SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY 16,  2008

•   There's quite a remarkable piece at Real Clear Politics on the education gap between white Clinton and Obama voters, with Obama voters, overall, better educated.  The quote:

In Post-ABC national polling, Clinton consistently scored better among voters without college degrees than among those with more education, and the pattern has held firm in primaries across the country. In fact, education has been a key divider among white voters in a contest marked by an evident racial divide.

In each of the states where the Post subscribed to exit polls (and voters were asked about their level of education), Clinton did better among non-college than college-educated white voters. She also outpaced Obama among non-college whites in all 14 of these states, but beat him by more than a single percentage point among college graduates in only five.

Obviously, this is a sensitive issue.  Real Clear Politics got the usual comments, of course.  You know, college graduates are more sensitive to "diversity."  They mingle with "minorities."  They're more "open."  Come on.  You want diversity?  I'll show you diversity:  the armed forces of the United States.  Most of their members aren't college graduates, and have more contact with minorities than most of the kids - and they are kids - at our $42,000-a-year centers of "higher" education.

I suspect the reason for the gap is something once taught to me by one of my mentors, the great Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, who was a distinguished economist, a combat hero of World War II, and a national-defense liberal.  During the 1960 campaign we were traveling through downstate Illinois, and I made one of those snotty, typical undergraduate comments about "the kind of people who live here."  Mr. Douglas immediately stopped me and said, "Bill, never underestimate the wisdom of a small town."  I've always remembered that.

Well, never underestimate the wisdom of the ordinary American.  Many of the upscale, educated Obama voters are probably voting for him because they think it's the right thing to do.  It's what they've been taught.  It makes them feel good about themselves.  Arise!  You are cleansed of racism!  It is inconceivable to me that truly educated people can't see through the empty rhetoric of the Obama campaign.

By contrast, many people who haven't had the "benefit" of college are more practical, more concerned about what a president might actually do.  Also, they're more vulnerable.  This isn't theory or rhetoric to them.  I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, and will vote for McCain, but at least she seems to have some feel for the people she represents.  Obama's is a religious crusade. 

•   However, the blundering in the Clinton campaign is evident in poll results in Wisconsin.  She is within five points of Obama, and could have won the state had she paid some attention.  As I said last night, Senator Clinton can claim some kind of "comeback" status if she comes close in Wisconsin on Tuesday, but close doesn't win nominations.  She must go all out for Ohio and Texas, which vote in little more than two weeks.    

•   The decline of the West:  A bill up in the California legislature would require teaching about global warming in the state's schools.  Oh goody.  Now the world will be saved.

Well, why not, dearies?  Isn't it settled science?

Proposition:  Let them teach about global warming as long as they also teach that 1) heart-attack victims should lie in bed for six weeks, 2) being out in the sun a great deal really helps you and gives you a healthy tan, 3) two eggs a day are great, and 4) polio victims should be kept immobile.  Those also were settled science at the time. 

At least there's some intelligent opposition:

"I find it disturbing that this mandate to teach this theory is not accompanied by a requirement that the discussion be science-based and include a critical analysis of all sides of the subject," said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, during the Senate debate. 

When I was a student at the University of Chicago we were required to take a course called Natural Sciences I.  We spent most of the year learning theories that turned out to be wrong.  I thought it was nuts.  So, one day I got up the courage to ask the instructor why we were studying ideas that went bad.  He explained that the faculty wanted us to understand how science progresses, that it makes mistakes, that it sometimes proceeds on assumptions that are incorrect.

That's what they should be teaching in California, not the latest trends.

•   In the adult world, France is showing backbone in resisting a new UN "anti-racism" conference that threatens to deteriorate into the same kind of farce we saw in Durban in 2001, just days before the 9-11 attacks. The quote:

France and the United States have threatened not to participate in the 2009 United Nations anti-racism conference if it showed signs of being dominated by the same anti-Semitism that was so prevalent in the controversial 2001 event held in Durban, South Africa.

"The Durban conference in 2001 led to intolerable excesses from certain states and numerous NGOs which turned that conference into a forum against Israel that no one has forgotten," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

He spoke on Wednesday night at the annual dinner of the Representative Council of France's Jewish institutions, known as CRIF.

"France will not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001," said Sarkozy.

He noted that France would be a significant player when it came to the 2009 conference, because it is slated to hold the rotating EU presidency around that time.

"If ever our legitimate demands are not taken into account we will disengage from the process," said Sarkozy.

Here's the problem:  The decision on whether the U.S. will attend won't be made by President Bush, but by the next president.  I think I know how a President McCain would decide.  But how would a President Obama decide?  After all, one of his chief foreign-policy advisers, Zbig Brzezinski, was in Damascus this week groveling before a third-world dictator.  Mr. Obama didn't seem to object.  Not a good sign.

•   Con Coughlin, of London's Telegraph, who's done some fine reporting about the war on terror, writes a perceptive piece about Imad Mughniyeh, the Hizbollah terror master who was assassinated last week.  The quote:

Mughniyeh might not have been either as famous or as glamorous as the other terrorist masterminds of his generation, but in terms of achieving his ultimate objective of spreading terror throughout the civilian population, he was without peer.

One of the more chilling aspects of Mughniyeh's legacy of violence was the introduction of the suicide bomber as an effective terrorist tool.

With suicide bombings these days almost a daily occurrence throughout the Middle East, whether in Baghdad or Israel, it is easy to forget that the suicide bomber is a relatively recent addition to the region's battle-scarred landscape.

The first time the concept of the suicide bomber really impinged on the West's consciousness was on April 18, 1983, when Mughniyeh arranged for a Hizbollah volunteer to drive a truck laden with explosives into the American embassy in Beirut.

You'll notice all the attention being paid by the American press.  If only the man had dated Britney Spears....

Read the piece, and contemplate what we're up against.

•   Another example of just that:  In Afghanistan, a young man faces death for asking questions.  His crime was to download articles on Islam's treatment of women, and circulate them on a campus.  The key quote:

"We believe in free speech, but Islam is more important to us than anything. When someone insults our religious traditions, he is not a journalist, he is a traitor," said Enayatullah Balegh, the imam of a large mosque in Kabul, the Afghan capital. Kambakhsh's actions, he said, were tantamount to "insulting 30 million Afghan Muslims. The court has given the right punishment."        

Pretty unbelievable.  There are, however, some other voices:

As many younger, educated Afghans view it, Kambakhsh was engaging in the kind of intellectual debate that is inevitably entering Afghan society, healthy for its democratic development and legally protected by its constitution. They view the court's action as unjust, cruel and motivated by political pressure to quash investigative journalism.

Fortunately, there may well be relief:

Afghan officials and analysts said this week that Kambakhsh is highly unlikely to be put to death. The lower-court decision has already been appealed and could eventually reach the Supreme Court, which is headed by a respected, Western-educated judge. Moreover, the final decision on any execution rests with President Hamid Karzai, who generally opposes the death penalty and has found ways to circumvent it in several previous capital cases. 

Hmm.  There's an interesting slip:  a "Western-educated" judge.  I wonder how many letters the Washington Post will get protesting that outrageous expression of cultural imperialism, arrogance and intolerance.  The reporter must be part of the Israel lobby.  No doubt.

•   Finally, on a lighter note:  The war may be over.  And in war, there is no substitute for victory.  No, I'm not referring to Iraq or to the war on terror.  I'm referring to something much more profound - the war between high-definition DVD formats, HD-DVD and Blue-ray.  Blue-ray has apparently won:  

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The high-definition DVD format war has turned into a format death watch.

Toshiba is expected to pull the plug on its HD DVD format in the coming weeks, after a rash of retail defections that followed Warner Home Video's stunning announcement in early January that it would support only Sony's rival Blu-ray Disc format after May.

R.I.P. HD-DVD.  But there's a lesson in this.  Why did Blu-ray win?  Was it better technology?  Better prices?  Better manufacturing?  Nah.  Blu-ray, in my view, won because of its name.  Names count.  They add style and sexiness.  Who wants an HD-DVD when you can have a Blu-ray?  Who wants an MP3 player when you can have an iPod?

It will be a Blu-ray world.  Give the guy who came up with the name a bonus.

And I'll be back later.

Posted on February 16, 2008.