• When will I get something good to say about Public Education and our "educators"?  The union veto of competition, student vouchers and parental-student choice continues.  There is no mechanism for dealing with the mediocrity of many teachers, tenured too soon, to easily and without regular oversight.  Now come two articles in the WSJ (Wednesday, Nov. 28, Opinion, pA23), on resistance to English as our official language, and on incredible objections to "Thought Competition".  "The self-esteem movement's latest dumb idea is to ban writing and math contests in our schools."  In another article in the WSJ (Tuesday, Nov. 27, pA1)  we learn that "Parents of Disabled Students Push For Separate Classes".  What took them so long?  Mainstreaming of substantially disabled children in regular classes has been in many cases a disaster for those children, for the other children, and for their teachers...this according to many teachers who will discuss such matters only "on background".  And then there is the constant flow of poor grades and poor rankings, local, national and internationa.  So, when do our students and I get a break here?
• In my offering for Nov. 19-25, I briefly stated my prognosis for the Annapolis meeting.  On Monday, Nov. 26, in the WSJ Opinion, pA21, Professor Bernard Lewis offered an article "On The Jewish Question".  As always, anything he writes in the Middle East is a must-read.  And furthermore, we agree.

• All the first tier candidates did well: McCain, Giuliani, Romney.
• The second tier candidates (Huckabee, Thompson, and even Hunter and Tancredo) improved. 
• Only Ron Paul, he of the unrealistic but tightly held convictions, seemed diminished, in my view.
• McCain must temper his barely subliminal temper if he is to avoid scaring the average citizen. 
• Nobody ducked qiestions...all replies were responsive, a refreshing change from the approach of some Democratic contenders.
• They all have a good sense of humor and are comfortable among themselves.
• They all see Bill and Hillary as the true adversary.
• In my opinion, Giuliani and McCain are now neck-and-neck for my vote.

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, with details to be negotiated over matters that have defined the war debate at home — how many U.S. forces will stay in the country, and for how long.

The agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki confirms that the United States and Iraq will hash out an "enduring" relationship in military, economic and political terms. Details of that relationship will be negotiated in 2008, with a completion goal of July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

"What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that, are bases required, which partners will join them — all these things are on the negotiating table," said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, President Bush's adviser on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal underlines how the United States and Iraq are exploring what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence. It comes as a Democratic Congress — unsuccessfully, so far — prods Bush to withdraw troops faster than he wants.

Bush and al-Maliki signed the new U.S.-Iraq "declaration of principles" during a secure video conference Monday morning.

Al-Maliki, in a televised address, said his government would ask the United Nations to renew the mandate for the multinational force for one final time with its authorization to end in 2008.

The U.S.-Iraq agreement will replace the present U.N. mandate regulating the presence of the U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Maliki said the agreement provides for U.S. support for the "democratic regime in Iraq against domestic and external dangers."

It also would help the Iraqi government thwart any attempt to suspend or repeal a constitution drafted with U.S. help and adopted in a nationwide vote in 2005. That appeared to be a reference to any attempt to remove the government by violence or in a coup.

Al-Maliki said the renewal of the multinational forces' mandate was conditional on the repeal of what he called restrictions on Iraqi sovereignty introduced in 1990 by the U.N. Security Council to punish Iraq for invading neighboring Kuwait.

The new agreement would not signal an end to the U.S. mission here. But it could change the rules under which U.S. soldiers operate and give the Iraqis a greater role in determining their mission.

Two Republican senators said that unless Baghdad makes more political progress by January, the U.S. should consider withdrawing financial aid or political support from al-Maliki.

The warnings, coming from Sens. Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss, were an indication that while GOP patience on the war has increased this fall because of security gains made by the military, it isn't bottomless.

"I do expect them to deliver," Graham, R-S.C., said in a phone interview. "What would happen for me if there's no progress on reconciliation after the first of the year, I would be looking at ways to invest our money into groups that can deliver."

Likewise, Chambliss, R-Ga., suggested lawmakers might even call for al-Maliki's ouster if Baghdad didn't reach agreements on at least some of the major issues seen as key to tamping down sectarian violence.

Two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue say Iraq's government will embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership. The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive, said U.S. military and diplomatic representatives appeared generally favorable, subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments.

Preferential treatment for U.S. investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources. Such a deal would also enable the United States to maintain leverage against Iranian expansion at a time of growing fears about Tehran's nuclear aspirations.

The framework Bush approved outlines broad principles, such as that both countries will support Iraq's economic institutions, and help its government train Iraqi security forces to provide stability for all Iraqis. Lute said "all major national leaders of the existing Iraqi government" have committed to it.

"The basic message here should be clear: Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own; that's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone," said Lute, who rarely holds televised briefings.

He said it is too soon to tell what the "shape and size" of the U.S. military commitment will look like, including military bases.

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

___

Associated Press Writer Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad contributed to this story.

• The Criminal Justice System in Connecticut is under review, after the Cheshire home invasion and murders by recently paroled felons.  Good idea, and not only for Connecticut.  Between prosecutorial misconduct cases including those at Duke University and probably at Jena, the finding of over 200 cases of inmates proven innocent by DNA so far (as reported in the Sunday NYTimes, Nov. 25, pA1), and the developing panic over the release of sex offenders after they have served their terms, both our system of Justice and our personal views of injustice need an overhaul.  Of relevance here is an article by a Holocaust survivor, Hajo G. Meyer entitled: "Lessons From The Holocaust" (The Day Sunday, Nov. 25, pE3).  The author notes that holocausts and ethnic cleansings are preceeded by years spent dehumanizing the target people, in the course of which the perpetrators are themselves dehumanized.  Related also could be the increasingly shrill voices being raised against "illegals" as a poor substitute for rational and humane discussion about this country's immigration policy. 
• Pakistan and Afghanistan may be going to hell in a handbasket.  But the foggy heads from Foggy Bottom and their befuddled followers continue to demand Jeffersonian democracy...NOW.  What idiocy!  There can be no democracy without security FIRST. 
• The conference on the Middle East about to convene in Annapolis will provide at least some theater.  That's because the Arabs are not prepared to "recognize" Israel and to admit that the "Right of Return" is a pipe dream - and Israel is not prepared to give up any land ceded to it by God in the Bible.  Now, there's a rock and a hard place.
• More military desertions than military deaths in Iraq; yet another retired General finally willing to share the light with us; and a well - deserved indictment of Rumsfeld in the form of a book by Andrew Cockburn.  Certainly, part of President Bush's "legacy" will be his having presided over the massive degrading of our armed forces on the ground.  In this, he had plenty of help from the Pentagon.  What a shame. 
• Fundamentalist Islam...and the rape victim who gets 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia.  When are the true followers of Islam going to deal with this?  For this is a greater threat to a civilized world, democratic or otherwise, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, than Hitler or Stalin ever were. 
• Health Care continues in the news, this time in a long editorial in the Sunday NYTimes, Nov. 25.  This must be carefully chewed and digested, in order to avoid the need for a Heimlich manuever.  More on this later.     
• I have yet to read the book "Her Way" on Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I like the way that she is handling herself.  Her greatest liability may turn out to be Bill.  In any case, Republicans will have to field their very best candidate in order to beat her. 
• "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  So reads the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Its meaning is about to be reviewed - again - by the USSC.  Mike Cox, the Attorney General of Michigan, writes a good analysis of this question in the WSJ Friday, Nov. 23, pA13.  For me, the interpretation is forthright: the first clause is permissive; the second is obligatory.  In addition, any holding by the USSC that attempts to eliminate American citizens' right to keep and bear arms would have much less success than the Prohibition amendment had.

• Our international relations, always a subject of doom and gloom from the Left fringe, were shown for what they really are in the recent actions of France's Sarkozy, Germany's Merkel and England's new leadership.  As the man said: "Nations do not have friends; they have interests".  As long as the U.S. remains, economically and militarily, the only super-power in the world, the rational world's interests will be aligned with our's.
• But how does that square with the actions of Russia, Venezuela and China?  The first two countries exert influence over us only because of our "addiction to oil", fostered by all the trans-national oil companies.  The resolution to that problem is clear, although once again it is not coming from our elected "leaders", but rather from the decisions of the Judiciary.  That is not the most healthy way to get things done in a Democracy; but it if's the only way....  And the greed of American corporations is the reason allowing China not only to take American jobs, but to poison us in the process.  Here again, the Courts can help ("sue the bastards").  But ultimately, the democratic process is our best hope: voter participation and leader compromise instead of constant confrontation.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...are you listening?  There are two light-weights, for sure.    
• The Liberals and Internationalists have just recently changed their endemic panic from worries about an impending attack by us on Iran to the "crisis" in Pakistan.  That nation, powerful beyond its geography and GNP because of its status as a nuclear power, has been a democracy and will be once again a democracy - if not in the exact mold of the U.S - once security is re-established.  There can be no democracy without security, all the more so in a country beset by al Qaida, the Taliban, Muslim fundamentalists, and most recently by the politician B. Bhutto.  So, get off Musharraf's back...at least in the back-channels. 
• Two articles in Sunday's NYTimes address Immigration, both the politics and the global economics of this problem / opportunity. (Nov. 18, Wk., p1,3).  Many political careers will be stunted by the nonsense that now passes for informed debate on the subject.  They will have deserved it.  But the many millions of hard-working immigrants of whatever legal status...and the many more millions of people throughout the world who depend on their money transfers for subsistence...will not deserve a global recession if we keep screwing up on this issue.  For details of my position on this subject, see my many prior statements on this subject in this section.   
• And, while we're at it, let's stop talking about Black and White...and start talking about Poor and  non - Poor.  That is, has always been, and will always be the central issue confronting the health of this country that from the beginning promised "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".  The "leaders" of the Black community would do well to embrace this approach rather than continuing their racist demagoguery. 
• Can it be: a rational dialogue between Christianity and Islam?  See www.acommonword.com for the Muslim initiative, and a Christian response in the Sunday NYTimes, Nov. 18, wk. p4.  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God".

• This week I heard part of an NPR interview with Shannon Brownlee, the author of a recent book entitled: "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medical Care Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer".  I have not yet read the book.  But the author's extended comments made two things clear: 1) she relied heavily on pronouncements from the Institute of Medicine, an august group of mainly university Professors of Medicine that produces frequent and often controversial findings; and 2) she had developed, in the course of immersion in her subject, the temerity to advise the listening public about the merits and demerits of colonoscopies, mammograms, screening for prostate cancer....  She kept referring to "evidence", probably "evidence-based Medicine", to which all physicians aspire...but which to the Professors too often includes only "placebo controlled, double-blind crossover studies" and discounts careful clinical experience.  Two examples of the resulting disconnect: a) the use of aspirin to reduce the risk of coronary artery diseases was begun on clinical intuition in about 1975 by many practising physicians in the field;  it took until 1987 for the imprImatur to come down from on high; b) in 1976 in Connecticut a strange illness began to appear, with elements of both infection and immune reaction, and which we in practice treated logically with penicillin and steroids - it turned out to be Lyme Disease, and we were later proven right.  The take-home message sounds like: Reading - and searching the web - may be dangerous to your health.  "CAVEAT EMPTOR". 
• One segment of last Sunday's 60 Minutes discussed "THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION", those children born in the 1980's and early 1990's, the years when everyone was a winner and got trophies, when no one was allowed to fail for fear of upsetting their "self-image", and when everybody was "special" according to their parents, their teachers and Mr. Roberts.  Fast forward to these miracle kids entering the job market and expecting - demanding - special attention, constant stroking, and the right to extend adolescence through their twenties.  I hereby offer a substitute name for them: THE DELUSIONAL GENERATION.
  

• Pakistan / Musharraf / Bhutto / Bush and Rice.  Instead of encouraging riots and unrest in the name of "democracy", we should be concerned with maintaining stability in that vital part of the world.  We saw what trying to place democracy before security accomplished in Iraq.  For more on this, see Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post, Nov. 9, 
• It was nice to see father Bush supporting son Bush.  He was right about supporting our invasion of Iraq.  Information is now beginning to come out about Hussein having reported that he "faked" having WMD's in defense against Iran...but that he did not foresee that this would produce an invasion.  But father Bush is too loyal if he gives son Bush a free pass on the conduct of the post-invasion years.  Most relevant to that debacle is a recent book by Andrew Cockburn entitled "Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy" (Scribner, 2007).
• When are our multinational corporations and our complicit government going to get a handle on the invasion of toxic products from China.  You don't expect the totally self-absorbed and amoral Chinese givernment to do anything about that, do you? 
• More on the "education - union complex.  We now know that, not only is teacher - student sex approaching a commonplace, but the system also does its best to hide it.  Ever hear of "fiduciary responsibility", folks? 
• Scientific progress is always complicating "certainty", as Galileo did with our understanding of our universe.  Now comes: DNA science and its possible impact on our understanding of and dealing with issues of Race: and the science of sexual development, with its emerging impact on our understanding of and dealing with issues of Gender.  The worst thing that we could would be to follow the lead of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and to attempt to submerge that progress. 
• Regarding Religions and charities, these institutions are both having trouble surviving in today's secular and self-centered world.  Both are beginning to consider a tool used to good effect in the business world: mergers.  Another good idea would be to develop new "lines of business": like actually getting involved in dialogue (not monologue) on the pressing social issues of the day instead of being afraid to enter the fray. 
• Is "chubby" and "pleasingly plump" back?  There is now evidence that "overweight", ie. a BMI of between 25 and 29, may be accompanied by a longer and healthier life expectancy.  But this does not apply to Fatties and Anorexics.  In fact, the burden that those people and their life-styles place on our health care delivery system makes ideas about charging them extra for health insurance entirely appropriate. 
• Finally, a comment on the local scene...in New London, Ct.  The Day (www.theday.com) today published an entirely appropriate angry editorlal about the arrogance and probable lawlessness of the current City Council regarding its action denying a legitimate referendum call by its citizens.  In the process, the action  - or rather inaction - of the City Clerk represents either mis-feasance or (if following direction of the Council) mal-feasance in office.  Furthermore, the City Attorney probably got his interpretation of the City Charter wrong in light of the facts.  Perhaps a law suit will be necessary to right this wrong.  And while we're at it,  how was it...with the local Democratic Party and its Council minions clearly against considering a Mayoral form of government, and with that Party's regularly demonstrated ability to get out the vote...that the last referendum vote on a Charter change failed because too few citizens voted?  Is it possible that the Democratic machine got the word out that its people should stay home?  Now, would that have been that democratic, or just a cynical power-play?  You decide.  Meanwhile, revision of the City Charter is not going away...not by a long shot.

• The Day (www.theday.com) endorsements for City Council have been published (Sunday, Nov. 4).  My son Adam is #2 in a slate of 7 persons endorsed - out of 16 running for the 7 seats.  HURRAY.  The opinion - makers "get it": the desperate need for leadership...and for CHANGE to get that leadership.  Now let's see on Tuesday whether the people of New London, Ct. "get it". 
• Related to this is the column by Anthony Cronin in the same editionof The Day, entitled "Talk - talk can lead to win-win" (Workday, kpG1).  In my own experience over the decades, on the New London Board of Education and the City Council, and in many other venues, forget about "win - lose", and strive for "win - win".  That takes much more time than bulldozing something through...but it pays high and continuing dividends when the game is about "getting things done". 
• Guantanamo.  Closing that prison will not by itself address or resolve the issue of the definition of "terror" and "terrorists", and related "rights" or lack of same.  Resolve that!  And while we're at it, resolve the immigration issue nationally and comprerhensively.  What we have now is poor leadership by Democrats and Republicans alike in Washington D.C.
• More on public education.  An article in the Connecticut section of the Sunday NYTimes takes issue with "exit examinations" to graduate from high school.  Always cursing the darkness instead of providing some light.  Treat the rampant infection instead of just constantly scratching the scab. 
• That unbiased and objective journalist, Frank Rich of the NYTimes finds himself and the Democrats on the horns of a dilemma.  The Democrats have been in a panic thinking that we are about to invade Iran.  Now those same Democrats are beginning to panic that we will not invade Iran. (See the Rich article in Sunday's NYTimes, Wk p14). What's a sclerotic Democrat to do?