I figured out the other night exactly when the war on terror will end. I went to the grocery store after the kids were asleep to pick up a few things, including band aids and Advil. I was standing in the apothecary aisle for 10 minutes trying to decipher the myriad different types of band aids: clear, plastic, fabric, stretch/flex, waterproof, cartoon characters, etc. I almost felt like Robin Williams' character in Moscow on the Hudson. I just wanted some $%&*#! band aids. Then on to the advil.

There's gel caps, coated caplets, coated gel caps, regular, maximum strength, then there's the generic brand that has the same ingredients. There's 100mg or 200mg, small bottles and large. Are we gonna need the large bottle? Maximum strength?

And about that time it hit me, since shopping without the kids is much easier. Most of the time it involves telling them to stay near you, put things down, stop screaming, etc. When there are those kind of choices, then terrorism will have no appeal. And those kind of choices only come in a free society.

I wondered how many grocery stores are in Iraq, the big chain store variety. I wonder if Iraqis have ever had to spend 10 minutes trying to figure out what band aids to buy. And no matter how well connected you are in those countries ruled by tyrants, they don't produce economies of any appreciable size, and you haven't consumer choice, regardless.

When will we have won the war on terror? Simple. When American ad companies begin hiring Arab speaking marketing majors. When Band Aid and Advil need to be marketed in the middle east. When marketers try to convince the Arab mother that their product will make her dinner preparation easier. When they shop and see 8 brands of coca-cola, and buy the one on sale. When they are harangued to recycle the cans. When they get a Ralphs' club card.

When they have free societies, market economies, and all the assocaited decisions. Because at that point, killing the infidel won't be nearly as important as figuring out if the kids want fish sticks or chicken nuggets for dinner.

David Brooks writes that today, many in the worlds are asking Why Not Here? in response to events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestinian terrirtories, Ukraine, formerly Eastern Europe, and so on.

The question is being asked now in Lebanon. Walid Jumblatt made his much circulated observation to David Ignatius of The Washington Post: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world."

So now we have mass demonstrations on the streets of Beirut. A tent city is rising up near the crater where Rafik Hariri was killed, and the inhabitants are refusing to leave until Syria withdraws. The crowds grow in the evenings; bathroom facilities are provided by a nearby Dunkin' Donuts and a Virgin Megastore.

The head of the Syrian Press Syndicate told The Times on Thursday: "There's a new world out there and a new reality. You can no longer have business as usual."

In just 4 short years, the world has seen protests and elections from the Hundu Kush to the Levant. People aren't meeting in coffee houses to discuss bombs, but the bombers, and how to rid their lands of the dispicable parasites. It is a slow process, laborious, and easily side-tracked. What happens in Baghdad, becomes reborn in Beirut. The flock, or is it a gaggle, of the defeatists, naysayers, critics, and the hopeless nostalgics, all chirp in unison at every stumble, Then they find themselves heading south in the summer of success. Elections were nice, but...

As Claus Christian Malzahn reminded us in Der Spiegel online this week, German politicians ridiculed Ronald Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech in 1987. They "couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."

But if there is one soft-power gift America does possess, it is this tendency to imagine new worlds. As Malzahn goes on to note, "In a country of immigrants like the United States, one actually pushes for change. ... We Europeans always want to have the world from yesterday, whereas the Americans strive for the world of tomorrow."

Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an important essay for this page a few weeks ago, arguing that American diplomacy is often most effective when it pursues not an incrementalist but a "maximalist" agenda, leaping over allies and making the crude, bold, vantage-shifting proposal - like pushing for the reunification of Germany when most everyone else was trying to preserve the so-called stability of the Warsaw Pact.

As Sestanovich notes, and as we've seen in spades over the past two years in Iraq, this rashness - this tendency to leap before we look - has its downside. Things don't come out wonderfully just because some fine person asks, Why not here?

But this is clearly the question the United States is destined to provoke. For the final thing that we've learned from the papers this week is how thoroughly the Bush agenda is dominating the globe. When Bush meets with Putin, democratization is the center of discussion. When politicians gather in Ramallah, democratization is a central theme. When there's an atrocity in Beirut, the possibility of freedom leaps to people's minds.

Not all weeks will be as happy as this one. Despite the suicide bombings in Israel and Iraq, the thought contagion is spreading. Why not here?

Imagine for a moment a world with a cautious Bush, who decided not to provoke, not to push. While we are dominating the world stage, keep in mind who the adversaries are, those who stand to lose the most, the tyrant and the kleptocrat, and the corrupt old guard that supports and sustains them. They won't help out of fear they'll be next. And indeed they shall.

Those that the support the president? They have purple dyed fingers or are camped in tents in Lebanon. They are the young girl in Afghanistan that's going to school and getting an education. They are the Ukrainian on the cell phone. And they are just the beginning. Their numbers are growing. You think they're upset the Bush agenda is dominating the world stage right now?

Ralph Peter's column a few days ago called (google cache) Saving the US Air Force is a great article the details many of the problems that the Air Force has had, it's inability to fight an effective part in the WOT, and necessary reforms. However, I have just a few concerns.

Rumsfeld might have made some errors, but he is fighting intransigence to change from the Army, taking on a second branch might be impossible. However, there are few other things to consider.

Peters is an Army guy, an infantryman. Of course he's going to want the best transport and ground support possible. And of course, the cold war is over, and a pure interceptor is unecessary. Or is it?

Our military has always been preoccupied fighting the last war. Anyone rememebr the "battleship navy"? And even when fighting the current war, looking beyond is hard to do. Did we build smaller, more mobile armor after Vietnam? No, we got the M1 Abrams, which proved itself in Iraq, Round 1. But it hasn't been all that helpful in the small-scale operations post-invasion this time.

We're currently engaged with global terrorism, and the military needs there are unique. In many theatres, we're not even going to fight militarily, at least not in the traditional sense. Spec forces and covert ops, working with the locals, teaching people how to fill out a ballot, those will in the long run, win the war far more than invading everyone.

Which leads to the next problem. We don't a very large military, as far as ground troops are concerned, and much of that numerical disparity is made up in high-tech weaponry. However, we must take a longer view. We haven't really the abilitiy to fight a army the size of China's. Would we? Who knows. But the possibility remains. What about a resurgent Russia? Or India?

The one thing that gives us superiority is the air force, even the fighters like the F/A 22. Japan and Germany both took a single generation to become world military powers, in fact Germany actually did it twice. What is to say China couldn't do the same. The are becoming a technological hub, a center of R&D that will within a generation rival SIlicon Valley. Do we think they won't build their own planes?

It is our overwhelming technological superiority, our undeniaible abiility to control the air and sea, which allows us control of the ground. We certainly need to revamp our air force, address current needs, and stop fighting the cold war. But, if we fail to address the potential of a looming Chinese army, without an air force that can make up for our lack of numbers, that will be an error of truly monumental consequences.

If I could clone one person, it would be Mark Steyn, as I can never get enough of his insight and wit. A few days ago he wrote Atlanticist small talk is all that's left, observing US-Euro relations

But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.

Money can't buy better comedy, or insight. Austin Bay however disagrees as he concludes

The Iraqi election smacked Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder. The Chirac-Schroeder axis smells defeat and their “western front against America” is folding. The Iraqi people’s Jan 30 electoral show of force sealed Chirac’s defeat. Even in the benighted Bastilles of Paris and Berlin, those ink-stained indicators of democracy in the line of fire – purple fingers – point the way to the future.Besides, Chirac and Schroeder’s “Greater Europe” is simply too divided,

I have to agree with both, because I read the same things somewhere before. On Sept. 6, Europe doesn't matter anymore

Just ask this simple question. On what issues today is Europe out front on, and if so, what influence do they wield? On the Iranian nuclear threat, they have exerted diplomatic pressure, only to be told by the mullahs that Iran will proceed with her nuclear program. Have they any fear of Europe? No.

Where today is Europe shaping events, rather than being shaped by them? Where today is Europe taking the lead, rather then being led? Where today does Europe have influence outside of her geographic and political borders?

Europe has quietly hidden its problems for far too long. A growing underclass of Muslims, a fractious ethnic mix in the Balkans, Eastern Germany, and Central Europe, declining populations, increasing welfare largesse, growing resentment by Poles, Czechs, et al, at Franco-German obstruction and hegemony, and Russia under new/old leadership threaten to destroy the American enforced Pax Europa. Is not the Franco-German alliance more isolated than the Anglo-British-Eastern European alliance?

The same nations that oppose us today in Iraq were wrong on the Nazis in the 30's and wrong on the Soviets in the 80's. Why then should we assume that today they're right on jihadism?

Other than the Royal Navy, what European ships patrol the world's oceans? How many divisions has Europe to spare? Europe's only strength lie in her position at the UN, a corrupt institution that supports tyrants and terrorists and passes resolutions without ability or desire to enforce them. (Case in point: Darfur.)

Europe rests easy in the false hope it can criticize, even oppose, the one nation that insures the European peace is not broken and 6 centuries of warfare resumed. Nothing exemplified European decline than more than Kosovo? While Europe debated and discussed, Serbian thugs went on killing sprees, safe in the knowledge that NATO was an empty shell. It took a US president, acting alone and without authorization from the UN, to end the slaughter.

Mark Steyn concurred:

America and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the noisier Continental mosques.

As for Mr. Bay, Chirac has been positing himself the next Napoleon:

Surely Jacques Chirac sees the irony in this one. He is threatening England with expulsion from the European Union if Britain votes against the constitution. Chirac is of course resisting pressure to hold a similar vote in France. Apparently, plebiscites are "risky" and our good friend Chirac is not "opposed to using methods of friendly persuasion with countries that are refusing the constitution".

So another French leader is threatening Britain with being kept out of Europe. Chirac says, "I do not imagine that England could find itself in the situation of having to leave Europe." And exactly how would she have to leave Europe? Since she can't physically moved, then the only possibility is that she is "locked out" of European markets. And this is exactly what Napoleon tried to do with the Continental system. At the same time, Chirac is delaying the entry of Turkey into the EU, saying that it will happen, but in 10 to 15 years.

So, what is France's motivation? Historically, France has always sought to be the hegemonic power in Europe. After the decline in Spanish supremacy, France became the continental power under a cooperation between the Church and State, dating back to Richelieu and Louis XIII. France continued to battle England and later Prussia for dominance even after their defeat at the Sedan in 1871. And this desire wasn't squelched even after the debacle of WW1, as exemplified at Versailles.

Even in the 20th century, whether leaving NATO or trying to head the EU, France is simply trying to reassert herself at the head of a unified Europe. And it is understandable that many Britons, as well as others in Europe are hesitant.

The sad, and yes it is sad, fact remains that Euroland no longer matters, at least not militarily. Or even economically for that matter. We can sing odes to old alliances, raise toasts and swig our beers to past victories, and like the drunks at the end of the night, time to go home.

France's duplicity has finally caught up with her. She can't play the pass and don't pass lines simultaneously, roll the dice, and it's win-win baby. She can't control the events if she can't control events. What hath she a military for anyways? Playing dress up perhaps, and recreating the War of Devolution? Her appeasement of tyrants, has far more to do with her desire to hide her inabilities than her desire to display a show of force. The locus of power is elsewhere.

Those who derided the president for shunning our "allies", forgot, or conveniently chose to ignore, that our allies had nothing to give. They hadn't the money or the troops. And what troops would they have had to give?

On July 13, the Dutch blue-helmet battalion handed over to the Serb invaders 300 Bosnian Muslims who had sought safety within the U.N. compound.

French peacekeepers opened fire on a crowd of tens of thousands supporters of Ivorian government.

Unfortunately, the president will have to play make-believe for a few more years, making believe publicly at least, that our old "friends" still are. But in a "what have you done for me lately" situation, the answer is nil. They won't becasue they can't. We've moved on, they still cling to the past.

The locus of power is changing, they know it, we know it, and best of all, they know we know. (And we know, they know we know. Follow that one.) Thanks Mark and Austin.

Does she look presidential or what?

Pat Buchanan takes another swing at Bush and the neo-cons in The Anti-Conservatives and again pulls out the usual cliches and code-words, but misses badly.

That George W. Bush would seek to embed the Iraq War in the higher cause of global democracy was to be expected. That is the way of wartime presidents.

Yes, Lincolc and Wilson "alchemized" the struggles of their day, but so too did FDR and every president that followed when discussing the Soviets. Pat's hero, Ronald Reagan made ending the Soviet Union, the "evil empire", his foreign policy goal. The famous, "We win, they lose" proposition. But, following Pat's logic, isn't it safe to say that Reagan "alchemized" the threat as well. Certainly we were not in immediate danger if they could collapse so quickly, and later found that half their nuclear arsenal was rusted and useless.

The president now plans to hector and badger foreign leaders on the progress each is making toward attaining U.S. standards of democracy. “We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and nation—the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.” This is a formula for “Bring-it-on!” collisions with every autocratic regime on earth, including virtually every African and Arab ruler, all the “outposts of tyranny” named by Secretary Rice, most of the nations of Central Asia, China, and Russia. This is a prescription for endless war. Yet as Madison warned, “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Nice quote of Madison's. Wasn't he the same president who used a flimsy excuse, impressment, to get a nation into war against a much stronger adversary, one who was thankfully pre-occupied by a little French general.

Pat seems to have forgotten history. We made the mistake of allowing an repressive regime to invade and control half of Europe following WW2, and paid the price for that costly error to the tune of trillions of dollars and fifty years of "cold war". Perhaps, Bush just figures that we might get a second chance to be so lucky, that armageddon is not going to ve stopped next time by a few letters to the Kremlin.

In his inaugural address, Mr. Bush calls 9/11 the day “when freedom came under attack.” This is sophomoric. Osama did not send fanatics to ram planes into the World Trade Center because he hates the Bill of Rights. He sent the terrorists here because he hates our presence and policies in the Middle East. He did it for the same reason FLN rebels blew up cafes in Paris and Hamas suicide bombers blow up pizza parlors in Jerusalem.
...
The 9/11 killers were over here because we are over there. We were not attacked because of who we are but because of what we do. It is not our principles they hate. It is our policies. U.S. intervention in the Middle East was the cause of the 9/11 terror. Bush believes it is the cure. Has he learned nothing from Iraq?

Now who's being sophomoric. I thought the lunatic blame America first theories were the domain of the left.

Among those who have converted President Bush to the notion that without Arab democracy there can be no Mideast peace is Natan Sharansky,
...
Urging Bush not to press Israel into making peace with the Palestinians until Palestine embraces democracy is a clever way to postpone peace indefinitely and let Israel expand its settlements and consolidate its hold over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That may be in Israel’s interest. But it is not in America’s interest. Sharansky’s idealism just happens to coincide with Sharon’s agenda. Can President Bush not see this?

Ah, the Jews and Likudniks. Typical fare from our old friend. See, Pat doesn't have to come out and directly say it, just mention neo-cons and Sharon, wink wink, nudge nudge, you get the "meaning". What's next, a chalice of blood?

Arafat was a terrorist and the main impediment to peace. Hardly a neo-con, Dennis Ross wrote about this extensively, that the main barier to peace was Arafat. Perhaps Bush was eschewing the Realpolitik and excercising a little of that "vision thing". Blowing up buses with women and children should never be accorded legitimacy. Unless the victims are...

America has old friendships and important interests in the Middle East

That funded extremism for years...

In 1991, Algerians were given a democratic vote—and elected an Islamist regime.

But Afganistan and Iraq both elected a wide range of candidates, mostly desiring a secular path. What's the point.

Unlike Eastern Europe, where communism was imposed on Christian countries with traditions of self-rule,

"Traditions of self-rule"? Huh? I've heard of rewriting history, but it was either the Ottomans, Hapsburgs, Romanovs, not Jefferson.

Given that the neocons were wrong on every count about Iraq

As for the WMD's, so too was the world. Saddam was a main supporter of terrorism (but Palestinian bombers don't count, right Pat), and it is looking more and more like it isthe critics were wrong on Iraq. Who's kowtowing to whom in Euro-ville?

America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy,” said John Quincy Adams,

Tripoli, Chapultapec, Manila, San Salvador, Tokyo Bay, Havana, etc. We have had an internationalist foreign policy often times, when it suited the US interests. The Spanish-American war was far more unpopular by far than either Vietnam or Iraq.

Under the tutelage of Jacobins who call themselves idealists, Bush has repudiated this wise core doctrine of U.S. foreign policy to embrace Wilsonian interventionism in the internal affairs of every autocratic regime on earth. We are going to democratize the world and abolish tyranny.

The Jacobins attacked all vestiges of religion, were a bunch of terrorist thugs who radicalized the constituion, and waged class war on the entire French populous.

Pat longs for the days of the cold war, the enemy we know, the "commie sympathizers" in university halls. We face a new threat, one that a policy of containment is simpy a delayed death sentence. Pat rolls out the tired old bromides of "the Jews", mixes in a little conspiracy theory, and stirs with some selective history. Nice work, if you can find it.

We've been down the road before, hoping that "alliances" will create safety, balance of power will deter our enemies. 9/11 didn't happen because of our actions in the middle east, they happened because a virulent strain of ideology has taken hold, has been fostered by petrol-thugaocracies, and ignored then kindled by an appeasing west that forgot Munich. The islamicist movement was motivated by the secular leaders, Nasser, Hussein (Jordan), et al., long before the US took an active role in the middle east. Our support of them, the Sadats, King Huseeins, Mubaraks, King Fauds, etc. engenders us as much hatred as the "zionists" do. Pat knows this.

Pat also knows that bargaining with these people is futile, that one day they will get a nuclear bomb, and they will use it. Their fatalist, nihilistic view of the world precludes their appreciation of the consequences of their actions. They simply don't care. They await their 72 virgins or their time in hell, they simply don't care.

If we left the middle east tomorrow, pulled all our troops out, stop all financial assistance, they'd still hate us. No mea culpa will suffice. They forsee a day when the Sharia will rule all of the continents, and they will bide their time. Remember, this is a guy who has questioned our involvement in World War 2.

With the recent ruckus over racism, I want to consider other forms of racism. Is it just the overt, in-your-face kind? Of course. Is it the less overt and more subtle, passing over for jobs, housing, even taxi rides? Of course. Is it the comment under someone's breath from a disgruntled customer or passenger on a bus? Of course. However, often it is too narrowly defined, too targeted. Let's examine some other obvious, and not so obvious racism and be as equally condemning.

From Julian Bond, president of the NAACP:

Of Republicans he's said:

“the white people’s party”

"The Republican Party appeals to the dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality,”

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the confederate swastika flying side by side. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics .And now, they want to write bigotry back into the constitution."

He's called Black Republicans "ventriloquist dummies…[who] speak in their puppet master’s voice…".

And of course this is just one example of racism that is not a major news story. Mr. Bond is still president of the NAACP long after these remarks, and even was successful in forcing out Kweisi Mfume who denounced those comments.
Other overlooked and ignored items:

Al Sharpton has had a long history of racial incidents, none of which stopped him from participating in the democratic presidential debates.

Al Gore aide and campaign advisor Donna Brazile referred to Republicans as "the white boys party".

California State Senator Diane Watson said of Ward Connerly, "He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

Willie Brown, when speaker of the California Assembly, described a successful legislative as "We beat those old white boys fair and square."

Nothing beats West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, a former klansman, the only senator who voted against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, who used the n-word in a public interview, leading the charge against Condi Rice.

Sometimes it's words, sometimes deeds. Sometimes racism can be in doing nothing at all. Take Africa for instance:

Congo. Sudan. Burundi. Sierra Leone. Rwanda

What all these places have in common is they were, many still are, scenes of genocide on a scale not seen since at least Pol Pot, and maybe even closer to Nazi Germany. And they all have something else in common. Those nations that promised of genocide, "never again" seem to be busier debating the meaning of genocide than doing anything about it. The press, who will follow any story even if false (Tawana Brawley) are horribly silent on these atrocities. Why? I guess one could claim racism. Where is the NAACP to demand action? I'd certainly support US efforts, military or otherwise, to stop these genocides.

What is probably the vilest form of racism? Is it the moron with three teeth and long hair who calls someone the n-word? Though dispicable, no. President Bush has addressed what he calls the "soft bigotry of low expectations". I think there is far worse brand of racism, the tolerance, nay approval, of behaviors, language, conduct, and attitudes that permeate sectors of the black community with full promotion and glorification by the the class Thomas Sowell calls the self-anointed.

It took Nixon to go to China, Clinton to address welfare reform, and Bill Cosby, comedic genius, civil rights activist and philanthropist to address this. After speaking at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, he drew sharp criticism for some of his comments:

In our own neighborhood, we have men in prison. No longer is a person embarrassed because they’re pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child.
...
50 percent drop out rate, I’m telling you, and people in jail, and women having children by five, six different men.
...
We are not parenting. Ladies and gentlemen, listen to these people, they are showing you what’s wrong. People putting their clothes on backwards. Isn’t that a sign of something going on wrong?
...
Are you not paying attention, people with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn’t that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up. Isn’t it a sign of something when she’s got her dress all the way up to the crack…and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from?. We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans, they don’t know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail.
...
Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person’s problem. We’ve got to take the neighborhood back (clapping). We’ve got to go in there. Just forget telling your child to go to the Peace Corps. It’s right around the corner. (laughter) It’s standing on the corner. It can’t speak English. It doesn’t want to speak English. I can’t even talk the way these people talk. “Why you ain’t where you is go, ra,” I don’t know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk (laughter). Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it’s important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can’t land a plane with “why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they’re moving ahead on this. Well, they know they’re not, they’re just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you’re just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out.

The perniciousness of what Cosby describes, and the failure to recognize, the refusal to accept, the denial of the obvious, all are forms of an institutionalized racism that has had a far more deleterious impact on our youth. It is inconceivable that what Bill Cosby decribes could have happened in a vacuum. He says "We cannot blame white people." Oh yes you can. Who were in positions to stand up and speak? Who were the ones championing this behavior as "culture"?

Worst of all, it was a purely selfish motive, fear of being branded a racist that shut off all debate. No one dared question, when education was ridiculed. No one dared to criticize when rap music's misogynist, violent, anti-social, thug glorifying, drug and alcohol induced stupor promoting lyrics became anthemic.

But it doesn't stop there, as these attitudes leech into society, and the stereotype becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A shining example of this is the 2003 hit movie Bringing Down the House. Some notable high low points:
After being thrown out, Queen Latifah breaks into the house. No scene is necessary, she of course would just know how.

After whe breaks in, the first thing she does is throw a "house party" replete with booze, drugs, scantily clad women. Of course all the party-goers were black.

She has absolutely no respect for Steve Martin's house or his property.

And that is about 30 minutes into the movie. Sadly, the movie exploits every racial stereotype to produce humor. Aren't we a little beyond that now. I really never thought racism could be funny.

Racism does exist in many forms, we are just to unwilling to address all of it. Hate speech is hate speech, while ignoring genocides in Africa, "tolerating" self-destructive behaviors at home, and stereotype as humor movies are all thier own vile forms of racism. And sadly, they are ultimately more dangerous than the overt, in-your-face verbiage that will always draw peoples' attention. And I deplore all of it.

President Bush said Tuesday it is "simply ridiculous" to assume the US and allies have plans to attck Iran. According to FoxNews, Bush used his bluntest language yet to give assurance to Iran's leaders.

No, he's not talking to the Iranian government, he's speaking to the Iranian people. Message is this: See Iraq. Now the ball's in your court.

By stressing that we won't attack, he is reassuring the Iranian people that we won't attack. Why is this so important? Any US action in Iran would have very negative results and would undermine the 100,000 bloggers, the democratic forces, and the reformers that the will topple that regime. Bush is well aware that Iranians are pro-American and unlike Iraq in 2003, time is actually on our side. The more Iran (the leadership) is ostracized, the more influence the reformers will have.

Bush is far smarter than his opponents give him credit for. It must also be concluded that his opponents are far less intelligent and informed than they give themselves credit for. So far, Bush is on a winning streak of sorts. Is it purely coincidence, luck, or fate? Or maybe, just maybe, Bush actually knows what he's doing, and has actually thought this out?

Iraq was not ready to revolt and overthrow Saddam. Iran is. Surely Bush and his team are well aware of this. That the press is so clueless makes me wonder just how stupid they really are?

Pro baseball teams are losing money, pro hockey is not even playing this season, pro basketball doesn't even have a major television deal, while pro football is awash in revenues and at the height of popularity. So, the league must be run by marketing and personell geniuses? Umm, no.

The debate about injuries and astroturf was long since over. Try as they might to deny it, far more injuries occurred on astroturf than natural grass. Over time, teams either tore up the turf and replaced it with grass(Soldier Field, Meadowlands) or switched to the ProTurf (very real look and feel, like playing on grass), like in Baltimore and many other places. However, it took a long time to arrive at this point.

St. Louis is now the last team in the league with astroturf. Why is this at all important? It highlihgts a simple point, one which can be applied to many areas.

The last team to "switch" was Indianapolis:

It wasn’t so long ago that the turf in St. Louis and Indianapolis was seen as an advantage to the home team. Those teams were able to use their superior speed to turn games into glorified track meets. But when multi-millionaires start spraining knees, twisting ankles and tearing anterior cruciate ligaments, then track meets don’t seem quite so appealing.

Indianapolis is finally taking the steps toward correcting the problem. When play in the 2005 season begins, the Colts will tear out the AstroTurf surface they play on now to a more user-friendly surface along the lines of the FieldTurf that is now used in many stadiums across the NFL. Other possibilities for the playing surface are AstroPlay and Sportexe Momentum.

The move was unanimously approved Monday, according to a report in the Indianapolis Star. The Capital Improvement Board, which runs the RCA Dome, allotted $800,000 for the new surface and up to $900,000 for a hard top that would cover the turf when other events are held at the Dome.

This is a league where team payrolls average about 80-90 million dollars per year, and the star players make 5-10 million of that. St. Louis had to watch "running backs Steven Jackson and Marshall Faulk and numerous offensive linemen struggle with injuries related to the surface." Faulk happens to be one the premier backs in the league.

For about 2-3% of one years payroll, they can dramatically reduce the injuries. More than that, the cost is a one time expense, as the turf will last several years, making the cost overall less than 1 percent annually of payroll.

This is being pennywise and extremely pound foolish. Even many high schools are switching, as the ProTurf pays for itself over time by eliminating irrigation costs.

This illustrates the kind of short term thinking that permeates so many sectors of society. Ironically, it is also at the heart of the social security reform debate. There is no doubt long term that social security cannot, will not be sustainable. Do we bear the cost up front, now, or do we wait.

For the NFL, it is clear:

NFL rules stipulate that St. Louis must adjust facilities within 10 seasons if they are not up to the league’s standards. If the turf at the Edward Jones Dome doesn’t meet those requirements, the league could step in and demand the changes.

For the taxpayer today, and the tax payer tomorrow, it isn't.

During the campaign John Kerry [the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge] claimed he was the best one to "reach out to our traditional allies...".

Now it seems that the the bandwgon is picking up lots of stragglers. Fortunately, it has plenty of seats. What is happening?(Hat tip: BelmontClub)

Canada is sending troops to train Iraqis.

The EU is opening a Baghdad training office, hails unity on Iraq.

Bush and Chirac united on Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.

Chirac is making nice with President Bush.

Now, on his upcoming trip to Europe,Bush boosts trans-Atlantic partnerships. What will be widely reported as a "fence-mending" mission will in fact be an opportunity for the wayward sons to come home, as it were. Expect many more committments of assistance, technical, material, poltical, financial, even military, to Iraq. Bush will give the Euros the photo opportunies and the chance to save face, but the message will be clear.

They are moving towards our position. They know we were right on Iraq, the Middle East (i.e. Arafat), and that succes or failure there will redound throughout Europe. And the simple fact is this: they need us far more than we need them. And they have as many, if not more, irons in the fire.

They have more to fear from a nuclear Iran. They have more to fear froma resurgent Russia. They have more to fear from a large Muslim underclass. They have more to fear from a turbulent Middle East. They understand that their security is not going to be in treaties, alliances, and acronyms. It is going to come in the form of the US military.

Bush reminded them that with them or without, we can and will proceed with our foreign policy. What has tipped the scales is that we are negotiating from a position of strength and overwhelming success. Elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestinian terrortories, and the Ukraine, were no flukes. More progress has been made in the Middle East in the last 6 months than the prior decade. We are on the right side of history.

The left loved to claim that the recalcitrance on the part of our "allies" was seen as proof Bush was wrong. Will they now say that the committments and agreements are proof that he was right? I won't be holding my breath.

Lead and they will follow. Let the press report it as they please, because the truth will be crystal clear. The Euros are jumping on the bandwagon. It has plenty of seats.

Go into any classroom in America. The boys are different than the girls. In pre-school, they separate themselves. They play different games. They do this before they have a chance to be "conformed" if you will to the roles society "imposes" in them. They are different in high school as well. Sure, some cross over, some boys and girl exhibit traits common to the other. Some girls are more outgoing, demonstrative, forceful. Some boys are demur, cautious, etc. And it has nothing to do with their sexuality.

The best efforts of the left cannot rewrite the laws of nature. Women, most anyways, will have an innate desire to have children, even at the expense of everything else. I rather suspect there is some natural, subconcious drive, a survivalist mentality that was ingrained in the female gene. And I rather suspect that the aggressiveness in men is also a survival tool, ancient hunting being not for the faint of heart.

Only the most silly, ignorant, or intelectually dishonest peopole can truly argue that gender is a construct. The vast majority of special education students are males. The vast majority of people of death row are males. The vast majority of auto mechanics are males. Is there a correlation? I haven't any idea, except that patterns must indicate something.

The majority of homosexuals are males, and for them, it is a polar world. They are either gay or straight, whereas, women experience varying degrees. Lesbianism is not always permanent, where being gay is for males. Differences between the sexes? Yes. Is that a societal construct? No.

Studies are going on into the homosexual brain, and guess what, there are differences. I imagine most homosexuals are born that way. I find it hard to conceive a scenario, excluding hedonism, where someone would "choose" to be gay. And even there, that would tend to be more a bisexual lifestyle, nihilism's apogee.

Don't biologists teach that genetic diversity is a necessity for a species' survival? Aren't we supposedly one of the most complex creatures, with distinct genetic differences? Are we to honestly accept the premise that boys and girls, so different physically, have identical brains?

Larry Summers made a major mistake in basically saying what everyone knows, that there are intrinisc differences between boys and girls. Only in a post modern world could people be so naive yet omniscient, to conclude that all of humanity is a behavioral construct. The hubris needed to posit oneself superior to science and nature is immense.

And now he's bearing the brunt of a group, so entrenched in their glass houses, who will stop at nothing to destroy any heretics. What exactly did he say? That part of the explanation to the "gender imbalance" in the sciences might be due to genetic differences between males and females. Shocking. What is truly shocking is that it took a president of a major university to say what most of us just inherently understand.

A similar situation to Larry Summers is, on a much smaller scale, occuring locally in my neck of the woods. As I have written previously, there is a "crisis" of racism spreading throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. What is the similarity? That there are precious few things that can receive such swift and sizable response.

Before I continue, let's review exactly what has happened recently. A few incidents occurring off campus, a few claims of racial epithets, spread over a few years and suddenly we have district wide tolerance programs, public forums, full page letter ads in newspapers from the principal, US justice department involvement, etc.

Now, let me reiterate: racism is intolerable in any form. Acts of violence or aggression, whatever the cause, are unacceptabe in a civil society, and should be punished severely. However, we have to even look at the very word racism.

There are a variety of issues, affirmative action, welfare, immigration, bilingualism, etc., that reasonable people can have honest disagreements on. However, all debate is stifled at its inception as any other position than the "correct" one is racist, homophobic, etc. Galileo would recognize this.

Thus, the word can mean anything we want it to. And not so insignificantly, it can be used for any variety of topical issues. It's overuse and abuse have simultaneously rendered it less effective, yet all the more reliable.

Any response the district takes to a problem will be measured against this standard. Any grievance that is not addressed in the swiftest and surest manner will appear to be of lesser concern. To compare, let's create the following situation:

Assume I was teaching economics. Now, I decide to teach the students that capitalism is inherently evil, and that it breeds greed and avarice. Those students who live in large houses, drive nice cars, etc., are the product of an evil and corrupt system, and that they should feel guilt at their opulent lives. I teach them that they are responsible for the poor and destitute, that it is their parents fault.

Let's throw one more in here. I teach that capitalism and those that prosper are waging a racial and cultural war on minorities and people of color around the world.

Now, this is really about as vile and despicable a thing to teach as racism. What would the district response be if they, when they, received complaints? What if I wasn't alone, but actually part of a group called Teachers for Socialism, Justice, and Revolution (don't worry, I made that one up), and was part of a larger, coordinated action?

There are a couple of points I wanted to make. One is that sometimes the obvious is hidden, while the obfuscated is illuminated. Boys and girls are inherently different. As Homer Simpson would say, Doh!! And sometimes stating the obvious publicly is the worst thing one can do. The other point is that there is one sure fire way to generate a "crisis". That is obvious, while allowing everything else to be obfuscated.

In both cases, no objective inspection is tolerated, and that is neither healthy nor productive. And in the case of using a high school, and its students, as pawns in a giant political chess game is unconscionable.

Hart taking aim at racism. The Daily News takes an interest in the story.

What bothers (Saugus HS Asst Principal and City Councilman) Ferry is that the actions of a few are painting entire schools or groups of students in a bad light, he said. While he acknowledges that there are some problems on every campus, he says the majority of students are going to school and participating in activities without incident.

"I think it's important to look at who the students are choosing as their leaders," he continued. "Look at the student body officers, the homecoming courts. Across the board we have a diverse group of students and these are the ones the kids support."

We are responding to the the actions of a few people, with most of the incidents occurring off campus. What we need to ask is this: Why are the schools, through public forum and the media, being used to target the actions of a few, who are mostly non-students?

Now, that is a question I'd like answered.

(note: in checking my view logs, I noticed one from lanewsgroup.com, i.e. the Daily News. I imagine that they have similar questions too.)

Now it seems, Sunni leaders see the writing on the wall:

As the Shiite majority prepared to take control of the country's first freely elected government, tribal chiefs representing Sunni Arabs in six provinces issued a list of demands — including participation in the government and drafting a new constitution — after previously refusing to acknowledge the vote's legitimacy.

"We made a big mistake when we didn't vote," said Sheik Hathal Younis Yahiya, 49, a representative from northern Nineveh. "Our votes were very important."

He said threats from insurgents — not sectarian differences — kept most Sunnis from voting.

But I believe that this was largely predicted a few weeks ago, before the elections. As I wrote on 1/26 All other options bad:

1) The elections will go exceedingly well.
...
2) The terrorists, contrary to popular leftist wishes, are on their last legs.
...
3) The Sunni see the writing on the wall.
...
4) All other options are bad.
Actually, they from bad to worse. If the Sunni don't participate, they are ending any chance they had at representation in the new government. And they'll have nobody else to blame but themselves. Who's going to come and help them out? Syrian or Iranian involvement would be seen as a violation of territorial sovreignty, aimed at overturning a legitimately elected government. And surely the US would have something to say about that as well.

1) yes.
2) yes. What did Hillary say just a few days ago?
3) absolutely.

Gathering in a central Baghdad hotel, about 70 tribal leaders from the provinces of Baghdad, Kirkuk, Salaheddin, Diyala, Anbar and Nineveh, tried to devise a strategy for participation in a future government. There was an air of desperation in some quarters of the smoke-filled conference room.

"When we said that we are not going to take part, that didn't mean that we are not going to take part in the political process. We have to take part in the political process and draft the new constitution," said Adnan al-Duleimi, the head of Sunni Endowments in Baghdad.

4) for the most part, yes. They're hoiping for a mulligan of sorts. I think it would be wise for the various groups to include them, not only as a goodwill gesture, but to give the new government broader legitimacy.

Now, are the terrorists on their last legs. That is certainly debatable, but it seems that the enemy wants to talk:

The secret meeting is taking place in the bowels of a facility in Baghdad, a cavernous, heavily guarded building in the U.S.-controlled green zone. The Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein's regime and the senior representative of the self-described nationalist insurgency, sits on one side of the table.

He is here to talk to two members of the U.S. military. One of them, an officer, takes notes during the meeting. The other, dressed in civilian clothes, listens as the Iraqi outlines a list of demands the U.S. must satisfy before the insurgents stop fighting. The parties trade boilerplate complaints: the U.S. officer presses the Iraqi for names of other insurgent leaders; the Iraqi says the newly elected Shi'a-dominated government is being controlled by Iran. The discussion does not go beyond generalities, but both sides know what's behind the coded language.

The Iraqi's very presence conveys a message: Members of the insurgency are open to negotiating an end to their struggle with the U.S. "We are ready," he says before leaving, "to work with you."

In that guarded pledge may lie the first sign that after nearly two years of fighting, parts of the insurgency in Iraq are prepared to talk and move toward putting away their arms—and the U.S. is willing to listen. An account of the secret meeting between the senior insurgent negotiator and the U.S. military officials was provided to TIME by the insurgent negotiator. He says two such meetings have taken place. While U.S. officials would not confirm the details of any specific meetings, sources in Washington told TIME that for the first time the U.S. is in direct contact with members of the Sunni insurgency, including former members of Saddam's Baathist regime.

Now, what does it say about the strength of an insurgency when it "wants to work with you"? It says that they are beat. Or perhaps they are spent.

We haven't cured the common cold, and we will never find the last terrorist. As every day passes, it is more and more evident that they are on the losing side, that they are simply dying for others' agendas. How many more are going to be willing to die for Zarkawi's ego? I would guess that the numbers are dwindling daily. We can't know the exact numbers nor can we surmise the enemy morale, but for all the predictions of violence, we can ask this simple question, "Is this the best they have?"

We can look back just a few months to the elections in Afghanistan with all the similar predictions of violence. So successful were the Afghan elections, that the press has quietly forgotten them, lest anyone be reminded of what might be the most remarkable foreign policy development since the Berlin Wall came down. And lest anyone be reminded that the driving force behind them was President Bush.

They won't go away completely, but if the elections go off with any level of success, the insurgency will have been proven to be a spent force. They had a run where it looked like they could influence the outcome, but no longer.

Yesterday I wrote:

The Baathists and jihadists have utterly failed in their attempt to dislodge the coalition from Iraq. In fact, more of their attacks the last year have been against Iraqis and not coalition forces. This escalation the last several days, specifically targeting Shia and in a narrow region, don't indicate a growign, but floundering insurgency. They just haven't succeeded. They're not over, but they're not going to win. And they know it too.

The re=election of Howard in Australia, then Bush in the US. Elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestinian territories, and Ukraine. Outrage at Syria by Lebanon, as well as Europe. UN chicanery and malfeasance on display for the world. Iran and Syria feeling ever more isolated.

Apparently, some are seeing they really are on the wrong side of history. The biggest problem that people have is they see only the drops of water, but not the bucket.

I've often wondered the saying, "the devil is in the details", means what we think it does. I often wonder it to mean that the devil is in the details, where he can distract and confuse. Our failure to look beyond details too often leads to myopia. The details, the casualties and the bombings defelcts our abilitiy to reason the bigger picture, elections and slow transformations.

Something is remarkably different about the world today than it was after 2001, and it doesn't appear to be itinerant either. Slowly and steadily the tide rises, and slowly and steadily the transformation is occuring. And apparently some in Iraq are starting to get the message. Perhaps they can share their insight with members of the democratic...oh, nevermind, why bother.