Okay liberals, prove me wrong. Proposition 77 out here in California is about redistricting. Right now, it is done by the legislators. For your edification, last election of 80 assembly seats and 53 House Seats being contesteds, not a single seat switched parties. I guess that's what passes for democracy on the left.

However, whether we need reapportionment reform or not, is not the issue. The anti 77 ads are.

Here's ad 1 and here's ad 2.

What is blatantly obvious? The retired judges are white males. Watch the ads. There is but one thing you gain from them: three evil looking white males will destroy the constitution. They don't represent you.

It's disgusting. It's highly offensive. It's also dishonest. But worst of all, it's decidedly racist.

Prove me wrong.

Joe Wilson in today's LA Times tries to describe his 27 months of hell.

Here's a guy who lied, got caught lying, and still acts as though he's a paragon of truth. He's so toxic even John Kerry dumped him. Now that's bad.

He had his fifteen minutes. Now he and Cindy what's her name can go home.

A few weeks ago, I filled up at $3.05 per gallon. Today, I filled up at $2.81, and passed signs as low as $2.75. Gas prices drop twenty five cents in the last couple of weeks, and nothing is in the news. Why?

Am I missing something?

David Gelernter, whom I often cite, concludes that Americans won't let Democrats lose Iraq:

Be warned, senator: If Democrats become the "let's treat Iraq as we treated Vietnam" party, the public will turn away in revulsion, and the Democratic Party will die. It's not in such great shape anyhow.

Leahy's words lighted up a deep, dark secret that this nation would rather forget. Defeat in Vietnam was a catastrophe for the U.S., a body-slam to the nation's self-confidence. It was far worse for Southeast Asians, who were exiled, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by their vicious communist conquerors. But for left-wing Democrats it was a triumph. Forcing the mighty U.S. military to run away was the greatest victory they have ever known. That triumph broke a levee that sent a flood of left-wing ideas pounding across the U.S. landscape.
...
MANY OBSERVERS have noticed that Democrats of the left speak of Iraq as another Vietnam. Few have explained why: Because Democrats of the left want Iraq to be another Vietnam. Not that they took pleasure in Vietnamese suffering, but they rejoiced in the left-wing power surge that transformed the United States in the aftermath. Naturally, they hope to repeat that experience: to humiliate Republicans, moderate Democrats and the military by pinning the label "bloody failure" on another foreign war.

It's not going to happen.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, and the public knows it. In the recent referendum, 63% of Iraqi voters cast ballots. Each vote screamed defiance at terrorism and defeatism. Each vote told the world that terrorism will lose and democracy will win, that Iraqis trust the United States to help protect them against vengeful insurgents bent on murdering whoever dares to hope and care and vote.

An impressive 78% voted "yes" on the new constitution. Sunni Muslims said no, but many said it at the ballot box. The referendum made clear that ordinary people everywhere do want to govern themselves. Democracy could have worked in Vietnam too.

This nation will abandon the Democratic Party before it abandons Iraq.

I have written many times on this, that the democratic party, at least its leadership, is openly working agaisnt the country. In past times, this would be called treason. Now, it's called "dissent". (It is also why I've said all along that Hil can't get the nomination.)

This isn't an indictment of the entire party, for there is Joe Lieberman, but few others. The party has been hijacked by the far left, the Ramsey Clark, Cy Vance, Michael Moore view of international affairs. Remember who was an honored guest at the last DNC? Rememebr who sold out our allies in Asia and Africa? Remember who defends out enemies? And remember whose administratin they all worked for. Hmmm...Carter.

I hope Professor Gelernter is right. I still have faith in large segments of the population, but sometimes my faith is severely tested.

But one must ask themselves this simple question: Can you really trust the democratic party to defend this country? The simple answer is no, you can't. Sure, a democratic president might, but the pressure from his party would be enormous.

Peggy Noonan writes about the nagging feeling so many of us have in our guts, that something is terribly wrong and we're doing nothing about it.

It is not so hard and can be a pleasure to tell people what you see. It's harder to speak of what you think you see, what you think is going on and can't prove or defend with data or numbers. That can get tricky. It involves hunches. But here goes.

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination."

I have felt this way for a long time.

Last month I wrote of New Orleans:

We are either going to rise as a nation, like the Phoenix, or sink into the abyss. Either we are going to restore the America of old, the values, traditions, and beliefs, or we are going to find ourselves the Roman Empire.

When people say of the chaos, "That's not America", they are right. That's not America. Yet it is in America. That's the problem.

A festering ideology has metasticized, revealing a lingering malignancy. We are truly infected with a disease of malaise and dependency. This has nothing to do with racism, the civil war, Jim Crow, or any of the other futile attempts at amelioration. No, this has everything to do with a set of policies that for forty years has stolen the soul and spirit of people, destroyed their will and their drive. It is a policy which says "we'll take care of you, because you can't take care of yourself." And we see the results.

This past January, I observed:

The end of the Roman empire, and thus the end of antiquity, is traditionally marked in text books from the sack of Rome in 476 by Oadacer. Certainly one needn't stop there, as the sack in 406 by Alaric, the defeat of Valens at Adrianople, or even the moving of the capital to Constatinople all could mark the end. Yet, one could very well mark the end of the Roman empire from the time the first Romans began to leave the cities and head to the hills, so to speak.

Rome, beset by political corruption, urban decay, loss of trade, and military infighting, was led from the late second century on by a series of emperors whose greatest skill was maintaining a pulse. At one point, the life expectancy of emperor was months, and often, just weeks. At about the same time, massive immigration from across the Rhine led to large communities that had no connection to the empire they inhabited, save geography. These Germans, pushed westward by Hunnic expansion, inundated the Roman empire so thoroughly, that by the mid fourth century, the Roman legion was as much non-Roman as Roman. Yet, as this was happening, no historian could fully grasp what was happening. The response to the declining empire for many was simply to leave the urban centers.
...
Though a hyper-power, the US has simply the power to respond to, but not reshape, events. And thus, the Iraq war was as much a response to, as a reshaping of, the new world. Terrorist and tyrants make for a potent combination, but when coupled with the pursuit of WMD's and the ease with which they can be produced, we find ourselves at a uniquely familiar situation. It's familiar in that we have a growing threat on the horizon, and it's unique in the threat is diverse and dissipated. In what will be the source of dissertations for decades, that while the threat we face is clearly visible, the enemy is mostly invisible.

There is great angst felt by so many Americans. What troubles us twofold: that so many simply don't care enough about the country and that so many don't care that so many don't care.

We know our leaders don't care about us, and likewise, we care not a bit for them. Yet, in some strange alternate universe, the very same people are supposedly our caretakers.

What an ironic indictment, that the very same government who supposedly blew up the levies to kill New Orleans' black population shold also bear primary responsibility for care and prevention.

What a strange world when we know our enemies are out there and want nothing more than to destroy us, but we're too afraid publicly to address them openly, lest we offend them.

What a strange time when the guardian of our culture, public education, has become caustic to their very purpose. Multiculturalism has become near religious indoctrination, fundamentals and academic rigor replaced by therapeutics, self actualization and sensory expansion.

Strange indeed is our popular culture, so derided, yet routinely exploited, by the very people who make millions from its profligacy.

What a curious society it is that millions criticize our unfettered immigration while millions lap up the excesses, cheaper goods in markets, cheaper labor for businesses, while completely ignoring the rampant settlements that look and act nothing like our own.

It doesn't require a sociologist to look around and conclude something is wrong. We hole ourselves up in enclaves, define ourselves by our homes and cars, fear for our future, yet demand only more and more from our politicians.

So many of us feel in so powerless to stop the tide. Yet, we've either resigned ourselves to our fate, or have put our blinders on.

History is certainly a guide, and with it we have the model. Mrs. Noonan, your former boss, one of the truly great men of the twentieth century sleeps forever in peace. It is a good thing. For the land he envisioned is slowly but surely declining. The saddest part of all is that it comes mostly from within. We are all too good at rallying when attacked, witness 9/11, but when we feel at peace...

And so perhaps our enemies will see this too, that the sleeping giant is dying. Rather than attack and stir the leviathan, let them do themselves in.

More and more we do resemble the Roman Empire. No, we have no praetorian guard choosing the president, but does not the military heavily favor one party over another? Do they not feel that their sacrifices and their missions are denigrated by one party? Do they not feel that the picture the popular media (which has sided almost totally with one party) presents is completely at odds with reality. And for how long will their neutrality last? Or, better yet, for how long will they continue to fight for what no longer exists?

Does not 21st century America reflect 3rd century Rome? Sadly, we share their problems and their pessimism. For the Roman then new just as well that the future looked bleaker and the past better. Will we be able to reverse the course? Absolutely.

But will we?

VIctor Hanson is once again brilliant describing what he's seen in his twenty year career as a professor in the Cal State University system. As a graduate of the system, having earned a Bachelor's and a Master's from the system, I take particular interest in them.

What has Professor Hanson learned?

Of the professorship:

Since expensive faculty members are often not replaced by similar permanent professors upon retirement, some 52 percent of the teaching faculty is not tenured or even on a tenure track. This trend, which is occurring not just at CSU but across the nation, is poorly reported — surprising, given its illiberal nature. The new horde of outsourced part-timers, many equipped with Ph.D.s, can be paid at a far cheaper per-course rate, often without benefits or employment protection. CSU has come to resemble ancient Sparta: absolute equality and privilege for the depopulated peers inside the system, rampant exploitation for the growing mass of helots outside it. Few worry that students cannot find their adjunct instructors for a meeting during office hours, or that those who increasingly do the teaching have no input in the governance of the university.

Of the incoming freshmen:

The CSU system by its charter must admit any California applicant ranked in the top third of his high-school class who has at least a 2.5 grade-point average. Yet of that select cohort, nearly 40 percent are not eligible to enroll in regular university coursework without first completing a remedial, high-school-level math class, and almost half must take a course in basic English. Maddened professors usually blame the secondary schools for sending such unprepared students to their university. In response, high-school teachers cite all sorts of exculpatory circumstances — the breakdown of the family, illegitimacy, drug abuse, racism, poverty, suburban malaise, and the ennui of the American teenager — that make their instructional tasks nearly impossible.

Of the curriculum:

Instead, the CSU system finds itself trapped in a chicken-or-egg conundrum: Either it has to offer a great deal of fluff because so many of its students arrive fluff-headed, or so many of its students leave fluff-headed after taking a great many fluffy classes. Mediocrity is apparent not just in new and vapid academic programs and departments (“Recreation and Leisure Studies,” “Conflict and Peace Studies”), or in the proliferation of such courses as “Basic Massage,” “Rock Climbing,” and “The Chicano Family.” Far more revealing is the vast growth of new centers, programs, and services that simply could not have been conceived of in the university of the past but are now institutionalized — and require floor space, release time from teaching, new technologies, endless counseling, and millions of dollars in secretarial and administrative support.

Of the university focus:

The array of these projects at the Fresno campus alone is dumbfounding, and I offer here only a partial list: the Center for Educational Research and Services; the Department of Counseling, Special Education, and Rehabilitation; the Special Education Program; the Curriculum and Instruction Department; Early Childhood Education; the Department of Educational Research and Administration; Educational Administration; the Early Education Center; the Instructional Technology Resource Center; the Literacy and Early Education Department; the NASA Joaquin Valley Regional Teacher Resource Center; Reading/Language Arts; the Reading Recovery Project; the Teacher Preparation and Services Center; the Interdisciplinary Spatial Information Systems Center; the Solutions Center; the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning; Distance Learning; the Educational Opportunity Program; the Learning Resource Center; the Intensive Learning Experience Program; Southeast Asian Student Services; the Summer Bridge Program; University Migrant Services; University Outreach Services; the Educational Opportunity Center; Educational Talent Search; the Student Support Services Program; the Upward Bound Program; the Reentry Program; Services for Students with Disabilities; the Women’s Resource Center.

Of the results:

The often well-meaning educators who advance that ideology embrace a therapeutic rather than a realistic — and, therefore, often tragic — view of human nature. They are committed to the idea that their budgets, counseling, and sensitivity can do what math, science, and liberal arts cannot: produce a happy and nice citizen. It is not so much that these adjunct staffers (who, unlike part-time faculty, are often employed full-time and well protected by the university) are irrelevant to the academic mission of the university as that they are antithetical to it. They give students perennial crutches, teach them to believe that others are responsible for their shortcomings, and persuade them that skills can somehow be obtained in ways less painful than the old academic notion of reading great literature, mastering English composition and basic math, and learning correct grammar.

One of my long standing premises is that the only way to save education is to privatize it. Nothing is more important to a society than its educational system and this is the result of the socialist model upon which we educate our children.

Why do our schools do everything but educate? Because they can.

The media is gleeful over the "milestone" of the 2000th death in Iraq. As an RCP blog post demonstrates:

The problem is that to truly honor something means, by definition, to hold it in high respect and esteem. Members of the media may hold the sacrifices of individual soldiers in esteem but it's fair to say that, as a whole, they have significantly less respect for or belief in the causes for which those soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq. The result is that much of the mainstream media can't separate the men from the mission, and feel that to write positive stories about Iraq or stories truly honoring our soldiers would be seen as propaganda supporting the policy (and indirectly the President).

What is clear, and has been for the longest time, is that the media does not honor our soldiers. As I noted almost one year ago:

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

Yes, it was obvious back then, and it is ever more so now. They do not "support the troops" any more than they support the mission. For the truth is this, that the men and the mission are one in the same. No honor can come to one who fights for an unjust cause. We do not honor the Confederate soldier for precisely that reason. We might acknowledge he fought hard and suffered greatly, and yes, there are statues honoring the fallen from both sides at Gettysburg. That is recognition of the historic battle and that they too were Americans.

Neither Jefferson Davis nor Robert E. Lee are afforder such luxuries. They are reviled as traitors at worst, enemies at least. Likewise, there are no monuments at Iwo Jima for the Japanese nor are there honored burial grounds for the Germans in the Ardennes, though without doubt, both fought fiercely and "bravely". When a million or more Germans never returned home from Russia, nary a word was raised, from any side. And we do know what happened to them.

The view of the troops is one of either pity or contempt. Fortunately, society will not allow for this, as any demonstration, be they parade of idiots in San Francisco or a circus of fools in Crawford, must outwardly display praise for the soldier.

But look underneath their faint praise and what do we find? A war for oil, a war of lies, a war of aggression, all causes worhty of condemnation? Where is the joy over the spread of democracy or the freeing of Muslim women? Where is the outrage when Muslims are butchered by other Muslims, blown to bits while doing something so inglorious as going to school or trying to build a sewage plant? In either case there is a noticable lack.

The complete moral vacuuity of the left and their own blind hatred obscures their ability to see what confronts them. They would no more glorify the policeman who sent dogs after black children in Alabama nor the crazed religious nut who blows up an abortion clinic. In both cases their hatred for the cause and the leaders precludes them from acknowledging that the underlings were "just following orders". No, the disgust is universal.

And so too is it for the troops. That the cause would be unjust, so too are those who fight for it. We're seeing the truth come out. There is no room for honoring the troops amidst the dishonor of an "illegal" war. I believe that the American people see this as well, perhaps the complete failure of the anti-war movement to extend beyond the fringe.

2000 is purely an arbritary number. It has no more meaning than 1900 or 2100, both a previous milestone, and sadly, most likely, another future milestone. We cannot measure what we do not know, namely how many lives will be spared from future engagements, from future terrorist attacks, from future strife.

We do know that we had unfinished business from 1991. We are paying for that today. How many more lives would it have taken in 1991, when we had a far larger military, far more international support, far more resources? That too is a question unanswerable, but clearly, the cost of that decision is at least 2000 today. And how many lives would it have taken to confront the terrorists when we had the chance, instead of when we had no alternative? Clearly, another unanswerable question, but one which we know is at least 2000 today.

How many lives did it cost for France to withdraw her troops from the Rhineland in 1936? 150 million.

Ignore the successes, attack the mission, and now, dishonor the troops. Just as predicted.

Robert Kagan exposes the media in all their shame today. Too bad this internet thing exists, for the media can no longer hide.

He steps up to remind them of a few things they said:

A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one.

Lest anyone think the NY Times editorial board is a bunch of peaceniks:

Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."

Anyone who thinks that "going it alone" was a disastrous plan:

Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."

And no, it wasn't only the Times that was in the war camp:

The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."

I honestly don't know what is worse, the fact the press is so willing to lie, twist, distort, and hide the truth, or that they think they can do it. They hate the president so deeply that they are willing to do anything and say anything just to bring him down. And if that just happens to endanger our security, so be it. They'd rather we lose the war. That any other position could possibly exist is beyond debate anymore.

I have said often, and sadly it needs repeating. We are fighting two enemies, one foreign and one domestic.

David Gelernter explains why history matters and in doing so exposes my junior Senatorette as the fool she is.

Boxer was trying to grill Condi Rice over the war and made reference to the Holocaust.

She made reference to the Holocaust, offensively. More important, she demonstrated that she doesn't know U.S. history, and she implied that the American people don't either. And she raised an alarming question about contemporary politics. We often hear from Democrats that President Bush's policy in Iraq makes no sense. But how can it make sense to the Barbara Boxers of Congress if they can't understand the explanation?

Rice was defending the administration's conduct of the war when Boxer objected. The administration, Boxer noted (correctly), has changed focus on Iraq. We went to war mainly on account of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism, she said. But WMD turned out to be a hoax on the whole world, and nowadays we are told that our Iraq mission is gigantic. We plan for a freed Iraq to inspire and stabilize the entire Middle East and to promote democracy everywhere. What kind of bait-and-switch is the administration playing with the American people?

Rice answered that this is the way the world works. For example, we did not go into World War II to build a democratic Germany…. Here Boxer interrupted. World War II, she told Rice curtly, has nothing to do with Iraq. Boxer had lost relatives in the Holocaust. No one had to tell her about World War II.

Anyone who knows anything about the history (which apparently isn't Babs) of WW2 knows we did not fight because of the Holocaust. In fact, we do know that FDR refused access to America of the St. Louis. (Well, if he didn't directly, we know what the history books would have said had he been a Republican...)

In December 1940, FDR gave his now famous "Arsenal of Democracy" speech. I find no mention of Nazi mistreatment of Jews.

When reading about the US Army in WW2 (and yes, I have extensively), almost universally is the lack of knowledge of the Holocaust. Yes, Americans were well aware of the anti-semitism and persecution (and no, they wouldn't have sent 250,000 sons to die to free Jews), but when US soldiers uncoverd the death camps, it was shocking and unbelievable.

For Boxer to invoke the Holocaust when discussing US involvment in WW2 shows ignorance and stupidity on the highest levels. As Mr. Gelernter notes:

hat do we conclude when the secretary of State makes a plain statement of historical fact and a senator won't listen? That it is only natural for demagogues to attack thoughtful, polite officials who are trying hard to tell straight truths about a complicated war. The Boxers of this world ought to be met with single-minded slogans, but no doubt Rice can't see why she should stoop that low.

Americans who don't know history are the demagogue's natural prey. Boxer's statements assume that Americans at large know as little about history as she does. Let's hope it's not true.

That's why history matters.

For the democrats, it can't be any more like 1994. They see the president's approval numbers dropping, congressional approval at near record lows, and public dissatissfaction high. Ryan Sager writes that many democrats think now is their chance to turn 2006 into 1994. I have some news, it's not 1994. And it's not even close.

The country is still far more conservative than liberal, all recent polls will still concur. In 1994 what happened was not that democrats starting voting Republican, but the democrats admitted they were Republican. The southern democratic politician was one in name only, and the democratic voter voted for Reagan and Bush and never even considered Dukakis or Mondale. Many democratic politicians switched parties and never feared losing their seats.

The Republicans had a definite plan and agenda. It was new, bold, and in many ways revolutionary. It sought to reign in federal spending, balance the budget, return power to the states, and shrink the government. Nothing like that had been tried in Washington in at least 60 years. Contrast that with whtever the democrats would propose. It is still more of the same: tax the rich, "invest" in people (i.e. spend more money), and universal health care, increased minimum wage, etc. Been there, heard that before.

What made the Conract with America so powerful were not the specific points, ut the underlying philosophy. The idea of limited government resonated with many. What could the democrats offer? A reworked Great Society/New Deal menatlity wrapped up in bland policy initiatives.

Most of the current angst comes from within the Republican party itself. Conservtaive (myself included!!) are frustrated with a paraty that forgot spending restraint, federalism, and fiscal responsibility. We are also upset with a president who isn't appointing true conservatives to the bench and then fighting for them. We are also furious with a president who is not prosecuting the war as aggressively as we'd like. But, none of this adds up to support for democrats.

The democrats couldn't win a national election by bringing out their base. They can't win by nationalizing the congressional elections. There just isn't national movement, a twenty year trend that they can capitalize upon. Reagan was not an anamoly, but rather an expected and altogether consistent occurrence. Bill Clinton owes his election to disaffected Republicans and when he found himself in trouble, it was from moving left (health care and gays in teh military). His recovery came from moving right (welfare reform and balanced budgets). Had national security been a factor, he'd have lost.

For the democrats to win, they must do two things. One, they need to be credible on national defense and two, be credible caretakers of fiscal responsibility. Expect neither. Thus, expect little turnover in 2006. As I've mentioned many times, I'd love to vote for a democrat who's fiscally responsible and strong on defense. But then again, those people are usually called Republicans.

It's not 1994.

Michael Yon, whose freelance reporting from Iraq surpasses everything else put forth by the MSM, has an excellent piece in the Weekly Standard. What caught my attention was this one paragraph:

e left, drove here and there, and landed at a different unit: the 170th MPs from Fort Lewis. This unit was responsible for supporting 20 polling stations. Sergeant First Class Dilbert French mentioned some minor SIGACTS that were not worth jotting down. (SIGACT is military jargon for significant action; anything that significantly affects friendly or enemy forces.) "Is it like this all over Iraq?" I asked. I could hardly believe it. Where are the mortars? The IEDs? The homicide bombers and car bombs? No snipers? Surely the ground must be shaking in Falluja or Ramadi, and what about Mosul, Baquba, and Basra? What about Tal Afar? French checked the secure computer for all of Iraq. The whole country looked quiet. "The media is going to be very disappointed," chuckled one soldier, and I laughed along with him.

And more significantly, the last sentence:

The whole country looked quiet. "The media is going to be very disappointed," chuckled one soldier, and I laughed along with him.

That one line says it all.

"The media is going to be very disappointed" sums up what we all know, and the soldiers must surely know all too well. The media wants failure in Iraq. How sad that the soldiers who are fighting evil must battle not only the enemy, but their own press as well. I cannot imagine how morale can remain so high when they know that nothing good they do will be reported, and worse, anything negative will be over-reported. And then, it's not even the bad, it's also the untrue, such as the Koran flushing stories.

I have written so much on this (one of the reasons for my hiatus, simply burnout and frustration) that nothing more needs saying. We are fighting two enemies, one foreign and one domestic. As professor Hanson so eloquently noted, no democrat can offer on word of priase for Iraq out of fear it would help the president. They put party before country, and they expect to lead us?

In just the last year alone, Iraq has had two historic elections and the response from the press has been pathetic. Yet, when that sad day comes when the 2000th soldier is killed in Iraq, expect headlines to blare it across their front pages and the talking heads to lead with it.

In a war we must win, the one question still remains.

Will we be able to win it?

Clearly the forces we face are not nearly as dangerous as the forces behind us. And it is the forces behind us, allied against us, that do us the most harm.

The media will surely be disappointed. That says it all.

We are currently studying poverty in my econ classes and the last couple of days focused on just exactly who is poor. For a detailed statistical look, look that the Annual Demographic Survey by the Census Bureau.

What are the results? Not shockingly, the poor are:

• young, most under 25


• single


• high school graduates or dropouts


• single parents


• female


• minority
• 
  
• without full-time jobs*

*this is entirely different from being unemployed. Someone unemployed is ready, willing, and able to work, but hasn't a job. Someone without necessary skills or undesiring of work is not unemployed. Economists call those ready, able, and willing to work but not frictionally or cyclically unemployed. Once you can no longer be employed (i.e. structurally unemployed) and drop out, or simple choose not to work, you are no longer "unemployed".

Let's examine for a moment, not who are poor, but who are not. In fact, there is a simple diagnosis for living above poverty. Finish high school, get married, get a full time job, and have kids after 25.

What makes this so revealing is that for the last 40 years we have spent 5 trillion dollars on anti-poverty measures, tried every innovative and novel approach, and accepted every excuse and reason. Yet, forty years later, poverty has remained basically unchanged.

Why?

That the answer is so simple should not come as a shock, but yet, for so many it does. Poverty is a choice. To qualify that, poverty is the result of choices.

In fact, it is not even about choices nearly as much as it is about character. Simply being a little more disciplined and responsible. Stay in school. That's not too hard. Work hard. That's possible for most. Exercise some self restraint. Shouldn't be too difficult.

But sadly we do not teach such obvious and dare I say simplistic virtues. We instead offer up a littany of excuses and present them to those all too willing, who seek amelioration in failure rather than comfort in success.

Our students can leave school having mastered all the academic challenges, but if they leave without the most basic of life's lessons, then we in education will have failed. And by the time the failures of those lessons have reached fruition, it will be far too late. And perhaps it already is.