We have complained at length about the status of public education in America. We spend far more money on education in America than in most every other country on Earth, yet by every measure American students continuously fail to make the grade, when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Even in countries with high levels of poverty, students perform far better that their American counterparts. As we have noted, culture plays a major role in the failure of American public education. In America we do not value education, we value the frivolous, we value the Hollywood-rock star culture. We don’t value science or literature and knowledge and as a result our educational system is in the toilet.

Now there is word that another of these brain dead students has gone from pupil to murderer. Judy Jester, a 55 year-old teacher in Alabama, was beaten to death by a 15 year-old 8th grade student. That’s right, beaten to death. The child attacked the teacher, cracking her skull, causing irreparable brain damage, leaving her for dead. Jester was found on the floor of a classroom by a group of teens, who called police. The unnamed15 year-old, has been charged with murder, as well as burglary and robbery. This child clearly represents a growing number of deadbeats who fully embrace the entitlement culture, placing no value in hard work or education, seeking only the path of least resistance, even at the expense of others. Some would argue that making a comparison with this murderer and other deadbeat students is a bit of a stretch…but is it? To what lengths will some people go to get what they want or take what others have? Even if this savage killer had not attacked Judy Jester, his un-appreciation for education is epitomized by the fact that he was a 15 year old in the 8th grade, shouldn’t he be in the 10th grade? Woe and shame for the future of our poor country.
Link to article

Since 2004, ordinary Iraqis have paid a heavy price for their freedom. Over 26,000 people have been injured or killed in insurgent attacks. The vast majority of casualties inflicted by Islamic radicals in Iraq have been at the expense of Iraq’s civilian population. The majority of these attacks have occurred in Sunni dominated provinces in central Iraq. These insurgent groups, including Al Qaeda in Iraq have made it clear that anyone in Iraq is a potential target, regardless of whether they are muslims or not.

Militant Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has made it clear that his war is not just with the United States. His war is with the very idea of democracy and it is with the Iraqi people, if they embrace the idea of democracy. The insurgents are determined to affect their own version of regime change on the Iraqi landscape. Just as the Bush administration wants Iraq to serve as a model for democracy in the Middle East, the terrorists also want Iraq to serve as a model for Islamic militantism and their twisted vision of the future. They see Iraq as an opportunity to foment revolution, but Iraq isn’t the only battleground in this conflict. These militants have a global agenda, as manifested by the recent terror attacks in India, the words of Iran’s president, and countless recent examples of radical Islam’s march into history.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.casualties/index.html

Hugo Chavez must really be hard up for material; perhaps his writers from the demagogue’s guild are on strike this week. This is clearly evident in Chavez’s latest tirade. Chavez has felt it necessary to criticize the US for Halloween festivities around the nation. Chavez has called on his countrymen not to emulate American families who observe Halloween, noting the custom is foreign to South America. This speaks to Chavez’s mentality, and his aversion to the concept of the individual, because something is strange or foreign to him it must be irradiated. Perhaps what is most telling is Chavez’s latent hypocrisy. Chavez links Halloween celebrations in America to our supposed “culture of fear,” terrorism, and America’s tendency to instill fear into its people.

Chavez's words also speak to his ignorance. Halloween, is recognized in one form or another around the world, including Latin America. In Mexico and many other Latin American countries its called El Dia de los Muertos (the Day of the Dead), in Sweden its Alla Helgons Dag, in China its known as Teng Chieh. And let us not forget Ireland, the birthplace of the custom, where it has been recognized for over 3000 years. Who knew the Irish were cultivating terrorism for all that time. Of all people, Chavez is certainly an expert on putting fear into people. Chavez has frequently told his people an invasion was eminent and of course only Chavez could repel such a threat. Is Chavez so desperate to criticize the US, that he will say and do just about anything, including complaining about a meaningless custom, which has absolutely nothing to do with Chavez and his socialist stronghold? Clearly the answwer is yes. He will do anything to garner media attention.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4391166.stm

This weekend terrorists struck again. No not in Iraq, not in Russia, not in Europe, not in Sudan, not in China, not in Thailand, not in Indonesia and not in the Philippines and not in a dozen other places where they have been on the move, but in India. According to the latest figures from the Indian government, dozens have been killed in the simultaneous bomb blasts, which struck the Indian capital on the eve of a popular Hindu festival. So far no one has claimed responsibility for the savage attacks, but it is certainly safe to say that certain groups can be ruled out in advanced and one group in particular is suspect number 1, that group is the same bunch of individuals who have carried out terror strikes in India before: Islamic extremists. While the left and the Cindy Sheehans of the world would have us believe that Iraq and George Bush are the principle cause for all the world’s terror, the reality is Islamic radicals don’t need a cause or an excuse, their goal has been clear since 622 AD, the destruction of all infidels wherever they may be found. These radical, like others around the world, are determined to live out their credo: submit, convert or die. The evidence is clear, it is epitomized by the statements of Iran’s president, who called for Israel to be wiped out. Israel, however, isn’t the only target,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/india.explosion/index.html

If you are a frequent reader of ThePhalanx.com, then you know that we would be remised if we went an entire week without saying something about Latin America’s most famous Mussolini wannabe, Hugo Chavez. This week has been a light week for Chavez, after being on a roll for most of September and October with one outlandish diatribe after another, perhaps Chavez had grown a little tired, or perhaps he felt even the people of Venezuela were growing a bit tired of his nasty habit of diverting attention away from problems at home to focus on imaged threats to his socialist paradise from abroad.

In any case, in spite of the fact that news has been slow from the Chavez camp this week, we were still able to find something interesting to report on the Mussolini of Caracas. You may remember that Chavez recently announced that he was expelling US-based missionaries from Venezuela. What has been Chavez’s gripe with the missionaries? Why they are in cahoots with the CIA of course, after all there is so much to be gained by US intelligence through an intense effort to infiltrate the indigenous tribes of remote Venezuelan rainforests. So much can be gained by providing them with food, medical supplies, clothing and safe drinking water and of course the gospel. Many of the indigenous tribes have openly acknowledged that the missionaries have done more for them than their own government. In light of this fact, hundreds of indigenous Venezuelans took to the streets in protest of Chavez’s plan.

Now we know that Chavez is a socialist and detests capitalism, but what is his gripe with the missionaries, beyond the imaged CIA threat. Is it symbolism or is there more to it? Well that’s quite simple. What is one thing that socialists embrace above all else? The primacy of the state, of course. And what is one thing they oppose above all things? Religion or spirituality of any type. Chavez is seeking to create a subject class of people in Venezuela subservient to the state and dependent upon the state for their very survival. He cannot allow a religious group to conduct charitable work right under his very noise. Chavez cannot allow people to embrace the notion that God, not the state, is supreme. Therefore, Chavez must strike and strike hard.

These missionaries are a threat, not only because of the threat posed by the spread of Christianity but also because their work demonstrates the failure of the government to provide meaningful opportunities for self help and individual achievement. In spite of all of Chavez’s promises, he has done nothing to alleviate poverty or encourage job creation or economic growth in Venezuela. All Chavez can be relied upon to do with any degree of consistency is blame others for his many failures. The missionaries in question are just the latest targets of Chavez blame politics.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1260317

Its hard to keep a good man down and even harder to keep a strong economy down. The US Commerce Dept has announced that the US economy grew by 3.8% during the last quarter, which marks another strong quarter of growth for the US economy. In spite of numerous attempts by the left to continually portray the US economy as languishing in the doldrums, the US economy continues to defy the naysayers, including the American media. Indeed, making in the press, reacted with surprise and silent disappointment at news of the economies continued growth. The left has exhausted a great amount of political capital in its attempts to convince the country that we aren’t on sound economic footing and the president is to blame. Well the president is to blame, but our footing is most certainly sound. Regardless of this, many have fallen for the Democratic spin and have convinced themselves of imagined economic decline. These are the same people, looking to government to make every decision of importance in their lives. Not only is the US economy resilient but has withstood the shock of Hurricane Katrina and the horde of unproductive poor people it unleashed upon many American cities and the economy has withstood the ever increasing price of oil. Why? Because we have lowered taxes and created a climate which favors economic growth. The president’s economic policies are again vindicated, while the leftist pro-European socialist preferences are further denigrated by the continued economic failure of Europe.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/gdp/2005-10-28-gdp-q3_x.htm

Lets say an individual opens a sandwich shop in a small town. He sells a variety of sandwiches to local patrons and tourists. The shop owner sells each sandwich for $3 a piece. The cost to produce each sandwich is about $1.85, which means the shop earns $1.15 profit on the sale of each sandwich. What does the shop owner do with their profit? Whatever they desire. They can expand their business, invest it, save for the children’s college fund, use it to purchase a house in the mountains, etc…Now lets suppose, that a rival sandwich shop closes down, or lets suppose the population doubles in the town, all of a sudden the demand for sandwiches doubles. More and more people are coming in to the sandwich shop, buying more and more sandwiches as lines wrap around the corner. Because demand has doubled, so too have the shop owner’s profits. Now should the shop owner charge less and earn less simply because more people want his product? No…of course not. The same can be said of a person’s labor. Labor, is like a product, we sell that labor to an employer in return, they pay us an agreed upon wage, after cost of living, transportation, food, etc…anything left over can be considered profit. Lets suppose there is a labor shortage at Company X and they simply can’t find enough software programmers or garment makers or crane operators, those they interview demand 25% more in salary. Should these potential employees lower their salary demand simply because there is a labor shortage? No…of course not. By the same token, the oil companies shouldn’t be compelled to lower their prices because demand has increased. Oil prices have increased because of the shear-increased volume in demand from China, India, Eastern Europe and right here in our own backyard. As demand increases oil companies will sell more barrels of oil and thus their profits will inexorably increase. This is known simply as the law of supply and demand. The oil companies, like any businesses are in business to make money, they aren’t charities or governments giving away a product or service. This message, however, is lost on politicians today, who look upon the oil companies as easy targets as they seek to score political points with the voters. No one likes to pay high prices so why not attack the oil companies and thus politicians maneuver to craft proposals that would place caps of profits and other such foolhardy schemes. Make no mistake about it…as soon as we allow the government to dictate what a business (large or small) can charge for its services, its only a matter of time before the same government dictates what salaries we deserve, and how much we can spend on a new car or house or how much we can own or where we can own it. There’s a word for such forms of government, it starts with an “F” and ends with an “ascism.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/28/OIL.TMP

We recounted earlier this week, how Wal-Mart is attempting change its image in the court of public opinion, but just as Wal-Mart is trying to revitalize its image, others are trying their best to reinforce negative images of the world’s largest retailer. Critics have produced a documentary entitled: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. This documentary levels a number of charges against the retailer, though they weren’t able to tie Wal-Mart to the Lincoln and Kennedy Assassinations. Among the assertions leveled critics contend, Wal-Mart pays low-wage and offers limited health benefits. And for this Wal-Mart should be ashamed? Wal-Mart should be praised. There is no legitimate argument for why Wal-Mart should be assailed. Only in a leftist world can a successful business be maligned for doing a good job. There is no justifiable reason for Wal-Mart to pay its workers any more than they do already. Employers should pay their employees based on the value of their work. Frankly, the vast majority of Wal-Mart staff are un-deserving of a higher wage as it would not be justified by the work they perform. Many Wal-Mart employees do not require specialized skills or training. It is conceivable that a trained dog or monkey could perform many of the same tasks now performed by Wal-Mart employees. Wal-Mart is a business not a charity and should not be expected to pay people what they want simply because they lacked the skills that are in demand to secure a higher paying job. Wal-Mart is not the reason these people earn such paltry salaries. The employees themselves are to blame for the lifestyle choices they have made, by disregarding education, by raising children they couldn’t afford, by cultivating self-destructive and poverty enhancing habits. If anything, Wal-Mart and other retailers should be praised for giving these people a job at all.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2005-10-26-wal-mart-film-usat_x.htm

While we haven’t spent more than a sentence covering the CIA leak case, we recognize that some frequent visitors have a great deal of interest in the subject, many of whom are either die hard Republicans opposed to anything that damages the president, while others are Democrats who want nothing more than to harm the GOP. Who are we kidding? No leftist visits The Phalanx. Frankly this whole case has done nothing for us and is about as interesting as watching grass grow on a cold winter’s day. For those of you, however, who seek a better understanding of this case, the good folks at the Christian Science Monitor have compiled an FAQ on the CIA leak case.

It looks like White House Counsel, Harriet Miers has thrown in the towel. Oh well, we didn’t know much about her except for the fact that she ran a lottery in Texas and went to church…sounds like a stellar candidate to us. Perhaps the President has finally lost it, or perhaps he knew something we didn’t. I guess we’ll never know, but then again, could we have afforded to take such a risk? Now the president has an opportunity to get it right the second time. Hopefully, the President will choose someone with constitutional experience. That person by no means has to be a judge, but they certainly should be a constitutional expert, which Miers clearly was not. With her legal expertise, Bush could have done no worse had he called Jacoby and Myers. After all if trial experience is the only requirement why should the president limit his choices to friends from Texas.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/miers.nominations/index.html

Recently Iran “elected” a new president. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former mayor of Tehran, was known as a hard-line conservative. The former mayor assured his countrymen and the foreign press he would govern as a moderate…well….so much for that nonsense. Ahmadinejad let the cat out of the bag this week. At the “The World without Zionism” Conference the new Iranian president made his position clear. In unmistakable words, Ahmadinejad said the state of Israel should be wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad also condemned fellow Muslim states that made peace or recognized Israel. The president vowed that he would not let up in the hostility toward Israel. With these simple words, the Islamic radicals of the world have their rallying cry and truth is revealed. The Phalanx is no great fan of Israel, but even the Jewish state’s harshest critics must recognize that Israel has bent over backwards to accommodate its enemies and to what avail? Withdraw…and they attack. Offer a host of concessions…and they attack. No matter what Israel does it will never be good enough. Why? Because they are Jewish!!! The Islamic radicals of the world, of which Iran is a principle component are governed by that familiar credo: submit, convert or die. Iran, however, won’t dare embark on a direct confrontation with Israel, as Israel would be the ones doing the “wiping out.” Instead these murderous cowards will lurk in the shadows and attack under cover of darkness, as that is their specialty. Even the appeasers of Europe were quick to recognize the savagery exposed in Iran’s statement. Perhaps, they will recognize that there is no reasoning with these terrorists.
Link to London Telegraph article

Recently we noted how Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage had failed in Congress. Ted Kennedy and fellow leftists, sought to enact legislation that would raise the minimum wage from $5.15/hr to $7.25/hr. Leftists argued such an increase was warranted as the cost of living had increased significantly since the last increase in 1997. They also noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult to raise a family on minimum wage. Minimum wage, however, should not be used to raise a family in the first place. Only the most selfish among us, would knowingly raise children, with such a paltry income. People must accept responsibility for their actions, anyone other than a teenager or college student earning minimum wage, should consider themselves a failure, as they have clearly squared life’s opportunities in choosing the path of least resistance. America’s businesses, many of which are small businesses, cannot afford to keep making such unwarranted adjustments. Like any other product or service, the value of a person’s labor is determined by its worth to the purchaser, in this case the employer. A person with specialized skills and abilities (such as a doctor, fireman, welder, carpenter, or truck driver), can demand higher wages because of the expertise they bring. A person earning minimum wage, by definition has few skills and should not expect a particularly high wage as their skills are a dime a dozen. Now Wal-Mart, who has been under fire for the wages it pays its lowest skilled workers is attempting to pull a Mussolini and cast itself as a champion of the so-called “working poor” by urging Congress to increase the minimum wage. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott recently said the minimum wage "is out of date with the times.” If Scott is so interested in raising the wages for his employees, why not simply raise the wage? It doesn’t take an act of Congress to compel Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, to take action on any issue. Scott’s position is not only detrimental to the economy, especially small business, but will do nothing to raise families out of poverty. If someone is truly interested in improving their lot in life, they will take the initiation first through education and then through hard work. Minimum wage is nothing more than a handout for the least productive among us.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2005-10-25-walmart_x.htm

If there ever were a reason to support gay marriage, this is it. The world’s oldest continuously operational terrorists organization, the Ku Klux Klan is planning an anti-gay marriage rally in Austin, Texas this Saturday. The rally will take place on the steps of city hall. The KKK wants to rally support for a proposition on the November ballot in Texas that would outlaw, the already outlawed practice of gay marriage. One has to wonder if they are on the right side of an issue , when one of the most notorious terrorist organizations, responsible for the deaths of thousands, comes out in support of your cause. We are all for free speech, but how can this country’s government justify arresting US citizens who are members of Al Qaeda, while leaving Klan membership unmolested.

Not all opponents of gay marriage welcome the support of the Klan and their murderous followers and admirers. Ryan Rush, Pastor of the Bannockburn Baptist Church and a chief supporter of the gay marriage amendment, has gone out of his way to distance himself and the movement from the Klan, noting they aren’t welcome in Austin. Nor should they be, the good people of Texas should come out in force to let these sheet wearing murderers and terrorists know that just as we stand against Al Qaeda and the forces of Islamic fascism, so too must we stand against domestic fascists as well.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/5171783/detail.html?rss=hou&psp=news

Frequent readers of the Phalanx are quite familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church, the so called Christian congregation has developed a name for themselves spreading hatred everywhere they go, an inversion of the “great commission” given to all true Christians. The Westboro Hate Mongers are led by “Reverend” Fred Phelps. Phelps and his “congregation” of hate frequently travel to the site of Iraqi war funerals to cheer and deride the mourners. Phelps and his cronies call these deaths (as well as the 9/11 terror attacks) God’s retribution upon a country that tolerates Gays. Phelps’ perversion of the scriptures would be laughable if not for the fact that he has corrupted dozens to his twisted view of Christianity. Britain’s Sky News, the sister station of America’s Fox News, secretly conducted a sweeping investigation into Phelps and his Westboro Hate Fest. They also filmed a hate filled speech by Phelps, in which he praised the London terror attacks and lamented that only a few dozen died rather than millions. Phelps also noted that America was deserving of such a fate. Phelps’ bigotry and hatred apparently knows no bounds and it is offensive that he calls himself Christian. Somehow, we find it hard to believe that Christ would approve of Phelps’ message. Regardless of one’s position of homosexuality, they are quite a few sins that Phelps is clearly guilty of. Rather than spreading a message of hate, Phelps should be down on his knees begging forgiveness or he may wake up to find that the fate he seeks for others has become his.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91136-1200311,00.html
http://www.godhatesfags.com/ (Westboro Baptist Church website)

Countries trade because it is to their advantage, from a cost standpoint, to produce such goods and services, which it can produce most cheaply and trade for the rest, thus reducing total production costs. This concept, known as comparative advantage, explains why nations like the United States, no longer specialize in producing textiles or other labor intensive, products as other nations have a comparative advantage for labor intensive production, the US and other developed countries (like Japan), however, have a comparative advantage for the production of goods and services which require a high degree of technical expertise. It is for this reason that much of the world’s software development is centered in Silicon Valley and not in Mexico. Comparative advantage works best with limited government interference, especially with regard to protectionism, which only results in higher costs for consumers and reduced efficiency. For decades, nations like France (and to a lesser extent, the United States), have violated the tenets of comparative advantage by subsidizing domestic agriculture. In fact, many countries are guilty of this practice, but none more so than France, who funnel billions to farmers with such reckless abandon. French farmers are notoriously inefficient, when compared with agriculture in the US, Canada, Australia and Brazil. This inefficiency leads to higher prices for French consumers and a waste of government resources. It is no surprise that Europeans spend a much larger percentage of their income on food than Americans. What the French farmers lack in productive efficiency they make up for in political clout. The French government wouldn’t dare of offending this powerful political voice in France. As a result, France has continued to throw up roadblocks in to the EU effort to negotiate a trade deal in Hong Kong in the coming weeks. France, it must be remembered is a socialist nation at heart and therefore efficiency and lower prices are less important than the power of the state and its control over the economy, such a power is a drug for French politicians, who are no more inclined to give that up than they are to give up philandering and cheating on their wives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4369778.stm

So it seems the Iraqis have approved the new federal constitution. With this hurdle now apparently cleared the people of Iraq are now free to form a new government. Elections are now slated for December. According to Iraq’s election commission, over 70% of Iraqis voted in favor of the constitution. Those who opposed it were largely Sunnis, but apparently Sunnis didn’t vote “No” in large enough margins to derail the constitutional process. The new Iraqi government, however, will have a tough job ahead of it. The vast majority of the minority Sunni population opposed the constitution and it is the Sunnis who make up a large portion of the insurgent terrorists operating in Iraq. The new government will have to be creative in their efforts to placate and re-assure the Sunnis, so as not to foment further violence and possibly civil war. What the vote does tell us is that most of the rest of Iraq are ready to put the past behind them and embrace democracy. There is no doubt that Al Qaeda and the Islamic radicals will do everything in their power to destroy that goal. The Sunnis’ however, should be pleased. Under a federal system, they will have a large degree of autonomy over their local and regional issues, giving them the freedom to choose their own destiny. To the radicals however, autonomy is not the goal, expansion and subjugation is. Their victory is won when representative government is defeated and Islamism is predominant. Only time will tell who will win, one thing is for certain, however, this is no longer America’s war, this is the Iraqi people’s war, they must bear the burdens and endure the hardships or this experiment will forever be foreign to the Iraqi people.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1841803,00.html

Over the weekend, millions of Brazilians went to the polls, no not to elect a new member of Congress or choose a new president, they were voting on a national referendum to determine whether the government should ban the sale of firearms. The referendum was soundly defeated with over 60% of the electorate voting to keep their firearms or at least in favor of the right to posses them should they desire to do so. Brazil is without question one of the most violent countries on Earth. For all the talk about crime in America, there were twice as many murders in Brazil (a country whose population equals half that of the United States). Why then, with so much violence, didn’t the people of Brazil vote in favor of the ban? The left and outside observers, especially in Europe, will the dismiss the result as the byproduct of a skilled “No” campaign that manipulated the electorate, in reality the Brazilians are keenly aware that such a ban would leave law abiding citizens defenseless as the criminals would in no way be inhibited by such an embargo. Gun bans have never been linked to a reduction in crime. Indeed, in Europe where firearms are virtually unknown, violent crime is at an all time high. The existence of firearms does not create a criminal, anymore than the existence of rope will drive someone to hang themselves. Once again, politicians looked for the quick fix, the window dressing to solve a deep rotted problem. Violence and murder in Brazil is a serious problem, rooted in poverty and culture, not it in the existence of guns. If the mere existence of guns influenced the crime rate, then it would stand to reason that in every country from the US to Brazil to Britain, violent crime would have been higher decades ago when firearms were more prevalent. No such statistics exist, for the simple reason that no such correlation exists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4371120.stm

Recently, leftist leaders including, , Ted Kennedy, attempted to enact legislation that would bring about an increase in the minimum wage. The last time this wage floor was increased was in 1997. Currently, the minimum wage stands at $5.15/hr., had this bill passed Congress, the wage would have risen to $7.25/hr. Leftists complain that since the economy is performing well and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future, a change is warranted…wait a minute, did anyone catch that? These are the same Democrats, who have charged since 2001, that our economy is continuing to slide further into the toilet, now, when it suits them, they recognize that the economy is not in the toilet after all. Leftists further note, that the cost of living (including gas and housing) have all increased since the last change in 1997. Minimum wage advocate, Ted Kennedy, argued a 40-hour-a-week minimum wage job would leave a family of three nearly $5,000 below the poverty line. And that’s exactly the point! Minimum wage, shouldn’t exist in the first place, but since it does, those who earn this wage, shouldn’t expect to be able to raise a family on such wages. To do so is foolhardy at best and downright selfish at worst. This reality highlights something we have been saying for a while. Those who are poor, by and large, are in that predicament, because of their own personal failures. There is no excuse for anyone attempting to raise a family on minimum wage. Minimum wage is an appropriate wage for a minimum skill job. It is not the responsibility of the state to ensure, that those who lack initiative and lack resourcefulness should be rewarded for failure. Whether earning minimum wage or 100K per year, people must realize that in life there are priorities. From birth those priorities begin with education, then financial stability and then raising a family, not the other way around. The left continues to complain that the cost of living has increased, yet the left says nothing as the people they are attempting to further subjugate, continue to practice self-destructive (and poverty inducing) behavior.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1005/24edwages.html

We’ve already made it abundantly clear that the CIA leak, Rove, Plame, etc...makes no never mind to us. This subject generates about as much interest as a Confederate War bond. The fact of the matter is, however, Bush has a real problem. It really doesn’t matter if anyone in the White House is indicted, it really doesn’t matter about guilt or innocence. There is a perception of impropriety, and this perception is making it increasingly difficult to govern. It is understood, that loyalty is an issue of grave importance to the President, but at what costs? Is loyalty more important than fulfilling one’s duty? The president now finds it difficult to push through any programs or proposals (remember Social Security reform), they are tainted on arrival, making his presidency a lame duck, less than a year into his second term. So what should the president do? First the president has to decide, whether its more important to have people close to him who are loyal but are also constant distractions or if its more important to push through his agenda in the time he has remaining. Bush should clean house. His staff should be composed of individuals who are beyond reproach. The collection of yes men in Bush’s White House only lend credence the Democratic arguments. Albeit true, by dismissing Rove and others, Bush would be giving the Democrats what they want, but it would also stun their criticism, freeing Bush from meaningless distractions.

For all intents and purposes, it can be safely argued that modern free market economics, began in Europe, Britain to be exact, after all Britain is the birthplace of Adam Smith, who ushered in a new ear of thinking with his treatise, “the Wealth of Nations.” Smith and a growing number of philosophers, politicians, economists and ordinary businessmen saw the mercantilist system of the 1700s as an inferior system that inhibited innovation and growth. The crucible upon which mercantilism is founded is protectionism. This economic principle is fundamentally flawed and had fallen largely out of favor by the 19th century, during this era modern capitalism emerged as a major force. Capitalism, like all human endeavors, can be equally harmful if left to excess. Fundamental is the rule of law. Today, nations in Western Europe, Latin America and elsewhere have given to excess again and have begun to re-embrace the failed system of socialism. Socialism, like Fascism and Mercantilism, requires an active and dominant role for the state. Socialism inhibits the free exchange of goods and services. Today, Europe is again the battle ground for economic theory as the forces of socialism are pitted against the advocates of the free market system. The players, however, aren’t easily identifiable. The socialist countries are nations like France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc, while the capitalists are represented by the former Soviet bloc (Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc…). The nations of Western Europe have attempted to solve their country’s ills through increasing social economic and political control. This constant intervention, however, has failed to produce the heaven on earth its advocates have championed. Indeed, in the countries where such heavy-handed socialism is practiced, the results are far from encouraging. The nations of Western Europe are plagued by an increasingly stagnant economy, low birth rates, unemployment, growing crime, and social unrest. Meanwhile, the Eastern Bloc has learned from the failures of the west. They have adopted a model, quite similar to that of the United States, one that limits government intervention, providing individuals with incentives to create, rather than depend upon the state. The governments of Poland, Romania, Slovakia, the Baltic states, etc…have all taken this lessen to heart by lowering taxes, reducing government expenditures, loosening bureaucratic red tape and encouraging growth. The results are unquestionable. Today, growth in Eastern Europe far exceeds that in the west. Regardless of the facts, the western states, cannot and will not change. Their populations have grown far to slothful and dependent upon the government trough. So much so that the mere mention of “reform” sparks protests and strikes.

In America approximately half of the country’s population attends church services of a regular basis, though about 80% of the population claim to be Christian. The rest of the population is made up of Muslims, Jews and Hindu, with a small number of Buddhists and various smaller sects. A sizeable portion of the US population is composed of atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and even some Satanists. The beauty of America lies in the first Amendment to the US Constitution, which clearly maintains a freedom of worship as a basic right of all citizens. Nominally Egypt has a freedom of religion as well, in fact roughly 10% of Egyptians (approximately 8 million) are Coptic Christians. Coptics are a sect of Christianity separate from the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions, but sharing the same fundamental beliefs. The Coptic Church was founded by the Apostle Mark in the years after Christ’s death. For centuries Coptics accounted for the majority of Egypt’s population, that is until Muslims marauders from Arabia embarked on armed conquest of the Middle East and Mediterranean world, since that time relations between Muslims and Christians have been tenuous at best. Islamic fundamentalists regard the very existence of a Christian church in the heart of their country as an offense, especially one that stands by its faith and does not kow-tow to the all-knowing mullahs of Islam. This week Muslims have taken offense to a DVD, no doubt freely distributed by Islamists, which depicts a play conducted at a local Coptic Church. The play shows the deprivation and misery a local boy experiences upon his conversion to Islam. To the Mullahs, this is unacceptable, how dare Christians re-enforce a message to their own people, after all Christians are supposed to be spreading the message of Islam or teaching that Christianity is not the answer, right? One must remember that a Muslim can never be “offended” to do so is apparently to invite death. Islamic radicals have sparked rioting and caused the deaths of three people, including a nun who was stabbed, all in the name of a religion of peace. Even the Egyptian government, no friend to the Christians of Egypt, recognized that the radicals were to blame for stirring up trouble. The reaction of Islamists further demonstrates the inescapable truth in the Coptic production. These Islamists can’t even live in peace with their own countrymen, who are of the same ethnicity, who speak the same language, yet happen to be Christian. They are governed by a credo, which draws no distinction between Arab and Westerner, the credo is simple: submit, convert or die. Wherever there is radical Islam, this credo shall be enforced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4366232.stm

Yes we admit it, when it comes to material, today is a lackluster day at best. We have scanned the headlines from several major cities in America. We have perused the news in Britain , Canada, the Middle East, Asia and even Australia and still nothing. There simply isn’t anything going on today, that raises even an eyebrow at the Phalanx. Sure…we could write about Tom Delay, but frankly it is such a non-issue, our hearts just wouldn’t be in it. Does anyone really care what kind of mug shot Delay posed for? If you do then keep looking on the Google blogsearch, I’m sure there are plenty of sites that will provide great detail on such a captivating subject, but the Phalanx isn’t one of them. Then there’s the ongoing saga about Karl Rove and the leak in the White House and somebody named Plame and so on and so forth. Generally we pride ourselves on being knowledgeable about current events, but this whole issue is so unimportant to us, that we would be at a loss even to identify the key players, let alone present a position of the issues. Now we aren’t saying that this issue doesn’t have some far reaching implications, no doubt it does, but it just doesn’t interest us, like studies on poverty, tirades from Hugo Chavez, nuclear confrontations with North Korea or public schools. Call us narrow in our focus if you like, but backroom politics just never was our thing and given that we aren’t Republicans its hard to get too worked up over their plight.

AIDS is one of those subjects that often spark vocal debate. Dare we say it, however, but the AIDS “crisis” needn’t be. AIDS, it should be noted is 100% preventable. If people acted responsibility, both here and abroad, AIDS could be easily brought under control. To hear AIDS advocates, however, one would In reality, AIDS kills on average 14000 people per year in America. This accounts for ½ of 1% of all the deaths in the US in a given year. By contrast Cancer kills over half a million people every single year, accounting for 23% of all US deaths. Yet AIDS research amounts to $3 billion per year and Cancer research $6 billion. For those with limited math skills, the proportion of aids to Cancer funding, clearly favors AIDS. Much has been made of the fact that AIDS numbers in America exceed 1 million, which is apparently the highest number since the 1980s, when much less was known about the HIV virus. The US population in December 1989, was just over 248 million people. By contrast the US Census bureau estimates the current US population at 296.3 million people. Using such statistics, we can deduce that 1 out of every 248 people in America had AIDS in the late 1980s. And by today’s estimates 1 out of every 296 Americans have AIDS. In other words .4% of the US population was living with AIDS in the 1980s versus .3% today. As you can obviously see, the numbers have fallen, but MTV foolishly reports these numbers as reaching epic proportions. This is further evidence of an agenda with many members of the press. The fact that our population today is nearly 300 million compared with 250 million in 1990, is largely ignored. Earlier, this year a report from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) added a new dimension to the equation. As noted by the ACSH, the number of people living with AIDS is a good thing, because it means the number dieing as a proportion of those living with the disease is in decline. In other words, more and more people with AIDS are living longer, and more productive lives, thanks to advances in treatment. Treatment that can be largely attributed to the huge amount invested by the US in AIDS research. What’s disheartening about this study is that 250,000 of those living with AIDS today have no idea. Many of these people are continuing to live their lives and possibly spreading the disease. This isn’t a failure of research and a lack of commitment by those seeking a cure. This is a sign of ignorance and laziness, America’s biggest enemy. People living reckless and loose lives are the primary cause for the steady progress of this disease. If people weren’t taking such cavalier attitudes toward sex and promiscuity then AIDS could be more easily contained.
Terje Anderson, of the National Association of People with AIDS, stated earlier this year that: "One million people are more than enough, and our country has got to respond." Exactly how are we supposed to respond? The Bush administration has increased AIDS funding every year. Currently the US is spending $3 billion on AIDS research every year, for a virus, which has infected less than ½ of 1% of the US population. By contrast Heart disease is the biggest killer of Americans, followed by Cancer. AIDS isn’t even in the top 10. In fact Diabetes kills more than AIDS, as well as Alzheimer’s and a little known ailment called Septicemia (blood poisoning). How much money do you suppose is spent on eradicating Diabetes, the 6th biggest killer in America? Less than $800 million, that’s how much, yet diabetes is the 6th largest killer in America and these critics argue the US isn’t doing enough? Based on the numbers one could argue, the US is doing too much for AIDS.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.566/news_detail.asp
http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/nat-total.txt
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1504124/20050614/index.jhtml?headlines=true
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/PRO/Cancer%20Statistics%202004.ppt
http://plan.cancer.gov/foldouts.shtml

In politics, just as in life there must be priorities. One must decide what is more important given limited resources, time, manpower, etc. In politics priorities are often reversed, pressing and important issues, like Social Security, Crime and National Security must share the stage with unimportant or less pressing issues like baseball steroid use, immigration and Karl Rove. Very often politicians choose to focus on these non-issues because they generate media attention, while not requiring any degree of political skill or intellectual capacity to solve. Politicians in Georgia are not immune to this. Indeed, politicians feed on these non-issues as a means of demonstrating effectiveness to their constituents. Recently politicians in Georgia staged a rally at the state capitol to protest the scourges of illegal immigration. Now don’t get us wrong, illegal immigration is a problem and the nation would be well advised to get serious with regard to our porous borders. Before the likes of Al Qaeda use them to devastating affect. Illegal immigration, however, is largely a federal issue, not something that should be of paramount concern to state legislators in Georgia. Nonetheless, these GOP legislators railed against the use of tax payer dollars to fund public assistance programs for illegals, which is a rather moot point considering public assistance is only available to US citizens and resident aliens in the first place. There are a host of pressing issues before state governments, not least of which is the Supreme Court sanctioned effort to steal private property (i.e., eminent domain) for developers, something the state GOP was in favor of until the populace caught wind. We have since learned that organizers of the immigration rally paid homeless people to hold up signs and protest for the cameras, further demonstrating how unimportant this issue is. It’s a sad day when legislators are so desperate for attention that they will urge passage of bills to make illegal practices that are already illegal and pay bums to chant and carry on, just to boost their already over inflated egos.
Link to AJC article
Link to follow-up AJC article

No government is perfect; in fact every country on Earth suffers from bureaucratic inertia and political infighting. The US is no exception. The framers of the US Constitution and those that have followed have crafted a government that has stood the test of time. Our constitution has functioned well with only minor alterations over the past 230 years. Nonetheless, we at the Phalanx would like to suggest some modifications.

For the Executive Branch, the Phalanx would like to suggest that we lengthen the term of the president to 6 years and limit presidents to one term. Furthermore, we should abolish the winner-take all, electoral system and assign electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote in each state. The president should be given a line item veto, just as many governors have, enabling them to better combat pork barrel politics.

The executive departments should also be streamlined, eliminating such bastions of bureaucracy like the Departments of Education, Labor, HHS, and HUD, to include only: Defense, Justice, State, Treasury and Commerce. The federal government should not be involved in administering social service programs, such efforts should be relegated to the states, if at all (any national norms or federal mandates would be administered by the states, with the Justice Department charged with overseeing compliance).

The Legislative Branch should also undergo some changes, beginning with term limits. Elected representatives to the House and Senate should be restricted to 12 years in office (6 terms for the House and 2 terms for the Senate). The Congress should also be brought into compliance with the 27th Amendment, which expressly forbids pay increases, without an intervening election. At present, Congress gets around this restriction by calling them “cost of living adjustments.” Any subsequent adjustments in pay should not apply to current members of Congress.

A strict limit should be imposed on the amount time Congress sits in active session. Congress should convene for no more than 100 calendar days in a given year (barring special legislative sessions convened by the president).

With regard to the Judicial Branch, federal judges (including the Supreme Court) should be restricted to a 20-year term. Anyone over age 65, should be limited to 10-year term and justices must be forbidden from citing foreign law in any court rulings.

Beyond these structural changes, Congress would be required to pass a balanced budget unless a 2/3 majority of Congress authorizes otherwise.

Finally with regard to federal elections, no one should be allowed to vote in federal elections without passing a written competency test. Just as we prohibit the criminally insane and those who are mentally deficient from participating in the electoral process, those who are ignorant of our democratic process should also be excluded, as they are easily manipulated and are a threat to our republic. Such a competency test would be similar in scope to a citizenship test and would include similar questions such as:

How many states are there in the Union (the United States)?
What do we celebrate on the 4th of July?
Independence Day celebrates independence from whom?
What country did we fight during the Revolutionary War?
Who was the first president of the United States?
Who is the President of the United States today?
Who is the Vice President of the United States today?
Who elects the President of the United States?
Who becomes our President if the President dies?
What do we call changes to the Constitution?
What are the three branches of our Government?
What is the legislative branch of our Government?
How many Senators are there in Congress?
Name the two Senators from your state.
How many voting members are in the House of Representatives?
Who is the head of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government?
Name the highest part of the Judiciary Branch of our Government?
What is the supreme law of the United States?
What is the Bill of Rights?
What is the capital of the state you live in?
Who is the current governor of the state you live in?
Who becomes President if both the President and Vice President die?
Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
What were the 13 original states?
Name some countries that were our enemies during World War II?
What was the 49th state added to our Union (the United States)?
How many full terms can a President serve?
What are the requirements to be eligible to become President?
Who nominates judges for the Supreme Court?
How many Supreme Court justices are there?
What is the head executive of a state government called?
What is the head executive of a city government called?
When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?
What is the minimum voting age in the United States?
Who signs bills into law?
What is the highest court in the United States?
Who was President during the Civil War?
What was the 50th state added to our Union (the United States)?
What branch of government has the power to declare war?
What is the introduction to the Constitution called?
Name one right or freedom guaranteed by the first amendment?
Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military?
In what month do we vote for the President?
In what month is the new President inaugurated?
How many times may a senator or Congressman be reelected?
What are the two major political parties in the United States today?

Frankly, anyone who can’t answer each and every one of the above questions (correctly) should forfeit their voting privilege, until such time as they can demonstrate mastery of the material and the larger concepts.

Hugo Chavez, a topic of frequent discussion at the Phalanx, has captured the spotlight again, but then again isn’t that what he’s all about? Chavez, who no doubt, jumped at the chance to grant an interview to the BBC, lashed out at the United States and George Bush and repeated a claim that he has made rather frequently, the delusion that the US is planning to invade Venezuela to gain access to its oil wealth. Chavez has milked this fantasy for all it’s worth, using it as a rallying cry in his home country to ensure that the people will see him as their savior and ignore his tyrannical ways. Chavez asserted that the US is a terrorist nation and his hostile to Latin America; though his arguments lacked specifics and the all-accommodating BBC wasn’t about to actually press the South American strongman on any points of fact. Chavez also stated that George Bush should have no reason to fear him or his country, Chavez, however, is mistaken, Bush isn’t the one trying to foment a climate of fear, that is Chavez. Chavez is the one who makes wild, baseless accusations against the US, to instill fear into the hearts of his people. There in lies the essence of his power, his ability to distract and draw attention away from the plight of his people is legendary. In reality, Chavez has done nothing to help his people, with unemployment quickly approaching 20% (when Chavez took power unemployment hovered around 12%, now it exceeds 17% and still climbing) and nearly half the population is living below the poverty line. If anything, Chavez’s “reforms” have only made the situation worse. His socialist land grabs have discouraged foreign investment and limited job opportunities, while his failure to confront the organized drug cartels and other criminals have led to a murder rate which is 8x higher that of the United States, yet Chavez calls himself a champion of the people. Under his leadership, Venezuela’s economy remains woefully dependent upon the volatile oil market, accounting for nearly 80% of the country’s revenues. Given the fact that the nation’s oil revenue is controlled by the state, do you think Chavez would use that money to invest in his country, improving infrastructure and encouraging the development of industry and leading his people to self-sufficiency? No…of course not. Quite the contrary, Chavez’s efforts are destined to lead his people to greater dependency. To distract from this inescapable reality Chavez continues to pull one Mussolini after another, hoping to convince people the US is a boogey man hiding behind every door. The real enemy of Venezuela, however, resides in Caracas, not Washington.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4359386.stm

More recently we have been scanning the leftist forums to gain an understanding into the mind of today’s modern socialists. One would be amazed with the delusional, mind-numbing drivel and conspiracy theories that ooze from their leftist keyboards. One interesting blogger on the “Democratic Underground” posted a speech from perennial socialist Ted Kennedy. The speech was delivered at the 1980 Democratic Convention.

President Reagan was right then and Kennedy was wrong then (and now). The fact of the matter is there are two kinds of people in America: those who expect the fruits of life to be handed to them and those who develop the skills to plant and harvest those fruits themselves. Today those two groups of people are locked in a pitched battle for the destiny of this great country. The left and their political allies within the Democratic Party are represented in the aforementioned words of Ted Kennedy. Kennedy’s words exalt the belief that the state is a parent, the state must care for its people, as if we are automatons incapable of making decisions for ourselves. Reagan was right, Social Security should be voluntary...but as we have seen some people have been so conditioned by leftist propaganda, they believe that the state should make those decisions.

People, who harbor such sentiments are already lost, they are drags on society, they can never be expected to innovate or create or to lead, only to follow, only to take, never to give, only to squander, never to save. Kennedy’s words are indeed prophetic and the battle is going his way.
www.democraticunderground.com

In the past we have written at length about the inadequacies in our educational system. The simple fact that the US spends more per pupil than all but two nations, yet ranks at the bottom of every academic survey is telling in and of itself. Now a report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) proves what we have been saying. In spite of all the grandiose schemes and in spite of all the efforts to pump more money into education, American students still languish in the doldrums of academic incompetence. According to NAEP, there has been almost no improvement in reading scores in well over a decade and improvement in mathematical ability is “sluggish” at best. These tests also give us the first clear sign of how the country is doing since the adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act. And indeed no child has been left behind, because they are ALL stuck at the starting gate. President Bush and his Democratic and Republican allies pushed this nonsensical bill through Congress early in his administration. Among other things the bill promised rigorous testing to ensure that students are proficient in their areas of study. Exactly, whose brainchild was it to contend that more testing is how you improve education in America? If anything all these tests do is waste more time as students prepare for exams, while educators “teach the test.” Meanwhile Johnny is just as stupid as ever. Naturally, some educators are quick to make excuses for America’s lackluster performance. Tom Loveless with the Brookings Institution argued that over the past decade the Hispanic population has doubled and that may have contributed to poor performance in reading. This implies that prior to this population doubling, US reading scores were stellar. On the contrary US scores in reading, math, science, etc…have languished for years, not just the last decade. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said the country is on the right track, but only if the track leads to the unemployment line. How can America hope to sustain its position as the world’s preeminent economic power with such mediocrity? Whether a child attends a public or private school, parents must become more personally involved in their child’s education. That doesn’t mean attending football games and renting limos for the prom. That means ensuring that they perform well academically. Education is an investment for the future and right now education is not generating a return on that investment, much like Social Security.
Link to Washinton Times article

If you are a regular visitor to ThePhalanx.com, then you are undoubtedly familiar with our position on the Democratic Party and race. While the Democrats have portrayed themselves as champions of the poor and advocates for racial equality. The reality is Democrats, like most politicians, seek only to enhance and maintain their political power. Indeed, Democratic policies don’t improve opportunities for the poor or lead people to live self-sufficient lives, Democratic policies create subservience and foment dependence upon government, creating a subject class of citizens who “owe” the Democratic party and can be relied upon to sustain their power. It is for this reason that Democrats oppose true education reform, as educated citizens needn’t be dependent upon politicians for their survival. Not only are Democrats no friends of the poor, but their record on racial equality is also a sham. Why do you suppose that minorities lack any leadership positions within the Democratic Party? Why do you suppose that neither Party Chairman, Howard Dean have nor Presidential Candidate John Kerry had Blacks on their staff. Indeed, Dean has been credited with quite a number of off the cuff racially offensive remarks, yet has never been called on it. How is it that a Klansman can rise to a leadership position within the Democratic Party in the 21st century, but a minority cannot? The answer is simple. The Democrats are all about distraction. The one time a person of color, Maynard Jackson, vied for a position as party leader, the good ole boys in the party from Clinton on down, closed ranks and made certain the position went to the incompetent Terry Mcauliffe, that was not by accident, it was by design. Democratic policy is based on paternalism, the belief that they know best, which is an attitude we liken to a slave owner. Slaveowners claimed that their slaves were better off under their control. They too claimed that they were acting in the best interests of their slaves and were better prepared to make decisions for them. Now we see an overt effort by Democrats to undermine those minorities who refuse to tow the Democratic Party line. In other words, those who are refusing to become subservient to Democratic Paternalistic politicians. Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is one such example. Steele is a Republican and possible candidate for US Senate, as such he is persona no grata to the Democrats. It seems the Democrats are so determined to undermione the upstart Steele, that they have been illegally snooping into Steele’s financial and credit reports. Several prominent Black leaders in Maryland, have recognized this Democratic attack for what it is and have critized the Democratic effort as clearly racist. Some political activists have wondered alloud why their has been no outcry from the Congressional Black Caucus. Well that’s a simple answer as well: for the same reason their were no complaints from house slaves when the foremen beat and shackeled the fieldhands. They are happy to have some small meausre of influence, however insignifant that may be, and will turn a blind eye to injustice when it doesn’t suit their political ends.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051017-104359-6198r.htm

Earlier this year, the State of Georgia passed a new law requiring a valid photo id before a person could cast a ballot. From the moment the bill was proposed, advocates for the “poor” (ie, the lazy) and minority rights groups complained that the law reeked of Jim Crow. These groups which included: AARP, the NAACP, ACLU, Common Cause and others, argued that the Photo ID amounted to nothing more than a poll tax, which were made unconstitutional with the ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964. In the state of Georgia a driver’s license or state id costs $20 for 5 years or $35 for 10 years. Are we to believe that $4 per year is an undue burden for the populace? Opponents argue the bill was designed to suppress the votes of minorities and the poor because the legislature is under GOP control and the poor generally vote Democratic. It seems preposterous to fathom that GOP leaders could envision that requiring a Photo ID would result in a suppression of democratic votes. What the Photo ID commotion really is is another Mussolini-esque non-issue, designed simply to garner media attention and prove to their core Democratic constituents that their leaders are acting in their best interests.

Further demonstrating that Photo ID circus is a non-issue is the fact that those who find it cost prohibitive to acquire a state id, will be provided with one FREE OF CHARGE. So essentially it is a poll tax of zero dollars and zero cents, but apparently even zero is too high for the poor and the elderly. In most every other developed nation on Earth a Photo ID is required to cast a vote, yet in Georgia such a requirement is considered a political attack. Regardless of this, a Federal Judge in Rome, Georgia sided with the ACLU and its partners, arguing that the photo ID "unduly burdens the right to vote.” Generally, one can expect the state will appeal the decision and it will likely end up before the Supreme Court. Regular Phalanx readers are no doubt confused, as the Phalanx generally takes a libertarian view on such government intrusions and today will be no exception. The Photo ID requirement IS a government intrusion and if mandated by law, tramples on our established right to privacy. It is NOT, however, a burden on minorities and the poor and because ID opponents do not object to use on civil libertarian grounds, one must take exception with their reasoning and naturally conclude that their objections are tantamount to smoke and mirrors, designed to draw attention away from genuine issues that should be of concern to their constituents. Voting is not a right and the state has an obligation to ensure that elections are devoid of fraud. A birth certificate or another non-photo document, does not prove categorically that a person is who they say they are. Unless someone can offer another suggestion, which satisfies the need for electoral fairness, with established privacy concerns, then we argue some privacy must be relinquished in order to exercise the privilege of voting.
Link to AJC news article
Link to Georgia Dept. of Driver Services

Yet another report from yet another Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), this time Transparency International (TI), an anti-corruption NGO has released a report ranking the world’s most corrupt nations. The US is ranked 17 out of over 160 countries, not bad considering we have pockets of corruption like New Orleans to contend with. The list, however, should come as no-surprise. Those countries with the highest levels of abject poverty are among the most corrupt. Countries like Chad, Bangladesh, Haiti, Angola and Turkmenistan ranked at the bottom of the survey. These countries and several others also rank at the bottom as far as poverty, with well over 70% of their respective populations living in absolute squalor. Corruption, however, is not limited to the poorest of the poor, nations like Russia continue to show and inclination for underhandedness. The implications for such rampant corruption are clear. "Corruption is a major cause of poverty as well as a barrier to overcoming it," said TI chairman Peter Eigen. “The two scourges feed off each other, locking their populations into a cycle of misery." This fact is inescapable, a fact many poor countries ignore in their quest to blame the evil and hated rich countries for their own failures. Poverty needn’t be an endless cycle. Many countries have emerged from war, colonization, oppression, high levels of poverty and dictatorship to become vibrant and prosperous economies. All of these countries have had one thing in come, they all did it themselves, they didn’t wait for others to solve their problems for them, they didn’t insist on playing the blame game and they embrace democracy and the rule of law. Central and South Asia along with Sub Saharan Africa are two regions most plagued by the dual menace of corruption and poverty. These are also two regions also plagued by endless wars and ethnic strife, perhaps when these nations embrace the inescapable reality that they are the masters of their own fate, they will be able to make the necessary decisions that will end the grip of poverty in their country. Taiwan, for example, has the lowest percentage of its population living below the poverty line (1%), yet only a generation ago Taiwan was one of the poorest nations in the world. Taiwan, however, bet on its people and won. That story is echoed in other countries including Ireland, Singapore and South Korea. More recently, several Sub-Saharan African nations have also seen the light, including: Ghana, Uganda and Mauritius. Mauritius is a model for Sub-Saharan Africa (and every other developing nation) the island nation near Madagascar, has been a stable democracy since gaining independence in the 1960s. The country has the highest per capita income and lowest poverty rate in all of Africa. In fact, at 10%, its poverty rate is lower than the United States or the United Kingdom.
Link to TI report
Link to BBC article

The FBI recently issued a report on violent crime in America. According to the report the murder rate in this country has dropped to a low not seen since 1965. Before we uncork the Champaign, one must realize, that there were well over 16000 murders in this country last year. That’s 16 THOUSAND, in terms of wars that would rank 2004 after the Civil War, WWI& II, Vietnam and Korea but ahead of both Gulf Wars, the Spanish-American war, the Mexican War, the War of 1812 and the American Revolution. To be fair the US doesn’t have the highest murder rate in the world. That distinction belongs to Columbia, but our murder rate is far higher than every other industrialized country on earth. That rate is also higher than quite a few developing countries, including: Armenia, Yemen, India, Dominica, Azerbaijan, Slovakia, Romania and Malaysia, just to name a few. So one must ask, where’s the outrage? The left has worked themselves into a frenzy, protesting and complaining about the Iraq war, but is virtually silent about the war going on right here at home. Those leftist that do speak, use their same tired arguments that the reason for the high crime rate in this country is poverty. They argue the US government should do more (naturally). Generally, “do more” means spend more money to fight poverty, but is poverty the cause of crime? If so then why are there so many countries with much higher poverty rates, yet much lower crime rates (including those mentioned earlier)? If poverty is the cause of crime, then why have crime rates soared in the 20th century, as the poverty rate plummeted? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that crime rates would have been significantly higher in 1900, 1920, 1940 and 1960 than they are today? The reality is poverty has little to do with crime. Conservatives argue it’s a breakdown in the family, but is it? Several industrialized countries have high teenage birthrates, including Britain, New Zealand and Canada. And many industrialized countries have a high prevalence of single parent homes, including: Canada (1), New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Ireland and South Korea. None of these countries, however, are plagued with the type of depravity that occurs everyday on many of America’s streets. We can be happy that murder rates are down in this country, but anyone who can cheer at 16000 murders should have their head examined. In truth there is no simple solution to account for what has happened to America in the last century, but truth be told it is a national shame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/politics/18crime.html

There is certainly one good thing about demagogues, they are consistent and stay on message. One never has to wonder what they are going to say next. Perhaps no one is more grateful for this than the media, they can write a story, file it on their computer and just wait for the next diatribe, then change the dates and maybe the location and release the story. No two demagogues are more consistent than Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. Both leaders are fanatical tyrants who rule under the guise of democracy and both are demagogues who see America as the root of all the world’s troubles.

Speaking of troubles, guess who’s to blame for all the world’s poverty, wars and pollution. Well according to Chavez and Mugabe, America is to blame, who else. In fact, not only are we the cause for all the world’s problems, but the US, according to Chavez, is “threatening” all life on Earth. Mugabe, not to be outdone, likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and Mussolini, now if that doesn’t make the murderous, home destroying, vote rigging Mugabe the biggest hypocrite in world history, then nothing will. Chavez and Mugabe are the dynamic duo of hypocrites and their diatribes at the UN conference on hunger is laughable, especially Mugabe. While we may detest Chavez and his frequently polarizing fantasies, at least he hasn’t driven half his nation to the bring of hunger. Mugabe could easily be characterized as having orchestrated genocide in Zimbabwe, yet the participants at the UN conference, equally eager to pass blame for their failures on to someone else, were quick to join in applause.

Not all representatives at the UN conference choose to stoop to the level of the dynamic demagogue duo. Brazil’s President Lula, a leftist himself, was more pragmatic, while he naturally appealed to rich countries to do more in fighting hunger; he also appealed to poor countries to stamp out corruption in their own governments. Lula, points out a stark reality, those countries in abject poverty are all noted for their governmental corruption and lack of rule of law. Take Zimbabwe and Venezuela, those who oppose the ruling regime, may find themselves under government scrutiny, or worse. It was fitting that the UN Food Conference was held in Rome, as the dynamic duo turned the forum into a convention for distraction, the likes of which would have made Italy’s own Mussolini proud. The fact that Mugabe could charge that America was to blame for world poverty (and war) and receive a resounding applause speaks volumes. Here we have a collection of people that have squandered their countries resources, while abusing their political power. We have countries that have engaged in petty wars they can’t afford, while their country’s birth rate shoots through the roof, exactly how does the US come into play? Exactly how has the US fomented this crisis? The answer is simple, the US is not to blame, the US is simply a convenient target. America has contributed billions in aid, donated thousands of tons of food and even cancelled the debts of some of the world’s poorest nations, yet still they applaud. The problem of poor nations, much like individual poverty, is a direct byproduct of culture and attitude, including an entitlement attitude, which holds that other (i.e., rich nations) should bare the blame and responsibility for the failures of these countries and their corrupt governments. Those nations that stamp out corruption, those who adopt a mature attitude toward reproduction and family planning and those who embrace individual liberty and the rule of law have erased such abject poverty, while nations like Zimbabwe with their tyrannical leadership continue to grapple with it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/10/17/un.mugabe.ap/

There are oxymorons in the English language and then there are Oxymorons, but none take the cake like the “American Nazi Party.” At The Phalanx, we have written at length about stupidity in America, well the headline of this article says it all. The so-called American Nazi Party came calling on the streets of Toledo, Ohio over the weekend. City officials were unable to call off the march because the Nazi’s didn’t apply for a parade permit, they were simply walking down the city’s sidewalks. Naturally, local residents were upset and came out in force to resist the march. Now we at The Phalanx can’t condone violence and mob rule, but we certainly aren’t going to shed many tears if these Nazis got beaned on the head, or worse. How can any American in their right mind call themselves a Nazi? Only someone truly ignorant can even fathom such a thought. This is typical Mussolini-esque behavior, as they seek to blame others for their own failures in life. Everything the Nazi’s stand for is contrary to the founding principles of the United States. The Nazis were fascists who believed in total state control, suppression of individual liberties, the destruction of freedom of religion and the abolition of spirituality (to be replaced with subservience to the state and Hitler worship), elimination of freedom of the press, elimination of freedom of speech and the destruction of representative government, to say nothing of their sense of racial superiority. Had the Nazis won their bid for world conquest during WWII, we as Americans would be slaves today, yet these backward goons call themselves Nazis. If there ever were an inferior race, it would be anyone who dons a swastika and parades around like some goose-stepping moron. These “American Nazis” are nothing more than traitors and sub-human goons, incapable of creating or learning, knowing only destruction. They are no different than the Islamic Radicals of Al-Qaeda, devoid of reason and lacking basic intelligence.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-10-16-riot-ohio_x.htm

Hugo Chavez, South America’s answer to Mussolini, has got another headline grabbing stunt up his sleeve. Chavez has announced that he plans to seek extradition of “Reverend” Pat Robertson. The host of TV’s 700 Club sparked ire in Caracas when he called upon the US government to assassinate Chavez. Chavez has called Robertson’s actions criminal and hence Chavez’s desire to extradite Roberston. Now there is no doubt that Robertson’s statement was clearly wrong. Even the Phalanx has never called for Chavez’s death. Afterall, Chavez isn’t a terrorist and thus far hasn’t taking any action to threaten the United States. Though our contempt for Chavez is total, that contempt is rooted in his words and tyrannical politics. Calling for the murder of a foreign leader who’s greatest offense is nonsensical rhetoric is going to far, especially for a supposed man of the cloth. Indeed, Robertson and Chavez have a lot in common, they have both flown off the handle on more than one occasion. Chavez, however, is having delusions of grandeur if he believes the US is going to extradite an American citizen over protected speech. Chavez, long accustomed to being obeyed is clearly ignorant of the concept of democracy and individual liberty if he feels that foreigners can be arrested at a whim, on his say so. For those who haven’t been keeping score, Chavez is quite adept at drawing attention away from his tyrannical regime, and focusing attention on external threats, thus temporarily distracting his people from the reality of home life. It just so happens that in this case, Chavez had a willing accomplice in the off the cuff remarks made by Robertson. Chavez, however, can’t go too long focused in a single distraction. This simply wouldn’t fool his people for long, thus Chavez, must continually invent new distractions to thrust upon his people. We at The Phalanx will keep you abreast of the latest in Chavez diatribes, as they happen.
Link to Bloomberg article...

As if anyone needed to be reminded that Russia acts in the best interest of Russia and the rest of the world be damned, reports out over the weekend further implicate Russia in aiding Iran’s efforts to acquire and develop advanced weapons systems. We all know how deeply involved Russia has become in advancing Iran’s nuclear program, now it seems, Russia has also been implicated in developing Iranian missile technology. Apparently, Iran has a lucrative deal with North Korea, to purchase various missiles systems, a deal, which was facilitated by the Russians. The Russians have also been complicit in covertly transporting the weaponry between North Korea and Iran. This new missile technology will give Iran a new found capability to strike targets deep in to the heart of Europe. Other weapons being smuggled into Iran have a range that would put the Western US in danger.

Given Russia’s experiences in the Caucuses region one has to ask the question “Is Putin insane?” If there were ever a country that clearly understood the threat of terrorism for what it was you would think that would be Russia. There is no question that Iran has been a long time supporter of global terror in an on going effort to expand the footprint Islam. Why would Russia support such a cause, when Russia is clearly in the crosshairs of the radical mullahs? Thousands of Russians have died at the hands of Islamic radicals, yet Putin cooperates with one of radical Islam’s chief facilitators. Does anyone doubt that Iran will proliferate once these weapon systems are operational? Exactly how long will it be before Al Qaeda has nuclear weapons and advanced missile technology, once Iran possesses these weapons? One can rest assured that it won’t be long. Russia is sacrificing its future (and the rest of the world’s future) for short-term monetary gain.
Link to London Telegraph article...

Syndicated radio personality, Neal Boortz has enraged the left (again). Apparently Neal Boortz, was commenting on a story out of New York that wealthy New Yorkers had been warned about the plot against the NY Subway before the general populace. Apparently Boortz was in agreeance with this move and launched into a tirade noting that the country should set priorities as the poor were drags on society in any case. Its hard to disagree with Boortz on principle. With some exceptions, those people in this country, who are considered poor are in that boat because of the decisions they have made for themselves. We at the Phalanx have gone to great lengths to tell you exactly why Johnny is so poor and we haven’t altered our opinion. On the other hand, simply because someone is a deadbeat, a drag on society and is content to accomplish nothing in life, doesn’t mean we should keep them in the dark when there is a threat to our safety. In this sense, Boortz is wrong. If officials in New York were aware of a threat and were sufficiently confident that they felt the need to alert the public, then the entire public should have been notified at the same time, not selectively. From the moment Boortz made his on air comments, the forums on the left went alive with “pauper praise” and leftist tirades about conspiracies to “screw” the poor. In reality, no one has done more to undermine the plight of the poor than the poor themselves. Why, do you suppose, these leftist forums are so teaming with anger? Because nothing angers someone more than to expose the depths of their guilt and the truth. The truth of poverty in America angers those who find themselves in such positions, they can’t bare the thaught that they are somehow to blame for their own problems and want nothing more than to blame other for their sloth and laziness.
Link to "Democratic Underground" Boortz bash...

Yesterday, Iraqis went to the polls to cast their votes on the proposed Iraqi constitution. The constitution, if passed, will serve as a major turning point in Iraq’s history. If its people accept the charter, it will signify their commitment to democracy and a rejection of the old Baathist regime as well as dealing a major blow to the insurgents who have made it clear that they are seeking to destroy Iraq’s fragile democracy in its infancy. According to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the charter “probably” passed, but we must wait for the laborious task of counting paper ballots. There is little doubt that the Shia and the Kurds voted in favor of the charter, the real question is what did the Sunnis do. Sunnis did vote in these elections, and they also turned out in large numbers, unlike in the parliamentary elections held early this year. The large turnout among Sunni is the big question. The turnout could signal acceptance of the charter or it could signal massive rejection, after all it is the Sunnis who have stood in the way of a peaceful Iraq and it is the Sunnis who have been the chief architects of the insurgent terror movement in that country. Saturday was also noted for its relative calm, something unusual in Iraq as many terrorists took a day off from their murderous ways. It’s unlikely the calm will last for long. No one is expecting the murdering savages within the insurgent movement to experience an epiphany. We can expect the results of the election by next week. Regardless of the outcome, however, the US must begin preparations to remove itself from the Iraqi picture, we can continue to train and prepare the Iraqis, but just as with a child, their comes a time when they must learn to stand on their own feet. If the Iraqi government continues to rely on the US like a crutch, they will become dependent and incapable of dealing with problems like terrorism and fertile ground for the insurgents.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.main/index.html

Leftists have worked tirelessly to convince a large portion of the population, that they are entitled to a certain standard of living, regardless of effort. To this end, the left is again maneuvering to boost the minimum wage. Leftist “activists” argue the poverty exposed by Katrina should compel Congress to enact a minimum wage increase. To do so would be folly in the highest sense.

Suppose you were hired to stock shelves at a grocery store, or sweep up in a warehouse, or clean gutters at an apartment building or clean restrooms in a restaurant. What do you think your starting salary would be? More often than not your salary would be minimum wage, which is $5.15/hr. For teenagers and high school students, minimum wage is the standard salary for after school and part-time jobs, generally minimum wage jobs require limited skills or experience, hence the relative low salary. Such jobs often have a high turnover rate, as many employees see these positions as ad hoc or temporary. For some, however, a minimum wage is not so temporary, indeed it has become a permanent station in life and for many of these people it is a direct result of choices made in their lives.

Quite often we hear how difficult it is to raise a family on minimum wage, well of course it is, one shouldn’t raise a family on minimum wage. Families don’t come about by accident; children don’t spontaneously appear out of thin air, the reproductive process hasn’t changed throughout the history of the human race. If a person is earning $5.15/hr then they should take steps to prevent pregnancy or take steps to improve their financial picture. Those who do have children are often referred to as the “working” poor, perhaps to distinguish them from the sedentary poor. The beauty of America lies in the fact that those who wish to succeed can, those who have drive can accomplish their goals, but just as some have a drive to succeed others are content to flounder, even reproducing in the midst of squalor and poverty. Regardless of wealth, all are entitled and have access to a public education and regardless of wealth all who wish it can have access to a college education or trade school. Granted everyone may not have the resources to attend an Ivy League school, but practically anyone can receive a loan and attend a junior college. There in lies the difference between those who do and those who don’t succeed in life. This is the difference between having a work ethic and those who pursue the path of least resistance. Raising the minimum wage will not improve the livelihoods of these children, if anything it will compel businesses to cut costs to offset the increased financial burden, nor will it instill proper judgment in the minds of irresponsible parents who have children without having the means to support them. Yes, indeed, we should learn a lesson from Katrina, the lesson is not that minimum wage is too small. The lesson is: poverty is a direct result of personal decisions, made by those content with a life of dependence and sloth, unwilling to lift a finger to improve present state, unwilling to make hard choices or refrain from risky behavior. Poverty should not evoke pity, it should evoke anger, anger on the part of tax payers who support these dredges of society. Poverty should also evoke shame, shame amongst those who a chosen a sedentary lifestyle.
Link to the Reuters story

[This post first appeared on The Phalanx in March 2005, we are re-posting it because of its relavancy, given recent grumblings about poverty in America]

According to a UN study on child poverty, the United States has one of the highest child poverty rates among the world’s wealthiest countries. At first glance this would appear alarming and embarrassing, but then one reads the study and comes to a very different conclusion. According to the study 22% of Americans under the age of 18 live in “relative” poverty. Relative poverty is just that, relative. The UN, however, defines poverty as earning less than 50% of the median income in that country. So for example if the median income in Country X were $100,000, then anyone making under $50,000 would be considered living in poverty. The study doesn’t look at purchasing power, health care, access to goods and services only relative income. So we at ThePhalanx.com, decided to do a little research ourselves. According to the US Census Bureau, the median income in the US is approximately $44,000/yr, using the UN methodology that would indicate that anyone earning $22,000/yr or less is considered living in poverty. Now, $22K per year certainly isn’t a stellar salary by any means, but it isn’t exactly poverty either. Now lets take a look at other countries in the study. In Canada the median income is approximately $20,000 US, now that’s not the income for those living in poverty, that’s just the median income. Median income in the UK is about $28,000 US, in Germany its $25,000, in Belgium its $26,000, in Hungary income is a whopping $6300 and in Sweden income is $29,000. In case you haven’t realized the gist of this article, the point is that on average overall income in the US is much higher than in many other “industrialized” nations. Therefore the UN’s statistics are essentially useless. According to the UN a person in the US is living in poverty if they make $22K or less, but if that person were living in Canada with the very same income he’s now middle class? His purchasing power hasn’t increased nor has his income, they only thing that has changed is his residency. These statistics are meaningless, and further demonstrate that statistics can be used to create virtually any scenario you desire. What’s next a UN study saying people who breathe oxygen are more likely to die from cancer, after all everyone who has ever died from cancer has breathed oxygen, so there must be a correlation…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4307745.stm#map

Politicians, parents, and business leaders have repeatedly called for renewed efforts to improve education in America. The sad reality is the education system in 1950 (or even 1850) was more rigorous than it is today. At least during that era, those that received an education were appreciative and valued its benefits. It’s hard to imagine children today facing down national guardsmen and angry mobs, just to receive an education. The political solution is to throw more money at the problem, as we have see, however, this strategy has produced Zero results, parents and educators and business leaders have all come up with new proposals that will win widespread support. One such argument is to link teacher pay with student performance. In other words, if students perform well, presumably on standardized tests, then teachers get raises. So far no one has suggested teachers should loose pay if students perform poorly, but that would certainly motivate some lackluster teachers to excel or resign. Teacher, pay, however, isn’t the only factor that reformers should consider. In reality, most private school teachers earn far less than their public school counterparts, yet in many cases private school academic performance far exceeds public school students. As we noted in an earlier article, culture plays a significant role in the academic performance of most children. Those parents who instill a value and appreciation for education and knowledge have students that excel. Parents who embrace society’s values have students who do the same and lets face it society’s values are as far removed from education as man is removed from the amoeba. So…can culture be changed? Probably not and as libertarians we would certainly oppose any state effort to impose a moral code or societal values on the populace, but perhaps there are other solutions. We like the idea of pay for performance, but in this case we envision a user pays system. Students who perform poorly and the parents who sustain them drain more resources from the public school system than those who do not. . If society insists upon the existence of a public school system, shouldn’t we the taxpayers expect something for our money, namely measurable results? Why not tie parent pay to student performance? One can imagine that if mom and dad started loosing money because young Johnny was too busy hanging out at the mall to study…one could expect Johnny would quickly see the err in his ways. But alas, American society has fully embraced the Mussolini doctrine, thereby we blame others for our problems. Parents will never accept responsibility for the child’s failures, naturally it must be the teacher’s fault, or the lack of computers or some other imagined cause.
http://www.ajc.com/friday/content/epaper/editions/friday/opinion_34f4552cd104f0710005.html

For some time now, we have told you how politicians, dictators and demagogues frequently pull a Mussolini in order to divert attention from their own failures as a leader. Dictators and those yearning to become dictators are keenly aware of this essential skill. Perhaps, no leader has practiced the art of distraction longer than the Communist leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro. Castro came to power in 1959, after toppling the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista. For a brief period, Castro won praise and his government was quickly recognized by the United States, indeed, after assuming power in 1959, Castro even toured the US, visiting the White House and holding talks with Vice President Nixon. Before coming to power, he had raised money for his cause in the US, even appealing to US television audiences. Shortly after coming to power, however, Castro nationalized most industry in the country and aligned himself with the Soviet Union, declaring himself a Communist. In 1962, following the debacle that was the Bay of Pigs invasion and JFK's foolish decision to cut off support for the invasion, while it was under way, the US government imposed an economic embargo on Cuba.

The US effort to isolate Cuba, accomplished two things: in the first place it drew Cuba closer to the Soviet sphere as Castro became increasingly dependent upon the USSR to purchase Cuban goods, and supply Cuba with various forms of assistance. In the second place, the embargo solidified Cuba's hold on power. Demagogues like Castro, love to portray themselves as champions of the people and saviors. In this case, the US played right into Castro's hands. Any poverty, sickness or economic decay in Cuba, Castro can easily blame the United States, not his own failed policies, thus Castro champions himself as someone standing up to aggression. In all the history of the world, no one can point to a single case where an embargo successfully brought down a tyrannical government. It failed in Iraq, it has failed in Iran, it failed with Libya and in countless other examples. The only people affected by these economic embargoes are ordinary citizens, in most cases, the power and influence of tyrants is only enhanced, like Saddam Hussein. In dealing with a nation like Cuba, there are only two viable options: Invasion or Engagement.

Clearly, in the present day, Cuba is isolated and poses no real danger to the United States, thus invasion is foolish. This leaves engagement. The US should actively seek to enhance ties with Cuba through trade and cultural exchange. Such efforts proved quite successful with the Eastern Block. Why is it that the US has chosen a similar path with hard-line China and even Vietnam, but maintains the farce of this blockade with Cuba? If any country was ever a greater threat to the United States, it is China, yet, China is one of our largest trading partners, meanwhile we insist on starving Cuba into submission. In realty the only people starving are the very people the US should be trying to win over, instead we drive them into the open arms of Fidel Castro.

While the US and China, have had numerous points of contention over the years, it is unlikely we would go to war. China is far too dependent upon the US market to risk such folly, why not employ the same strategy vis-à-vis Cuba? End this ridiculous embargo. Through the free market, Cuba can be changed from within, while exposing Castro for the left wing hack we know him to be. Today, the embargo is only further tarnishing America's reputation in Latin America, up and coming demagogues like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez use it as an example of what they are standing up against. It’s no surprise, that an increasing number of Latin American nations have become hostile to US policy.
www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/news_34f404e7e32f70fc10e1.html

The Phalanx has already told you why Johnny is so poor and regaled you with tales as to why Johnny is so stupid. Now its time learn why Johnny votes Democrat.

As you have noted from earlier entries, The Phalanx isn’t pleased with the track record of George Bush and his Republican cohorts. If the GOP’s errors in governance are rooted in timidness and incompetence, at least we can say they aren’t dictated by an overwhelming desire to run the country into the ground, just to gain political power. For all the buffoonery of the GOP, they never sacrificed the economic and military security of the nation, just to stick it to Bill Clinton.

Today’s Democrats employ a political skill unrivaled in the annals of American history. The Dems, have studied from the masters of history, including: Mussolini, Hitler and more palatable demagogues like Huey Long as well as modern contemporaries like Hugo Chavez. Using their skills at demagoguery, the Democrats have convinced, the poor, the unproductive, and large numbers of minorities that only the left represents their interests. They have played on people’s fears and prejudices to convince them that only the Democratic Party will stand for their rights.

In reality, the Democrats will stand only for their political power. The Democratic strategy is simple: create a subject class of citizens, dependent upon the party for their very subsistence, thereby ensuring a solid Democratic base, from which they can securely win elections. Johnny votes Democrat because the Democrats tell him that his failure is caused by the rich. Johnny would much rather hear that someone else is to blame for his personal failures, and the left understands this. Johnny votes Democrat because they tell him they will provide for his every need, he needn’t concern himself with individual responsibility or working hard to achieve a goal. Why work hard when a hand out will do?

This strategy has worked so well, that large swaths of the population stand with the Democrats, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they would be better off pursuing an alternative path. Take for example the case of Social Security reform. There is no question that Social Security deprives people of a reasonable return on their investment, especially in the event of a person’s death. If a private pension fund was run like Social Security, its administrators would be under the jail, yet Johnny and his fellow Democratic slaves prefer the government to make decisions for them rather than make decisions for themselves.

This cult of dependency, which the Democrats have fomented since the 1930s has created a class of people virtually unfit for survival on their own. If Johnny and his fellow Democratic slaves were abandoned on an island rich in vegetation, they would surely starve waiting for someone to feed them. Johnny and his compatriots have been sufficiently brainwashed to the point that countless examples of Democratic hypocrisy fail to open their eyes. Can Johnny wake up? Will Johnny wake up? Probably not, not unless his masters command him to do so…

Lets face it America, in the past few years we haven’t had a stunning array of presidential candidates to choose from. Our current president, George W. Bush, is a disappointment, even to die hard conservatives. Aside from his hard-line on terror and the wise notion to cut taxes, Bush has offered little in the way of real leadership on a number of issues. But the Bush presidency has become typical of America in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It has been two decades since we have had a quality president in Ronald Reagan and even the most objective observers would have to admit that by the late 80s Reagan was certainly past his prime. Some leftist would cheer at the notion that Bush is a disappointment, but their jubilation is undeserved. The democrats haven’t offered a quality candidate since 1960. Johnson was palatable, but his Great Society efforts and the debacle of Vietnam, preclude his name from further consideration. The truth of the matter is, quality people no longer seek the presidency, only political hacks like John Kerry and Al Gore and in some cases honest men, who are clearly over their head, like George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Why is it that the presidency has become a breading ground for mediocrity? This has happened before in our history. In the period after Andrew Jackson, before the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln, most people (aside from history buffs) would be hard pressed to identify a quality president from that era, the same can be said for the period after Lincoln but before the emergence of Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century. Now again, America appears cursed by mediocrity. Politics is largely to blame for this curse. Quality men (and women) are turned off by the virulent nature of today’s party politics. Those that do survive the gauntlet, are too badly bruised to inspire collective support, take Bush and his immediate predecessor Clinton, both are universally hated by the opposition. Politics is synonymous with hypocrisy, as we noted earlier, the left’s hypocritical stance on Iraq is typical of today’s political minefield. While we can applaud Bush for taking a stand against terrorism, unlike Clinton before him, and while we can rejoice in the fact that he had the wherewithal to push through badly needed tax cuts. Bush has been mediocre at best on practically ever other issue. His inability, to articulate his position and respond decisively to leftist attacks, makes his position all the more untenable. His embrace of greater bureaucracy and tepid social security reform efforts leave much to be desired. If we can say anything about the Democrats, however, we can certainly say that they are excellent “politicians” they have succeeded in almost every way in their effort to undermine Bush’s presidency (and Bush has to some extent cooperated), they have convinced America that we are on the verge of a eminent doom and sought to undermine the war on terror and the economy, for these reasons they ought never regain the presidency, but we can ill afford another term of W either. Alas for our poor country…

In an ongoing effort to fulfill their Islamic credo (submit, convert or die), Muslim radicals launched a coordinated attack in southern Russia killing dozens of people, fortunately a large number of those killed were the terrorists themselves. According to reports, the terror goons were also holding hostages, after their coordinated attacks on police stations, government offices and an airport. While the Chechens may once have had legitimate grievances against the Russian Federation, all such legitimacy has long since vanished. Today, the Chechens are nothing more than Islamic extremists, advancing a cause of death and destruction. They have left their calling card all across Russia, including the school siege last fall and an attack on a Moscow theater. Unfortunately for the average Russian citizen, the government is almost as savage as the terrorists. In their many efforts to fight terrorists or free hostages, the heavy-handed tactics of Russia’s security forces have resulted in even more civilian deaths. This incident, however, highlights one unmistakable reality. Islamic terror is global and it is not linked to a single country or individual, it is multifaceted and unrelenting, brutal in its savagery and merciless in its disregard for human life. There can be no accommodating these killers, whether they surface in Indonesia, India, Kenya, Sudan, Russia, Afghanistan, Thailand, China, the Netherlands, Britain or the United States.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-13-russia-attack_x.htm

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

Gerhard Schroeder, the outgoing German Chancellor, gave an emotional farewell speech to his supporters today. Schroeder was replaced by conservative leader Angela Merkel as the leader of a right-left collation government. Schroeder has presided over an unprecedented period of German decline marked by higher and higher levels of unemployment, flat economic growth and a growing rift with its former ally, the United States. The leftist leader sought to usher in a left leaning government that has drained Germany’s once innovative drive, turning the country into nothing more than a faltering socialist state and a fraction of its former self. As conditions began to worsen in Germany Schroeder did like most failed politicians do. He looked for someone to blame. And just like the poor in this country, he chose to blame a success (i.e., the United States) during his last reelection bid in 2002, he turned his campaign into I hate America tour. Schroeder pulled a Mussolini and successfully diverted attention away from his failed economic policies and focused attention on George Bush and the United States as objects of disdain. As a result, no one in his or her right mind can consider Germany an ally; indeed, China could be regarded as a more trustworthy ally than Germany. In any case, Schroeder, now tossed out in a political shuffle in Germany has taken one last swipe at the US and Britain. Apparently the US is responsible now for his electoral defeat. Schroeder derided British and American economic models as having no place in Germany. In other words, they prefer unemployment and stagnation to prosperity and growth. Schroeder also criticized the US government for its Katrina response, as if that had anything to do with the German elections or his current status as ex-Chancellor. The shrill politician clearly demonstrated his personal hatred and bias toward America (not that we should be surprised), which shows the lengths to which the left will go to undermine America and disparage its people. The Germans, Europe and the world are better off to have one less deficient demagogue of a politician to deal with.
Link to article

If you are a regular Phalanx visitor, then you must know what we think of this latest report on poverty, released by the Brookings Institution. The report, which was released today, singled out several cities with concentrated areas of poverty. These concentrated areas were similar in that they compromised sections of the city with the greatest density of low-income housing, poor schools and high crime. As we noted yesterday, the reason Johnny is so stupid is the same reason why there is a poverty problem in several cities in America. The reason is culture. According to the Brookings Report, poor urban planning and past segregation are among the factors that have led to the maintenance of these pockets of poverty in some of America’s most vibrant cities. According to some officials the reason for such extreme cases of poverty also lies in the fact that the poor in these cities lack access to jobs and education. The Phalanx has a one-word retort for this argument…Nonsense.

To be fair, past segregation in access to schools, public services, employment and housing certainly were factors in poverty, but these factors alone do not count for the emergence of these pockets of poverty and this is especially true in light of the fact that such barriers have long been erased. Today, with the possible exception of a few extreme cases, there is no justification or excuse for such abject poverty in America. No, this isn’t a segway into why we think the government should do more to eradicate poverty in America. It’s a segway into why America’s poor seem to be so content to do nothing. Why is Johnny so poor? Johnny is so poor because Johnny is so lazy and refuses to take the steps necessary to secure a job. Johnny continues to have children he can’t afford and Johnny seeks first to enhance his own short term pleasure, at the expense of long term gain.

Everyone in America has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail. A public education is available for those who seek it. Indeed, it isn’t the schools themselves that are the problem. Quite a number of children have received a well-rounded education in many of our country’s public schools. The deficiency emerges from the fact that so few place a value in their education and parents are unwilling to make sacrifices for their children. Parents are more concerned with how well their child does on the football and basketball team, than they are with academics. If a parent wants their child to succeed then they must take a direct role in that child’s education. According to officials, in response to the Brookings study, people don’t have access to jobs and education. Well if you are poor and for some reason choose to have kids (and that’s exactly what it is, a choice), then you have responsibility to provide for that child, before your own needs, even if it means working 10hrs a day at McDonalds, then that’s what must be done. There are plenty of jobs available for those who are willing to work, how else do we explain the steady flow of illegals into this country and the speed with which they are able to find employment? If an illegal, who isn’t familiar with the country and often unable to speak the language, can find employment, what excuse does an American have? Some people see certain jobs as beneath them and would rather subsist on welfare rather than perform an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.

Another gripe is that post-secondary education (i.e., college) isn’t available for the poor. This too is absolutely preposterous and just an excuse for sloth and failure. Anyone, and that’s anyone, can receive a student loan for vocational schools, junior college or university. In fact many junior colleges and vocational school don’t even require an entrance exam, such as the SAT or ACT. This country is filled with examples of people who have succeeded against all odds. Why? Because they persevere, they aren’t content with their station in life. They want something better for their children and they don’t have an expectation that someone else is going to provide for them. The left in this country has perpetuated the belief that it is the role of the state to care for the poor, to provide jobs, to feed and cloth them. Meanwhile, these dredges of society become nothing more than wards of the state, incapable of making decisions for themselves or even providing for their basic needs. Poverty is a direct byproduct of attitude. Those who have the right attitude, those who desire for success, those who aren’t content to subsist will and do succeed.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Poverty%20Study

It seems like everyday, another human rights groups tells the world that the US is violating human rights. Yes the land of the free, is apparently one of the world’s worse places to love, or so these human rights groups would have us believe. One has to wonder where are these groups are hiding when they should be speaking out against genocide in Sudan, the Balkans, SE Asia, and countless other genuine human rights violations. In any case, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have published a report critical of the US because it is one of only a handful of countries that imprisons juveniles for life without parole. The two organizations are demanding that federal and state governments take action to abolish the practice. According to the human rights groups, this would “bring us in line with the rest of the world and make the U.S. act in accordance with human rights laws." The US, incidentally, has not signed on to any international law governing imprisonment of criminals. Nor should it, the US is a sovereign nation and first has an obligation to its own people. The attitude of these groups highlights the belief among many that sovereign nations aren’t free to make their own laws, such legalities must be imposed upon them by some international authority. In addition to abolishing life sentence for young thugs, these human rights groups also seek to abolish the practice of trying youths in adult courts, but rather in juvenile courts, where punishments are far less severe. These human rights groups should be honest with themselves; no one goes to prison for life for shoplifting or stealing a car. These are serious crimes; indeed, well over 90% of these juveniles are murderers. Now what is the bigger human rights violation, punishing a murderer or allowing murderers to walk the streets? Perhaps these human rights groups would be willing to take custody of these young thugs in lieu of a prison sentence. These groups complained that over half of the offenders had no prior criminal history. As if this should comfort us, should a murderer receive a free pass simply because its their first killing? The act of murder or rape is especially heinous, not only should juvenile offenders receive life sentences without parole, so too should every single person who is guilty of rape or murder. If a teenager is old enough to drive and operate heavy machinery, or pilot an aircraft, then they are certainly aware of right and wrong. Unless they are suffering from a significant developmental disability, there simply is no justification to excuse heinous crimes, simply because an offender is young. Society can no more tolerate young criminals than older ones. Indeed, to tolerate such crime and allow criminals to roam free is the true human rights violation.
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw122545_20051012.htm

Yesterday, China became only the third nation in history to send people into Earth orbit. This has been a goal of the Chinese government for years. Now with a booming economy and a rapidly growing industrial and technological base, China finally has the wherewithal to achieve its space ambitions. The spacecraft China has used for its second space shot in two years is essentially a reconfigured and update Soyuz spacecraft, a design the Soviets pioneered in the 1970s. This mission has no real scientific value, though the Chinese have touted it as an advance for scientific exploration. In reality this launch has two goals, one is to announce to the world that China’s century of dishonor is behind them and they wish to be recognized as a major power in the world, one capable of even exploring the vastness of space, or shower its enemies from above with nuclear warheads. This launch also is intended to rouse nationalistic fervor within the People’s Republic. China has gone out of its way to distract its people from the hard-line reality that is the Chinese Communist Party. They have done so with expert skill, creating a vibrant market economy and embarked on grand public works and national prestige projects, such as the Three Gorges Dam and space exploration. China’s move into space, has no tangible purpose, it is purely a symbolic exercise, just as NASA has lost its purpose. The Chinese lack the skill, money and technology, to break new ground in space exploration, indeed all that the Chinese have accomplished was already achieved 40 years ago. Certainly, there are worse ways to spend money, but one has to ask, how long can the Chinese leadership continue to pull the wool over the eyes of its people? Even if the Chinese walk on the Moon and Mars, the reality remains unchanged and freedom remains just as elusive for the Chinese people.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-10-12-voa5.cfm

America’s fate is sealed, thanks to the failing state of education in this country.

The US spends close to $400 billion annually to fund public education. Indeed, of all the money that is spent by state governments, 3/5 goes toward education. In America over $7700 per pupil is spent every year to make sure Johnny receives a quality education. And what do we have to show for the vast outplay in taxpayer dollars? In short…not much. The US spends far more on education than almost every other country in the world with the exception of Switzerland and Austria. The US spends far more than Japan, more than Great Britain, more than any country in Scandinavia, more than France and more than South Africa. Yet according to almost every measure, the US lags far behind virtually all of these nations in academic performance. In fact, in terms of mathematical skill, US children ranked behind Hong Kong, Finland, South Korea, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Japan, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Iceland, Denmark, France, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Slovak Republic, Norway, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Spain, and Latvia. They faired a little better in reading and science but still far behind most of Western Europe, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan.

This academic deficiency will inevitably manifest itself in the form of a sluggish economy, diminished productivity and a loss of competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the industrialized world. Why? What accounts for this abysmal state of affairs? Well quite simply (though it pains us to say it)…its our culture. Politicians have a number of buzzwords and proposed solutions to stop the further degradation of education in America. We frequently here about increased spending. Politicians would have you believe that if we spend more money the problem will simply go away (in reality this is just window dressing to placate the voters). In reality this is a foolhardy argument. The US already spends far more than most every nation on Earth with practically nothing to show for it. In fact, nations like South Korea spend so little per student on education that they aren’t even ranked in the top 20, yet they surpass the US by far in every category. We hear about class size. But this too is a non-issue. In Japan for example, the average class size is 35, yet Japan far exceeds the US in terms of academic performance. American culture has failed our children. Take a visit to your average neighborhood public school and you will see what we mean. When you walk in you will see nothing but distractions, nothing but feel good exercises and sports glorification to distract from the fact that Johnny is a moron. You will see advertisements for dances and yearbooks. You will see display case after display case filled with trophies for track and field, football, soccer and baseball. You will also notice this fact in terms of how schools choose to allocate their resources. Ask the debate or quiz bowl coach how much money their teams receive and then go talk to the cheerleaders or the football team. Our culture places a very low value on knowledge and education. Most people can tell you who won last year’s American Idol, but know nothing of government, business, science or literature. Many Americans would sooner cut off their right arm than miss the Super Bowl, but don’t ask them to take their child to a museum. If you ask the average teacher what their biggest gripe is they will tell you its lack of parental involvement. Parents seem not to care if Johnny passes or fails math, just don’t bother me about it.

If all this is true, then why has America been so blessed in terms of quality of living, its economy and its productivity? In the first place America has a very favorable climate for business, in contrast with many other industrialized countries and America’s universities remain top notch. Indeed, America’s colleges are some of the best in the world, and competition has a lot to do with that. Unlike public schools, Colleges and Universities must compete for students and this creates higher standards and thus a higher quality education. In college, unlike in earlier grades, parents can’t excuse failure and social promotion is unheard of, but with so many children failing to make the grade, like the 100,000 California 12th graders who can’t pass an 8th grade math test, how long will this prosperity last? Much will depend on the attitude of ordinary Americans. Will we continue to glorify the inane? Will we continue to obsess over the mind numbing details of Paris Hilton’s sexual escapades or what Hollywood star is sleeping with whom? Or will we embrace something tangible?
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/education/entries/2005/10/11/what_am_i_to_do.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu

The Germans voted last September for maintenance of the status quo and that’s exactly what they got. In spite of the fact that Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats have ushered in unprecedented economic decline and unemployment in Germany, and in spite of the fact that Schroeder has failed to deliver and each and every promise, the sheep like German electorate fell victim to his Mussolini-esque distractions and saw fit to give the Social Democrats almost an equal number of votes as the conservative Christian Democrats. The conservatives promised significant reform in an effort to jump-start the German economy. Conservative leader, Angela Merkel, was poised to become Germany’s next Chancellor, but something happened on the way to the ballot box. The Germans did what they have done many times since 1930 when an upstart Nazi party garnered 6 million votes in a German parliamentary election, they fell victim to a smooth talking politicians. As a result of Germany’s lack of foresight, the left and right were forced to form a collation government (another weakness of the parliamentary system), with leftists gaining several key cabinet spots and conservatives forced to abandon much of their reform minded agenda. Practically the only thing that did change is the fact that Germany now has a new Chancellor, the country’s first female leader, Angela Merkel (could her gender have been a factor in the electoral picture, this Germany remember…) But, aside from this nothing momentous can be expected from a coalition of left and right. Image, if the Democrats and Republicans were forced to rule as a team, how long do you think it would take before internal bickering brought down the government? Germany’s economy is in tatters and without bold action it will remain so. This is the inevitable result of socialist economic planning, it has failed France, it has failed Germany and it has failed many other nations in Western Europe, yet the blindness of Europe’s leaders and its electorate persists.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/11/MNGD2F6L0H1.DTL

The world certainly grieves for the thousands of innocent lives that have been lost in Pakistan and NW India. This is certainly a time for people to give in support of the relief effort in that troubled region of the world. According to the latest estimates from the Pakistani government, as many as 40,000 people could be dead in the rubble of the 7.3 magnitude quake that struck the region. Sadly, in places like Pakistan, natural disasters can have a devastating affects. In many third world nations, like Pakistan, the population density is extremely high per square mile, and in those areas many people live in sub standard housing, making the population extremely vulnerable, when mother nature’s fury is unleashed. Again we must reiterate, that this disaster is tragic and all decent people must grieve for the lives that have been lost, but in light of world events, one must naturally wonder what Al Qaeda has to say about this significant loss of life. When Hurricane Katrina struck the US, many Islamic fundamentalists (and even some moderates) cheered, calling it God’s retribution upon the United States. Some radicals called Katrina and ally of Al Qaeda. Well if that is the case, what do these radicals think of the Pakistan Quake, is it God’s retribution as well, and given the fact that the death toll is 40x greater, does that mean these people are 40x more deserving of punishment? Naturally, no spokesman for Al Qaeda could be reached for comment and the radical Mullahs who were so quick to speak after Katrina have remained silent about the role of God in this disaster. While no one with Al Qaeda could be reached for comment, we did check out Al Jazeera, which is practically one in the same, to see what they had to say, would you believe their top story is Iraq, in fact there’s only a blurb on their web site about the quake, buried on the right hand corner, in a font barely readable. Perhaps they don’t care about their fellow Muslims…no that can’t be. Surely they must care…look at all the aid that has poured in to Pakistan to aid the injured…oh wait a minute…what aid? In fact most of the pledges of assistance have come from the west and arch rival India. And whom are the Pakistanis turning to for assistance? Not Iran, not Syria, not Saudi Arabia or other fellow Islamic states. No they are turning to Europe and the United States, the very same infidels who came to the aid of millions of Muslims in Indonesia after last year’s Tsunami. But we needn’t concern ourselves which such facts as no good deed goes unpunished, our service and our aid will quickly be forgotten, as it always has been.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4330488.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is considering whether or not to relax its drug rules with regard to the FBI’s hiring policy. While this may seem like a rather unimportant issue, it is further evidence of America’s continued slide into depravity. What does this move say about the country as a whole? It says that more and more people are trying drugs as teens and in college, making it more and more difficult for businesses and governments to find qualified applicants who have not chosen to take drugs at some point in their life. According to some reports Marijuana, for example, is used by more than half of all teenagers during high school. Not only does this reflects society’s increasing acceptance of drug use, but also reflects the continued slide in quality parenting. Some officials say that what an individual did (or do) in college should be irrelevant. In reality, not only is it relevant, but it speaks volumes. At what point should people be held accountable for their actions? Do we really want people of such weak mind and character that they turn to illicit drugs in order to find peace or pleasure? Are we willing to trust such people to protect us from terrorism and other criminal actions? Those with drug dependency are weak, and therefore unreliable. Such weaknesses can be exploited by our enemies. Sure, its not murder, and the government should not waste a single minute of its time prosecuting such dredges for their behavior, but just as the FBI shouldn’t hire heavy drinkers, they shouldn’t be in the habit of hiring dope fiends as well, as it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Naturally, there are those who favor the move by the FBI, but they too are either misguided or are drug users themselves. While libertarians may argue for a change in policy as well, libertarians should take note that there is no call to criminalize these rejects, but one must acknowledge that that is exactly what they are: rejects, and with good reason.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/US_Presidential_Cabinet/FBI_Marijuana.html
http://www.fbi.gov

A Mussolini: the act of drawing attention away from one action through deception and distraction (i.e., Hugo Chavez or the Democratic Party leadership)

The Dredges: (As in the dredges of society) those in society who prey on others, who have accomplished little in life and aren’t likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

Entitlement Generation: Those in society who expect the state to provide for their every need, with little thought given to individual responsibility

The Left: Those who advocate socialist leaning principles in an ongoing effort to enhance the primacy of the state, while diminishing personal responsibility (i.e., the Democratic Party)

Hypocrite: Some one who advocates one thing but then does another (i.e., the Republican Party, one need only look at the size of the federal budget)

Islamic Radical: Muslim extremist who live by a simple credo (submit, convert or die.). There goal is the complete subordination and destruction of the west and its people.

Welfare: Handout, something which destroys the will of an individual creating a subject class of citizens, we need not hesitate to call them slaves (i.e., slaves to, and dependent upon, the state)

Kyoto Protocol: A failed effort by the anti-American nations of Europe and their leftist allies to undermine the US economy by creating a faulty treaty to protect the environment thru drastic cuts in emissions, while ignoring two of the world’s largest polluters (China and India).

NATO: a organization originally designed to protect western Europe from communist aggression, now serves no apparent purpose, other than to drain the resources of the United States.

France: Synonym for “opposite of America.” A country that has stood diametrically opposed to practically everything the US has stood for since the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Lest we forget, it was France who made its opinion of a young America clearly apparent by demanding a bribe before they would even receive official state visitors in the 1790s (i.e., the XYZ Affair).

Last week, President Bush gave a major policy speech on Iraq. According to the president, Iraq is one of many fronts in the war on terror. He argued that the terrorists are simply using Iraq as an excuse to justify mass murder on an even larger scale and in this sense he is right. Whether or not one agrees with the Iraq war itself, only the most blind can argue that Iraq has created the current terror threat in this (or any) country. To accept the premise that Iraq is the key basis for terrorist actions today is to ignore over 50 years of history. We at The Phalanx have repeatedly pointed out the numerous terror actions that have occurred around the world at the hand of Islamic extremists. It seems the modern Democratic Party has done just that. Democrats and their leftist allies (both at home and abroad) argue that Bush’s war in Iraq created the current terror threat, suggesting that we would be living in complete peace and harmony if there had never been an Iraq war. Democrats seemed to have forgotten the numerous terror attacks that occurred during Clinton’s term as president, many also seem to have forgotten their own rhetoric calling for action against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The Democrats also pointed out that Bush’s speech lacked specifics and win and how US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. In a sense, the leftists are right. It is high time that Iraqis take more responsibility for their personal security. It is certainly in America's best interest to limit our involvement (and dependency) on the Middle East.
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/7/154544.shtml

From the moment president Bush choose Harriet Miers as his choice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, there has been a constant stream of opposition coming from the right. Conservatives have levied an assortment of complaints on the White House Counsel and Supreme Court nominee. Some have argued that she lacks the intellectual fortitude, not being from an Ivy League school, which is nonsense of the highest caliber. Some say she lacks judicial experience, which is irrelevant considering nearly half of all justices weren’t judges prior to their stint on the court. Some have argued that she is too much of an unknown and may not be a reliable conservative, this is perhaps the only legitimate argument. What is interesting, however, is the fact that more criticism seems to be coming from the right than from the left. Indeed, some of Bush’s biggest critics among the left, like Harry Reid have had nothing but praise for Miers, while Bush’s chief allies on the right have had the most stinging criticisms. Democrats have always been happy to sit back and let the opposition tear at each other, but is that what is really happening? Could all this criticism among Republicans be an elaborate ruse, to ensure Miers’ confirmation? After all, if Miers angers Republicans this much, Democrats could figure that by supporting her they could end up with another David Souter or John Paul Stevens. Time will certainly tell if that is the case. Even Souter voted conservative for a few years before his true colors began to shine through.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051007-120137-3800r.htm

Remember Louis Freeh? He was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 to serve as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He served until 2001, when Bush replaced Clinton as president. Freeh has just released a book entitled “My FBI,” discussing his tenure as director of the FBI during the Clinton era. Freeh’s book was highly critical of the former president, arguing that Clinton took a cavalier attitude when it came to criminal investigations, even with regard to terrorism. Freeh has also argued that Clinton had so many problems during his tenure because he had so many skeletons in his closet. Apparently during his reign as FBI director, relations with the Clinton White House were severely strained and Freeh was not popular among the Clinton staff. Naturally, Freeh couldn’t expect to write a scathing book about the darling of the Democratic Party and not expect retaliation. The Clinton camp has already fired back at Freeh. Freeh’s critics call his book a work of fiction and an attempt by Freeh simply to sell books. Clinton’s camp even likens Freeh to a lap dog for the Republicans, well, if he is a GOP tool, who was it that appointed him in the first place? Well its obvious that Freeh’s book is an attempt to sell books, most authors aren’t in the business to not sell books, but is it fiction. Can anyone say with a straight face that the Clinton administration was NOT wrought with scandal? Freeh called Clinton’s frequent scandals a constant distraction to the important work of the FBI and even recounted how he had to turn to former President Bush to help push the Saudis with an investigation into a terror bombing at the Khobar Towers. With out question Freeh is correct in that Clinton’s scandals were a distraction, but Freeh cannot be absolved of all blame for failure during the Clinton years, but there is enough blame to go around from Clinton to Janet Reno to the State Department and so on.
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/7/94221.shtml

Has the president of the United States been reading The Phalanx recently, if not someone in the White House certainly has. Finally, after all these months and all the nonsense that has been trumpeted by leftists from San Francisco, to Boston to Paris to Berlin, the president has called everyone to task on the reality that is Islamic terrorism. In a major policy speech this morning, the president pointed out an obvious fact. The Islamic murdering savages in Iraq are simply using Iraq as an excuse to commit more murders and unleash more terror on the innocent, be they Muslim or Christian, Iraqi or American. The president noted that terrorism pre-dates Iraq, have we forgotten September 11th? On several occasions the Phalanx pointed out countless examples of Islamic terror that occurred long before Iraq and long before Bush even took office. We have also recounted several cases of Islamic terror occurring in places untouched by Iraq, George Bush or Tony Blair. The reality is simple. These radical want to destruction of our world. They have said as much in speeches, web postings and in rallies. We have been given a simple choice: submit, convert or die. George Bush did not pen these words, the radical Mullahs in mosques throughout the Middle East have penned these words and they carry out their desires with ruthless efficiency in a manner that would make even Hitler and Mussolini proud. Make no mistake about it, the goal of the radicals is abundantly clear. Are these leftist critiques so blind as to think that if we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow terrorism would end? Terror didn’t begin there but we can certainly drive the radicals further to the brink by winning the battle there, before it is our battle to fight here.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1190132

Remember Iran, the nation that has been behind some of the world’s most deadly terror attacks since the 1980s. The same nation that claims it is developing nuclear technology for energy purposes, when it has one of the world’s largest supplies of oil and natural gas. Well it seems Iran’s complicity in fomenting chaos and destruction continues unabated. According to evidence uncovered by British authorities, Iran has been implicated in supporting insurgent terror attacks in Iraq. Iran denies the link and Iraqi officials have called the Iranians to task on the issue and again the Iranians have denied involvement. Britain isn’t the only country raising questions about Iranian involvement in Iraq. The Saudis have also raised concerns that Iran is stirring unrest, perhaps because they wish to see a resurgent Shia majority in Iraq, as in Iran. Publicly, Iran claims that it wants to see a stable Iraq, but is that believable? Keep in mind that during the 1980s, Iran and Iraq fought a brutal and bloody war, with no resolution. One must also recognize the fact, that Iran and Iraq are the only countries in the region with the manpower and the resources to dominate the region (politically, economically and militarily). Iran would benefit greatly if Iraq remained weak and divided, as it would leave Iran as the sole power in the region. Something the Mullahs in Tehran would relish with great joy. Indeed, Iran, if successful, could urge the Shia’s in the south to seek Independence joining with Iran for a Shia Superstate, which could create havoc in the region for decades. Make no mistake about it, what Iran says and what Iran does are almost always two different things. All the while up until the point it happens they will proudly profess their innocence and naivety, while secretly working to undermine the fabric of Iraq as they seek to enhance their own power. This combined with their not so secret desire to develop nuclear weapons makes Iran a real danger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4315924.stm

With a story like this we just don’t know where to begin. Here we have a case where two children (both aged 6) were fighting over a pacifier (a pacifier of all things, at age 6?). Apparently one child dropped a pacifier and then another picked it up (and put it in his mouth?) and refused to give it back. The child who dropped the pacifier then punched the other kid and a full-scale mlŽe ensued. The mother of one of the children called the police reportedly to document the fight so she wouldn’t later be accused of abuse. Because of the age of the two children, no criminal action will be pursued. With a case like this three things stand out and all three point to a case of extremely poor parenting. In the first place what is a six-year-old child doing with a pacifier? We may offend some parents here, but if your child is more than a few months old and is still using a pacifier you are officially a deadbeat, lazy, useless buffoon of a parent. A pacifier has but one purpose, to silence a child. If a parent is so divorced from reality that they can’t come up with better ways to raise their child than by sticking something in his/her mouth every time the child makes noise, then perhaps you should consider giving the child up for adoption as its only going to get worse. The parent should also consider getting a tubal ligation or vasectomy. What are you going to do when the child is 12 or 13? Will you still use a pacifier? Evidence of poor parenting is also highlighted by the fact that the six year old punched another child, if your child is 6 and is going around punching other kids, then you have utterly failed as a parent. How about teaching the child some manners and perhaps some boundaries, before the child winds up in real trouble one day. And what parent calls police to an altercation involving a 6 year old? The same one who gives that child a pacifier in the first place, one who is too lazy to get involved directly, what a great model for deadbeat parent of the year. By the way, if you were offended by this article, its only because you too are one of those parents. One of those parents who have failed to teach your child any sense of responsibility, manners or discipline. You have shirked your duties as a parent and probably believe its wrong ever to tell a child no, after all, you may be the parent but they know what is best, right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100501527.html

No this hasn’t happened yet. In fact, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez won’t be up for re-election until next year, but you can rest assured that this headline will stand. Above all, Chavez is a demagogue, which is someone who uses his passion and charisma to play on people’s prejudices to gain (and maintain) power. What we at the Phalanx call: pulling a Mussolini. Chavez has done this with expert skill. Chavez has taken advantage of the fact that rightist leaders in his country made a mockery off democracy and exploited their power for their own personal reasons. Chavez on the other hand, appealed to the pinned up anger among the nation’s poor and even those who yearned for true democracy. Chavez has promised a socialist paradise, modeled on the wonderful successes [sic] of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Chavez frequently finds he is the target of criticism, both at home and abroad. When this happens, Chavez does what any sensible demagogue would do, he changes the subject. What he most frequently does is accuse the US of planning to invade his oil rich nation and championing himself as Venezuela’s only savior, thus the people of Venezuela rally to his cause and all past failures (and abuses of power) are forgotten. Chavez has also taken advantage of his country’s vast mineral wealth, namely oil and natural gas, to win friends in Latin America. He has promised cheap and steady oil supplies for Caribbean nations and now for his neighbors in South America. Chavez repeatedly denies that he is a dictator and that he is a proponent of democracy, but socialism by its very nature is anti-democratic. Far from being a democratic guide, socialism is inherently undemocratic and unequal. At its heart is the primacy of the state. As a result, the rights of the individual become secondary to that of the state, thereby laying the foundation for authoritarianism. Chavez has argued that capitalism is a failure and is the wrong course of action for Venezuela. He wins supporters with this argument, because the poor and lower classes in his country, mistakenly believe that what they experienced before Chavez was capitalism. It wasn’t. Capitalism goes hand in hand with the rule of law, without which we simply have a different type of dictatorship. Chavez’s popularity may also extend from the fact that among a growing number of people around the world, there exist a vibrant entitlement mentality, which is completely divorced from the concept of personal achievement and individual responsibility. Capitalism allows for success or failure based upon the merits of ingenuity, initiative and hard work. Invariably, there will be those in a capitalist system who will not prosper, as they have not employed the qualities essential for success. Rather, these individuals have chosen the path of least resistance, opting to squander opportunities, waste resources and rest on their laurels. The capitalist system does not reward sloth, and it is certainly not kind to those averse to hard work. Make, no mistake about it, if unchecked such a mentality and government system based on that mental state may soon visit our shores if we aren’t careful. In spite of Chavez’s professions, what he supports, is not democracy but a new form of slavery with the people subservient and dependent upon the state. This coupled with his attempts to silence opposition make Chavez no champion of democracy and make no mistake about it, given his absolute authority, he will most certainly win “re-election” next year.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12818202.htm

In what is perhaps the biggest shocker in the history of world events, French transport workers declared a 24 hr strike today, causing significant difficulties for commuters and school children. Remember we are speaking of France where a 40hr workweek is a 4-letter word and personal responsibility is as foreign a concept as is innovation and hard work. So what are the French workers protesting this time? Well as it happens they are upset because Prime Minister de Villepin has proposed a serious of reforms to jumpstart the long stagnant French economy. What upsets the labor unions most is a proposal that would make it easier for firms to dismiss workers. Why do you suppose these unions are upset over this proposal? Well naturally it’s because French workers are unproductive and inefficient. Sloth is one of the principle reasons for French economic decline. Think about it this way. How hard would you work and how good a worker would you be if you knew that you couldn’t be fired no matter how poor your performance or how much you slacked off? Be honest. Exactly! And that’s exactly how efficient the French worker is, no wonder there is double-digit unemployment and zero economic growth. French firms simply can’t afford the risks and as a result France as a whole as become the poster child for leftist inefficiency and stagnation, a by-product of an entitlement mentality, which dictates that it is the government’s duty to provide for every citizen and individuals are absolved of any and all personal responsibility. In spite of the inconvenience for the populace, most citizens supported the strikers; they too have an entitlement mentality. Indeed, this mentality has been engrained into the French Psyche for decades. So much so that when the economy falters, as it has today, the French take to pulling a Mussolini and blame anything and everyone else for their plight, except themselves.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1584759,00.html

The European Union, is a self serving ethnocentric, leftists hypocritical regime. That’s the conclusion any civilized person must draw after witnessing the plight that is Turkey. Turkey has been ramroded, bamboozled and hoodwinked by the EU hypocrites who continue to throw roadblock after roadblock at Turkey in its goal to achieve membership in the European Union. The hypocrisy is so blatant and obvious that it is hardly fathomable that the EU’s leaders can argue with a straight face that they are looking at the issue of Turkey’s admission with an objective viewpoint. In reality their view is blind by their blind hatred. Take the case of Turkey and Romania. Romania completed its negotiations for membership in 2004 and is slated to attain full membership within the European Union in 2007. Turkey on the other hand has been shortchanged and only this week (with much in the way of notable objections) has Turkey begun talks, with the promise of admission in a decade. A decade! When one looks at Turkey and Romania, one has to ask why Romania was given the green light and Turkey was given the cold shoulder. Turkey’s economy is growing at a rate exceeding 8%, slightly higher than Romania. A far higher than practically every EU country, especially perennial failures: France and Germany. Turkey’s purchasing power parity is almost the same as Romania’s. Turkey’s poverty rate is far lower than Romania’s (20% vs. 29%). Turkey has a better quality of life, insofar as it relates to life expectancy. Romania also lacks a democratic tradition, unlike Turkey. Turkey has been a long-standing and dependable member of NATO, unlike Romania and a trusty ally to the west, something not even France can claim. In spite of these glaring disparities, Romania is favored for admission and Turkey is brushed aside. The same arguments could be made in comparing Turkey and Cyprus, a current EU member. Regardless of these facts, Europe persists that Turkey isn’t ready for EU membership, what they really mean is they aren’t ready to commune with the Turks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4305500.stm

Recently we told you about NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. He was highly critical of the ISS and Space Shuttle programs, calling them failures (well actually we called them failures, Griffin said “mistakes”) and noting that NASA had lost its way since the glory days of Apollo and other missions of the 60s and early 70s. As we have pointed on this and previous occasions this position is 100% correct. The shuttle has been a glaring failure, fulfilling none of its original mission, costing billions of dollars and several lives. The International Space Station is nothing more than a floating disaster as well, yet to hear its proponents talk, the construction of a space station on the caliber of the ISS is nothing short of earth shattering. Well they are half right. It is nothing. The US and the then Soviet Union had and did send space stations into orbit 30 years ago with far less cost and taking far less time to assemble. Some argue that we should spend nothing on space exploration. This is the wrong approach. Exploration of space is critical and a fundamental achievement for an advanced civilization, but our approach has been mired in complacency and stagnation for decades. The reason for this is today’s efforts lack a competitive drive, as when the US and the USSR were pitted in a grueling battle for dominance and scientific prowess. Griffin was absolutely correct in noting the loss of direction and failure to capitalize of competitive juices. Now it seems, the powers that be have gotten to Griffin, he has “clarified” his remarks and we all know what that means. Griffin noted that he hadn’t meant to offend and that his comments caused hurt feelings. Well if that doesn’t take the cake, nothing will. Perhaps some feelings should be hurt. Its no different than when dealing with these ever so delicate students in school today, who’s self-esteem must be protected at all costs. Perhaps its time we stopped focusing and hurt feelings and start being practical. Are we going to continue to throw money down a rat hole because some feelings were hurt? Griffin’s follow-up, however, was not completely conciliatory he did note, “we have been restricted to low Earth orbit for far too long and that the proper focus of our nation's space program should be the exploration of the solar system.” Again Griffin was right. How long must space exploration be limited to doing the same thing that John Glenn and Yuri Gagarin were doing 50 years ago. How many times must we orbit this planet before we have it down pat?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-10-03-griffin-softens-comments_x.htm

For years Turkey has been trying to become a member of the European Union, why this country would freely seek to give up its sovereignty is unbeknownst to us. In any case, the Turks have reformed their laws, abolished the death penalty and undertook numerous reforms to curry favor with the Europeans. Now it appears all these efforts are not sufficient, the European leaders of the EU continue to throw roadblocks in Turkey’s way. In spite of the fact that Turkey has a strong and vibrant economy, respect for the rule of law, a strong democratic tradition and a largely secular population, the Europeans still balk at the idea of having Turkey as a full-fledged member. Signs of this opposition have been apparent for sometime and manifested themselves earlier this year when nation’s like France rejected the EU constitution. Now Austria is the latest figure to throw gum in the works, they argue, Turkey should be offered a partnership rather than full membership, this as less worthy countries in Eastern Europe are welcomed with open arms. Because of the EU’s arcane governing structure, all member states must unanimously agree before a new state can be admitted (or even before negotiations for admittance can begin). In practically every EU state, especially nations like Austria, France and Germany, there is opposition to Turkey’s candidacy, making unanimity all but impossible. But why? Turkey has been a strong a reliable member of NATO for years. Turkey has been committed to democracy since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey has been a strong trading partner with the west, yet the Europeans object. Some have argued that objections to Turkey center on the fact that the EU is largely Christian and Turkey is predominantly Muslim, but this argument is nonsense. To argue that Europe is predominantly Christian is to argue that Hitler was a champion of peaceful coexistence with his neighbors. Today Europe is nominally Christian at best and more accurately an atheist realm. The true reason for opposition to Turkey’s admission is petty racism. The Europeans like to champion themselves as the heroes of human and equal rights, but the reality is far more sinister. Only in Europe do these overtly racist right wing parties win elections. Only in Europe do we constantly here about foreigners and minorities being attacked at will on busses and trains. Only in Europe are Jewish cemeteries constantly being desecrating. That same hatred is now being directed toward the Turks. The EU should own up to its hypocrisy, as it is the base element in their common cultural heritage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4303550.stm

Before graduating and receiving their high school diplomas, California 12th graders must pass a comprehensive graduation exam. Many states have implemented such tests, in an effort to improve standards. These tests, by a large are a joke and those unable to pass demonstrate the failure of parents who refuse to instill a value and appreciation of learning in their children. According to state officials, the test doesnít even require 12th grade proficiency. Indeed the California test evaluates a studentís mathematical ability on an 8th grade level. An 8th grade level!!!! What 17 year old canít pass an 8th grade math test? What kind of students are they producing in California when 20% of the graduating class canít pass the simplest of tests? Many of these students can look forward to an illustrious career s4erving fast food or cleaning up garbage. Indeed, high school is perhaps the easiest period in a personís life, short of infancy. If they canít get past high school, what hope do they have? As California teachers note, many high schoolers are unprepared, frequently absent, have little parental involvement and are unmotivated. Perhaps they will be motivated by poverty and lack of opportunity, but then again we are talking about California, a bastion of leftist propaganda, which dictates that if you wonít do for yourself, then the government will. These leftists have only themselves to blame; this mental deficiency on the part of California students is a direct result of a culture which glorifies athletes and rock musicians, while ignoring the valuable accomplishments of scientist and business leaders. This is a direct result of a culture, which teaches that children are never wrong and nothing is ever their fault, including failure. We can expect this trend to continue until California and the rest of America wake up. In light of recent failures in California, however, state officials have taken the opposite approach they have lessened the rigorousness of the already watered down test, they have also delayed its full implementation by two years. This as students in other countries embrace more difficult subject matter and quickly outpace their American counterparts. Way to go California! Way to prepare the next generation for the real world!
[Find the full story here...]