Gallup reported twice this year that pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers for the first time in the last decade. Pew confirmed the findings.

More surprisingly, a solid 60% of all Americans believe abortion should be prohibited in most or all circumstances, according to Gallup.

[Gallup ran an either/or question, then a three-part break-down, then a four-part break-down -- (a) total prohibition; (b) illegal in most circumstances; (c) mostly legal; or (d) total permission. 60% favored choice a or b.]

Surprising, because there are even more prohibitionists than self-described pro-lifers.

The reason abortion is legal is because it enjoys majority support on the Supreme Court -- not in the country.

But even this is problematic. In upholding Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Casey decision, three justices cited public support for legalized abortion to justify their decision. I use the word "cited" loosely, because there were no actual opinion polls cited -- just a bald assertion.

Now, however, the bald assertion has been convincingly refuted. This undermines the argument of one Casey swing justice -- Anthony Kennedy. If Mr. Kennedy were to study Gallup, and apply it to his own 1992 analysis, we could have a 5-4 ruling the other way, and then restrict abortion.

In that event . . . we would have much more responsible use of contraception, and thus fewer pregnancies which pose the need for abortion in the first place. In other words, it's not about unwanted kids vs. back alley abortions. Mostly, it's about creating a mild incentive to act responsibly. That would cover 98% of the problem.

Right now, we just butcher defenseless children by the hundred thousand. It's appalling.

I can't wait to see your list of Republicans who received $75,000 or more from men who have been charged with corrupting public officials.

Remember, we're not talking sweetheart consultancy deals and the like, where some sort of service is rendered. In the Rezko deal, Obama gave absolutely nothing in exchange for the $75,000.

On one hand, you have a real estate speculator (Rezko) who is allegedly bribing public officials to obtain special favors in Chicago, and known to be under investigation for it. On the other hand, you have a brand new senator who contacts Rezko, asks him to be a "lender" of assistance, and pockets $75,000 in free money from Rezko as part of the deal.

Are you translating here what this means? Do I need to be "even more frank with you," as the movie producer says in the Godfather? If Rezko hadn't been nabbed and jailed shortly after this deal was done -- but instead had called in his reciprocal favors -- it would have very likely sunk Obama on the spot.

He's a lucky man. But then again, we already knew that. And what if Obama didn't return the favor? Anything's possible, and all that jazz, but in Chicago -- I think we all know what was understood. You don't take that kind of dough from a man like Rezko and then not hold up your end of the bargain.

Oh, and by the way, they did the deal with Mrs. Rezko to make it a "step transaction" (one step removed from Tony). Again, if you don't understand what I'm saying -- and there is some evidence you don't -- I probably can't explain it any better.

I get all my information on-line, across the spectrum.

It was interesting, actually, watching the "big three" networks cover the conventions last year because I had not tuned in to them for years. Old dogs using old tricks. They hadn't changed a bit, and they haven't gotten any better.

I watch only snippets of television coverage, and if I'm traveling (which isn't often), will tune into the right wing noise machine on a.m. radio for entertainment.

You make good points in your messages.

Re: the crazy hard right wing, I know a few souls who fit that description.

There is, of course, also craziness on the left.

I generally did not have a problem with Congressional or media opposition to Bush. Iraq went badly, and his fortunes suffered accordingly.

It was, however, curious to see Dan Rather go down over Memogate -- and somewhat surprising to learn via the Thornburg Report that CBS News actively coordinated its media release strategy with the Kerry campaign.

What really drives me nuts is the occasional outbreak of convultions and hysteria from the media. I am from Indiana, and recall the outbreak over Dan Quayle at the Republican convention in 1988. Those events aren't commented on very often, but it was really horrible -- the made-up "controversy" over his National Guard service; "special reports" breaking into to non-prime time press coverage to discuss it. An NBC "news" story showing body bags from Vietnam and querying how many of them were filled with Quayle's replacements.

With Quayle, it was a media riot against the idea that the first 60's figure on a national ticket would be a conservative, not a Vietnam War protestor.

Needless to say, there was another media riot in 2008 -- with simmering embers to this day -- over a person who . . . gasp . . . actually lives her pro-life creed. This was deeply offensive to mistress toting news executives and their sorority chick staffs, all of whom, to one degree of another, have severe cognitive dissonance over their acceptance of fetal killing.

* * *

In other words, both sides have their crazies. Frankly, I feel more comfortable with mine. :)