Mexico's Foreign Ministry plans to print 1.5 million copies of their Guide for the Mexican Migrant, 32 pages of illustrated instructions designed to help illegal immigrants cross the US border in safety. The comic book contains advice like, "Thick clothing increases your weight when wet, and this makes it difficult to swim or float," and "Don't throw stones or objects at the officer or patrol vehicles because this is considered a provocation." The simple illustrations show Mexicans sneaking across a river, climbing through a fence, avoiding Border Patrol officers, and following telephone lines to find towns where they can live. It doesn't, however, show them applying for visas or work permits. Although the book comes with "a yellow disclaimer saying it does not promote undocumented immigration," it gives helpful tips like, "Avoid attracting attention, at least while you are arranging your stay or documents to live in the United States."

While some may criticise this comic-book how-to for illegal immigrants, and others may poke fun at it, Mexico's effort to create smarter, better-educated lawbreakers should be applauded. In fact, the US should follow Mexico's lead in educating criminals to be better at what they do. We're the United States of America, for crying out loud -- we ought to have the best criminals in the world! If our lawbreakers are too lazy to figure out the best ways to commit crimes on their own, then perhaps it's the job of the government to educate them so that they can do their job... earn a livi... err, get along in a society that practically forces them to break its laws!

There are too many examples of stupid or uneducated criminals getting caught through simple mistakes -- mistakes that could have been avoided with a proper, government-sponsored criminal training program. Drug dealers have been known to bring drugs to their court appearances, Peeping Toms have left fingerprints on windows, and inexperienced crooks have shown their IDs to clerks while holding up liquor stores (to prove their ages), or filled out applications with their real names during a robbery. Even simple how-to books like those the Mexican government so thoughtfully provides to prospective lawbreakers would be a giant step in the right direction. The US government should provide help for under-educated criminals who want to break the law, but are not sure how to do so without getting caught.

For instance, a how-to book for the budding car thief could contain helpful advice like, "Most people don't even notice car alarms anymore, but police might. Make sure none are in sight before entering your chosen vehicle." This handy admonition might prevent a stupid mistake. Instructions for novice prostitutes could include, "Always ask whether your prospective customer is a police officer before detailing your services and prices." A bank robber's instruction booklet could give handy tips like, "Do not attempt to use the drive-through when committing your robbery -- go inside. It's worth the effort." Scott Peterson, for instance, could have used a murder how-to comic book. It might have told him, "Do not use a fishing trip at the site and on the day you dump the body as your alibi. It might be a good explanation in case anyone spotted you, but if the body is ever recovered, you will NEVER talk your way out of it." So many criminals forget little details like these, which can lead to embarrassing arrests, court appearances and even convictions.

It makes the entire country look bad when our criminals are so ill-informed and ill-educated. If Mexico can teach their criminals better lawbreaking methods, then so can we!

Hat tip to QandO Blog for their own "interpretation" of the comic!

During his failed Presidential campaign, John Kerry made several glaring mistakes, most of which were downplayed by the "mainstream" media. The most famous was his priceless gift to the Bush campaign: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion... before I voted against it." Another such error was his claim that he could fight a "more sensitive War on Terror." Kerry's detractors and opponents poked quite a bit of fun at this statement. His defenders assured us that Kerry only meant that we should be more careful with the fragile egos of our allies -- by which they meant apologising to the countries whose leaders and other people of influence opposed the war in Iraq for personal gain. Kerry's statement in itself may not have been a mistake, however -- or else the mistake was in saying it out loud.

As events have continued to unfold, and the Left has continued to attack, it has become clear that sensitivity is a major issue to them. The Left savaged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for not personally signing condolence letters to the families of fallen soldiers. They felt he was being "insensitive." Personally, speaking as the taxpayer/employer, I don't want some touchy-feely Kumbayah-singing milquetoast who wears his heart on his sleeve conducting my defense. I want a no-nonsense firebreathing SOB with a hard layer of bark on him at the helm of what used to be more properly called the War Department. If Rumsfeld wasn't weeping publicly over every soldier's death, it was because he was spending his time trying to figure out how best to prevent any more American casualties than necessary while winning the war. That's as "sensitive" as he needs to be to do his job. The Left, however, is more concerned with whether people in other countries like us than whether we win. It shows the Left's skewed priorities -- image over substance.

The Left continues to characterise President Bush's response to the Indonesian tsunami as "insensitive" because it took him three days to make a public statement. Never mind the fact that almost all the people affected by the disaster were hardly sitting in front of a television awaiting Bush's words -- the Left is mainly concerned with what Europeans think. No one on the Left seems to mind that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was still on vacation while Bush was making his remarks. No one on the Left seems to know that by January first, the US Navy was already on the scene rendering aid. The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) carrier strike group was on its way to Indonesia by the time President Bush went before the cameras. The Lincoln is not the only US ship to render aid, either. While Kofi was on the ski slopes, the Seventh Fleet was already deploying ships to the region.

In addition to Lincoln CSG ships already in the area, including USS Shoup (DDG 86), USS Shiloh (CG 67), USS Benfold (DDG 65) and USNS Ranier (T-AOE 7), the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) will provide aid to the region along with elements from its expeditionary strike group, including USS Duluth (LPD 6), USS Milius (DDG 69), USS Rushmore (LSD 47), USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), USS Thach (FFG 43), and USCGC Munro (WHEC 724).

In addition, six U.S. maritime pre-positioning ships -- large cargo ships loaded with stocks of food, fresh water and other relief supplies -- from Guam and Korea will enter the region and begin contributing their resources to the humanitarian effort. The ships are laden with enough equipment and supplies to support 15,000 Marines for one month. They are equipped with water purification machines and evaporators capable of producing more than 100,000 gallons of potable water per day and pumping it to shore from up to two miles away, road-making supplies, electrical power generators and a host of other emergency supplies and equipment.

The Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit No. 6 from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is set to join the humanitarian effort in Southern Asia Jan. 2 by sending 43 medical professionals into the area to administer a range of medical assistance, including disease assessment and treatment, water-quality and food-quality testing, mosquito and insect assessment, and chemical analysis.

Meanwhile, the fight to conduct a sensitive War on Terror continues with the Left's attacks on proposed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales' fatal flaw, apparently, is telling the truth about the law. In 2002, he correctly noted that the War on Terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions," such as requiring that prisoners get advances on their salaries. In a series of memos, legal experts confirmed that torture (as defined by the law) "covers only extreme acts," and that "neither the federal War Crimes Act nor the Geneva Conventions would apply to the detention conditions of al-Qaida prisoners." In fact, the Geneva Conventions specifically excludes terrorists from their protection. According to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, article 4, part 2, prisoners of war must be former members of the regular armed forces, non-combatants, or:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Terrorists don't meet even one of the four standards a protected prisoner must. Legally, as Gonzales pointed out, there is no Geneva Convention protection for terrorists. For telling the truth, he is demonised as condoning torture. (The Left even blames him for the prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib -- which was a matter of individuals committing unlawful acts for which they were charged, not state-sanctioned torture.) If keeping a terrorist -- a person dedicated to the mass murder of innocents -- awake for a few days, feeding him bread and water, scaring him with a barking dog or making him stand for a few hours might prevent another 9/11, then it's a fair trade. None of the approved interrogation methods could realistically be considered "torture," as no damage is done to the terrorist in question.

Of course, the Left defines torture as, "anything that makes the subject vaguely uncomfortable," where the subject is one of America's enemies. I wonder if "having to listen to Liberals continually attack America" meets that standard? Maybe I'm just being too sensitive.

Headlines We Are Sure To See in 2005

DOW hits 12,000
This is about as risky a prediction as, "the sun will rise tomorrow."

Unemployment Drops Below 5%
See above. Also see "Britney Spears Marriage On The Rocks," "French Still Haughty," and "Terrorists Target Innocents."

Over 70% Turnout For Iraqi Election; Allawi Wins With Plurality
The "mainstream" media's portrait of Iraq is about as accurate as sampling South Central LA and claiming it represents all of California. The Iraqis themselves will show us the truth of this.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Killed In Shootout
The only question is whether the American or Iraqi military will get him first.

Iran Conducts Nuclear Bomb Test
Unless regime change takes place in Iran first, that is.

Drilling Approved in ANWR; Oil Prices Plunge
This would lower oil prices; building new oil refineries would dramatically lower the price of gas as well.

Hollywood Plans Wave Of Religious-Themed Films
The closest Hollywood can come to getting "in touch" with those wacky red-staters is to emulate Mel Gibson. Bottom line: money talks, and The Passion's $611 million worldwide gross SHOUTS. Will Eddie Izzard fans get to see Sean Connery as Noah on the big screen?

China Hands Taiwan Ultimatum; Russia Blocks UN Condemnation
The alliance between Russia, China and North Korea will continue to tighten.

Democrats Attack Bush Over _________
Just fill in the blank anew every few days with the media's current pet issue.

Republicans McCain, Lugar and Hagel Attack Bush Over _________
Just copy the "issue du jour" from above.

Headlines We Are Likely To See in 2005

House, Senate OK Bush's Social Security and Tax Code Overhauls
A devastating one-two punch to Liberalism, possibly in return for...

Bush Backs Off 'Amnesty;' Congress Drafts Tougher Illegal Immigrant Legislation
The vast majority of Americans (85% according to one 2003 poll) are against illegal immigration, and Congress knows it. Watch as those up for re-election in 2006 start pushing for a crackdown along the lines of Arizona's Proposition 200.

Osama Bin Laden Captured
The more bin Laden hides, the more support he loses within al-Qaeda while men like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi steal his thunder. He'll have to expose himself in order to retain control of the organisation. With any luck, we'll capture him sneaking out of Iran after receiving treatment at a hospital equipped for dialysis.

UN's Internal Probe of UN Finds UN Blameless
Paul Volcker's internal investigation of the UN will exonerate the UN of any wrongdoing in the Oil-For-Food fraud. In their desperation to escape responsibility for the largest scam in history, the UN will officially place blame for not overseeing the program properly on the US. On the plus side, that will finally answer the question of whether we're supposed to be the world's police force in the affirmative.

Cuba Makes Oil Supply Deal With China
China needs oil desperately; Cuba's got it.

DNC Splits Over Leadership Flap
The far-left openly-Liberal wing of the Democratic party will begin to split from the power-driven Clinton wing, as people like Harold Ickes and Howard Dean vie for control.

Saddam Hussein Sentenced To Death
With turncoat anti-American former Attorney General Ramsey Clark defending Saddam, the trial could take months. Iraqis still won't feel safe until the sentence is carried out, the sooner the better.

Headlines I'd Like To See in 2005 (but I'm not holding my breath)

Bloodless Revolution in Iran Leads To Democracy
Iran is on the verge of a democratic revolution, but it will be far from bloodless. I only hope it happens in time to prevent the current regime from becoming a nuclear power.

Kofi Annan Indicted On Corruption Charges
It's not likely that the man who has headed the UN during corruption like Oil-for-Fraud, sex scandals, ignored genocide and Security Council votes for sale would ever be held accountable, or that the mainstream media would report it fairly if he was, but one can hope.

Judicial Activism Slows to A Halt
Wouldn't it be great if judges remembered that their purpose is to interpret the law according to the Constitution, not to interpret the Constitution according to their own whims?

UN Condemns Tyranny, Halts Support For Dictators, Promotes Freedom And Democracy
Well, that's more in the realm of fantasy than prediction.

Since the end of the Cold War, political entities have been readjusting, seeking a new balance. We have been witnessing a global power realignment with the loss of the Soviet Union's heavy weight. Many newly-independent nations that were once part of or subject to that totalitarian state have gravitated towards the West, or specifically towards the US. Some nations, aligned with America mostly through fear of Soviet domination, have sought new alliances and new power for themselves. While this is all perfectly normal and natural (as normal as geopolitics can be), whenever a Cold War era ally disagrees with America, Liberals seek to blame America for not appeasing them enough. That's not only short-sighted and unreasonable, but injurious to the power and sovereignty of the United States. Do Liberals really think that the USA -- the greatest force for good and guarantor of human rights and liberty in the world -- should surrender its place as first among equals? Those who think so aren't looking at the global picture, and ignoring the future for ideology's sake. We still have enemies, unfortunately... and they show no signs of peacefully laying down their arms. Quite the opposite.

It was hoped that Russia -- the core of what was once the Soviet Union -- would continue the policies of openness and freedom that splintered the USSR. Economic reform is probably the surest path to freedom -- with higher surplus cash comes the desire to spend it as the individual wishes. Democracy and capitalism often go hand in hand. Unfortunately, Russia seems to be sliding back into its totalitarian ways. President Vladimir Putin has restricted personal liberties as well as economic freedoms. Freedom House, a non-governmental organisation, has placed Russia into the "not free" category for the first time since 1991:

Freedom House noted increased Kremlin control over national television and other media, limitations on local government, and parliamentary and presidential elections it said were neither free nor fair. "Russia's step backward into the 'Not Free' category is the culmination of a growing trend under President Vladimir Putin to concentrate political authority, harass and intimidate the media, and politicize the country's law-enforcement system," executive director Jennifer Windsor said in a statement. "These moves mark a dangerous and disturbing drift toward authoritarianism in Russia, made more worrisome by President Putin's recent heavy-handed meddling in political developments in neighboring countries, such as Ukraine."

Putin's government has increased the power of the FSB (Federal Security Service) to include monitoring communications and gathering intelligence. "An initial analysis of this would lead you to believe that the FSB has virtually taken on the form of what used to be the KGB," Russian MP Boris Nadezhdin stated in 2003. All Russian television stations are now under Federal control. Putin's government installed the new board of directors of the All-Russia Center for Public Opinion (Russia's most respected opinion pollster). The Russian parliament recently voted to allow news organisations that provide "biased" campaign coverage to be shut down. Who decides what's biased? The government, of course. Sergei V. Bolshakov explained, "It doesn't restrict freedom of speech. It restricts freedom of dissemination of information, but only during the election campaign." Bolshakov is a member of Russia's Central Electoral Commission.

As former Soviet satellite nations break away from its control through free elections, Russia has been seeking a way to regain that lost power. Russia has increasingly turned to China, a Communist nation having much in common with the former Soviet Union. Since the US and EU banned weapons sales to China in 1989 after the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, Russia has become China's top arms supplier. (The EU ban holds despite intense French pressure to drop it.) The "Good Neighborly Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin signed in 2001 was the beginning of a new global alliance in opposition to the West. By 2003, Chinese-Russian cooperation had expanded to include energy, space engineering, arms supplies, and regional security. "Relations with China constitute the most important factor in Russian foreign policy strategy today," said Gennady Chuffrin, deputy director of Moscow's Institute for World Economy and International Relations. "In some ways, our relations with China are even more important than those with the US."

Attempts to subvert the 2004 election in Ukraine (including poisoning popular pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin) didn't work; election fraud committed by the pro-Russian party was so blatant that even the UN couldn't finesse it. Instead of struggling to hold the fraying fabric of the Soviet Union together, Putin appears to be strengthening his alliance with China. The two nations finally moved to settle their last remaining border disputes in October 2004. In 2005, Russia and China will hold joint military exercises. As Russia and China snuggle closer, the Chinese government is on the verge of issuing an ultimatum to the breakaway province of Taiwan. This will also likely occur in 2005, when China proposes a reunification law the government has been working on. The law will mandate that Taiwan consider itself part of and under the control of the Chinese government, and call for military intervention if Taiwan moves to declare independence. (Taiwan has been effectively independent since 1949.)

North Korea, one of the worst threats to world peace, has also been solidifying relations with China. Representatives of the two nations, already allies, took place in 2003. "The friendly relations between the two armies are developing on good terms," said China's Colonel General Xu Caihou. With Russian and North Korean military backing, China could find itself in a strong position to carry out its threat. The US would almost be forced to respond to such a move, as a strong military alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang would threaten Japan, our strongest ally in the Far East.

The only way to avoid a military showdown is to wean the increasingly-desperate Russia away from China with diplomacy. No, that definitely doesn't mean "peace at any price." It's no accident that President Bush has appointed Condoleezza Rice to be his new Secretary of State -- her area of expertise just happens to be Russia. Rice is known as an expert on the Soviet Union and arms control; she even spent two years as director and then senior director of Soviet and East European Affairs at the NSC. The next four years will see her -- and America -- in the center of a diplomatic storm, as we try to prevent the emergence of a threat to world peace and democracy every bit the equal of the Soviet Union, perhaps even less restrained in its use of military force.

The death toll for the 26 December earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia stands at 22,000 in up to 10 countries already (as of 27 December), and is likely to double before this disaster, one of the worst in recent history, runs its course. Floods struck as far away as Somalia, on Africa's eastern coast. America has dispatched relief teams, and is preparing a $15 million aid package to start with; Australia has offered $10 million and the European Union has pledged $4 million. For the latest information on the current situation or information on how to help if you can, check the following sites:

Donate to the American Red Cross at Amazon.com!

ReliefWeb situation reports

USAID fact sheet
USAID: How to Help

CIDI situation reports
CIDI: How to Help

American Red Cross: How to Help

Mercy Corps report
Mercy Corps: How to Help

Operation USA: How To Help

AmeriCares: How to Help

Save the Children: How to Help

Reuters' AlertNet: South Asia Quake and Tsunamis

For more, see the Christian Science Monitor's list of relief agencies working in the disaster area.

And of course (you must have known this was coming):

The South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami Blog
News and information about resources, aid, donations and volunteer efforts

UPDATE (28 Dec 04): The death toll now stands at 40,000, bypassing the tsunami caused by the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. An estimated 36,000 people were killed in that disaster.

UPDATE (29 Dec 04): The toll now stands at 77,000 human deaths. Athough this isn't the worst natural disaster in my lifetime -- I believe that "honor" goes to a 1976 earthquake in Tangshan, China in which 242,000 people died -- it's certainly the worst I want to see.

Intelligent design is the latest euphemism for Creationism -- the religious view of the origin of life -- with a veneer of science. It's being touted as an "alternative view" to evolution. No matter what you call it, however, it's the same sort of bad science as "runaway global warming caused by human industry." Neither is based on solid evidence. In both cases, at some point, you stop doing science and start preaching faith.

Science is all about proof and testing. Scientific method entails coming up with a hypothesis to explain an event or process, then testing that hypothesis to see whether it works. If it does, it becomes a theory -- a working explanation with the weight of evidence to support it. If you cannot disprove a theory, you may have discovered a fact. If the hypothesis can be disproved, it must be discarded and a new explanation postulated, and so on. Faith, by definition, is a belief in something that cannot be proved. If you CAN prove it, then you destroy it -- it becomes fact. There's no longer any merit or moral benefit to belief in it, any more than there's a moral benefit to belief in gravity, or spiritual merit to the belief that airplanes can fly.

This is the main difference between evolution and intelligent design. One can be tested by scientific method, while the other relies upon a premise that's impossible to prove as an essential component of its structure. Intelligent design is not science. It's religion; it's philosophy. One is asked to assume the existence of God -- something that cannot be proven -- as a given, in order to accept the hypothesis. If anything, intelligent design is an improvement on religious teachings, bringing them more in line with modern science. 

Science, properly done, is like millions of people putting together a massive, massive jigsaw puzzle when no one's quite sure what the end product should look like. Some pieces, like the corners, are fairly obvious. From those you can work along the edges and make intelligent guesses towards the middle. Sometimes you get several pieces that seem to fit together, but you're not sure where in the overall puzzle they should go. Sometimes you put pieces down where you think they belong, only to move them as you work closer to them and find that they don't fit quite where you first thought. Sometimes the work of others forces your pieces to move or break apart, or vice-versa. Naturally, there are people who want to interpret the pattern the pieces are forming to push their own view of the overall design. The pieces themselves, though, are unchanged by all this -- they are exactly what they are.

Proponents of intelligent design demand that it be given equal time in the classroom with evolution, which is solidly based on good science. The Dover school district in Pennsylvania, for instance, has mandated that it be so taught. Should children learn that sensationalist non-science is the same as real science? Teachers with a left-wing agenda cause children enough harm when they "teach" that American industry is causing global warming, even going so far as to bring second graders to New York City to march in a protest against oil drilling and logging. (It's rather ironic that they traveled in buses and made paper signs to do this.) We should be striving to teach children how to do proper science in search of the truth (whatever it is), not pushing any kind of faith-based bad science on them in schools. At best, it should be mentioned, but not taught. "Some people believe that human industry causes more warming of the Earth than the system can handle, but that cannot be proven," would be perfectly accurate. So would, "Some people believe that the complexity of Nature requires a Creator to have designed it, but that cannot be proven." Should astronomy students be taught astrology, on the basis that "Some people think everything we do is controlled by the movements of the stars and planets?"

Creationists like to point out the astronomer Fred Hoyle's calculation that the odds of a cell spontaneously assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000th power to one, but that's exceptionally misleading. DNA never assembled spontaneously or by chance alone, but by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology operating over billions of years under intense competition. Nevertheless, this is often the primary "reason" given to discount evolution and scientific method in favor of teaching "science" based on faith.

Evolution is something we can see by its everyday results. Put simply, evolution means, "that which works, prospers." Proof of artificial selection is everywhere, from dogs to horses to flowers -- all of which are bred to our specifications, and breed true. It's human evolution by natural selection that some people object to, as they feel it objectifies and denigrates human beings. Quite the contrary -- the idea that our intelligence and self-awareness have caused us to become among the most successful (certainly the most powerful) forms of life on Earth is awe-inspiring and uplifting. The concept that we arose from the smallest and simplest forms of life, over a mind-numbing span of time and against all the odds, is humbling. Was it chance, was it designed, or is intelligence the ultimate survival tool, inevitable given the competition for resources? We can't know the answer for certain until we have the chance to study other worlds, and any life we may find on them.

Any person who wishes to can choose to believe that the hand of God guided the evolution of mankind. The fact that it can neither be proved nor disproved is what makes it good religion, bad science, and something that should be taught in philosophy, not science classes.

For decades, television has been our main portal to the world, though that's slowly beginning to change. We're primarily visual creatures, and an image we can see has far more weight and impact than words on a page -- or a computer screen. (A picture is worth a thousand words...) As kids have spent more time passively watching the tube in place of interacting with real, live people, they've come to rely more and more on what they see there to provide a baseline for their views of reality.

Like it or not, American children generally spend more time sitting in front of the TV than doing nearly anything else. The Media Education Society states, "Children spend more time viewing television than engaging in any other single activity besides school." Television is America's biggest babysitter. As anyone who's ever even met a child knows, they're like little sponges, soaking up everything they see, hear and feel. As adults, we process what we see on TV differently. We filter it through the view of the world we've acquired through years of living in it. We already have an idea of how the real world works, what's true and what's false, and how things are supposed to be. When we see something radically different from what we know to be real, we can either laugh at it or ignore it. We formed those views as we grew up -- from books, teachers, and yes, television -- and modified them according to our own experiences. But what's on television right now is affecting how kids are forming their views of how the real world works that they will have as adults. They don't have the experience necessary to challenge the views presented to them. Jane Brown, a University of North Carolina researcher who studied the effect of sexual content in the media on teenagers, said, "[T]he more you see the same thing over and over again, the more likely you are to believe that this is how the world works."

Television during the fifties, sixties and seventies had a huge impact on our present view of the world. Television helped us, as children, form an impression of How Things Should Be that reflected the values of mainstream society in general. What we would call "dysfunctional" elements today were usually meant to induce humor or pathos, precisely because they weren't normal; people could recognise a bit of themselves in them and laugh or cry about it. Nobody is perfect, but at least we knew what "perfect" was. Television helped set a standard to work towards.

Most of today's television shows are a bit different. They no longer portray "mainstream" as "normal." They reflect the values not of the average American, but of the average Liberal. They are cynically meant to embarrass those who cling to "old-fashioned" values, even when being humorous about it. The last popular TV show to reflect the values of the average American was probably The Cosby Show, which ran from 1984 to 1992. Bill Cosby told JET in April 2000, "The problem with television programming today is that we are now in the age of stooping as in to bend down to make yourself lower. That bar is not being raised at all. There is too much focus on orifices and the size of organs and body parts. Many of the writers write like they never had a course in Western Literature. They seem to be taking their language off the street corners." Television has become a wasteland of pessimism, permissiveness and dystopian viewpoints -- in short, Liberalism run amuck. What are children learning from today's prime time television? What image of reality are they forming to get them through the rest of their lives?

In Prime Time Television land, fathers are generally bumbling fools trying to avoid responsibility. Mothers often express regret at having gotten married, as they're stressed out by the strain of raising a family. Kids are far smarter and cooler than any adult, except the occasional maverick teacher or other outsider type. Parents hold their kids back from all the fun they could be having. Everyone needs a gay friend -- they are invariably smarter, funnier, wiser and more caring than your other friends. (In the real world, friendship qualities are not tied to one's sexuality.) People who jump from relationship to relationship, or carry on multiple relationships at the same time, are often envied. Sure, people get hurt -- but they get over it by the end of the show. People are greedy -- they'll do anything for a buck. They're willing to lie, cheat and backstab their friends to gain a prize. No one can be trusted, especially those in authority over you. Even the news celebrates and promotes this cynical, Hollywood-centric perspective of society. Is that the image of the world you want your kids to carry with them, the baseline view they form of reality?

So what's the answer? More involved parenting will help. Don't let television be the primary place your kids get their understanding of How Things Should Be. Restrict their viewing, talk to them about what they see, and tell them -- SHOW them -- that real life isn't like that. Give them something better to aim for than being ruthless enough to stay on the island or get hired by Donald Trump.

Once again, members of the so-called "mainstream" media leave no stone unturned in their quest to embarrass the Bush administration and undermine support for the war America is already committed to win. This time their target is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their issue is armored HMMWVs (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, or "hummvees"). Their tool is the very military that will be hurt the worst if they're successful.

While Rumsfeld was in Kuwait last week, he visited a group of National Guard soldiers that were about to be deployed to Iraq. He took questions from them, but not from the press. The briefing and questions were not in the least adversarial until one soldier demanded to know why "we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal" to armor the HMMWVs. Naturally, the media went wild with glee over this "evidence" that the US military is ill-equipped to fight a war.

The first problem is that the media planted the question and arranged for it to be asked. Edward Lee Pitts, a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, wrote in an email: "I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions, so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. ... Beforehand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."

Now, some might say that the question was entirely legitimate, asked by a soldier with very real concerns over the vehicle he would be asked to drive into Baghdad. Fortunately (for our military; unfortunately for our media), HMMWVs that haven't yet been up-armored are not driven, but carted on flatbed trucks to a safe area. Any concerns the soldiers might have had came not from their own experience -- since they hadn't been in Iraq yet -- but from the media misrepresentation. The fearmongering media created the worries they then reported as "legitimate concerns." Reporters like Pitts (and there are far too many like him) have long ago forgotten anything they knew about journalistic integrity. Instead of reporting facts fairly and accurately, they create the news to further their agenda, engaging in a "gotcha" game designed to attack those with whom they disagree.

The fact is that HMMWVs are normally unarmored except for military police use. They're simply not designed to carry heavy armor -- the suspension and transmission aren't built to handle the extra weight. In late 2003, the terrorists in Iraq began using more IEDs (improvised explosive devices) on roadways to attack our troops, so the military realised they had to ramp up production of armored HMMWVs, and come up with a lightweight armor that could be added to the 30,000 wheeled vehicles (including HMMWVs) already in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, there are only about 8,000 vehicles without some armor on them, and a large number of those are "tool trucks, communication vans or vehicles that don't leave the base camp," according to Lieutenant General Steven Whitcomb, the CFLCC commander in Kuwait. Reports of soldiers digging through trash heaps to find scrap metal were likely based on soldiers recycling steel plates from vehicles that had been hit and couldn't be repaired, Whitcomb said. This makes sense, as scrap metal wouldn't do much to armor a vehicle (old A-Team reruns notwithstanding), and would unbalance the load on its suspension. For extra protection, some soldiers have used "hillbilly armor," as it's called, and that also may be the basis for media reports of widespread shortages.

HMMWVs can be given three levels of armor. Level one includes complete armor and bulletproof glass. Those have to be built from the ground up, and production has increased in just a year from 30 a month to 400 a month. Approximately 6,000 vehicles have level one protection. Level two protection is provided with an add-on kit, which covers the sides of the vehicle but not the top and bottom. Approximately 10,000 vehicles have level two armor. Level three armor is used more for trucks than HMMWVs; it consists of steel plates bolted onto the vehicles' sides. About 4,500 vehicles currently have level three protection.

Because of this manufactured armor flap, the enemy knows exactly how many and what types of vehicles are armored, and how to tell one from another. Good job, members of the mainstream media. Doesn't our military have enough to do without your invented scandals and information leaks? As for the military, I suggest that when speaking to the press, you restrict any conversation to the following topics: names of cities fought in, amount of ground taken, and number of enemies killed. Anything you say can and will be used against you by the enemy.

Politicians can always be counted on to increase the Washington bureaucracy whenever they can. The counter-terrorism bill just passed by both House and Senate does just that, although it does do some good in the process. Among other provisions, the bill calls for more cooperation between the CIA and the military and increases the number of border patrol agents, but adds a new layer of bureaucracy to our intelligence services. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 creates a Director of National Intelligence with all the attendant rules and regulations that position will entail -- not to mention the horde of bureaucrats to enforce them. While several problems that reduce our security are fixed, the bill cannot be said to fix them all by any stretch of the imagination.