Mandelinople. My City. My Rules.

yeah, I guess I'm back

2006-12-07T14:12:00.000-08:00

Don't know if I'm going to be full time, or part-time, but I have some things to say.

What we've learned

2006-12-07T14:07:00.000-08:00

As we head into the fourth year in Iraq, the sixth year total in the War on Terror, what have we learned?

First, we know that US forces cannot be beaten on the battlefield, that they still are the finest and best trained soldiers in history. We know that they can fight and win in the worst of conditions, from the deserts of Mesopotamia to the peaks of the Hindu Kush. We know that they maintain technological superiority, but that is still less important than the quality of individual who wears the uniform.

We have learned however that the only force that can defeat the US is itself. In fact, our enemies have the blueprint for success against the US: patience. Just wait, we will slowly, but surely, tear ourselves apart.

We can no longer fight long and/or bloody conflicts anymore. Normandy, Bastogne, and Iwo Jima are as distant, and unimportant, as Bull Run, Antietam, and Cold Harbor. They are not hallowed ground but names students memorize, and directors now trivialize. Korea was not long, less than three years, but it was bloody, with 33,000 Americans dead. Vietnam was indeed both, ten years long and 58,000 dead respectively.

At least in both conflicts we could clearly define the enemy. And, at least there was even justification for Vietnam, as events in the South, Cambodia, and Laos were to prove. As well, a Marxist in Pyongyang is still causing nightmares for America, Japan, Taiwan, and even her benefactor, Beijing. That communism was in its death throes in the late 1980's seems all to obvious now, but how soon we forget that the 1970's saw communism's apogee.

Today, unlike perhaps any war in the past, we fight without propaganda or even without hatred. No longer do "loose lips sink ships" or "lick stamps and lick the Kaiser" resonate with Americans. Dominoes is a pizza, not what will happen to democracies.

After four years in Iraq we don't hate the Iraqis, and we don't wage war against them. Their former dictator had his trial and now awaits execution. His offspring are dead, while the enemy remains a nameless and faceless entity. This leaves us perplexed as to what we are fighting for, who we are fighting, and more to the point, why exactly are we fighting.

Certainly by now, most Americans have come to the conclusion that whatever happens in Iraq, they will surely never be pointing missiles at us. And even should Iraq descend into chaos, civil war, or even theocracy, who really cares what happens to "those people", or what happens "over there". The sentiment that "those people can't govern themselves" or "we don't understand their culture" sounds more akin to 19th century British parliamentarians than 21st century liberals.

But it is increasingly obvious that they are anything but "liberal".

Realists are now the new icons, as if decades of appeasing tyrants, accommodating our supposed "friends" while they paid blood money to terrorists, and dialogues with very real enemies is either novel, enlightened, or even prudent. Maybe, just maybe, those that brought us here ought be given one last chance to fix their mess. Why is it then that it seems they are interested more in covering up their past errors and preserving their place in history books? Do they fancy themselves a modern Metternich? Or are they unaware how he fared? Or do they even care?

Perhaps what we have learned here is that we need a clearly defined enemy and some appreciation of a very real, very direct, and very dangerous threat. Existentially, Iraq is a worthy and necessary battle, part of a much broader and very important struggle. But, sans proper leadership, and there has been a dearth from the Bush administration, if those four are to be the imprimatur, than without question, to a large percentage of the public who initially supported the operation, the judgement is: vague, barely, barely, and barely.

Besides the unnerving revelation that the US can not, or will not, fight long engagements anymore, this current fight has revealed some other uncomfortable truths.

Four centuries of warfare have been superseded by 60 years of peace, and our allies have forgotten the ways of their great grandfathers. The critics of Iraq will argue that the administration failed to bring our allies along. The truth is much much sadder. Our allies, who were it not for our blood and treasure would be subjects of a Kaiser, helots to a Fuhrer, or comrades in the proletariat, have forsaken us. What the Iraq war revealed was not their unwillingness to fight, but rather their inability to fight.

Sixty years of benevolence did not raise an independent and mature Europe, but a forever teenager, in his thirties, still living with his parents, unable to find work, still trying to "find himself".

Europe's opposition on "principle" was easily accepted by our domestic opponents, an all too easy mask to cover up the gross incompetence of European forces. They were helpless in their own back yard as a Serb thug massacred thousands, only to be rescued by the ugly Americans. The only grace was that the president then had visited Europe as a lad, to protest a war, to learn the ways of his "betters". He was one who was more like them, wanted to be like them, not an illiterate cowboy, redneck, and of all things, Christian.

So a stab in the back at the UN was seen as a gesture not at us, but at HIM. Refusing to fight was seen as protest not at us, but at HIM. And of all things the Europeans shared with the fifth column here, it was hatred of HIM.

Our enemies have also learned much from this war. Besides patience, they have learned that there will be willing filmmakers who will produce vile, propagandist tripe. And said filmmakers will receive honored status at the Democratic National Convention.

Our enemies have also learned that the press will not only be neutral, but highly antagonistic to the US. Stories real or imagined will dominate the news. Korans being flushed need not be true, only "possibly" true. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

Pictures of glorified hazing will be printed on the front pages of every major newspaper, ad nauseum. Newscasters will pass judgement on the situation, without any basic understanding of what they are proclaiming. An NBC newscaster's recent declaration of civil war underscores the idea that those who know the least sadly have the most impact.

Troops will know that what happens in the field will be mis-reported, or unreported. The biggest complaint of most returning troops is simply that the facts on the ground are completely at odds with the stories run at home.

Former presidents will head overseas and criticize the US, undercut our objectives, actively encourage those who might, to otherwise not, support us.

Those in our congress who forcefully supported the war will abandon the effort, at the first sign of difficulty, for purely political causes, less the netroots come after them in the primaries.

Any claim need only be more far-fetched and bombastic than the last to be valid. Lies, conspiracy, oil, Haliburton, et al., none need proof or validity. Moral equivalency has taken a new direction, whether a president is compared to Hitler routinely or our troops opening new gulags or being compared to storm troopers.

As we have learned much from this war, as have our enemies, what can we conclude?

First, in the future, our campaigns will be of necessity quick and bloodless. Post-modernity and its progeny multiculturalism have prevented us from us so much as the slightest bit of hatred. Thus, any long campaigns which require sustained national morale will be difficult if not impossible.

So, if our campaigns are to be quick and rather bloodless, than what will they look like. They will look more like the 1990's meals-on-wheels, humanitarian, police missions that were all too inept at anything other than proving to our enemies that we would not fight.

Or, perhaps, something much worse, much more ominous.

As we maintain a supreme technological edge and massively disproportionate firepower, how soon will it be until Americans ask their leaders when they're going to actually use it. As long as US military might remains the sole sword of Damocles, it might just have to fall.

We could very well have made Iraq a quick and bloodless campaign. But we chose a different path. What if we, in the future, decide that a) we need to act, but b) don't want to suffer the bloodletting? We very well have the capability for both.

Ruling out the use of massive, indiscriminate, and deadly firepower plays our hand long before the cards are even dealt. They have learned, a lesson that dates back to Vietnam no less, that as long as they keep the fighting below a certain level of intensity, we will simply not respond in masse.

Clausewitz is famous for many things, but perhaps less appreciated is his maxim that the cost of fighting should never exceed the benefits gained. In other words, the costs in Iraq are quite high (though not by historical standards) while the benefits are not clearly, tangibly, greater. Thus, we can conclude that Iraq is the last campaign of its type we will fight for some time.

We can also conclude that for many years hence, wars will be partisan affairs. There will come a time when a democratic president attempts to lead the nation into war. And the time will come when his, or her, party will blindly support the action, less they be unpatriotic, or worse.

But what moral ground can they hope to stand on? Clearly, other than partisan loyalty, they will be hard pressed to justify support for war. And, given the acrimonious nature of our political system (not in and of itself a bad thing), foreign policy is just "one more thing" to fight over. Who could blame the Republicans for being the "loyal opposition", seeing how the democrats were not only legitimate critics such as Senator Biden, but borderline traitors who held mock impeachment hearings inside the House basement, one of whom is now set to head the House judiciary committee.

And can we ignore the incoming speaker who, for purely personal reasons, dismissed a senior democrat, a women no less, from the leadership of the House intelligence committee? Only the firestorm from attempting to replace Rep. Harmon, of impeccable credentials and much experience, with an impeached judge, solely to placate a vocal constituency and exact revenge for Rep. Harmon's voting in favor of the Iraq war prevented it.

But some good news has come from all of this too. The once deified United Nations is now sullied and perhaps, hopefully, beyond repair. It is far better at turning its back on genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, its troops raping girls in the Congo, parlaying sanctions into billion dollar jackpots in Iraq, or allowing petty tyrants the one thing said thugs will not give their own people: a vote, than it is at promoting democracy, peace, and human rights.

And perhaps, Theo van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn did not die in vain. Maybe, the residents of Londonistan, Paristan, and Romistan are finally seeing that the enemy is not at the gates, but in the back yard, prying open the glass door, and signaling his friends to hop the fence. It could be too little too late, as Europe birth controls itself into oblivion. Or it could be the plague, shattering Europe's calm, calling into question long the long established order.

And maybe, just maybe, our reticence is not necessarily a bad thing. We even knew enough to put troops in the Soviet Union after World War 1, so that communism would not spread. And if we're becoming isolationist today, it hardly compares to the 1920's. While we might be unsure of Iraq, there's no support for immediate withdrawal and there are no America First committees. We will come around again. We did in 1941. It will be costly however.

We have learned much: we can no longer fight long, difficult conflicts; we can and will defeat ourselves; our wars had better be quick and painless; our wars are partisan affairs; our friends really aren't.

And we've learned that in spite of all the cause for concern, there just might be hope.

Such a simple solution

2006-05-26T16:42:00.000-07:00

In the debate over immigratoin reform, a solution so simple and easy to implement has been completely overlooked: biometrics. Documents can easily be forged, but fingerprints, retina scans, DNA, and other like technologies cannot. In fact, fingerprints and DNA aer admissible into court as evidence so their validity is not in doubt.

Anyone with a few hundred dollars can purchase a comptuer, printer, and software capable of reproducing authentic looking documents for illegal immigrants. In addition, the onus is on businesses to verify and keep track of them, tasks which they are not trained for nor overly inclined to do. And I can't say as I blame them, it being one more task pawned off on them that the government is not only authorized, but mandated to do.

Thus the beauty of such a program.

Proving the citizenship status of people is much easier than provig the legality of their residence. Thus, any non-citizen will be required to get fingerprinted at the very least in order to acquire necessary employment documentation. Yes, citizenship documents can and still will be forged, however, all native born citizens have birth certificate records on file at the hospital, and all naturalized citizens have records with federal and I presume state authorities. These are easily obtainable through moderate cost, wih reiable security, should the need arise. It is hardly an imposition to ask a hospital to provide a certified brth certificate, mailed directly to the government, completely bypassing the employer and employee.

For reference, USB fingerprint scanners already exist, prove quite effective, and cost around $100.

Those desiring to come here to work and those desiring to stay simply need to get fingerprinted. "Hold on a minute, this is big brother" the civil libertarians will say. But, teachers, policemen, child care providers, pretty much anyone in public service, and many other fields get fingerprinted. I've heard no complaints from the teachers' union, policemen's union, civil service unions, or employment lawyers when potential employees are asked to submit fingerprints, or even urine. And even at that, this doesn't require citizens to get fingerprinted.

Surely one wishing to come here and work cannot expect to be afforded all the rights and privileges of citizenship. We are simply asking for a little extra verification, that's all. If they so desire to work here, and be here, and we feel it necessary to let them in, then the least they can offer us is some modicum of proof that they are willing to abide by our laws.

And I don't even need to remind anyone what has been suggested for people desiring to purchase firearms.

Those fingerprints could be kept in a federal database which is easily acessible from any computer. The potential employee simply scans his fingerprit, the comptuer checks it with the federal registry, and an answer is returned in short order.

Now, the beuaty of this system extends even further than the workplace. We've no doubt got a serious security issue regarding immigration, with the criminal statis of immigrants not a trivial concern. We simply send the fingerprints back to the country of origin it provides a rather effective means to discern the status of the applicant.

But wait, some countries have poor records, are unreliable, will not give us the truth. Fine. If data is unreliable, they can be issued a provisional work visa, conditional upon their conduct while here. As they'll already be fingerprinted, any crimnal act will be esaily traceable. Again, as a school teacher, my fingerprints ar a matter of record with at least the state of California.

Okay, so what about the 11-12 million already here, already working, and not documented (or whatever the politically correct term is these days)? They too will eventually have to get fingerprinted.

This will not stop the some day laborers, farm workers, and others from being employed by indiviuals and small businesses. But those jobs represent a small percentage of the total illegal immigration/jobs structure. There coule not possibly be 11 million jobs of that nature. No, the real lure is the larger businesses: from fast food, construction, manufacturing, to all sorts of other businesses that are benefitting from the cheap labor. Look, the Chamber of Commerce isn't going to lobby congress so that a few million homeowners can get their gardening done by someone else so they can take their kids to the beachon Saturday.

The fallacy of "jobs Americans won't do" is becoming more obvious every day, except to those who live in DC.

Which again is why the fingerprinting plan is so simple and effective.

I was at McDonald's last night with the family and they had a big banner posted for job openings starting at $8/hour. Let's just say that the place was not filled with high school kids behind the counter. The Carl's jr. across from my school is offering jobs that start at pretty much the same, and again, 3000 teenagers 100 yards away and not a one employed there. Hmmm...I wasn't a math major, but something just doesn't add up.

The best part of the plan is that it puts the burden squarely on the government to set it up and maintain it. Which I presume is exactly why it will neevr happen.

The problem for the left

2006-05-25T14:09:00.000-07:00

Norm Geras today defends the Euston manifesto and offers it as a Path out of denial. While I am wholly sympathetic to those on the left who have not given up hope for freedom and democracy to pevail, and their frustration at the enablers of dictators in their ranks, I cannot help but feel he is pining for a different era.

First, the acknowledgement that deposing Saddam and like-minded brutal regimes is a good thing is worthy of commendation. Once, it was the left who wanted to make the world safe for demcoracy, be the arsenal of democracy, and bear any burdern and pay any price. Now, that mantle has passed to the right.

From concerns over the global slave and sex trades, the genocide in the Darfur, or even the status of Afghani women, the momentum and energy is on the right. It should not be this way. Isn't the most "liberal" idea in the world self-determination?

It should also be commended for its anti-anti-Americanism. Who else has given so much to the world and asked for so little.

Overall it deals primarily with more global generalities such as: ending racism, human rights for all, democracy, equality, freedom, openness, and freedom of ideas. But, it is overly broad and in fact obfuscatory regarding economic matters. They support international trade unions and greater economic equality. And it is there where the left has yet to a) answer for its past failures and b) provide new ideas.

Socialism was perhaps the world's second greatest failure, its big brother communism being the worst. Statist economies, the mother's milk of left/liberal thought, have proven to create equality only in misery and stagnation. Today, the fastest growing economies are not surprisingly, the freest economies. China has all but renounced Maoist collectivism, India replaced its state run system with a modern capitalist one, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, and a host of Asian nations are thriving employing the simpl ideas of private property, free enterprise, and individual rewards.

Contrast that with Europe, the home of proto-socialist economy. Throughout the continent, growth is almost non-existent, unemployment perpetually double digit, and massive welfare, entitlements, and job protection bankrupting. It cannot even sustain its own population anymore, probably no greater indicator of a people's future expectations.

The United States is somewhere in the middle: a post-modern, post-industrialist economy, struggling to adapt to a technologically driven and information based global economy. It's college graduates will compete against each other, and against people 10,000 miles away. It's growth is rapid, averaging 4-5% the past few years, continuing what is an over two decade period of unequalled expansion. Yet, 75 million or more retirees will soon drain trillions from the treasury, while the group that has accumulated the greatest mass of wealth, the elderly, will continue to do so at an even more alarming rate.

This is not doomsday paranoia, but rather the very real and widely acknowledged fate that everyone from Brookings to Heritage agrees upon.

So, Europe is slowly dying while America is seeing the first signs of cancer, both suffering from exposure to the carcinogen of left/liberal statist policies. Massive welfare rolls, untenable retirement promises, and the need to import large sectors of unskilled, low wage, menail labor all contribute to the growing problem.

What answers have the left? None. What new ideas have the left? None. Surely that must be the reason for the vitriol, for when you are devoid of answers, your faith lost, your foundation crumbling, like the pogroms of the medieval world, fear and scapegoats are all you have.

What is the solution then? Simple: free markets, free trade, and profit driven capitalism. Yet it is these things towards which the left is most antagonistic.

Sadly, the left cannot, or will not, link the inalienable rights of man with the economic freedom of man. For what better expression of freedom is there than the ability to do what one pleases with his talents, abilities, and desires, and profit from them.

Rousseau, the great Enlightenment thinker said that "no man has a natural authority over his fellow", and this is the heart of left/liberal philosophy. It is also thoroughly adopted and respected on the right as well.

But Rousseau also said of man that "His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master." Thus there is an equally vital, and equally necessary, component to freedom of which absence or denial of is the absence or denial of liberty itself. That freedom would be economic.

Acknowledge that. Now that would truly be a path out of denial.

Econ 101: Feel the Pain

2006-05-23T19:40:00.000-07:00

With the recent surge in gasoline prices, everyone has a solution from a windfall profits tax and tax rebates, to partisan politics and demagoguery. But the real answer lies in a class most should have taken in college, if they could have squeezed it in between HIST 101: USA - Evil Hegemon or Fascist Empire and LIT 101: Deconstructionism - How Males Perpetuate Gender Apartheid.

That class would be ECON 101.

In every economic system, regardless if it's a socialist or communist one, or a capitalist one, there is supply and demand. And in every economic system, regardless if its socialist or communist, or capitalist, there is a finite amount of goods and resources available, otherwise known as scarcity. Even in state run economies, the simple fact is that you can't have it all. In other words, the principle of scarcity applies universally. In a command system, scarcity is dealt with easily: the omnipotent state allocates resources as it sees best, usually with the threat of violence to those who disagree.

And just as in a free market system where households have to make decisions about what they want, and what they give up (called the opportunity cost), so too in even the worker's paradise are economic decisions (trade offs) made. Usually, as in the case in North Korea, it means missiles or food.

And even in command economies, there is a mechanism that affects what is made: price. Now, we often think of price in terms of dollars (or yen, euros, etc.), but currency only reflects a shared agreement of what we think the paper is worth in relation to what it can buy. That aspect of money is called being a storer of value. The other aspect is called being a medium of exchange, in that it is infinitely easier to carry around paper bills than chickens or shoes, or car parts.

The price, as mentioned above, is actually not the dollars but what you have to give up for an item. Again, we usually think of it in dollars, but think of it like this: you have fifteen dollars in your wallet and you see two CD's you'd like to buy at the local music store (do any of those exist anymore?). You can buy one or the other, but not both. So, you buy the latest gangsta rap cd (because you keep it real) and pass on the latest pop country CD, because again, you keep it real.

So, what was the cost of keeping it real? The pop country CD. Oh, and when you leave the store and feel the twinge of hunger in your stomach, the cost, or price if you will, is also not being able to buy lunch. Yes, you have credit cards, but the cost then of the lunch becomes a future purchase. The incentive there is something called marginal utility, but that's another discussion.

In a market economy such as ours, in addition to price, there is another mechanism at work: profits. Taken together, the price and profits mechanisms interact to restore balance (called equilibrium) to the economy. When external forces intercede, such as rent controls, price supports, subsidies, barriers to entry, or other non-market factors, equilibrium will a) not be restored and b) create greater imbalances (disequilibrium).

There is no doubt that gasoline prices have "hurt" customers as of late, and it is a cost that redounds to all sectors of the economy. Consumers are forced to make a series of ever more difficult choices as they cannot just stop driving. So, why is the pain good?

Right now almost everyone is aghast at the "record profits" of the oil companies. One would expect such of democrats, but even Republicans are now jumping on the demonizing bandwagon. But rather than that, how about championing the fact that they are so efficient that their costs are so low. How about praising the fact that they will now have necessary capital to invest into new technologies and new development. Oh wait, that's a problem as the oil companies are forbidden from drilling by the very same people who criticize them for their "greed". So, the simple fact is that they have no place to put the money. Period.

Now, record profits also have the added benefit of encouraging further exploration, market entry, and most importantly, research into alternative fuels. One would expect, all other things being equal, that profits would encourage firms to take a risk. However, once they realize their profits, they are thus susceptible to being accused of "greedy". This serves as disincentive to market entry. Why take the risk when you will be "rewarded" with scorn?

But the real pain is reserved for the "little guy", no better exemplified by poor Katie Couric pleading for the president of Shell Oil to "feel the pain" of average Americans. Funny request coming from someone who is going to get millions for nothing more than reading the news, whose greatest asset is her "perkiness".

But why is the pain good? See, pain is not an economic concept but rather the effect of the price mechanism taking over people's reasoning. In a normal system, as prices of good A rise, consumers will naturally change to good B (called the substitution effect). However, there is currently no viable alternative to gasoline.

So, again, why is the pain good? Because for years, we have traded what amounts to fantasy for reality. Fantasy, in this case is perpetually cheap fuel and a pristine environment, while reality is a ever growing world economy and thus demand for fuel, with increasingly limited current resources. So, the pain will force consumers to make choices, in this case, higher gas prices driven by limits to domestic oil production or lower prices driven by expanded drilling and profit fueled (no pun intended) alternative fuel research.

It will also force lawmakers to reconsider its ethanol and nuclear policies as well. Considering that most of our electricity is petroleum generated, simply increasing the amount of nuclear generated electricity directly reduces our demand, and thus price, for oil.

The pain will also force the auto manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient cars to meet consumer demands. Currently all the major auto makers are doing this, and all have poured billions into hybrid car technology. That the domestic auto makers are late to the hybrid party is more a factor of the consumer fantasy translated into less demand for such cars. But, as the pain increases, so too will the demand, and the car companies will be forced to produce more hybrids.

So, the pain, if we must call it that, is very good. It is actually the result of diseconomic forces that have skewed the market for too long. But, it is also the signal we need to force the economic, and political, changes which will bring about balance. Anything to lessen profits or ease the pain only delays the inevitable, worsens the situation, and perpetuates the fantasy at the cost (pun intended) of reality.

It's simply Econ 101.

I've had it

2006-05-19T20:01:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the only reason that I've stayed a Republican this long is because I always figured they would defend the country and especially national sovreignty. No longer. The democrats gave up any pretenses about being serious on national security about 1972. Carter's weakness and ineptitude, Mondale's nuclear freeze, Dukakis riding in the tank, Clinton's military social engineering, to Kerry's well, here the list is so long...but in every case, you could expect the democrats to sacrifice national security interests for the expense of a few polling points.

Never was that the case with the Republicans. Goldwater "spoke truth to power" and was right about Vietnam. Nixon actually sent the bombers to the North and brought the comunists to the table. Remember, they asked for the peace talks so we'd stop the bombing. Reagan defied all the polls and put missiles in West Germany and tried to put them in space. While the left called it Star Wars, the Soviets called it quits.

I expected the Republicans to be the party of respect for our laws, our borders, and our national identity. I expect the democrats to risk our safety and sovreignty for a few votes. I mean, they never took the communists seriously, they don't take global terrorism seriously, do I really expect them to see the border invasion as anything but an "opportunity".

With the passage of bills in the senate that guarantee social security benefits to illegals, the republicans are now no longer the party of national sovreignty. Yes, there was a difference in patriotism between democrats and republicans. Yes, republicans saw America as the shining city on a hill, while democrats who viewed America favorably saw it more as just another nation, and those who viewed it as evil found a place at the demcoratic table.

Now, republicans are equally as willing to sell our sovreignty for a few votes. They are even willing to buy those votes with federal largesse. They say it isn't amnesty, but it is. You break the law and get: citizenship and federal beneifts. You abide by the law and get: nothing.

I believe I will make a movie called "The Soul Stealer" which will take place in Washingtoc DC. It will have a cast of hundreds, who travel to the nation's captial, and within a few years, their soul is gone. They look and talk the same, and on all outward appearances, they appear to be unchanged. That is untill they vote on legislation.

In the lead will be the Senator from Arizona, his supporting actor will be a drunk from Massachusettes.

And like every other cheap horror movie, this one will have numerous sequels, with the same plot, and same outcome. Oh sure, the names will change, but the carnage will be the same.

The only thing that can keep me from voting for not-republican in November is the demcorats are, if you can believe it, far worse. How did we get this government? How did we get those two parties?

Sure, I make no attempts to hide my opposition to things like abortion, gay marriage, and the other social issues that the left has tried to force down my throat. Perhaps that is why I feel strongly, as liek most people, I frankly don't see them as serious national issues. If Frank and Steve marry or not, hell, my life's not going to be one iota different. But force me to, and I will fight. And I guess I'm guilty, as I let those issues sometimes cloud my votes. But, it wasn't as if the republicans fired the first shot. The assault on the American culture began on the left.

But I've had it with the republican party. The democrats make no attempt to hide their crass pandering, their disdain for the family, their contempt for American miltitary and world power. But the republicans? That wasn't the republican party. Reagan didn't pander, he lead. He knew America's strength was in family and faith. And he knew America must wield her power to protect and defend freedom.

And he would have never supported giving away American national sovreignty.

I've had it with them. If I'm wrong, then convince me otherwise. Else, I will re-register as decline to state.

And like the Gipper, will know that I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

Never more disappointed

2006-05-17T18:37:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I shouldn't be so, but I can't help but feeling as thoroughly disappointed as I do right now. After reading the transcript of the president's speech last night, I finally threw in the towel. By now, all the talking heads have broken down every word, parsed every phrase, spun every point.

National guard, guest workers, whatever. Frankly, I can't remember a time when the government, and its leaders, were so completely at odds with the will of the people.

Oh, we don't want to offend people. We can't just close our borders. We can't just deport people. We're a nation of immigrants. The list goes on.

Let me tell you something: I'm offended. Yes we can close our borders, and abso-freakin-lutely we can deport people. In fact, we do so all the time. Not just to anyone who came from south of the border.

We're not a "nation of immigrants", we're a nation of immigrants who wanted to be American. And there is a world of difference. Look, there's been migration of peoples throughout history, and most often, it's been by force, of arms or nature, but force nonetheless. Very rarely has there been a single place where people really wanted to leave behind their entire lives for.

And guess what George, we're it.

I know that I should be offended, but not exactly how, when the president says "jobs Americans won't do".

I guess I'm either a spoiled, elitist snob, the kind those radicals in Philadelphia took care of. Or, I'm the laziest SOB in the world. Or maybe I'm just a racist pig, who thinks that some work is good enough for "those peoples" but not for "my peoples". However you slice it, it's rather damning of the entire country.

I got a few words of advice, how about telling all those people to just get off their behinds and work. Look at what we've become. A hurricane hits New Orleans and poeple are sitting around waiting for the government to help them out. Hey, get off your ass, and get the hell out of there. But sitting and crying that nobody's going to help you? And we wonder why there's work no "Americans" will do?

We can't even get a wall built. Of course I know why, there's no Americans who would build it.

The president won't even admit the most glaring truths: the millions on public assistance, the hundreds of thousands that clog our jails, the enclaves of unassimilated, and the almost aparthied society that appears, like the sun, just above the horizon, but just out of sight, if we really don't look too hard.

The greatest crime in all of this? It's so transparent. We can clearly see that the president and the republicans are pandering, which we've long grown to expect of democrats. They are purely concerned about not alienating "new" voters, yet they have no idea how many "old" voters they're losing. Funny thing about us conservatives, we won't be taken for granted.

The left turned its constituency into lemmings, but us on the right, we're different. See, the left tells you what they're going to do for you, and you vote for them. The right tells us what they're not going to do to them, and we vote for them. Somewhere the republicans lost sight of just they represent. We do not want the government telling, doing, making, assissting, regulating, or doing anything other than the what the very narrowly defined constitutional limits allow.

See, when Pelosi and her cohorts call this a "do nothing Congress", conservatives applaud. Not Pelosi, but Congress. Liberals see gridlock as a sin, we see it as a blessing.

But now republicans have become the big-spending, over-regulating, government-knows-best, party we've detested all these years. We've always known welfare politics was about "bread and circuses", and now the republicans have taken "if you can't beat 'em" approach.

We know full well that cheap labor drives up profits and stock prices. But I won't fall prey to the "coporate greed" angle completely. Because we know the left wants a "diverse" America, code for ABC or Anything But Common. We know the left wants texts rewritten, multi-lingualism and multiculturalism, basically the destruction of a singularl American culture.

We know that both parties are playing equally fast and loose with money and favors to capture el voter. Well, Americans of all stripes are taking note, and paying heed.

We are demanding you act. Don't give us "comprehensive reform", give us a wall. Enforce our laws. Offend a few people. When the Mexican government says they'll sue us for using the Guard, get on television and tell them to shut the hell up. Tell them we have a right to enforce our laws, and protect our borders.

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, but an American one.

I really thought the president "got it" regarding the war on terror. In spite of his failures to lead the nation, to talk to the people, to keep us informed, I still believed in him. I'd love to blame the media, and yes, they're partly culpable. But he could have spoken out against them. the democrats are partly to blame as well. They set out to destroy him and his presidency. But he could have taken the fight to them as well.

But the blame falls squarely on his shoulders. He bears responsibility for the state of his presidency. Even the immigration speech was because he let events get out of control. I've never been more disapointed.

General Confusion

2006-05-04T20:47:00.000-07:00

I am unaware of ever a time of the level of politicization of the armed forces, especially by retired generals. General William Odom weighs in with the latest anti-Iraq war proclamation. Let's take a look, shall we.

In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam.

Yes, Iraq is in civil war, but it wasn't as if it was a peaceful place before the invasion. And, given what could be occurring, with the large and well trained Iraqi forces, one has to believe that while troublesome, it has been so far contained.

Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups� turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.

They're doing that already. Pulling out would leave them stranded.

It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

US colonialism? That is an amazing claim. Someone please tell me how we've "colonized" Iraq?

Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue.

Most wars would stop early? The military is not a democratic institution. Nowhere in the constitution does it require approval of the troops. And general, they have spoken in their re-enlistment rates.

Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world�s only superpower, it�s patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world�s opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history.

I guess our policies of cut-and-run (Beirut, Somalia), a few missiles (Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan), fear of casualties (Kosovo, Gulf War 1), or complete refusal to respond (USS Cole, Iran embassy, etc.) put fear into our enemies.

Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

They weren't going to help us regardless, and even had they wanted to, they simply can't. They are swamped with large, angry, unassimilated masses of Arab immigrants. They were dealing with Saddam in definace of UN sanctions, and willing to do so with every other corrupt middle eastern tyrant. Some friends they would be. Leaders don't beg for friends, they lead. The rest of the world is following. Europe is coming to our side on Iran, Japan and India are closer than ever, Britain and Australia are solid, and even Canada is leaving the Cretien/Martin anti-Ameicanism.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

"May be", "would be", "likely respond favorably". Well, that's reassuring considering their track records. Iran wants stability? Perhaps, by nuking Israel. Yes, we can, and more importantly, we must stop them. And no, we cannot engage them.

I cannot accept the General really believes this. There must be some other reason, one I'd love to know.

The liberal case against open borders

2004-12-09T14:56:00.000-08:00

The overhaul of the nation's intel operations has sparked a heated debate again about immigration and national security. This is of course hardly a new debate, as dating back the the mid 19th century, the nativist Know-Nothings relied on similar sentiments. Sadly, in a display of seldom seen political ideological synergy, both the left and right have abdicated responsiblity and reason regarding immigration, but for very different reasons.

The right likes open borders to provide cheaper goods, cheaper labor, and higher profits. Free trade is a net good for the macro economy, regardless the inconvenience on the micro economic side. Protection has always meant higher prices, less choice, and stunted growth. Mercantilism might have worked for Colbert and France, but I don't know how long we could get away with colonization today.

The left likes open borders because they see an influx of potential voters, believe nativism to be racist, and the fact that it also undermines American culture is a bonus.

But there is a very strong liberal case against open borders.

Let's start with two pillars of liberal dogma: abortion and gay rights. The mass of immigration is not coming from developed, liberal democracies but from under-developed societies where religion, particularly Catholicism, has played a large role. And if incoming Catholic voters are not going to support abortion on demand and same-sex marriage, ask Europe about the rise of fundamentalist Muslim immigration. If abortion and gay rights are paramount, unfettered immigration will severely undermine that.

Another pillar of liberal ideology is social justice and remedying past wrongs through active government policy, most notably Affirmative Action. It is unreasonable to expect that a group who has never suffered past recriminations can expect legal favor. Yet that is just what will happen when new immigrant groups demand fixing of their "under-representation".

There are also strong economic arguments. Liberals have for years demanded a living wage, the campaign mantra being "good jobs at good wages". Nothing will undercut wages more than an oversupply of labor, a supply willing to work for wages far less than "livable". Artificially raising the minimum wage will only increase the black market for cheaper labor.

A secondary effect of the lowering of wages is the reduction of tax revenue. Liberals have long championed government programs to help the less fortunate and provide "necessary services" to the needy. In vital areas such as health care, liberals would rather the government run the system than private enterprise. However, an influx of immigration, primarily from poorer nations will overburden the system and increase costs. With less revenue, services will suffer.

Increased immigration will promote greater racial divisions. Los Angeles, for example, has seen escalating violence and tensions between the Latino and African-American communities. Communities long established will not take kindly to seeing their power, influence, and representation diluted by other interest groups or by a growing imbalance of power.

There is the already prevalent and potentially increasing human rights issue. Many immigrants work in conditions that fail to meet environmental and health and safety standards. Fear of the authorities in the home country will prevent them from notifying proper authorities here. The potential for even greater abuse, from not paying overtime, to withholding workman's compensation insurance will escalate.

Lastly, most of the people who come here don't' come from democratic societies, or come from societies where voting is viewed as a corrupt tool of the government. The potential for voter fraud is immense.

The liberal case against open borders is strong. Who among them will stand up and be counted?

Dark Ages

2006-05-02T21:05:00.000-07:00

Better than a typical screed, yet pray to the same fallacious logical assertions, Morris Berman writes in Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire that America is on a irreversible course to suffer the same fate as the Romans. On that analysis, I concur. We share many the same maladies as the Roman Empire, and some none invested with the purple could ever have imagined.

In fact, that is what caught my eye about this book, its attempt at linking the current US situation to the fall of the Roman empire. It is something I have written about in the past, and the parallels are not only accurate, but eerily so. However, his real point is that we are heading towards a new dark ages, one more akin to the medieval world, albeit one with far more knowledge and technology.

Mr. Berman states that we have lost our American identity, and on this he is most assuredly correct. However, what I've never understood about the left (and we'll see soon he is fully on the left) is what exactly is their vision of America. They speak of republican virtues, yet extoll judicial decisions that strip any notion of popular sovereignty. They talk of the importance of hard work, yet reward inaction with government largesse and call it compassion. They speak of human dignity, yet get apoplectic the moment anyone dares mention individual responsibility or personal restraint.

Lastly, and this is key, America was founded by believers in Judeo-Christian religious philosophy, private property, commercialism, distrust of government, and rugged individualism. America was also founded upon the belief that we are divinely inspired, destined to lead the world to peace and prosperity. All of those are antithetical to modern leftism.

In fact, it differs so sharply with the great liberal tradition of Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy that calling leftists liberal is an insult of the highest order. It's not that I subscribe to the New Deal fantasy of saving capitalism, in fact one could very well argue that the New Deal marked a turning point in government/electorate relations. From that point on, we expected and even demanded a much higher level of intrusion into our lives, and empowered the government to do about anything it desired. But it was their forward looking foreign policies, their unshakable belief in America, her destiny, and her unquestioned leadership of the free world.

Mr. Berman spends considerable time on foreign plicy, and it is there that Mr. Berman ventures into the realm of the deranged. He yearns for the idealism of the Carter years, how our foreign policy was not to be shaped by fear of communism. And exactly what did he think our "friends" the Soviets were planning for Western Europe? Ask any Pole, Czech, or East German, it sure wasn't worker's paradise. (Note: as soon as anyone yearns for a more Carter-like foreign policy, you know they've been drinking way too much of the kool-aid.)

Mr. Berman simply recites a litany of far left excuses for 9/11: our middle east policy; US imperialism; support for anti-Soviet dictators; support for Israel; the list goes on. It reads more like a worn out Gore Vidal (whom he likes to cite) screed than a serious examination of jihadism and the rise of Islamicism. In fact, he would sum up the attacks thusly: we deserved it, as it was payback.

As for Iraq, it is of course the grand neo-con conspiracy. He trots out the Project for the New American Century and its treatise for the overthrow of Saddam. He heaps equal criticism (he's at least not a partisan!!) on the Clinton era policies of sanctions and soft engagement, as well as the gulf war in 1991. Our presence there is simply to extend US influence in the region, to secure oil, and to make us a (the sole) world hegemon. Written like a Chomsky/Zinn protege', the US is the great evil in the world, and deserves the scorn heaped upon her by tribal thugs, neo-Stalinist dictators, and their apologists and benefactors.

Turning to the domestic front, he accuses us of turning to religion and eschewing reason and science. He even goes so far to say that fundamentalists have taken over our education system. Apparently he's never bothered to look at public school curriculum!! I guess he also never picked up too many history books either, as he'd have to acknowledge the religious influence in American life, as well as the role religion played in both the abolition and civil rights movements.

He rightly recognizes some terrible shortcomings in our present culture, from the lack of education to the sensationalizing of our news. Certainly most observers of the present culture will be shocked and dismayed at what they see. However, while he lambastes the right, and longs for Carter's idealism, he ignores (I assume) the simple fact that public eduction system is controlled by people far more sympathetic to his point of view. As for the media, what more can be said...

He lists much anecdotal evidence to highlight the lack of knowledge of world affairs to local politics. He recounts a story of a conversation he had with a French child who seemed to have a greater grasp of world events than most American adults. Fine. Next time we need a country to shmooze with dictators and violate UN sanctions we'll give them a call. While I certainly find much to fault with the state of US public education, you'll find little or no concern in our university schools of education. There it's all self-esteem, multiculturalism, and constructivism.

He likens our newspapers to their European counterparts, such as Le Monde, which have detailed analyses of world events and as he says, read more like scholarly papers. Fine too. I've no quarrel with the generally low level and debasement of the news, and certainly the audience buys the lowest common denominator (why else would an anorexic bimbo named Hilton be "famous"). But, if the intended audience is so dense, see the previous paragraph.

And as for the media, it is more a factor of the public's general distrust of them, a condition certainly very well-earned. We no longer believe them, so we might as well be entertained by them. It's the least they can do.

Economically, he has harsh words for our disastrous trade and financial policies, something I couldn't agree with more. We are a society built on rampant consumerism. Our trade policies like NAFTA (which he criticize Clinton for) or with China (Bush) are causing massive job loss and displacement, as well as the far more destructive capital flight. Our trade and economic policies are designed to enhance stock prices and corporate profit, make bankers and financiers rich, and have succeeded in weakening and about eliminating our manufacturing sector. I have no quarrel with that analysis.

But like so many on the left, all we ever get is criticism, I guess "deconstruction" is the trendy, intellectual term. We never get the cure.

To the growing power of China, is it communism or free market capitalism? The answer is very obvious to all but the most jaded observer. China, along with Japan, Taiwan, and much of the Asian world has adopted Western style capitalism, private property (yes, even in China), and open markets. Where democracy has yet to take hold, as in China, the genie is out of the bottle. It is hardly likely that the dragon will so easily raise her talons and breath fire while millions of businessmen watch their markets dry up, their capital frozen, and their new found wealth gone. One need only see a picture of a Beijing skyline, the multitude of new buildings under construction, to think that it all will so easily relinquished.

He defines America as having identified herself far more by what we aren't, i.e. anti-communist, then by what we are. I'll agree too, that we too easily define ourselves, no more obvious a setting than politics, by that standard. He is critical of both parties, going even so far as to attack Howard Dean (of all people) for supporting "winning the war" in Iraq. As for our parties, I have little use for either of them, something I've expressed in the past.

Mr. Berman rightly, I believe, details our ever eroding civil liberties. Once again, he is equally as condemning of the Clinton/Reno era as the current administration. However, I find it odd that he fails to mention the near total loss of property rights, parental rights, or freedom to own and operate a business as one chooses. Isn't that the apogee of liberty?

As for his freedoms, I don't think he fears a fatwa, death sentence, or imprisonment. Odd really, as I can go into any bookstore and find dozens of books that claim with absolute certainty the president is a: buffoon, liar, criminal, idiot, puppet, terrorist, drunk, or far worse. In fact, they are all right there, out in the open, right in the center aisle, in what one would almost have to assume is in itself a political statement.

I guess what I'd like to know from Mr. Berman, aside from where he gets his conspiracy theories and belief that we're being overrun by religious zealots, is exactly what is his vision of America. But that's something that nobody on the left seems to offer nowadays. It's all we're a horrible, greedy, warmongering, self-obsessed society that deserves what it got on 9/11, and is (rightly) doomed to fall (or fail). Fine. We've many problems and yes, many mirror the last great empire of the ancient world, but what exactly is the solution?

The left, as epitomized in this latest tome, is bereft of ideas and vision. Their heroes have all died and left us nothing but misery and despair. As the fallen countries try to recover from decades of Marxist-Leninist-Stalinst utopian hells, we're left somehow the party to blame for the disaster. China has her statues of Mao, yet European cars drive past them, fueled by middle eastern oil, as their occupants drive to factories they own, to trade for profit with the nations whose systems were supposedly destined to fail. All the while, they accumulate ever increasing capital, invest it, and raise the standard of living for all those who they once were claimed to oppress.

But as for America, I'd like to see us return to a better age, when government was small, liberty was cherished, property truly private, free markets and capitalism were desired, and patriotism and national pride the norm. Our current state of problems are do far more to our adoption of liberal social and economic policies than any religious zealotry. In fact, our crass commercialism, lack of national identity, and social decay are the direct results of liberal (really leftist) re-engineering and tinkering.

There's much to agree with, and that is what makes this book so tempting and even thought provoking. It is far more than just a ranting screed, the domain second rate columnists and grad school dropouts. It is well cited and thought out, not lacking in clarity and convincing arguments. But, read deeper and it is nothing more than an articulate manifesto of anti-Americanism, leftist conspiracies, and outmoded determinism.

We're mad as hell...

2006-04-24T22:06:00.000-07:00

A letter to my colleagues who are angry at the contract negotiations currently going on with the district. Rather than adding my comments into the flurry of emails, I thought I'd post my thoughts here, for the whole world to see.

Dear colleagues,

Our current negotiations are not dissimilar I imagine to those in other districts. However, without being condescending, there are some very pertinent factors that we are not taking into account.

First, let's start with the salary question. According to the US census as of 1999, the average FTYR (Full Time Year Round) employment salary for persons with bachelors degrees is $52,200, and for a masters, $62,300. Even if we account for inflation of 3% annually, as of 2006, that would make for adjusted figures of $64,200 and $76,600 respectively.

According to my district's salary schedule, a teacher with a bachelors degree, plus their credential work, would earn $61,672 in their eleventh year of teaching. With a masters degree, by the eleventh year of teaching, on would earn $67,040. While both salary figures fall below average, pure salary compensation tells only half the story.

Let's first look at retirement. If a teacher retires this year at age 62, has 30 years of service, and finished with a masters degree, according to my district, they would earn $71,064 + $2012 for the 15, 20, 25, and 30 year anniversaries. Their final year salary would be $79,112, or $6592 per month.

The California State Teacher Retirement System figures retirement pay as follows (hint: you'll have to type in numbers for age, etc.):

Credited Service X Age Factor X Average Monthly Salary = Unmodified Monthly Benefit

The maximum age factor is .024 which comes after age 62. So, a teacher who worked 30 years and finished with an annual salary of $79,112 ($6592/month) would earn:

6592*30*.024

or $4946 per month. That's 75% of one's regular salary. There are no limitations to years service.

But, if a teacher was to start teaching at age 25 and teach for 37 years, they would retire and earn $6254 per month in retirement. In other words, they would earn 95% of their salary for the rest of their lives.

And that's not all. Since 8% of a regular paycheck is taken out as a CalSTRS contribution, they actually earn more in retirement than they do as a teacher.

I do not know of any profession where you can earn more in retirement than during work. And even there, the fun doesn't end. See, CalSTRS is not social security. If the day after a teacher retires they die, the money doesn't return to the system. No, the benefits are still paid to the beneficiary in either monthly payments or a single lump sum. Talk about good financial planning.

While our salaries might be below "average", our retirements our far above average. In fact, I'd dare say they would be the envy of most people.

Now, let's look at the salary compensation a bit further. Teachers in my district are contracted to work for 185 school days. Most people work (when you subtract holidays, weekends, vacation, etc.) 240-250 days per year. So, if you were to prorate our salaries, we'd be earning far above average. When you add in our health benefits, which are as generous as any in any industry, we are more than comparably compensated.

For teachers to complain about salaries, without speaking to our retirement, work schedule, and health benefits, is a bit disingenuous. And there are other factors as well.

Once a teacher gets tenure, it is very difficult to fire them. Unlike a commission salesman or other performance-paid worker, teachers, the good and the bad, are all paid the same. There is almost complete job security. Teachers know that they will always have a job, and that they will not be affected by a recession or other economic cycles.

The last factor to consider is this: are teachers paid above or below what the market would otherwise value them? The degrees that pay the most are science and math, yet few teachers hold such degrees. Those that do are bound to the same contractual agreements that are "underpaying" them, while arguably "overpaying" phys-ed or art majors.

Of the degrees that most teachers hold, social sciences, education, English, etc., the market doesn't value them nearly as much, and therefore, teaching is perhaps as lucrative a job as one could acquire.

If teachers really feel they are worth more, than it is essential that they find workers with comparable education and experience. Then and only then could teachers truly know if they are underpaid. But it still remains to be said, choice of discipline in college determines to a great extent career choices afterwards. If they feel they are worth more, than there is no reason why they cannot change professions to a more lucrative one.

For California teachers, the most daunting problem isn't even salary but housing prices. Anyone who has taken Econ 101 can tell you that it isn't what you earn, it's what you can buy. In other words, it's the difference between real and nominal GDP. What makes it hard, and here teachers are hardly alone, is that two teachers with a combined household income of say $140,000, cannot afford even a median priced home in many California communities.

A house that sells for $500,000, hardly an expensive one today, is simply out of the reach of most two teacher families. In fact, it is becoming out of the reach of the majority of families, period. But, this is wholly unrelated to "fair" teacher compensation.

The last issue to discuss is job satisfaction and happiness. I can attest that I truly love my job and could not consider another profession for anything but much more substantial pay. This, for non-econ types is called the reservation price. In other words, it would take far more than what I'm making now to compel me to leave. As it stands, I have much time to spend with my family, a job I love with little stress, and one that pays me enough to provide my family a decent living with a retirement package that's phenomenal.

If teachers want to be paid more, than they need to open up the process to market forces. But until that time comes, it is entirely unfair to complain about not being paid adequately. The bottom line is that, all things considered, we most certainly are.

Breaking up is only the easy part

2006-04-21T15:28:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is taking on the teacher's union and the school board as he tries to break up the beast, er, the LAUSD. LAUSD has as high as a 50% dropout rate and is one of the worst performing school districts in the nation. but breaking up is only a small part of the solution.

Yes, privatization is the only real solution, but before that happens, there is much that is problematic with public education. And until those issues are addressed, no restructuring will have any effect at all.

Before our schools can improve, you have to start at teacher training colleges, where everything BUT mastering fundamentals and disciplined learning are taught. One has to start first with education pedagogy, which stresses the whole student and "creative" ways to learn. Start with "student-centered", "self-directed learning", "alternative assessment", "cooperative learning", or the myriad of edubabble masquerading as scholarship. Focus has been placed on "motivation", not results.

When I was completing my master's thesis, I was focused on technology and education. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: research has not shown that integrating technology improves student learning at all. Yet why all rush to do just that? Research has shown...that about the only thing the students are is more "motivated". Sure, it's alot more fun playing on a computer than doing actual, what's that called? Oh yeah, work.

It's far more entertaining to play some computer simulation than read a book, write a paper, or something that seems lost on this generation: think analytically and respond critically.

But that's the subject of a book.

Next, get rid of the credentialing process. It focuses purely on teaching methodology and nothing on content. Teachers needn't even have a degree in the subject they teach. In the most formative grades, K-6, where the most basic fundamentals are taught, the majority of teachers possess degrees in education. In other words, they learn how to teach, but know little of what they're teaching. And, even in junior and senior high, a teacher need complete only a bare minimum of classes to teach a subject, the worst offender is history. In fact, the disciplined has been destroyed and morphed into the euphemistic "social studies", which covers all aspects of the human existence, yet none of its complexities or importance.

If you want to teach a subject, you need a degree in it.

Even after that, attention needs be placed on curriculum. Courses have been diluted, content has been reduced, and standards have been lowered. Nothing illustrates that clearer than the California High School Exit Exam (CaHSEE), which is usually taken in the sophomore year. Think about that, all you need to learn to graduate high school can be sufficiently test in the 10th grade. And remember that half of all incoming students to the CSU system must take remedial English courses.

But the real sinister and pernicious villain in schools is multiculturalism. Noting is more antithetical to serving the public than the divisive infusion such an ideology. Schools were once the central location for assimilation, integration, and unification, the whole e pluribus, unum, "out of many, one" ideal. I even had a professor, a term I use loosely, say that it meant "many out of one", as in many people out of one nation. of course, another told me that the constitution guarantees a "free and public education"...

Lastly, and this is the education Siegfried line, is the unions. We must break that line if we're to save public education. That the teacher unions are even in this fight is clear indication that they taken on a role inimical to education. It is analogous to the officers in a military overthrowing the civilian leadership. In fact, there has almost been a coup of education by the unions, where little if anything can change without their imprimatur.

I wish the Mayor all the best, and support his efforts if for no other reason than to deal the unions, and their lackeys on the school board a defeat. It's not going to be victory, but it will break their iron grip and hopefully open the way for further progress.

One state, two state

2006-04-16T17:51:00.000-07:00

red state, blue state, or so the Dr. Seuss book sort of goes.

I live in a very blue state. Even though I live in a red area (my congressman is Buck McKeon), anti-Bush sentiment is just a bumper sticker away. However, during my week in Florida, I noticed little if any Bush hatred. Now, it could be because Florida is red, but, I was in South East Florida, West Palm Beach county to be exact. We drove through Broward and Dade counties as well, and as you can see, they're all blue.

I was trying to figure out why, and spent considerable time thinking of reasons. The only thing I can come up with is that, and I know this sounds so politically correct, but diversity makes us civil. I concluded this as I thought about the press, Hollywood and Universities (or education institutions in general). Where but there are there a more concentrated group of liberals? Think of all the anti-Bush venom that passes for intellectualism, and think of how they view conservatives, or anyone who doesn't think exactly like them.

You can walk on any college campus, in almost any college classroom, and proclaim that Bush is Hitler with not only unquestioned approval, but hearty acknowledgment. The almost unidimensional world view of the professorial ranks, ranging from left to far left, means that nowhere is a dissenting voice to be heard. Any such is met not with reasoned debate, but violent religious fervor aimed at the apostates.

Is anyone shocked that a Howell Raines would so skew the news at the Times, a major network would run with forged documents, or another network exec would proclaim in an email (which is surely going to become public) that Bush makes him puke? Like our colleges and universities, group-think has been institutionalized, "diversity" a foreign and unwelcome concept.

As for Hollywood, we get films that portray some oil cabal is running foreign affairs, distraught gay lovers are victims of a cruel and sadistic America, and those communists were really misunderstood and persecuted victims. In our movies, our soldiers are the villains, street thugs champions of the downtrodden, and America is nothing more than a vile and racist nation. And they wonder why their movies fare so poorly.

But the reality is America is quite the opposite of all that. Rather than waiting for their grievance remittance, most Americans go on about their daily lives, working, raising families, and trying to lead good honest lives.

So why the hatred? I have always believed that liberalism, at least its modern incarnation, is a shallow and immature ideology. That it never has worked, and that it contradicts basic human nature is of no concern. Welfare creates dependency, weakness emboldens our enemies. And just like children, their bumper sticker vitriol is nothing more than a temper tantrum.

Our strength is diversity, but not in the way the left intones. It is not multi-racial/multi-cultural in appearance with singularity of thought, but rather opposing views, aired publicly, candidly, and reasonably, that makes us great. And so I suppose that is why the lack of anti-Bush fever in southern Florida. They live in a red state, and even though they are in blue counties, they interact with people who think differently than them. And so they must temper their outbursts.

Not so here in California, as chances are, more often than not, one will run into an equally unhinged person. Or at least, someone not inclined to offer any support for Republican or conservative views. I guess you could call it a safety net of sorts, that your hatred will go unpunished, or at least unchallenged.

But I'd also have to argue that it is something much deeper, that conservatives in general are far more tolerant and understanding people. And it is not altogether coincidence that demographics almost describe perfectly who is conservative and who is liberal.

Married people with children are mostly Republican, single people democratic. Religious people, Republican, secularists democratic. Middle class people Republican, lower and upper incomes democratic.

Married people, especially those with children, have to learn to compromise, to accept faults in others and themselves. Religious people understand we're all flawed, and redeemable. Middle class people have worked to achieve, know that success is earned, and not guaranteed. They also know there's hope for a better future. Upper income people, have greater guarantees, can afford taxation and other policies that hurt the middle class, and have guilty consciences to assuage. Lower income people have (though inaccurate) no hope and have been inculcated with victim status.

Sure, those are all generalizations, but I think fairly accurate overall. And it must surely go towards explaining the great divide in the nation. I don't think that liberals and conservatives see each other the same: as mutually good and decent people with differing views on how to better society. A concentration of conservatives will not be noticeable to conservatives, while a concentration of liberals will be immediately to a liberal.

However, when there isn't a concentration, as in Florida and many other parts of the country, you will find greater civility.

As final evidence, consider the last few weeks and the immigration protests. The marchers represent a minority of public opinion. The vast majority of Americans want tighter border control, stricter quotas, enforcement of the laws, and punishment of businesses that employ illegal aliens. Yet, how many protests did we see demanding tougher laws? None. It is far deeper than just two divergent views. It is two completely different outlooks on the world, society, and how to achieve one's goals.

Visiting one small corner of one large state for a short period of time is hardly scientific. It is rather anecdotal, but still sheds tremendous light on our society at large. Blue counties in a red state live seemingly without the rage and anger so frequently demonstrated in my red part of a very blue state. There has to be a reason.

Thank You

2006-04-07T22:17:00.000-07:00

It would be the heighth of arrogance to presume such, so I'll just say that I learned well from him. Because I have.

From Professor Hanson 4/7/06, Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?:

Ever since September 11, the subtext of this war could be summed up as something like, �Suburban Jason, with his iPod, godlessness, and earring, loves to live too much to die, while Ali, raised as the 11th son of an impoverished but devout street-sweeper in Damascus, loves death too much to live.� The Iranians, like bin Laden, promulgate this mythical antithesis, which, like all caricatures, has elements of truth in it. But what the Iranians, like the al Qaedists, do not fully fathom, is that Jason, upon concluding that he would lose not only his iPod and earring, but his entire family and suburb as well, is capable of conjuring up things far more frightening than anything in the 8th-century brain of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, the barbarity of the nightmares at Antietam, Verdun, Dresden, and Hiroshima prove that well enough.

So far the Iranian president has posed as someone 90-percent crazy and 10-percent sane, hoping we would fear his overt madness and delicately appeal to his small reservoirs of reason. But he should understand that if his Western enemies appear 90-percent children of the Enlightenment, they are still effused with vestigial traces of the emotional and unpredictable. And military history shows that the irrational 10 percent of the Western mind is a lot scarier than anything Islamic fanaticism has to offer.

So, please, Mr. Ahmadinejad, cool the rhetoric fast � before you needlessly push once reasonable people against the wall, and thus talk your way into a sky full of very angry and righteous jets.

On 7/7/05, I wrote in Lack of History Classes: Part 2

Often times my students ask me what scares me the most. I often respond that nuclear weaponry in the hands of terrorists are what I think the greatest threat to humanity is. But in my heart, I know this is untrue.

My greatest fear is not what they can do to us, it is what we can do to them. Save for self-imposed restraint, what is there stopping us from doing unto the entire middle east and beyond what Alexander did to Persia, Rome to Carthage, Europe to the Aztecs and Incas, or even America to the Indians. What is the history of the 20h century but Europeans trying to annihilate each other from the face of the earth. And the truth is, Germany damn near accomplished it.

My greatest fear is that one day Europe will wake up from her slumber. Remember, this is a continent with a long memory and a long history of being very very deadly with very little remorse. One day, they just might "rememebr the Hagia Sophia" they way Texans "remember the Alamo". And if that day should come, they won't just find some silly excuse, wage a war against them, take a big chunk of land, and build a railroad across the land.

Our enemies really have no sense of history. Sure, they take a nom de guerre of some seventh century tribal chief who conquered some part of Arabia, but they don't realize this is the continent that defined genocide. They have no idea what Europeans are capable of, nor any appreciation of what they have done. Do not underestimate 50 years of pacifism. It masks more than two millenia of barbarism on a scale of which their ignorance is exceeded only by their hubris. A few videos are not going to lessen any of that.

For all the bluster of a Khomenei, a Khadaffy, or a Hussein, how many Dresdens and Tokyos have they in their past? How many einsatzgruppen have they unleashed? Who but the West has shown not only a proclivity, but a passion to turn their entire efforts towards systematic, callous, cold, ruthless, and methodological killing. That Srebenica caused no concern, no outrage, stirred no action should be an awful warning. Just remember who it was that intervened.

Westerners have shown an uncanny ability and desire to be far more than a bit excessive when aroused. You burn flags in streets while we burn civilizations to the ground.

As they say, read the rest. I learned well from the professor.

One day, they might not be so lucky to have a president that shares Bush's optimism. And they might not be so lucky to have Europeans so pacifist.

Already Europe is cutting off aid to Hamas and seriously confronting Iran. The trans-Atlantic alliance is not so strained. It is perhaps a race against time: when will our patience will run out; when will their irrational fantasies end.

We have the means, not the will. They have the will, not the means. You tell me which hand you'd prefer to play.

How many troops?

2006-04-06T14:41:00.000-07:00

As we enter the fourth year in Iraq, and the anti-war crowd continues its search for new charges to throw, hoing one will stick, let's review the previous claims and address the latest.

Bush lied Sadly, while still a staple of the far left (and some democrats, as if there's a difference), there's no validity. In addition to the world intelligence estimates, everyone in Europe, the UN, Isreal, evry Arab nation, as well as the CIA/DIA, Saddam failed to disarm and account for his weapons. Plus, plenty of information has come out (at a snail's pace which is the fault of the administration) that Saddam had every intention of pursuing, restarting, and accelerating his programs.

We went it alone Certainly, the 30 or so nations involved in the fight would beg to differ, Plus, could we really count on "allies" who were on the take (oil for food) or dealing with large and dangerous internal problems of their own. The rioting in Paris a while back or the more recent cartoon episode should have made obvious to all but the most rabid lefties that Europe was, and still is, sitting on a ticking time bomb. Their refusal to help us was far more a domestic problem. And Europe is all too aware of the problem of a nuclear Iran, and though their efforts feeble, certainly are coming to understand the nature of the global threat.

Saddam had no terror ties This one has been thoroughly refuted many times, but needs a quick rehash nonetheless. Saddam had ties to al Qaeda that dated back over a decade. Even the 9/11 report confirmed the relationship. Saddam had training facilities in Iraq (Salman Pak), and supported an AQ affiliate, Ansar al Islam. He had long ties to Ayman al Zawahiri, sent check to Palestinian bombers, sent scienitists to Sudan, housed Zarqawi before the invasion, and even played a part in the 1993 WTC bombing. And we're learning from (again) recently declassified captured documents, Saddam had ties aplenty to terrorists world-wide, including al Qaeda.

Saddam was contained Another popular myth, one usually promoted by the "realists" and the former architects of this plan, is that Saddam was contained and could be controlled. Exactly. Then why exactly did we need to restart the weapons inspections, and then, they occurred only through threat of force. Nothing in the last 12 years stopped Saddam from exporting terror, funding terrorists, hiding his weapons, bilking billions from the UN, or consolidating his power and stopping his relationship with the Russians, et al. In addition, the sanctions were set to end, and then "containment" was not possible.

And, as for containment, it was solely accomplished through daily patrols over the no fly zone, a perpetual US military presence in the gulf in cluding troops in Saudi Arabia, as well as billions and billions of dollars annually, and worst of all, the worsening of daily life for millions of Iraqis.

Lack of a plan This one is a little more sinister, as it somehow divines the thoughts of the administration. Suffice to say, what was tried fared poorly. Yet, why then were there streams of contractors, advisors, and other civilian workers going into Iraq?

Few dispute that they got caught in a situation that few anticipated. And few dispute that they took too long to change course. But we are in an entirely new kind of warfare, against a totally new kind of enemy, and had to face this challenge at a unique time in our history. Our military was in rapid transformation: from a large standing army, protecting Europe from Soviet invasion to a mobile international aid and peacekeeping force. The new model was Bosnia, where the Air Force would bomb the country into submission, the Army would come in, and with UN/NATO forces, stand between two warring sides while they delivered food and medicine to refugees.

Worse than that, we had been in a ten year draw down of forces since the end of Desert Storm. A large part of the infantry had been transferred to the National Guard (by design if you didn't know), a large part of the logisitics had been transferred to the reserves (also by design), troop levels had been reduced dramatically, many mid-level officers and NCO's had been retired out (to save money), and the military bought fancy, shiny new weapon systems (with the prodding of congressmen) at the expense of transport vehicles, training, and necessary upgrades.

By 1941, we had been several years into a massive expansion of our military, and we can read all about the failures, mistakes, and disasters. Imagine had we been drawing down, not doubling and re-doubling our militray strength? By 2001, the exact opposite was true.

On 9/12, we were confronted with something few would have predicted, and there was no prior war we could readily refer to. Our closest examples would be the Phillipine insurrection or the Reconstruction period. Perhaps. But those were far more analogous to our current actions, not the initial planning.

And now we have the latest:

Too few troops As I just noted, we had a massive drawdown coupled with a massive transferral of forces to the reserves and guard. If we truly wanted to go in with 500,000 troops, where would they come from. We would have had to mobilize large numbers of Guardsmen and Reservists, which would make next to impossible the troop rotations that we've had. Plus, we'd have had to draw on forces in Korea, Europe, and elsewhere. We would have needed to rapidly expand the recruitment numbers, and though I'm sure there would have been plenty of volunteers, the political problem arises.

Had Bush proposed (and I've written about this as well) in 2001 or early 2002 to massively increase our forces, he might have had congressional approval. However, when the Iraq situation escalated, does anyone doubt that he's be attacked relentlessly for having done A (increased the military size) precisely for B (the invasion of Iraq)?

But let's say, for arguments sake, that yes, we sent in 500,000 troops. What more could they have done? There would no doubt been far higher casualties as three times the troops are three times the targets. Plus, what better way to be an "occupying force" than to actually be an "occupying force". Claiming the need to have had more troops is merely a panacea, one that doesn't offer, nor ever offered, a solution. And, considering the rapid rate of the victory in the first three weeks, one that also rings hollow.

There was no realistic way to put 500,000 troops in Iraq. And even if there, would they have stopped the insurgency, the IED's, the kidnappings, the bombings, the terrorists? Hardly. Then what do we do after the first year?

The real message behind the lack of troops, is this: we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq. See, if we don't have what we need, we can't do it. Thus we don't do Iraq.

It is becoming clearer that yes, Iraq is most likely in a civil war. But were they not already? Were not the Shias and Kurds violently repressed? There was clearly a civil war in 1991, one that we encouraged, then abruptly and ignominiously abandoned. The Kurds have all but broken away from Iraq and established an autonomous state, rapidly becoming prosperous. The Shia are struggling as much internally as with the Sunni. The Sunni are desperately trying to play a political part, the restoration of minority power a distant dream.

As if any of that would have been stopped had we 500,000 troops. No, the real problem is that the hope of the enemy has always been in a democracy's ability to wage war, never in it's ability to fight. And no number of troops would have changed that.

Force of Reason

2006-04-01T15:28:00.000-08:00

Oriana Fallaci is a self-described atheist, yet a defender of the Church and an admirer of the new Pope. In Force of Reason, she offers a siren call to the West, a plea if you will, to wake up and fight. Perhaps few are intimately associate with both the Islamacists and their champions in the West. In todays world of multicultural tolerance and moral relativism, she castigates the European elite who have allowed their land to be inundated by Islamic settlers, their culture to be destroyed by a fascist tyranny.

She begins with the trial and burning of Maestro Cecco over his book THe Armillary Sphere. Then, as today, the forces of irrationality and fear condemned a man who simply dared to question the Church. Today, she is herself the victim of hate and persecution, by what she deems the new church of the Left.

She first wants us to remember the real cause of the Crusades, conveniently left out of every single history text: four centuries of Islamic plundering, raping, pillaging, and assaulting of European coasts. That the assaults continued until the defeat outside Vienna in the late 17th century is testament to the fact that what is happening today in Europe is not an aberration, but rather a continuation, of history.

She reminds us all to well that the avowed mission of Islam is the submission of all infidel-digs, in other words, those who are not sons of Allah.

And how is the assault continuing today? No longer under force of arms, but rather a more sinister, yet equally devastating weapon: the womb. The emigration from the Arab world began in earnest in the 1970's and today, the only population that is growing in Europe is the Islamic one. It grows as Muslims have four, five, six, or more children while Europe's birthrate declines dramatically.

And, as she so eloquently chronicles, it is a population that desires not to assimilate, but to segregate. There are already large communities where the Sharia (the oppressive religious law) is the rule. Polygamy, banned in Europe, is widely practiced by Muslims, and purposefully ignored by the authorities. Imams have already gotten concessions that no other group could have hoped for. While Christianity may be publicly mocked and ridiculed, Churches and any vestiges of Christianity defaced, such actions, even mere words, may be cause for jail. So much for freedom of speech.

One example she details, one so pernicious and equally prevalent in US textbooks, is the promotion of Islamic contributions to the world, while European contributions are neglected at best, shown as cheap copies at worst. School children are now to learn that the Islamic world was the seat of scientific and cultural achievement, a gift to the world of which Europe could never have succeeded without. Ignored are the apartheid society, the religious intolerance, the killing. Gone are any mention that only through force of arms did Islam spread.

When did all this begin? Back in the 1970's, European leaders had numerous conferences with Arab leaders, and established economic, cultural, and political ties that were entirely uni-directional. Europe had to allow massive immigration, pro-Arab/pro-Islamic postures, anti-Israeli foreign policy, and most of all, a separate yet very much equal station in Europe for its incoming tides. Fully legal equality was demanded, and accorded, yet none of the responsibilities, such as accepting the rule of law of ones hosts.

The term Eurabia was even coined during this period, the title of an obscure yet powerful journal. It was the work not of Europeans but Arabs, began shortly after the Cairo and Rome Conferences. The plan? Align European views with that of the views of the Arab world. Cancel any agreements with Israel. Claim the millennial contributions of the Islamic world. And accomplish it all through immigration.

She leaves her most virulent criticisms for the Left, though she spares little enmity for the Right. The former actively, the latter passively, but both equally guilty of encouraging and even outright supporting all this. As she so eloquently explains, it is the far left, the communists that the Islamicists find their greatest allies.

Yet, as she implores us to understand, the left and the right are but two soccer teams separated only by jersey color. They play by the same rules, have the same goals, seek the same victory. It is perhaps hard for Americans to truly grasp, where extremism politics has never taken hold. Yet Europe has a long history of political extremism being the middle.

And as she also details, the Left sees the Arab world as the new "proletariat", the oppressed class, the new natural ally. Would that they could be so stupid. Their hatred for the West is matched by the interlopers, yet their vision of paradise is hardly shared by their temporary friends.

Ms. Fallaci is scorned, ridiculed, threatened, and attacked by elites and intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet that is even more reason to read this book, take her words to heart, fear what she fears, and act on her warnings. September 11th was hardly the first, nor far from the last time we'll hear from the terrorists. She of all people knows this only too well.

Her words should not only be taken to heart, but heeded by anyone who values and cherishes liberty and freedom. For if we think that there is room to compromise, to peacefully live together, we are not only foolish and naive, but actively aiding our defeat. She makes clear, that their is no peace, no middle ground. We will either live under the Sharia, but never next to it.

Some books you read, this one you hear. Her words are not the artful dissertation of an historian or the gentle prose of an essayist, but rather the final screams of a dying woman. And these screams are not hysterical rantings but rather pent up rage finally being released.

Hopefully her words, her warnings, will not be treated as Churchill's were. He warned us only too well what was to come. And so has she.

My final thoughts on reading the book are confusion. I see eleven million turn out to vote in Iraq, an Iraqi army that is growing in capability and confidence, and taking the fight to the terrorists. I see what seems to be a nascent democracy in Afghanistan (thought the very recent trial of a convert frightens me) and a brave man like Karzai who truly wants to help his country. I see countries in the Gulf, Bahrain and Qatar for instance, that know full well the threats we face they face as well. And I see them only too willing to help.

Yet, I fear in the end, that she may very well be right, and that our current policy wrong. For all the support and confidence I have that our policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond are the right course, I fear that we are only deluding ourselves. I certainly hope not.

If, after everything we have done, everything we will do, and all the progress that we have made, we are still only infidel-dogs, then what a tragedy it will have been. But we will not have been without warning.

A change in scenery

2006-03-06T19:17:00.000-08:00

A couple of years ago I began this blog and wasn't sure what exactly I wanted it to be or where I wanted it to go. In time, it developed into quite an undertaking. I found myself spending substantial time and effort to continue posting worthwhile content. Sometimes, for whatever reasons, it seemed rather difficult.

I hadn't intended to turn each post into a lengthy discussion, but as it happens, they usually turned out that way. In time, the style took on a life of its own, and I felt constrained in that I had to write a certain way. Of course, this was purely self-imposed, but nonetheless, the blog grew to become something that, although I am extremely proud of it, was becoming further from what I had intended.

I have had intervals without posting, primarily due to the lack of time to devote to it. I never wanted to post just to post, but sometimes it felt that way. When I had something important to write, I did. When I felt that I didn't, I didn't.

I oftentimes wanted to post short thoughts, observations, or comments, but it seemed that that type of blogging was inconsistent with what the blog had become. And the last several weeks, I have honestly been burnt out. I have been busy with my classes, and more importantly, with personal reading.

I decided that I would take some time off, decide what exactly I wanted to do, and whether I would continue to blog, or just leave the arena. I decided that I would continue, but on my terms, and in a way that I felt would satisfy me.

So, I am beginning a new blog called EphialtesRedux, which will be more a regular blog, short, to the point, more frequent, and pithy if you will. I will still write more lengthy pieces, and still post them here, although they will be less frequent and not always deal with contemporary issues.

To those who have visited and made this site part of your internet experience, I thank you. As I mentioned earlier, I am extremely proud of the body of work. It isn't often that the voice of conservative teachers are heard, and I hope I have relieved some of you the concern that real history, the actual discipline not some faddish, trendy, therapeutic rubbish, is being taught somewhere by someone who actually knows and understands the subject.

I would wager that my work, like that of so many bloggers out there, is far superior to the daily drivel that passes for insight from our "superiors" at the dying dailies.

If you don't know who Ephialtes was, or what the Areopagus was, than I suggest you find out. If you do, you'll understand the appellation completely.

Thanks.

Weakness not strength

2006-02-07T14:42:00.000-08:00

I believe a famous philosopher once said "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run". As the west watches protests, killings, and flag burnings, the floatsam and jetsam which could be the makings of a "medieval meets modern" sitcom, I am struck with one thought that were it not so serious would be altogether funny: "That's the best you got?"

Sadly, or perhaps not so, this latest uproar has had a dual impact: it has forced the decadent and recalcitrant west to confront its demons, exposing the extent and scope of the problem it faces while equally displaying for all the world to see just how impotent and incompetent the enemy it faces truly is.

Now, before it is assumed that I disregard their potential (after all, we know what they have done, what they claim they desire to do, and the current situation with Iran), for I certainly don't, I also know full well that sans nuclear weaponry, they are feeble. Even with such, what they could do pales in comparison to what we could, and I dare say, would do. Even Monsieur Chirac has made that clear.

And they have also made the biggest mistake their cause could have had.

They have made it abundantly clear that they can protest and burn flags like any good 60's holdover in Berkeley, but beyond that, they have shown that for all their evil, they haven't even one panzer corps to follow up with. They survive solely on the good graces, tolerance, and patience of their landlords. In a moment we could very well see forced relocations (hmmm, Europe is good at that), massive deportations (ditto), and possibly mass violent retribution (been there, done that) all of which are a return to, not a deviation from, the European norm.

The rioters laid their cards on the table and have shown that they are holding maybe, at best, a pair. I have written previously that collectively, all the jihadists and their benefactor nations have no air force, no navy, no armor, no armies, nothing at all worthy of fear save their spiritual gotterdammerung.

The worst thing one can do to an enemy is show your cards. The old maxim "know thy enemy" has been lost on those who profess hatred and destruction of the west without the slightest knowledge of who their playing with.

I have asked in the past when Europe would awaken, and perhaps they are. Bombings and riots are the best they can do. But it should not come as a shock to a world where bluster is the norm, success measured in bombast. Arafat speaks at the UN with a holstered pistol (hmmm, I though NY banned handguns?) and that is seen as a sign of strength. Yet all the while they ignore completely the fact that he must humble himself, almost prostrate, before an equally inept and laughable bunch, for whom he seeks charity and consolence. Both groups, the beggars and the thieves, head to Turtle Bay seeking to play on our pity not our earned respect.

At least when Krushcev pounded his shoe he had the missile and tanks to back it up.

What the protests amount to is that we see them for who they really are: a pitiful bunch of children, spoiled in a sense from being told they are the rightful inheritors of the world, yet equally dangerous should they be given keys to the car. So apt is the analogy that they are the misbegotten teenagers who trash their rooms when angered by the slightest of constraints and then will wonder why they are tossed out of the house and made to fend for themselves.

Fear them for their ideas, what they would do if given half the chance. Know full well that they have no moral restraint or conscience. But look to the streets and see what should be painfully obvious (for I don't doubt it is to them), that they are terribly weak and not strong. They have only proven that all the more so the last few days.

In fact, they have even given us a greater weapon, for we now know what can set them off. Their unwavering belief is for them their greatest strength, yet is their greatest weakness. It is all too easily exploitable, and if we are of mind to do so, they are so easily defeatable.