Peachy.

Russia's doing even more to make us nervous.  I ran across a story today that they've announced plans to sell arms to Iran and Venezuela.  

Both of these countries are self-declared enemies of the United States.  Both they and Russia are in OPEC.   All three countries have an interest in keeping oil prices high.  Russia seems to be using the other two as proxies to try to keep us corralled.

Oh, and now there's another issue coming up: with tensions rising back to Cold War I levels, our certainty that Russia won't sell WMD to rogue nations is decreasing.  And with Iran threatening both oil routes and Israel, that's not such an insignificant fear.

Peachy.  Just peachy.

Gathering storms

The brief time of relative peace that the United States has had is pretty much over. September 11, 2001, really should have brought that home to all of us, but somehow it didn't. Hopefully, the price we pay for that isn't too steep.

It's not just the situation with Georgia, either. While we do have problems coming up between us and Russia--like the facts that they sell arms to our (and Israel's) enemies in the Middle East; they're moving toward interfering in our back yard, again; and are planning to seize tracts of the Arctic--we cannot lose sight that these problems are not all we face. Nor should we lose sight that Russia could make any of the other problems immeasurably worse.

Iran

We're facing increasing problems with Iran--largely thanks to the Russians. They've told the world that they can control the Persian Gulf: any ships attempting to enter comes within range of their missiles. They have, in the past, threatened to block the oil routes through there if their nuclear aspirations are blocked. Since 40% of the world's oil--not including that drilled in Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, or the US--passes through there, the threat is not insignificant. Especially since this amount is a significant amount of what the United States buys.

We cannot count on the Russians to stand with us against Iran in this threat, either. It's not their oil profits that are being threatened, after all. Indeed, the more Middle Eastern oil is blockaded, the more Europe must turn to Russia for their energy needs--and the weaker the United States will become, with a good chunk of our oil supply cut. So no, Russia may not be directly behind the threat, but they're quietly supporting it.

Nor is threatening all they're doing: Iran has begun positioning their Revolutionary Guard in their territorial waters, right in that oil superhighway.

The Revolutionary Guard isn't their regular military, but rabid, radical, fundamentalist hardliners that the current Iranian government has tasked with defending their religious dictatorship. The Guard is far more confrontational than their regular army--big surprise there, since they're the military arm of the government that wants to start the end-of-the-world holocaust that's prophesied in both Muslim and Christian beliefs--and far better equipped. The regular Iranian army isn't who has control of the missiles that can reach Israel, and our bases in the Middle East.

We're also facing a nuclear Iran, thanks to Russia's intervention. Granted, what they're building for Iran is nothing more than a civilian power plant, something to provide electricity to the citizens. If Iran were a rational state, I'd be cheering. Unfortunately, they're not. Not only that, but the UN nuclear proliferation watchdog, the IAEA, suspects that Iran's been trying to refit its best long-range missile to carry a nuclear payload.

Even France sees Iran as a clear and present danger. If France is able to see it, God help the rest of the world.

Terrorism

Nor is that the only threat we face. The past has demonstrated that the United States has always been far more ready to face a threat based within a nation-state like Iran. Unfortunately, as we should have learned in 1993, with the first, failed, attack on the Towers; in 2000, with the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen; and in 2001, with the successful attack that brought down a symbol; we are not prepared to face an enemy that fades out from one place, only to attack from another.

In 2001, after the September 11 attacks, we attacked the country harboring the terrorist organization that hit us on our own ground. We took out the government that harbored them. Briefly.

Actually, the Taliban simply moved across the border into Pakistan. So did Al Qaeda. What looked, at first, like success has turned out to be nothing more than a "retreat and regroup" maneuver.

At first, Pakistan had no issues with us moving in to surgically target Afghani groups that had crossed into their territory. However, since Musharrif stepped down, Pakistan has changed its mind, ordering its military to strike back at US soldiers that cross the border in pursuit of the Taliban or al Qaeda.

While al Qaeda has seemed to subside in Iraq, they've re-emerged, bloodily, in Yemen. Again. This morning, they attacked our embassy in Yemen in a well planned, well rehearsed, well choreographed attack, much as they performed with the four passenger jets on September 11. I say "again" because they were also responsible for the strike against the Cole, eight years ago.

In any case, while I'm not sure Russia has a hand in any of the above--other than weapons sales--I'm not sure they don't, either. All I'm sure of is that this has flared up, after having died down for a good while, at very convenient time for Russia.

We're facing several different storms gathering on our horizon. We definitely need to be prepared to face them, and that means bringing our military's capabilities back up to a two-front war, both in hardware and boots ready to go. That means we need a president that's capable of seeing that diplomacy only works when backed by the threat of force in much of the world. That means we need a population with the same understanding, and the testicular fortitude to be able to face the coming storm.

God help us.

I suspected as much.

Russia was rolling before Georgia sent troops into the breakaway regions, according to some intercepted phone calls.  South Ossetian border guards called in long before Georgia moved, saying that Russian troops were headed for the border twenty hours before the Georgian military started to move.

Russia, of course denied it.  Their foreign ministry spokesman said that all that needed to be done to prove Russia not the aggressor would be to release satellite imagery that shows troop movement, and that any satellite imagery would prove that Georgia was lying.

That depends, I guess,  on whether satellites can see through the two mile long tunnel through the mountains, one end of which is in Russia.  

In any case, this attack is entirely within Russia's character, according to Stratfor's analysis.  Their analysts explain that Russia tends to shrink back to within its traditional borders when they've overextended themselves and weakened, and re-emerge to take back "buffer zone" territories when they've recovered their strength.  

Stratfor analysts suggest that, to keep us occupied, Russia's likely to begin playing in Central and South America again, as well as in the Middle East.  That makes sense, because that's what they did last time--they kept us bogged down in endless proxy wars, in Latin America in particular, where their national intelligence strengths and our weaknesses were maximized. 

If anything is going to get John McCain elected, it's going to be this: if there's one area that he's experienced in, it's Russian aggression, containing Russian ambitions, and fighting proxy wars. Senator Barack Obama's a man of peace.  Unfortunately, for his candidacy and for the rest of us, the time for a man of peace has passed.  If he's elected instead, he's going to have to learn another type of "diplomacy" to deal with the emerging threats.

Now, there's an idea!

Nashville has lowered their crime rate by--big surprise, here--deporting all illegal aliens as they're arrested.  The sheriff has stated that, any time they arrest an immigrant, they check whether he or she is here legally.  Every time.  No matter how minor the misdemeanor.  

Apparently, even minor arrests can signal big trouble.  The county sheriff's department reported that one man they arrested had been arrested and released, rather than deported, before the program was initiated, committed a count of felony sexual assault on a child in Houston.  And instead of being deported from there, was released again.  This time, after the instigation of the new program, he won't be released to re-offend.

This is the right idea.  Often, illegal aliens who are arrested and released, instead of deported, go on to commit more, and worse, crime.   

Apparently, Nashville isn't the only place with the right idea.  Unfortunately, they seem to be the only place with clear lines of communication between local law enforcement, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).   All too often, local law enforcement try to inform ICE that they have possible illegals in their custody, and either ICE doesn't get the message, or ignores it.

Unfortunately, places that do have the right idea are outnumbered by sanctuary cities, where ICE isn't called at all.  These cities often have some of the worst crime rates in the country--but refuse to admit that it's because of the criminals that come in from other countries.

Nashville has the right idea.  It would be wonderful to see that good idea spread at least as fast as the fool idea that we should grant sanctuary to criminals.

Storm surge coming. No place to evac to.

Alan Greenspan said, yesterday, that the United States is in the midst of a once in fifty or hundred years financial storm.  

Yeah.  And whose fault is that, Mr. Greenspan?  Isn't it the fault of the person who cut, and kept cutting interest rates until mortgages were made so cheap?  

In any case, no matter who people want to blame, we'll be feeling the repercussions for a long time.  We're only feeling the first little wavelets of the storm surge with the current problems.  It will probably get much, much worse before it gets better.

First of all, earlier in the year, we've had ten banks fail, everywhere from Kansas to California to Florida, including Bear Stearnes, who managed to find a buyer before they went splat.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been seized by the government.  

Today, we were informed that Lehman Brothers, one of the larger (and older)  investments banks in the US, filed for bankruptcy because of their role in the sub-prime mortgage mess, and have, in the past year, lost about 94 percent of their value.  Bank of America has purchased Merrill Lynch to keep it out of similar straits.  AIG is restructuring to avoid bankruptcy.

All of this sparked an epic sell off on Wall Street.  The Dow closed more than 500 points down.  There's no telling what's coming next.

I'd say that we're about to get hit by another Great Depression, maybe worse than the one that started in 1932, and ended with WWII.  Our only hope is for the government to get out of the way, and let the market correct both itself and the mess that governmental edicts have made of it.

The strength of a country is in direct proportion to the strength of its convictions.

The Muslims in Europe don't need to resort to terrorism and wars of conquest.  No, all they need to do is be patient.  The European nations' birthrates are far below replacement (while the Muslims' are far above replacement), and they're so worried about racism and political correctness that they bend over backwards to accomodate their minorities.  

For instance, Britain has just decided that the Muslims can take their civil cases to Sharia courts rather than those that deal with the laws of the land.  I wonder how long it'll be before Sharia law applies to everyone across the board.  

Poor dumb bastards.  They forgot the first rule: believe in something, and stand up for it.  If you don't, you'll wind up falling to those whose convictions are stronger.

A little better.

Looks like the powers-that-be reversed course on selling Israel bunker buster munitions.  Unless Congress objects within the next month, Israel's well on course to buying around a thousand of the most advanced, lightest, smallest bombs that American defense contractors make, the equipment to mount these little sweethearts to their jets, and instruction for their techs on how to mount them.  

It's only fair, since the Soviet Union--er, Russia--is selling updated arms to Israel's enemies.  

The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency recommended to Congress that they not  block the sale, that having a strong Israel as a partner was vital, and that we should make sure that they could not only defend themselves from their crazy, rabid radical neighbors, but support us over there militarily, if need be.  

And, since we don't have the testicular fortitude to make sure that Iran's nuclear capabilities don't come any further online, Israel's ability and willingness to attack to stop Iran from going nuclear is all to our benefit.

The other bit of interesting news is that Israel isn't the only nation we're selling arms to.  We're selling them to Iraq, the legitimate government in Afghanistan, and the former satellites of the Soviet Union that Russia's panting to re-absorb.  While I don't think selling arms to Middle Eastern nations that won't necessarily be friendly to us for longer than it takes for us to turn to the greater threat is a good idea, I do like that we're selling arms and training to use them to the former satellites.  

And honestly, in the short term, all of the arms sales are a good idea.  Russia's arming its proxies, making ready for further moves in Cold War II; if we neglect to do the same, we make it look like allying with Russia is the better idea.  It's the long term consequences of weapons sales in the Middle East that I worry about.  Selling arms to countries other than Israel in the forever-unstable Middle East is a good example of the realpolitik that I think led directly to September 11.  

Is this for real this time? Or just more of the same?

Russia claims--again--to be leaving Georgia's territory.  I'll believe it when I see it, and I sincerely doubt that they'll be willing to leave the breakaway territories where their "citizens" live.   After all, Georgia still claims those regions as part of their sovereign territory.

Hmm.  Interesting that they weren't as supportive of their own breakaway region's desire for independence.  In fact, rather than letting Chechnya have the independence from their government that the Chechen citizens so desired, they responded with more brutal force than Georgia did with their two--and nobody came to Chechnya's defense.  

Hypocrisy, thy name is socialism.

Isolationism as mistake, religion as tool

Robert Heinlein's work is always...interesting.  I recently finished his book Sixth Column, about a United States conquered by a imperialistic, communist regime: the PanAsian empire.  All that's left of America's government and defenders are six scientists, and one regular army type that used to work in advertising before the war started.  The six scientists are all that survive an initially poorly understood experiment in creating a new super weapon to combat those of the PanAsians.

While the plot was good, and the characterizations were varied and unique, what struck me as most thought-provoking were two things: one, that the threat wasn't seen as a threat, or even as a newly emerged technological superpower, until far too late because of a virulent form of isolationism; and two, that the heroes of the tale--the leftover American defensive forces--use the PanAsian policy of not harassing the religions of their conquered peoples as a method of fomenting a successful rebellion and defense of what was left of America.

I'll start with the isolationism.  Early in the novel, Heinlein warns his readers of the dangers of national isolationism through the sole surviving and free army officer's thoughts.  America had turned its back on the world.  We hadn't gotten involved in encircling Communist nations with freedom, or in proxy wars in Asia.  No involvement in Korea or Vietnam.  We'd turned eyes away from the enemy in an attempt to pretend that he wasn't dangerous.  The fictional America of Heinlein's imagination had gone so far as to pass a law called the Non-Intercourse Act, which forbade any business dealings with Russia, or any of its allies or business partner.

And, while America wasn't watching, Asia united--all of it--and absorbed Russia through conquest.  And, while America wasn't watching, the PanAsian Empire went about absorbing the rest of the world, and developing new weapons, and ultimately coming over the North Pole at us. 

Heinlein, as I've said, was a visionary.  Granted, our non-fictional United States has not become isolationist--yet--but we certainly have turned our backs on regimes that we never should have.  Many of our former allies in Central and South America have faced rebellion, and been taken over by communist regimes that are hostile to us.  This has happened while our attention was focused on Europe, and on the more obvious dangers in the Middle East.  

The second point that I found interesting was the choice by the main characters to use one of the bits of intelligence that one of the characters went out and gathered: that white males were not allowed to assemble, legally, anywhere but in church.  Nor were white females.  The army commander figured it out: the only way to foment and train for a successful rebellion was to set up a new religion.  This was successful mostly because, as Heinlein pointed out, to the outsider, all religions look equally crackpot.

One of the things I found particularly interesting about Heinlein's created religion was that it managed to do nothing to offend any other established religion--Western or Eastern.  Would that all religions were so cooperative and non-confrontational with one another.

I won't give away any more of the plot, but this is an early science fiction story.  Everything turns out all right in the end, despite one of the scientists cracking mentally and attempting to use the technological breakthrough to seize power under the delusion that he actually was the god that they'd made up.  

I highly recommend the book.  It was as much interesting political commentary, as I've said, as it was an engaging read.  

What's more important, teaching or politics?

I ran across a story at the FIRE this morning that I wish had surprised me.  Colleges and universities are using political litmus tests in hiring new faculty.  Just as the Donald Hindley vs. Brandeis case, the University of Delaware residence life re-education program, and the UD case where a student was barred from campus pending a psychological review because of his opinions didn't surprise so much as horrify me, this bothers me far more than it surprises me.  

Basically, what FIRE board of directors member and University of Massachusetts-Amherst professor Daphne Patai has uncovered is a list of questions, provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity office to the various hiring committees on campus.  These questions are designed to test professorial candidates' political views on gender and minority issues, and on social justice.  

I know similar things exist at some Midwestern schools.  I don't know if where I teach also has something similar, since I didn't face a hiring committee for my part-time instructor's position.  However, given the direction that most institutions of higher education are heading, I wouldn't be surprised.  

And honestly, it makes me wonder two things.  First, is it worth it to me to get that terminal degree and attempt to be hired on full time?  I'm pretty sure that my politics would not match up in the slightest degree with those of my department.  In fact, my deepest held belief is that politics have no place in the classroom, other than as a springboard to help my students come up with topics to write about.

And second, what's more important to these institutions of higher education?  The right politics, or the quality of the instruction provided?

I'm sadly certain that the answer does not benefit the students.

Forecast: cold, shading slowly colder

Yesterday made me think, and think hard, about who is, ultimately, to blame for the final count of 2,975 people, excluding the terrorists, who lost their lives in the September 11 attacks.  The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that, while the hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabian males between the ages of 17 and 40 who were associated with Al Quaida, the fault lay with us, and with the defunct Soviet Union.

I came to this conclusion because, throughout the Cold War, the main method of fighting with each other came through destabilization of nations, especially in the Middle East, and through proxy wars in Central and South America where our militaries trained different countries' militaries in fighting the Communist funded rebels (and sometimes governments), and in Asia, with Korea and Vietnam forming the theatres of war where our military actively engaged in the fighting.  

One of the regions destabilized during this period was Afghanistan.  Already embroiled in a civil war between the religious Muslims who wanted to remain that way and a communist-leaning government, Afghanistan was invaded by Russia in 1979.  We funneled money and arms into Afghanistan, putting both the money and the weapons into the hands of what would later become the Taliban government, the government that shielded Osama bin Laden and Al Quaida.  

We are on the verge of having the same thing happen again.  Russia is working with Iran in building a nuclear plant, rather than working with the West in keeping nuclear technology out of their hands.  They're still providing arms to Syria.  They're still working towards destabilization in the Middle East, though this time is to keep us busy with the ongoing and inadequately named "War on Terror."  

Israel understands what's going on.  They've taken steps to keep their relations with Russia on a fairly good footing.  After all, it's Russian arms that their enemies are buying, and a Russian nuclear power plant that they're (hopefully) planning to destroy.  

Russia is, apparently, still playing by the same rules as it did during Cold War I: funneling arms and money into territories in the Middle East.  And apparently (and unfortunately), so are we: Israel has asked for, and been denied, access to technology and infrastructure support that would enable them to attack Iran to prevent them from becoming a nuclear power.

I don't know that it matters whether or not we do more than upgrade Israel's defensive capabilities.  I think that the regional destabilization is well underway, and I think that Israel will likely be capable, with or without our help, of defending their own borders and preventing the rise of an unstable and avowed hostile nuclear power.  That counts for Israel, but Israel isn't the jihadists' only target. 

This time, though, more of the problem will be in our own back yard, with the Marxist/socialist/ communist regimes in South America.  The most recent, and most publicized, problems have been with Venezuela, but Bolivia is also a problem.  Russia, of course, is openly working with Venezuela on a military level: the two countries will be working together in Caribbean war games, and Russia recently sent two bombers to Venezuela, as a warning that they have new allies, according to Chavez.

The Taliban government in Afghanistan was an American mistake in realpolitik, one that we're still working on cleaning up.  That particular mistake from Cold War I led pretty directly to September 11.  

Realpolitik doesn't make sense long term, not where extremist nutjobs are concerned.  What caused the collapse of the Soviet Union was Regan's use of America's massive capitalist market's capabilities to break the Soviet machine under its own weight.  We have to keep that lesson in mind this time, as Russia attempts to claim massive oil reserves in the Arctic, reserves that we could be tapping, now, in ANWR and off our coasts.   We have to keep that lesson in mind as we choose where to place our investments.  

We must hit them in the economic sector.  We must not allow the proxy wars and destabilization efforts to go on endlessly, content to preserve a fragile, realpolitik, stalemate.  

Unless we remember the lessons learned last time, we will likely experience an attack that makes September 11, 2001 look bloodless.  The next attack will more than likely involve a nuclear bomb, probably in a major port city, likely smuggled in in a shipping container.

And that, too, will be as much our fault, and Russia's, as much as it will be the perpetrators'. 

Education

As a teacher, I feel strongly that education is important. Unlike most of my colleagues in the trenches, however, I do not believe that education is a one-size-fits-all proposition. Not every student learns at the same rate. Not every student learns in the same way. Not every student is equally gifted in every subject. And not every student holds the same interests that require a college education.

One of the things that I think education in general, and public education in many places in particular (like Dallas) fail in is teaching students about accountability and personal responsibility. These are concepts that every student can and should learn, regardless of ability or disability, learning style, interests, and aspirations.

I see a lot of the results of this lack in my classroom, as do some of my colleagues. We see freshmen come in without any concept whatsoever of accountability. They're under the impression that all due dates are flexible, that assignment guidelines (like length of essay) are flexible, that academic honesty guidelines (like not plagiarizing, and doing their own work) are flexible.

Unlike many of my colleagues, however, I don't necessarily blame the students for this particular shortcoming, any more than I blame them for not learning the simple grammar concepts that they weren't taught in their public schools. No, I don't blame the students, I blame the schools.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not necessarily blaming the teaching faculty of the various public schools for not teaching these concepts, though I'm sure there are some teachers that just don't bother. No, I think it's more the fault of administration, and, to a lesser extent, the parents.

Take, for example, Dallas's new grading standards:

Homework grades should be given only when the grades will "raise a student's average, not lower it.

Teachers must accept overdue assignments, and their principal will decide whether students are to be penalized for missing deadlines.

Students who flunk tests can retake the exam and keep the higher grade.

Teachers cannot give a zero on an assignment unless they call parents and make 'efforts to assist students in completing the work.'

High school teachers who fail more than 20 percent of their students will need to develop a professional improvement plan and will be monitored by their principals. For middle school the rate is 15 percent; for elementary it's 10 percent."

Not one of these do anything other than teach students that they're not responsible for their actions. There are no consequences. The consequences that should follow not doing the homework aren't focused on the students anymore. Rather, they're focused on the teachers. If a failing grade isn't a credible threat, the students won't do any more than they feel they have to (i.e., nothing).

What does this teach students? That teaches students to believe that the world will make exceptions for any action they take. I see students who, when I tell them that missing a class activity will take a letter grade off their final paper grade, they don't believe me. I'm sure I'll hear about it next Friday when they see the consequences. I've had students believe that plagiarism isn't a serious breach of educational ethics, and are shocked when they're punished. I've had students miss deadlines to hand in work, and whine that they deserve to be allowed to hand work in late because...whatever they can think up to try to make me feel sorry for them.

It breaks my heart, sometimes, to penalize some students. However, I know that, if I don't, they'll learn that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions later, and at greater cost than a poor grade or two. I only hope that my attempts to teach them accountability and personal responsibility sticks to some of them. I'm just as afraid that there are some that won't learn from the consequences of their actions.

I'm sure that some of these students who think deadlines are flexible will wind up fired for missing a deadline at work. I'm sure that some of these students who don't understand why professional ethics apply to them will wind up fired for a breach of such, and possibly prosecuted. I'm sure that some of these students will find out the hard way that the world doesn't care why they don't do what they're supposed to do, when they're supposed to do it. I'm sure that these students will wonder why "somebody" isn't helping them, or fixing the problems they've caused in their lives.

This is what teaches people to think that "somebody" else should be responsible for fixing problems. This is where our education system is most broken: failure to teach accountability and personal responsibility, not in failure to graduate one hundred percent of students, and not in failure to send one hundred percent of students on to success in college.

Remember.

Seven years ago, I didn't have a television, and didn't often listen to the radio in the morning. I had no idea that something had happened until I got to class. It was a 9:30 Shakespeare class, and I was hurrying because I didn't want to be late.

It turned out that it didn't matter. The instructor wasn't there. The class was all talking about something disastrous that had happened, but nobody had a clear idea what it was. The minutes ticked past, and the professor who was never late came in twenty minutes past the time class started. No one blamed him. The first thing he told us was that the United States was under attack in New York City--where he was from.

I don't know how he managed to pull it together to teach that day. I don't think I'll ever forget his courage. Or our shock.

FDR called December 7 "a day that will live on in infamy." That was the day that we discovered that we were at war with the Japanese when they took out Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack. They used their own planes, and their own equipment, and brought two nuclear weapons down upon their country by their actions.

We, as a country, have largely forgotten the horror of that day, and of that bloody, dirty, horrible, island-hopping war. We've largely forgotten the abuses that the Japanese army heaped upon our soldiers. All we really remember from that war are the things we did: the internment camps where Japanese-Americans were held, the suspicion that people born in the United States were spies for an enemy nation (enough were that it's arguable whether the camps were justified), Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

We won that war. We're still fighting the one that we woke up to realize that we were in on September 11, 2001.

We're already forgetting the terrible images of that day. We, as a nation, came together for a while after the towers fell. We, as a nation, fell right back apart. We expected a conventional war, when that is the last thing our enemy is willing to give us. We expected to catch Osama bin Laden within a month. We expected to win, quickly and easily, because we're the good guys.

Well, the enemy is taking advantage of us being the good guys. They've been on the run since the initial invasion of Afghanistan. They've not fought us on equal ground. They've not fought us in uniform, or on battlefields.

They've not fought openly. They've fought us by placing Improvised Explosive Devices on our patrol routes, the patrols we make to keep their civilians safe. They wear the same clothes as everyone else over there, over explosive vests, so that they can get close enough to us to kill us. They've fought us by keeping the areas we're in--their own people--terrorized, and tried to keep the governments unstable to enable their actions against us. They fight us from the buildings, from behind human shields, from crowded neighborhoods.

Our media doesn't report that. Our media reports on places like the POW camps, where they claim abuses go on every day, perpetrated by every soldier. They report on civilian death counts, when more often than not, the civilians are killed by the terrorists, not our soldiers. They report on the number of our soldiers killed--but neglect to remind us that this is the lowest body count of any war in history, even as it stretches on into the longest war we as a nation have ever been in. They encourage us to forget why we're there at all.

And we've forgotten for ourselves why we're there: the World Trade Center. The Pentagon. Flight 93 and it's passenger compartment of heroes.

We're forgetting because our own media wants us to forget. They stopped showing the images of that terrible day not long after it happened. I've found a photo gallery of the images. Go. Look.

Remember.

Orwellian Terms: Campus Speech Codes and Free Speech Zones

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or the FIRE, exists to combat abuses of our constitutionally protected rights on college and university campuses across the country.   Most of the ones they take to court--and win on--are first amendment abuses.  Not all are leftist suppression of conservative thought and speech, but most are.

Mind you, they only really prosecute said abuses on public campuses.  Private schools have more latitude in what they do and do not permit.  Some private, religious colleges, such as Southwest Baptist University in Missouri, do not take government funding even in the form of financial aid packages, just so that they cannot be forced to allow their students to be exposed to the views with which they do not agree.

Public, state-run institutions are a different matter.  State colleges and universities are, in essence, a part of the state political machine, and are not exempt from the restrictions set up in the Constitution.  

Yet they try.  

Probably the most insidious abuse of individual students' constitutional rights are speech codes.  These are rules written into the college and university handbooks that delineate what is and is not acceptable for students to say on campus.  These speech codes are meant to protect certain segments of the student body from threats and discrimination.  However, many of the codes are so broadly written as to ban anything that is not "acceptable" to the administration and the minority action groups.  

In case you were wondering, the University of Delaware's resident life "treatment" program was an outspring of this.

Many speech codes include provisions for what is known as a "free speech zone," usually a small area on campus that may or may not be easily accessible, public, or large enough for more than a dozen people at a time.  Usually, these are outdoor venues, which severely limits their use from the outset.  And sometimes, some universities decide to bar all outdoor protests, like San Francisco State University attempted to do recently.  (Of course, they backed off from this position almost immediately when the FIRE wrote to them and alerted them that they were being watched.)

The FIRE has, in the past, been forced to defend student beliefs against even more egregious abuses than these: the University of Delaware barred a student from campus, pending psychological evaluation, because of things he had on a personal website.  Students majoring in Teacher Education and in Social Services often are asked to pass a political litmus test, saying that they support social justice above their own beliefs, to graduate.  Such stories are far too numerous in the FIRE's archives to link to.  

This type of unconstitutional abuse has no place on public campuses.  Especially not when said campuses brag to the public that they support the free exchange of ideas by students and faculty.

The examples I've cited above, as well as others too numerous to mention, imply that they really are for the free exchange of ideas, all right.  Just not all ideas (especially ideas that contradict their personal political beliefs), not everywhere, and not all the time.

OPEC is not our friend. We have too many enemies on it.

Yesterday, OPEC signalled that it wouldn't cut production.  Today, the story changed: they're planning on cutting production by about half a million barrels per day.

One analyst mentioned yesterday that the giant oil cartel probably wouldn't cut production as long as Venezuela was comfortable.  I could have told him that Venezuela would vote to cut production for a few reasons: oil wealth is all that's propping up its government, oil's just dropped to around $100/barrel, and Venezuela has been looking for ways to kick the US in the tender bits so it can cozy up more firmly with its spiritual mother, Russia.  

Venezuela isn't our only enemy who's a member of the cartel: Iran is also a member.  They've voted to cut production every time it comes up, for some of the same reasons as Venezuela.  Same with many of the other cartel members.  Even our nominal allies in the cartel, like Saudi Arabia, aren't above stabbing us in the back whenever they can get away with it.

They don't like us.  We depend on them, thanks to foolish energy plans passed by both current and past administrations.   They wouldn't be too upset--at first--to see our economy tank even further than it has.

Frank Herbert's Dune was symbolic of much of the politics in the middle east, especially the politics surrounding oil supply and Imperial dependence on the continuing stability of the supply.  His main hero--as much a religious figure as a political one, both Imperial duke and messiah figure for the people--threatened to destroy supply of the critical commodity, and thereby took control of an entire empire.  

Of course, that commodity, unlike oil, was a natural drug so physically addictive that it would kill whoever stopped taking it.  What the bright boys in OPEC don't realize is that, while we would be crippled for at least a while, we would by no means die from it.  Rather, we'd come up with something different--maybe better, maybe not--that they don't control, and we'd come back stronger.  And angry.

Who is the target audience, here?

I ran across a couple of headlines that made me think today.  First, we have "World wants Obama as president."  We also have a bit about the British Prime Minister supporting Obama.

I have to wonder, when I think back a few months to Obama's world tour, where he claimed to be a citizen of the world, who is the audience he's campaigning for?

My friend at Kill the Cat said, "Anti-Soma is not going to vote Democrat if Jesus Christ himself came down from his banqueting table and ordered them otherwise.  They were never looking for a reason to vote for Obama..."  Well, my friend is wrong: I'd vote for anyone I agreed with, regardless of professed political party.  Honestly, there's really not much difference anymore between Democrat and Republican.  

I have to wonder, though, who the current Democrat Presidential candidate is targeting in his campaign.  If he's targeting middle America, he's failing.  If he's targeting America's elites, and Europeans who cannot vote for him anyway, he's succeeding.  Wildly.  

I think I understand why Europe really likes him.  They know what they'll get with him.  He's pro-talk diplomacy.  McCain believes as much in peace through superior firepower as through discussion.  He's pro-world, willing to believe that no nation needs national sovereignty when there's a world body ready and willing to govern all nations in the name of world peace.  (Ideally, that would be nice, but as I said in my post on Utopia, I do not believe that humanity in general is ready for peace.)

Once again, I think these messages resonate less with middle America than Obama thinks they do.  I think he may be trying to reach that target audience, but I don't think he or many (if any) of his advisers understand what will resonate with the typical flyover country voter.

Update:  And this is why I hate politics: it doesn't matter if Obama actually called Palin a pig--intentional or not, he just really started the mud flying.  I honestly think it was more just another thoughtless joke that backfired, but that's not how it'll be taken.  While I enjoyed Camille Paglia's thoughtful analysis of the Palin pick and what Obama's doing wrong (even though her vampire metaphor was one that I applied more to Hillary than McCain), the self-reflection it shows is far too rare, on either side, for me to truly enjoy politics.  I've learned to understand them, mind you, from sheer self-defense.  It doesn't mean I like them.

Look closer.

FoxNews's headline says "Pedophile Who Posed As Schoolboy Gets 30 Days in Jail." Thirty days? One month? That bothered me beyond belief.

Then I clicked on the headline for a closer look, and discovered that their website editors need to be fired. The story gives a different time that the creep will be incarcerated: 30 months. Not days. Months.

Granted, it's still not a good story. The pedophile, a British man in his early 20s, posed as a sixteen year old boy, and befriended the whole family just so he could have sex with the thirteen year old girl. Also granted, the girl admitted that they'd had consensual sex "more than 50 times." But still. Thirteen. He told her he was sixteen. So he could have sex with her.

Thirty months is better than thirty days, but that's still less than three years for this.

Just...peachy.

Here's proof that Russia has no interest in helping the West prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power: the Russian company building the first plant in Iran has just announced that they've reached the final stages in building.

Why do I take that as proof that Russia has no interest in being an active, helpful partner to the West?  I mean, all our power companies over here in the US are private companies, and Russia's a capitalist society, now, right?

Wrong.  The company that's been working in Iran is state-run.  That means it has not only the consent of the government, but the active participation thereof.

I suppose that just shows that Stratfor's and the Heritage Foundation's analysts are right: Russia's interests lie in destabilizing the Middle East, keeping us occupied while they regain their footing as a superpower.

I don't like this at all...

Russia's taking Venezuela up on its offer to come play.

Though Russia has denied that its decision to send a nuclear-powered cruiser to participate in Venezuela's Caribbean war games is in any way linked to the situation over in the Black Sea, Putin's puppet has been quoted as wondering how the US would like it "if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean...using our navy."  

Honestly, it reminds me of fairly recent history.  The Russians didn't come off well in the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Unfortunately, this time, I doubt it will work out similarly.  This time, Putin and his puppet have more testicular fortitude between the two of them than our entire congress, House and Senate, have combined.  Nor do we have the manpower and equipment readiness to stand up to a full-scale threat like we did then.  

And Putin's counting on it.

Update: It's about time!  First of all, I didn't know there was a "civilian nuclear pact" between us and Russia.  Second, does it strike anyone else as particularly stupid that we were going to be working together with a nation like this one on nuclear power, and trading ideas on how to create it?  I'm glad that we've decided to postpone the pact, and hope that that becomes indefinite.  I do not want to share any type of nuclear knowledge with that nation.

NOT the right option...

Ronald Regan once said that the scariest words were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."  Well, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac didn't hear those exact words.  No, what they heard was "We're the government and we're here to take over."

Yes, the two biggest mortgage companies are being nationalized so that the Federal government can "fix" the credit mess that it made.  Just as it's "fixed" everything else that it's gotten its hands on.  The government is referring to the nationalization of two publicly owned companies as a "stop-gap measure."  I doubt it will stay that way, any more than Social Security or Welfare remained a "stop-gap measure."

I find it ironic that the excuse that's been used to seize these public companies is that they used creative bookkeeping to show more capital than they had.  I mean, isn't that what the government typically does, counting Social Security taxes in with the regular taxes to show a surplus?  How in the world do they expect us to trust them to put a stop to Fannie and Freddie's number fudging?  

Not everyone feels that way: world markets have demonstrated that they believe that this is a good move.  People seem to think that mortgage rates are about to go down, because the government is standing in to guarantee the debt.  The markets are rallying on the news, believing that the dangers of imminent collapse is over.

Granted, the government's seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will prevent immediate collapse, but I have no doubt that it will eventually cause more problems than it prevents.   If credit stays cheap and easily accessible, and interest rates stay fairly low, people won't change their behavior with their money.  If people don't change their financial behavior, more will attempt to file for bankruptcy.  With the government standing in to guarantee the loans, mortgages will become the same type of debt as student loan debt: the type that the idiots that take on the debt cannot wipe out with a bankruptcy filing.  

Where it goes after that, I don't know.  I only know enough about the way the economy works to be able to see that far.  I can see that, eventually, when enough people default, there will be severe ripples in the rest of the economy.  Once again, I don't know enough about higher level finance to be able to guess what those effects will be, only that they'll be bad.

Out of all the options out there to "fix" the problems in the credit industry, this was the worst one that could have been chosen.

Update:  At least I'm not the only one who thinks this is a step closer to socialism.  Not only that, but "This is welfare for the rich.  This is socialism for the rich.  It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."  And this was something that both sides of the aisle endorsed.

Government agencies started the mess, trying to build a house of cards on a foundation of air.  They're still trying to build.