Once again, the MSM is focusing like a laser on the BIG QUESTION:

IS IRAQ IN A CIVIL WAR?!?!?!?!

Yeah, that's an important question. After all, it's a lot easier to boil everything down to 1 or 2 words to make the sound bite shorter. And given what most people think when they hear the term "Civil War", what better way to tout the current issue in Iraq than to use the most negative connotation than you can think of?

I mean really. The Iraq war is not going that well, but the "War" part was over a long time ago - it lasted all of about 3 weeks. Since then, Iraq has been rebuilding and that is the part that is not necessarily going so well. First, it was a growing insurgency. While that's not solved, it certainly isn't getting the headlines these days. Today, the problem is growing sectarian violence. Hey, whatever grabs the headlines.

Iraq may or may not be in a Civil War by definition, but who cares what term is used to short-cut what is really going on? The media cares, that's who. It really matters little that the Iraq Civil War - if that's what it is - is nothing like our Civil War. Can anyone even tell me what they are fighting for?

And the STUPID milestone reported recently about how the Iraq War has now eclispsed the length of time of WWII, is another joke. By Iraq War standards, when will it end? When they elect their own government? When all U.S. Troops leave? Oh, there are troops still in Germany? Oops. Another try at sound biting failure for the American Public!

It's not going well, but instead of debating pundits on the meaning of Civil War, how about reporting facts and considering solutions?

BOY, WAS I WRONG!!

It's not that I don't have anything to say. It's just that I have too much to say. I guess I'll just have to keep blogging. But, time out to admit I was just plain old wrong about the election. I could say why, but don't feel like it for now. Suffice to say that my home state of Georgia met my expectations, while the other 49 states (give or take a couple) did not.

Did you?

I've unwaveringly maintained for months now that Republicans would hold the Senate AND House. Through the ups and downs of the election season which invariable occur, I still feel that the country is in a generally more conservative path which will override any minor "made-for-media" scandals such as Foley and Kerry.

Over history, the mid-term elections for the party of the president in his second term has seen the other party overwhelmingly gain seats. I believe Clinton may have been one of the few that did NOT hold true for this, but considering the staggering losses for Democrats during his first term, it's no wonder. So in many ways, the odds are overwhelmingly against the Republicans.

So why do I still think the Republicans will win? Because we'll go vote in larger numbers. The predictions are that some 40% or less of eligible voters will vote. It will erase many of the polling deficits where "likely voters" generally include a large group of people that will not in fact go vote and I believe overwhelmingly, that that will favor Republicans. I'm ready to eat crow. It sure doesn't look good right now, but we should know by tomorrow.

Either way (prove me wrong, or help prove me right) - just GO VOTE!

"LONDON - About 20,000 environmental activists protested in central London Saturday, demanding the government take urgent action against climate change. "

That's the first sentence in an article titled "UK Urged to act against Climate Change". 20,000 PEOPLE!! If those 20,000 people, who have brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, children and parents, friends and family likely numbering in the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS were PERSONALLY passionate about reducing emissions instead of asking the government to FORCE people to change, think of the impact. 20,000 people, instead of wearing silly masks, holding silly signs warning of grand catastrophes and skipping school or work might actually be able to DO something about emissions.

"...estimated the effects of climate change could eventually cost the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year"

and that's the last sentence. And just like alarmists currently count deaths from heat, floods and storms as if they didn't exist before global warming to show the horrific effects, they will count heating costs and blanket sales as "THE COST of GLOBAL WARMING".

At some point - I don't know when - science and the media will look back on this period and eat crow. I can see Matt Lauer already "20 years after scientists predicted catastrophes from global warming, they are now saying that we need to increase greenhouse gasses to stave off Global Cooling - could it be true?"

Voting Fraud is often alleged on both sides, but quite a bit more vociferously by Democrats accusing Republicans of voter "suppression" and "disenfranchisement". I'll take up a few of the things I find interesting in this conspiracy theory debate:

1. Voter ID Requirement

There has been a Republican push to require photo ID to vote in elections. Democrats claim this impinges on our "right to vote". First of all, I believe it's just as egregious to allow an invalid vote as it is to disallow valid votes. Either way, the count is thrown off by exactly one vote. Second, I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to be be able to provide proof of who they say they are. Especially since most legislation requires that FREE photo IDs be made available to those that can't afford it.

But why would Democrats - the ones that say that the BLUE states are smarter and wealthier than their RED state counterparts be worried about their voters being able to prove their legitimacy to vote? Is it because the truth is the largest Democratic voting bloc is DEPENDENT on government programs that the Dems like to provide and are the most likely to find this requirement too difficult to overcome? Is it that the Democratic voters, much more so than Republican voters, don't have or can't get photo IDs easily? Is it that the Democrats feel that they would lose fraudulant votes that they rely on? Which is it?

And BTW, it is not an infringement on our rights to require photo ID any more than it is that we have to get to a polling place to vote, wait in line or be literate enough to read the ballot. There are some responsibilities required for us to vote and if you can't take those on then it's frankly your own damn fault.

That said, requiring an ID probably won't help much. Why? Because those that wish to vote fraudulently will find other ways including absentee ballots. Overall, I support the initiative.

2. Touch Screen Voting

Being a technologist, I find the whole Democratic attack on this technology intellectually dishonest. The idea that touch screen voting is more prone to fraud is a complete canard likely due to the conclusion of democratic politicians and operatives that touch screen voting will somehow reduce their vote totals.

Just like in #1 above, it's clear that the Dems recognize that to win, they have to rely on their voting blocks of the poor and the elderly - both dependent to a large degree on Democrat wealth distribution programs - which just so happen to be two groups that are likely the least computer literate and may have the most trouble with ballots.

The truth of the matter is that computers have been in use in counting votes for over 30 years and will continue to be used extensively with or without touch-screen voting. The idea that touch screen voting is more open to fraud is ludicrous. It's like people that don't want to enter their credit card number on a web site to buy something online as if it's safer to hand someone your credit card in a retail store. What a joke.

And the idea that a paper receipt will help matters. How so? If you take it with you, what are going to do for a recount - bring it back? How do you know the computer counted it for the same person on the receipt?

There are those that say you can't do a recount. It's true that a recount for electronic voting is different, but it's no less accurate. Voting machines have other control mechanisms that make it just as safe. It eliminates hanging chads and invalid votes (overvoting). So unless DIEBOLD (or another manufacturer) truly built in something fraudulent, then I would be very confident that the voting would be much more accurate overall than it would with paper.

And the idea that DIEBOLD would do something like that is an idiotic conspiracy theory. There are too many people involved with too many people from both sides reviewing the accuracy. DEIBOLD is a a free-market company that sells lots of equipment to lots of companies based on it's reputation for accuracy and security. For them to risk their credibility on a few votes - that could easily be detected should it rise to the level of having a meaningful impact on an actual election - is simply ludicrous.