The NY TImes hardly has a reputation for fairness or accuracy. The latest editorial An Important Election Safeguard displays how far they have sunk.

According to this screed, we need a paper trail to follow electronic elections. Now, I am sure the Times would be just as concerned had Kerry won.

Let's just examine this a bit.

The solution is to require that each machine produce a paper record that can be inspected and verified by the voter. The paper records are then stored, and can be counted after the polls close. If the results on the machine do not match the tally of the paper records, it will be clear that there is a problem.

So we count the vote electronically, AND we count the vote on paper. Then why count the vote electronically at all, just count the paper ballot. Why not just have a paper ballot? And who's to that the paper counting won't be compromised.

I'm sickened when I hear "every vote counts" and it is essential to "count every vote". Let me translate that: let anyone vote, legally or illegally, as long as they'll vote democratic. Count every vote until democrats win.

The Times makes clear the reason for the urgency in the lead paragraph:

There are many problems with American elections, but none more serious than the rise of paperless electronic voting, whose results cannot be trusted.

Let's translate that: "The people can't be trusted. They might actually vote for Republicans." This is again proof that the left hates democracy. They haven't any concern for electoral legitimacy. Had they, they'd be raging about felons voting, dead people voting, mutliple voting, and all the other chicanery that has taken place in democratic strongholds. They'd be editorializing about Washington's governor race where dead people elected a democrat governor. No, their aim is to delegitimize Bush's victory, and with it, his entire presidency.

More proof that the democrats need to grow up, stop hating America, and be responsible. They need to accept that more people voted Republican than democrat. It wasn't a fluke, some masterful scheme concocted by Karl Rove in Crawford. Bush really won. Get over it. But instead, we get Dr. Dean-mento.

After disovering that my district will have a "diversity czar", I now find out:

that all Hart administrators and staff would undergo diversity training before school starts again in August.

Vee have vays of making you think. Any intolerance vill not be tolerated!!

Howard (what is with Howards lately?) Fineman has another anonymously sourced article. Some people never learn do they?

The officer who wrote me from Iraq doesn’t have much use for either party, in fact. He just wants to get the job done and come home.

I share his sentiments exactly. i want our soldiers to get the job done and get home. However, we are in a war of which Iraq is just part. That so many have completely no understanding of the world, history, or the threats we face should not come as a shock.

In 1939 Poles overwhelmingly feared the Soviets far more than the Germans. They wouldn't agree to let Russian troops cross to help the west fight the Nazis. By the time the Russians did cross Poland to fight the Nazis (1944), it was, how shall we say, way too late to matter.

As for Iraq, you think maybe if democratic politicians weren't calling the president a war criminal, comparing the war in Iraq to the Holocaust, and referring to the insurgents as freedom fighters we'd be doing a bit better?

You think maybe if the press didn't expend all its energies reporting the "atrocities" of the US soldiers, and instead spent a fraction of their time on the positive, maybe we'd be doing a bit better?

Howie, you can't have it both ways. There has been a concerted effort from even before the war started to delegitamize it, destroy the president, and work towards our failure. You ought to know this. This isn't a paranoid deslusion or an apologist's screed.

When the story of Iraq is written, however it ends, the shame and disgrace of the media will stand out. This much is undeniable.

If we win, no thanks to you and your friends, you'll have some answering to do. If we lose, you'll have even more answering to do. And should the latter occur, those you'll be answering to won't be nearly as "tolerant". I rather suspect they'll have a sharp (if your lucky) blade ready.

However pleasing I find that scenario, I'll still prefer victory. Will you?

I've had a few recent posts on Dean's blatherings, which I've called "physician assisted suicide". He is killing his party, but sadly, he's doing even more damage to America. Even worse, he couldn't care less. Today, Peggy Noonan does it much better.

How do people who are not part of the Democratic base react to their statements? I think something like this: What's wrong with these people? Don't they understand they lower things with their name calling and bitter language? If this is how they feel free to present themselves in public, what will they do and say in private if they ever run the country?

If Mr. Bush ever spoke this way, most Republicans would feel embarrassment. I would be among the legions who would denounce his statement. Democrats are half the country; it is offensive to label them as hateful, it's wrong. Even though we're torn by disagreements, there is an old and unspoken tradition that we're all in this together, we're all citizens together. It is destructive to act against this tradition.
...
There is a tradition of political generosity that prevails among the normal people of America, a certain live-and-let-live-ness. That is why Little League games don't break out in fistfights, at least over politics. You don't shun people in the neighborhood because they're Democrats, and you don't inform the Republican in the next cubicle that he is evil, lazy and racist. That just doesn't play in America. There are breaches, exceptions, incidents. We are not angels. But by and large even though we disagree with each other, and even if we come to dislike each other, we maintain, for reasons both moral and practical, decorum. Civility. We keep a lid on it. We don't lower it to the level of invective. We don't by nature seek to divide.

When you have been in Washington long enough and have become consumed by your place in the political struggle, you can lose sight of the American arrangement. You can become harsh and shrill. You can become the sort of person who would start the fight at the Little League game. You can become--how might a columnist, as opposed to a political leader, put it?--a jackass. But not a funny one, a destructive one, the type that can knock down the barn it took the farmer years to build.

The comportment of Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean is actually not worthy of America. Their statements suggest they are in no way equal to the country they seek to lead. And something tells me that sooner or later America is going to tell them. But in a generous, mature and fair-minded way.

The truth is democrats are not just like Republicans, albeit with different policy solutions. They think and act on a level most Republicans would never approach, even on their worst day. They're a combination of venality, immaturity, piety, and hubris of the highest order. Nothing is beneath them, nothing is beyond reproach.

They are a truly dangerous lot. However, I, like Mrs. Noonan, have faith in America and her people. Unlike the democrats.

Blogging is light today as I spent the day at the beach fishing.

If you ever want to feel insignificant, spend a day fly fishing in the surf. On a calm day, which today wasn't, the perch can be plentiful. They'll range up to a pound and they'll pull hard for their size. There's an off chance you'll get a corbina or even a halibut. Don't hold your breath however.

Tackle is simple. Get a moderately stiff fly rod, fast sinking line, and tie on a simple fly. Don't worry about presentation as the fish are in the surf, among the harshest environs to live in on earth. They fish don't eat, they engulf. This isn't fly fishing the Madison for browns. Get the line out there, strip it back in. You'll know when there's a fish on.

Standing waist deep in the surf is a humbling experience. The wind in your face stops your cast, the surf whips your line around and pushes you where it pleases. It's not easy, but it's not work.

You hear nothing but the surf. You strip out line, double haul and shoot the line as far as it will carry. The line splashed down. You watch the surf and watch the line as you steadily strip it back in. You feel the rythm of the tide, the water sucked over your feet as nature reloads.

Repeat a hundred times. You walk down the beach. Tired. Invigorated. Repeat a hundred more times.

Some days you catch more than you can count. Today's not one of them. But you always release the fish. See you next time. Tell your buddies. I'll be back. You realize there's more to life.

It's 4:00PM. Have to pick up my daughter from pre-school.

Then you realize there's more to life.

Hat tip Lana from Live from the Guillotine.

Yesterday, I post about my district's new "diversity czar". Lana so astutely observed this sentence in the article:

Committee member Herman Zayon explained how the group came up with the overseer position.

In her comment on the post she accurately points out:

I was taken with the term "overseer position". Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the enforcer on the historical Southern plantation?

.
Google to the rescue. In Motion: Schomburg Center for Black Culture. Glossary section.

Overseer

In the plantation system, a man hired to supervise the work and lives of the enslaved men and women. The overseer's position usually was secondary when the plantation owner was present, but when the owner lived elsewhere, the overseer was held responsible for the plantation's maintenance and profitability.

Couldn't make it up if I tried.

Lee Hamilton of 9/11 commission fame has some ideas about our current security issues. He fairly attributes our failures like oil dependency and the growth of bin Ladenism to "successive U.S. administrations". But he goes loopy here:

Or consider the long-term challenge posed by anti-Americanism. It is clear that America is losing its allure in much of the world. People feel we act unilaterally, are too quick to use military force and focus on terrorism to the exclusion of issues that are important to other countries. Allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay have devastated our already-tattered image in the Islamic world.

Addressing global resentment cannot be put off. If we do not learn to use our predominant power with great restraint, we will antagonize the world. If we do not show an interest in issues such as economic development, other nations will not support our agenda of fighting terrorism and proliferation, and will look elsewhere -- perhaps to Europe or China -- for leadership. If we do not provide a model for treatment of detainees, we will lose our standing as an exemplar of democracy and human rights. If we do not make public diplomacy and outreach to the Islamic world a priority today, it may be too late to reverse antagonisms toward America tomorrow.

What does he think exactly causes anti-Americanism? We're either envied for our wealth or hated for our tolerance, yet millions every year risk life and limb to get here. From Kabul to Kiev, they aspire to be more like us. Bin Laden and his ilk won't be placated if we leave Iraq and abandon Israel. He wants a restoration of hthe 9th century Caliphate, the imposition of the Sharia, and the desctruction of the infidel along with his blasphemous religion.

We liberated 50 million and helped establish two new democracies in place of two of the most repressive and violent regimes in the world. He can't seriously think people in Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, and throughout the world seriously going to look towards Europe or China for leadership. Right now, the Chinese are blocking all efforts at helping in the Darfur, while European efforts aimed at limiting Iranian nukes was feeble at best. Exactly what leadership are they going to find from 100,000 unemployed EU bureaucrats and their fawning patriarchs like Chirac?

Typical of the worn out diatribe, the problem is entirely of our own making, either from inaction or excessive action. If we fail to act, then we're turning our backs on the world's problems. When we do take decisive action, should it prove divisive, then we're acting unilaterally and abusing our power. Message to the utopian liberals: there is no Goldilocks foreign policy.

Time and again, we have learned the consequences of overlooking tough challenges. In the 1980s, we neglected the emerging HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the 1980s and 1990s, we failed to stem the growing tide of Islamic extremism and ignored Afghanistan as it became a sanctuary for Osama bin Laden. More action then might have saved the U.S. and the world some of the trouble we face today. This is a task for more than government. Business, non-governmental organizations, research institutions, universities and even interested individuals should think about what they can do to help achieve the kind of world they want to occupy in 2010, 2020, or even 2050.

We didn't overlook the AIDS crisis, hell, it's the only disease with its own civil rights status. We couldn't have addressed it any more in the 1980's if we tatooed it on every school kids' arms.

As for bin Laden, we fired a few missiles here and there, but when we decided to take decisive action post 9/11, well, I think you know the rest.

The solution to global poverty is simple. Democracy, political liberalism, free markets, and capitalism.

More action today allows us to preserve the environment, fight disease, spread prosperity, provide a stronger foundation for our economy and secure the American people and this nation's place in the world. It means planting seeds, instead of simply putting out fires.

What exactly have we been doing in the middle east?

We remember you. Now go home.

A few days ago, Heather MacDonald rips Hahvid president Larry Summers for his $50 million diversity initiative. Now it seems the idea is catching on.

Those of you following this site for any length of time are probably aware of the recent imbroglio my school and district are invovled in. Suffice to say, we're being sued for promoting racism, replete with all the accompanying nonsense. For a trip in the way back machine, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

So, what is the school board's latest and greatest idea? 'Diversity czar' is proposed: District post would help deal with racism.

This person would be responsible for programming, training and consolidating the district response to problems of racism, discrimination or similar issues affecting students and staffers.

Why is it that when I read "programming" I was immediately scared? I had this flashback to Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.

"I have met some of the biggest bigots in my life in this job," he (new Superintendant Castellanos) said.

Were any of them previosly governor of Vermont?

Committee member Herman Zayon explained how the group came up with the overseer position.

"We had presentations from a variety of people, but there was one man who seemed like he had all the resources and knows what's going on," he said. "Wouldn't it be great to have someone like that here? This person could give us a meaningful way of tackling problems that we have, pursue grant money and coordinate our efforts with parents and businesses.

"They would also be accountable," he continued. "All of the schools would have the same programs and coordinate their solutions."

I guess this guy has been in government before. Problem? Hey I know, let's create a new commission. Let's get really tricky, call him Czar. Fortunately, history education is so bad, most people haven't any idea what a Czar, or a Tsar or a Tzar even is. But it sounds good.

Well, at least we're not going to be spending $50 mil. Or will we?

Howie is at it again.

"You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party,"

A few days ago, I said:

Most tragic is that he'll get a pass for the most part from the press, he'll be the topic for a few days of blog traffic, then it'll be lost to the archives. This speech needs to be repeated and repeated as often as possible, and democrats need to be held accountable for it. They are either with him or not.

A few have already begun to, including Nancy Pelosi. However, such blatant racist and bigoted speech requires he step down from head of the DNC. It is for the Mississippi voters to decide if Trent Lott gets another 6 years, but he was rightly forced to resign his senate leadership post. Dean faces no such situaiton. Not only must democratic politicians repudiate him, they must demand he resign, not just for the good of the party but for the good of the nation.

In a time of war Dean has chosen to turn his party away from the historic role of loyal opposition. His rhetoric is that of a fringe candidate. He has not once offered a substantive criticism of anything the Republicans have proposed, simply hurled invective and slander. His words and deeds undermine the president both domestically and more importantly, abroad. And none of that matters to him. He is deranged and very scary. He is a demogogue.

I think more and more he reflects the true base of the democratic party. He simply has the "courage", or the stupidity, to say what he believes. The vitriol started in 2000 when many democrats believe Bush stole the election. Thus anything and everything he did was illegitamte and ultimately illegal. Any and all resistance was not only necessary but "patriotic" and vital.

If you ask the majority of them, they will most likely say that the 2004 election was stolen as well. I work with some, who are otherwise intelligent, sane, rational people, that believe so. (And think about that next time you send your kids to school.) They have convinced themselves we are living under a dictatorship, that there is this neocon strategy to take over the US, steal middle eastern oil, give the land to Israel, and turn the world into Jesusland. For those people, Dean is their spokesman.

When they say "take back America" they really believe it's been stolen. These people hate democracy and hate the voters who won't vote them and their kind into office. At least Perot started his own political party. Dean and his people bought theirs.

Dick Meyer of CBSNews.com writes in Wealth Porn:

It is precisely the same cognitive dissonance that allowed the Democratic Party to nominate John Kerry and John Edwards - combined net worth, about $1 billion - to bash the rich, bemoan the split of the "two Americas" and beat up on George and Dick for being pals of the rich. When the rich, or those profiting from the rich, condemn other, less enlightened rich people, skin crawls. And many Americans - to the chagrin of Democrats, Marxists and Europeans - tend not to begrudge the rich and hyper-rich their riches.
...
I'm not suggesting the Times shouldn't have done any of these stories. I just want to point out the irony of running an excellent set of pieces about the anthropology and demographics of the hyper-rich in a paper that is dining out on them. It is a kind of limousine liberalism that I believe also afflicts the Democratic Party too often, a conceit that "we are the enlightened rich."

Bill Clinton didn't bash the rich a lot, but he could have; Johns Kerry and Edwards did bash the rich a lot, and it flopped. It flopped partly because Americans who are not rich simply do not have a European-style, class base resentment. Americans aspire to being rich. That's the American way. But the '04 Democratic rhetoric also flopped because the guys spewing looked like such phonies; they weren't just rich, they were richer than the Republicans: they were hyper-rich.

Somewhere I rememebr reading about that exact same idea. Where was it? Oh yeah, here:

I think I have finally figured out the democrats' problems. While many Americans are turned off by their drugstore cowboy populism, the problem is actaully quite simple.

It is debatable that the democrats represent more closely the majority of people's interests. Certainly, not everyone in Kansas is wealthy, but then again neither will most Kansans find themselves at home in the halls of universities or democratic party rallies, as if there were a difference.

The democrat's problem is that they might represent people in their current state, but they don't represent people's future goals. Forty to fifty years ago, it was entirely differnt story. But today, democratic policies are far more likely to keep you exactly where you're at. Concurrently, Republican policies, which might not directly benefit you today, will help you get to where you want to be in the future.

You might not beneift today from repealing the estate tax, but in 30 years, your children will. You might not benefit today from lower capital gains taxes, but in 20 years your 401k's will. You might not benefit from social security privatization today, but in 20 years you will.

In fact, you don't want to be living the same 20 years from now. And you know one thing about the democrats, they will penalize prosperity. Republicans might be "for the rich" but that's exactly where you want to be in the future.

And you know somehting else, something that the democrats think you're too stupid to understand. You know they already think you're rich. And you know you're not. But you'd like to be someday, and you don't want to be told "you have enough" by somebody who has never clipped coupons, bought generic ketchup, or driven a car more than 5 years old.

Most Americans resent the utlra-rich, who happen to be predominantly democratic and very leftist at that, telling those of us "less fortunate" how we should live. Meyers is right, we are not European. He also hits it's exactly right when he says:

In the House, Dennis Hastert, former high school wrestling coach, is a more authentic voice of the little guy than Nancy Pelosi, wife of a wealthy real estate developer, and in her own right part of a powerful political family including two past mayors of Baltimore, one of them also a five-term congressman.

The Senate has plenty of guys who make well-to-do look shabby, but the Democrats probably have the greater net worth, led by heirs like Kennedy, Dayton and Rockefeller and self-made moguls like Corzine, Kohl, and Lautenberg.

In the most brutal of ironies, the party of multi-culturalism is trying to make us far more "European", socially, politically, and economically. The nouveau riche and the noblesse oblige are so old world.

Pedro from The Quietist has tagged me:

Number of books: Many Hundreds. Several boxes in my garage. Two storage sheds. Two book cases at home. Entire cabinet in classroom.

Last books purchased: Kagan, Peloponesian War; Keegan, First World War; Thucydides, Peloponesian War; Plutarch, Life of Alexander; Hanson, Soul of Battle

Last book read: Keegan's First World War. Currently finishing Kagan's Peloponesian War.

Five books that meant the most to me: 1) Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Freidman 2) Rise and Fall of the Thrid Reich by William Shirer 3) Politics by Aristotle 4) The Glorius Cause by Robert Middlekauf 5) Closing with the Enemy by Micahel Doubler 6) Bonus - The entire collection of Victor Davis Hanson

Five books are so hard to pick, so I will explain. First, I tried to pick a book from a category, rather than just particular books. In each instance, the book I chose most closely captures the essence of the subject. I would like to have chosen Band of Brothers or D-Day by Ambrose, as both capture the very heart and soul of how we fought and won WW2 and each is a compelling story. However, and no slight meant for Professor Ambrose, there are many comprehensive accounts of Normandy, Bastogne, etc.

Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom is the perfect explanation of why free societies and free markets are not just essential, but inextricably linked. Shirer captures the essence of Nazi evil, how they came to power, and why we must be ever vigilant. Aristotle defined the essence of a poltical body and the role of government. It is as relevant today as it was 2400 years ago. Middlekauf describes in great detail the epic struggle and the precarious nature of the American Revolution, and what the Colonies truly endured. Lastly, Doubler's treatise on the weaponry and way we fought and defeated Nazi Germany clearly illustratess the unique American way of both war and society.

As a bonus, Professor Hanson's collective works from Greek warfare to Californian immigration prove him the be one of the most astute, insightful, and influential scholars today.

I tag Kent at the Shallows. Considering he's a physicist, this should be interesting.

Regarding Ceci Cononoly's "100 prisoners killed" comment, Gateway Pundit writes:

I couldn't believe my ears! And, she wasn't even challenged! It makes me wonder, just who is the enemy? And, who is the mouthpiece of our enemy? I figured they were making fraudulent accusations like this on the left side of the internet and on Al-Qaida sites but had not yet heard this slander stated so "matter of factly" on the MSM.

.

Why is he surprised? I wrote a few weeks ago:

I wrote back in December that we face two enemies, one foreign and one domestic."Based in the results of the Iraqi war, each future operation will have two enemies: one military, one political. And if we don't account for the latter, then we'll surely lose the former."

Today, over at Belmont Club, Wretchard writes: Glenn Reynolds notes that the New York Times coverage of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan may not really be about prisoner abuse or even Afghanistan, but about maintaining the prestige of Newsweek. He calls it "circling the wagons", the idea being to teach press critics an object lesson in how expensive it is to humiliate the mass media by catching them at sloppy reporting by flooding the zone with stories similar to the one which was discredited . That may or may not be the case, but it is nearly undeniable that the effect of the media's coverage of American misdeeds has been to make the slightest infraction against enemy combatants ruinously expensive.

No truer indictment of the media can be found. They are every bit as much at war with America as the Islamofascists. In a odd yet ironic symbiosis, both groups have the same object of hatred, the US, and use each other in similar manner. The jihadi feeds off of supposed oppression while the press is all too happy to feed them whatever morsels they can find.
...
Make no mistake about it, we face two enemies in this war. The awards for a buffon in Cannes, the two months straight stories of Abu Ghraib, the AP photographer plants, the latest flushing episode, and a host of other acts prove we're not dealing with a nuetral press, but a hostile one. The Arabs have a saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and nothing is truer about the press today. They are our enemies best friend which makes them an enemy as well.

We will win despite this as their best attempts have already failed. But they will prolong the battle.

For the last thrity years or so, the press has acted in a most arrogant and deterministic manner. They have not only decided they would be above the law, but that they will shape society. A free press was designed to be a check on government abuses, not a fourth branch of government, unaccountable and unelected.

Why is anyone surprised anymore when the press does and says things to destroy America?

Over a year ago, I predicted that:

Now, what will be the Democrats next issue? You heard it here first. It will be income inequality. They will claim that the rich are getting more than their "fair share". Now, I don't know how you judge fair, but I'm sure John Kerry does. A big part of Kerry's problem is that he isn't very likeable, and has a hard time connecting with people. So, he isn't going to motivate alot of people like say Kennedy, Reagan, or dare I mention him in their presence, Clinton, who was the master in personal politics. Second, Kerry is losing issue after issue, and on the most important one, terror, Bush out polls him by over 30 points, while they are close on the economy. So, he has to get as many of anti-Bush people out as he can. Notice that I didn't say his people, which in Howard Dean's case, would have been "his people". Dean had a following. Kerry simply has a mob. They are united by one thing, they hate Bush.

Kerry has to get anyone and everyone who dislikes President Bush to vote for him. It is sad when this is what an election comes down to, a campaign based on hate. But, Kerry is going to have to get one group of Americans hating another group, and what better way than to have the unrich hating the rich. And this is where income inequality comes in. It is easy to target "the rich", they account for such a small percentage of the population. And, since there are a large number of people who aren't "rich", then it is easy to make them think that the reason is because of inequality. Whether he campaigns under the mantra of "economic justice" or "greater equity", or whatever half-baked slogan, he will use it to play one American against another. He has no other choice.

Income inequality. You heard here first. Again. Another reason why Kerry must be kept as far away as possible from 1600 Pennsylvania.

(hat tip powerline) So Kerry didn't take my advice, but apparently Bob Herbert did.

The gap between the rich and everybody else in this country is fast becoming an unbridgeable chasm. David Cay Johnston, in the latest installment of the New York Times series "Class Matters," wrote, "It's no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everybody else behind is not widely known."

Combined with Howie Dean's "...never made an honest living in their lives" and we see a pattern emerging. It's typical democratic straegy, divide and (hopefully) conquer.

I always tell my students not to look at history with a current set of eyeglasses. By that, I mean that we tend to view the past through our present standards, values, and reflections. Always view it in context and always consider what was contemporary. But what if we are to filter the past through a current perspective, what will wee see?

61 years later, D-Day, the entire Overlord operation, and the whole European theatre must go down as one of the greatest miltiary blunders of all time. Surely this must be true if we are to judge by today's standards. Let's take a look:

Prior to the invasion, over 700 soldiers were lost in a training exercise at Slapton Sands. Such careless and the tragic loss of life were defintiely preventable.

The airborne drops were scattered and many lives were lost as planes were shot down, troops dropped into water, too low, or too fast.

Prior to the invasion, the naval and aerial bombardment was highly concentrated, overwhelming, and utterly ineffective. There was a complete failure of intelligence, which would have shown us the hardened bunkers, impervious to most bombing.

Prior to the invasion, the last wave of bombing that hit the beaches was way off target. The bombers were supposed to fly parallel, but that would have exposed them to anti-aircraft fire too long, so they chose a perpendicular approach, faster yet highly inaccurate.

During the invasion, almost all the amphibious tanks, the armor which the landing forces were relying upon, sunk in the heavy surf. They never tested the tanks in the type of water they'd be landing in which led to needless deaths from drowning, not to mention on the beaches.

Soldiers in the landing craft were shot up, many landing craft blown up or caught on the stakes in the surf. Beaches became clogged with bodies and equipment. Entire divisions were dropped off target (Utah), while others were dropped right into the most horrific fire (29th).

An entire battalion was sent to destroy guns which had been moved just a few days prior. Col. Rudder's men were extremely brave and tragically wasted.

The liberation of Europe started out horrifcally. Over three thousand lay dead after just the first days fighting, many times that wounded. Artificial harbors set up offshore proved unable to adequately supply the forces, nor able to withstand the forces of nature. For weeks, the allies had a small patch of northern France secured, while the Cotentin and its port of Cherbourg still lay in German hands. Hundreds of thousands of troops, crammed into a tight holding area, awaited a breakout.

Every day, one thousand Americans were being killed in hedgerows while our tanks were bursting into flames. Our allies were stalled at Caen, later failed to close the gap at Argentan, and took until November to clear out the Scheldte. So bad was the situation that we had to attempt a daring jump into enemy territory in September that failed miserably. Market Garden proved two things: the bravery and skill of our troops and our inability to end the war quickly.

We thought we had the Germnas beaten by late October only to be surprised by a massive winter offensive. We sent troops into the Ardennes unprepareed, ill-equipped, and poorly supplied. German troops on the offensive attacked in winter gear while American troops froze in their summer gear.

The one general who had proven himself in battle in Africa, the one general who the Germans truly feared, sat on the sidelines on D-Day. He was not given a command until several weeks into the operation, and then he was given a secondary task of primarily heading west. During the great encirclement at Falaise, he was ordered to stop, thus ensuring the escape of 200,000 German troops who'd we see later in December. His rapid drive across France was halted, not by Germans but by politicians. Instead of supplying 3rd army with supplies necessay to drive deep into Germany, 21st AG (Montgomery) got the bulk of supplies. We now know how successful that was.

More Americans died in January 1945 when the German army was supposedly beaten and filled with old men and boys then died in June 1944. By March 1945, most divisions in Europe were at or above 100% casualty rate. By the end of the war, the Germans were launching rockets, flying jets, and had almost indestructible tanks that became inoperative simply for lack of fuel. We on the other hand had the same death traps for tanks, were still flying propellor airplanes, and had to overlook Nazi affiliation and war crimes before we could launch a rocket.

This tragedy was led by a man who for some reason is revered in American history. But then again, Americans have an odd affinity for its militray "heroes". The South loves General Lee, a man who squandered his resources, sent the best of the south to die in massed assaults against Union lines. That his judgment was severely lacking is an understatement. He pushed for invading the North and stumbled into the decisive battle fo the war. He continue to push the battle, refused to wait for Stuart's cavalry, and then in despearion launched a charge over open space against entrenched defenders. (At least General Haig had a precedent in 1916.)

Of course this is a satirical revision, intended to prove a point. We knew then and we know now, the importance of the undertaking. However, is this how we should view the "great crusade"? It would be if the current press corps was operating back then. Daily death totals and every casualty are reported non-stop, while successes go unpublished. A few incidences of unacceptable behavior are suddenly transformative of the army of itself. Nobody asks exactly why detainees were from foreign lands, fighting for a terrorist, and not in uniform, while a little sleep deprivation means we're suddenly operating a gulag.

When historians look back to the 20th century, they'll debate on the most most influential moment in US history. Was it Hiroshima, or JFK's assassination, or Watergate? Was it the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, or 9/11? No, the most influential event was Gulf War 1, and it will be so for the most unlikely of reasons.

During World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam, we understood that war was hell. Whether it was a noble cause or not, we expected young men to die in combat. With Desert Storm, we saw missiles fly into building and bombs drop into exhaust shafts, thousands of Iraqi troops surrendering, but we saw no body bags. We saw the destruction to the retreating Iraqi forces, but saw no dead Americans. We saw a quick and easy war, 100 hours or so, we're in, out, we're done. Then troops came home, big parades, and relief.

War became a video game. We saw the reality in Somalia, cut and run, and put the memories out of our heads. We waged a war over Serbia, and the nation held its breath while a single pilot was missing. That he is rescued and wrote a book is testament to how we viewed war. He was famous only because he was unlucky enough, or not skilled enough, to avoid a SAM. Our military response was a cruise missile, a solution that proved to be somewhat cheap, of debatable effectiveness, completely safe, and totally unrealistic.

We have a strange way of viewing the world. We still haven't come close to the magic number of 3000 killed in combat, that being the number killed on 9/11, and yet collectively we expect either instant success or demand answers to explain our failures. In over two years of war, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan as well, by any other standard in history we have achieved the impossible.

We are engaged in a generational war, but deprived of historical perspective, we wallow in temporary setback. We refuse to see the great transformations taking place, revolutions happening right as we speak. We act like a 7 year old on a long car ride. "Are we there yet" will be the refrain.

Imagine June 1944. Now imagine under present conditions. It's only a nightmare. It's also right now.

Perhaps we just need a new set of glasses.

Just three days ago, I wrote in Physician assisted suicide part 2:

Most tragic is that he'll get a pass for the most part from the press, he'll be the topic for a few days of blog traffic, then it'll be lost to the archives. This speech needs to be repeated and repeated as often as possible, and democrats need to be held accountable for it. They are either with him or not.

Looks like Joe Biden is the first to own up:

Asked about recent comments where Dean trashed Republicans as "evil" and said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay belongs in jail, Biden told ABC's "This Week": "He doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats."

Who'll be next? 2-1 says it's Hillary.

Once again, it's time to award another V-Q award. This one goes to the ACLU who, after aiding and abetting criminals for years has now decided to turn their attention towards helping terrorists and all those in the world who hate America. They have successfully sued to force release of Abu Ghraib tapes.

A little perspective is in order. Hundreds of thousands fill Iraqi graves as evidence of Saddam's handiwork, yet a few hundred in Abu Ghraib who were humiliated constitute crimes against humanity.

In Afghanistan, woman were beaten and killed if they left their houses without their husbands, but somehow, mishandling five Korans in Guantanamo is worse.

Insurgents in Iraq kill hundreds of women and children with bombs, behead people who are trying to make Iraqi's lives better, and want to return Iraq to the Ba'athist terror and they're "freedom fighters". We see no protests around the Arab world when Arab kills Arab and no protests around the Muslim world when Muslim kill Muslim. Yet the mere mention of mishandling a Koran sets of riots. Why? The western media willingly responds.

We have liberated 50 million Arabs, brought democratic revolution to Iraq, Afghanistan, breathes life into democratic movements in Lebanon, Syria, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinian territories, just to name a few. And we're to be judged by the acts of a few deranged reservists? I expect that the US should be held to a higher standard, after all we are the beacon of light for those who yearn to be free. We are the example, no greater testament exists than what we haven't done, not what acts we have committed. The one nation with the resources and weaponry to turn half the world into a parking lot, and then produce enough cars to fill it up, won't.

So, the latest Vichy-Quisling award goes to the ACLU for taking a story which is more than a year old and making sure it makes our job even more difficult. Quite ironic that the very ACLU, whose actions aid and abet our enemies, would be the first killed should our enemines win.