I've been extremely busy the last few days, so it's time to catch up.

Iraq has all but disappeared from the headlines. I noted this a few weeks ago, and Paul Johnson writes today:

I am still struck, these many days later, by what I heard almost every day from the men and women fighting this war.

Lt. Col. Ross Brown, Thunder Squadron commander - a man I greatly admired for his openness, honesty and deep, abiding concern for the men serving under him - said it first over dinner one evening.

"You know what gets me," he said, engaging me eye-to-eye, as he is prone to do, "is very few people back home even know we are at war."

It first struck him, he said, in his everyday experiences as he prepared to head to Iraq. He'd go to, say, the supermarket and forget for a moment that America was at war. Only when a soldier dies, he said, does a headline appear.

I figured this was, well, just soldier-talk. And then Tuesday morning, I went to the Internet pages of the newspapers I read every morning: The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and both local newspapers.

Not a single story on the Iraq war made the front page of any of them. Amazing.

Despite the desperate hopes of the NY Times, the insurgency is dying. The elections turned the tide, but that was 4 months ago. Now, Iraq is dealign with the very same issues and difficulties that all democracies have. And it doesn't make the headlines. Then of course there's Afghanistan, the place where empires go to die. Yeah, there's a war going on over there as well, but we just can't seem to rememebr, why was that place so important?

Probably the worst thing that can happen, and what I think is happening, is that we actually have forgotten that we're at war. Despite successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and desptie the hope and desires of the MSM, progress is being made. The NY Times runs a story which claims the insurgency is being fueled by the failure to form a cabinet. Two days later, the new Iraqi government is overwemingly approved. And the democrats biggest concern? That John Bolton is a little to brusk for the UN. They just can't get over it can they.

In other news, TaxProf notes that under president Bush the the rich and upper middle class continue to pay the majority of US taxes. I noted this last July in Soaker of the rich.

democrats prove once again, that in America, it is okay to hate people of faith

Professor Hanson is, as usual, brilliant.

Tom Friedman is once again clueless. Hey Tom, schools do not exist to train workers, but to educate. Admittedly, we have done a poor, okay, very poor job the last couple of decades. Kids don't read or write very well, know precious little about history, and think that health care is a right, America is an evil place, and if you try hard, then that's all that matters. But if we did our jobs, then the good ones wouldn't be going to China and India. Our job is to produce citizens, not widgets.

The democrats are proving that they have absolutely no idea how to do anything other than obstruct the president. To say they are acting like children is an understatement.

Richard Cohen writes in Hitler's human side sheds light on inhumanity about the conflicting portrayal of humane Hitler and the mass murderer in a recent film called "Downfall". APparently Mr. Cohen never took a history class.

And so we learn that Hitler really was good to his dog, Blondi, and kind to his secretaries, and solicitous toward the little Goebbels kids. Frankly, I have never had a hard time humanizing Hitler. Ambition, cruelty, hatred, courage - all these are attributes we can all understand. We have a piece of them in ourselves. It is not as if Hitler is something unique, unknown to history before, never repeated afterward.

The deeper mystery is the German people. There is, as one sharp reviewer noted, "a whiff of victim culture about the film." This is in line with some recent German writings in which the inexcusable firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg are emphasized to show that Germans were victims, too. This no doubt played a role in the remarkable German resistance. After all, Germans fought for Hitler to his death and then, in a historic nanosecond, became remarkably good democrats. It is easier to explain Hitler than to explain that.

One man's madness, cruelty, charisma, boldness, courage and hatred are easy enough to explain and to find. But a whole people's madness is a different story. That says more about us, and about what we are capable of, than anything about Hitler. This, really, is the great lesson of "Downfall" and of history itself.

Is he seriously trying to be insightful? Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf about the destiny of Germany, lebensraum, the folkish state, and destroying Marxism.

The very founding of the Reich seemed gilded by the magic of an event which uplifted the entire nation. After a series of incomparable victories, a Reich was born for the sons and grandsons-a reward for immortal heroism. Whether consciously or unconsciously, it matters not, the Germans all had the feeling that this Reich, which did not owe its existence to the trickery of parliamentary fractions, towered above the measure of other states by the very exalted manner of its founding; for not in the cackling of a parliamentary battle of words, but in the thunder and rumbling of the front surrounding Paris was the solemn act performed: a proclamation of our will, declaring that the Germans, princes and people, were resolved in the future to constitute a Reich and once again to raise the imperial crown to symbolic heights. And this was not done by cowardly murder; no deserters and slackers were the founders of the Bismarckian state, but the regiments at the front.

Consequently, the value and importance of the monarchic idea cannot reside in the person of the monarch himself except if Heaven decides to lay the crown on the brow of a heroic genius like Frederick the Great or a wise character like William I. This happens once in centuries and hardly more often.

anyone who thinks this understands only the superficial features of our movement and has not the least idea of what we mean when we speak of our Weltanschhauung (world view).

There were reasons that Hitler rose to power and it had primarily to do with the German people. Hitler was a product of a milenia or two of belief that Germany had been denied her rightful place among nations of Europe and the world. It was the ultimate contructivist education. He simply told the German people what they already believed.

Mr. Cohen fails to understand the war, and I fear it is becoming even more commonplace. The left in this country has much in common with todays Germany and her people; socialist, secularist, and pacifist. For the right, Germany was the front line in the cold war and so she became the symbol, from Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, of freedom and defiance to communism. It was a brave Helmut Kohl, not that publicly opposed a US president but who allowed MX missiles, against overwhelming public opposition, to be stationed in Germany and pointed at the Soviet Union.

For some World War 2 is "the war against the Nazis", much like it was Saddam and the baathists, not the Iraqi people, that we fought. Regarding Germany, this is a foolish lesson to teach. What we did, what we had to do, was utterly crush Germany such as she'd never felt previously. Not in 1648, not in 1763, not in 1806, and certainly not in 1918 had anything remotely close had happened. There was no doubt who lost in 1945, no "stab in the back", FDR's death not a fortuitous miracle. There would be no peace treaty this time.

You answer the question with your ownwords:

It is good to humanize Hitler because a man, after all, is all he ever was. But once you strip him of any extraordinary powers, you have to confront the fact that where he madly led, people serenely followed.

Exactly. And that is where responsibility lies.

Thomas Sowell is as accurate as anyone in America. Quite simply, it's not who you are, it's what you do that determines success.

For most of the history of this country, differences between the black and the white population--whether in income, IQ, crime rates, or whatever--have been attributed to either race or racism. For much of the first half of the 20th century, these differences were attributed to race--that is, to an assumption that blacks just did not have it in their genes to do as well as white people. The tide began to turn in the second half of the 20th century, when the assumption developed that black-white differences were due to racism on the part of whites.

Three decades of my own research lead me to believe that neither of those explanations will stand up under scrutiny of the facts. As one small example, a study published last year indicated that most of the black alumni of Harvard were from either the West Indies or Africa, or were the children of West Indian or African immigrants. These people are the same race as American blacks, who greatly outnumber either or both.

If this disparity is not due to race, it is equally hard to explain by racism. To a racist, one black is pretty much the same as another. But, even if a racist somehow let his racism stop at the water's edge, how could he tell which student was the son or daughter of someone born in the West Indies or in Africa, especially since their American-born offspring probably do not even have a foreign accent?

What then could explain such large disparities in demographic "representation" among these three groups of blacks? Perhaps they have different patterns of behavior and different cultures and values behind their behavior.

Read the rest. It should be required reading for every teacher and administrator in America. As I have written about previously, we have "tolerated" behaviors from minority children in the name of diversity and multi-culturalism and all we have done is sentenced them to failure.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions but should be traveled by people who refuse to see the error of their handiwork and seek to change it? It should be traveled by those of the good intentions gone awry and continued for the sake of assuaging guilty consciences, not promoting achievement?

As professor Sowell notes:

The people who take this view may think of themselves as friends of blacks. But they are the kinds of friends who can do more harm than enemies.

So, for those "friends" that Professor Sowell can do without, Professor Walter Williams has a wonderful gift.

All us right-wing bloggers are in trouble now, as there's a new sheriffette in town. Seems conservative turned liberal turned freakin nuts Arriana Huffington is going to start her own blog. Now mind you, it's not going to be just any ordinary blog.

She has lined up more than 250 of what she calls "the most creative minds" in the country to write a group blog that will range over topics from politics and entertainment to sports and religion. It is essentially a nonstop virtual talk show that will be part of a Web site that will also serve up breaking news around the clock. It is to be introduced May 9.

Having prominent people join the blogosphere, Ms. Huffington said in an interview, "is an affirmation of its success and will only enrich and strengthen its impact on the national conversation." Among those signed up to contribute are Walter Cronkite, David Mamet, Nora Ephron, Warren Beatty, James Fallows, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Maggie Gyllenhaal, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Diane Keaton, Norman Mailer and Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

Let's see: retreads, has beens, and airheads. Yes. Originality. No.

Mr. Lerer said the Post, which will generate revenue by selling advertising space, was being financed initially by him, Ms. Huffington and 10 others he identified as "friends and family." The bloggers will not be paid.

Not going to be paid? I guess they are competing with Air America then.

"These aren't exactly people who lack voice or visibility in our culture," he said in an e-mail message. "Gwyneth Paltrow has no incentive to speak candidly and alienate future ticket buyers..."

Or to make herself look like a complete idiot either.

She warned that some who promise to blog never will, and others may have difficulty translating their voices. Those factors, plus reader reaction, could alter what the Post becomes. "You think you're shaping the Web, but the Web shapes you," she said.

Suspense, intrigue, and drama augmented by depth and insight. Unbelievable.

She (Nora Ephron) also sees the Post as a chance for the left to balance out the right.

"In the Fox era, everything we can do on our side to even things out, now that the media is either controlled by Rupert Murdoch or is so afraid of Rupert Murdoch that they behave as if they were controlled by him, is great," she said. But sometimes, she added, "I may merely have a cake recipe."

Oh, that again. If Fox had as much influence as the left says, Bush would have won by double digits. Look, on its best night, Fox gets 1.5 million viewers. CBS, ABC, and NBC alone get ten times that. Plus, when you add in the NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, et al., this is nonsense. Just look at the Iraqi war coverage. Hell, you'd think we'd lost the damn thing given most of the reporting. Do these people really believe this nonsense? Are they really that stupid, or do they have to say these things publicly and hope nobody notices. 'Cause that what blogs do nowadays.

The Post will also set another blogging milestone: Ms. Huffington has signed a contract with Tribune Media Services, which syndicates her newspaper column, to syndicate parts of her blog to newspapers and their Web sites.

Which makes her a part of the MSM, not the blogosphere.

"Newspaper editors across the country are increasingly intrigued by the phenomenon of blogging and are open to finding ways to capitalize on the best of it," said John C. Twohey, the syndicate's vice president for editorial and operations.

"Because they're making us look horrible."

One really has to be amused by all this. There are two things that the story doesn't mention, but should be obvious: one, bloggers are effective, and two, blogging is legitimate. This of course from the same author who was highly critical of blogs not too long ago.

I noted last month for the opponents of the bankuptcy bill:

There are two issues that underlie opposition to this bill, and both of them I find repugnant. The first is that we collectively will force ourselves and others to do what we would not otherwise do voluntarily, and the second is that people are incapable of running their own lives and making proper decisions.

I posted two days later that the opposition was basically lying to the public. Gail Heriot wrote a fantastic piece which shows how the health care related bankruptcy numbers were being distorted. Included in the numbers were drug, alcohol, and gambling addictions, as well as anyone who had medical bills and filed bankruptcy, even though the vast majority of the medical bills were under $1000. As Heriot noted:

Buried in the study is the fact that only 27 percent of the surveyed debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. Presumably 73 percent — the vast majority — had medical expenses during that two-year period of $1,000 or less. Had that figure been recited up front, it would have been obvious that the proportion of bankruptcies driven by unmanageable medical debt was nowhere near half.

Previously I cited Todd Zywicki of Volokh Conspiracy for his insight regarding gross imbalances of ideology at Universities. Now, he offers up further wisdom regarding the bankruptcy bill:

An interesting thing briefly suggested here is the extent to which tax problems force people into bankruptcy (usually, however, not because they just "forgot" to pay their taxes). There aren't many good studies on this, but some have concluded that as much as 10% of bankruptcy filings are caused by tax liabilities (and that doesn't count those who would have alot more money available to pay their debts but for having to pay their taxes or pay their taxes because they are generally nondischargeable in bankruptcy). For those keeping score at home, this exceeds the number of bankruptcies traditionally thought to be caused by health problems, death in the family, college expenses, and gambling.

This is an excellent observation, tax liability as a reason for bankruptcy. It is true, the old maxim that "If they can tax it, they can take it. If they can take it, it's not yours." He refers to an AJC article about bankruptcty filings in Georgia. Intersting this tidbit from the article:

The idea behind the reform, proponents say, is to get more people to repay their debts.

Intersting concept really, that you should be responsible for your actions.

Here's more:

Bankruptcy is a "moral as well as an economic decision," said Todd J. Zywicki, a law professor at Georgetown University who testified in support of the changes before Congress in February.

"Regrettably, the personal shame and social stigma that once restrained opportunistic bankruptcy filings has declined substantially in recent years."

Zywicki and other proponents of the changes say some people use bankruptcy as a financial planning strategy rather than a last-ditch effort.
...
The new law requires that debtors file income tax returns and include them with bankruptcy petitions, which will now be randomly audited.

I predict that in a few years there'll be fewer bankruptcy filings and those who are responsible, and those who have to be more so, will not worry. As with other matters of irresponsibility such as drunken driving, social acceptance for deriliction will wane.

Legislation, such as that which originally made it much easier to file bankruptcies, we know defies common sense, yet is of the palliative, feel-good type. Rather than rely on our good senses, knowing full well that we're opening the door to rampant fraud, abuse, and misuse, we fall prey to the sob story, the exception to the rule. We prefer to make ourselves feel good, rather than forcing ourselves to excercise good judgement.

That is why opposition is so easy and support so hard. Good legislation is never easy, bad legislation always is.

I don't know what the technical term is called when this happens to one of your books, but there are plenty of other terms not fit for mixed company.

VDH evicerates Jared Diamond's latest book, Collapes, and his deterministic view of history. He also lambasts his previous work, Guns, Germs, and Steel for much the same thing.

According to Professor Hanson, Diamond argues in Guns that geography trumps culture. It doesn't require a PhD to see the folly in such thought. There are so many contrary exmaples that one really has to wonder where Diamond got the thesis in the first place. If Diamond's thesid had any merit, Africa would have dominated the last milenium, not been mercy to the whims of its opressors.

In Collapse, he argues that environmental mismanagement leads to societal breakdown and collapse. That certainly tops class struggle and economic determinants in history, however, last time I checked, Rome wasn't sacked by marauding tree-huggers.

Hanson does it so well.

The Fisker's Whiskers IV

"Anytime a public high school history teacher fisks for conservatism, The Word Unheard rewards."

Thanks.

Thomas Sowell wrote a column a couple of years ago called The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks. One particular point he made was especially salient:

Poll after poll over the years has shown that most faculty members and most students are opposed to double standards in college admissions. Yet professors who will come out publicly and say what they say privately in these polls are as rare as hen's teeth.

Such two-faced talk is pervasive in academia and elsewhere. A few years ago, in Berkeley, there was a big fight over whether a faculty vote on affirmative action would be by secret ballot or open vote. Both sides knew that the result of a secret ballot would be the direct opposite of the result in a public vote at a faculty meeting.

I want to apply that same idea to public schools. Give a poll to parents and ask them to choose: a) Your child learns a great deal from a course and earns a "C" or b) your child learns very little but earns an "A". You would get exactly the same situation, a public vote at odds with a private vote. I highly doubt any parent would openly claim they'd prefer an A to learning. But, given my experiences, I think I know how the private would turn out.

Public education has come under criticism in recent years, and deservedly so. When more than half the kids entering California State Universities have to take remedial reading and writing courses, something is terribly wrong. When schools hand out condoms and textbooks portray America as villainous, something is terribly wrong. When schools openly, willfully, and safely violate the law, as in California with bilingual education, something is terribly wrong. Very few will argue that our schools are doing the job they are supposed to.

However, it is exactly what we asked for. By we, I of course mean the public. No, this doesn't excuse the schools, but culpability is ubiquitous. In one of his critics favorite gaffes, the president asked something to the effect of "is our children learning?" Debate continues as to whether he said exactly that or not, but they totally miss the point. The question is exactly that: are the children learning?

I tell my classes the grade they earn in my class will have no impact on their lives, that nobody will ask nor care what their grade was. However it will be obvious to anyone whether they are educated and can read, write, think, and communicate in a rational and literate manner. I believe there is complete truth to that. The argument about colleges is moot; a nice high school transcript is small consolation for poor preparation. They've already caught onto the AP game, and it is beginning to happen with grades as well. For more and more schools, the whole student is being evaluated, grades only part of the equation.

Report cards and letter grades are as much a part of schools as lunches and bells. Diversion from grades has usually come from the left, more concerned about self-esteem and politically correct language. Yet, I often wonder if they're not on to something, just misguided. California is moving towards a more standars based instruction (SBI) curriculum, where progress is measured against definable and concrete goals. In some schools, in lieu of grades, students are graded on standards mastered.

I often think that this is ultimately the solution. I would like to see us move in the future to testing based evaluation, focusing on actual learning and high standards. They should include reading and writing, as well as mathematics, science and history. The student's performance on those tests will be far more reflective than a letter on a piece of paper. And if the students were held accountible, then so too could the teachers.

California has introduced the CAHSEE, or California High School Exit Exam, which all students must pass in order to graduate. Not surprisingly, it has been attacked with numerous legal challenges from the usual cadre of race hucksters and con artists. However, one thing overlooked is that the students take the test starting their sophomore year. In other words, they need only complete 10th grade to pass the CAHSEE. It makes you wonder exactly what they're doing as juniors and seniors.

Nothing exemplifies the problem more than that. We've simply set the bar very low. We expect very little out of our schools. Publicly we demand excellence, but privately, where it really matters, we ask for very little. And we've gotten exactly what we've asked for.