Exactly the sort of thing needed to inject a note of reality into Russian deliberations:

The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia.

Russia reacted angrily, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States that have already been strained severely in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close American ally.

But the deal reflected growing alarm in countries like Poland, once a conquered Soviet client state, about a newly rich and powerful Russia’s intentions in its former cold war sphere of power. In fact, negotiations dragged on for 18 months — but were completed only as old memories and new fears surfaced in recent days.

Those fears were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily American soldiers would staff air defense sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member.

Polish officials said the agreement would strengthen the mutual commitment of the United States to defend Poland, and vice versa. “Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people,” the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Polish television. “Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of — knock on wood — any possible conflict.”

Next up, the Baltic States – we really need to teach Russia a lesson about which nation is the super power and which nation is the rapidly declining power of the second rank. Putin and his gang seem to labor under the illusion that Russia has the strength to stand on her own in the world – she doesn’t. Russia either gives up her imperial ambitions and agrees to alliance with the United States (after, of course, becoming a full democracy), or Russia will eventually find itself the conscript ally of China. There is only one way Russia retains her Asian territories beyond 2050, and that is in alliance with the United States.

The world changes and things do shift – and one of the shifts has been the eclipse of Europe by the Americas and Asia. Europe has its choices to make, and the wisest choice for all of Europe is to cling tightly to the United States, the bulwark of western (ie, European) civilization. Poland has figured this out, and we pray that Russia will eventually figure it out, too.

Linda Hirshman gives is a shot – first noting that the Democrats have come out for federally funded abortion on demand:

The Democratic Party platform of 2008 finally dropped its old abortion language (“safe, legal and rare”), which had asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must. The 2008 platform, just announced, says instead, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” Should a woman desire to bear her child, the Dems advocate prenatal care, income support, and adoption programs to help her there, too. But in the world of the new Democratic platform, it’s the woman’s decision to make.

She then winds up her argument by figuring that the reason abortion is viewed with distaste is the unwillingness of pro-abortion people to argue in favor of abortion, as an act, in relation to the conception that a woman’s happiness is dependent upon her ability to killl her unborn child at will:

In the absence of a robust description of the value of women’s lives—their ability to develop their capacities through education, to use them to achieve economic independence and political citizenship, to take on only the relationships they can manage—there is no moral argument for their “choice” to have an abortion. Set against the sound of nothing, the smallest moral claim of the potential human life looms large. Such an immoral act, moral thinkers conclude, must always be a mistake, the product of incomplete information or logic, and, in time, must produce regret, depression, and loss of self-esteem.

The wrong question will always lead to the wrong answer. Not coincidentally, the founding text of the Post-Abortion Syndrome movement is called “Making Abortion Rare.” The Democratic platform of 2008 offers an opportunity to put an end to this self-destructive cycle of Safe, Legal, and Rare, otherwise known as regret, depression, and self-denigration. In its place, it can finally argue for the value of women’s lives.

I guess as we argue for the value of women’s lives we will conveniently ignore the women we abort – their lives having no value unless, I presume, they are capable of having an abortion. There is something exceptionally nauseating in all this – the final plunge into the depths of the Culture of Death, the Orwellian transformation of a right to life into a right to kill. Hirshman, elsewhere in the article, stands aghast at the thought that a majority of people would ban abortions except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother – and entirely fails to draw the conclusion that if a majority are so disposed, then there must be some substantial number of women (who, under Hirshman’s definition, cannot be free unless they are also free to kill their children) who believe that abortion is wrong in all or most cases (few pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, and the number of women who risk their lives by giving birth grows vanishingly small these days). There is no understanding on the pro-abortion side – just a bloody-minded determination to keep the practice legal and enshrined in law as a human right. This probably stems from a very large number of very guilty consciences on the pro-abortion side.

Hirshman, like all the secular liberals, fails in her worldview because she doesn’t understand what life is for. For people like Hirshman, life is for personal gratification. That which is irksome or difficult is to be shoved aside and the individual is to enjoy maximum resources to alllow for a maximum of self-gratification and anything which stands in the way of this is inherently a violation of the rights of the individual. But that is not what its for – our purpose here, on this world in the here and now, is to live.

Yes, I know, seems pretty simple – but living means living life as it is, not as one might wish it to be. One might wish that in life it rained beer, but the facts of life are that you’ll either have to make beer or go buy it, and the very fact that you have to do one of these two things in order to obtain your beer means that you’re life has a limitation – and this would be only one of ten thousand we each have. Some woman might not have wanted a pregnancy to result from that tawdry affair, but if one results then that is part of the life she is to live – and a wonderous, glorious thing it is, if taken with the right perspective. Once, you see, you decide to have a tawdry affair you also accept all that may result from that tawdry affair…death, jail, bankruptcy, lawsuits, venereal diseases, pregnancy, what have you. We’ve grown too fond of the notion that anything difficult is wrong – that what is right and good must be what is easiest and most pleasant…so fond of this notion have we grown that there are amongst us those like Hirshman, who advocate a permanent – dare we say, “final”? – solution to a temporary condition.

I feel sorry for Hirshman and those like her who have mired themselves in this mindset – there is not much I can do in the way of argument to reach them, all I can do is have pity and, of course, work to end abortion. This will be a great relief – not least to those who have locked themselves into advocating the practice.

Still waiting for the liberal, Bush-hating, anti-war left to admit that we’ve won:

After traveling more than 7,000 miles, two Bengal tiger cubs have finally settled into their new home in Iraq. Amid much fanfare and excitement, Hope and Riley were introduced to the Baghdad Zoo on Aug. 8.

The tigers were a goodwill gesture from the North Carolina Conservators’ Center, a breeding sanctuary for endangered species.

“We are building trust with America,” said Dr. Adel Salman Mousa, the zoo’s director. “We’re building trust with a society that trusted us to care for these animals.”

The cubs are just under 2 years old and weigh more than 150 pounds each. The Bengal tiger is an endangered species, with less than 3,000 worldwide.

“We hope to bring smiles back to the people and the children,” Mousa said. “We want to put smiles back on their faces after years of misery. In addition to the enjoyment people will get from watching them, they will present opportunities for students and the public to learn about this and other endangered species.”

Iraq is still not a bed of roses and there remains fighting to be done – but given all the news we’ve seen out of Iraq over the past month or two, it is incontrovertible that we – and the Iraqis – have won this fight…and that President Bush’s vision for a liberated Iraq building up an alternative worldview in the Arab/Moslem world has been vindicated…and, of course, that McCain’s courageous advocacy of the surge has proven far more valid than Obama’s “cut and run” approach from 2007.

Parents of home-schooling get to retain their right to educate their children, but the decision is a bit odd, in my view:

Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote in the decision: “Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California homeschool their children by declaring their homes to be private schools.”

Judge Croskey noted that a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees indicated “a legislative approval of homeschooling,” the San Francisco Chronicle says.

He added that the 1953 decision applying compulsory education without exceptions has been overruled by real world changes.

“Clinging to such precedent,” he said, “would undermine a practice that has been, if not actively encouraged, at least acknowledged and accepted by officials and the public for many years.”

The court stated that homeschooling is not an absolute right and may be revoked when children are abused or neglected.

Judge Croskey also advised that California might need to increase its oversight of those educated in home schools, given what he said is “the state’s compelling interest in educating all of its children.”

The children of America are the children of the State? The State has a compelling interest in educating children? Whence comes either of these two absurd ideas? The children of America belong to their families, not to the State – and the State’s only compelling interest is to protect the lives, liberty and property of the citizens of the State. Whether a person is a PhD or illiterate is irrelevant as far as his standing before the State is concerned.

While the ruling protects the ability of parents in California to home-school their children, I look at it as a bit of damage control by liberal judges who realise they went too far – there was probably some fear that the right to home-school would be written into the California constitution or, worse, it would wind up in the federal courts and the US Supreme Court might find that parents have a right to dictate the education choices of their children – either outcome would be anethema to liberalism in general and the government school system in particular. The whole situation here just reeks of the false idea that we must subordinate ourselves to the State and our worth is determined by how useful we are to the State. I can see why some people feel there is a compelling interest in having all the children educated up to some particular standard – we have to compete, we have to grow our GDP, we must continually advance in the sciences! Which is all well and good, but I don’t see any right of the State to command such an outcome – certainly the State has no right to decide just what a child shall learn, and when.

As G K Chesterton pointed out long ago, even the most homeless street urchin is being educated – he might be getting an advanced degree in violence and vice, but educated he is becoming. Meanwhile, all educationist talk of drawing out of children what is inside of them is nonsense – if you have an organised school it will be either trying to shove in or draw out what it wants, which may or may not be what the child needs or has a natural aptitude for. It isn’t, then, so much a question of whether or not we want to educate our children or whether or not it is right or wrong for us to teach them what we wish, but it is entirely a question of who gets to decide what goes into or is drawn out of any particular child? Our ruling elites have it that, rather conveniently, the ruling elites know what is best for kids to learn – so off they all go to the one-size-fits-all public school system to be indoctrinated in whatever it is, at the moment, that the ruling elites feel kids should learn. Anyone who is not a member of this elite understands instantly that to think that the elites know what is best is a laughably stupid idea – and only someone who is an elite could be stupid enough – and ignorant enough of real world needs – to fall for such an idea.

In human affairs there is not and never will be perfection – not in this world; its just not possible. But taking one thing with another and allowing for the fact that some parents are woefully incompetant, it still is the reasonable and commonsense position that parents are more likely than anyone else to know what their kids need and are capable of. Given this, it stands to reason that parents should rule the education roost and that the type and form of education for the children should conform – as far as possible – to the wishes of parents. Much assistance can be given by government and, indeed, by those who are currently in the edcuation system and do have a body of knowledge on the ways and means of imparting knowledge – but the final call in all education matters should always lie with the parent; and this would extend to such fundamental issues as when a child will start school, how long he’ll be at it and what general subjects are to be covered.

In this age of lies and big government, the duty of free people is clear – to tell the truth, and demand that their power be returned to them and government be curbed. Especially in matters of family it is a vital necessity that we get government out of the internal affairs of the family. A people remain free just as long as they value it and know what it is – the mis-educated results of public school system are ripe for tyrants of various stripes. Its time for fundamental change, and no place better to start than in returning authority to the parents.

The nightmare Obama doesn’t want:

A determined crowd of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s delegates – preparing to head to the Democratic Party’s national convention in Denver – have begun gathering signatures to ensure her name is placed into nomination, insisting their effort won’t take spotlight off presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

Many of those involved in the campaign, which they say is a matter of respect and acknowledgement of 18 million voters who backed Clinton, argue that the nomination of the New York senator is a matter of historic and political precedent at such party conventions. And they’re chafing at reports that the campaign of the Illinois senator is resisting the efforts – and even hoping to avoid a roll-call vote.

“Since 1884, we’ve had a roll-call vote. … It’s a nominating convention, not a coronation,” said Garry Mauro, the four-term Texas land commissioner and past gubernatorial candidate who ran against George W. Bush – and who will go to his 10th Democratic national convention this month as a Clinton delegate.

With less than two weeks until Aug. 25, when Democrats open their nominating convention in Denver, the sentiment is typical of many Clinton delegates who say the nomination of the New York senator from the floor of the convention doesn’t endanger Obama’s presidential campaign – and could serve his cause.

The problem, for Obama, is that it would (a) expose the divisions between his troops and Hillary’s, (b) take time away from a pro-Obama love-fest and (c) open up the real prospect that Obama will fail to garner a nominating majority on the first ballot. Remember, in actual pledged delegates, Obama is short of the number needed for a first ballot nomination…only when you add in his superdelegates is he over the top, and they can change their minds. If by some means Obama fails to garner that first ballot majority, then he’s probably out as the Democratic nominee – this doesn’t mean that Hillary would be in, but once done for Obama, he becomes political kryptonite; the messiah who couldn’t carry out his appointed task.

The fissures in the Democratic party are very real – the dividing line between between upper clase urban liberals and blue collar Democrats. Picture in your mind a delegate from San Francisco who works on some sort of city divsersity council and a delegate who works as a union electrician in Philadelphia: how much do these two people really have in common, other than – perhaps – a loathing of President Bush? Obama is already going to bleed a lot of blue collar support over to McCain (which he hopes, then, to make up by securing the votes of the more urban and socially liberal section of the GOP), but he’d like to limit his losses on this end with an eye towards retaining Michigan and Pennsylvania and having a shot at Ohio. Have a blue collar stampede to McCain and Obama might as well start writing his concession speech.

This makess for a tricky situation, and just as a political observer it will be interesting to see how Obama works it – he has to bow to Hillary’s supporters while keeping the spotlight on himself. It’ll be fun to watch.

I guess if you know nothing, then its ok to have someone who also knows nothing giving you advice – from the Daily Mail via Hot Air Blog:

George Clooney once famously declared he could never run for public office because he’d ‘slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties’.

But now the Hollywood heart-throb has entered the political arena at the highest level – by becoming an unofficial adviser to US Presidential front-runner Barack Obama.

Oscar-winner Clooney, 47, is said to be helping the Democratic candidate to polish his image at home and abroad.

But he is also sharing with Obama his strong opinions on Iraq and the Middle East.

A self-admitted philanderer and drug user to advise on polishing an image? Only in modern America would a Presidential candidate get within 10 miles of Clooney…

Sources say the actor has tried to hide the pair’s friendship for fear his Left-wing views and playboy image would hurt the Presidential hopeful’s bid for the White House.

But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.

One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.

‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.

‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.

‘George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.

‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.

‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’

Its not so much Clooney’s leftism (after all, it’d be hard to out-lefty Obama, anyways), but the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s yet another of those Hollywood liberals who latch on to fashionable causes and right now the fashion is to be pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and, of course, opposed to victory in Iraq. Among the many people I would expect a President to get advice from on foreign policy, Clooney never makes that list – in fact, he wouldn’t make the list of people to advise on the color of the drapes in the Oval Office. Somehow, being an actor doesn’t seem to be the best training for figuring out whether Hamas is a partner for peace or a bloodthirsty terrorist organization. Perhaps Clooney has been doing some studying, but if he has he’s yet to register as someone who has offered his own opinion in a forum where criticism of same is possible. What we don’t need is a star-struck President going along with ill-informed advice simply for fear of offending a glittering pal.

As I write this the latest news from Georgia indicates that Russia intends a complete subjugation of that nation and the imposition of a puppet regime.

While all decent people are disgusted with the Russian action, there is not much we can immediately do, at this point, unless we are prepared for full scale war with Russia. While Georgia is only about 300 air miles from northern Iraq, the real limiting factor on sending US forces to Georgia is the difficulty in getting American air power established in the area. The effort to do so would essentially mean challenging the Russians directly including, perhaps, bombing of Russian airfields near Georgia. A war between the United States and Russia would only have one conclusion – the utter defeat of Russia. Russia is playing the Great Power game but really lacks the military and economic wherewithall to play such a role – Georgia, quite honestly, is about the largest thing Russia can handle at the moment. Such a war, however, even with its foregone conclusion would be a long and costly struggle, with the risk that someone who is proving himself as insane as Putin might actually pull the nuclear trigger. So, while we must try to save an independent Georgia, our tasks for the future is to treat Russia in light of Russia’s actions.

It appears from Russia’s actions that Russia has embarked upon an attempt – in one form or another – to revive the Russian Empire. Given our ability to swallow hypocrisy these days, the Russians would present their new empire as a collection of independent States, just as the USSR pretended that the east European States were independent, and we went along with the fiction. In the year of 2008, we must not allow the world to slip back into a place and time where larger nations preyed upon smaller nations and made them colonies or protectorates – nor can we allow large countries to carve out spheres of influence amongst other nations. Russia is indicating it wants an empire, our task is to thwart them in this effort.

First and foremost is the exposure of the UN as entirely useless – if one member of the Security Council, wielding a veto over UN action, is determined to violate the UN Charter in letter and spirit, then the whole thing becomes an entire waste of time. There is no purpose in being in an international body which cannot do what it was designed to do. Of course, those who know realise that the UN long ago became moribund, but now its actually counter-productive, and its time for it to go. In its place should be – as long ago suggest by myself, and more recently by Senator McCain – a Leage of Democratic Nations. This would be a grouping of free nations and free peoples, pledged to the defense and expansion of freedom around the world – and most emphatically nations like Russia (and China, and Iran, etc, etc, etc) would have no place in it. Only by so doing will we have an international body which we can act for good in the world.

Secondly, we’ll want a larger military. Russia is feeling expansive, and so is Iran – meanwhile, China modernises its military and greedily eyes the wealth of Taiwan as a means of cutting its way out of the sea of bad debt China floats upon. We have to be prepared for a two front war requiring very large military establishments on opposite ends of the world. This will require several more active divisions for the army, at least one more for the Marines, quite a large number of aircraft for the Air Force and a major beefing up of the US Navy so that we can ensure absolute command of all the world’s seas no matter what combination of enemies we fight. Essentially, we’ll have to rebuild our military size to about where it was at the end of the Cold War, and perhaps even larger.

Third, we need to quickly strengthen the military side of our alliances in eastern Europe and do whatever we can to induce former Soviet Republicans to join NATO. We must surround the aggressor with such a large number of potential enemies that whatever military force he has at his disposal will be insufficient to meet all needs, and thus we can secure a cold peace. We’ll also give pause to Iran, China and other potential threats that we retain the power to deal with all contingencies.

As to why Russia has embarked upon this insanity, I don’t know – I hope they come to their senses, but we cannot rely on that. Russia has ranged itself, sadly, as an enemy of liberty, justice and basic human decency, and it is the task of the United States to contain this as far as possible and hope that some day the Russians will wake up and take full charge of their own future, no longer turning themselves over – body and soul – to whatever Czar promises to raise them to the peak of power in the world.

UPDATE: Richard Beeston at Times Online tells the true state of Russia in 2008, and it ain’t a pretty picture.

He might be the Obamessiah to his kook left supporters, but he’s political kryptonite in Louisiana, it would seem – from Political Punch:

The Baton Rouge Advocate reports that Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., the only Senate Democrat in a competitive race this year, was listed as a co-host for a $100-per-person DC fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, until suddenly, she wasn’t.

The event, “Girls Night Out: Lipstick, Laughter and Libations,” (you can see the cached version which includes Landrieu’s name HERE) is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, August 18.

Landrieu campaign spokesman Scott Schneider told the Advocate that she was never supposed to be listed as a co-host.

“I believe it was a clerical mistake where some finance assistant confused who was going to the event with who was hosting the event,” Schneider said.

Yeah, right – whatever.

This is a sign of Obama’s weakness – his inability to really expand beyond African-American and upper-class white voters. It seems that Obama is so unpopular in Louisiana with everyone other than hard core Democrats that Landrieu made the calculation that “Obama who?” is the best way to save her political hide.

Thing for the GOP to do? Tie her as tightly as possible to Obama and his Democrats.

Threats of war in the Caucusus, prospects of large US withdrawals from Iraq with victory secured, probably a necessity of sending 15,000 or so additional troops to Afghanistan, oil bubble might have burst, Democratic jitters over Obama’s clear weaknesses…

Yeah, not much to talk aobut…

We can trust that a veteran who suffers from war wounds will do what is right for our veterans:

John McCain Believes We Must Provide Our Veterans With World-Class Health Care. We must fully fund the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care budget in a timely and predictable manner. Those who have risked their lives in service to their fellow citizens deserve nothing less than the best medical care in the world.

When The VA Cannot Meet Our Veterans’ Needs, Our Veterans Must Be Given Alternative Means Of Access To Health Care And Freedom Of Choice. Too many veterans are unable to obtain health care through the VA because of geographical constraints, unreasonably long waiting lists, or the lack of specialized facilities at local VA hospitals. John McCain will develop and enforce demanding new standards for veterans’ access to health care for injuries or illness related to military service: no more than an hour’s drive for care, routine care within a week, urgent care within 24 hours, and specialty care within a month.

Veterans’ Care Access Card: John McCain has proposed a Veterans’ Care Access Card, which would expand access and choice for those veterans with illness or injury incurred during military service, as well as low-income veterans. This supplement to ordinary VA care — which would not replace or privatize existing programs — would permit those veterans unable to obtain timely and appropriate VA care under the standards set out above, to receive care at a private facility.

That last one is a good idea – its not always possible to get to the VA clinic and I can tell you from personal experience with my father, there are some things the private insurance either doesn’t cover or doesn’t cover as well as the VA, but the VA can be at times an onerous bureaucracy in getting things done. The more flexibility and choice in VA benefits, the better for the veterans and their families.

Outside of that, I also have a proposal of my own, in line with this:

As our veterans get really up in years (75 or older) the amount of care they need expands quite a bit, what I think we should do for our veterans as they enter their final years is ensure that they really do have everything they need. Right now, the old man gets some VA benefits because he was injured during war service, but the father-in-law doesn’t get them because his injury in service wasn’t directly war-related – that plus the records from that time are sketchy and he’s having a hard time convincing the VA that his hearing loss is service-related. Both were once upon a time very young men who joined, and both are now 81 with various service-related injuries made worse by the ravages of age.

What I think we should do is just work out an amount that veterans might need for the time 75 until death and just give it to them. In a three trillion dollar Federal budget, it won’t be that much extra a burden and a lot of the cost might be offset by other VA benefits going unused as the veterans and their families use the stipends to work out their own care arrangements. I understand that after a certain time our World War One veterans were given such a benefit, pretty much no questions asked – and this benefit came in handy for my grandfather in his last few years of life. Anyways, we can never fully repay those who fought for us, and I think this is one of those “least we can do” sort of things.