It's a fairly safe bet that on the shores of Marathon, as they were watching the approaching Persian armies land, hoplites Antiochus and Madronius were complaining about why the Persians had archers and they didn't.

It's a fairly safe bet that their great grandchildren were complaining why they had to walk over half the known world when Alexander got to ride on a horse, or why the Persians (again) had better weaponry, including wheeled armored chariots.

It's a fairly safe bet that somewhere in the plains of France in around 56 BC Lucius and Quintus were complaining about their food, armor, footwear, and when they'd go home to see their families.

Imagine being sent into a battle without having adequately prepared for the terrain. (Normandy) Imagine being sent into battle without the proper landing craft. (Tarawa) Imagine being asked to fly unescorted bomber missions deep into the heart of enemy territory, attacking the most heavily defended sites. (Schweinfurt, Ploesti, et al) Imagine being asked to defend a vital city, in the dead of a brutal winter, without sufficient ammunition, improper clothing, and too few troops. (Bastogne)

Imagine being hastily rushed off to defend against an all out enemy assault, without enough troops, training, or supplies. (Pusan) Imagine being asked to chase the enemy back across the border, than when victory is at hand, stop, and fight a brutal retreat in a bitter winter. (Chosin)

Imagine being asked to fly dangerous missions over heavily defended enemy territory, without proper anti-missile defenses. Imagine being sent into battle knowing that the war was winnable, but the administration had no intention of winning. (Vietnam)

As long as there has been armies in the field, soldiers have complained. It is the nature of warfare. And nobody complains louder than the American GI.

He does so because he lives a free society, he's raised to beileve that questioning authority and challenging ideas is a right. But he also is willing to fight the hardest and longest to preserve that right. Victor Davis Hanson noted in The Soul of Battle:

Democracy, and its twin of market capitalism, alone can instantaneously create lethal armies out of civilians, equip them with horrific engines of war, imbue them with a near-messianic zeal within a set time and place to exterminate what they understand as evil, have them follow to their deaths the most ruthless of men, and then melt anonymously back into the culture that produced them. It is democracies, which in the right circumstances, can be imbued with the soul of battle, and thus turn the horror of killing to a higher purpose of saving lives and freeing the enslaved.

Today's anti-war crowd well remembers the last time they gathered. Falsely believing that they ended a war and destroyed a presidency, they set their pick axes and shovels to work again. And like John Henry who thought he could move a mountain, and ended up dying in the end, the anti-war crowd has fell upon this same fate.

Even the most ardent Iraqi war opponents must acknowledge the oddly paradoxical juxtaposition of unwavering support and admiration for the soldier coupled with complete condemnation for the very reason we admire them. Are not the two inextricably linked?

It is the very nature of a democracy to question authority. That a Secretary of Defense would even go to the troops and even field questions is something that only an American soldier would experience. However, the very same troops who question the combat equipment, are the very same re-enlisting in record numbers. They are motivated and willing to fight.

A single petty officer refuses to ship out. Three airborne soldiers hide out in Canada. Eighteen guardsmen refuse to go convoy. That these unrelated events are so newsworthy is a factor of their uniqueness. The President speaks in front of Marines in San Diego, to a unit hit hard by the toughest of fighting in Iraq, and is warmly greeted.

What has set this war apart from every other is its translucency. For the first time in history, the war is being played out on our television sets as it happens. That the citizen soldier questions his superiors is the strength of the system. That he follows their orders, is a direct result of his faith in the very same system. It is his right.

The overhaul of the nation's intel operations has sparked a heated debate again about immigration and national security. This is of course hardly a new debate, as dating back the the mid 19th century, the nativist Know-Nothings relied on similar sentiments. Sadly, in a display of seldom seen political ideological synergy, both the left and right have abdicated responsiblity and reason regarding immigration, but for very different reasons.

The right likes open borders to provide cheaper goods, cheaper labor, and higher profits. Free trade is a net good for the macro economy, regardless the inconvenience on the micro economic side. Protection has always meant higher prices, less choice, and stunted growth. Mercantilism might have worked for Colbert and France, but I don't know how long we could get away with colonization today.

The left likes open borders because they see an influx of potential voters, believe nativism to be racist, and the fact that it also undermines American culture is a bonus.

But there is a very strong liberal case against open borders.

Let's start with two pillars of liberal dogma: abortion and gay rights. The mass of immigration is not coming from developed, liberal democracies but from under-developed societies where religion, particularly Catholicism, has played a large role. And if incoming Catholic voters are not going to support abortion on demand and same-sex marriage, ask Europe about the rise of fundamentalist Muslim immigration. If abortion and gay rights are paramount, unfettered immigration will severely undermine that.

Another pillar of liberal ideology is social justice and remedying past wrongs through active government policy, most notably Affirmative Action. It is unreasonable to expect that a group who has never suffered past recriminations can expect legal favor. Yet that is just what will happen when new immigrant groups demand fixing of their "under-representation".

There are also strong economic arguments. Liberals have for years demanded a living wage, the campaign mantra being "good jobs at good wages". Nothing will undercut wages more than an oversupply of labor, a supply willing to work for wages far less than "livable". Artificially raising the minimum wage will only increase the black market for cheaper labor.

A secondary effect of the lowering of wages is the reduction of tax revenue. Liberals have long championed government programs to help the less fortunate and provide "necessary services" to the needy. In vital areas such as health care, liberals would rather the government run the system than private enterprise. However, an influx of immigration, primarily from poorer nations will overburden the system and increase costs. With less revenue, services will suffer.

Increased immigration will promote greater racial divisions. Los Angeles, for example, has seen escalating violence and tensions between the Latino and African-American communities. Communities long established will not take kindly to seeing their power, influence, and representation diluted by other interest groups or by a growing imbalance of power.

There is the already prevalent and potentially increasing human rights issue. Many immigrants work in conditions that fail to meet environmental and health and safety standards. Fear of the authorities in the home country will prevent them from notifying proper authorities here. The potential for even greater abuse, from not paying overtime, to withholding workman's compensation insurance will escalate.

Lastly, most of the people who come here don't' come from democratic societies, or come from societies where voting is viewed as a corrupt tool of the government. The potential for voter fraud is immense.

The liberal case against open borders is strong. Who among them will stand up and be counted?

The most recent political campaign highlighted the disparity between truth and wishful thinking regarding our "allies". Monsieur Kerrie' and his coterie thought US foreign policy should pass inspection first at the Quay D'Orsay.

Vlad Putin has found himself in deep trouble for election chicanery in the Ukraine. (And, to think, he didn't even have Kathleen Harris to help out.) He has spent the last several years moving to increase Moscow's power and authority and seeks to return Russia to a superpower. His opposition to the Iraqi war was more than just a policy difference. It seems that:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

As details of the UN oil-for-food scandal become more public, it is apparent that the French were deeply involved.

The CIA’s Iraq Survey Group released a report in September that, in part, suggested that French businessmen and politicians with close ties to French President Jacques Chirac may have received bribes from Saddam. It also said that French companies may have sold weapons to Iraq on the eve of the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

As the two former (or in the case of the French, very former) world powers find themselves coming under increased scrutiny, expect a Franco-Russian alliance in the near future.

Russia has historically looked westward. Peter created alliances with France, went to war with Sweden to open up a port, and imposed western ways on his people. Catherine the Great maintained friendly relations with both Prussia and France.

Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 cut any Franco-Russia ties, and the Crimean War saw France seeking to limit Russian Mediterranean influence. But by the late 19th century, France and Russia faced a new threat, this time from Prussia. They reached a military understanding in 1891, and by 1895, the Dual Alliance was publicly declared. It was this alliance forced their hands in 1914 with conflict between Serbia and Austria.

Today, both countries sit on a UN Security Council that is becoming incresaingly irrelevant. Their power far exceeds their abilities. They depend on foreign capital to fuel their economies, and they have a growing and dangerous Islamic population. They have a history and a present. They will soon have an alliance. Just a prediction.

There is actually something Bud Selig can do to begin to restore some sense of dignity and respectibility to baseball. He must do two things:

1) Ban Barry Bonds, and anyone else who has tested positive for steroids or admitted to using them. Bart Giamatti banned Pete Rose, Selig can do the same to Bonds.

2) He must ease all the statistics from Bonds, Giambi, et al. You can't take away thier money or thier fame, but you can take away thier numbers. They cease to be a part of baseball. Pete Rose's misdeeds, however bad, were not committed during his playing days. Every single hit he ever got was legitimate yet he remains uninducted into the Hall of Fame. Bonds home runs are illegitimate and deserves a place of ignomy, not above Ruth and Aaron.

This will be a great place to start. It will not heal all the wounds, nor end the problems. But it sends a powerful message. Bonds can have his millions, but he can't have any records. It would be as if he never played the game. One day, there will be a generation of boys that visits Cooperstown and sees no mention of his name. He will be relegated to a sidebar story in the encyclopedia of baseball. Perhaps not even that.

Rousseau's explained in his Social Contract that the government govern with the consent of the governed. That when government becomes injurious to the rights of man, then they have violated the contract and it is null and void. But there is more to it than that. There is responsibility on the citizen as well.

"the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others."

Is this about the Ukraine? About the Ohio vote? No. It is about Major League Baseball and steroids. The players, and the league, have broken the contract with each other and with the fans.

Scholar Jacques Barzun said "Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball...". Author Gerald Early wrote "I think there are only three things America will be known for 2, 000 years from now when they study this civilization: the Constitution, jazz music and baseball."

There was at one time, hardly a kid growing up in America who didn't pick up a broomtick and a rock, then begin the following monologue:

"Bases loaded, two out, bottom of the ninth, World Series, game seven. And here's the pitch".

The rock is tossed in the air. The broomstick (bat) is swung, contact is made.

"Home Run!!! (Favorite team) wins the World Series!!!"

I wonder if this even happens any more.

I think that one of baseball's greatest attractions is that the players look like us. Football players are larger than life. They are not only just physically larger, they are a unique kind of athlete. Football is so physically demanding and violent a game, even players of normal dimensions do things that the rest of us only marvel at.

Basketball players stand literally head and shoulders above the rest of us. Their athleticism is a gift few of us could even dream of having.

Baseball players aren't noted as unusaully gifted athletes. They don't always appear to be the most physically fit either. Of all the pro sports, baseball is the one we most insentify with. it is also the one sport where a team from 30 years ago cold not only compete, but beat, modern teams.

Could the great Packer teams of Lombardi won today with offensive lineman averaging 250 pounds? No doubt Bart Starr, Jim Taylor, or Ray Nitschke could still play today. Perhaps the 1980's Lakers or Celtics could win today because they played much better basketball.

But baseball is different. The Reds of the 1970's would still win today. Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Pete Rose, Nolan Ryan, and all the dominant players from years ago would be even bigger stars today. Fans don't argue whether a player from the past could play today, rather they argue whether today's players could play back then.

Baseball has always had that great egalitarian quality that Americans love. The rules have hardly changed in a century, and records could last for decades.

Baseball began breaking its contract years ago when it cancelled the world series. Free agency has eroded fans faith that their team could win. Small market teams have no chance to compete. Could anything have been more demoralizing to the game than Wayne Huezinga dismantling the Marlins after they win a world series to save a few bucks? And the league stands by and does nothing.

The owners get caught being guilty of collusion, not once but twice, then respond by raising ticket prices. Then the league further damaged the contract when it refused to get serious with substance abuse. Baseball's steroid problem has been around for several years and the league has not addressed it. Now, the most sacred of baseball records fall to chemically enhanced athletes, and we're supposed to cheer?

What is most tragic about the steroid scandal is that one of America's most treasured possessions, baseball, has been permanently tarnished. Baseball was the game anyone could play, the game everyone could attend. Was there any tradition more American than a father taking his family to a baseball game?

There was a contract between the players and the league, that they would not do anything to tarnish the game. We still revile at the Chicago "Black" Sox for throwing a world series. That was in 1919. Bet on baseball and you're out. Cut the baseball or use an illegal substance and you're out. Cork a bat and you're out. Are steroids any different?

And the league had a contract with the fans too. Each successive season, each successive generation carried on the traditions and grandeur of the game. The owners put one of their own in as commissioner. Somewhere Judge Landis is crying.

It's no wonder that in 2002, baseball attendance was down 6.1 percent. And it isn't getting nay better. Baseball broke the contract with the fans.