EVENING UPDATE:  APRIL 18,  2008

Posted at 7:23 p.m. ET

LATER POLLS

Some new polls have been published since our afternoon posting.

Newsweek has Obama up 19 for the Democratic nomination.  However, please note that Rasmussen has him up only five, and Gallup three.

A Downs Center poll - which I don't know - has Obama up five in Indiana, consistent with an LA Times/Bloomberg poll of several days ago.  However, please note that a Survey USA poll of about five days ago had Clinton up 16.  If Clinton loses Indiana on May 6th, her hopes are over, as Obama will win by a landslide that day in North Carolina. 

A new national poll from Newsweek has Obama up four over McCain, and Clinton up four as well. 

Take them all with some skepticism.  This has not been a year of polling precision, as actual voting results show. 

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

IT'S COME TO THIS

As jihadists plan to attack us and wreck our civilization, we have this story:

RADNOR, Penn. (AP) -- Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are complaining about which candidate is the biggest complainer.

The issue is their treatment in debates. Obama is objecting to the questions posed this week in one moderated by ABC News. Many of the toughest questions were targeted at Obama, the front-runner for the nomination, and he's said too much time was spent on political divisions instead of issues that matter to Americans.

Clinton said Friday that if Obama thinks the debate was tough, it pales in comparison to the pressures a president faces.

''I'm with Harry Truman on this -- if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen,'' she told voters while campaigning in Pennsylvania. ''Just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen.''

But it wasn't so long ago that Clinton was the front-runner and complaining about her treatment in debates. After a debate last fall, her campaign compiled clips of her being targeted, and called it the ''Politics of Pile On.'' In late February, Clinton complained that she always got asked the first question.

''Her blatant hypocrisy here is stunning,'' responded Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

Remember that this was the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Jack Kennedy.  Years ago.

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT

This morning I used a story from South Korea to emphasize the importance of knowing what our kids are being taught in school.

Now we have a cautionary tale from right here at home:

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia - Twelve U.S. senators and a federal commission want to shut it down, and its most virulent critics have dubbed it "Terror High."

The teachers, administrators and about 900 students at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County have heard the allegations for years - after the Sept. 11 attacks and then a few years later when a class valedictorian admitted he joined al-Qaida.

Now the school finds itself on the defensive again. Last month, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a report saying the academy should be closed until it can conduct a review of the curriculum and textbooks.

Abdalla al-Shabnan, the school's director general, says the criticism of the school - where the courses are taught in English and Arabic - is based not on evidence, but on preconceived notions of the Saudi educational system.

Preconceived?  Is that a serious statement?  The Associated Press naturally trots out witnesses to prove that all is well at the school.  Get this hoot:

Robert Mead, soccer coach at Bryant Alternative High School, a public school in the Alexandria section of Fairfax county, said the academy's reputation has been unfairly marred by people who have not even bothered to visit the school.

"We've never had one altercation" on the soccer field with the academy's players, Mead said. "My guys are hostile. Their guys keep fights from breaking out."

Translated:  Behavior on the soccer field demonstrates what's in the curriculum.  Amazing.

A reply...

Michael Cromartie, the commission's chairman, said he does not question the character of the student body or the faculty, most of whom are Christian. The commission is focused specifically on the textbooks, and has legitimate concerns given the problems that have been endemic in the Saudi curriculum, he said.

"It's not about whether the students are civil to their opponents on a ball field. It's about the textbooks," he said.

I don't have independent knowledge of the facts here, and clearly there are legitimate civil-liberties concerns.  But the senators and the commission are raising an important point:  We have a right to know what children are being taught, so we can avoid finding out the hard way.

Be back tomorrow, or later tonight if events warrant.

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

AFTERNOON POSTING:  APRIL 18,  2008

Posted at 3:59 p.m. ET

THE POLLS

Latest polls are not encouraging for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania. The Rasmussen tracker  has her up only three over Obama in next Tuesday's vote.  Zogby has her up four.  I'm reminded that Zogby has an erratic record of accuracy, but in this case a second poll comes close to Zogby's result.

The pundits seem to think that Hillary must win Pennsylvania by double digits to remain credible.  Seems to me that if she wins with any respectable figure she'll be able to stay in, at least through the May 6th primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, only two weeks after Pennsylvania.

But, clearly, Clinton has not been able to gain from gaffes by Obama, demonstrating the dislike that many hold toward her.

National trackers show no dramatic change.  Ras has McCain up six over Obama, but Gallup has Obama leading by one. 

Ras has McCain up nine over Clinton, Gallup has Clinton ahead by two.

Be back later.

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

FRIDAY:  APRIL 18,  2008

Posted at 6:57 a.m. ET

A SOBER REMINDER

Hitler said, "He alone who owns the youth, gains the future."

The guttersnipe was right. 

There's a story from South Korea today that reminds us that what we put into the heads of our children will determine the fate of the nation:

SEOUL — When the Korea Military Academy asked its incoming cadets in 2004 to name South Korea’s main enemy, they were shocked at the answer: 34 percent said the United States while only 33 percent said North Korea.

And...

The academy’s then-superintendent, retired Lt. Gen. Kim Choong-bae, was so concerned about the survey results he cut the cadets’ boot camp from six weeks to four.

During the two extra weeks, cadets attended classes on South Korean history to learn how the country got its independence, what happened during the Korean War, and the role the United States played in the war.

Teachers told them about the U.S. Military Academy at West Point class of 1950, whose cadets graduated less than a month before the start of the Korean War. Nearly 50 of those cadets were killed.

“The [KMA] cadets were shocked. They said, ‘We didn’t know that,’” Kim said.

The cadets told academy officials they had leftist teachers in middle and high school who told them the United States was trying to dominate South Korea.

“The young cadets were kind of victims of the wrong education. They were kind of indoctrinated by the wrong education, the wrong textbooks,” Kim said. “Youngsters have no idea what was the Korean War, what was the contribution by the United States. They’ve been educated with a different perspective for the past 10 years.”

Please remember what you've just read.  You'll read many stories about education in the next year, and they'll reflect our regularly scheduled anguish on the subject.  But how many will explore what is actually being taught to our kids? 

A commentator several years ago said that American parents spend years molding their children, pressuring them, working the system, to get the kids into the best colleges.  Then these same parents never ask what their offspring are taught.

The political left that has dominated our colleges since the sixties is now filtering into the high schools.  There are frightening reports that students at schools of education - our future teachers - are now required to have the proper "inclinations" - that's the actual term - for teaching.  In other words, they must have the correct political point of view.

If you are a parent, explore what's actually being taught in the schools your taxes support.  You may be very disturbed at what you find.  You may be even more disturbed if you dare to criticize, and find yourself labeled a McCarthyite. 

At least the Korea Military Academy took action when it found out what had been installed in the minds of its cadets.  I see nothing similar here, and no interest in the media.

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

NORTH KOREA MYSTERY

There is another Korean-related story that could produce some intriguing news - or leaks - next Tuesday. Most of you will recall the Israeli strike on a Syrian target last September 6th.  The target was rumored to be a nuclear facility.  Israel has remained silent, but Congress is about to hold hearings on the subject:

The American administration intends to give the Senate Intelligence Committee an account of the nuclear ties between North Korea and Syria for the first time on April 22.

Senior IDF officers have warned, however, that the release of any information containing details of the Israeli Air Force strike in Syria last September could increase tension between Israel and Syria.

The meeting is expected to be held behind closed doors at Israel's insistence, but the Americans did not promise not to brief journalists afterward.

That last phrase - "...the Americans did not promise not to brief journalists afterward" - is the key.  A face of secrecy is placed on the hearings, but leaks will be conveniently arranged.  Now we may find out exactly what was hit, and the extent of the nuclear connection between North Korea and Syria.

Unfortunately, the hearings take place the same day as the Pennsylvania primary, giving the fashion plates of the press another excuse not to explore the nuclear dangers we face.  But I suspect some of the better news organizations, and websites, will insist on giving the story its proper coverage. 

April 18, 2008.      Permalink           

A KIND WORD FOR ABC

As you know, there is shock, shock, in parts of the media and in the blogosphere that ABC reporters asked some tough questions of Saint Barack in Wednesday's debate.  There are reports of liberal journalists going into therapy to try to recover. 

But Investor's Business Daily, one of the sane voices around today, has a very different view, and a correct one:

"Cringe-worthy . . . trivial pursuit" is how Time magazine's Michael Grunwald put it. "A tawdry affair," added Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe. And TV critic Tom Shales of the Washington Post . . . well, he was downright apoplectic.

For dwelling on "specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed," he adjudged the performances of Gibson and co-moderator George Stephanopoulos, as "shoddy" and "despicable." It was, Shales said, "another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News."

I don't know if I can go on, but I'll try:

But the pundits protest too much.

Granted, the second half of the debate dealt with issues — Iran, taxes, Social Security, affirmative action, gun-control — that were more "substantial," as columnist Eugene Robinson, a big Obama supporter, points out on the next page.

But many Americans are only starting to learn about this relative newcomer on the national political scene, and questions that go to his patriotism and regard for fellow citizens help fill in the blanks.

We realize the liberals who dominate the mainstream media are in his corner. But they must understand that others look at Obama and wonder — given his willingness to surrender in Iraq, his eagerness to deal with Islamofascist and Communist dictators, and his embrace of Marxist economic principles — just how liberal he is.

We've wondered for months here, and we never seem to get any straight answers from the Obama camp.

Let the "trivial" questions continue.  If Obama were a Republican, and attended a church that preached intelligent design, can you imagine the questions, and the editorials?

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

NOT WILD ABOUT JIMMAH

Some of the reaction to Jimmy Carter's freelance trip to hug the jihadists is merging into calls for action:

WASHINGTON — Pressure on President Carter is mounting from politicians outraged that he will meet today with the leader of the military wing of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal.

In the House this week, Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, a Republican from Michigan, introduced the Coordinated American Response to Extreme Radicals Act, or CARTER Act. The bill would cut off federal funding for the Carter Center, the Emory University-based center that monitors elections, works on developing world health issues, and is dedicated to “waging peace,” as the ex-president is quoted as saying on the center’s Web site. Since 2001, the center has received $19 million in federal funding.

Mr. Knollenberg told The New York Sun that support for the bill has been overwhelming in the first 24 hours since he introduced it. He said already eight Democrats have said they will support the bill. Also, the Republican leadership in the House has thrown its support behind it, according to Mr. Knollenberg.

Meanwhile, Rep. Susan Myrick, a Republican of North Carolina, called on Secretary of State Rice to revoke Mr. Carter’s passport.

Mr. Knollenberg, who sits on the House subcommittee that funds the Carter Center, said the purpose of his bill is to have America speak with one voice against engaging terrorists. “We are going to break ties with President Carter,” he said.

Oh goody.  Support the CARTER ACT!  It's about time.

Now, do you think someone will ask Obama and Clinton about this, or is it too trivial?

More from the story:

One issue for Democrats will be whether Mr. Carter will speak at the national convention in Denver scheduled for August. The editor-in-chief of the New Republic, Martin Peretz, this week urged Democrats not to let the ex-president speak. “If the Democrats want to win Florida in November they should try to keep him in Plains or send him on another voyage to Darfur where his syrupy cynicism is also well-understood,” he wrote.

Comment, Mr. Obama?  Anything?  Maybe you can let Carter speak, then say you never knew what he actually stood for since his election 32 years ago.  It's worked for you before.

April 18, 2008.      Permalink          

McWHORTER

Finally, John McWhorter of The Manhattan Institute is one of the most engaging writers around today.  An African-American with conservative leanings, he has taught at, and survived, the University of California at Berkeley.  Here he examines the mentality of some on the left, recalling his experience at Berkeley when he refused to follow the party line.  About campus leftists he says:

They thrill as much to the idea of open dialogue as anyone — but they think that a radical leftist perspective is truth, not opinion. To them, dialogue about a conservative perspective’s correctness is no more legitimate than dialogue about heliocentrism.

The social scientists are under the impression that statistical analysis proves that leftism is correct. The less numerate, it would seem, labor under an impression that ever just around the corner is that great day when the truth is revealed: that a just world will be run according to the politics of Noam Chomsky.

The only question people like this have is just how they will enlighten the world with their precious gospel. Another vignette from my Berkeley days that sticks with me (again, it’s the little things that hang on) is when I was talking to two graduate students in the wake of September 11. September 11 had made me very angry at the people who perpetrated it. It had made these two even angrier than they already were at George Bush.

Our conversation was friendly enough, but each time I made an observation, before one of them responded they would give each other a smug smile: “Oh, listen to him — he doesn’t know the truth!”

Please read the whole thing.  It's delightfully written, and insightful.

Be back later.

April 18, 2008.      Permalink