some 45,000,000 have been slaughtered. I’m sorry that you care so little for that person that you would do nothing to defend him/her.

pearl said...

Reading along this thread I’m made aware that Dr. DeConick’s first point has been substantiated; “Religion (and its making) is tied to politics.”

When it comes to religious interpretation concerning abortion, it seems that a common indicator of position entails how one views the concept of “soul”, and historically there has been disagreement.

R.Eagle said...

Couldn't agree more, Pearl.

I like what Obama (apparently wished he had) said to Rick Warren when he posed the "abortion" question at his Saddleback Megachurch alongside McCain.

He said something to the effect, "That's a question which far exceeds my pay grade."

So it's a good thing we have the tremendous fortune of the R-R to straighten these matters out!

Rebecca said...

What I wonder is why abortion is the only "life" issue that people on the religious right often bring up. What about war? The death penalty? Or ensuring a good life for a child after it's born?

I don't agree with the Catholic church on abortion, but they do take up all of these issues and actually work on them. (The American Catholic bishops were against the Iraq war, they oppose the death penalty, and groups such as Catholic Charities are instrumental in many communities in working against poverty and supporting the poorest and most disenfranchised people).

Why not look at Obama vs. McCain in this way - if one's standard is the candidate's pro-life stance, how does he foster life in all its realms, not just in the abortion issue.

I think that on those grounds Obama definitely is superior to McCain. He wants to get us out of Iraq and he is much more interested than McCain in actually helping ordinary Americans. And while Obama is pro-choice, I would not call him "pro-abortion" - he would like diminish the frequency of abortion in this country.

Another thing is - even if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the states start to make abortion illegal again - do you think this will actually prevent all abortions? It certainly didn't before Roe v. Wade. And many more women died of botched abortions then.

I think that if one truly wants to diminish the number of abortions in this country, one should systematically teach people about contraception and how to use it. If women who do not want children do not get pregant, then they will not have to get abortions either.

José Solano said...

I’m not on the “religious right” so I can’t speak for them. I certainly speak out against capital punishment, against war (I’m a pacifist), I send money to impoverished nations, have always helped support kids through World Vision and contribute to varied charitable causes. I also suspect that that so maligned, so-called “religious right” contributes more to the poor than the irreligious left.

It is a total illusion for anyone to imagine that Obama is any less bellicose than McCain. He will bomb and destroy as readily as any other Democrat or Republican has done because those decisions, as I’ve said before, are determined by the military industrial complex and the multinational corporations. Obama is talking about getting out of Iraq in 16 months, by which time he could easily say, “Oh, conditions have changed and we need to stay longer.” And, his emphasis is now on getting into a greater war effort in Afghanistan chasing Osama through the Pakistani mountains.

What is important to understand is that opposing war and helping the poor should not be done at the expense of allowing the slaughter of 45,000,000 babies and millions more yet to be slaughtered. Saving these babies is much easier than eliminating war and poverty and it can be done while working to reduce war and poverty. This is not an either-or situation. It is only the irrational far left that produces this false dichotomy.

Certainly abortion, as with murder in general, will not be totally eliminated by making it illegal but the numbers will be enormously reduced. McCain/Palin are certain to put judges in the Supreme Court that are much more disposed to protecting these babies and they’ll also better counter the growing culture of death and depravity endorsed by Obama.