My Beauty Best Teacher

In 1919, the United States had an opportunity to stop communism before it ever took root in this world. Imagine a world where the Soviet Union would have never existed- a world where millions would not have been wiped out by the brutal dictator Stalin, where Stalin would not have encouraged Hitler, where the Soviet Union would not have aided Red China, where the Soviet Union would not have engaged in a long and expensive Cold War.

At various times in history, there is the possibility to do real change- real change for the better. All you need is good leadership and the strong will to do what is right. The US had that chance back in 1919, but sadly, we had weak leadership and a man in charge of our nation who did not do what was right.

At the close of WWI, the US landed forces at two points in Russia. The Polar Bear Expedition landed in Arkhangelsk, Russia (north Russia near Finland) with 5,000 combat troops. The AEF Siberia landed 8,000 men in Vladivostok, Russia (east Russian Siberia). Together, these two units could have helped the White Army fight the Red Army. Together, they may have played a role in weakening the Red Army, taking away popular support from it, or fighting it until the opponents of communists could regain their footing and support. If these troops were reinforced, strengthened, or helped out, just maybe the world would have been a different place years later.

Instead, US President Wilson limited the participation and scope of US involvement in Russia, and after one year, withdrew the troops. A moment passed, and without Western support, the Red Army soon defeated the White Army, and eventually time forgot that we had a chance, even if it was a long shot chance, of changing the world for the better.

Right now we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are turning the tide, winning against all odds, fighting bad guys, and doing great things. Will they be given a chance to win, or will their mission be limited, and eventually withdrawn, and 50 years from now, we'll look back and think what might have been.

UPDATE: Check out this story by Has Von Spakovsky over at the Wall Street Journal Online. It's an amazing story about his father, who was a White Army officer serving near Arkhangelsk, who fled to Finland after the US troops pulled out. The best part is when he and his companions stop and celebrate Christmas, freezing and starving and dodging Red patrols.

While lefty blogs are trying to make out this nut who ran his plane into a building into a 'teabagger', they are all ignoring a breaking story- the U.S. Army is investigating allegations that five Muslim soldiers were attempting to poison the food supply at Fort Jackson in South Carolina. All of the suspects were part of a Arabic translation program called "09 Lima" and use Arabic as their first language. Coming on the heels of the Fort Hood shooting, this is an important story to follow.

A source with intimate knowledge of the investigation, which is ongoing, told CBN News investigators that they suspected that the "Fort Jackson Five" may have been in contact with the group of five Washington, DC area Muslims that recently traveled to Pakistan to wage jihad against U.S. troops in December. That group was arrested by Pakistani authorities, also just before Christmas.

UPDATE: Keep following this blog for more details: Stakelbeck on Terror: Erick Stakelbeck :

The Army is investigating allegations that a group of soldiers from the 09 Lima program (more on that later in this post) at Fort Jackson--which is based in South Carolina--had talked about poisoning food in the base's mess hall. The men were questioned about two months ago, around Christmas. Gray said that to protect the integrity of the investigation, he could not comment further. He stressed that the investigation is "open and continuing."

CBN News also spoke to a Department of Homeland Security official with knowledge of the investigation who wished to remain anonymous. The official confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and said that someone in the Lima 09 program overheard five Muslim colleagues talking about poisoning food at the base. The person then reported the men, who were brought in for questioning.

The DHS official stressed that after the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood, the Army is taking a zero tolerance policy towards any potential threatening statements and is now extremely sensitive about any allegations in that regard.

Sometimes a foreign perspective provides fresh insight into the situation at hand. Andrew Osborn of the Telegraph echo's some of my thoughts (see my post Obama's Failures in Foreign Policy) in his article Hillary Clinton talks tough with the Kremlin, but Russia has won the geopolitical war:

(US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) could only offer two pieces of advice to ordinary Georgians on how they could get the rest of their country back. Do not react to Russian provocations and grow your own democracy and economy so that people living in the two breakaway regions will one day want to reunite. It was sound advice but it was also a tacit admission that Russia had won the geopolitical as well as the hot war, that the territory is perhaps irreparably lost, and that there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

So, to review, in the waning months of the Bush Presidency, Russia takes advantage of the US preoccupation with the election to invade a key US ally, Georgia. After driving the Georgia army back, Russia's army then withdraws back to two key provinces in Georgia and proclaims them 'independent.' It is understandable that the US was able to do little directly to force the Russian troops to withdraw and to cease with the charade of the 'independent provinces', but it is not understandable that the US was not able to make this look bad and make other nations around the world condemn Russia for invading another nation, breaking it up, and then occupying parts of the pieces of a former nation.

Bloggers and journalists write considerable amounts about Obama's failures in domestic policy, but don't forget that under Obama, not only can other states invade and destroy our allies, but they can do so without feeling or looking bad about it. With Democratic President Obama in charge, our nation will lose the hot wars, the geopolitical wars, and everything in between, and that is not going to increase the security and well-being of us or our allies.

From the assassination of Guinea-Bissau's president:

Guinea-Bissau President Joao Bernardo Vieira was assassinated in the first hours of this morning, allegedly in an attack by renegade soldiers as he fled his home. The crime happened a few hours after his long term rival, the country's army chief General Batista Tagme, was killed by a bomb blast, late on Sunday. Although the reasons are still unknnon, the crimes have sparked alarm at instability in the young West African republic...Global Voices

To this past December's coup d etat in Guinea-Conakry:

Guinea's prime minister and some 30 other ministers have submitted to the leaders of a military coup.The government officials met Capt Moussa Dadis Camara, who has declared himself Guinea's new president, at a military base in the capital, Conakry.
The rebels staged the coup on Tuesday, just hours after the death of veteran strongman President Lansana Conte...BBC

...plus in February when MEND guerrillas attacked Equatorial Guinea adding a new twist to African based non-state actors:

Men in speedboats attacked the capital, Malabo, which sits on an island off the West African coastline in the Gulf of Guinea. They struck before dawn on Tuesday and were heavily armed, the government said in a statement, but the army, using boats and a helicopter, quickly repelled the attack.-NYTimes

The common thread is that these actions all occurred in countries on the verge of becoming failing and or failed states. With largely non-existent institutions and an attendant parasitic ruling class.What are the options? Don't expect much from the largely ineffectual African Union. Should we look to a Paul Collier inspired solution of more unilateral military intervention by neighbors or something else?

The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to inform terrorists overseas that they have the right to remain silent before probing them for information to save American lives. The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to inform high value detainees captured on the battlefield in acts of terrorism that even though they are not uniformed and are carrying out actions beyond the scope of the Geneva convention, we will provide them with a liberal interpretation of the 5th amendment.

Obama has ordered that before we question any terrorist captured in the act of killing innocent civilians that we tell them that they have the US constitutional right to remain silent, they have the right to an attorney, and if they can not afford an attorney, they have the right to have one paid for by US taxpayers to defend them in a court of law.

From the World Net Daily story about this:

Rep. Mike Rogers (Republican from Michigan), former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement during his fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.

"The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement," Rogers told the Weekly Standard. "Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them … and they're reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters."

Rogers told Hayes the Obama administration has never informed Congress of the Miranda policy.

"I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it," he said. "We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative."

Beyond the fact that Obama has unilaterally granted rights to terrorists (in defiance of the Geneva Convention), there are other issues here too. Obama put in place these policies without consulting with Congress- in fact, it appears as if he has made a deliberate attempt to hide these policies from Congress. Senator Obama and the Democrats were very passionate that the President could not put in place policy such as this without consulting Congress. I am also pretty sure that this Obama policy is illegal- I seem to remember the Supreme Court recently ruling that all policy decisions regarding detainees must come from Congress, not the President.

From the Fox News story on this:

The move is reportedly creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel, according to US Congressman Mike Rogers.

Rogers, a former FBI special agent who served in the U.S. Army, just returned from Afghanistan and a visit to Bagram Air Base, where he said the rights are being read.

"I witnessed it myself... anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that's already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier's life."

Later in the story, you will read about how the Obama administration tries to play dumb about this issue, like they don't know about it, and about how the FBI claims they don't know anything about it either. That's a lie.

The Obama administration is lying and covering up a major scandal here. Giving terrorists caught in the act in a foreign country Miranda rights is a big deal. It is being done as a matter of policy. Someone ordered this decision made, and then ordered it hidden from the press and Congress. That's a scandal, and a lot worse than some of the stuff Bush was supposed to have done.

Here is Congressman Mike Rogers' page to contact him about this issue and encourage him to see this thing through. I heard about this story during an interview he did for 760 WJR this morning on the Paul W Smith show- perhaps there will be a podcast of this interview up later, so here is the link to that station.

PERSONAL NOTE: In case you are interested, here is the email that I sent my Congressman.
"This morning I heard an interview of Mike Rogers on 760WJR. As a registered and active voter, I am stunned that the administration would put in place such a policy as giving terrorists in foreign country captured on the battlefield Miranda Rights. Is this true? Is the Obama administration and the FBI reading Miranda Rights to terrorists overseas? This issue needs to be dealt with, and it is very important also to discover why the Obama administration said they know nothing about it and why the FBI said they know nothing about it- who is running things over there? This is a major policy decision- someone must have ordered it, and why did the FBI and Obama not know about it? I suspect someone is lying. Also, these policy actions are illegal- Congress is constitutionally charged with putting in place policies regarding captured enemies, and thus it is Congress and not the President who is supposed to be making these decisions. Someone broke the law and should be punished for this. This was an issue when Bush did it- a person with integrity would deal with this issue now that Obama is in the White House."

UPDATE: Best headline on this issue- "Miranjihad rights"

For many years, many of my students and several of my fellow teachers have been telling me that I have to see the movie V for Vendetta, because I would really like it. They assured me that this movie would be the movie for our generation, a movie that spoke to us and informed us and gave us a hero to cheer for. Students and several fellow teachers see V as a hero and saw him as the good guy of that movie. But they are wrong, horribly wrong, and their celebration of V as a hero will lead them and our nation into destruction.

V is a nonhuman, godlike figure who mentally abuses and rapes women. He hides his face from others, relies on wealth taken from others to live a life of luxury, produces no goods or products or services, and prefers to kill his victims using knives rather than guns simply because he is sadistic in nature. His vision of the world is one that involves blowing up authority and replacing it with an even more sinister and brutal authority, mixing anarchy and dictatorship to achieve his goals.

He does not submit to a candid world his ideals and ideas for their consideration, arguing in favor of natural rights of men and the goodness of mankind- rather, he tells people what he is going to do, imposing his will on the situation, and does so because he views all of man as fallen and wrong.

The same people that rave about V being a hero are the same people who look to the Arab Spring for inspiration and guidance, as if small groups of very active people overthrowing a dictator to replace that dictator with an army-led government influenced by fanatical terrorists is really an instructive example of any sort. Libya will be run by just the other tribe and will be as vindictive and tyrannical as before, Egypt has empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and the Army and is burning churches and attacking civilians from other nations, and Tunisia continues to tumble through anarchy- and that is what many students and teachers want for America.

Heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan- these people, whether you agreed with their policies or not, they fought and defeated evil enemies in the open, being human, and resting the strength of their victory on the power of the individual. Our Founding Fathers were heroes- they wore uniforms and fought and defeated a superior enemy on the basis of their superiority in principles and beliefs and ideals- they did not remove their dog tags and hide behind masks and rape women in the streets in their fight for 'freedom.'

Nor did our Founding Fathers or any of the great heroes of our nation dress up like zombies or glorify those who do- the same people who glorify the Arab Spring and V for Vendetta now pretend that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is some sort of noble enterprise, and not just a delusional carnival of antisemitic rich who wish to smash one group (Wall Street) only to put in place a more horrifying and inhuman system (an all powerful government that will take people's wealth and property and control their actions in the name of 'fairness' or 'the environment').

V, Occupy Wall Street, and the Arab Spring- they may all sound appealing, but so did Lenin and Communism and Hitler and Fascism when they first came about, and we all know exactly how those enterprises turned out. I have nothing but scorn and pity for those who support or like these groups- they have valid concerns and valid criticisms of the system they find themselves in, but they have decided to support the wrong side and history will judge them as doing so.

Percy Jackson isn’t expecting freshman orientation to be any fun. But when a mysterious mortal acquaintance appears on campus, followed by demon cheerleaders, things quickly move from bad to worse. In this latest installment of the blockbuster series, time is running out as war between the Olympians and the evil Titan lord Kronos draws near. Even the safe haven of Camp Half-Blood grows more vulnerable by the minute as Kronos’s army prepares to invade its once impenetrable borders. To stop the invasion, Percy and his demigod friends must set out on a quest through the Labyrinth–a sprawling underground world with stunning surprises at every turn. Full of humor and heart-pounding action, this latest audiobook promises to be their most thrilling adventure yet.

 

Click here to buy from Amazon

In a DC Wire article yesterday written by Bill Turque, it is reported that under Rhee's helm (17 months and counting ) , one third of the DC principal corps have either been fired, resigned or retired. Three principals have been replaced already this school year by Rhee. The Wire reports that Rhee's draft "action plan, which will be presented before the city council today, "says that while there has been improvement, "DCPS still lacks a critical mass of leaders with instructional expertise and/or a proven track record of success in turning around low-performing schools."

"The plan calls for intensifying what had already been touted by Rhee as a vigorous national recruiting effort. The goal is to provide seven "high-quality principal candidates" for every future vacancy and three qualified prospects "pre-approved by the Chancellor before they even meet with the school community panels that screen potential principals. Rhee also wants to open a "School Leadership Academy" that will nurture new principals and develop administrators with the potential to become school leaders."

It seems that many who have posted comments on the DC Wire question Rhee's management acumen (or lack thereof) . Here's what they are saying:

"Rhee is quite delusional if she thinks she's going to attract "top-shelf" principal candidates to the current low-morale school system. A coach is only as good as his/her team. She has to build from the bottom up (i.e., support for teachers, training, etc.). It doesn't help that she espouses a leadership style where "collaboration and cooperation" are overrated."

"If only such rigorous rules were in place before Mayor Fenty basically appointed Rhee as Chancellor. Has any team or organization ever done markedly better after a midstream firing? So far, that is about all Rhee seems to be able to do. Can someone tell me what she and Fenty do between the end of June and early September? Do they actually vet their administrative hires? So far the strategy it seems to be "Fire, ready...set...aim!" And one more point. Fenty is trying to get Obama to take a look at DC Public Schools. Did you know that Fenty sends his kids to a private school? I did not vote for Obama to Chair the DC School Board. Fenty should have to fix this mess himself."

"Finally - someone is taking action to bring the District teaching corp into the 21st century! People defending the current system should be ashamed of themselves; every day they spend arguing that we need to protect the rights of the people who aren't qualified to educate our children is another day that those children are falling behind the rest of the country and the world. If people want to protect the good teachers (which they should), they need to come up with a radical idea to get rid of the bad ones...now."

"If there were any doubts before, there should be great clarity that DCPS is "stuck on stupid" Principals whose school were making AYP were not re-appointed. Now the new army of believers that were hired are getting fired by the month. The best in terms of experience were let go and the new inexperienced NLNS are getting fired. Who is left? Who wants to re-locate to DC? Seven candidates for every one vacancy? Who are we kidding? This is coming from a person who is clueless when it comes to knowing what administrators do on a daily basis. She taught for three years, has never been a school administrator and was a poor manager when she was at ST. Hope. Read the articles on the turn-over. Principals and teachers left due to the bullying tactics of Rhee and Kevin Johnson. She just doesn't have the skills needed to run a school system."

"I hope the new principals get a big fat signing bonus like Rhee got before they commit to working in a DC school. A housing allowance might be nice too. Unless they come from Manhattan, San Francisco or Boston, they might be discouraged by the high housing prices, knowing they could get fired at the drop of a hat - especially if one of their disgruntled teachers goes to the press with a problem principals are afraid to report because it might make them look as if they can't control an uncontrollable school. I hope the prospective principals do a little googling and read some recent Washington Post articles to get a real feel for the problems here. If they just listen to Rhee and the national press, they'll erroneously think they're walking into a grand educational opportunity - A chance to shine and make their reputation. I hope they talk to some current principals who are candid enough to acknowledge their regret for falling that false promise."

"To be perfectly blunt Rhee must really be possessed by the desire to fire people because that's all she seems to do. It is a shame!!"

"No one really knows how hard it is for DCPS but the people who work in the schools. Rhee has done nothing but destroy our schools with her poor management skills. DC council members were right when they questioned her a few weeks ago and told her how non effective she is at running our school system. Well what do we expect since she got her "power" from our mayor. (who by the way has too much power). The city council better step up and oversee what is going on. What we do today is effecting our youth tomorrow. Rhee and Fenty's goals are to rid our city of public schools and increase charter schools. Wake up DC residents. Rhee did an awful job in NY and now she's doing the same here in DC. These new teachers don't plan to stay and have no vested interest in our children and their future. HUMMM, I wonder if Rhee has a vested interest?"

"At Shepherd, we had a panel of principal candidates presented last spring. One parent rep on the panel described the candidate pool as "shallow." A major problem with the process at Shepherd occurred because we had been repeatedly told by several DCPS officials that every panel received its first or second choice candidate, and the schools were always very happy. In this case, because the candidate pool was so shallow, the same candidates were sent to multiple schools. Two of the current DCPS employees were ranked first and second by our panel. These same individuals were each ranked high by at least one other school. Rhee then gave the panelists the choice of which school assignment they preferred (a logical way to resolve the assignment). She told Shepherd this in October, after she had appointed a lower ranked candidate. No one knew why when the appointment was made in June. So, if last year's candidates are any measure of who Rhee is able to attract, she attracts about 1.25 candidates for each open position (4 of the 5 panelists received appointments), all candidates live locally, most are internal to DCPS, and few if any have prior experience at the job they are applying for.

By the way, in October, the next principal that Rhee appointed to Shepherd after firing the one that she had just appointed in July, also does not have prior experience as an elementary school principal. And this newest principal announced at last night's PTA meeting that she'll be out for 3 to 4 weeks in March/April on maternity leave. So for Shepherd, the final count is 4 principals and interims in the 2007-08 school year, and at least 2 principals and 1 interim in 2008-09 (it's still early in the year for us). I think the mainstream press that believes Rhee when she says folks are coming from all over the country to work for her needs to do a little more fact checking." Posted by The Washington Teacher.

North Oakland Republican Club and Let Freedom Reign hosted a debate for the Republican candidates for the 9th Congressional District. The candidates are Rocky Raczkowski, Richard Kuhn, Paul Welday, and Anna Janek. The winner of the primary will move on to face Gary Peters in the general election. This is an important election- Gary Peters needs to go (for more details, see my posts Gary Peters Scores a 90% On the Pelsoi Index- A Vote by Vote Analysis of Peters Liberal Record in Congress, or Oppose Gary Peters, or Peters Hasn't Done Any Independent Thinking- Congressman Gary Peters Votes 96% of Time with Liberal Democrats).

The debate was well-attended- the Oakland County Commissioners Auditorium was filled with about 250 people (including Peter's hired thug Paul Spurgeon). Jim 'J.J.' Johnson moderated the debate. Candidates began with a prepared statement and then answered a series of questions and ended with a concluding statement. The following are my impressions of each candidate, based on my best recollections, as well as further commentary by me.

Richard Kuhn is a judge who worked in the House- from 1943-1946. That should give you some indication as to his age. He was is a Reagan conservative, and has a solid judicial record of conservative decisions. He wants to cut spending and put in place a balanced budget, is strong on the 2nd amendment, wants to win the wars overseas, and thinks Gary Peters needs to go. He is a good judge, but may lack the energy and political savvy necessary to deal with being a Congressman.

Anna Janek grew up in Czechoslovakia, and was motivated to run for Congress because she sees our nation going down the same path to communism that she fled from years ago. She is a strong economic conservative who wants to abolish the federal reserve and get the government out of healthcare, and also was non-interventionist and wants the US to pull its military out of nations abroad. She is a Ron Paul supporter, and shares some of his conspiracy theories about international bankers running the world and cars that run on water, and wasn't familiar with many of the hot-button issues of the day.

Paul Welday is a politician whose biggest accomplishment appears to have been one of the chief legislative aides to ex-Congressman Knollenberg, who Peters soundly defeated. Welday feels that his 10 years working in Washington and with Washington elites gives him the ability to be a good Congressman for the 9th. I feel that being part of a moderate GOPer who spent big bucks and had a lot of bad votes isn't a positive this election, and perhaps he shouldn't run on that alone. Welday approaches everything as a politician should- when asked about Obamacare or Cap-and-Trade, he feels those are bad pieces of legislation that were poorly crafted. When asked how he would fight Democrats, he says he knows procedural gimmicks to combat them. He is a conservative, but I think that he is a conservative more so because it is popular rather than because he feels it in his gut. Welday throws out a lot of hot-button words, and obviously listens to Rush and Sean and reads the blogs and papers, because he uses a lot of the same lines and reasoning on issues. I got the feeling sometimes that he is approaching this as a big game of political power- not that it isn't, but it is more than that too. For example, when asked what Welday would do with social security, he repeated over and over that he would make the tough decisions if he got elected, but never once said anything tough that he would do. He wants to be the kind of candidate that others want him to be, and that's okay- it's just that there is another candidate who is the kind of candidate that others want. Lastly, Welday interrupted the moderator and others several times, and was the only candidate who launched negative attacks on the others, and I didn't like that.

Rocky Raczkowski is a former legislator (House Majority Leader) and military veteran (enlisted at age 17, recently called to duty as Major in Army Reserves). During his opening statement, he went out into the crowd and told them that he wanted to represent them- that he wanted to listen to them and serve them in Congress. He mentioned the Constitution quicker than any candidate, and came back often to it. He is a solid conservative on a range of issues- pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, lower taxes, control spending, balance budget, repeal Obamacare, stop Cap-and-Tax, against regulation, against taxes, etc.- and wants to expand nuclear power in the US and approaches the War on Terror from a warrior perspective (he quoted Sun Tzu!). Although Welday knew his stuff, Rocky quoted Animal Farm, the Heritage Foundation, the New York Times, and other sources, demonstrating his much larger range of knowledge. To me, he approaches things a true conservative should- he doesn't oppose Obamacare because it is a bad bill, he opposes it because it is against life, liberty, and property (my words). His parents were immigrants, and they obviously raised him on the old-school myths of our founding fathers, on being proud to be an American, on believing in the old-fashioned American dream, and on doing your duty, and now he has dropped everything to go all-in to defeat Gary Peters. Watching him speak, I saw our next Congressman from Michigan's 9th.

These are my thoughts and impressions, for what they are worth.

FP reports on the evolutionary strengthening of Turkey's democracy:

Contrary to the views of some Turkish and Western analysts, the primary struggle within Turkey is not between Islam and secularism, but rather between a militaristic pseudo-autocracy and liberal democracy...What we see occurring in Turkey today is a process of democratization, spurred by growing civilian control over the military. However, due to problems deriving from the country's illiberal constitution, which is a product of a 1980 military coup, progress has not always been smooth...The solution is a comprehensive constitutional reform that includes the judiciary. Such a step would not only improve the role of law, but strengthen Turkey's case for European Union accession by harmonizing the country's judicial process with European standards.

More here

In light of Sudan's impending partition we take a look Ethiopia's ability to maintain its unity. Aaron Maasho reporting in Reuters:

When Meles Zenawi's rebels closed in on Addis Ababa in the early months of 1991, their biggest threat did not come from Mengistu Haile Mariam's army but from a potential breakup of Ethiopia.The group was about to end centuries of Amhara domination over the country's 70 ethnic groups, but some feared Ethiopia's long marginalised regions might seek to cut loose, as Eritrea eventually did later.Two decades on, Ethiopia remains one nation. Meles, now prime minister, says the country's "balkanisation" was only averted by an ethnicity-based federal system...In a continent where colonial powers arbitrarily drew frontiers indifferent to ethnic divisions, Meles said last month that Ethiopia only survived as a nation by granting autonomy to its provinces -- as well as the right to secede."The successful management of our diversity has become one of the pillars of the ongoing Ethiopian renaissance," he said,

More here

Jeremy Cronin writes in Pambazuka News:

"We are told, for instance, that ‘land reform’(in Zimbabwe) did not succeed because the British failed to meet their financial obligations as agreed in the Lancaster House negotiations. But what kind of heroic anti-imperialist liberation movement is this? Can you imagine the Cubans arguing two decades after their revolutionary breakthrough that they had not implemented land reform because the US refused to subsidise it? President Mugabe’s demagogic ‘anti-imperialism’ is not an anti-imperialism that seeks to defend the interests of the peasantry, the workers (insofar as any remain employed) and the progressive professional and middle strata of Zimbabwe’s society (and indeed of our region). It is a pseudo anti-imperialism that seeks to defend the narrow interests of a rentier capitalist elite within Zanu-PF and the upper echelons of the state. It is a stratum that is entirely parasitic on state power. State power is used to pillage for the purposes of primitive accumulation. And remember, much of the recent socio-economic crisis in Zimbabwe dates back to the pillaging ‘peace mission’ to the DRC in the mid-1990s, which ended in bankruptcy and defeat for a once professional and proud Zimbabwean army."

Being President of the United States means being competent in international relations and being a good commander in chief. We have Congress to take care of our domestic issues- to pass laws, to push for legislation, to come up with rules and regulations on how we are governed- but Congress has few powers and abilities to act on the international stage, and so our Founders gave those powers to the President. One of the President's most important roles in our system is Commander-in-Chief of our military, and to assist him in this he appoints a very powerful advisor known as the Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of Defense position has historically been considered one of the most powerful advisor positions in our government, and has been held by such illustrious people as George Marshall, Robert McNamara, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and when the position was called Secretary of War, was held by Henry Knox, James Monroe, John C. Calhoun, Lewis Cass, Jefferson Davis, Edwin Stanton, William Taft, and Henry Stimson. These are the names of future Presidents and the winners of major wars- this position has historically been a position that major talent is appointed to.

The election of President Barack Obama (Democrat) in 2008 changed all of this. First, Obama kept on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and for all the good qualities of Mr. Gates, he is and always was simply a placeholder until someone better could be appointed. When Rumsfeld left, Bush needed to replace him, and felt that he needed a moderate and uncontroversial nominee in order to get confirmed by a hostile Democratic Congress that believed in the certainty of our losing the War on Terror (one of the many things in which Democrats have thought was truth and been proven wrong).

Following is an analysis of the candidates who are being considered to replace Gates as Secretary of Defense provided by RealClearPolitics. When you read this, try to pick up on the screaming incompetence that the Obama administration exhibits during this process:

Last August, rumors said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Defense Undersecretary for Policy Michelle Flournoy, former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed were among the possible nominees. To that list, sources add Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter.

Hillary Clinton would have nothing to gain, and much to lose, in taking the Pentagon job. At State, she has more freedom to claim headlines and grow her credentials than she would fighting the Pentagon budget battles. She won't do it. (my comment: best option won't take job because recognizes how sucky Obama is as President and is already scheming to replace him)

Chuck Hagel has been campaigning for the job for as long as most can remember. But Hagel is too much of a headline-seeker. Obama would have to worry as much about him in that job as, well, as he has to worry about what Joe Biden will say next about Afghanistan.(my comment: option two is a moron and can't be part of cabinet because Obama already has to many moron's in his cabinet)

Michelle Flournoy is a more likely choice, a notch ahead of John Hamre. Flournoy served as president of the leftish Center for a New American Security before taking her current post and after she served in various mid-level Pentagon policy posts. And because we've never had a female Defense Secretary, she'd be another Obama "first."(my comment: option 3 is being considered for an important position like this merely to make a political point and use external characteristics of people to score political points, and also headed a group that's projections have been wrong about pretty much everything)

Hamre, a defense intellectual, has for ten years been the president of the Center for Strategic and International Study, a nonpartisan think tank. Hamre is well respected on the Hill and could be the bureaucratic type Obama would want to lead the Pentagon for the next two years (my comment: option 4 doesn't sound too bad- this means Obama will only nominate him if his other unqualified and bad choices are rejected)

Jack Reed, a former Army Ranger, Harvard lawyer and liberal Democrat, would be a credible choice for Pentagon boss. But Reed's term doesn't expire until 2014 and there is no reason for him to end his senate term early. Reed's political ambitions would likely prevent him accepting the nomination (my comment: option 5 isn't real option- he won't leave his position)

Jim Webb, a decorated Vietnam Marine veteran, may have a tough race in 2012. Virginia went for Obama in 2008 but since elected a conservative governor and threw out a few liberal Democrats in 2010. But Webb is an odd guy, short-tempered and notoriously hard to deal with. Webb would be a bad fit in the Obama cabinet which is dominated by lawyers and academics (my comment: option 6 isn't a real option either)

Not the least likely - but certainly the least-known -- is Ashton Carter. Carter is a Ph.D. physicist who has taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and served in several lower defense posts, is the sort of intellectual Obama is attracted to. His current job, as acquisition chief, makes him knowledgeable of budget issues and his policy experience in assorted national security areas makes him a credible candidate (my comment: this sort of logic is the sort of logic that characterizes Obama's incompetent administration- low level intellectual whose degree is in an unrelated field will follow in the footsteps of the greats- that's the new normal of Obama for you)

So will it be Flournoy, Hamre or Carter? Or a surprise nominee from Obama's inner circle? Whomever it is will have the hardest job in Washington for the next two years.

Whomever it is, with Obama picking the person, we can be sure that it will be a poor pick who will demonstrate little competence and leadership in this important position, and America will be less safe because Obama is in office still making decisions like this.

William Easterly writes on the rebirth of utopianism"...it is in 2005 that utopia seems to have made its big breakthrough into mainstream discourse. In March, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, celebrity economist and intellectual leader of the utopians, published a book called The End of Poverty, in which he called for a big push of increased foreign aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals and end the miseries of the poor...British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown likewise called in January for a major increase in aid, a “Marshall Plan” for Africa. Brown was so confident he knew how to save the world’s poor that he even called for borrowing against future aid commitments to finance massive increases in aid today...We have already seen the failure of comprehensive utopian packages in the last two decades: the failure of “shock therapy” to convert the former Soviet Union from communism to capitalism and the failure of IMF/World Bank “structural adjustment” to transform nations in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America into free-market paragons. All of these regions have suffered from poor economic growth since utopian efforts began...With all the political and popular support for such ambitious programs, why then do comprehensive packages almost always fail to accomplish much good, much less attain Utopia? They get the political and economic incentives all wrong. The biggest problem is that the rich people paying the bills do not share the same goals as the poor people they are trying to help...ree markets and democracy are far from an overnight solution to poverty—they require among many other things the bottom-up evolution of the rules of the game, including contract enforcement and fair political competition. Nor can democratic capitalism be imposed by outsiders (as the World Bank, IMF, and U.S. Army should now have learned). The evolution of markets and democracy took many decades in rich countries, and it did not happen through “big pushes” by outsiders...The problems of the poor nations have deep institutional roots at home, where markets don’t work well and politicians and civil servants aren’t accountable to their citizens. That makes utopian plans even more starry-eyed, as the “big push” must ultimately rely on dysfunctional local institutions..."
Via Bullets and Honey

Sharpe's Triumph, by Bernard Cornwell, is one of the many books from the Sharpe series, which is a New York Times bestselling series. This one is a 'prequel' since it is one of the more recent books in the series and yet takes place earlier in the timeline. It is set in 1803 in India, and is about the adventures of a young British infantryman named Richard Sharpe.

In this campaign, the main action takes place as Sharpe tracks down a turncoat who defected from the British East India company to join the mercenary forces of the Mahratta confederation. As Sharpe tracks this man across India, he gets involved in the Second Anglo-Maratha War, which includes the Battle of Ahmednuggur and more notable Battle of Assaye. The action is fierce in the battle scenes, and the plot is moved along at an able pace throughout the whole book.

One of the great things about Cornwell's writings is that even though the book is fictional (there was no Sharpe), the setting and the events have been meticulously researched and are described in such great detail that you really do feel like you have been there and in your mind you can picture the great battle of Assaye. When the Scottish Highlanders of the 78th are advancing through hails of grapeshot and canon fire wearing their kilts and tall bearskin hats, and in right in the face of the enemy they put on their bayonets and charge, you feel like you are there. When the city of Ahmednuggur is captured by a brazen escalade assault (ladders at the walls), and a Scottish major scales the walls and wins the top by slashing with his claymore, it is a fantastic image that makes you feel as if you were part of the action too.

One thing that stood out in the book is the difference between professional soldiers and mercenary or irregular forces. In the Battle of Assaye, the British had about 10K professional soldiers, and the Mahratta forces had about 100K- but only 15K of those were trained soldiers, and when faced with true pressure, they cracked. A professional soldier is a powerful thing- trained, efficient, disciplined, and able to win a battle. The other day I was reading (can't remember where) about how this US army detachment of 10 soldiers was ambushed by over 100 Taliban, and the result was over 20 Taliban dead to 1 injured US soldier. The Taliban were shooting their AK-47's everywhere, but the US soldiers fired and killed, fired and killed, fired and killed, all while keeping track of their position and comrades. Trained professional soldiers such as we employ and the British employed are deadly instruments of war.

This was a highly entertaining read, and I am excited to find out that they actually made this book into a television series too, starring Sean Bean. I'll have to watch that. If you haven't read any of the Sharpe series before, you may want to start with the one before this, which is called Sharpe's Tiger and is about the Siege of Seringapatam, or just jump ahead to some of the better ones, such as Sharpe's Eagle or Sharpe's Company. They are historical fictions, and remind me of Horatio Hornblower, and likely are the inspiration for other such great series like Honor Harrington. Enjoy!

As I drove home today, a soldier called in to the station that I was listening to, and talked about how our troops were overwhelmingly conservative Republicans. That got me thinking. What do the people who sacrifice the most for our nation think- what type of values and leaders do the men of our armed services support.

According to the "Military Times Poll", conducted by the publishers of the 'Army Times' and the independent newspapers of the three other major services, found that 57 per cent of the active-duty military identified themselves as Republicans, including 67% of our officers. Twenty-nine per cent of the military respondents either said they were independent or declined to answer the question, and 14% said that they were Democrats. The survey found that 53 per cent of active- duty personnel described themselves as either "very conservative" or "conservative".

This article talks about how Bush and Kerry battled over the large slice of the US voters that are either veterans or currently serving- 27 million military veterans account for one in five voters, and there is another 1.4 million active military personnel, plus 1.2 million National Guard members and reservists. Who did they support in 2004? Republican George W. Bush, by a margin of 55 to 37 percent.

This article details in depth the 2000 attempt by Democrats to disenfranchise military voters, including attempts to challenge absentee votes from those who were servicing overseas. They would only do this if these voters were mostly Republican. It's an older controversy, but demonstrates that the values and beliefs and ideas of the Democratic party are not the same as those as our troops and soldiers and defenders of freedom.

And, this more current poll shows that While troops deployed abroad might be giving more money to Barack Obama, a poll released today says that John McCain will get the vast majority of votes from members of the military and veterans. According to Gallup, McCain leads Obama 56 percent to 34 percent, with 11 percent expressing no opinion or picking someone else. That is a margin of 22%!

There is something to all of this. Members of the military are willing to sacrifice everything for America. Members of our military are doing good works- building schools, passing out backpacks, and rebuilding countries, all while minding to their military duties and fighting bad guys. Members of our military believe in teamwork, responsibility, hard work, discipline, and doing what is right. I'm not a veteran, but I am proud of them, and honor them, and when they overwhelmingly vote in one direction, it should be noted and respected.