The difference of commitment to sports versus academics by students and parents is striking, but don't believe for a minute that the same bias is not institutional as well. I have taught now at every level of American academia and I have yet to give a test or assign a project that was so important that it caused a game to be canceled or missed.

However, from elementary school to college, I regularly have had class time canceled, projects excused and test times altered to cater to athletics. In fact, it seems any academic activity humbly bows before the holy incantation, “Uh, I'm going to be gone; we've got a game that day.”

This explanation is not the bitter ranting of an egghead who was always picked last in gym class. Rather, I'm a former collegiate athlete and high school coach who is intrigued by what could be accomplished if we would bring our athletic commitment into the classroom.

And, because attitude is not enough, we should also contrast coaching to teaching, so that we might re-learn some valuable lessons about instructional methods. To this end, I see three prime areas for consideration.

When, seven months ago, I finished writing my book, The West's Last Chance, London had not been attacked by Islamist terrorists, the Tate Museum in London had not removed an art exhibit because it offended radical Moslem sensitivities, and France had not yet experienced the explosion of violence from elements of its Moslem population in its "no-go zone" communities.

The fact that I predicted all those events in my book was not the result of clairvoyance. It was merely the result of a normally intelligent person looking at the facts, and their rather obvious implications, without the blinding effect of a politically correct mentality.

This week we introduce a new feature to To The Point: The Members' Forum, selected articles submitted by TTPers themselves. We launch this feature with TTPer Wayne Daniels. Publication of such submissions does not imply To The Point's full agreement with them. ---JW

June 30, 2004 marked the "Official" end of the Iraqi occupation. Yes, we will have troops on the ground there for years. Remember it is 59 years and counting that we have had troops stationed in Germany and Japan; 50 years and counting in Korea, etc.

I will argue that the only US strategic interests in Iraq are (1) that the Iraqi government not fund or otherwise support terrorist groups; (2) we need military bases on the borders of three of the primary state sponsors of terrorist groups - Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia; and (3) that enough oil reaches the world markets to keep the price of crude in the $25 to $40 range. As long as these interest are satisfied, we really don't care who controls the streets or the government.

Sometimes, when I'm weary of the intifada, the occasional terror attacks, the stumbling economy or the political scandals that seem to dominate the public agenda in Israel, I look at the weekend's newspaper magazines and start to breathe again.

Something had better jog the liberal mind from its obsessive Bush-hatred. The liberals, on both sides of the Atlantic, are in imminent danger of repeating the great shame of many of their ideological grandparents in the middle of the last century, who became unthinking apologists for Stalin's terror and tyranny.

This coming Sunday, the Iraqi people are holding an election -- the first real election in the 6,000-year history of this ancient people. But the cynicism and indifference of liberals to this extraordinary event should shock the conscience of decent people, because Iraqis are marching through shot and shell to gain this first chance at self-government.

As Tony explains here, the just-passed intelligence reform bill is a dog’s breakfast. The best news about its passage is that Duncan Hunter (House Armed Forces Committee Chairman) managed to neuter it at the last moment. By inserting the wording that the NID - the new National Intelligence Director or Intelligence “Czar” -- in carrying out his duties "shall respect and not abrogate the statutory responsibilities of the heads of the departments," Duncan made sure that a good General Counsel from a subordinate
Agency/Department can drive a Humvee through an NID directive if need be. --JW


So it is to be a Czar of all the Intelligence Services. All the president's men have engulfed the remaining opposition to the intelligence reform bill and seen it passed with strong bipartisan support. Like its namesake, The Czar of all the Russias, our new czar is likely to begin what will become a very mixed record.

If you think the fighting has been rough in Fallujah, wait until you see Washington in the springtime. President Bush's early personnel decisions for the second term suggest that he is preparing, unilaterally, to take on not only our foreign enemies, but also the Democrats and Washington's most cunning and vicious bureaucracies-all at the same time.

With the nominations of Condoleezza Rice at State, Porter Goss at CIA, Donald Rumsfeld (or an equally tough replacement) at Defense and Stephen Hadley at NSC, the president has created an all-Patton foreign and defense team. Moreover, he has a team that understands that among the necessary targets of their firepower must be, not only our foreign enemies, but also the slouching, sly, insubordinate bureaucrats under their chain of command.