Arab Americans Must Get Involved

Excerpts by George S. Hishmeh

A few months after arriving in the US in 1968 and joining the staff of the Chicago Sun-Times, I was invited to speak at an Arab-American community gala dinner. My punchline that evening was an appeal to the community that their children study journalism and get more involved in the political process there. 

I have also urged Arab-Americans to volunteer in political and election campaigns or, better still, seek internships in the offices of congressmen. Graduating college students should sit for the Foreign Service entrance exam in the hope of gaining a position at the State Department.

I have no idea how many have done so, but I note that there are several Arab-American journalists nowadays. One of them, Anthony Shadid of The Washington Post, won the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting in 2004. Of course, there is also the Lebanese-American media icon Helen Thomas, who has been present at the daily White House press conference for decades and asked those pithy questions that sometimes angered former president George W. Bush.

The last two or three decades have seen the establishment of a few Arab-American advocacy groups, mostly based in Washington, D.C. The first was the National Association of Arab Americans, but this folded after its meteoric rise - in part due to a lack of adequate funding. Others included The Palestine Center and its mother organisation, the Jerusalem Fund, the Arab American Institute, the American Task Force on Lebanon, the American Task Force on Palestine and the American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee - which this year had as its keynote speaker none other than former president Bill Clinton, an event that attracted surprisingly little attention from the printed media in Washington or New York.

This shoddy treatment afforded Arab concerns by the American media was highlighted by Saree Makdisi in a column published last week in the Los Angeles Times. A professor of English at the University of California, Los Angeles, Makdisi was understandably ticked off by the welcome accorded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's acceptance of a toothless Palestinian state, "viable" but not sovereign.

"Reality," he wrote, "can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States." He cited several examples of the "subtle differences" that are used in labelling Palestinian or Israeli actions, "making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories - and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write". He explained, "The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possibly for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country".

It is here where Arab leaders and financiers must step in to persuade institutions in the US to discard the distorted yardstick that is used to measure performance in the Middle East, much to the disadvantage of the Arab and Muslim world. Unexpectedly, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak took a commendable step last week in offering an op-ed to The Wall Street Journal. There are several others who could help to change opinion in think tanks, the White House and the State Department.  "Among the host of challenges before us,"  the Egyptian president wrote, "is the Palestinian issue that requires great urgency, given the precarious state of the peace process after years of stalemate." He urged that the "priority should be to resolve the permanent borders of a sovereign and territorially continuous Palestinian state, based on the 1967 lines, as this would unlock most of the other permanent status issues, including settlements [colonies], security, water and [Occupied] Jerusalem".

In an article in Haaretz, Antony Loewenstein, author of My Israel Question, agreed that "the Palestinian narrative is routinely ignored or dismissed in the US and beyond". He stressed that "this must change quickly for any chance of peace to break out in the Middle East. However, peace without justice is guaranteed to fail".

Mr. Hishmeh's full article can be read at GulfNews.com

###

Corzine's Moves Will Make New Jersey Most Tax-Oppressed State

By Kelly William Cobb

June 16, 2009---If Gov. Jon Corzine and the State Legislature have their way, we can all congratulate New Jersey for stealing the number one spot for highest state/local tax burden in the country from........New Jersey. That's right. This week, the legislature is poised to vote on Gov. Corzine's proposed budget that raises taxes by well over $1.5 billion.  New Jersey would essentially outdo itself for most inhospitable tax climate in the country. Under the budget package passed by the Assembly and Senate Budget Committees, the personal income tax rate will become even more progressive with a top rate of 10.75% -- just shy of the highest in the nation. Note that two-thirds of small businesses also pay under this tax rate. This comes despite the fact that New Jersey has had a net out-flow of residents every year for the past ten years. Two of the top destinations for those who left were Pennsylvania and Florida, which have flat income tax rates of 3.07% and 0% respectively. Surprise, surprise.

 

The budget also targets alcohol beverage and tobacco taxes for an estimated $40 million-plus in new revenue. Having completely failed to learn from history, policymakers are proposing a 12.5-cent per pack cigarette tax hike, despite the fact that the last time the cigarette tax was raised in New Jersey, the state collected $52 million less than projected and $22 million below what they collected before the tax hike. Similarly, the last time the federal alcohol tax was hiked, it took over a decade to raise more revenue.  As sales decline due to higher taxes, cigarettes and alcohol become shrinking and exceptionally volatile revenue sources.  These tax hikes are also poised to seriously impact the state's huge hospitality and retail industry, where businesses will be forced to cut jobs, wages, or downsize to compensate from declining sales.

 

Businesses will see numerous tax increases, including the small business tax hike mentioned above.

• Extending the 4% corporate tax surcharge that was set to expire at the end of June.
• A $350 million payroll tax hike that resulted from so many people collecting unemployment checks (probably the result of business taxes that dramatically stifle job creation).
• Raising the health insurance tax from 1% to 2.25%, which will also make health care most costly.

To top it off, despite having the highest property taxes in the nation -- at $6,500 per household -- the budget suspends property tax deductions and rebates for all but a few New Jersey residents.

New Jersey Residents: CLICK HERE to write your state lawmakers and Governor Corzine in opposition to the budget package.

###

Conservative 'Nutjobs' - Got Gitmo Right

By Jonathan Cousar

Conservatives Got it Right.

"European Countries May Take Detainees". That's how the hopeful December, 2008 Washington Post article described the bright promise at the dawn of the Obama administration. Liberals everywhere were elated at the prospect of genuine HOPE that things would finally CHANGE! On the eve of the inauguration of this charismatic and likable new president, liberals believed we would finally get some help and cooperation from our European allies. (Of course all the while denying the ample help and cooperation they gave during the Bush years).

After Obama's election, giddy men in high-level government positions on the European Left were promising to help us unload the "Guantanamo Concentration Camp" (as they call the prison) of "detainees" (as they call the terrorists). But conservatives had always said that Obama's charisma and attractiveness were not going to make countries suddenly go against their own interests. Conservatives believed that Europe would never take a substantial number of the Gitmo prisoners. For this belief, conservatives were ridiculed in the media as yutzes who wouldn't know their heads from a hole in the wall. It was said that conservatives just didn't understand how touchy the rest of the world was. We didn't understand that their feelings could be so easily hurt that they would hold back vital help in a time of great need. We simply didn't understand that having a pigheaded president who did what he thought was right, regardless of who agreed, was so offensive to the rest of the world that they would never again cooperate with us on anything. We were told that if only we could elect a president who had empathy for other countries, then things could finally start to CHANGE .

We had to elect a president who understood the great offenses America has committed against all the nations of the world. Someone who would even own up to and apologize for those offenses. We were told if we could elect someone like that, then things would get better. The world would begin to cooperate. Well, we were told wrong. Not the first time either! It turns out that once again, conservatives got it right. Conservatives showed a more accurate understanding of the real world. The world has not become more cooperative - even in the face of genuine apologies and contrition on the part of our new president.

Obama has personally apologized to Europe for America's alleged arrogance and derision. Yet even in the face of that, France has decided to take just one Gitmo terrorist off our hands. Germany which originally promised to take nine, now says Nein to Nine ! They are taking none. And it's not just the Europeans who aren't helping - Obama, despite his charms can't even get his own Democratic congress to help out! Congress has voted NO to funding the closing of Gitmo! In light of the fact that Europe, and specifically Germany, has decided not to help empty Guantanamo Bay of terrorists (sorry, we should say "detainees" - "terrorists" is so demeaning), it's instructive to look back on what was said then. Conservatives always knew that not only would Europeans not take Gitmo terrorists, neither would Americans! And that's exactly what has happened. Germany has said no, France has said no and the US CONGRESS has said NO! And that's NO to a president everyone loves!

 Don't we now owe George Bush an apology for saying Europe didn't help us because he was so unlikable ? It turns out they were using his low popularity ratings as the excuse for not taking terrorists. The real reason was they had concerns about their own security. Basically they are cowards who know it would antagonize Muslim fundamentalists in their own country and possibly prompt terror attacks against them. Here are some juicy excerpts from the Washington Post reporting that European leaders were giddy about helping the new president rid the world of this embarrassing problem. And below that is an article from Agence France Presse detailing the German No. Read this in light of hindsight. Read this knowing that France has agreed to take just one terrorists, Germany - NONE, and for all its big talk - Portugal still none. And ask yourself: who got it right? Conservatives who said Europe would provide no substantial help no matter who was president? Or Liberals who said the only reason Europe wasn't taking them was because they hated Bush so much. WHO GOT IT RIGHT?

 December 28, 2008 Washington Post :"EUROPEAN COUNTRIES MAY TAKE DETAINEES."

European nations have begun intensive discussions both within and among their governments on whether to resettle detainees from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a significant overture to the incoming Obama administration, according to senior European officials and U.S. diplomats.

The willingness to consider accepting prisoners who cannot be returned to their home countries, because of fears they may be tortured there, represents a major change in attitude on the part of European governments. Repeated requests from the Bush administration that European allies accept some Guantanamo Bay detainees received only refusals.

(THIS is what we were told - that Europe would not take them as long as Bush was president. This was what Conservatives knew would be proven to be a lie as soon as Obama took office) .

The Bush administration "produced the problem," Karsten Voigt, coordinator of German-American cooperation at the German Foreign Ministry, said in a telephone interview. "With Obama, the difference is that he tries to solve it."

(Voigt is saying that since Bush "produced the problem" Germany would not help. He then indicated that Obama was different. Obama was trying to solve the problem and therefore Germany would help. But Germany DID NOT HELP! Germany took ZERO prisoners--just as conservatives predicted they would do).

The Portuguese government pushed what had been private discussions in Europe into the open this month when Foreign Minister Lu Amado brought up the issue in a letter to his counterparts in other countries. "The time has come for the European Union to step forward," he wrote. "As a matter of principle and coherence, we should send a clear signal of our willingness to help the U.S. government in that regard, namely through the resettlement of detainees. As far as the Portuguese government is concerned, we will be available to participate."

(So far, despite their big talk, the Portugese government has not yet taken any prisoners).

Amado said, "I believe the new administration will have the conditions to create a new dynamic of cooperation," Amado said. He noted that when he first raised the issue of Guantanamo Bay at a meeting of E.U. foreign ministers about seven months ago, some countries resisted assisting the Bush administration.

(Remember, this article was published Dec. 23, 2008. France has agreed to take ONE prisoner, Germany NONE and still Portugal - NONE! Amado said it was because "some countries resisted assisting the Bush administration." Well now, they're ALL resisting assisting the Obama administration)!

"I assume the new administration will have someone on a plane to Europe within minutes of Obama being sworn in," said Sarah E. Mendelson, director of the Human Rights and Security Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of a report on closing Guantanamo Bay.

(WISHFUL THINKING)! Now, here's the article from May 12, 2009 showing what ACTUALLY happened: May 12, 2009 Agence France Presse GERMANY REJECTS GUANTANAMO INMATES

Citing security concerns, Germany has reversed a decision to take in nine Chinese detained at Guantanamo Bay. Officials in some German federal states also made U-turns and now oppose the inmates' resettlement , AFP reported.

The interior minister of Bavaria, Joachim Herrmann, said "no" to the move as he told German media Bild that security intelligence showed seven of the nine Uygurs - Muslims from Northwest China's Xinjiang autonomous region - had received training from the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and had contacts with militant Islamist organizations.

"We have no interest in exposing ourselves to additional risk," Holger Hoevelmann, interior minister of Germany's Saxony-Anhalt state, told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily newspaper.

In case you're missing what happened here: Germany NEVER had any intention of taking Guantanamo prisoners, but while Bush was still president they could pretend and blame their decision on him. They could tell the world "we won't take them because George Bush caused this problem and we refuse to help him out of it." When the reality all the while was they wouldn't take them because they understood the security risk they posed. Conservatives knew this all along and liberals didn't. Conservatives had a much better grasp on reality here than liberals did.

Jonahtan Cousar is an editor and writer for AmericanFreedomNow.com You can find more of his writings at: AmericanFreedomNow

Walter Krull is a frequent writer for KingNewsMedia.com

Racism Is Good (for some)

By Charles Boz

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"It (ethnicity and sex of a judge) may and will make a difference in our judging."

These are only two of the numerous racially-tinged comments made by the apparently race-obsessed and deeply hypocritical and inconsistent United States Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

This is the same woman who sided with a black nurse who filed a racial discrimination suit because she worked among a staff of Filipinos at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan who spoke in their native language around her but denied justice for 19 white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut by dismissing their racial discrimination complaints that they were stopped from receiving promotions because none of the black applicants passed the test.

Sotomayor gained large applause from radical and separatist Hispanic organizations including the bigot-filled La Raza, Latino Movement USA and Mexicano Movement when she declared at loony leftist Berkeley in 2001 that it was correct and understandable for judges who were non-white to make decisions based on race alone: "..our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," Sotomayor said.

Sotomayor seems to have a race problem and predictably has been embraced by an ever-out-of-control far left spiral of the Democrat Party and its growing number of sicko extremist creeps and hypocritical disciples who are clearly all for racism and double-standards?as long as it benefits them.

The fact Sotomayor was selected by President Obama is about as boringly predictable, racist and hypocritical as it gets. But, so was Obama's campaign and behavior of an overwhelming majority of corrupt American media openly supporting him and pissing on the people it was supposed to serve with journalistic integrity.

Obama's selected court nominee really just pushes along a newly installed racist ideology in the White House that blatantly practices bigotry but takes advantage of a nation's capital currently monopolized by a Democrat Party controlled by African and Hispanic-American bigots and racists along with squeaky-wheel whining 'minorities' that gained political and economic prosperity by Obama's election. For them racism works. It's good to divide the people. Point out differences and drive policy, law and behavior that benefits non-whites under the guise of double-speak words like diversity, multiculturalism and equality.

Hell, the biggest bigot in the White House is the First Lady herself who could never pass a litmus test for being a well-balanced and unprejudiced individual. Her anti-white bigotry and laughable but remedial 'anger' worked with enough people that her stylish victimization--such the rage with liberals--passed her off as a sympathetic figure to them. That's not to ignore the fact the president has done a good job to date of taking his unhinged and politically dangerous spouse off the speaking circuit so that her racist tendencies don't show too often.

But it must be questioned why all of this has been permitted anyway. And, for sake of discussion, let's eliminate one of the obvious and major answers which is that a complicit and criminal media is nothing more than a propaganda arm of the president and his party today so most of the ugliness coming from Obama and his administration, the Democrats, the First Lady and the putrid records of Congressional leaders like Pelosi, Reid and Franks are simply not offered to the people.

Truth is that Sotomayor should not be nominated due to her clear pattern of infusing race into her thinking. Imagine a white judge, male or not, publicly admit his heritage and ethnicity (let's say Italian or Irish for instance) was a major influence on his decisions so like or it not--tough. But Sotomayor has far more many other things that should be used as legitimate reasons for her denial to the Supreme Court including a open pattern of being an activist judge, literal laziness on the bench where she also has a pattern of taking long, intricate and complicated cases that fill hundreds of pages and skimming on the reading to come up with curiously quick and short-answered judgments that do little to resolve anything at all.

Truth is that if a white spouse of a presidential candidate spoke like Mrs. Obama did during the campaign: invoking racially-toned 'us and them' speeches for instance and penned a university paper at an exclusive institution of higher education that painfully offered judgmental views on students of different skin-color, her husband would have been severely hurt by an orgasmic slanted media yelling and screaming.

Truth is that if a white presidential candidate belonged to a church whose pastor repeatedly pissed on America, welcomed an endless string of white supremacists and bigots to insult and stereotype blacks and befriended as well as financially supported a preacher sick with racist and separatist tendencies, he would never, ever have been elected because he would've never been nominated in the first place.

President Obama typifies and represents many things. Legitimate racial transparency and neutrality is not one of them. After all, this was a man who marketed himself as a black man instead of a bi-racial man--a man literally half-white--but all black in messaging, image and perception by design. Get ready for more of the same. You have a president in office whose own racist tendencies and those around him, I believe, will eventually seriously hurt him because his decisions, like choosing Sotomayor, are really based in skin-color politics that would never be accepted for a white president.

Instead of the presidential seal following Obama, a picture of the Roman God Janus would be more appropriate as thetwo-face analogy perfectly fits.

Charles Boz is a frequent contributor to KingNewsMedia.com

Africa Day: A Sickening Charade

Excerpts by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

(May 25th)......The Day the Organization of African Unity was formed in 1963. It is the day when the international community remembers that Africa exists and while head-patting with derisory smugness, collectively and selfishly attempts to gain points by fostering all Africa causes while perpetuating the ills which haunt Africans.

It has become "hip", "in" and "cool", for so many, to be seen as a champion of an African charity or NGO for the same reasons that holding a black baby, sponsoring an African child or adopting a sub-Saharan boy attracts the attention more easily than sporting some poor wretch from the slums of Mumbai, an unwanted and outcast baby girl from Inner Mongolia or any other child who has been unfortunate enough to have been born the wrong side of some frontier.

Especially so if the African child is photogenic.

But who, for instance, says a word about the Sahrawi children, or indeed the entire people of the Western Sahara, invaded and annexed by Morocco in 1976 and denied the right to statehood? Who raises public awareness about the thousands of African languages ? and thereby cultures ? threatened with extinction on almost a daily basis? Who cares about western governments ? the same ones that had so many qualms about Saddam Hussein ? cavorting with undemocratic African regimes, turning a blind eye to their appalling human rights records?

Who reads about the eleven million displaced persons in central and eastern Africa, the world?s worst diplacement crisis, caused by violence in its turn fanned by outside powers who continue to wish to rule Africa through a policy of internal division, while eyeing the continent?s resources and bribing the managers of the institutions that control them? If bribery exists in Africa, it is not only because officials are corrupt, it is also because they have been corrupted.

But suddenly, it is a case of hey! It is Africa Day! So tomorrow so many will don their Africa caps and brush the dust off last year?s notes, revamp the op-ed piece and champion the Great African Cause of 2009 (after making derisory and racist remarks about Africans during the rest of the year).

Those who do so should feel especially ashamed of the fact that the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has just released a report claiming to have received a paltry 27 per cent of the funds needed for support relief in central Africa, one third of the funds needed to create stability in Somalia, where 40 per cent of the population is dependent on food aid and whose capital city hosts half a million refugees living in the most shocking conditions.

The only way to make Africa Day meaningful is to face the facts and once and for all, take action, collectively, because Africa?s problems were created not only by Africans. This process must start with the mass media doing its job and informing, not spreading disinformation and misleading the public, so that the citizens of the world can hopefully do something to help their African brothers, since it is patently obvious that generations of our leaders have done nothing to right the wrongs of slavery, imperialism and colonialism.

The Age of the American Lust Child

Excerpts from Armstrong Williams

My columns and other writings have long chronicled the decline of moral values in America. However, I must admit to being absolutely shocked when I read recently that the Centers for Disease Control has estimated that nearly forty percent of U.S. births in 2007 occurred outside of wedlock. It's one thing when teenagers and members of lower socioeconomic classes, fall prey to this phenomenon. But the reality of out of wedlock births at such a high rate suggests that the problem has spread much wider than ever could have been imagined. This outrageous number of out of wedlock births across age and socioeconomic sectors signal the wholesale disintegration of our American family. Welcome to the dawn of the age of the American Lust Child.

Some would question why it matters. What does society care whether or not children are born to wedded mothers at all? After all if the parents are together but not married, or single but wealthy enough to support the child, then no big deal right?

Wrong. There is more to raising children than just food, clothing and shelter. There is non-material things that parents provide that cannot be quantified in dollars and cents, but are just as essential for that child to grow up and become a productive member of society. They include, providing a strong moral foundation, teaching faith, perseverance, and discipline. It's not that one parent is incapable of doing this alone. But in most U.S. households, where someone has to work to bring in an income, the moral education of children requires teamwork if it is to be done correctly.

Of course two people do not have to be married in order to have a committed team for child rearing purposes. But the reality is that the bond of commitment between the parents is strengthened when sanctioned before their wi der family and when bolstered by the social and economic benefits conferred by marital status. Married couples can more easily combine income to purchase homes, and enjoy distinct advantages under the tax system for raising their families. Children of married couples are more likely to graduate from college, and enjoy a higher degree of more success than those raised by single parents.

In many ways social disintegration is the symptom of modernity. All of the trappings of modern life, the degrees, the jobs, mortgages and marital responsibilities lead many to view their lives as surreal and lacking any real foundation. The individual, they feel, gets drowned out by notions of social status. In rejecting social institutions like marriage, they feel that they can only be authentic when divested of the cultural trappings that seem to shield them from the difficult truth about their existence. They want to perceive themselves as individuals who are free to choose any option that they might find appealing.

It is precisely at this point that we begin to fall apart as a society, and the true costs of naked individualism, the 'if it feels good, do it' mentality becomes clear. People like Nadia Suleyman, the infamous "Oct-Mom," exemplify the effects of this mentality at its extreme. While it's all well and good for her to go around having fourteen children octuplets, including octuplets, out of wedlock, it's society that ends up paying the price. Although free to make an individual (and some would say selfish) choice, she must now rely on society to supply her children with medical care and housing.

The notion of individuality is based upon a vain aspiration to live independently of the transcendent moral laws. That people feel this way is not entirely their fault ? we live in a society that has failed us in so many ways. Leaders have been shown to be hypocritical, and political concepts such as liberty and freedom have in many cases rung hollow in the face of discrimination and oppression. But this should not make us cynical about our own moral responsibilities.

Armstrong Williams is a widely-syndicated columnist, CEO of the Graham Williams Group, and hosts the Armstrong Williams Show. He is the author of Beyond Blame.

The Entitled

Excerpts from Paul Greenberg

Every teaching assistant at a large state university has had the experience. At least I did as a TA in the University of Missouri's history department. Sometime during the semester you'd get a call from a junior assistant coach -- as new to the academic life as you were -- who just wanted to drop by and have a Coke.

How strange. I was mystified the first time it happened. What did he want, the pleasure of my company? Had he confused me with a football fan? Didn't he know that us intellectuals prefer baseball? Ah, the arrogance of youth. I kind of miss it.

After some puzzling small talk -- what do you think of this weather? where you from? -- my visitor got around to the point: He mentioned a student in a freshman survey course, a student whose name didn't register at once. Mainly because he just sat there without anything to say. His thoughts, if any, were clearly far away. Maybe on the football field?

It seems that said student had failed a quiz or two, not surprisingly, and he would make an awfully fine guard or tackle or whatever if only his grades were better and he stayed eligible, and could I see my way clear to ... well, even I could see where this was heading, and the conversation was closed.

The young coach had carried out his assignment, I'd done my duty, no hard feelings. That's the way it worked. Every system has its little accepted corruptions that accumulate like sludge on the gears. I don't know if that kind of visit still happens. It shouldn't.

There's been one big change since my days behind the lectern. It's no longer the coaches who appeal, wheedle, growl, grovel, or whatever it takes to raise a student's letter grade. It's the students themselves.

Naturally enough, a team of academics has written a paper about this sad trend. ("Self-Entitled College Students: Contributions of Personality, Parenting and Motivational Factors"). The syndrome now has a name (Academic Entitlement) and an abbreviation (AE) -- just like Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Doubtless there will soon be federal grants and endowed chairs to study AE and a drug to treat it. And sure enough, it'll turn out to be more widespread than anyone ever suspected.

The four scholars who did this Pioneering Study trace the origins of AE to parental pressure, material rewards for good grades, competitiveness, and "achievement anxiety and extrinsic motivation." They conclude that AE is "most strongly related to exploitive attitudes towards others and moderately related to an overall sense of entitlement and to narcissism."

At the risk of putting all that in plain English, these kids are spoiled brats with character problems. But how will they ever get over them if they're not allowed to fail -- and learn from their failures? If their mediocre performance is regularly rewarded with As and Bs, how will they learn the difference between excellent and run-of-the-mill?

The saddest aspect of these kids condition is that they're unaware of it. They actually think they're pretty darned good, and deserve those good grades. More to be pitied than scorned, they may come out of school with no idea of what real accomplishment is, and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing something well.

Raised in an age when self-esteem is all, they're told how great they are from K to 12 and may graduate without the faintest idea of what greatness is, or demands. To quote a deluded young senior at the University of Maryland: "I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade. What else really is there than the effort that you put in?"

Well, for starters there is talent, insight, intention, humility, tolerance, an openness to criticism and a determination to learn from it. There is an appreciation for what is noble and contempt for what is base. And the love of knowledge for its own sake, not for the rewards it might bring, and . . . well, you get the point. Unless, of course, you think you're entitled.

Paul Greenberg is a frequent columnist popular with many media outlets and can also be read at TownHall.com

Looking for one of the most serious foreign policy crises facing the nation? You don?t have to go as far as the Middle East. Just consider what?s going on right next door.

Drug-related violence, especially along the U.S. border, has brought the Mexican government to its knees. Some 6,200 people died last year in Mexico as a result of the drug war, and more than 1,000 were killed in the first eight weeks of 2009. Some states are entirely controlled by drug lords and the Mexican government has proven totally ineffective in stopping the violence.

Which raises two questions: Who's responsible? And what's the solution?

On her visit to Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton became the first U.S. government official ever to acknowledge that Americans share in the blame, both by buying drugs and exporting guns. "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she said upon her arrival in Mexico City. "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians." Indeed, Mexican authorities report that 90 percent of weapons seized from Mexican organized crime came from the United States. As partly responsible for the violence in Mexico, we also have a responsibility to help end it. Surely, sending American troops to the border is not the answer. But, God forbid, that seems to be the way we?re heading.

For her part, Secretary Clinton pledged $80 million to equip Mexico with three Black Hawk helicopters to chase drug runners along the border. And Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the administration was open to, and indeed actively considering, a request from the governors of Texas and Arizona to deploy National Guard or Army forces along the border.

 What a big mistake. For starters, you can't patrol the border without crossing the border. Haven't we had enough military invasions of Latin American: from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala and Grenada? By sending American troops into Mexico, even with the blessing of the Mexican government, President Obama would be begging for his own Bay of Pigs.

 By deploying troops to the border, we would also be repeating in the "war on drugs" the same mistake we?ve made in the so-called "war on terror": thinking there?s a simple military solution to a multi-layered problem. We can no more stop people at gunpoint from using drugs than we can stop would-be terrorists from hating the United States. And, besides, if military force alone could end the drug violence, why hasn?t it worked for the Mexican government?

There is, lest we forget, one other obstacle, although one too easily ignored by any administration: the law. The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in June 1878 to limit the presence of troops in the former Confederate states, prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law-enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. Only the Coast Guard is exempt. Absent new legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president, sending troops to the border would be illegal.

In the end, there are only two things we Americans can do to help reduce the drug-related violence in Mexico. First, as proposed by candidate Barack Obama during last year's campaign, is to reimpose the ban on assault weapons, originally passed by Congress in 1994, which was allowed to expire by President George W. Bush five years ago. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum," Attorney General Eric Holder said recently.

The second part of the solution is finally to get serious about decriminalizing the use of drugs. After 30 years and billions of dollars, it?s clear the "war on drugs" is not working. Time for a whole new approach: Make all but the most dangerous drugs legal, then regulate them, tax them, and use the revenue for drug education, prevention and rehabilitation.

But keep American troops off the border. After a surge in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan, the last thing we need is still another surge ? in Texas!