There is a connection between London, Baghdad, Egypt, Bali, New York, Beslan, Madrid, Philippines, and every place in between. They are the frontlines in the war.

For the jihadist, victory is actually quite simple. They must prove, not that they can win, but that we can't. It's that simple. We on the other hand have the far greater task. We must actually wage aggressive and protracted wars, expend great resources, and be willing to sacrifice many good lives. And even still, a bomb will blow up on some street corner somehwere.

There was a movie (a not too good one either according to the critics) called Hudson Hawk, which starred Bruce Willis, Sandra Bernhardt, and Andie MacDowell. The plot was that Willis' character had to steal da Vinci's plans for the machine for to turn of lead into gold. Here's the really interesting part. The criminals wanted to flood the market with gold by mass producing it, thus rendering it worthless.

The point was that the entire world financial structure is based around gold. Take it away, and you create financial chaos.

So too are the terrorists dreams somewhat similar. What is the social structure of modern countries really but the belief that you can go as you please, do as you please, in relatively safety. Look no further than our inner cities. The government can spend billions (and has), and what have we yielded but a miasma of crime and suffering. Want to solve the inner city problem? Solve the crime problem first, then businesses will move in and progress will follow. Richard Riordan did it in Los Angeles and Rudy Guiliani did it in New York.

When you take away that basic feeling of safety we have societal chaos. By targeting Muslims, the terrorists goal is simply to convince the Islamic world that there is no hope. At least the marxist, though abjectly lying, offered the peasant something. The jihaist offers absolutely nothing (unless of course you're a US senator from Washington).

I often wonder when the west will wake up. I wonder as well when the Muslim world will wake up. When the murderer of a Dutch filmmaker freely admits in court "I acted purely in the name of my religion" it's time to end the charade.

We hear from the leftist apologists and even the rightist isolationists that we are to blame. As a teacher, I see the exact same destructive, enabling, debilitating script performed in schools. We give the kids every excuse, we call it a "learning disability", we call it "cultural bias". We call it many things, but whatever it is, we tolerate failure and promote shifting of responsibility.

What has the Muslim world heard and come to accept as dogma? It's the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the support of dictators like the Shah, the lust for oil, troops in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel, thge Gulf War, the Iraqi War, the reconquista, the crusades, the disparity of wealth, or some unholy act committed by some westerner greviously injuring the sensibilities of pious Muslims everywhere.

It matters not whether it's a US senator's prepared statements, a reporters jaded questions, a corpulent movie maker and his legions, or years and years of western leaders trying to address the "root causes". It all resonates with the same efficacy.

We have given minorities in America excuse for failure. It racism, it's not enough money, it's lack of opportuity, it's "did I mention racism?". We have a generation that is growing up with more opportunity, more freedom, and more equality than they would have any where else in the world (even in their "home" countries). Yet what have we wrought but the most angry and resentful generation, absent in their parents who did face real racism, real discrimination, and real lack of opportunity.


Their parents either came to this country in serach of a better life, or fought to better this country for most of their lives. And the parents see all their sacrifice has gone for naught as the better life they've given, the better world they've created has been tarnished by the ne'er-do-wells who tell the youth how horrible the country is, how impossible it is to succeed, how much better it is elsewhere. Black leaders still peddle the time worn tales of woe and failed remedies without ever addressing the real problems of single parenthood, lack of education, drugs, crime, violence and a myriad of other internal problems. But why do that as it will never make the 6:00 news? It too is an all too deadly charade.

(It's quite interesting that some groups failed to get the memo. In fact, there are some minorities who are outperforming all groups, even whites. So pronounced is this, the University of California no longer classifies one group in particular as a minority for diversity purposes. In fact, they're technically "overrepresented". Why would that be? But more importantly, how did they get that way?)

We have given the Muslim world the same placebo, made them feel better, never curing the disease. We have given them every opportunity to pass the blame and every excuse to hate us, regardless the truth. The single greatest threat to a young black male in America is another young black male, so dispiriting the crime statistics. And the greatest threat to an Arab Muslim is another Arab Muslim, be he living in a palace built on the filthy lucre of international scandal, strapping a bomb across his chest or loading a car with explosives, or preaching to young men to go do such horror.

(Ironically, the greatest protector of Muslims has been the dreaded infidel. How many Muslim troops stopped the killings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, or East Timor? Who has sent billions in aid to the Arab world and who has taken and sent that same money to Swiss banks, built lavish palaces, or bought unneeded weaponry, mostly to be used for internal security?)

We have given the Muslim world enough excuses and all we've gotten for it are more bombs. The Muslim world has heard the excuses, believed them, and acted out on them for far too long. They have been enabled in many cases beyond repair. When Mein Kampf is a best seller and bin Laden memorabilia are trendy, we have to seriously reconsider the effects of our supposed concern.

We know what message the bombs in London tunnels are meant to convey. However, when a bomb blows up in the streets of Baghdad or outside an Egyptian resort we have to acknowledge that the real targets of the bombs are not the infidel but Muslims themselves.

The jihadist seeks the exact same outcome as the criminals in that long forgotten movie: chaos. We see the results of years of enabling youth in our inner cities, and we see the results in Egypt. Be they criminal gangs patrolling the inner city streets, or some terrorist cell operating in an Arab country, they share the same sociopathy. And to varying degrees, they share the same methodology.

Both are fed by years of excuses. Just as in our cities, the path to prosperity lies in removing the criminal element, and not in (more) contrition.

Went fishing friday, then had family stuff to do. Today, had some reading to catch up on and needed to get some work done around the house. News is kinda light.

Oh yeah, bombings in Egypt. It's all about the Iraq war, it's all Bush and Blair's fault, and oh wait, those were Arabs and Muslims. Like those that are being blown up in Baghdad.

Last post I wrote that we've not been attacked since 9/11 and even though we've been assured it's only a matter time, it's important to ask "why not here?". I listed six main reasons, from the realization that the next attack will unleash a much larger US response, we've been prosecuting the war abroad, effective use of the Patriot Act, coupled with an American character that our enemies abroad (and some here at home) thought was long gone. In addition, the enemy is far more entrenched in Europe and far more likely to gain the victory they seek there.

Today, Wretchard offers another great evaluation, the layered defense. Analogous to WW2, the last time we saw suicidal attacks, we layered the defense:

When faced with the suicide attack problem (Kamikazes) during the Second World War, US fleets adopted the concept of the layered defense around battlegroups, consisting of attacking enemy airfields, providing a radar picket on enemy lines of approach, creating a combat air patrol to intercept incoming Kamikazes and then presenting a succession of long, medium and short-range antiaircraft fire, before finally falling back on warship evasion, armor and damage control. Each component in the defense contributed its statistical share of the defense.

That's basically at the heart of the "fight them or we'll fight them here" strategy of the Bush administration.

As I wrote last post:

Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, some we don't even know about, have seriously weakened the ability of terrorists to attack us. Whether it's a Dean "we're no safer with Saddam captured" to Boxer's latest cookie-cutter drivel "we're creating more terrorists" to the leftist mantra that Iraq has made us less safe, facts prove them wrong. The Iraq war has not only removed the major funder and supporter of terror, but has drawn the moths to the flame and we are killing them en masse. Our aggressive, proactive, and assertive efforts have removed the training facilities, financial support, and key leaders that guide oerations.

Keep in mind who the targets of bombs are in Iraq. They target the innocent, the weak, the militray and police recruit. They don't go after us. Even they, who so desperately want to die, know it's a very quick and unproductive path confronting the US troops.

Whether it's the Philippines or the Horn of Africa, we have been engaged, keeping the terrorists on the run, and most importantly, working with the native peoples to show them there's a better way.

If anything, the results of the last 4 years military actions should be a call for more, not less action.

As I wrote June 21 regarding the leftist "message discipline" regarding the war in Iraq, one of their most egregious errors lies is:

The war in Iraq has not made us safer
This is also a multi-part attack.
a. We've created more terrorists
This line of reasoning is moronic. Did the Iraqi war have any impact on the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 Marine barracks in Beirut, the nightclub bombings in Germany, the Achille Laurel, Pan Am 103, Mogadishu, WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, 9/11, and dozens of others. Upon close examination, in fact, upon cursory obseravtion, the liberation of 50 million Arabs would have little impact on our use as a terrorist recruiting tool.

We need only look to our "friends" in Europe, who have appeased, coddled, done business with, and shielded as best they can to see how much our actions have created more terrorists.

b. al Qaeda is the real target. Iraq was a diversion.
Again, Saddam was one of the prime supporters, trainers, and funders of global terrorism. He even offered to give asylum to bin Laden. This minimalist approach to terrorsism was never better described than Kerry's juvenile "prostitution" analysis, which shows a lack of depth of thought, and clearly no appreciation of the larger battle. Jihadism grows in the slums of despair in the kleptocarcies, petro-tyrannies and mullahcracies like Syria, Iran, and the old Afghanistan and Iraq. It is funded by oil-for-blood money from our "good friends" the Saudis and it is nurtured in radical madrassas led by Wahabist clerics.

We face a group of people bent on resurrecting the ancient caliphate, a total destruction of the infidel, and institution of the sharia across the world. This isn't the Takigawa Shogunate we're facing. Focusing on al Qaeda is analogous to sending a crack team of commandos into Berlin (well, by then he was in Rastenberg) in 1942 to capture Hitler. With or without bin Laden, there are still legions devoted to the fanatical visions of which he was more a central spiritual figure. Does anyone seriously believe that the thousands of jihadis would have just packed it in had we captured him?

c. We're no safer.
This is of course the summation of three years of relentless assaults leveled at the president. If he did anything, it was out of venality. And in the odd chance it isn't, he was totally incompetent. Nothing in this argument nor from its promulgators has emerged to offer an alternative scenario.

Never was thought given to a world with Saddam, one who was liberated from sanctions, freely trading with Europe, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and maybe even Iran. With US troops gone, UN inspectors as well, was he just going to be a model dictator, or was he going to pursue with recklessness his weapons programs? To say that giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt would be Chamberlainesque is insulting to Chamberlain.

We don't have a post 9/11 Iraq with Saddam uncuffed. We have what we have. As I wrote a few days ago "As the bombs continue to blow up in Iraq what is lost on most people is that they're blowing up in Iraq. We've not had an attack in almost four years on our soil."

On the surface, we have what appears to be a failing mission in Iraq. Daily bombings and continually changing hot spots seem to the uninformed, the ill-educated, the easily seduced, and the deranged to be a picture of a growing and more successful insurgency. Daily reports from the MSM that show how "poorly" we're doing, coupled with talking head punditry more apt to follow mindlessly rather than offer serious analysis, all mixed together with incoherent ramblings, deranged machinations, and lunatic fringe rants from the democrats confuse and wear out the public.

Iraq and Afghanistan, the two highest profile operations in the WoT are at the outer edges of the line of defense. It is also there where the greatest deployment of resources must be made. The demcoratic talking points about "first responders", "port security", and other domestic defensive measures are the last ring of defense. We've already seen once how poorly a strategy that is. It also highlights how vacuous and illogical the democrats are, and why they are such a deadly and dangerous group.

To offer a similar WW2 analogy, the German air defenses during the allied bombing campaign are a case in point. They stationed fighter bases in France and throughout Europe. They had flak positions stationed along the most highly trafficked flight routes. They had the heaviest flak around the targets, and they had smoke screens surrounding the highest value targets. One strategy, that proved highly successful, was to launch numerous fighter groups in succession at the B17 formations. This caused the B17 gunners to spend precious ammo, as well as benig able to pick off a few bombers. More importantly, the bomber crews got no respite, and fought all the way in, and all the way out. The German fighters could take off, fight, bail out over friendly territory if shot down, and most importantly, land, refuel, and take off again.

It was a devastating strategy, one that almost broke the back of the 8th Air Force. Save for the introduction of the P51 which could fly all the way with the big heavies, the bombing campaign would have been on hold. As it was, all trips into Germany were cancelled after the second week of October 1943, the Munster, Bremen, and infamous Schweinfurt raids. Most of the Luftwaffe fighters were at the farthest edge, not closest to home.

Japanese strategy during the war was similar in that they were conquering a defensive perimeter they envisioned that would run from the Aleutians to Midway to the Solomons. Once we broke the line in June 1942 at Midway and pierced it in August at Guadalcanal two months later, it was only a matter of time. The closer we got, the tighter their defenses became, but the less effective they really were. The same thing happened in Germany after Normandy. After an initial stubborn defense, the German army collapsed and their rapid retreat allowed us to penetrate the inner defensive ring. Even the Ardennes offensive proved unable to push us out of the inner rings of defenses and had the secondary effect of squandering the last of Germany's effective forces in the West.

Probably our greatest success so far has been to not let the terrorists penetrate our inner ring of defenses. The simple truth is that no matter how good our security at our ports, airports, and train stations, we will never be able to offer sufficient defense there. Then we will need plenty of first responders as surely they'll be called upon.

As Wretchard concludes:

The debate surrounding the prosecution of the war on terror can be conceptually split, though not very neatly, between those who advocate a layered defense with a forward-deployed component (coordination with 'friendly' Muslim countries, involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, etc), plus everything in between, and those who would rely primarily on terminal or close-in defenses (national IDs, CCTV cameras, border control, etc) in the homeland. A small percentage of policy advocates believe that a complete reliance on nearly passive close-in defenses ("support the troops, bring the boys home", build bridges to Muslim communities, etc) would be adequate to protect the public against terrorism. Over the coming years, the value of every aspect of the defense will be highlighted by different incidents. Some attacks will be stopped by an alert security guard, others will be pre-empted in a land so distant the public will never even know that the attacks were mounted. But they are all needed. If any lives were saved in London today, it probably means that a deep defense makes a difference.

Indeed. We need many layers, but the bulk needs to be at the front, not the home front.

London has again been the victim of acts of terrorism, the second such attacks in less than a month. One has to ask why not here?

I think there are actually a few reasons.

1) 9/12 times 2
Look what the US did after 9/11. Nothing will raise the ire of the US like attacks on our soil. And when we are angry, we take action. So, the better course of action is to leave us alone and attack the coalition members. You have to wonder if the mullahs in Iran or the Baathists in Syria are begging the terrorists not to attack us again. They know they're next. As long as we remain attack free, our actions will not escalate, ceratinly not in their direction.

2) American character
Perhaps bin Laden and his ilk misread the US and they now realize it. I have written recently that the enemy seems not to know too much western history. (But then again, I can't fault them, as not too many westerners know western history anymore. Ah, public schools. Maybe they wenbt to our schools. Hey, that's a thought.) They burn flags, we burn civilizations. However, maybe they realize that we are far more resilient than they assumed. Remember, it is still Senator Kerry. They know, as with point one, the very worst thing anyone can do is anger the US.

The best solution is just to let us alone, let us forget what the war is all about, let us drift back into complacency.

3) Patriot Act
Let's just consider for a moment that the Patriot Act has been rather successful. From Buffalo to Lodi, terror cells have been broken up. People forget that most of the anti-terror statutes in the PA were already available to police for use in combatting organized crime. The tools were simply extended to include terror related activities. That's all. Given our successes against organized crime, one can only wonder if the same has been true regarding domestic terrorists. Well, I don't.

4) Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, some we don't even know about, have seriously weakened the ability of terrorists to attack us. Whether it's a Dean "we're no safer with Saddam captured" to Boxer's latest cookie-cutter drivel "we're creating more terrorists" to the leftist mantra that Iraq has made us less safe, facts prove them wrong. The Iraq war has not only removed the major funder and supporter of terror, but has drawn the moths to the flame and we are killing them en masse. Our aggressive, proactive, and assertive efforts have removed the training facilities, financial support, and key leaders that guide oerations.

Keep in mind who the targets of bombs are in Iraq. They target the innocent, the weak, the militray and police recruit. They don't go after us. Even they, who so desperately want to die, know it's a very quick and unproductive path confronting the US troops.

Whether it's the Philippines or the Horn of Africa, we have been engaged, keeping the terrorists on the run, and most importantly, working with the native peoples to show them there's a better way.

If anything, the results of the last 4 years military actions should be a call for more, not less action.

5) Know your enemy
The islamicists know their enemy. They know Europe well. They've lived with them and dealt with them for many years. They know Europe is far more likely to give up than us. They will try to pick them off one by one. It's not going to work in England, but this strategy, isolate America, is their best shot.

6) Locus of terrorists
Europe has a very large an unassimilated Muslim population, that is also predominantly underclass. They are not only susceptible to, but highly likely to accept, the extreme preachings of many of the clerics. Remember, the 7/7 bombers were all home grown. They don't need to import terrorists. I don't think we have nearly that problem here.

Yes, the 9/11 attackers immigrated here, but that just highlights the difference. Sure, we're going to get a Richard Reid occasionally, but by and large, to attack the US, you're going to have to come here. Not so in Europe where the locus of terrorists is very close.

Of course that will cause some other drastic problems. As soon as Europe wakes to the realization, if they have any of their "old ways" left, the results will not be pretty.


We keep hearing that another terrorist attack is only a matter of time. It's not if, but when. But really? I would venture to say that we're not only safer, we're becoming more safe every day.

Our actions, agressive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, combined with concerted domestic efforts have left the terrorists little breathing room. The American people have shown a much stronger resolve than anyone figured. The greatest fear any supporter of terror can have is an angry US. Probably nothing was as more demonstrative of that then Bush's re-election.

Our success so far means only one thing. Keep the pressure on, don't stop, and continue the fight.

The left has been wrong, so wrong, on every aspect of this great struggle we're in. In fact, they're the terrorists best hope for respite. The constant attacks from within, the relentless pressure, be it a self-absorbed press, "quagmire" Kenndey, "gitmno" Durbin, the moonbats of the lefty blogosphere, or Hollywood directors, the Lilliputians can, just maybe, bring the giant Gulliver down.

When we see another attack in London, and we hear that it could happen here, stop for a moment and ask, "why hasn't it?". Simple evaluation will yield a powerful answer. Because we've been doing it right far more than we've been doing it wrong.

Michelle Malkin asks the first thought of some Bush-bashers when they noticed Mrs. Roberts' stern face, was to wonder if Justice Roberts' son was gay and muse about doing oppo research on him. What is it with those people?

There's a simple answer. They are filled with hatred. They hate Bush. They hate the military. They hate America. They (especially) hate minorities who don't tow the line. They hate everything and everyone who doesn't agree with them. They hate because hate is easier and more intellectually safe than thought. The reason they accuse others of hate is that that's all they do, feel, and think. Their souls are possessed with hatred. Their ability to think and reason, if they ever possessed such, has atrophied beyond repair.

That's why. They are a sick bunch. And yes, they are the enemy. Liberals are our opponents. Leftists are our enemy. Period. And I dare anyone to offer evidence to the contrary.

I thought Michelle would have figured that one out by now, especially considering some of the "fan" mail she posted.

The guys from Powerline are happy:

Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way."

Let's hope so.

Bloggers and their readers have been derided for quite a while by the "establishment". But here's some numbers I thought rather interesting. These are stats from this blog:

Operating system by user:
Windows 78%
Macintosh 10%
Unknown 6.4%
Linux 4.3%

Browser of user:
Internet Explorer 56%
Firefox 25%
Safari (Mac) 5.6%
Unknown 4.3%
Mozilla 3%

According to InfoWorld, the FireFox browser "increased its market share to 8.71 percent, up from 8 percent in May, while IE's share shrank to 86.56 percent from 87.23 percent..."

The windows operating system is anywhere between 90 and 95 percent of all desktop operating systems. So, what do the numbers say?

Simple. The more technicologically astute one is, the more apt they are to use an alternative browser, i.e. FireFox.

Also, almost a quarter of my readers use macs or PC's running linux. Macs have a reputation for simplicity, and rightly so, but they are also the geekiest computers on the market too. The difference is this: you don't go into an electronics megastore and plunk dowd $499 for a Mac. (Yes, you can get a Mac mini at Fry's. That's not the rule however.) People who use Macs are a little more discerning computer users, and linux users are far more technically savvy. (I use both!!)

From these simple stats my readers are by and large more technically astute and konwledgeable than the population at large. It speaks well of the blogerrati.

It's not that I mind that Bush consutled with democrats. Fine, get their take on what they think, whether they'll vote no or fillibuster. Fine.

But I have a huge problem with him trying to find a "compromise" candidate. Doesn't he know by now that there is no compromise on the democratic side. They hate him and want to destroy him and his presidency. And they will stop at nothing to accompish this, even if it means subverting a war effort or demonizing very qualified judges.

Bush just should have told them where to go, what they can do with themselves, and what he doesn't give about their opinions. I know I would.

Here's a wager. Regardless the "compromise" nature, the democrats will attack this nominee and do everything to bring down his nomination. I'll wager any lefty blogger one week of unregulated posting, a sort of "blog swap" if you will. You win, you get this blog for a week. I win, I get yours for a week.

Why? In a word, abortion. They are obsessed with it. They worship at the feet of the alter of the amorphous blob of cellular mass. And there they have the advantage. There is simply one overarching issue that the left cares about, the freedom to kill the unborn.

Whereas the right has a multi faceted agenda. Some want to see the court restore property rights. Some want to see the court restore the 2nd ammendment. Some want to see the court no longer hostile to religious traditions. Some want the court to restore the federalist balance between state and federal governments. Some do want to see Roe overturned. Some want to see business stifling lawsuits, regulations, and legislation overturned.

We are a fractured alliance. Case in point. People seem to forget that the NRA opposed Bork's nomination as he was none too friendly to the 2nd ammendment. Another case in point. O'Connor was quite favorable to business interests (she voted against Kelo) although her votes in Lawrence and Casey were unfavorable to many on the right.

Think about it, to keep all the conservative ducks in a row, a nominee needs to be: federalist, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business, anti-lawsuit, pro-property rights, anti-environmentalist wacko, pro-voucher, favorable towards the ten commandments, and many other positions. For the left there is just one thing, abortion uber alles.

So, I figure since Bush's pick can't, won't, say he'll "protect a woman's right to choose", they'll oppose him with all their energy. Sure they'll lose, but they'll have weakened, at least in their minds, the president. And that is their only goal.

Once again, Christopher Hitchens nails it perfectly.

Rove Rage:

Thus, and to begin with, Joseph Wilson comes before us as a man whose word is effectively worthless. What do you do, if you work for the Bush administration, when a man of such quality is being lionized by an anti-war press? Well, you can fold your tent and let them print the legend. Or you can say that the word of a mediocre political malcontent who is at a loose end, and who is picking up side work from a wife who works at the anti-regime-change CIA, may not be as "objective" as it looks. I dare say that more than one supporter of regime change took this option. I would certainly have done so as a reporter if I had known.

As I have written the past coupe of days, Wilson is a liar and a fraud. Once again, the democrats prove they put partisanship ahead of national security.

Here's the final nail in the coffin:

The CIA got everything wrong before 9/11, and thereafter. It was conditioned by its own culture to see no evil. It regularly leaked—see any of Bob Woodward's narratives—against the administration. Now it, and its partisans and publicity-famished husband-and-wife teams, want to imprison or depose people who leak back at it. No, thanks. Many journalists are rightly appalled at Time magazine's collusion with a prosecutor who has proved no crime and identified no victim. Far worse is the willingness of the New York Times to accept the demented premise of a prosecutor who has put one of its own writers behind bars.

People forget that for several decades State has been actively working against US interests, and probably since the late 80's so too has CIA. This latest CIA vs. Bush admin jsut highlights the problems. There's a reason Buch picked Goss to be chief, and there's a reason why he picked Condi to head State. They're going to totally reshape the places. And that will be Bush's greatest unkown legacy.

News from the left, the really far left coast from the LA Times. Affairs at Work Subject to Suits

Workers who lose promotions to colleagues who are sleeping with the boss can sue their employers for sexual harassment, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a significant expansion of sexual harassment law in California, the state high court unanimously decided that any worker, male or female, could suffer sexual harassment even if his or her boss never asked for sexual favors or made inappropriate advances.

At least the Times gets it right, in that this is a significant expansion of harassment law. Now, even if you're not a victim of harassment, you can still be a victim of harassment.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said that the ruling marked a significant change and noted that California employers will now be more vulnerable to employment suits.

Really?

This is why the courts matter. They have created a whole new class of victim. Expect in a few short weeks a bill from the legislature that makes it illegal to trade promotions for sex. Welcome to California.

Though I've written about this just recently, the USA Today writes that Soldiers re-enlist beyond U.S. goal.

The good:

From Oct. 1 through June, the Army had re-enlisted 53,120 soldiers, 6% ahead of its goal of about 50,000 for that period. At that pace, the Army would finish the year 3,850 troops ahead of its target of 64,162.

Re-enlistment rates the past three years have been at least 6% above the service's goals for the 500,000-member active Army. There are about 105,000 Army soldiers in Iraq, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.

The bad:

By contrast, the Army through June was about 15% behind its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. The Army has said it faces the roughest recruiting climate since the start of the all-volunteer military in 1973.

The bright re-enlistment picture won't fully compensate for the recruiting problems, Head said, because the Army needs new troops to fill its lower ranks and has limits on how many senior soldiers it can keep.

One can only speculate as to why this is the case. As some of my commenters in earlier posts have noted, there is great pressure on retention NCO's to get soldiers to re-up and I'm sure that's a factor. Yes the bonuses are probably incentive to some, but I can't believe that fifteen grand is seriously going to make somebody stay if they really don't want to be there. I could be wrong though. I'd like to believe that they are doing it because they believe in the cause.

Now, the problem is clearly in new recruits, though a 15% shortfall I don't think is as acute as is being made out. I don't have the stats, but I'd like to know where the deficiencies are. Are they all combat arms or are they support and service? I'd like to know what MOS's are short as this makes an entire difference when discussing the shortfall. Are they all infantry, or are there medical or intelligence shortfalls? That would be significant.

One of the army's major reorganizations has been to transfer most support and service support to the reserves, thus the high call up rates and longer than expected tours. This is a direct result of post Cold War strategy, designed to save money yet (hopefully) retain an effective fighting force.

I've long argued here that if there's been one thing lacking from the president's war policy, at least domestically, is his call for sacrifice and service from the population. Though he did recently in his Ft. Benning speech, I wonder if the time has passed where it will have effect. Perhaps last months recruitment numbers suggest it did.

I really think that had he come to the American people and said, "Look, it's going to be a long war and fought in many places. We need the next greatest generation. There won't be a draft, but I'm calling on all Americans to once again, put aside a few years out of your lives, and as your grandparents did before, make the world safe for democracy."

I know we'd have a glut of soldiers.

Here's anecdotal evidence. In June, I attended the ArenaBowl, the Arena Football League's championship game. Before the game, a few dozen army recruits marched onto the field and were sworn into the army. They received a very long standing ovation.

I've read about the same thing elsewhere. Now, I really think that the "we support the troops but oppose the war" is leftist dreaming. Most Americans don't support pulling troops out now, understand the importance of victory in Iraq, and will continue to love and support the men and women who are fighting, dying, and protecting us.

Bush just has to translate that into a call to arms. Maybe we need to get some of the veterans to come back here and do recruitment drives. Send a few vets into schools. Let them talk to the kids. My classroom's always open Mr. President. Send a few my way. I'd love to help.

Then there'd be even better news.

Hat tip FlightPundit.

The latest from the NEA's annual meeting.

Folks, these are your public schools. This is the largest teacher's union, which most local unions are affiliated with. My local union is. If you don't think that this group has enormous impact on education policy, personnel, and curriculum, you're sadly mistaken. Why do you think I've been a proponent for years of privatizing public schools. Let's take a look:

NEA affirms and supports the decision of the Executive Committee to participate in the national Wal-Mart Consumer Education Campaign initiated by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. Further, NEA strongly encourages state and local affiliates and individual NEA members to participate in this campaign. - ADOPTED

The NEA will form a coalition with other like-minded organizations and individuals to protect Social Security and the Defined Benefit Systems of this country. NEA will publish in NEA Today information about these efforts and encourage and educate our members of the continuing efforts to attack our members' retirement security. - ADOPTED

The NEA renew and enhance its nationwide initiative to educate our members of the dangers of privatization of our defined benefit pension plans, the impact on retirement benefits and public education, and what NEA is doing to combat these dangers. - ADOPTED

Move that NEA, utilizing existing policy, study the feasibility of initiating a boycott of Gallo wine. - ADOPTED

NBI: Defending Affirmative Action and Opposing the Deceptive "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" - ADOPTED

The NEA shall work with other pro-democracy and pro-labor organizations to lead an education campaign among members and the general public about the need for support of strong public programs and institutions in the face of increasing privatization. _ ADOPTED

I move that NEA investigate the establishment of an affordable/workforce housing programs for members. - ADOPTED

The NEA will explore the feasibility of using existing sources of information from credible institutions such as the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, to educate its members on the regressive taxation practices of the Federal Government, utilizing NEA publications and the NEA Web site. - ADOPTED

The NEA calls on President Bush and Congress to:

* support our troops by creating an exit strategy to end the U.S. Military occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.
* provide adequate veterans benefits and meet the needs of our veterans for adequate jobs, education, and healthcare.

The NEA will:

* support NEA members and their families called upon to serve in Iraq by identifying and providing information about resources and services to help meet their special needs, by advocating for their interests and by protecting their jobs, seniority, and benefits.
* advocate the reordering of national priorities toward peace and the human needs of our people.

ADOPTED

The NEA, thru NEA Today and other means of communications, shall educate members about the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and its serious negative consequences for education. Moreover, the NEA shall actively participate in coalitional efforts to defeat this regressive trade agreement in line with the oppositional position taken by Education International on CAFTA due to commercialization of education and privatization of public services. - ADOPTED

The NEA shall publicize the position of the Education International on the need for debt cancellation in underdeveloped countries. - ADOPTED

Nothing here has anything to do with education and everything to do with leftist indoctrination. It is the right, no, it is the duty, of every citizen, whether you have children in schools or not, to know what is going on in your public schools.

Even if you agree with some, or even all of these demands, they have no place in public schools. What would a parent say if I was to put up pro-life, pro-war, or other conservative type posters in my classroom? Even if they agreed, they have no place in my classroom. I have pictures of my kids, WW2 airplanes, and football posters on my walls, and nothing political.

What is clear is that the view of teacher unions, and thus many teachers and schools, is so far out of the mainstream of public opinion. Worse still, they are addressing areas that have absolutely nothing to do with education.

No commentary is really necessary. Hopefully this will make the rounds and become public. For too long teachers have been able to act behind a veil of secrecy and a wall of job protection. It is time we lift the veil, break down the wall, and in the words of lefties, "take back" our public schools. Do I have any volunteers?

William Grieder writes an excellent piece in the NY Times called The Truth deficit. William Grieder is decidely left of center politically, but he's been rather astute regarding certain economic policies. I was introduced to him many years ago in college when I read his excellent book on the Federal Reserve Secrets of the Temple. For those of you wondering why supply-siders and neocons, as well as traditional conservative economists dislike, even dispise, the Fed, it is a most inciteful book. In fact, it was written (1987) long before some of the more egregious abuses have occurred. For instance, the fed intervention in the stock market has caused major imbalances in stock procing, speculation, and was the precursor to much of the Enron/WorldCom/Adelphia scandals of the 90's. It is essential reading. Much like the Supreme court has become the bane of conservatives, so too is the Fed, an almost unregulated adjudicator of US economic policy.

I also highly recommend reading Woodward's The Maestro and understand the relationship between the Clinton WH and the Greenspan Fed. Now, I tend to fall under a Freidmanesque econmic philosophy, which also takes a decidely anti-Fed stance. As Freidman (and Grieder as well) argue, it was precisely Fed policy that has caused such economic crises as the stock market crash, depression, and the stagflation of the 70's. In fact, my senior thesis in college (advacned macro econ) was the relationship between monetary policy, money supply, and US economic output. I drew heavily on Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History of the US as well as Grieder's book, in addition to a number of articles I've since forgotten the whereabouts of.

Anyways, Greider makes a very salient point:

An authentic debate might start by asking heretical questions: Why is the United States one of the few advanced economies that suffers from perennial trade deficits? Why do new trade agreements, despite official promises, always leave the United States with a deeper deficit hole, with another wave of jobs moving overseas? How do the authorities explain the 30-year stagnation of working-class wages that is peculiar to America? Are we supposed to believe that everyone else is simply more competitive or slyly breaking the rules? In the last three decades, American policymakers have succeeded in closing the trade gap with only one event - a recession.

The American predicament is shaped by operating dynamics grounded in the global system, singularly embraced by Washington because Washington originated most of them. At the outset, these practices were both virtuous and self-interested for the United States - encouraging industrialization in poor countries, binding cold war allies together with trade and investment, furthering the global advance of American business and finance. With its wide-open market, America played - and still plays - buyer of last resort for world exports. Its leading companies and banks gained access to developing new markets, often by sharing jobs, production and technology with others. American policymakers also got to run the world.

The utopian expectations behind this arrangement turned out to be wrong, judging by empirical evidence rather than theory. But why wrong? American political debate is enveloped by the ideology of free trade, but "free trade" does not actually describe the global economic system. A more accurate description would be "managed trade" - a dense web of bargaining and deal-making among governments and multinational corporations, all with self-interested objectives that the marketplace doesn't determine or deliver. Every sovereign nation, the United States included, uses its vast arsenal of policies to pursue its national interest.

On this point, Grieder makes the important point that US policy is not designed around national interest, but rather a narrowly focused interest. And he is entirely correct.

Lest I draw the wrath of fellow conservatives, I wholeheartedly embrace free trade, but, as even Ricardo and Hume (the originators of free trade theory, comparative advantage, etc.) would argue, it was to be between equals. Thus, Ricardo's famous analogy of trade between England and Portugal.

It is interesting to note that Hume's theory of cash (or back then, gold) hoarding (in modern terms, trade surpluses) would not necessarily increase a nation's wealth. He also argued, correctly I might add, that prices were directly related to a country's monetary supply, later expanded into what's been called "Classical economic theory" by Alfred Marshall and later Milton Friedman. This doesn't excuse our huge trade deficits however.

Grieder correctly analyzes the impact that our trade agreements have had, which is the exporting of jobs and capital.

By contrast, Washington defines "national interest" primarily in terms of advancing the global reach of our multinational enterprises. Elites are persuaded by the reigning orthodoxy that subsidiary domestic interests will ultimately benefit too. The distinctive power of America's globalized companies is reflected in trade patterns. Nearly half of American exports and imports are not traded in open markets - the price auction idealized by neoclassical economics - but within the companies themselves, moving materials and components back and forth among their far-flung factories. A trade deficit does not show on the company's balance sheet, only on the nation's. In recent years, much of the trade deficit has reflected the value-added production and jobs that companies moved elsewhere.

Again, lest I be accused of leaning leftwards, it is far a more a conservative position to be cautious regarding trade agreements. One need look no further to see that the most vehement opposition to "globalization" has been far leftist groups, whose main concern is "exploitation" of third world peoples. It matters not at all that countries like India, once they eschewed the socialist model and adopted free markets and democratic reforms (the latter also a condition describe by Hume and later Hayek), has experienced rapid economic growth and increased prosperity. In fact, the same situation occurring in China, market reforms, private property, and monetary restraint, has resulted in similar results.

Why do the Chinese and Indian models matter? Because they have precisely traded with partners (the US) whose standards of living and per capita income were far higher than their own. Thus, the net gains will be made by the lesser party, while the greater party will experience job loss, living standard degradation, and capital outflow. Sound familiar? It should.

Sadly, we have tailored trade agreements to favor corporation's bottom lines, thus increasing their stock prices, and artificially augmenting investment portfolios. But Grieder misses the one fatal component in all this. Where we cannot export, we import from the lesser partners. In this case, it's the one area that the president and both parties have not only failed miserably, but been derelict in their duties: immigration.

The left has always been opposed to trade agreements based upon environmental issues, human rights concerns, or local labor issues. The right has not been as opposed to the agreements, sadly falling back upon on the "free trade" mantra of here, there, and everywhere. But trade is not a scientific problem, where if an experiment can be reproduced and repeated, then it must work in all cases. Unlike science, trade is theory not law, it being subject to many variables and unique cases.

As I have written in the past, the immigration problem is an even more dire circumstance than our disastrous trade policies. While we can always renegotiate or cancel our trade agreements, we cannot just remove millions of "imported" workers who serve the same purpose as the trade agreements do.

Grieder adds

The United States is thus especially vulnerable to the downward pressures on working-class wages that exist on both ends of the global system. American producers are generally free - and even encouraged by Washington - to shift production to low-wage locations. Companies regularly use this cost-cutting technique as a competitive weapon without regard to the domestic consequences. The practice works for companies and investors, but not so well for a nation.

INDEED, the cumulative effects of retarding labor incomes worldwide repeatedly threatens stagnation or worse for the entire system. Workers, to put it crudely, cannot buy what the world can make. Too much capital leads to the speculative "bubbles" that bounce around the world, visiting financial crisis on rich and poor alike.

Now, I disagree that "working class wages" is, or should be, the final arbiter of successful trade policy. It matters far more what those wages will buy. For example, a few years ago, a decent home PC was in the $1000 range. Today, the same PC is under $500. In fact, there hasn't been the "downward pressure" per se on wages that many on the left describe. For one reason, the actual working class wage is attached to a different kind of job: the low end variety. And it is there that the real problem exists.

We're all familiar with the outsourcing phenomenon, jobs, especially tech jobs, going to India. Most have been of the help desk, customer support type, with some programming and other related jobs going as well. But recently the tech industry has begun hiring again, and job problems are more a factor of a glut of CS majors and a changing industry (away from the pure PC model and to appliances), coupled with very low margins and fierce competition. (Thus the precipitous drop in PC prices.)

We have long since exported or replaced our manufacturing jobs in the 80's and 90's, and those are not really coming back. But new ones are, as in the case of Japanese automobiles being built in the US.

So where is the real dilemma then?

It isn't in the white collar jobs, the skilled labor jobs, or even the high capital industries. It's in the low end, low skill jobs that the problem is most acute. And that is where the trade policies and immigration is killing the US economy. The dearth of low end jobs is problematic for several reasons. One, that is where many get job experience which they can then translate into higher paying jobs. Two, many lower paying jobs end up becoming higher paying jobs. Three, the obvious economic pressures on state and local governments that have to deal with larger number of unemployed workers. There are many others as well, including the pressure on small firms to be able to compete.

So far, most pressure on jobs has been on lower paying jobs and small business, two groups that have little clout with our elected officials.

If we think of it in terms of the food chain, reducing the number of plants in an ecosystem will not immediately affect the environment. But, the slow and steady erosion of the bottom of the food chain will impact the numbers and quality of those higher up. Right now, with growth in the 4% range, unemployment at 5%, home prices at record levels, and a bull market in stocks, all signs point to continued prosperity. But that is not a long term scenario.

We can't continue to export low end jobs, where so many start out at, and we can't import the products of low end jobs which has precisely the same effect. This isn't protectionism at all. It's precisely putting national interests first, which is a conservative priority. We wouldn't want the UN dictating US foreign policy, why then do we want trade agreements and multinationals dictating US economic policy?

I do think it is a case of national sovereignty and economic as well as national security. Grieder makes some very good arguments, which both the right and the left need address. In addition, we need put aside the rightist "free trade and free markets" dogma as well as the leftist "racism, hegemony, exploitation" diatribe as well.

So where do we start? First, we acknowledge that unrestricted immigration is a disaster. Second, we acknowledge that trade must be between relative equals. Third, we find a balance between the two.

We can allow some immigration of low skilled labor and we can allow importation of low skill products. Both do improve the overall standard of living. It keeps food cheaper and provides for the plethora of consumer goods that make life better. But, we have to insist that if we're going to trade (labor or goods) with nations that have a decidedly lower standard of living, that unless we see real market reforms, it will cease.

Right now, most of the impact has been at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder. But that won't continue forever. Part of the "American dream" has always been upward mobility, and that has been the biggest casualty of all. And it is precisely a conservative solution to the problem, in this case not some government program or subsidy. All we need do is limit immigration and refuse to consign ourselves to bad trade policy. One is a role of government, the other as well. Both require political will and common sense far more than another bureaucracy.

Then, let the market take its course, as it always has.

Glen says

When all is said and done, I think the CIA will turn out to be the big loser here, because there's just no way to parse these facts that makes the Agency look good -- just varying shades of incompetent, or politically motivated and dishonest.

He's right.

Sullivan says not so fast.

The bottle keeps spinning. When it stops, who'll be the guilty one? And guilty of what? It's not even clear any more what possible crime Fitzgerald is investigating.

Right. We know what his problem is.

We know what this really all about. Iraq.

(former Clinton press secretary John)Podesta: Well, I think the President paid a tremendous price. At the end of the day this isn't about Pres. Clinton, this is about the Bush WH, this is about the war in Iraq. This is about the fact that whether it's Dick Clarke or Joe Wilson or Gnl. Shinsheki or Max Cleland or Joe Wilson, the motus operandi is if you criticize this WH, if you suggest there is another point of view, you're attacked. You're smeared.

Of course it is all abot Iraq. Anything to undermine the president during wartime and hurt him. This is what it is all about. Again, putting petty partisan poltiics well before national security, and worse, acting like whiny little children, "ooh, he's calling me names" instead of addressing the facts.

Wilson is a liar and a fraud. He purposefully attmepted to twist his report to make the administration look bad, and he did it publicly. He did it without regard to how it would affect our national security. He wanted a position in a Kerry administration.

To all those hoping and praying that this brings down Rove, and maybe even Bush, just get over it. If this is the best you can come up with, there is simply one word to descrive you: pathetic.