Thoughts on “Progressive”s

-.-

One comment I hear over and over, is that everyone in America supported the cause in World War 2, for a variety of reasons, and this claim is used to support the claim that the present mania exhibited by the likes of Michael Moore and Al Gore is a new phenomenon. Sadly, that is not at all the case. The notion that America was once united in the cause of Liberty and the fight for Freedom is a quaint but false myth. Throughout American history, the cry of the loonbat has disturbed the idyllic notions of the Founding Fathers, then the Union Army, and so today’s bad-smelling, non-thinking devolutionary troglodytes are trying to harass the far better men and women who are setting America's course and saving millions of people from destruction in the process.

Without dragging the reader through the whole of history, I will simply begin in 1910, and show the procession of protests, crowd-mollifying policies and milktoast doctrines which have made the job of the true patriot even harder. By 1910, it was true that many people saw the approach of World War I, and many rightly feared the fight. In the United States, it was often difficult to explain why the United States should care what Europe got itself into, and so politicians, notably President Wilson in 1912 and again in 1916, made a point of promising to keep America out of the war. Of course, when it did hit we were unready and the war still cost us dearly, especially when one considers the loans made by the United States in 1924 and 1928 to prevent economic collapse in Germany, which would have led to more fighting between nations ill-equipped for more violence. One might note that a competent force in Germany during the 1920s might have kept the nation from falling into the near-civil war which gave the Nazis their opening, but pre-emption of terrorism is hard enough now, even with all the history we have as warnings. Anyway, the United States was pretty happy to be an ocean away from all that, and things were great. Until the Stock Market crashed, along with a lot of banks, and many businesses began wholesale layoffs and so Unemployment shot sky-high at the worst possible time. Not only did this cost President Hoover his job, but both the House and Senate switched over to Democrat control.

Franklin Roosevelt knew where his power came from. Having swept into office on a Republican scandal and loss of confidence, he understood that he had to listen to the tune of the day. So in 1936 and again in 1940, just like Wilson before him, FDR promised America would stay out of ‘Europe’s War’. Then came Pearl Harbor. In spite of all the movies and common beliefs, there were a lot of Americans who didn’t think we should be in World War 2. Pearl Harbor shut them up, but not forever. Most people don’t know that Charles Lindbergh, the pilot who flew solo across the Atlantic in “The Spirit of St. Louis”, was an admirer of the Nazi Party for many years, as just one example of a famous and well-respected American who opposed the government position. By 1944, the war was not at all the universally popular enterprise we are told these days. If the Normandy Invasion in June had gone a bit differently, or if General Patton had not made such obvious progress by October, it’s entirely possible that FDR could have lost his bid for a fourth term. As is common in such matters, wars are generally popular only when we appear to be clearly winning. When the war is in doubt, so is the President.

After World War 2, America faced one of its toughest gut checks; the Soviet Union. The Communists’ plan was simple; when everyone else sent their armies home to their families, they would not, and so would be ready to take whatever land they felt they could hold. Harry Truman had no intention of allowing that, but it took every marker he could call in to keep the U.S. ready for a fight, and to step in when the pot boiled over in Korea. One reason the crisis over MacArthur’s actions was important, was because public support for the Korean War was not at all complete.

You see the trend. The abomination that was the anti-war movement against Vietnam cost the lives of thousands of U.S. servicemen, and countless more asian civilians, simply because the public deserted the troops and the ideals on which America was founded. It was not new, just more successful in depressing confidence and wearing away at our leaders’ resolve than previous attempts. And just as FDR had always watched the mob to see their mood, Democrats began to shift from positions defending Liberty, to positions dependent on the whim of the moment. Increasingly, Democrats began to listen to whomever seemed the loudest and the most unhappy. Where Harry Truman had been willing to stand up to the anger of outraged voters, Jimmy Carter put on a fake smile and said what he though they wanted to hear. Where John Kennedy had been willing to submit a tax cut, knowing it would invigorate the economy, Ted Kennedy now blames every occasion where taxes are not raised. And as their ideals died, so also died the control of the Democratic Party, and those who used to be called ‘Liberals’ for their broad minds and bright hopes, found themselves voting more and more for Republicans, and those who claimed the Leadership of the Democratic Party made sure to destroy the maps and rudder, and to get rid of their anchor forthwith, and so they celebrate the meandering of their odyssey to lunacy, as some new form of ‘diversity’, even as they demand compliance with their mindset and rhetoric.

There was a time when some people were angry because America had declared her independence from England. There was a time when some people were angry because Slavery was banned in the United States. There was a time when people were outraged by women voting in America. There was a time when equal rights for all races by law and actual practice angered some who thought Jim Crow was a good way to live. Such people have always existed, have always been wrong, have always been a pain and a test for true leaders to endure, and though they may now control the MSM and hold most of the faculty seats at universities, they areno more right now than ever before. God has always saved the United States from them, be they Tories, Klansman, or Progressives, and I depend on His grace again now.

Grading By Reagan – My Report Card

.

Gay Patriot opened a forum to discuss how President George W. Bush should be compared to Ronald W. Reagan, arguably the greatest Republican President in the past century, if not one of the greatest of all American Presidents. I was honored to be asked to comment as a member of a panel of “Reagan Scholars”, to “adjust” the grades handed out by Gay Patriot and to respond to the comments from the readers. This column is my considered opinion, which will be added to those from Bridget Johnson and Sondra K on Monday for the final grade.

I have thought about this matter for a few days, and the first thing I would say, is that we have to establish a standard by which to rate Bush. I do not think it would be appropriate to use Reagan as the absolute, because for all my admiration and respect for President Reagan, he was human and therefore made his share of errors and had his own limitations. So, I have chosen to compare five Presidents here to what I call the “Reagan Ideal”; that is, how well each of the past five Presidents has done (or appears to have done, since Bush’s work is still in progress) in performance of the ideals exemplified by Ronald Reagan. It is fairly accepted as consensus that Reagan’s Presidency was the most successful in memory of any President in our generation, and so his ideals would appear to be the most salient in comparing performance. As a rule of thumb, the default for a President is “C”, that being the average grade in common use. If a President has done some damage to the country or his office in that category, then a lower grade would be used, although an “F” would not necessarily mean the President was completely incompetent or mendacious. If a President has done some service beyond the norm in a category, then a higher grade would be used, though even an “A+” would not necessarily mean perfection. While a bit more complex, matching up grades on the Reagan Ideal for not only Dubya, but his father, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Reagan himself helps demonstrate not only a proper comparison between the modern Presidents, but also demonstrate how some Presidents have had to recover from the damage done by a predecessor. With that in mind, I turn my attention to the nine selected categories:

Vision/Optimism (A- from Gay Patriot)
Communicating That Vision (D+/C- from Gay Patriot)
National Security (A- from Gay Patriot)
Foreign Policy (A- from Gay Patriot)
Free Trade (B/B+ from Gay Patriot)
Domestic Spending/Size of Government (D+ from Gay Patriot)
Federalism (D from Gay Patriot)
Judicial Appointments (A- from Gay Patriot)
Leadership/Tenacity (A- from Gay Patriot)
Overall Grade (B/B+ from Gay Patriot)

First, Vision/Optimism. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: D
Reagan: A+
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: C-
GW Bush: A-

Here's how I got there. Carter got the lowest grade, for basically giving up on America’s mission in the world. He tried to make Diplomacy a bigger part of the process, I will give him that, but he downgraded the military, and refused to support his commitments when pressed. Clinton tried to sell America’s place in the world like a Marketing campaign, but he too had no stomach for the tough road. The elder Bush did what was necessary, and his vision of a post-Cold War world was important in crafting some signal treaties and agreements with Russia, China, and other important countries, but he did not see far enough. Dubya and Reagan are true visionaries, men who not only faced their challenges squarely, but who also established programs and doctrines to set a wise course for the future.


Communicating That Vision. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: D
Reagan: A+
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: A
GW Bush: A-

Again, Carter is at the bottom. Partly, it’s because trying to persuade a nation to adopt a despondent policy, as Carter did in his “Malaise” speech, is poor strategy to begin with but also, Carter consistently failed to demonstrate any sort of plan for restoring America to greatness. On the other end is Reagan, whose delivery in speeches was perfect, legendary. Next comes Clinton, whose true gift was the common touch, the ability to speak in terms the average man and woman would recognize and accept. Some people may be surprised I grade Dubya so high, but for all the apparent clumsiness of his elocution, it should be observed that when the stakes matter, he gets results. The last three elections, the Congressional vote on invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and on tax relief, the President is effective in his communications, as evidenced where it counts most – the results. Too many people are influenced by poor poll numbers, which are not only invalid in many cases due to the way they are constructed, but also miss the fact that the polls have never demonstrated the actual success of failure of a doctrine or initiative.

National Security. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: D-
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: A-
Clinton: F
GW Bush: A+

Clinton personally approved deals which allowed his personal friends to sell cutting-edge U.S.missile and satellite technology to Communist China, and he did nothing to slow down the proliferation of a new WMD-components market, which helped a number of nations ramp up their nuclear and biological weapons research, including North Korea and Iran. So, while Clinton was also responsible for the creation of an Infrastructure Protection Agency and a Cyberwarfare Counter-Operations office, his grade must be regarded as a complete failure in this section. As for Carter, his policies and despondent doctrine of retreat led to an across-the-board degrading of military readiness, the abandonment of numerous commitments in strategic locations, and denied vital R&D and HUMINT programs. The only saving grace for Carter is that the Soviets made less of the opportunity than they might have done, and Reagan was able to restore the condition of the military.

It next needs to be said that Reagan, for all his greatness, was not really a ‘wartime’ President as the term is understood. Yes, he fought the Cold War, which was a real war, and he won it. But the conditions of a “hot” wartime are different than others, and every American President who has had to face a “hot” war has found it unpredictable, expensive on several levels, and difficult to bear for any sustained length of time. Reagan’s management of the Cold War was masterful, but far less so his attention to the Middle East and Central America theaters. It’s not to say Reagan did badly at all, but rather that his accomplishments were less effective than George W. Bush’s, and yes I know that claim will be argued. GHW Bush, whether by insight or luck, chose the right crisis to apply his team-building to, and his efforts paid dividends in building the foundation for a strong U.S. credibility in the Middle East. The knocks on the elder Bush are simple; he did not plan far enough ahead to see what to do about Iraq, and he allowed the United Nations far too much of a role in the matter. As for George W, his problems with resolving Immigration Reform would ordinarily count against him, were there not so many signal accomplishments to name, including passage and renewal of the PATRIOT Act (which essentially took the handcuffs on the Intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies’ ability to share information and act to pre-empt threats), the destruction of the Taliban and effective elimination of the old structure of Al Qaida, the removal of Saddam Hussein, the establishment of the Bush Doctrine in response to terrorist threats, the consolidation of National Security operations under the Department of Homeland Security, and the creation of a National Director of Intelligence (Bush is essentially the first US President to reform the Intelligence Community without attempting to castrate it, to support the field agents and weed out the politics players).


Free Trade. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: C
Reagan: A
GHW Bush: A
Clinton: A
GW Bush: B

Reagan, the elder Bush, and Clinton all worked to improve international commerce and improve confidence in the economy. Dubya did much of the same, but security concerns hampered his efforts. It should be noted that the Enron and similar scandals, in my opinion, were largely unrelated to any Administration, and so did not cost any President points. It should also be understood that the Bush Administration’s role in the creation of Sarbanes-Oxley is unclear, and so that is neither applied to his advantage or cost.


Domestic Spending/Size of Government. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: D
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: D
GW Bush: B+

Dubya gets a bad shake when the subject of federal spending comes up. Oh how the critics squeal about higher spending. But wait a minute – USA Today has finally done a but of real journalism, and it turns out a lot of that increased spending has nothing at all to do with a program crated by President Bush, but rather comes from a jump in enrollment in the existing program; USA Today revealed that of 25 major federal programs, enrollment between 2000 and 2005 jumped 17% while the population only increased by 5%. This highlights a problem in criticizing the President. Too many people see him as a man who must be able to foresee and address every crisis perfectly, and no man can do that, especially a President who operates within the Constitutional limits of his office (granted, not every President obeyed such limits, but such Presidents do not fare well in my scoring). For me, there are two components to the score in this area: The intent of the President, and the conditions he faces. The grades received by each President should be self-evident in this context. I would also suggest that the reader compare deficits and spending levels in terms of portion of GDP, which is the best simple barometer.


Federalism. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: D
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: B
Clinton: D
GW Bush: A

This is the area where I probably disagree most sharply from Gay Patriot. Every President since Washington has had to wrestle with the opposing forces of ideal and practical need. It is well known, for example, that Washington opposed the creation of a standing Army and Navy, yet when they were later created Washington applauded the move, knowing it was necessary. As with Domestic programs, one must examine the intent as well as what is done. What I mean is, the Department of Homeland Security was a necessary coalescence of the federal powers to address border security and national threats. On other levels, however, such as Education and Financial Aid and judicial authority, Bush has done an admirable job of scaling back and directing attention to the restoration of State powers. In this light, even Reagan does less well than Bush.


Judicial Appointments. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: C
Reagan: A-
GHW Bush: C-
Clinton: D
GW Bush: A+

In another statement bound to get me some dispute, Bush actually did better in his appointments than Reagan has. This is because Bush paid attention to the need for solid appointments to the Federal bench, and applied no political consideration to them, something which Reagan allowed a few times. And as for the Supreme Court nominees, you simply cannot do better than Roberts and Alito. While some wish to complain about the Miers nomination, I would remind them that A - we still do not know for sure how well Miers would have done as a justice, B – the Miers nomination is not really relevant since it did not even go so far as hearings, and C – too many people forget that the nomination was to replace the unfortunate Justice O’Connor, who did serve as a SCOTUS justice, and who was a Reagan appointee, the same as Justice Kennedy. This dilutes the Reagan score in this area. Obviously, the Souter choice hurts Bush 41. Carter did not appoint anyone to SCOTUS, but he did make Breyer a Federal Appeals Court judge, which made it possible for Clinton to pick Breyer, along with Ginsburg, for the high court. The low scores for Clinton and Carter do not reflect the liberal preference of those men, but rather the tendency to favor judges who would ‘create’ law from the bench.


Leadership/Tenacity. Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: F
Reagan: A
GHW Bush: C+
Clinton: C+
GW Bush: A

First, the easy part – tenacity. All you need to know about how tough a given President is, is to look at how hard the Press is trying to tear into him without justice. Clinton even gets some props for toughness there, because around 1999 the press decided to make him a chew-toy. Yeah, he did what was alleged so that takes away from him, but I have to admit Bubba stood and took it. But if I give that much to Clinton, I have to praise all the louder for Reagan and Dubya, who took fire from the day they announced they were running, and which never let up. That said, the hail of lies and vicious slander from the press against President George W. Bush is literally unprecedented in my lifetime, and the fact that he has held up this well this long speaks for steel in his backbone that no man in a few generations could boast. As to Leadership, that’s less clear on the surface. The idea there I think, is to mix the tenacity with the Vision we talked about earlier, and then look at the results in fact. Basically, everyone knows Jimmy Carter for his humanitarian work and his political second-guessing, but no one brings up the Carter Administration as an example of how to get the job done. Clinton had tenacity, but does anyone, even six years after he left office have any idea what the “Clinton Doctrine” would be?

Overall Grade . Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: GPA 1.06, earns a D
Reagan: GPA 4.03, earns an A
GHW Bush: GPA 3.00, earns a B
Clinton: GPA 1.91, earns a D+
GW Bush: GPA 3.88, earns an A-

Now the fun part: your thoughts!

A Tale of Two Heroes: Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu

[]+[]

I hate to say it, but if you are not a blogger or a reader of blogs, you probably have not heard a word from the media about either of these two men. That’s for a number of reasons, ranging from a malicious prejudice against true conscientious protest to simple apathy. It should also be understood that in both cases there needs to be follow-up, if only to show that valor is seen and acknowledged. In the headline, I called Abdul Rahman and Hao Wu “heroes”; I think that once you know their situations, you will agree that these men have earned that title. Abdul Rahman is on trial in Afghanistan, facing the death penalty. In the West a man could only face such a sentence for murder, and in many countries the death sentence is not an option at all. In Abdul Rahman’s case, he is facing execution for having converted from Islam to Christianity.

For many people, that is the story in a nutshell, but in Rahman’s case the story is much deeper than a simple political-religious crisis. You see, Rahman’s family is still very much Muslim, and so he has no real access to support; the government has denied any visitors, and his own family has condemned his conversion. Even were he freed from prison, Mr. Rahman might be forced to flee the country to survive death threats already made against him.
It is not likely, however, that Rahman will be sentenced to death. First, while the prosecutor has claimed that Sharia requires Muslims who convert to another faith to be killed, the Quran is silent on that question, and no specific hadith considered to be credible is clear, either. Further, the Constitution of Afghanistan says that capital punishment must be approved by the President (Article 129[2)], and President Karzai is certainly sensitive to the American opinion of Afghanistan; killing a man for being Christian is not at all something Mr. Karzai is likely to endorse.

And even the prosecutor has backed off a bit suggesting that Rahman may be found ‘mentally unfit’, in which case “Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven”. The question at hand is serious on several levels, as any decision is likely to serve as a key precedent.

It should be noted that Abdul Rahman did not become a Christian anytime recently, after the U.S.-led invasion, but fifteen years ago, when Afghanistan as anything but a friendly place for Christians. Imagine living under the rule of the Taliban, and then & there choosing to follow the way of Christ. That folks, is courage!

The other case is Hao Wu, whose fate is at least as uncertain as Abdul Rahman’s. Hao Wu, who is a documentary filmmaker (the real kind, not like Michael Moore) and political blogger, was arrested February 22 in Beijing, and he has since been held without charges, visitors, or any sort of information release by the government.

Wu writes under the blogger name “Beijing Loafer” and also the pseudonym Tian Yi. Wu’s main blog, “Beijing or Bust” (hmm - notice it’s a Blogger blog?) is a lot like any regular person’s blog. Note that a February 20 entry mentions a family fight with his mom, including this comment:

“I kept on calling her back, apologizing for my behavior and comforting her.

What could I have done? She’s my mother.”

Ironically, in that same post Wu also mentions that his Chinese readers

“expressed annoyance and incomprehension at the West’s criticism of China. So did most of the Chinese bloggers I’ve read thus far…please understand that Chinese are very defensive about these criticisms because in our modern history we’d been repeatedly humiliated by Western colonial powers; in addition, we Chinese believe in ‘A son doesn’t complain about his mother’s plain looks, and a mother doesn’t pick on a son’s destitution’”

A single-stop web site has been set up by Ethan Zuckerman to provide the known information about Wu’s arrest, which is not much, and to organize support to demand his release.

It’s difficult to say which situation takes more courage; to stand for your faith in an Afghanistan which may or may not have grown morally in the past few years, or to speak truth in a country where people can simply disappear for being inconvenient. In my book, both of these men are true exemplars of valor and courage. Both deserve their lives and their freedom – and your voice in their defense.

Blogger Writes Back

***

As many in the Blogosphere know, an undetermined number of blogs managed by Blogger, a free service offered by Google simply disappeared last week. For a number of days, bloggers were unable to even see their blogs, much less edit or post columns. Attempts to contact Blogger about the problem produced no response, except for a single automated e-mail response which neither addressed the problem nor promised a solution.

I published an open letter to Google/Blogger, wherein I thanked them for the convenience and affordability of Blogger, but also reminded them of the implicit responsibility they held in creating such a service. I also warned them that continued silence on the cause and remedy for the blog removals would create an impression they might wish to avoid. By this weekend, service had been restored to every Blog*Spot site which I knew to have been affected, but there had still been no explanation.

On Tuesday, March 21, I received an email response from Jason Goldman, the product manager at Blogger. I can’t be sure whether or not the email was a form letter, which in itself was something of a good sign and a bad one, simultaneously. Here is the text from that email:

“Those of us who work at Blogger do so because we want to give a voice to as many people as possible. That’s why it upset me to see that your blog was mistakenly removed from Blog*Spot last week.

I’d like to personally apologize for this mistake and assure you that your blog’s accidental removal was in no way reflective of a policy decision on the part of Google. As a result of this error, we have implemented additional controls on the tools used by our team. Also, it shouldn’t have taken this long to resolve the issue, and we apologize for the delay in restoring your site.

Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do.

Sincerely,

Jason Goldman
Project Manager, Blogger”

First off, I think it is important to thank Mr. Goldman for his letter and accountability. When something like this happens, no one wants to be the person who has to step out and take responsibility. Whatever you think of Google, give Jason credit for answering the call to put out a rather large fire. Next, having seen some disasters myself, I am quite willing to believe the removal of these sites was accidental. To be blunt, if Google had wanted to delete a certain type of blog or site, they could have found a way to do so which wouldn’t have reflected on them the way this incident did. I can’t prove it, but I get the feeling that when the sites started disappearing, Blogger was not aware of it at first, having no process in place to track such a possibility, and also they had no idea what to do if that scenario happened. I find it easy to believe that the first couple days at Blogger were filled with confusion and panic – after all, if Google decided this whole ‘free blog’ thing was just making them look bad, they could just dump the project and fire everyone at Blogger. After all, other companies have done this sort of thing before, especially to avoid looking bad on the surface. Google, whatever else they have been up to, worked to get the blogs back up, and allowed Mr. Goldman to do his job. Sure, it would have been nice if the blogs had never disappeared, but then I would have liked to not have had to replace the oil pan on my car; stuff happens.

In the end, I only have one important piece of advice for Blogger and Mr. Goldman. We live in a rapid-fire age of information, and word spreads quickly, and what’s more, some of the most modest blogs are well-respected and get immediate attention in influential places. So, even though Blogger did not mean for this to happen, the silence which greeted blogger inquiries for so long created an impression, and not a good one. It would be a very good idea for Blogger to think about the possible worst-case events, and prepare statements to address them. In this case, it would have made a great difference if the Blogger Help page had immediately announced they knew there was a problem, and were working on it. By leaving up a page which seemed to claim nothing was wrong, and that a former problem had been completely fixed, Blogger made worried people into angry people. Last year, my company saw what happened during Hurricane Katrina, and so made preparations for responding to customers if we needed to close the company, which actually happened during the voluntary evacuation from the path of Hurricane Rita. The same kind of foresight and planning could really help Blogger avoid falling on its face again.

But all in all, I appreciate Blogger’s efforts to fix the problem and apologize for the accident. Thank you, Jason.

Sincerely,

DJ Drummond

The MSM War - Cleveland

[**]

The President gave a great speech in Cleveland yesterday. Funny, you’d never know it, from the response by the MainStream Media. Nothing on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox. Sadly predictable though. You see, the President came out strong and was compelling in his reasoning and delivery. Which is not the desired image the MSM wishes to portray. This of course is nothing new, which is the point of this column.

Many people have claimed that President George W. Bush is a bit of a fumble-tongue, unable to always articulate why he supports one proposal or opposes another. But how much of that comes from the filter placed on the President by the media? Just after 9/11, while visiting Ground Zero, President Bush made one of his best-known quotes, and it was off-the-cuff. Today, again we saw him at his best in the Press Conference. I have lived long enough to remember days when Reagan looked old, Clinton stupid, and Carter simply out of it, because anyone who has a camera in front of him at all times will sooner of later flub his lines. How much to Dubya’s speech, do you think, is not so much a matter of poor elocution and selective editing?

America is at war. Against terrorists, against Jihadist fascism, and against the MSM. We need to remember that.

Murder Most Foul

---
There used to be certain accepted moral boundaries, things which were always done or not done in a unanimous sense of moral law. You didn’t deliberately cause needless suffering, or deny justice to those most in need of it. And the best of men, the doctors, took an oath of conduct which says in part “I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. It was understood for many centuries, regardless of culture or faith, that life was precious and not to be discarded, especially at the desire of another person.

So it should have been a simple and easy decision, when the husband of a woman suffering from brain damage, on no evidence or documentation of any sort that she so desired, demanded that she be killed, in apparent desire that he be done with her as an obligation (the man not only had taken a mistress while married, but had children by her while claiming he still loved and was “devoted” to Terri). Absent compelling evidence that she wanted to die, Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live.

But Michael Schiavo had smart lawyers, if few scruples, and pressed his case until Terri was dead. And not just killed, but starved to death in an excruciating ordeal which took thirteen days to finish.

Think about that. A convicted murderer in California remains alive because doctors worried that his much-deserved execution might cause him pain for a little while, perhaps a minute or so, but no court found it unreasonable to starve an innocent woman to death over a two-week period, even in the total absence of evidence that she had any desire to die. Her parents were barred from her hospice room until after she was dead, and were not even allowed to go to her funeral.

If this nation holds any true ideals, Terri Schiavo must be remembered, and this cruel injustice called plainly what it was; court-abetted murder. Do not forget.

Blood and Bigotry – The Coming Civil War In Islam Part 3 – The Jihadists’ Strategy

.-.

Readers have responded in a variety of ways to my warning that Islam is headed for a Civil War. The most common responses, whether in agreement or (more common) disagreement with my statements, miss the signal facts of my presumptions. I have examined the historical evidence of Islam, and when I say that the vast majority of Muslims prefer peace, that in no way means they shall have it. Always, the majority of Islam has desired peace, and few acts of violence are supported by the mainstream of Islam. Iraq’s Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jafari, understands this. Addressing the matter of political opposition from Moqtada al-Sadr as an example of advancing democracy in Iraq, al-Jafari writes:

“During my term as elected prime minister, Sadr's group has not attacked any coalition troops. Furthermore, Sadr and several Sunni leaders are now catalysts for maintaining the peace in Iraq, calling on their followers not to retaliate against terrorist provocations, which aim to ignite civil war.”

Islam, as I have said before, is a religion of a number of sects, some of which are militant and some distinctly apocalyptic in nature. The ‘Mahdi’ virus shows up from time to time, generally inciting violence not so much out of a vision for the future, but out of individual lust for power and misappropriating Islam as a vehicle towards that power, and corrupting the hopes and dreams of young men to recruit them to that end. Al-Jafari makes a critical observation when he points out that despite the image cast by the MSM, “the Iraqi people have demonstrated their bravery, determination and resolve”. There are good Arabs and good Muslims in this fight on our side, and the West needs to support them and show solidarity with them, on all levels.

Yet it is a grim fact that the few which seek violence have been able to act with relative impunity within the Muslim world, and so the terrorism embraced in the 20th Century and now has a historical character and bloody tradition in those murderous sects which favor terrorism. There can be no question that the Jihadists will continue to carry out terrorist acts until such time that they feel they are strong enough to conduct outright wars of conquest. This is the pattern from History, and there is every reason to believe that the template is still in use. Understanding that template is vital to seeing the risks and opportunities ahead for the West.

The Jihadists operate on the strength of three key assets:

1. Mideast Education Limits
2. Arab Culture
3. Media Manipulation

Most Americans, even the ones who believe the lies from Michael Moore, are aware of the signal accomplishments and historical milestones of human history, and are willing to grant credit to the Arabs, the Chinese, the Greeks, Romans, French, British and so on, as well as to key American contributions. This balance allows for Americans to view the world realistically, and to make improvements where needed. While it was amusing to see Spike Jones and cartoonists lampoon the Nazis and Japanese Empire, the American citizen was under few illusions about the peril posed by Hitler and Tojo. This candor added credibility to wartime correspondence, and when the Allies began to win the claims were believable because the U.S. had been straight from the start. The forces for Democracy have always found straight talk an asset, as evidenced by the Soviet fear of Radio Free Europe. The Jihadists, on the other hand, have taken the shorter road through controlling history and culture in schools. The extensive use of Madressas has allowed Jihadists to bring up a generation unaware of Western values or objective history. As a result, many Arabs are actually unaware of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party thugs in Iraq, or the bloody history of Hamas and similar groups.

Also, Arab culture is causing problems for the West. Simply put, Shiites especially are possessed of an inferiority complex, largely brought about by their leaders’ decisions. In both World War I and World War II, the Arabs too often backed the wrong horse in Germany, and the Shiites were especially poor predictors of who would win. The German resolve and martial discipline seemed fine attributes to the Shiites, never seeing the deeper character of the British and Americans. To the Arabs, the Americans always seemed a bit too casual, too free in their ways, and this has often been mistaken for weakness. Look at the 9/11 attacks; only a madman or a man badly mistaken about the character of the United States, would believe that a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center would lead to a collapse of resolve and determination. Only a very great fool would fail to consider the character of America in such a decision.

And of course, the media played its role. Not only Al-Jazeera, which is still learning the basics of journalism, but CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have played a game of money and influence for so long, it’s no wonder so many Arabs see us as mercenaries and hedonists; they judge us by the network narcissists. It’s actually a good thing we sent troops in, for Arabs to see our best young men in person. Unfortunately, the average Arab sees an America very different from the real one, and the Jihadists will certainly make the most of that opportunity.

Bottom line, the coming Civil War for Islam will be a nasty one. Almost no one sees it, but it will change the faith for good or ill, and cost millions their lives over the next half-century. The West must be concerned because, unlike an ordinary civil war in a single country, Islam's Civil War will be global, with all the weapons of terrorism, fascist evangelism, and cultural conquest employed. With the exception of Antartica, every continent will be affected, and will suffer cost.

Spain, Italy, and parts of France, along with the present Macedonian coastline and the Baltic regions are likely to fall to Jihadist control.

Shi'a and Sunni will battle for reasons both historical and personal, cultural and religious, and with great emotion and destruction. Shortly after the first European country falls under JIhadist control, an Arab nation will lead an alliance against the Jihadists, most likely to include Egypt, Jordan, and the small Sheikhdoms, with the Jihadists forming along the axis of Iran, Syria, and Yemen. The fate of Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia remain uncertain now, though Bush's efforts in Iraq have given the West a chance to save that nation.

At its worst, a Muslim version of the Inquisition will be created, with atrocities committed beyond present imagination. Our only hope to mitigate the carnage and destruction is to install stable representative democracies wherever we can.

(to be continued)

The Induced Evolution Of Bloggers

***

My friends Betsy Newmark and Eric Lindholm have finally been able to start blogging again, although damage was done to their sites, possibly permanent. I was much luckier, getting my blog back Thursday night and pretty much intact. At this writing Blogger/Google has yet to release any explanation for what happened, much less any sort of apology or proper confirmation of expectations. As a number of readers have observed, you get what you pay for, but as I observed in an open letter to Google, such tactics satisfy the lawyers, but never the customer. The clear message sent by Google, intended or not, was that they would like serious bloggers to leave Blogger for more reliable and trustworthy hosts, and leave Blogspot domains to fools and knaves. The message is compelling, in that measure.

I have to say that one reason I began to blog was the ease of it. I could choose when to blog, at no out-of-pocket cost except time and effort. For almost three years I have clattered away at my keyboard, with few disappointments againt many successes. I was able to meet my work and family commitments while still opining in print. Life was good. But the Bible warns us there comes a time to “put away childish things”, and every so often I got a wake-up call. Like the first time I received e-mails from active-duty soldiers in Iraq. Like the first time a news agency asked me for an interview about polls and the likely candidates for the next Presidential election. Like the first time an executive at a major polling agency called me at work to discuss, off-the-record, how they developed their methodology and question wording. Serious stuff, which reminded me to take my responsibilities seriously. Well, now Blogger has sent another shot across the bow. I am by no means a major-league blogger, but I have a history and I have a name, of sorts, and all it takes is a petulant server or programmer at Google and -poof- bye-bye blog.

This is going to take some thought. As always, I will report what I decide, especially if it is worth the noise.

Oil For Hysteria: The New Meme

xxx

Well, blaming him for Katrina didn’t take.

Neither did predicting a civil war in Iraq.

Turns out President Bush is pretty responsive and competent on most of the issues, so what’s an MSM hit man to do?

Make up a crisis, of course, which brings us to the ‘Oil Shortage Scare’ poll from CNN/USA Today/Gallup, complete with blame game and worst case scare tactics.

The CNN story was big on noise, but thin on facts, so I paid a visit to the Gallup site to see what the hubbub was all about. No mention of the oil poll on the front page, which twitched the old antennae. You see, I generally have a lot of respect for Gallup and its methods, but not so for the Hairpiece Media at USA Today and the Contemptible News Network. I began to suspect Gallup was not all that proud of this latest offering. I did find a poll with the title “Energy”, but it’s locked up as “Premium Content”, which is also a way to keep cheapskate nosey bloggers like me from peeking at the poll. Being a sneaky sort, I used their search function under “Oil” and found the following questions:

“Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your household? Now, thinking about the cost of gasoline, do you think the current rise in gas prices represents – [ROTATED: a temporary fluctuation in prices, or a more permanent change in prices]?” Question from the March 17 2006 poll

“Do you think Congress should hold an investigation into the profits that oil companies have made in the past few months, or do you think an investigation is not necessary?” Question #15 from an October 2005 poll

“How much do you blame - Oil companies in the U.S. - for the recent increase in gasoline prices - A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question #24 from an August 2005 poll

“On another subject, for each of the following business sectors in the United States, please say whether your overall view of it is Very positive, Somewhat positive, Neutral, Somewhat negative, or Very negative. How about - Oil and gas industry?” Question #38 from an August 2005 poll

“How much do you blame each of the following for the recent increase in gasoline prices -- Oil companies in the U.S. -- A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question 38 from an April 2005 poll

“How much do you blame each of the following for the recent increase in gasoline prices -- Foreign countries that produce oil -- A great deal, A moderate amount, Not much, or Not at all?” Question 38 from a May 2005 poll

There were literally dozens of simlar questions in the Search results, and a lot of them focused on blame and displeasure. I did not see a single question which asked respondents whether they understood the oil & gas markets, knew how much oil was available or how it was processed and delivered. I did not see a single question which presented the present situation in historical context, which examined the possibility that last year’s hurricanes or this year’s geopolitical situation might be factors in the supply or price of oil.

I can’t speak conclusively, since I don’t have all the data. But what I saw leads me to the preliminary conclusion, that someone allowed a troll to choose the questions and wording, and if the ingredients are trash, the results are predictable.

(ht Joseph Somsel)

Blood and Bigotry – The Coming Civil War In Islam Part 2

*************

“The path of fear – isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment – appeals to those who find our challenges too great and fail to see our opportunities. Yet history teaches that every time American leaders have taken this path, the challenges have only increased and the missed opportunities have left future generations less secure.”

- President George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States, March 16 2006

In Part 1 I observed that Islam is divided against itself, a contention which was not met with broad agreement. Comments from the readers included strong doubt that Islam is peaceful or that the majority of Muslims are peaceable. There was also a strong opinion that the West is going to be attacked by an Islamic war of conquest, a point with which I actually agree. But the misconceptions about Islam and about the Jihadists must be corrected, or we will be doing the villains’ work for them.

According to the Terrorism Knowledge Base, since the September 11th attacks 45.6% of all terrorist attacks have happened in the Middle East and 57.7% of all fatalities from such attacks. North America has only received 0.5% of the attacks and 0.04% of the fatalities. Even Western Europe has only suffered 10.6% of the attacks, and only 1.4% of the fatalities. Only 2.17% of terrorist attacks have been against military targets in that time, while 2.53% of the attacks have been terrorists attacking other terrorist groups. 17.69% of the attacks have been attempts to destabilize governments, with 12.27% against private businesses, 7.34% against police and 6.02% against transportation, like buses and trains.

What this means in plain English, is that the terrorists are attacking Arabs more often than Americans, and civilians much more often than police. The terrorists are trying to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt, far more than they are doing anything in France or England or Spain, no matter what we see on TV. The terrorists are worried about the Iraqi Army and Police, and about regular people. One must consider the import of that fact.

There are many different kinds of Muslims. This should have been obvious simply from the fact that there are roughly 1.4 Billion practicing Muslims in the world; it is ridiculous to believe that so many people would agree to the same interpretation of a faith, especially since it should be patently obvious that with about thirteen thousand acts of terrorism since September 11, 2001, the pace per person would appear to be rather pale if the average Muslim was the blood-thirsty lout so often believed. In fact, it can be said with great confidence that Muslims in Afghanistan, most of Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates are essentially non-violent. Yes, even Saudi Arabia with some of the worst groups recruiting there – the reader might consider that such groups always end up leaving Saudi Arabia, because the government and the people have no love for the likes of Al-Jihad and Hezbollah.

Looking at it another way, it should be understood that one reason the Jihadists are so violent, is that they lack a legitimate means by which to claim power. I had compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler before, for good reason; like the fascists of Hitler’s day, the Jihadists understand that they are a minority, so they gain what they gain through the system and then attack and kill anyone who presents a challenge to them. If you stop and think about it, there is no reason for the Jihadists to march and riot as they do, except that they do not enjoy majority support in those nations where they do these things. It is necessary for them to intimidate and attack their opponents, precisely because they are opposed.

Besides the Jihadists, there are Muslims which focus on business. The DP World ports deal was actually a good thing for the United States if Congress had bothered to look through the matter before pitching a hissy fit, because that company represented a significant commitment to improved commerce between the U.A.E. and the United States, which would have given the United States more influence in the U.A.E. while lowering not even one security measure. Other Arab companies have shown interest in cooperation with the United States, not least because a contract with a company like Haliburton is a win-win for them; profits in their pockets and a stronger development for their countries’ Infrastructure. There are some Muslims who focus on their family and country. Ever wonder why Arab families send their kids to college in the United States? It’s not just the quality education (Yale and Harvard are sorry exceptions) or an abundance of good Madressas here, but the open culture and virtues of Democracy. There are Muslims who love their country and are willing to defend it against the likes of the Jihadists. For instance, consider the police forces in Iraq. The job is high-risk and low-stability, yet the numbers are growing and a number of Iraq cities have been able to lower the necessary troop levels because the police are on the job. Just whom do you think the Jihadists in Baghdad and Kirkuk have been targeting, and why? The answer is that the Jihadists are a distinct minority, but their ruthless violence is a force multiplier.

(to be continued)

I AM BACK!!!!!!

My neighbor came by this afternoon, with my underfed blog in tow. The poor guy was weak and scruffy, and smelled like he had spent time in Hyannisport, but he's back.

By the way, for those interested, I took my GMAT Tuesday, and while the results won't be official for another 18 days or so, I got a 730, which hits the 97th percentile. Yeah baby, back to Bischool!

Blood and Bigotry – The Coming Civil War In Islam

___...+++

The advantage of every great religion comes from the momentum of its growth. Yet that same growth inevitably leads to a crisis of identity, often more than once. Christianity for instance, despite modeling itself after the “Prince of Peace”, who is quoted as having forgiven His murderers even as they were in the act, was prone in its time of temporal power to sponsoring wars and conquests, and of coercing kings to its obedience. So it should be no surprise that Islam has found its way to excess and violence at times.

I have written more than once that most Muslims, the overwhelming majority, are humble and peace-loving, decent folk who simply want to obey God and live quietly and in justice. The present wave of malicious hatred sweeping Islam is not supported by the majority of Muslims, yet no great effort has been made to stand against it, and the Jihadists take this impetus to press forward in bloodlust. At some point the Jihadists will be opposed by an effective counterforce, and when this happens a great many innocents will die. Sadly, it is increasingly difficult to see how to stop this.

Part of the problem comes from Islam’s own history. At the age of 41 the Prophet Mohammed took part in the War of Fijar. Five years after his initial revelation from Allah, Mohammed and his followers were attacked by the Quaraish, who attempted to kill the new sect at its origin. Between 613 AD and 624 AD the Muslim movement was forced to flee three times from enemies intent on killing them for their beliefs. In 624 AD Mohammed and the Muslims seized Medina by force at the Battle of Badr. A series of battles and ongoing war was the theme of life until 630 AD and decisive battles at Hunsin, Auras, and Taif. As a result, the Quran focuses on a holy duty to fight for the faith, quite literally commanding Muslims to kill unbelievers. This is the birthstory of Islam.

After the death of Mohammed, the evangelism of Islam was simple and direct – submit or die. The war expanded in all directions, seizing Syria in 637 AD, as well as Jerusalem. The Muslims then advanced in Egypt (639 AD) , Persia (642 AD), and so into Asia Minor (646 AD) and North Africa (647 AD). In 666 AD Muslims were raiding Sicily, and laid siege to Constantinople in 677 AD. Conquest, pillaging and plunder became the way of the Crescent for many generations, as the bloody Caliphs surged across North Africa to the Atlantic, then North into Spain and then France. For all the talk about the violence of the Crusades, it must be understood that the long war began with an extensive invasion of Southern Europe by men dedicated to the proposition that everything and everyone before them would be taken as convert, property, or victim.

The Muslim empire after Tours (732 AD) backed off somewhat, as the Caliphs and Sultans sat back to consolidate their gains, in much the same way that third-generation Mafiasos tried to go “legitimate” on their ill-gotten wealth. But the empire did not hold, and Islam fell from temporal power, especially as men discovered they could hold power with only token tribute to the Mosque and the Mullah. Also, as often happens when a faith matures, Muslim scholars studied the Quran and the hadiths of the Prophet much more closely, and discovered lessons that many of the earlier Muslims had ignored. So there came to be four main classes of Muslim; the politician who played at Islam to his own benefit, the Jihadist who feared Islam had lost its way and become complacent, the scholars who studied the deeper teachings of the Prophet, and the common Muslim, who wanted to obey Allah and please Him, but also mainly wanted to live his life with as little suffering and trouble as possible. These classes are very much like what one finds in any major religion, though the proportionate memberships shifts over the years and according to what is going on.

The second half of the Twentieth Century saw the Middle East rise sharply in world prominence, wealth, and importance, and the first three groups all saw their chance to advance their cause, and too often at the cost of the ordinary Muslim. OPEC, the PLO, and countless militant groups which sought to “represent” Islam and the Arab world through violence and organized hatred, all demonstrate the force of Islam moving once again in conquest, but this time pursuing disparate goals of nationalism, commerce, and the forced evangelism of the Middle East back to Islam. What the West has not yet seen, is that Islam is divided against itself this time, and must either resolve the internal conflict or devolve into regional conflagration.

(to be continued)

Fear

.-.

A great many people still do not understand why turning down the DP World deal was a bad step for the United States. The issue actually has several levels of significance, and most people never saw beyond one or two of them. I won’t go into a prolonged discussion about why DP World did not threaten National Security, or why the policies of the U.A.E. post-9/11 are so much more important than their pre-9/11 policies. For this article, I will simply present a real-world example of the limits of paranoid security concerns: The Stasi.

East Germany was not a fun place. The Communists suspected pretty much everybody of everything, and they set up a security network on that basic principle. Employers and employees spying on each other, any unusual conduct in public was investigated, and even children were taught to report to the authorities on what their parents did and said. And on top of that was the Stasi, a secret police agency with broad powers and no accountability. Sounds like the dream set-up for catching conspirators, hmm? Yet the CIA ran operations in and through East Germany all the time, and arranged for many defectors to escape to the West through East Germany. The problem was this; even with all the resources and laws made to support the security forces, the Stasi found itself unable to address all the information provided to it. Imagine for instance a room with an array of monitors, say a hundred monitors, each of which rotates its attention between a dozen cameras. That gives you a theoretical eye on 120 locations at once. However, it’s human nature to focus on one thing at a time, and to ignore anything which appears routine. The 9/11 hijackers, for example, spent time in the United States in order to not only familiarize themselves with their targets and operational preparation, but also to learn how to act unobstrusively, to blend in as it were. Dennis Rader, the BTK serial killer, was also carefully ordinary in his appearance and behavior, as were other cold-blooded monsters like Ted Bundy. So even with programs designed to pick out certain behavior and anomalies, security services can find out only a certain amount of what is planned against them, and see only what they know to watch for. The lesson is that planning and focus matter in security matters.

No one is claiming that we do not need to do a much better job in securiing our borders and ports. But as I have noted before, the United States has many ways to enter, and most smugglers and illegal entry is not through major ports. A revisit of CFIUS is necessary, but that problem in no way meant that DP World represented a threat, and if you want proof that Congress was hamming it up instead of seriously addressing the issue, ask yourself why no one in Congress submitted a bill to get Communist China out of the ports it already controls in the United States. The need to address security issues is vital, but the proper allocation of time, attention, and resources to threat potential must take into consideration a balance of responsibilities and proportionate authority. That is, at some point a person must be willing to let the proper authorities do their job, and Congress should not micro-manage the DHS, various Port Authorities, or on-the-scene officials. Even though this is an election year, Americans should understand that we are made safer by the regular guys doing the job, not some suit making a speech and blowing holes into strategic alliances just so he can feel he has "done his part" in playing watchdog. The difference right now between a true watchdog for National Security and Congress, is the same as between a trained German Shepherd which neither barks nor attacks without cause, and a self-deluded Chihuahua which feels the need to frantically defend the home against dust bunnies.

FDR screwed the pooch in some major ways, but at least he had it right in March 1933, when he said “All we have to fear, is Fear itself”. When thinking about National Security for the United States in the Twenty-First Century, it would behoove us well to avoid putting every scare and rumor on the same shelf as a true threat to our security, and to give just a little credit to the leaders in the White House and Pentagon who have considered this matter for a while and in some detail. Panic cloaked as Protection is just plain stupid.

Ahmadinejad - A Strategic Analysis

.<>.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the recently elected President of Iran, has made a number of statements in recent months which indicate not only a mental instability, but also a near-maniacal intent to attack the United States and Israel with nuclear weapons. To be blunt, I do not believe this is his intention in the short term, say in the next two years.

In a scenario simulation using an old crisis generation program called REALTIME, no matter what conditions were given, Iran was not able to destabilize the United States with a nuclear strike, given the limited operational scope Iran possesses. Even a potential decapitation strike on the President and Congress failed to prevent the continuity of the American government, or avoid the inevitable obliteration of Iran. Insane the mullahs are, but they are no fools; for all their talk of a great war to rid the world of America, they know they are in no position to do anything but dream of such a possibility. If Iran has or acquires nuclear weapons in the near future, they will still have only a limited stockpile, which in practical terms means the ability to hit soft easy targets like cities, but negligible military value. Recall that even if Iran had a nuclear bomb at this moment, they have yet to test it, so they have no idea whether the thing will work as designed. The story is still told about an Indian ultimatum to Pakistan back in the 1970s, based on assumptions about the yield of their atomic weapons. When the actual tests were done, the yields produced were less than 15% of the predicted measures, which severely embarrassed the Indians and set back their bargain position, especially since the Pakistanis took care not to test their own weapons during negotiations, in order to avoid clueing the Indian government in on what they were facing. The moral of the story is that nukes only have value when you know what they can really do, and a rookie nuclear power cannot just assume that because they did their math and followed the scheduled process, that they will enjoy the desired results.

Let’s take an obvious small-scale objective of Iran; destroying Israel. Compared to a major nation like the United States, Israel should be a much easier target, closer and smaller and weaker, to say nothing of less protected by allies. Yet Israel has repeatedly shown an ability to defend itself against larger numbers and multiple-level threats, and the Samson Option is a sufficient deterrent to dissuade invasions and state-level attacks. Sending in suicide bombers one by one is hard to link to a national government; a nuclear event will receive immediate retaliation.

At this point I would also like to address the psychology of nuclear weapons. I have heard some commentators claim that if Iran send a terrorist group into the United States with a nuclear bomb, Iran could deny any responsibility and Liberals would run public interference for them to delay, even prevent the response to such an attack. Such claims misunderstand the nature of a nuclear threshold. As a comparison, when 9/11 happened no one doubted that the United States would react with massive force; somebody was going to get hit, and hit hard. Also, information came out rather quickly, data which the Taliban probably did not expect to surface as quickly as it did, and the U.S. response was faster and better-planned than the Taliban could have dreamed. Surely the mullahs in Iran saw this series of events, and understand that if a nuke goes off in the United States in the next couple years, no matter how it’s concealed the common assumption by the public will be that Iran did it, and the public will demand a harsh reprisal. Imagine 9/11 escalated to another factor, and the matter becomes clear. In fact it seems to me that even if another power, say China, were to detonate a nuke in the United States by way of a terrorist group, the public would still demand we hit Iran; the statements and posture of Iran’s representatives and envoys has welded that nation to the image of the terrorist attack. Ahmadinejad has likely not thought the matter through that far, or else he might have been a bit more careful with his statements. Or else he wants a war so badly that he doesn’t realize how his masters will plan and play the Jihad to their gain. In either case, I do not believe that the mullahs plan to actually instigate a war just now, at least not in the way they appear to be headed.

Remember the reaction by the world to 9/11? Not just our allies, but also the countries which normally hate us? Russia, China, even France stepped up to shw solidarity with us. Know why? Besides a level of basic decency which was betrayed by the attacks, these nations also understood that a line had been over-stepped; someone had gone too far, and a very powerful nation was going to go to war. If you didn’t want to be on the receiving end of some very nasty weapons, you had to either prove you were an ally, or at least get out of the way fast. The best example of this was the reaction by Yassir Arafat, the head of the PLO and the mafia-style head of the Palestinan Authority as it existed in 2001. Personally, I believe the old murderer was delighted to see America’s innocents killed by such a monstrous atrocity, but you’d never have known it by his reaction. Within hours of the first notice of the attacks, Arafat was denouncing them on Al-Jazeera in no uncertain terms. This was because Arafat understood that to say anything else was to invite devastation on his organization and people; the Palestinians have an extremely unfortunate track record of backing the wrong side in major wars, and Arafat understood that opposing the United States on this count would be suicide, and no doubt. If the death of 3,000 people by aircraft hijacking could produce such a condition, the deaths of so many more people in a nuclear attack would certainly result in a demand for a massive retaliation, especially (and yes I’m being cynical here but practical) when there is zero chance that the enemy could do to us what we can do to them. Iran has no ICBMs, no nuclear missile submarines, no bombers which could reach American states, and while they could try to smuggle more nukes in, they would only be able to hit targets one at a time, probably doing no effective damage at all to the national infrastructure. Imagine a man with a pistol, surrounded by the police. Yes, he can shoot a few shots and maybe hurt or kill some of the officers, but he cannot hope to win, and the only chance he has of survival is to not fire at all in the first place. Same situation here.

So what is old Mad Mahmoud up to? Basically, I figure he’s got three avenues to stroll, and in this order:

1. The first choice for Ahmadinejad is pretty simple; he wants Iran to become a nuclear power, the same way Pakistan is. And Pakistan is a good example for Mr. Ahmadinejad. When 9/11 happened, Pakistan was not exactly the best buddy to the United States,and even afterwards, they weren’t always that compliant with the American plan, as evidenced by Osama bin Chicken’s habit of crossing back and forth from Afghanistan and Pakistan, depending on which side was hotter at the moment. But for reasons which included strategic geography the United States counted Pakistan a good guy. Not the least because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and among other things serves as a counter-balance to India, who themselves serve as a counter-balance to China, on the nuclear level as well as others. I don’t believe this view is accurate, but I suspect the Iranian oligarchy believes that the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would make an invasion or significant military action against them much less likely than the present condition.

2. There is a danger in believing your own press, a lesson few facists learn, because they only ever hear what people think they want to hear. In the case of Iran, it is entirely possible that the mullahs believe that if Iran provokes the United States and its allies to attack them, they can play the ‘victim’ card and launch an escalation of their Jihad against the West, making the effort against them impracticable while providing a rhetorical foundation for Jihadist efforts in Southern Europe and Southwest Asia.

3. If all else fails, these nutcases actually believe in a god which rewards mass murder, provided you can find a way to claim ‘martyrdom’ in the process. As a rule of thumb, it can be said that Shia Muslims are more inclined to insurrection and violence as part of their faith than Sunnis, that Jihadists are more violent and hateful than Shiites, and that Iranian Jihadists are more inclined to terror as a devotional rite than most Jihadists.

Fortunately, this does not mean that a war with Iran is inevitable. Even with their present government, most Iranians are like anyone else - they want to live a happy life and love their family, and have no desire to destroy another nation or be on the receiving end of a warhead. Thousands of young Iranians have publicly protested against the Iranian regime, suffering brutal punishment. With a majority of Iranians under 30 years old (the decade-long war with Iraq had a lot to do with that), the clock is running out on the ways of old men with nothing better to offer than fatwas and fascism. The bad news is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows this, as do his masters, and they may well feel the pressure to act quickly to start what they see as their legacy to Islam, no matter how bloody. Insh’Allah, they will fail as all pretenders to piety fail. God is a perfect judge, and is not fooled by the invocation of His name by murderers.

Modern Faith - The Major Beliefs

.*.

With all the attention on terrorism which is blamed on radical sects within Islam, it seems to be a good idea to take a brief look at the world’s religions. According to Adherents.com, about 16% of the World’s population express no religious preference, which includes atheists, agnostics and secularists. As a group, such non-religious people would rank third-largest if they organized. Of course, that is part of the problem. The largest groups are not monolithic in their doctrines or organization, as is best exemplified by Christianity. At 2.1 billion in 2000, the Christian faith would be imposing indeed if it were unified, but the reality is quite different, with a few major denominations and a great many splinter sects and offshoots. Geography, local preferences and cultural shifts also influence the grassroots beliefs. I would go so far as to say that any religion of significant size ends up with a traditional or orthodox doctrine, from which actual practices vary.

The site lists Islam as number 2, and Judaism, the third religion most Americans are familiar with, is only 12th in size. The ones ranking 4th through 11th then are worth a closer look:

Hindus number nearly a Billion believers, and yet are largely unknown to the West and in the Middle East. According to religioustolerance.org, Hindus believe in a central deity, and apparent gods or goddesses are manifestations of aspects of that deity. It is most common in India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

Confucianists are those believers in a philosophy of individual morality and ethics, which requires “proper” action by political leaders. Confucianists, essentially Chinese, exercise body and mind together and are known to criticize leaders if they “lose the mandate of heaven”. This explains part of Communist China’s crackdowns on the Falun Gong, as this group can be said to practice Confucianism.

Buddhism is actually more a philosophy than a religion, except that like religion its adherents accept discipline to learn “right thinking” along a path to discovery and greater life. Buddhists focus on the question of suffering and how to ameliorate it. It should be observed that Buddhists enjoy the renown of being the only major religion which has never been an instigator for war, yet it should also be observed that Buddhism has condoned many practices which other cultures would consider immoral, such as drug running, gambling and prostitution.

Primal-Indigenous religions are those beliefs most often attached to a specific land or region; Adherents.com notes dozens of specific sects under this category, so while the overall size is imposing, the actual societal effect of these beliefs is diluted by their factionalism. In general, primal religions are most often animists and nature-worshippers in various forms. They also tend to be suspicious of outsiders.

African Traditional is probably one of the more generally misunderstood religions. A great many people would confuse African tribal rites for the animist rites of the primal sects, but that misses the oral history and tradition handed down through the better-organized African sects. It might be useful to compare some of the African tribal rites to the traditional practices of Scottish clans, down to traditional dress, dance, and food.

Sikhism is a 500-year old religion founded on many philosophical teachings from gurus. Sikhs devote themselves to “remembering God at all times” and in “truthful living”. Sikhs are opposed to useless rituals and superstition. Unfortunately, in some Asian nations Sikhs have also been prone to violent radicalism.

Juche may be the largest religion you’ve never heard about. Basically, it’s the notion that a human can control his world and environment, and is the state religion of – get ready for it – North Korea. It is a mix of political dialectic, martial arts, and economic self-sufficiency. ‘Juche’ means “self-reliance”.

Spiritism is focused on interaction with celestial spirits believed to exist, and to gain wisdom from them. Formed in France by Hippolyte Leon Denizard Rivail, Spiritism is best known for such totems as Quija Boards and Séance parties.

Baha’I was formed about 150 years ago, and follows the teaching of one Bahá’u’lláh, who claimed to be sent to mankind as an emissary of God, and co-equal to Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, and Muhammad in stature and credibility. The basic theme of Baha’I is that Humanity is in evolution, and grows in stages, each new messenger representing an elevation in that growth.

Jainism is similar to the Hindu faith in form, but follows the teaching of 24 masters who “overcame” the world. It is similar to Buddhism in its disciplines, and pays special homage to one ‘Mahavir’. Jainism is focused mainly in India.

Shinto is an ancient Japanese religion, which rose from feritility cults and nature worship to include hero worship. During the fascist years under Tojo, for instance, Shinto priests played up the image of the Emporer and the Army as national heroes by identity and divine purpose. This led, among other things, to groups like the kamikaze fighters, whose devotion to the emperor went far beyond rational measure.

Cao Dai is an Asian-based religion based on themes of tolerance, unity, common purpose, a single deity, and peace as human destiny. The Cao Dai believe God and Humans are one in essence.

Zoroastrianism is an ancient mythic belief which originated in Iran. Zoroastrianism is notable for being the earliest religion to foretell a final battle between forces of Good and Evil, and of a celestial judgment for all men based on whether they did good work or evil.

Tenriko is an Asian religion founded in Japan during the 19th Century, which seeks harmony in life and society. Tenriko can be employed through such things as flower arrangement or food placement on a plate. A good example of Tenriko is the spiritual value many find in Japanese gardens.

Neo-Paganism is also known as Gardnerian Wicca, and emphasizes devotion to nature and ecology, as well as ancient pagan traditions related to respect for the earth.

Unitarian-Universalism is the notion that all religions amount to the same purpose, and so unity and common tolerance and respect for all beliefs should be ancouraged and taught.

Rastafarianism is a religion common to Haiti and Jamaica. Originally a social protest in the early 20th century, Rastafarianism has evolved into a cultural identity, with heavy emphasis on drug-aided meditation, especiall marijuana.

Scientology is proof that bad literature can still grab a following. L Ron Hubbard was never better than a middling novelist, but he sold plenty of people on his quack theories, most notably Tom Cruise and John Travolta.


That's the biggies, folks. What does that tell you?

Polls And Politics

.

Well, John Zogby is nothing if not a firestarter. His latest imitation poll purports to claim that most American soldiers want to just call it quits and go home. As I wrote earlier, and as others have admirably demonstrated, that poll is so obviously flawed (if not an outright fraud) as to raise doubts about the accuracy of any opinion polling method. And so today’s column addresses the science of polling.

You may be familiar with basic probability. That is, if I flip a normal coin, there is a 50-50 chance between Heads and Tails. And you may have heard that if I flip a coin five times and it comes up ‘heads’ all five, that there is still only a 50% chance of it coming up heads or tails on the sixth flip. Of course, that’s also where human opinion comes in, because if a coin comes up ‘heads’ five times in a row, I’m going to become suspicious about the weighting of that coin. All things being equal, a coin should not come up 5 in a row one way, so if it does, I’m likely to start thinking that all things are not equal. And while that’s just my opinion, that opinion carries its own weight. The problem for Science is measuring opinion in a consistent and empirical manner. The only solution at hand is to review poll results in the context of the only analytical measure appropriate for such comparison; comparing election poll predictions to the actual results over a sustained period of time, and under comparable conditions and methodology.

It has always been human nature to want to know the future. The ancient Egyptians, and later the Greeks, were noted for pretty much making an industry out of omens and oracles. Nice gig, with certain restrictions. Fast forward to the 20th Century, and your average politico wants to be hip, to be happening, to be the guy with the know. That is, a lot of them want to know what they must and must not say when campaigning for office, or when giving speeches on a given issue. And of course the public is hungry to know what’s in fashion, so it was only natural that the major newspapers started giving attention to mentioning the Gallup poll and other big-time polls. And before long, polls started getting reported as news by themselves. When Walter Cronkite wanted to claim the Vietnam War was being lost, he not only said so as his own opinion, he pointed to carefully managed CBS polls which seemed to say the same thing. Throughout modern political history, officials and candidates have spun and sponsored polls to support their position and counter the opposition. Fortunately, these days there is also the New Media, to catch out frauds like Zogby and correct the bias in polls from other MSM outlets. While it can be annoying to have to cut apart polls one after another to show why they do or do not accurately reflect the national mood, the need to do so is greater than ever.

The first thing I would recommend any reader do when noticing a poll, is to ask why the poll is being done. That is, do you get the sense that the poll seeks to discover the existing mood of the nation, or does it seem to want to direct the mood in a certain direction? Many polls give away a bias in the way their headlines read; if the headline statement is not completely supported by the results of the actual poll, a bias exists. In some cases the claims made in the headline are actually contradicted by the details of the poll itself. For instance, whenever a poll cites a President’s “best” or “worst” approval ratings, watch out, because those polls do not often compare a given President to other Presidents. Also, Presidents are often given high or low approval ratings out of a sense of tension; that is, a poor President can enjoy good ratings simply by avoiding controversy and difficult decisions, while a good President may drop in the ratings because he takes on the tough issues.

Another trick in polls is the demographics. Blog readers are getting to be pretty sharp at noting unbalanced respondent pools; the 2004 election was pretty evenly split, with 37% each for Democrats and Republicans, with the remaining 26% self-identified Independents. Any poll weighting by party affiliation or identification ought to use the same balance in their demographics, but none of the major polling groups does this. Also, as we have seen, some deliberately overstate representation by minorities, by urban respondents, and by the under-30 adult, in order to present their findings in a Liberal-friendly light. I think this happens for three reasons. First, the United States has been leaning Liberal for a long time, and it’s taking the polling groups a while to understand that the Reagan Revolution was a paradigm shift in cultural focus. That is, it’s a permanent thing. Second, for whatever reason a large number of the polling groups are managed by Liberals. I think this has more to do with the urban-voter effect (remember that the major polling groups are based in large cities, which tend to vote more Liberal than the country as a whole), but in results it means that a pro-Liberal lean feels natural to these polling groups. The better groups are working on correcting this problem, but it’s still there to some extent. And third, it sells well to be Liberal in a poll. That’s because Conservatives, nominally, prefer facts to opinion, while Liberals have always been interested in how the wind is blowing.

But this hardly means that you cannot use a poll’s results to get a good sense of direction and opinion. For one thing, most polls, whatever their methodology, are consistent within its scope, the notable exception being Zogby. Also, even when a poll is biased, if it cites its internal data, like the CBS News/New York Times poll for example, then you have solid data by which you can actually reverse-engineer the poll and reconstruct the numbers using the hard data. The readers will remember that even when a poll had results I liked, if I could not see the internals, I could not call that poll credible.

Finally, you should also look at any poll with a critical eye, as to how it was constructed. In the case of the Zogby poll which claimed the U.S. Military wants to quit, for example, a number of red flags go up as soon as one tries to consider how Zogby went about conducting his poll. Polls can be scientifically accurate, but only when established procedures to confirm random response are consistently applied. To have a truly viable scientific sample, you need to interview at least a thousand respondents within the conditions needed, inside a three-to-five day period, at different times of the day, and in a variety of locations to avoid a demographic rut. In a national survey, that usually means RDD sampling with a margin for no-response/eligible contacts as well. It would mean avoiding concentrations in location or time or demographic categories. That’s a tall order, and frankly a lot of polling groups fudge a bit, accepting less than a statistically valid sample or accepting demographic imbalance and depending on an arbitrary weighting to “correct” the results. In the case of soldiers in Iraq, the task becomes unwieldy very fast. To begin with, contacting a thousand respondents is one thing, but a valid response in terms of the opinions of our fighting men means aiming for combat units, something Zogby clearly did not attempt, as evidenced by the demographic data released. Further, there is evidence that Zogby’s respondents were clustered in geographic locations, which further dilutes the viability of the results. In plain English, Zogby either deliberately ignored the soldiers whose opinion was the most relevant to the question of combat morale, or he mixed pools to get a flavor he wanted. He did not achieve anything like a truly random response, which by itself negates any claim to statistical accuracy. I won’t even go into the question phrasing, the order of the questions, or the use of a sub-contractor whose motives might be reasonably called into question. The poll simply failed to meet basic criteria for credibility, as is sadly common in Zogby polls these days.

Read the polls, take information from them, but don’t worship them.

What If We Had Not Deserted Vietnam?

.

My thought for the day. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that whatever the end result of the invasion of Iraq is, the place is better for it, a fact which is causing some much-deserved gnashing of teeth and wailing in the halls of the Left. The decision was not easy, especially with doubters all along the way, but the removal of Saddam, two sets of free elections, the creation of a representative Parliament and Army for Iraq, and a check on the emerging ambitions of a madman in Iran, and such make for a pretty good return on investment so far. Which does not even address the notion of creating a functional Arab democratic republic, complete with free enterprise and women voters.

Now, roll the clock back to 1972. The U.S. was winning the war in Vietnam, as close as they ever came. Mining Haiphong Harbor, air strikes on selected North Vietnam targets, and diplomatic hints that the President was seriously thinking about expanding the war in scale and territory, all helped to chase the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Talks. Imagine, just for the mental exercise, if Richard Nixon had done the following things differently:

1. Turned in the Plumbers as soon as he heard about them. 'Sorry guys, I love ya but you did this on your own’.
2. Supported free elections in South Vietnam, with promotional efforts made to help pro-democracy candidates?
3. Replaced Spiro Agnew with either Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan in 1973.
4. Met up with a few key Democrat hawks (the real thing did exist in the early 1970s) and decide to keep Southeast Asia secure.

Just thinking, what if? I know I know, it’s not to say we could have “won” in Vietnam under the conditions imposed on the military, but if South Vietnam could have been maintained the way we have in South Korea, and given what we know now about the Cold War and the political evolution in Asia, it’s tantalizing to think about the possibilities. And then to apply what we learn to the real-world conditions in Southwest Asia and the Middle East.

"The Unit"

.

I normally don't have much to say in praise of CBS, but maybe they got one right. Tonight is the premiere of a new series called "The Unit", which revolves around the work and lives of a team of Special Forces soldiers who perform missions around the globe. Knowing CBS and having seen the commercial, I have to admit I am already a little unhappy with the emphasis on sex in a show which is about trustworthiness and combat, but the cast appears to be good and the basic premise offers a lot of potential. Sure, they could screw this up the way they did "The Agency", but if they get it right, CBS might actually have a show that's tougher and smarter than "24". And no, I never thought that would be a possibility for CBS in the near future.

Here's hoping the premiere lives up to its promise.

REQUIRED Reading

.

Gaypatriot posted a letter last week which is required reading. Just one part reads:

“To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall’ Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.”

How about that, John Murtha?

Another part reads:

“I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.”

Want to explain that in the context of Democratic Defeatism, Senator Clinton?

Here’s the last part:

“Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven’t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.”

Why do I think no one in a New York studio has any plans to mention this letter, from the Mayor of Tall ‘Afar, Iraq?

Read it, and pass it along. Heroes do indeed live, and they call themselves American soldiers. Like the good Mayor, I lack the words to do justice to what they have accomplished. The audience may note, ahem, that the good Mayor would seem to be both an Arab and a Muslim, just for the record.

PS – From Powerline Blog, details about the operation.

REALTIME - Scenario Review

.[--].

President Bush lying in a hospital bed at an unknown site, Cheney in command of the armed forces, two American cities hit with nuclear attacks, a Middel East nation utterly destroyed, Russia and China with their fingers on the nuclear button... and this was a “Best-Case” scenario?

According to a program called REALTIME, yes. Of course, REALTIME was written more than fifteen years ago and when it was, it was not written as a military scenario simulator or designed to micro-manage crises. Even so, when I applied the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the United States and Iran, I found the playout interesting. I tried to apply the best information on the general overall capabilities of the United States and Iran, as well as the other major players, both militarily and politically. I also tried to leave the parameters of the conflict as wide open as possible, with the most likely results produced where one existed above 40.0%, and left the 40.0 and under chances to a randomizer. I realize that too much of an examination would bore most folks to tears, but I did find certain points fascinating:

1. REALTIME gave no chance to a first strike by the United States on Iran. Even when I tweaked conditions to suggest an imminent strike by Iran, the program waited for an actual attack.

2. Every nuclear attack by Iran included a nuclear attack on the U.S. If Iran had just one bomb, it hit an American target. If it had two, it had two U.S. targets. Only when Iran possessed three or more nuclear weapons, did it hit another country. The second country attacked ws always Israel, though if Iran possessed eight or more weapons it also attacked Saudi Arabia.

3. Every alternative featured an attempt on the President. Some were successful, most were not. Bomb attempts were common, but never succeeded. In this scenario, terrorists were sent to Washington D.C. to attack the same day as the bombs were to be detonated, the closest thing to simultaneous action that Iran could manage under signal silence. In this case, Iranian assassins listened to network news radio transmissions in the clear, and set up at the location of an impromptu press conference. They were able to attack the President because the Secret Service had less time than usual to clear the area in detail, and because of human nature; it is a common mistake to believe you are safer in an area where you are familiar, and so to assume that your enemy is less likely to try something on your home turf.

4. In every alternative where Iran attacked Israel, the bomb was delivered in a different manner than in the United States.

5. In no alternative did every Iranian bomb detonate.

6. In no alternative did the Russians or Chinese react to American nuclear strikes on Iran, although the scenario always ended within 24 hours of the attack on the President, so that long-term reaction (say, to things like fallout floating over their country) is not addressed in the scenario. Even so, the fact that no alternative included a nuclear escalation after the American strikes is interesting and frightening at the same time.

7. In no alternative was Iran attacked by a nation besides the United States or Israel.

8. Every alternative where a nuclear weapon detonated on American soil, the United States used nuclear weapons on Iran, and always in a measure which destroyed Iran’s military at all levels and killed more than a million people.

9. The various attempts to fool American sensors (like masking the Iranian material with Russian nuclear waste) failed to provoke a U.S. attack on Russia or any country except Iran.

This scenario, while interesting, was no more scientific than my preference for Beagles over Pit Bulls. While the program was interesting, it should not be considered an accurate predictor of American capabilities or intentions. That said, I wish someone would make clear to President Ahmadinejad and his Mullah masters, that the only way to avoid turning his nation into a glowing puddle, along with setting Islam back by an incalculable distance, is to re-evaluate his threats and plans in the light of real capabilities.

An interesting exercise, enough to make me wonder how the pros’ games are playing out?

Modern Education - Incomplete

.

A reader last week asked me to address Post-High School Education in the United States as a topic, and I gladly take up that challenge. I have to say at the start, however, that the topic is a broad and serious one, and one which I can only touch in a very superficial way in one sitting. Wordy as I am, I cannot address the issue in a comprehensive sense without a lot more time and space, and I suspect the readers would not wish to examine too many fine details on the subject, so it’s overview time again.

Education has changed from what it used to be. Back when the United States was founded, you basically had four types of education. There were colleges for professionals like doctors and lawyers, and the sons of noblemen, which accounted for the survival of bad poetry and medeival architectural studies through history. There were trade guilds, which used apprenticeships to bring in the new talent for such things as smithywork, tannery, or cobbling. There was the basic knowledge of reading, writing, and simple arithmetic for the average sort, and sadly there was a whole class of folks who were not provided with a means for any structured education whatsoever. The purpose of each class was to equip the individual for the life they were expected to lead.

The American Ideal, however, naturally found class distinction unsound, and over time there was a movement towards some measure of education for everyone, and general admission to universities for anyone so inclined, provided they could pay the tuition. By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, therefore, most Americans had access to basic educational skills, and a man could at least dream of sending his kids to college or a decent trade school. The level of education received, however, varied considerably from place to place, resulting in a modest attempt at standardization by way of local school boards.

Fast-forward then to the 1960s. After Sputnik, Americans began, for the first time, to doubt that their education was the best in the world, and the fear that we would lose the Space Race to the Soviets led to emotional demands for better education and resources. Unfortunately, human capacity is not so easily adapted to political goals, but fortunately, the American character pursued ambitions which the Soviets could not offer. The fact is, however, that in the past generation especially, schools at all levels have been unreasonably influenced by political considerations and social correctness, and temporary priorities have been allowed to subvert basic lessons.

The obvious solution, in my opinion, is to return control to the Independent School District level, with standardized testing at each grade level in the basic coursework and scholarly skills. This will allow for correction to unbalanced curriculum, and will further allow each district more control of its own resources. The trouble, of course, is the likelihood of court intervention in the pursuit of equal outcomes, which is both a mathematical impossibility, yet also the unyielding demand of everyone whose kid is failing school.

Ironic, but the old rule of getting the education you need for the work you do is valid again. It’s valid, because where it originally was imposed on someone (Son, the blacksmith has agreed to take you on as an apprentice. You start tomorrow at 5 AM. Good luck), today it’s available as an option. Anyone can pursue a college degree or go to a trade school, anyone can choose to settle for what they learn while underage. The key skills are developing a sense of intellectual curiosity and honesty, a work ethic and a personal code of honor. By adulthood, you either have and use those things or you do not.

And that is really where I think education has fallen down. You can still learn your reading and writing, your math and your science, and even if it gets politically colored you still get some version of history. But a large portion of young people grow up without a sense of responsibility, or a hunger to prove themselves. Not enough people see losing as a valuable life lesson that gets you ready for the real world. Not enough people are willing to accept that you will inevitably see both good and bad luck in your endeavours, but only the combination of some luck and a lot of hard work ever turns into lasting success. Not enough people learn while they are young that spending all your money early means you will not have it later, or that excess in anything leads to an eventual but certain disaster. To have a full education before they finish High School, young people need church and community work to teach them those vital, missing, lessons.