If Frank Sinatra was alive today, he might have updated the lyrics to one of his most popular songs to read: " In 2005 / It was a very good year / It was a very good year for the United States / Despite what's on the news / You shouldn't get the blues / We're gonna win not lose / It was a very good year."
My rhyming ability aside, 2005 has been quite a successful year in America. Despite what you hear from the mainstream meda, our economy is rolling, consumer confidence is up, and standards of living have risen to record heights. Meanwhile, we have prevented terrorist attacks on our own soil, while our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so phenomenally successful that it's easy to almost take them for granted.
Of course not everything is rosy - no nation is perfect, and the U.S. has continuing issues with illegal immigration, rebuilding New Orleans, energy prices, and Islamofascists who still aim to terrorize us. But unlike the depressing picture we regularly see in the media, 2005 has been quite good to the USA. Ol' Blue Eyes would be proud.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Hollywood and Leftism - Part II
I didn't originally intend to focus this blog so heavily on movies and entertainment, but perhaps it was inevitable given how recent Hollywood events have so characterized the key problems with today's American leftism.
That's also the topic of a hard-hitting editorial in the L.A. Times which sharply criticizes leading filmmakers for their inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the morality of the war on terror.
Says the article:
When you think about it, World War II was far from black and white. Sure, the German and Japanese militarists were evil, but Britain and the United States did terrible things too. They killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians, and they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, which was every bit as awful as the Axis. The outcome was ambiguous because, although Germany and Japan were defeated, the Iron Curtain descended from Eastern Europe to North Korea.
Yet for 60 years, Hollywood has had no problem making movies that depict World War II as a struggle of good versus evil. Rightly so. Because for all the Allies' faults, they were the good guys.
For some reason, Hollywood can't take an equally clear-eyed view of the war on terrorism. The current conflict, pitting the forces of freedom against those of Islamo-fascism, is every bit as clear cut as World War II. Yet fashionable filmmakers insist on painting both sides in shades of gray, as if Israeli secret agents or American soldiers were comparable to Al Qaeda killers. Two of the most serious holiday flicks — "Syriana" and "Munich" — are case studies in mindless moral relativism and pathetic pseudo-sophistication.
That's right - Hollywood can't seem to tell the good guys from the bad, which of course is a direct result of its immersion in hard-left values and attitudes.
According to the far left, there is no objective good and bad; only different viewpoints which must be understood. With beliefs like this, it's no surprise that Hollywood can't distinguish responders to terrorism from the terrorists themselves.
The article concludes:
The lesson of World War II still stands: Civilized countries must use violence to defeat barbarians. Why is that so hard for Hollywood to understand?
The solution is for Hollywood to turn away from this ultra-leftist nonsense and return to the senses it had in the past. This probably won't be easy, but with box office sales declining and a vocal minority of Tinseltownites beginning to press for change, a much needed turnaround could finally be in the cards.
That's also the topic of a hard-hitting editorial in the L.A. Times which sharply criticizes leading filmmakers for their inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the morality of the war on terror.
Says the article:
When you think about it, World War II was far from black and white. Sure, the German and Japanese militarists were evil, but Britain and the United States did terrible things too. They killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians, and they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, which was every bit as awful as the Axis. The outcome was ambiguous because, although Germany and Japan were defeated, the Iron Curtain descended from Eastern Europe to North Korea.
Yet for 60 years, Hollywood has had no problem making movies that depict World War II as a struggle of good versus evil. Rightly so. Because for all the Allies' faults, they were the good guys.
For some reason, Hollywood can't take an equally clear-eyed view of the war on terrorism. The current conflict, pitting the forces of freedom against those of Islamo-fascism, is every bit as clear cut as World War II. Yet fashionable filmmakers insist on painting both sides in shades of gray, as if Israeli secret agents or American soldiers were comparable to Al Qaeda killers. Two of the most serious holiday flicks — "Syriana" and "Munich" — are case studies in mindless moral relativism and pathetic pseudo-sophistication.
That's right - Hollywood can't seem to tell the good guys from the bad, which of course is a direct result of its immersion in hard-left values and attitudes.
According to the far left, there is no objective good and bad; only different viewpoints which must be understood. With beliefs like this, it's no surprise that Hollywood can't distinguish responders to terrorism from the terrorists themselves.
The article concludes:
The lesson of World War II still stands: Civilized countries must use violence to defeat barbarians. Why is that so hard for Hollywood to understand?
The solution is for Hollywood to turn away from this ultra-leftist nonsense and return to the senses it had in the past. This probably won't be easy, but with box office sales declining and a vocal minority of Tinseltownites beginning to press for change, a much needed turnaround could finally be in the cards.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Democracy in the Arab World
Columnist Diane West is pessimistic about the success of democracy in the Arab world. Citing recent examples in Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, she worries that electoral freedom has failed to transfom the Middle East as intended, because majority votes have primarily supported Islamist parties. Secular candidates have not fared well, and in Ms. West's opinion, America's efforts to promote democracy have seemingly worked against us.
These ballot results may indeed seem daunting, but I must respectfully disagree with Ms. West's conclusion. Regardless of who wins the elections, as long as the democratic process itself is safeguarded (something the U.S. is ensuring in Iraq) I believe things will eventually tilt in America's favor.
No matter which party holds power, democracy dictates that a nation's government is responsible to the people. If the government fails to act in public interest, the citizens can always vote it out of office. So even if Islamist parties assume power, they won't stay there unless they improve people's lives. And given Islamist regimes' propensity to achieve only widespread misery (Afghanistan and Iran are the two primary examples), their tenures will likely be short unless they drop the Islamist platform.
This democratic principle, in fact, rather than support for fundamendalist Islam itself, is why I believe the Islamist parties have been so successful in Iraq, Egypt, and among the PA. Recent secular rulers (Hussein, Mubarak, and Abbas) have spectacularly failed to improve their people's lots, so naturally voters have chosen the opposition. Just the same, if the Islamist parties don't deliver (which they almost certainly won't), they too will be consigned to the ballot dustbin.
It may take several voter cycles, but as long as electoral freedom remains, well-functioning parties should eventually emerge in all of these governments. And history tells us that in Muslim-majority democracies (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, and recently Afghanistan), only secular-leaning parties end up fitting the bill.
Egypt, of course, is no real democracy (Mubarak still retains full control), but among Iraq and the PA, free elections should soon produce leaders more attuned with U.S. interests. Once again, the key is to maintain the democratic process, and as long as America continues to accomplish this, we should expect gradually favorable election results.
These ballot results may indeed seem daunting, but I must respectfully disagree with Ms. West's conclusion. Regardless of who wins the elections, as long as the democratic process itself is safeguarded (something the U.S. is ensuring in Iraq) I believe things will eventually tilt in America's favor.
No matter which party holds power, democracy dictates that a nation's government is responsible to the people. If the government fails to act in public interest, the citizens can always vote it out of office. So even if Islamist parties assume power, they won't stay there unless they improve people's lives. And given Islamist regimes' propensity to achieve only widespread misery (Afghanistan and Iran are the two primary examples), their tenures will likely be short unless they drop the Islamist platform.
This democratic principle, in fact, rather than support for fundamendalist Islam itself, is why I believe the Islamist parties have been so successful in Iraq, Egypt, and among the PA. Recent secular rulers (Hussein, Mubarak, and Abbas) have spectacularly failed to improve their people's lots, so naturally voters have chosen the opposition. Just the same, if the Islamist parties don't deliver (which they almost certainly won't), they too will be consigned to the ballot dustbin.
It may take several voter cycles, but as long as electoral freedom remains, well-functioning parties should eventually emerge in all of these governments. And history tells us that in Muslim-majority democracies (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, and recently Afghanistan), only secular-leaning parties end up fitting the bill.
Egypt, of course, is no real democracy (Mubarak still retains full control), but among Iraq and the PA, free elections should soon produce leaders more attuned with U.S. interests. Once again, the key is to maintain the democratic process, and as long as America continues to accomplish this, we should expect gradually favorable election results.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Happy Holidays Edition
It's unusual to be able to say this on the same day, but to all readers of this website: Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas!
For anyone unfamiliar, Hanukkah (and all other Jewish holidays) occurs on different dates on the secular calendar each year because the Jewish calendar follows the 354-day lunar cycle. Rarely, if ever, does a Jewish holiday fall on the same secular date two years in a row, and this is the first year in decades that the first night of Hanukkah has exactly coincided with Christmas. Of course, Christmas ends tonight while Hanukkah has seven more days to go, but for today the holidays entirely coincide.
On that note, I also want to express my diagreement with the mixed term "Chrismukkah" (or "Chrismukwanzakuh") The term, popularized by the intermarried Jewish-Christian household in the TV show "The O.C." may sound all-inclusive, but in reality we're talking about two different holidays from two different religions, so I prefer to call them by what they actually are.
So on that note, once again, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!
-TheSolidSurfer.com
For anyone unfamiliar, Hanukkah (and all other Jewish holidays) occurs on different dates on the secular calendar each year because the Jewish calendar follows the 354-day lunar cycle. Rarely, if ever, does a Jewish holiday fall on the same secular date two years in a row, and this is the first year in decades that the first night of Hanukkah has exactly coincided with Christmas. Of course, Christmas ends tonight while Hanukkah has seven more days to go, but for today the holidays entirely coincide.
On that note, I also want to express my diagreement with the mixed term "Chrismukkah" (or "Chrismukwanzakuh") The term, popularized by the intermarried Jewish-Christian household in the TV show "The O.C." may sound all-inclusive, but in reality we're talking about two different holidays from two different religions, so I prefer to call them by what they actually are.
So on that note, once again, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!
-TheSolidSurfer.com
Thursday, December 22, 2005
China vs. India
Conventional wisdom states that China will become the next world superpower. The billion-strong nation has been rapidly modernizing, consolidating its manufacturing base, building a high-tech economy, and educating its youth. The result has been unprecedented productivity growth, with China recently becoming the world's fourth largest economy. Some Americans are genuinely concerned that soon it will overtake even the U.S., both economically and militarily. But by and large, most Americans view China as an opportunity on the rise, and many are scrambling to invest in its markets, learn its language and history, pursue its entrepreneurial opportunities, and immerse themselves in its culture.
Now at this moment, it probably seems I'm at the point in this essay where I'm about to state that I disagree with the above assessment.
But this time I don't. Everything I mentioned has either already occurred or stands a great likelihood of occurring.
But while I certainly can't deny China's upward trajectory, I believe that another nation will ultimately overtake it: India. Why? For the simple reason that China is a Communist dictatorship while India is a democracy.
Like China, India is home to a billion plus, has experienced rapid GDP growth, features a burgeoning high-tech sector, and is rapidly modernizing. But unlike its Far East neighbor, India lives with American-style capitalism, free elections, intellectual property rights, and an unrestricted press. In combination, these create opportunities that China cannot hope to match under its current governmental structure.
China certainly has opened its doors to greater capitalism in recent years (and, in fact, this has been a primary driver of its extraordinary growth). But it still suffers greatly from socialist misunderstandings of people's self-earning motivations, lax intellectual property rules that stifle entrepreneurship, economic centralization that adds inefficiencies to markets, and a government whose draconian one-child policy has played havoc on the nation's future social fabric and workforce.
India, on the other hand, faces none of these issues, and sits on a wide-open path to national prosperity. China may be a good place to invest, but as I see it, India is even better.
Now at this moment, it probably seems I'm at the point in this essay where I'm about to state that I disagree with the above assessment.
But this time I don't. Everything I mentioned has either already occurred or stands a great likelihood of occurring.
But while I certainly can't deny China's upward trajectory, I believe that another nation will ultimately overtake it: India. Why? For the simple reason that China is a Communist dictatorship while India is a democracy.
Like China, India is home to a billion plus, has experienced rapid GDP growth, features a burgeoning high-tech sector, and is rapidly modernizing. But unlike its Far East neighbor, India lives with American-style capitalism, free elections, intellectual property rights, and an unrestricted press. In combination, these create opportunities that China cannot hope to match under its current governmental structure.
China certainly has opened its doors to greater capitalism in recent years (and, in fact, this has been a primary driver of its extraordinary growth). But it still suffers greatly from socialist misunderstandings of people's self-earning motivations, lax intellectual property rules that stifle entrepreneurship, economic centralization that adds inefficiencies to markets, and a government whose draconian one-child policy has played havoc on the nation's future social fabric and workforce.
India, on the other hand, faces none of these issues, and sits on a wide-open path to national prosperity. China may be a good place to invest, but as I see it, India is even better.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Israel and Steven Spielberg's Munich
Steven Spielberg's upcoming film Munich, about the 1972 Olympic massacre of Israelis by Palestinian terrorists, unfortunately looks like typical leftist pandering to moral equivalency. Apparently, Spielberg and co-writer Tony Kushner (a well-known leftist himself) have portrayed both the Palestinian murderers and the Israeli vengeance squad who hunted them down equally as "bad guys."
Now I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak entirely objectively about it, but one fact is crystal clear - only one of those parties can truly be called "bad guys," and it sure isn't the Israelis. If Spielberg is attempting to show otherwise, then his filmmaking has sunk greatly from the heights he achieved with intellectually honest masterworks like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.
Perhaps Spielberg needs a refresher course from one of the best Israel-themed filmmakers out there today.
Now I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak entirely objectively about it, but one fact is crystal clear - only one of those parties can truly be called "bad guys," and it sure isn't the Israelis. If Spielberg is attempting to show otherwise, then his filmmaking has sunk greatly from the heights he achieved with intellectually honest masterworks like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.
Perhaps Spielberg needs a refresher course from one of the best Israel-themed filmmakers out there today.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
News and the Middle East
Iraq's historic elections commence tomorrow, and this insightful commentary explores what it means for Iraqis and the Middle East at large.
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey explains the insidious nature of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam and lays out a clear plan for fighting it. Meanwhile, Paul Sperry of Front Page Magazine discusses the Pentagon's strategy. I don't agree with Sperry's implication that most Muslims are fundmentalists, because clearly most are not. Nevertheless, Sperry's conclusions are entirely correct because radical Muslims hold most political control within the religion and act as though they represent the entire faith. In order to fully defeat them, the U.S. must recognize this and act accordingly.
Here is a very interesting group: Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation. This may not be the first thing that comes to mind among most Jewish people, but go through the site and you'll see exactly why this is an important organization and cause. As the group's founder Don Feder states - just remember that Hitler didn't have a Pope, but he had a Mufti.
Yet another article on why we need to bring back DDT. Contrary to recent popular wisdom, this chemical actually saves lives!
Did you know Ray Charles passionately supported Israel? I certainly didn't until I heard about Blue Star Public Relations. These guys promote Israel with catchy (and, of course, entirely factual) poster and ad campaigns. They also target those who perhaps need to hear the message most - college students, leftwingers, and other assorted liberal types. This company does a wonderful (although sadly, much needed) job, and I encourage anyone to explore their website and poster gallery.
Blog of the Day: Freedom Now
Former CIA director R. James Woolsey explains the insidious nature of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam and lays out a clear plan for fighting it. Meanwhile, Paul Sperry of Front Page Magazine discusses the Pentagon's strategy. I don't agree with Sperry's implication that most Muslims are fundmentalists, because clearly most are not. Nevertheless, Sperry's conclusions are entirely correct because radical Muslims hold most political control within the religion and act as though they represent the entire faith. In order to fully defeat them, the U.S. must recognize this and act accordingly.
Here is a very interesting group: Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation. This may not be the first thing that comes to mind among most Jewish people, but go through the site and you'll see exactly why this is an important organization and cause. As the group's founder Don Feder states - just remember that Hitler didn't have a Pope, but he had a Mufti.
Yet another article on why we need to bring back DDT. Contrary to recent popular wisdom, this chemical actually saves lives!
Did you know Ray Charles passionately supported Israel? I certainly didn't until I heard about Blue Star Public Relations. These guys promote Israel with catchy (and, of course, entirely factual) poster and ad campaigns. They also target those who perhaps need to hear the message most - college students, leftwingers, and other assorted liberal types. This company does a wonderful (although sadly, much needed) job, and I encourage anyone to explore their website and poster gallery.
Blog of the Day: Freedom Now
Thursday, December 8, 2005
In Memoriam - John Lennon
I'd like to thank both WSJ's Opinion Journal and Instapundit for including links to my John Lennon - Republican essay on their sites today.
As glad as I am that this blog has reached a wider audience, though, I want to pause and reflect on the fact that this cannot truly be a celebratory moment, for the essay is interesting only because John Lennon is no longer with us.
John's murder was a terrible loss not only for his millions of fans, but most of all to his family and close friends. As sad as we all feel about his absence, it is surely scant compared to what Yoko, Julian, Sean, et al must be going through.
So on this 25th anniversary of his passing, let's all remember that behind the larger-than-life celebrity, there was also John Lennon the man, and it is tragically sad that he is gone. John - rest in peace.
As glad as I am that this blog has reached a wider audience, though, I want to pause and reflect on the fact that this cannot truly be a celebratory moment, for the essay is interesting only because John Lennon is no longer with us.
John's murder was a terrible loss not only for his millions of fans, but most of all to his family and close friends. As sad as we all feel about his absence, it is surely scant compared to what Yoko, Julian, Sean, et al must be going through.
So on this 25th anniversary of his passing, let's all remember that behind the larger-than-life celebrity, there was also John Lennon the man, and it is tragically sad that he is gone. John - rest in peace.
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
Kinky Friedman for Governor (and other tidbits)
As his official slogan proudly states: "Why the hell not?" Tomorrow, Kinky Friedman plans to submit his Declaration of Intent to run as an Independent candidate for governor of the State of Texas. That's right, the cowboy hat-wearing, cigar-chomping country singer and mystery novelist is taking his first steps into the political fray.
But lest Mr. Friedman be dismissed as a flash-in-the pan celebrity cashing in on the success of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, his platform actually contains many sensible ideas. Kinky favors low taxes and renewable energy (especially to reduce our dependence on OPEC and Middle Eastern oil), is against big government and corruption, and perhaps best of all wants to campaign against political correctness.
A couple potential downsides, however - apparently he wants to legalize casino gambling to fund education and wishes to appoint both Willie Nelson as head of the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement group, not the baseball team) and his Palestinian hairdresser Farouk Shami as Texas's ambassador to Israel. I'm not sure how serious these particular claims are (they come from quotes on his website and not part of an official platform), but casinos can be a mixed bag, Willie Nelson certainly doesn't seem to be a law enforcement type of guy (if anything, he's the opposite!), and who knows about this Palestinian hairdresser. (Do states even have official ambassadors to other nations?)
But whether the above is real or merely tongue-in-cheek, Kinky Friedman's presence will certainly make the 2006 Texas governor race much more interesting. See his official website at www.kinkyfriedman.com for more details and to follow his campaign.
Also, in other news:
Inclined to believe Howard Dean, John Murtha and the like on Iraq? James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation presents a must-read fact-based document dispelling all of their antiwar myths.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia says that "extremists have hijacked Islam" and vows to fight them. I guess he's going to start by looking in the mirror? The Saudi government has financed fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam, which has inspired tens of thousands of terrorists (at least), around the world for years. Extremists haven't hijacked Islam; Saudi Arabia has. This country is no U.S. ally, and our government must toughen up on them immediately.
For Jewish people in America: Time to get busier in the bedroom. (This is actually a serious and important article.)
But lest Mr. Friedman be dismissed as a flash-in-the pan celebrity cashing in on the success of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, his platform actually contains many sensible ideas. Kinky favors low taxes and renewable energy (especially to reduce our dependence on OPEC and Middle Eastern oil), is against big government and corruption, and perhaps best of all wants to campaign against political correctness.
A couple potential downsides, however - apparently he wants to legalize casino gambling to fund education and wishes to appoint both Willie Nelson as head of the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement group, not the baseball team) and his Palestinian hairdresser Farouk Shami as Texas's ambassador to Israel. I'm not sure how serious these particular claims are (they come from quotes on his website and not part of an official platform), but casinos can be a mixed bag, Willie Nelson certainly doesn't seem to be a law enforcement type of guy (if anything, he's the opposite!), and who knows about this Palestinian hairdresser. (Do states even have official ambassadors to other nations?)
But whether the above is real or merely tongue-in-cheek, Kinky Friedman's presence will certainly make the 2006 Texas governor race much more interesting. See his official website at www.kinkyfriedman.com for more details and to follow his campaign.
Also, in other news:
Inclined to believe Howard Dean, John Murtha and the like on Iraq? James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation presents a must-read fact-based document dispelling all of their antiwar myths.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia says that "extremists have hijacked Islam" and vows to fight them. I guess he's going to start by looking in the mirror? The Saudi government has financed fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam, which has inspired tens of thousands of terrorists (at least), around the world for years. Extremists haven't hijacked Islam; Saudi Arabia has. This country is no U.S. ally, and our government must toughen up on them immediately.
For Jewish people in America: Time to get busier in the bedroom. (This is actually a serious and important article.)
Sunday, December 4, 2005
Battle at the Box Office: Hollywood's Holiday Season
Today I read a news article which argues that the box office results of two upcoming high-profile films, Brokeback Mountain and The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, will be an excellent barometer of America's current political and cultural direction.
The two movies could not be more different: Brokeback Mountain is a love story involving gay cowboys played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, while Narnia is a celluloid adaptation of C.S. Lewis's Christian-allegory fantasy novel. Certainly each film has its core audience, but the article posits that if either or both break into the mainstream, it will greatly indicate America's preference regarding public expressions of Christianity and/or homosexuality.
Is this an accurate assessment? And if so, how will these films likely fare?
First of all, I strongly believe that Narnia will top the charts in the $300 million range, while Brokeback will greatly flop. Not only are Americans far more Christian (about 80% of the population) than gay (perhaps 3%), but as I have discussed before, they overwhelmingly prefer family-friendly movies over edgy leftist films. Furthermore, Narnia's PG rating appeals to kids (something Brokeback's R does not), while its swords-and-sorcery setting will draw many Lord Of The Rings fans who savor such content regardless of religious underpinnings.
This same crowd, though, will likely inflate Narnia's box office take to such a degree that the final dollar amount probably won't be a truly exact measure of the acceptance of public-sphere Christianity. But regardless of how much overstatement it contains, many more Americans will almost certainly prefer Narnia over Brokeback, and Hollywood should well take that as a broad indication of the greater moviegoing public's general tastes.
The two movies could not be more different: Brokeback Mountain is a love story involving gay cowboys played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, while Narnia is a celluloid adaptation of C.S. Lewis's Christian-allegory fantasy novel. Certainly each film has its core audience, but the article posits that if either or both break into the mainstream, it will greatly indicate America's preference regarding public expressions of Christianity and/or homosexuality.
Is this an accurate assessment? And if so, how will these films likely fare?
First of all, I strongly believe that Narnia will top the charts in the $300 million range, while Brokeback will greatly flop. Not only are Americans far more Christian (about 80% of the population) than gay (perhaps 3%), but as I have discussed before, they overwhelmingly prefer family-friendly movies over edgy leftist films. Furthermore, Narnia's PG rating appeals to kids (something Brokeback's R does not), while its swords-and-sorcery setting will draw many Lord Of The Rings fans who savor such content regardless of religious underpinnings.
This same crowd, though, will likely inflate Narnia's box office take to such a degree that the final dollar amount probably won't be a truly exact measure of the acceptance of public-sphere Christianity. But regardless of how much overstatement it contains, many more Americans will almost certainly prefer Narnia over Brokeback, and Hollywood should well take that as a broad indication of the greater moviegoing public's general tastes.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Abiotic Oil Updates
More news on the fascinating possibility of abiotic fossil fuels:
NASA confirms abiotic natural gas on Saturn's moon Titan.
Dr. Jerome Corsi with another update on the theory.
And another book on the subject: The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth Of Fossil Fuels by Dr. Thomas Gold.
NASA confirms abiotic natural gas on Saturn's moon Titan.
Dr. Jerome Corsi with another update on the theory.
And another book on the subject: The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth Of Fossil Fuels by Dr. Thomas Gold.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
John Lennon - Republican?
Next week sadly will be the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shocking murder. And as we recall and commemorate the ex-Beatle's all-too-short life, we fondly remember him as a colorful figure, husband and father, standout musician, and international celebrity.
Many mainstream media outlets, though, also remember Lennon the political activist, and assume that if alive today, he would have continued the radical leftist bent he displayed in the late '60s and early '70s. To mark what would have been Lennon's 65th birthday, for example, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates that John would be at the forefront of leftwing activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.
Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.
Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.
Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)
Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers leftist, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the Let It Be album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with wife Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his 1980 assassination.
Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.
Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."
*note: This essay is adapted from a piece I wrote back in October on the occasion of Mr. Lennon's would-have-been 65th birthday.
Many mainstream media outlets, though, also remember Lennon the political activist, and assume that if alive today, he would have continued the radical leftist bent he displayed in the late '60s and early '70s. To mark what would have been Lennon's 65th birthday, for example, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates that John would be at the forefront of leftwing activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.
Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.
Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.
Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)
Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers leftist, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the Let It Be album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with wife Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his 1980 assassination.
Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.
Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."
*note: This essay is adapted from a piece I wrote back in October on the occasion of Mr. Lennon's would-have-been 65th birthday.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Oil a Renewable Resource?
We have always believed oil to be a finite resource. According to standard geological theory, oil was created millions of years ago by decaying fossils, accumulated in underground pools, and has largely been used up over the last 150 years. Humanity must soon develop alternate energy sources, because when oil runs out, we could be in for a bumpy ride.
But what if all this is wrong, and oil is actually a renewable resource? That's the theory expounded by Dr. Jerome Corsi in his book Black Gold Stranglehold (co-writtten with Craig Smith) and in a series of articles for WorldNetDaily.com.
Corsi believes instead in abiotic oil theory, the hypothesis that oil is continually created in the ground. This, he explains, is why despite so much consumption during the past century, the world's proven oil reserves have risen today to record levels.
Could Corsi really be onto something? His evidence is quite convincing, based both on observed and mathematical data. (See his articles for some explanations.) At the same time, however, his theory does contradict a century of geological thought, and the rising oil reserve levels could just be a result of better discovery methods.
Nevertheless, Corsi does bring up many valid supporting points, and any scientific theory (even a century-old geologic one) always risks being supplanted by something newer and better.
Persuasive evidence exists both for and against his position, so perhaps the best we can say is that the jury's still out. But this theory should certainly be investigated quickly, as its confirmation would quickly change the balance of power among the world's energy players.
Imagine if the U.S. had abundant, renewable oil right inside its borders. That'd mean an end to energy policies based on oil scarcity, permanently low prices at the pump, no more oil renvenues heading to terrorist-sponsoring nations, and no need to continually appease corrupt and unelected Middle Eastern dictators. If Corsi's theory is correct, all of the above could quickly come to pass.
But what if all this is wrong, and oil is actually a renewable resource? That's the theory expounded by Dr. Jerome Corsi in his book Black Gold Stranglehold (co-writtten with Craig Smith) and in a series of articles for WorldNetDaily.com.
Corsi believes instead in abiotic oil theory, the hypothesis that oil is continually created in the ground. This, he explains, is why despite so much consumption during the past century, the world's proven oil reserves have risen today to record levels.
Could Corsi really be onto something? His evidence is quite convincing, based both on observed and mathematical data. (See his articles for some explanations.) At the same time, however, his theory does contradict a century of geological thought, and the rising oil reserve levels could just be a result of better discovery methods.
Nevertheless, Corsi does bring up many valid supporting points, and any scientific theory (even a century-old geologic one) always risks being supplanted by something newer and better.
Persuasive evidence exists both for and against his position, so perhaps the best we can say is that the jury's still out. But this theory should certainly be investigated quickly, as its confirmation would quickly change the balance of power among the world's energy players.
Imagine if the U.S. had abundant, renewable oil right inside its borders. That'd mean an end to energy policies based on oil scarcity, permanently low prices at the pump, no more oil renvenues heading to terrorist-sponsoring nations, and no need to continually appease corrupt and unelected Middle Eastern dictators. If Corsi's theory is correct, all of the above could quickly come to pass.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Where I Disagree with the GOP
Throughout its brief history, this blog has supported and promoted many entrenched GOP positions, from tax cuts to the war in Iraq to intelligent design theory. But while TheSolidSurfer.com certainly leans Republican, I do disagree with the party's official line (and President Bush's actions) on a number of key issues. Here are some, along with the reasoning behind my stances:
Immigration
President Bush has strongly favored an open immigration policy, offering numerous benefits (including guest-worker status) to illegals and leaving porous borders between the U.S. and both Canada and Mexico. I believe this is a large mistake. Of course, America has been built on immigration (and, in fact, I'm married to an immigrant), and by no means do I propose ending it. Immigration provides new Americans with countless opportunities not present in their birth countries, while giving this nation a fresh supply of skilled workers. But at the same time, we do have finite resources and cannot realistically accept all would-be immigrants without straining ourselves beyond capacity. Therefore, we should more effectively police our borders and ensure that if people wish to immigrate, they do it legally instead of sneaking over the fence (unless, say, it's an emergency refugee situation).
The situation is also all the more urgent, now that we've caught known Al-Qaida members trying to infiltrate America from Mexico. Even beyond immigration issues, we must keep terrorists out of this country. And building a better, well-policed border fence is the way to do it.
Stem Cells
President Bush and leading Republicans have ruled against using embryonic stem cells in medical research, citing a violation against their pro-life principles. Here too, I disagree. Abortion is one thing, but embryonic stem cells come not from fetuses, but from rejected fertility treatment embryos. During such treatments, numerous embryos are created with the hope that one will become a viable fetus able to be implanted in the woman's uterus. When this occurs, the rest are discarded. These embryos are never implanted and never given the chance to develop into an actual person. If you're going to throw them out anyway, you certainly might as well use them to help cure some of humanity's worst diseases.
Israel-Palestinian Conflict
I certainly agree with much of President Bush's and the GOPs actions regarding this situation, particularly their strong support for Israel. But that said, I vehemently disagree with their continuing to reward the Palestinians for doing absolutely nothing to combat terror, extremism, and bad government. Israel has done all it can to try and make peace, and now the ball is completely in the Palestinians' court. And yet the U.S. continues to hold Israel almost entirely responsible for achieving calm in the region. This line of thinking is dangerously wrong, and Bush's policies here will fail just as Clinton's and every other former president's did, unless he acknowledges the Palestinian leadership (and the surrounding Arab countries) as the real cause of the problems and acts accordingly.
Big Government
Traditionally the Democrats have been the party of big government while Republicans preferred a leaner federal structure. But in recent years, Republicans have greatly expanded numerous governmental programs from Medicare to Farm Acts. Even excluding defense and homeland security budgets (which are vital and must remain), President Bush has become the largest spending president in thirty years. Big government is getting out of control and we must find ways to better manage and reduce it.
Immigration
President Bush has strongly favored an open immigration policy, offering numerous benefits (including guest-worker status) to illegals and leaving porous borders between the U.S. and both Canada and Mexico. I believe this is a large mistake. Of course, America has been built on immigration (and, in fact, I'm married to an immigrant), and by no means do I propose ending it. Immigration provides new Americans with countless opportunities not present in their birth countries, while giving this nation a fresh supply of skilled workers. But at the same time, we do have finite resources and cannot realistically accept all would-be immigrants without straining ourselves beyond capacity. Therefore, we should more effectively police our borders and ensure that if people wish to immigrate, they do it legally instead of sneaking over the fence (unless, say, it's an emergency refugee situation).
The situation is also all the more urgent, now that we've caught known Al-Qaida members trying to infiltrate America from Mexico. Even beyond immigration issues, we must keep terrorists out of this country. And building a better, well-policed border fence is the way to do it.
Stem Cells
President Bush and leading Republicans have ruled against using embryonic stem cells in medical research, citing a violation against their pro-life principles. Here too, I disagree. Abortion is one thing, but embryonic stem cells come not from fetuses, but from rejected fertility treatment embryos. During such treatments, numerous embryos are created with the hope that one will become a viable fetus able to be implanted in the woman's uterus. When this occurs, the rest are discarded. These embryos are never implanted and never given the chance to develop into an actual person. If you're going to throw them out anyway, you certainly might as well use them to help cure some of humanity's worst diseases.
Israel-Palestinian Conflict
I certainly agree with much of President Bush's and the GOPs actions regarding this situation, particularly their strong support for Israel. But that said, I vehemently disagree with their continuing to reward the Palestinians for doing absolutely nothing to combat terror, extremism, and bad government. Israel has done all it can to try and make peace, and now the ball is completely in the Palestinians' court. And yet the U.S. continues to hold Israel almost entirely responsible for achieving calm in the region. This line of thinking is dangerously wrong, and Bush's policies here will fail just as Clinton's and every other former president's did, unless he acknowledges the Palestinian leadership (and the surrounding Arab countries) as the real cause of the problems and acts accordingly.
Big Government
Traditionally the Democrats have been the party of big government while Republicans preferred a leaner federal structure. But in recent years, Republicans have greatly expanded numerous governmental programs from Medicare to Farm Acts. Even excluding defense and homeland security budgets (which are vital and must remain), President Bush has become the largest spending president in thirty years. Big government is getting out of control and we must find ways to better manage and reduce it.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Intelligent Design Part II
Not so surprisingly, my recent article on intelligent design theory has been one of this blog's most controversial posts. Several readers have emailed me to disagree, and most of them have included a recent Charles Krauthammer column in defense of their positions.
I certainly respect Mr. Krauthammer's views, and fully agree with him on many other issues, but like many other opponents of I.D., he too dismisses the theory not on scientific grounds but because of implications.
Says Mr. Krauthammer in the crux of his argument:
Let's be clear. "Intelligent design'' may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory'' whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory'' that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today.'' A "theory'' that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force'' that holds the atom together?
My response, however, is that despite his claims of attacking I.D.'s scientific validity, Krauthammer really only argues against the implication of divine involvement. Intelligent design is not just a filler for gaps in scientific knowledge as he claims; rather, it's a well supported theory backed by mountains of scientific evidence in fields as diverse as chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. (See my previous post on I.D. for more on this.)
Krauthammer clearly implies that scientific knowledge alone will ultimately explain everything in the universe, but this is a monumental assumption that is as self enclosed as he claims intelligent design to be. There is no set limitation on what scientific knowledge can or cannot lead to, and if the leading evidence points to a non-scientific outcome (such as anything supernatural), then so be it. Of course this is not empirically disprovable, but neither is Darwinian evolution or anything else theorized to have occurred prior to human civilization. We cannot technically prove or disprove either theory (or any other theory) of human origins; we can only examine the evidence for each position and determine the most likely possibility. Viewed within these appropriate parameters (which rightly leave out implications), intelligent design's scientific merit becomes quite apparent.
I certainly respect Mr. Krauthammer's views, and fully agree with him on many other issues, but like many other opponents of I.D., he too dismisses the theory not on scientific grounds but because of implications.
Says Mr. Krauthammer in the crux of his argument:
Let's be clear. "Intelligent design'' may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory'' whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory'' that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today.'' A "theory'' that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force'' that holds the atom together?
My response, however, is that despite his claims of attacking I.D.'s scientific validity, Krauthammer really only argues against the implication of divine involvement. Intelligent design is not just a filler for gaps in scientific knowledge as he claims; rather, it's a well supported theory backed by mountains of scientific evidence in fields as diverse as chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. (See my previous post on I.D. for more on this.)
Krauthammer clearly implies that scientific knowledge alone will ultimately explain everything in the universe, but this is a monumental assumption that is as self enclosed as he claims intelligent design to be. There is no set limitation on what scientific knowledge can or cannot lead to, and if the leading evidence points to a non-scientific outcome (such as anything supernatural), then so be it. Of course this is not empirically disprovable, but neither is Darwinian evolution or anything else theorized to have occurred prior to human civilization. We cannot technically prove or disprove either theory (or any other theory) of human origins; we can only examine the evidence for each position and determine the most likely possibility. Viewed within these appropriate parameters (which rightly leave out implications), intelligent design's scientific merit becomes quite apparent.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Intelligent Design in Schools
Intelligent design theory has been, to say the least, quite a controversy. Support for or opposition to it being taught in school has pitted teachers vs. school board members, scientists vs. religious leaders, Democrats vs. Republicans, and many others. Proponents insist that the theory is valid science, while adversaries dismiss it as a disguised method of injecting creationism into the classroom. In recent days, the clashes have escalated; last week the Kansas Board of Education passed a resolution mandating that I.D. be taught alongside evolution in classrooms, while in Dover, Pennsylvania, voters ousted several supporters of the theory from the local school board.
So where do I stand on this issue? I believe that intelligent design should indeed be taught in classrooms. Why? For one reason only - it truly is good science. This is not to say that Darwinian evolution is entirely wrong. But intelligent design certainly has enough evidence and plausibility to at least be considered a valid theory. I'm not a science writer and won't defend those particular merits here, but many excellent books and websites do just that; some popular ones are PrivilegedPlanet.com, a related blog called ID The Future, and the slightly more religious-based GeraldSchroeder.com.
Now, if intelligent design is indeed true, the implications for humanity are, of course, staggering. This alone is enough for many people to support or oppose the theory. But implications should not be involved when considering whether to teach it in classrooms; only scientific validity matters. And as the above websites demonstrate, intelligent design contains plenty of this.
Teaching I.D., in fact, is far more consistent with the scientific method than banning it. Whenever a substantiated theory arises in any area of science, it should be accepted at minimum as containing the potential of being truly valid. To dismiss this possibility due to implications would simply be poor science. Indeed, if all new theories were discarded as such, evolution itself never would have survived the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Intelligent design deserves no less consideration.
That said, some of the implication-based criticisms do raise valid questions, and I'd like to address the most common ones I've encountered:
Criticism #1: Darwinian evolution has been proven to be correct, so there is no need for any competing theories.
Answer: This may be true on a micro-level, but not on the macro-level necessary to dismiss competing theories. On the micro-level, we certainly have observed that species can both develop new characteristics and undergo natural selection. Among bacteria, for example, genetic mutations occur regularly, and when under attack from an antibiotic, only those bacteria with resistant genes will survive. Our constant need to develop new antibiotics, in fact, is a direct result of this bacterial micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution, however, is an entirely different story. We have never observed one species actually transforming into another (and certainly not doing so randomly), a la Darwin's theory. Darwinists, of course, reply that such change occurs only over many thousands or millions of years. But while this position can certainly be theorized and supported by evidence, it just as certainly cannot be definitively verified. Potential evidence is not the same as proof.
Criticism #2: Intelligent design is dangerous because it represents the imposition of organized religion onto people.
Answer: Certainly many who do wish to impose organized religion believe that intelligent design supports their reasoning. But the theory itself advocates no particular faith, and clearly can be taught without violating our public schools' church-state separation.
Criticism #3: Opposing evolution is akin to the Catholic Church's opposition of Copernicus and Galileo in the 1600s.
Answer: Actually it is quite different, on multiple levels. First of all, the Church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo on religious grounds and forced them to publicly retract their scientific findings (extremely controversial at the time) that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Intelligent design demands nothing of the sort with Darwinism, and advocates of I.D. maintain that it be taught alongside, and not in place of, evolution.
Secondly, unlike macro-evolution, Earth's rotations and revolutions can be directly measured. We know factually that these occur because we regularly observe them in action. This quite differs from a technically unproven theory, as discussed above in the answer to Criticism #1.
Criticism #4: Advocates of intelligent design don't seem so intelligent themselves in the eyes of mainstream America.
Answer: In fact, polls indicate that a majority of Americans support the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.
Even with such support, though, scientific validity and not public opinion should decide the issue. Most people dismissed Einstein's theory of relativity upon its first proposal, but ultimately scientific merit triumphed and today we largely accept it.
Science is all about discovering how the world works. And since intelligent design provides a scientifically plausible and evidence-backed explanation of our planetary and biological origins, it certainly deserves to be taught as such.
So where do I stand on this issue? I believe that intelligent design should indeed be taught in classrooms. Why? For one reason only - it truly is good science. This is not to say that Darwinian evolution is entirely wrong. But intelligent design certainly has enough evidence and plausibility to at least be considered a valid theory. I'm not a science writer and won't defend those particular merits here, but many excellent books and websites do just that; some popular ones are PrivilegedPlanet.com, a related blog called ID The Future, and the slightly more religious-based GeraldSchroeder.com.
Now, if intelligent design is indeed true, the implications for humanity are, of course, staggering. This alone is enough for many people to support or oppose the theory. But implications should not be involved when considering whether to teach it in classrooms; only scientific validity matters. And as the above websites demonstrate, intelligent design contains plenty of this.
Teaching I.D., in fact, is far more consistent with the scientific method than banning it. Whenever a substantiated theory arises in any area of science, it should be accepted at minimum as containing the potential of being truly valid. To dismiss this possibility due to implications would simply be poor science. Indeed, if all new theories were discarded as such, evolution itself never would have survived the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Intelligent design deserves no less consideration.
That said, some of the implication-based criticisms do raise valid questions, and I'd like to address the most common ones I've encountered:
Criticism #1: Darwinian evolution has been proven to be correct, so there is no need for any competing theories.
Answer: This may be true on a micro-level, but not on the macro-level necessary to dismiss competing theories. On the micro-level, we certainly have observed that species can both develop new characteristics and undergo natural selection. Among bacteria, for example, genetic mutations occur regularly, and when under attack from an antibiotic, only those bacteria with resistant genes will survive. Our constant need to develop new antibiotics, in fact, is a direct result of this bacterial micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution, however, is an entirely different story. We have never observed one species actually transforming into another (and certainly not doing so randomly), a la Darwin's theory. Darwinists, of course, reply that such change occurs only over many thousands or millions of years. But while this position can certainly be theorized and supported by evidence, it just as certainly cannot be definitively verified. Potential evidence is not the same as proof.
Criticism #2: Intelligent design is dangerous because it represents the imposition of organized religion onto people.
Answer: Certainly many who do wish to impose organized religion believe that intelligent design supports their reasoning. But the theory itself advocates no particular faith, and clearly can be taught without violating our public schools' church-state separation.
Criticism #3: Opposing evolution is akin to the Catholic Church's opposition of Copernicus and Galileo in the 1600s.
Answer: Actually it is quite different, on multiple levels. First of all, the Church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo on religious grounds and forced them to publicly retract their scientific findings (extremely controversial at the time) that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Intelligent design demands nothing of the sort with Darwinism, and advocates of I.D. maintain that it be taught alongside, and not in place of, evolution.
Secondly, unlike macro-evolution, Earth's rotations and revolutions can be directly measured. We know factually that these occur because we regularly observe them in action. This quite differs from a technically unproven theory, as discussed above in the answer to Criticism #1.
Criticism #4: Advocates of intelligent design don't seem so intelligent themselves in the eyes of mainstream America.
Answer: In fact, polls indicate that a majority of Americans support the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.
Even with such support, though, scientific validity and not public opinion should decide the issue. Most people dismissed Einstein's theory of relativity upon its first proposal, but ultimately scientific merit triumphed and today we largely accept it.
Science is all about discovering how the world works. And since intelligent design provides a scientifically plausible and evidence-backed explanation of our planetary and biological origins, it certainly deserves to be taught as such.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Jordan Bombings Show Jihadists' True Face
For anyone who still believes that radical Muslim terrorists act out only in response to U.S. foreign policy, the suicide bombings in Jordan should give you long and hard second thoughts. These people don't care who they attack - be it Jews, Christians, Hindus, or even their fellow Muslims - as long as they somehow advance their goal of jihadism.
Yes, their megalomania is delusional, but they sincerely believe they can conquer the free world through terrorism. Our actions do not provoke them; it is our mere existence as a successful non-Muslim country that they detest.
In order to win (and win we shall), we must take them completely at face value - no more excuses. Poverty and alienation may contribute to a terrorist-friendly atmosphere, but they by no means cause terrorism itself. Rather, as I have pointed out in the past, radical Islam is the initial motivation, with lack of freedom a contributing factor.
It is no coindence that most of the world's current armed conflicts (Iraq, Israel/Palestinians, Russia/Chechnya, India/Pakistan, Thailand, Sudan, Philippines, Syria/Lebanon, etc.) are fueled by radical Islam, as the jihadists refuse to coexist with anyone else, including (and to some degree especially) moderate Muslims. If the Western world wants to end this aggression, we must act decisively against the radicals and defeat them once and for all.
Yes, their megalomania is delusional, but they sincerely believe they can conquer the free world through terrorism. Our actions do not provoke them; it is our mere existence as a successful non-Muslim country that they detest.
In order to win (and win we shall), we must take them completely at face value - no more excuses. Poverty and alienation may contribute to a terrorist-friendly atmosphere, but they by no means cause terrorism itself. Rather, as I have pointed out in the past, radical Islam is the initial motivation, with lack of freedom a contributing factor.
It is no coindence that most of the world's current armed conflicts (Iraq, Israel/Palestinians, Russia/Chechnya, India/Pakistan, Thailand, Sudan, Philippines, Syria/Lebanon, etc.) are fueled by radical Islam, as the jihadists refuse to coexist with anyone else, including (and to some degree especially) moderate Muslims. If the Western world wants to end this aggression, we must act decisively against the radicals and defeat them once and for all.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Responding to Egyptian Propaganda
Typical for the government-controlled press in the Arab world, an Egyptian newspaper has written an editorial blaming America and Israel for all of its problems. The piece is, of course, filled with with distortions, lies and propaganda, but a reader of TheSolidSurfer.com has written a worthy response which I'd like to reprint in this post.
Here is the editorial, from Al Ahram Weekly in Egypt. I have also included my own comments, interspersed with the piece (and noted), and the reader's response letter follows at the end.
Editorial: The US administration has formed a committee of experts on the Middle East to examine the root causes of Arab and Muslim resentment of US policies. This is a positive sign since it at least involves an admission that something has gone amiss. As does the recent whirlwind regional tour of Karen Hughes, Washington's newly appointed deputy secretary for public diplomacy, who was despatched to sell US policy. She will face an uphill battle given the levels of hatred -- and they are growing -- the US now attracts.
TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Hmm, maybe Arabs and Muslims hate the U.S. because they live in unfree countries where their governments give them false and distorted portraits of America. Like in this newspaper editorial.
Editorial (continued): The Arabs, like a great many other people, once respected the US. America, they thought, stood for justice, equality and liberation -- principles Woodrow Wilson spelled out in his famous 14 points in 1918. Now, though, when we think of Washington we see little beyond the arrogance of a clique determined to push others around to suit whatever purpose is at hand, and regardless of the consequences.
TheSolidSurfer.com (continued): Well, the U.S. is trying to bring democracy into the Middle East, to benefit the people at large. Which, of course, is not good news for the autocratic, unelected Egyptian government trying to stay in power at all costs. Of course they feel like Washington is trying to push them around.
Editorial: Perceptions of the US began to sour following WWII as successive US administrations embraced the legacy of British and French colonialism and sought to advance their own interests whatever the cost to others. But Arabs only began to hate the US when it began to give unquestioning support to Israel, as well as to repress Arab regimes, in order to secure a cheap supply of oil. The invasion of Iraq was simply the last straw.
TheSolidSurfer.com: This is an outright lie. Name one nation that became a U.S. colony after WWII. You can't, because there aren't any. The U.S. never suppressed any Arab regimes for cheap oil either - with oil prices at records highs, that argument can't even fake being logical. Not to mention, of course, that if we truly did repress Arab countries for their oil, we and not King Abdullah would control Saudi Arabia right now.
Editorial: To successfully sell US policy to the region, Hughes might try answering the following questions:Why has the US spent over $100 billion in Iraq, while only $25 million is set aside for the promotion of democracy in the Arab world?
TheSolidSurfer.com: What do they think the $100 billion is for - leisure spending? All that money is going towards creating democracy in Iraq. As for the "mere" $25 million, the editorial gives no source, so for all we know, this could drastically understate the real amount. (Considering the other obvious lies in the piece, I wouldn't be surprised.) But even if the number is accurate, that's still $25 million more than any Arab government has spent on democracy. If Egypt truly believes in democracy's value, they should work towards it themselves, and should not blame the U.S. (or anyone else) whatsoever.
Editorial: How could US President George Bush, at the Aqaba Summit, pledge to preserve the Jewish identity of Israel? How, in the 21st century, can an American president support a racist state founded on a religious basis?
TheSolidSurfer.com: Want to talk about racist states founded on a religious basis? Try Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and Syria for starters. They won't even allow Jews to move to those countries, and all non-Muslims are heavily persecuted. Israel, on the other hand, has a one-million strong (about 20% of Israel's population) Arab minority who have full rights as Israeli citizens.
Editorial: How can the current US administration justify going to war against Iraq, a country debilitated by 10 years of sanctions, on the basis of a lie?
TheSolidSurfer.com: This quote sounds like they borrowed it verbatim from American leftists. Well, let's see - the U.S. only removed one of the worst dictators in history and freed 25 million of their fellow Arabs.
Editorial: Everywhere it goes the US leaves behind a trail of havoc, in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it just a coincidence these three countries are all Muslim?
TheSolidSurfer.com: No, it's not a coincidence that they're Muslim, and for the exact opposite reason that this editorial implies. In all three countries, Muslim dictators took control and virtually enslaved their people. Then the U.S. came in and freed them. Ask the actual residents of these countries whether the U.S. created "havoc" for them or whether they prefer being free. I doubt the writer of this editorial will like their answers.
Editorial: The US never raises an eyebrow over Israel's nuclear arsenal, yet would not think twice about attacking Iran or Syria should they attempt to pursue a nuclear programme. Why?
TheSolidSurfer.com: Because Israel is a democracy and is not a threat to malevolently use nuclear weapons. Iran, and Syria, on the other hand, are unfree countries ruled by dictatorial regimes. Just the other day, Iran announced an intention to destroy Israel. You really want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons? The U.S. is absolutely correct.
Editorial: The US needs to change policy, not presentation.
TheSolidSurfer.com: Egypt needs a democratic government and a free press, instead of the slanderous lies they print in their editorials.
And now, for the reader's response to the editorial:
Of course all citizens in the U.S. want the best image possible in the Arab world. However the text of your article indicates the wide divergence between our respective views of the world. Yes, I believe the United States pushes the leaders of Arab states to change their philosophical and political views. But this is rational - we want your governments and citizens to live in free and open societies. Does this serve our own interests? Yes, because seasoned citizens of free and open societies typically become economically invested in a peacful and liberal lifestyle. We want your governments and the citizens of your states to become integral to improving the quality of all - including us. We "push" for change which will engender an Arab enlightenment; we hope you will be our equal partner not our subsidiary. Our government is not a clique and it does not "push others to suit whatever purpose is at hand and regardless of the consequences." Our "pushing" has a purpose, and we understand that it entails risks.
TheSolidSurfer.com comments: Thank you for the contribution. I agree entirely that the American actions under discussion are for the good and fully justified. As my above dissection of the piece demonstrates, the autocratic Egyptian government is merely acting in its best dictatorial interest by refusing to admit any responsibility for its nation's difficulties and instead blaming America and Israel. But while such disinformation helps keep Mubarak and company in power, it clearly harms the general Egyptian populace, because blaming someone else, no matter how convenient, will never solve their actual internal problems.
Clearly, the unelected repressive governments in most Arab countries have been dismal failures, and the U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the region are an excellent source of hope.
And speaking of related news:
Not a Sunni Day for the Left. Bruce Kesler examines the positive changes in the Middle East resulting from the war in Iraq. A prime example of American action succeeding once again.
Here is the editorial, from Al Ahram Weekly in Egypt. I have also included my own comments, interspersed with the piece (and noted), and the reader's response letter follows at the end.
Editorial: The US administration has formed a committee of experts on the Middle East to examine the root causes of Arab and Muslim resentment of US policies. This is a positive sign since it at least involves an admission that something has gone amiss. As does the recent whirlwind regional tour of Karen Hughes, Washington's newly appointed deputy secretary for public diplomacy, who was despatched to sell US policy. She will face an uphill battle given the levels of hatred -- and they are growing -- the US now attracts.
TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Hmm, maybe Arabs and Muslims hate the U.S. because they live in unfree countries where their governments give them false and distorted portraits of America. Like in this newspaper editorial.
Editorial (continued): The Arabs, like a great many other people, once respected the US. America, they thought, stood for justice, equality and liberation -- principles Woodrow Wilson spelled out in his famous 14 points in 1918. Now, though, when we think of Washington we see little beyond the arrogance of a clique determined to push others around to suit whatever purpose is at hand, and regardless of the consequences.
TheSolidSurfer.com (continued): Well, the U.S. is trying to bring democracy into the Middle East, to benefit the people at large. Which, of course, is not good news for the autocratic, unelected Egyptian government trying to stay in power at all costs. Of course they feel like Washington is trying to push them around.
Editorial: Perceptions of the US began to sour following WWII as successive US administrations embraced the legacy of British and French colonialism and sought to advance their own interests whatever the cost to others. But Arabs only began to hate the US when it began to give unquestioning support to Israel, as well as to repress Arab regimes, in order to secure a cheap supply of oil. The invasion of Iraq was simply the last straw.
TheSolidSurfer.com: This is an outright lie. Name one nation that became a U.S. colony after WWII. You can't, because there aren't any. The U.S. never suppressed any Arab regimes for cheap oil either - with oil prices at records highs, that argument can't even fake being logical. Not to mention, of course, that if we truly did repress Arab countries for their oil, we and not King Abdullah would control Saudi Arabia right now.
Editorial: To successfully sell US policy to the region, Hughes might try answering the following questions:Why has the US spent over $100 billion in Iraq, while only $25 million is set aside for the promotion of democracy in the Arab world?
TheSolidSurfer.com: What do they think the $100 billion is for - leisure spending? All that money is going towards creating democracy in Iraq. As for the "mere" $25 million, the editorial gives no source, so for all we know, this could drastically understate the real amount. (Considering the other obvious lies in the piece, I wouldn't be surprised.) But even if the number is accurate, that's still $25 million more than any Arab government has spent on democracy. If Egypt truly believes in democracy's value, they should work towards it themselves, and should not blame the U.S. (or anyone else) whatsoever.
Editorial: How could US President George Bush, at the Aqaba Summit, pledge to preserve the Jewish identity of Israel? How, in the 21st century, can an American president support a racist state founded on a religious basis?
TheSolidSurfer.com: Want to talk about racist states founded on a religious basis? Try Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and Syria for starters. They won't even allow Jews to move to those countries, and all non-Muslims are heavily persecuted. Israel, on the other hand, has a one-million strong (about 20% of Israel's population) Arab minority who have full rights as Israeli citizens.
Editorial: How can the current US administration justify going to war against Iraq, a country debilitated by 10 years of sanctions, on the basis of a lie?
TheSolidSurfer.com: This quote sounds like they borrowed it verbatim from American leftists. Well, let's see - the U.S. only removed one of the worst dictators in history and freed 25 million of their fellow Arabs.
Editorial: Everywhere it goes the US leaves behind a trail of havoc, in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it just a coincidence these three countries are all Muslim?
TheSolidSurfer.com: No, it's not a coincidence that they're Muslim, and for the exact opposite reason that this editorial implies. In all three countries, Muslim dictators took control and virtually enslaved their people. Then the U.S. came in and freed them. Ask the actual residents of these countries whether the U.S. created "havoc" for them or whether they prefer being free. I doubt the writer of this editorial will like their answers.
Editorial: The US never raises an eyebrow over Israel's nuclear arsenal, yet would not think twice about attacking Iran or Syria should they attempt to pursue a nuclear programme. Why?
TheSolidSurfer.com: Because Israel is a democracy and is not a threat to malevolently use nuclear weapons. Iran, and Syria, on the other hand, are unfree countries ruled by dictatorial regimes. Just the other day, Iran announced an intention to destroy Israel. You really want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons? The U.S. is absolutely correct.
Editorial: The US needs to change policy, not presentation.
TheSolidSurfer.com: Egypt needs a democratic government and a free press, instead of the slanderous lies they print in their editorials.
And now, for the reader's response to the editorial:
Of course all citizens in the U.S. want the best image possible in the Arab world. However the text of your article indicates the wide divergence between our respective views of the world. Yes, I believe the United States pushes the leaders of Arab states to change their philosophical and political views. But this is rational - we want your governments and citizens to live in free and open societies. Does this serve our own interests? Yes, because seasoned citizens of free and open societies typically become economically invested in a peacful and liberal lifestyle. We want your governments and the citizens of your states to become integral to improving the quality of all - including us. We "push" for change which will engender an Arab enlightenment; we hope you will be our equal partner not our subsidiary. Our government is not a clique and it does not "push others to suit whatever purpose is at hand and regardless of the consequences." Our "pushing" has a purpose, and we understand that it entails risks.
TheSolidSurfer.com comments: Thank you for the contribution. I agree entirely that the American actions under discussion are for the good and fully justified. As my above dissection of the piece demonstrates, the autocratic Egyptian government is merely acting in its best dictatorial interest by refusing to admit any responsibility for its nation's difficulties and instead blaming America and Israel. But while such disinformation helps keep Mubarak and company in power, it clearly harms the general Egyptian populace, because blaming someone else, no matter how convenient, will never solve their actual internal problems.
Clearly, the unelected repressive governments in most Arab countries have been dismal failures, and the U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the region are an excellent source of hope.
And speaking of related news:
Not a Sunni Day for the Left. Bruce Kesler examines the positive changes in the Middle East resulting from the war in Iraq. A prime example of American action succeeding once again.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
America and Overpopulation Myths
Ever driven across rural America and seen how much empty space is out there? Often, you'll cover hundreds of miles of land virtually devoid of people.
Contrary to the claims of many leftwingers, environmentalists, and other other doomsday population bomb types, the United States is not overpopulated. Far from it. Our 300 million people live in a geographic area about the same size as China, home to more than 1.3 billion. Many other areas of the world, including most of Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and West Africa also carry far greater population densities. Furthermore, we produce more food than we can possibly eat, and our per capita economic output leads the world (apart from Luxembourg, whose tax-haven status greatly inflates GDP).
But that doesn't stop certain leftist rants such as the one this San Francisco Gate columnist pulled on an Arkansas family that recently celebrated the birth of its sixteenth child.
Now of course sixteen kids is a lot, and certainly most people desire far fewer. But these particular parents wished for more, and that's that. End of story. There is certainly no need to publicly ridicule them for overpopulating the world (or to ridicule them for any reason, period).
The column's author may be correct in stating that one billion children around the world live in poverty, but this is entirely unrelated to the size of America's population (or, for the most part, population size anywhere). Rather, these poor children overwhelmingly live in unfree nations ruled by thugs and dictators who vastly limit their people's economic potential. South Korea, for example, has over double the population of North Korea, but the dictator-ruled North mires in dire poverty while the democratic South abounds in wealth.
Overpopulation clearly is not the drastic problem that many claim, and most certainly not in America. Our nation has plenty of room to grow, and if we choose to do so, then by all means we should.
Contrary to the claims of many leftwingers, environmentalists, and other other doomsday population bomb types, the United States is not overpopulated. Far from it. Our 300 million people live in a geographic area about the same size as China, home to more than 1.3 billion. Many other areas of the world, including most of Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and West Africa also carry far greater population densities. Furthermore, we produce more food than we can possibly eat, and our per capita economic output leads the world (apart from Luxembourg, whose tax-haven status greatly inflates GDP).
But that doesn't stop certain leftist rants such as the one this San Francisco Gate columnist pulled on an Arkansas family that recently celebrated the birth of its sixteenth child.
Now of course sixteen kids is a lot, and certainly most people desire far fewer. But these particular parents wished for more, and that's that. End of story. There is certainly no need to publicly ridicule them for overpopulating the world (or to ridicule them for any reason, period).
The column's author may be correct in stating that one billion children around the world live in poverty, but this is entirely unrelated to the size of America's population (or, for the most part, population size anywhere). Rather, these poor children overwhelmingly live in unfree nations ruled by thugs and dictators who vastly limit their people's economic potential. South Korea, for example, has over double the population of North Korea, but the dictator-ruled North mires in dire poverty while the democratic South abounds in wealth.
Overpopulation clearly is not the drastic problem that many claim, and most certainly not in America. Our nation has plenty of room to grow, and if we choose to do so, then by all means we should.
Monday, October 17, 2005
U.S., U.N., Africa, and Afghanistan
A significant piece of evidence in the money laundering case against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was a supposed list of Republican candidates who received the dirty funds. But now prosecutors have admitted that the document does not exist. Looks like DeLay wasn't just assigning blame when he claimed to be an innocent victim of partisan politics.
The latest move by the U.N. is just disgusting. They invited Robert Mugabe, the dictator president of Zimbabwe who seized white-owned farms and caused drastic food shortages for millions of his people, to address a conference aimed at solving world hunger. What's next - Fidel Castro heading up a conference on democracy?
About a month ago, I briefly noted an article discussing the advantages of DDT in combatting malaria. And now another piece is greatly urging spraying the chemical in hard-hit Africa. Use the links at the bottom of the article to call on your senators and President Bush to support this.
Afghanistan warming up to Israel? President Karzai wants to formally recognize Israel if his Palestinian "brothers" also get a state. Coming from the leader of a Muslim country, this condition unfortunately does not surprise. But the Afghan leader should recognize who his true brothers really are; significant genetic and cultural evidence point to the Afghans as being one of the Ten Lost Jewish Tribes.
The latest move by the U.N. is just disgusting. They invited Robert Mugabe, the dictator president of Zimbabwe who seized white-owned farms and caused drastic food shortages for millions of his people, to address a conference aimed at solving world hunger. What's next - Fidel Castro heading up a conference on democracy?
About a month ago, I briefly noted an article discussing the advantages of DDT in combatting malaria. And now another piece is greatly urging spraying the chemical in hard-hit Africa. Use the links at the bottom of the article to call on your senators and President Bush to support this.
Afghanistan warming up to Israel? President Karzai wants to formally recognize Israel if his Palestinian "brothers" also get a state. Coming from the leader of a Muslim country, this condition unfortunately does not surprise. But the Afghan leader should recognize who his true brothers really are; significant genetic and cultural evidence point to the Afghans as being one of the Ten Lost Jewish Tribes.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
John Lennon - Republican?
The fact that I titled a recent post after a John Lennon album reminds me that the ex-Beatle would have turned 65 over the past weekend. And to commemorate the occasion, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates on what Lennon would be like were he still alive. Of course any such predictions are pure guesses, but Davies concludes that just like in the late '60s and early '70s, John would be at the forefront of liberal/radical activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.
Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.
Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.
Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)
Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers liberal, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the "Let It Be" album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his assassination in 1980.
Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.
Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."
Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.
Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.
Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)
Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers liberal, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the "Let It Be" album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his assassination in 1980.
Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.
Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."
Monday, October 10, 2005
Walls and Bridges
An easy way to construct border fences? The United States clearly needs better border protection, especially to keep out terrorists and illegal smuggling. And the same walls used as sound barriers around freeways just may do the trick.
Joseph Farah encourages conservatives to liberate the classical liberalism within themselves. Classical liberalism, of course, being far different than today's left-leaning "liberalism."
The solution to poverty: The best aid is trade.
Victor Davis Hanson is optimistic on Iraq and says most Americans are too. I agree.
Saddam Hussein's trial begins next week.
Steven Plaut writes an open letter to Rachel Corrie's parents. Scroll down after you've read it too, and look at Comments 19 and 20 on the page; they are as essential to understanding the issue as the letter itself.
Blog of the Day: Atlas Shrugs
Joseph Farah encourages conservatives to liberate the classical liberalism within themselves. Classical liberalism, of course, being far different than today's left-leaning "liberalism."
The solution to poverty: The best aid is trade.
Victor Davis Hanson is optimistic on Iraq and says most Americans are too. I agree.
Saddam Hussein's trial begins next week.
Steven Plaut writes an open letter to Rachel Corrie's parents. Scroll down after you've read it too, and look at Comments 19 and 20 on the page; they are as essential to understanding the issue as the letter itself.
Blog of the Day: Atlas Shrugs
Thursday, October 6, 2005
Happy New Year!
Nope, it's not January 1st, but the past couple days were Rosh Hashanah.
Interesting news to start year 5766:
President Bush vows to continue the fight against terrorism, and the Iraqi president agrees.
Jonah Goldberg on the Harriet Miers choice.
Looks like I'm not alone in criticizing the abortion-crime theory in the book Freakonomics. Former U.S. education secretary and current talk radio host Bill Bennett did so as well, and his remarks have been roundly condemned by the Left because he also mentioned the factor of race. But a closer examination of his words reveals that these critics quoted him quite out of context. Certainly Bennett could have conveyed his point in more appropriate terms, but to call him racist over this is wholly inappropriate as well. As unpleasant as it may sound, Bennett's unspoken implication that African-Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than other ethnic groups is nonetheless statistically true. (Whites commit more crimes overall, but blacks have the highest rate per capita.) A better media response, in my opinion, would be an examination of this discrepancy with an effort towards reducing the crime rate for all. Of course, skin color itself has nothing to do with crime (or any other social factor). But given that fatherlessness is the top predictor of criminality and that 70% of black children grow up without a father in the home (a rate far exceeding that of other ethnic groups), parental involvement clearly should be prime fodder for discussion.
Blog of the Day: National Review's The Corner
Interesting news to start year 5766:
President Bush vows to continue the fight against terrorism, and the Iraqi president agrees.
Jonah Goldberg on the Harriet Miers choice.
Looks like I'm not alone in criticizing the abortion-crime theory in the book Freakonomics. Former U.S. education secretary and current talk radio host Bill Bennett did so as well, and his remarks have been roundly condemned by the Left because he also mentioned the factor of race. But a closer examination of his words reveals that these critics quoted him quite out of context. Certainly Bennett could have conveyed his point in more appropriate terms, but to call him racist over this is wholly inappropriate as well. As unpleasant as it may sound, Bennett's unspoken implication that African-Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than other ethnic groups is nonetheless statistically true. (Whites commit more crimes overall, but blacks have the highest rate per capita.) A better media response, in my opinion, would be an examination of this discrepancy with an effort towards reducing the crime rate for all. Of course, skin color itself has nothing to do with crime (or any other social factor). But given that fatherlessness is the top predictor of criminality and that 70% of black children grow up without a father in the home (a rate far exceeding that of other ethnic groups), parental involvement clearly should be prime fodder for discussion.
Blog of the Day: National Review's The Corner
Friday, September 30, 2005
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
Hope Clint Eastwood likes this post. (And given that he's a Republican in leftwing-dominated Hollywood, I'll bet he probably would :-)
The Good:
Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice. Glad it finally occurred.
A victory for academic freedom on college campuses.
Residents starting to return to New Orleans.
Blog of the Day: Good News From Iraq (and Afghanistan). An absolute must read, on what the liberal media will never tell you.
The Bad:
Saudi prince Al-Waleed buys stake in Fox News. This could be very troubling indeed if Al-Waleed, the same prince whose $10 million check was rejected by Rudy Giuliani after 9/11, gains influence over the company's direction. His ownership share is relatively small, so chances are he won't, but this certainly should be monitored.
Liberal media pandering to radical Muslims. Now at first glance, you might wonder - what's wrong with this article? After all, it's only about a few Latina women who converted to Islam. But let's examine things more closely. First of all, this is not a noteworthy event that should ordinarily grace the front page of a national news site. Far more Hispanics, for example, have converted to Mormonism (and such converts outnumber Islamic converts by about 100 to 1), but you never hear their story. Secondly, the article portrays fundamentalist Islam in a sugar coated light at great odds with reality. The article, of course, does not identify the brand of Islam that these women practice, but given that they all wear full-body hijabs and attend a mosque that denies Israel's existence (click and scroll down for a telltale map on its website), they clearly are not moderates. This article exists only so the liberal media can try and convince themselves that radical Islam is normal and not the dangerous threat that it actually is.
And, unfortunately, The Ugly:
So a particular country has built a razor barb-wire fence to keep certain people out. Those on the "wrong" side of the fence, so to speak, have complained insistently that it infringes their rights. The nation that built the fence has deployed its army to assist with protection. Surely the U.N. must be furious, demanding that the fence be torn down!
But nope, not a peep from Kofi and company. What could possibly be wrong?
Oops, the country is not Israel. The U.N. is absolutely silent.
And hence yet another reason why the organization is not a trustworthy partner for America (as I discussed in the previous post). The U.N. in no place to oversee the Internet, and needs serious immediate reforms.
The Good:
Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice. Glad it finally occurred.
A victory for academic freedom on college campuses.
Residents starting to return to New Orleans.
Blog of the Day: Good News From Iraq (and Afghanistan). An absolute must read, on what the liberal media will never tell you.
The Bad:
Saudi prince Al-Waleed buys stake in Fox News. This could be very troubling indeed if Al-Waleed, the same prince whose $10 million check was rejected by Rudy Giuliani after 9/11, gains influence over the company's direction. His ownership share is relatively small, so chances are he won't, but this certainly should be monitored.
Liberal media pandering to radical Muslims. Now at first glance, you might wonder - what's wrong with this article? After all, it's only about a few Latina women who converted to Islam. But let's examine things more closely. First of all, this is not a noteworthy event that should ordinarily grace the front page of a national news site. Far more Hispanics, for example, have converted to Mormonism (and such converts outnumber Islamic converts by about 100 to 1), but you never hear their story. Secondly, the article portrays fundamentalist Islam in a sugar coated light at great odds with reality. The article, of course, does not identify the brand of Islam that these women practice, but given that they all wear full-body hijabs and attend a mosque that denies Israel's existence (click and scroll down for a telltale map on its website), they clearly are not moderates. This article exists only so the liberal media can try and convince themselves that radical Islam is normal and not the dangerous threat that it actually is.
And, unfortunately, The Ugly:
So a particular country has built a razor barb-wire fence to keep certain people out. Those on the "wrong" side of the fence, so to speak, have complained insistently that it infringes their rights. The nation that built the fence has deployed its army to assist with protection. Surely the U.N. must be furious, demanding that the fence be torn down!
But nope, not a peep from Kofi and company. What could possibly be wrong?
Oops, the country is not Israel. The U.N. is absolutely silent.
And hence yet another reason why the organization is not a trustworthy partner for America (as I discussed in the previous post). The U.N. in no place to oversee the Internet, and needs serious immediate reforms.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
U.N. - Stay Out of the Internet
There is an old song by the Hollies called "King Midas In Reverse" in which the lyrics go: "He's King Midas with a curse / He's King Midas in reverse...He's not the man to hold your trust / Everything he touches turns to dust / In his hands..."
This tune may have been a clever twist on an old myth, but unfortunately it also quite aptly describes the recent state of the United Nations. While the UN has certainly accomplished a few worthy goals such as programs to reduce poverty and disease, by and large its recent activities have been tragic failures. To name just a few, this includes utter failure to stop genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, failure to even define (much less stop) terrorism, the allowance of Libya (!) to sit at the head of its commission on human rights, non-stop resolutions against Israel while ignoring far worse actions by many other countries, according dictatorships the same respects as democracies, and wasting billions of dollars on scandals and fraud such as the oil-for-food scheme.
And now the UN wants to take over the Internet. The SolidSurfer.com's response: terrible idea.
With all the UN's demonstrated failures and incompetence, they are in no position to take over the Net. The Internet and World Wide Web have been a great force for the exchange of free ideas and growth-oriented capitalism, unrestrained by excessive taxation, regulation, and red tape. But as the linked article states, UN control would most likely bring exactly those restraints. The organization has consistently capitulated to dictators at the expense of free and democratic nations, and sadly there is no reason to expect this to change regarding the Internet.
If we want to keep the Internet free and prosperous, we should press the U.S. government to keep its regulation in American hands. And the linked article in this piece is a great place to start.
This tune may have been a clever twist on an old myth, but unfortunately it also quite aptly describes the recent state of the United Nations. While the UN has certainly accomplished a few worthy goals such as programs to reduce poverty and disease, by and large its recent activities have been tragic failures. To name just a few, this includes utter failure to stop genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, failure to even define (much less stop) terrorism, the allowance of Libya (!) to sit at the head of its commission on human rights, non-stop resolutions against Israel while ignoring far worse actions by many other countries, according dictatorships the same respects as democracies, and wasting billions of dollars on scandals and fraud such as the oil-for-food scheme.
And now the UN wants to take over the Internet. The SolidSurfer.com's response: terrible idea.
With all the UN's demonstrated failures and incompetence, they are in no position to take over the Net. The Internet and World Wide Web have been a great force for the exchange of free ideas and growth-oriented capitalism, unrestrained by excessive taxation, regulation, and red tape. But as the linked article states, UN control would most likely bring exactly those restraints. The organization has consistently capitulated to dictators at the expense of free and democratic nations, and sadly there is no reason to expect this to change regarding the Internet.
If we want to keep the Internet free and prosperous, we should press the U.S. government to keep its regulation in American hands. And the linked article in this piece is a great place to start.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
On Freakonomics and Abortion
In arguing in my previous post that Roe vs. Wade is much less politically relevant than believed by the mainstream Left, I left out one potential criticism recently raised by the bestselling book Freakonomics. The book, by economist Steven Levitt (along with journalist Stephen Dubner), advances the theory that Roe Vs. Wade caused the massive national decline in violent crime during the 1990s, because legalized abortion prevented the criminals who would have committed such acts from being born.
Of course, as one might expect, this claim has been attacked on multiple fronts, from moral criticisms by the Right to direct challenges of Levitt's statistical methods by other economists (here is one example). But given that pro-choicers will probably ignore the pro-life criticism and most non-economists (honestly, including myself) may lack the time to thoroughly analyze the statistical challenges, I'd like to offer a criticism from a different angle - Levitt's basic theory itself.
Levitt's claim that Roe vs. Wade caused the 1990s crime drop rests on a gigantic and unproven assumption - that the babies aborted since 1973 (when Roe was signed into law) would have contained a large criminal element. Levitt bases his view on the facts that Roe made abortions available to lower income women, and that low income today correlates with increased crime.
A correlation, however, is not the same as a cause. Low income was not always associated with crime; at the height of the Great Depression in the 1930s, for example, national incomes plummeted yet crime failed to noticeably rise. Rather, low income and crime are together strongly linked to certain third factor causes, such as the lack of a father in the home. Plus, with the upward mobility common in American society, those with low incomes in the 1970s are by no means consigned to remain as such today.
No, Levitt does not prove his assumption, and in fact, he cannot prove it, because the people in question were never born. For all we know (and I would say this is a much more likely scenario), far from contributing to crime, these aborted babies would have instead solved America's social security crisis.
We commonly hear that "population aging" is the cause of social security's impending fiscal deficit, but the term is misleading. After all, everyone has always grown older, but the social security issue is a recent phenomenon. The real cause is that, unlike previous and current generations, the baby boomers born from 1948-1964 had fewer children than the number needed to replace themselves in the workforce. As a result, the next few decades will see a shortage of working age people needed to support the retiring boomers.
Now why did the baby boomers have so many fewer kids? Well, millions and millions of them were aborted following Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
That said, this conclusion is of course rooted in the assumption that the aborted children would have become, by and large, productive taxpaying members of society. Like Levitt's claim, I cannot prove this, because the people are not around for us to know.
But I certainly believe this is a more likely outcome than the one Levitt advances, and at the very least, it demonstrates how Freakonomics' abortion theory rests entirely on an unproven and unverifiable assertion. And as such, contrary to its claims, the book adds no relevance to the liberal support of Roe vs. Wade that I argue against below.
Of course, as one might expect, this claim has been attacked on multiple fronts, from moral criticisms by the Right to direct challenges of Levitt's statistical methods by other economists (here is one example). But given that pro-choicers will probably ignore the pro-life criticism and most non-economists (honestly, including myself) may lack the time to thoroughly analyze the statistical challenges, I'd like to offer a criticism from a different angle - Levitt's basic theory itself.
Levitt's claim that Roe vs. Wade caused the 1990s crime drop rests on a gigantic and unproven assumption - that the babies aborted since 1973 (when Roe was signed into law) would have contained a large criminal element. Levitt bases his view on the facts that Roe made abortions available to lower income women, and that low income today correlates with increased crime.
A correlation, however, is not the same as a cause. Low income was not always associated with crime; at the height of the Great Depression in the 1930s, for example, national incomes plummeted yet crime failed to noticeably rise. Rather, low income and crime are together strongly linked to certain third factor causes, such as the lack of a father in the home. Plus, with the upward mobility common in American society, those with low incomes in the 1970s are by no means consigned to remain as such today.
No, Levitt does not prove his assumption, and in fact, he cannot prove it, because the people in question were never born. For all we know (and I would say this is a much more likely scenario), far from contributing to crime, these aborted babies would have instead solved America's social security crisis.
We commonly hear that "population aging" is the cause of social security's impending fiscal deficit, but the term is misleading. After all, everyone has always grown older, but the social security issue is a recent phenomenon. The real cause is that, unlike previous and current generations, the baby boomers born from 1948-1964 had fewer children than the number needed to replace themselves in the workforce. As a result, the next few decades will see a shortage of working age people needed to support the retiring boomers.
Now why did the baby boomers have so many fewer kids? Well, millions and millions of them were aborted following Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
That said, this conclusion is of course rooted in the assumption that the aborted children would have become, by and large, productive taxpaying members of society. Like Levitt's claim, I cannot prove this, because the people are not around for us to know.
But I certainly believe this is a more likely outcome than the one Levitt advances, and at the very least, it demonstrates how Freakonomics' abortion theory rests entirely on an unproven and unverifiable assertion. And as such, contrary to its claims, the book adds no relevance to the liberal support of Roe vs. Wade that I argue against below.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Why Liberals Should Focus Away From Abortion
If you are a liberal, abortion is much less politically relevant than you probably think.
Now before anyone knee-jerk dismisses this essay as a typical anti-abortion "conservative rant," know that I am judging the matter only as a political issue and not as a practice itself. I do, of course, have a personal view on the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but that's not what this piece is about.
Rather, my argument is this: Contrary to popular belief, liberals' overwhelming support for Roe vs. Wade has in fact been a largely detrimental practice both to them and to America at large.
Of course you would never guess this from the Left's continuous focus on Roe in politics, media, and celebrity culture. But in reality, Roe vs. Wade is more symbolic than substantive, and liberals' singular focus on it detracts them from important issues that would otherwise assume primary relevance.
Abortion's legality does not actually rest on Roe vs. Wade. Should the court decision be overturned, abortion would not become suddenly illegal throughout the nation; rather, each individual state would decide its preference. And almost all current abortion clinics are located in states that, if given the choice, would most likely vote to allow the practice. USA Today recently conducted an analysis and determined that overturning Roe would close only 36 of the nation's 1819 abortion providers. Liberals are defending a court decision that does little more than uphold the status quo.
This effort, meanwhile, often influences liberals (especially moderate liberals) to vote against their other self interests. Many liberals so highly value Roe vs. Wade that it acts as their default political litmus test; the issue primarily determines whether they will vote for a particular candidate. (As a textbook example, witness the constant Roe-related grilling of John Roberts throughout his confirmation hearings.) But this often leads to moderates supporting candidates with whom they disagree on most issues except for Roe.
In the past, this problem may have remained largely a personal matter. But today, it unfortunately has become a vital issue of national security. Countless liberals who personally support strong responses against terrorism often vote for candidates weak on said issue simply because the candidates support Roe vs. Wade. These same voters will then reject able national defense types who are against Roe.
Cumulatively, these attitudes have dealt a great blow to America's fight against terrorism. This is not to say Roe vs. Wade is entirely irrelevant, but with America under threat from rogue states and fanatical terrorist organizations, national defense clearly should be a more important consideration. If these liberals could only shift some of their Roe-focused energy onto security concerns, both they and all Americans should benefit immensely.
Now before anyone knee-jerk dismisses this essay as a typical anti-abortion "conservative rant," know that I am judging the matter only as a political issue and not as a practice itself. I do, of course, have a personal view on the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but that's not what this piece is about.
Rather, my argument is this: Contrary to popular belief, liberals' overwhelming support for Roe vs. Wade has in fact been a largely detrimental practice both to them and to America at large.
Of course you would never guess this from the Left's continuous focus on Roe in politics, media, and celebrity culture. But in reality, Roe vs. Wade is more symbolic than substantive, and liberals' singular focus on it detracts them from important issues that would otherwise assume primary relevance.
Abortion's legality does not actually rest on Roe vs. Wade. Should the court decision be overturned, abortion would not become suddenly illegal throughout the nation; rather, each individual state would decide its preference. And almost all current abortion clinics are located in states that, if given the choice, would most likely vote to allow the practice. USA Today recently conducted an analysis and determined that overturning Roe would close only 36 of the nation's 1819 abortion providers. Liberals are defending a court decision that does little more than uphold the status quo.
This effort, meanwhile, often influences liberals (especially moderate liberals) to vote against their other self interests. Many liberals so highly value Roe vs. Wade that it acts as their default political litmus test; the issue primarily determines whether they will vote for a particular candidate. (As a textbook example, witness the constant Roe-related grilling of John Roberts throughout his confirmation hearings.) But this often leads to moderates supporting candidates with whom they disagree on most issues except for Roe.
In the past, this problem may have remained largely a personal matter. But today, it unfortunately has become a vital issue of national security. Countless liberals who personally support strong responses against terrorism often vote for candidates weak on said issue simply because the candidates support Roe vs. Wade. These same voters will then reject able national defense types who are against Roe.
Cumulatively, these attitudes have dealt a great blow to America's fight against terrorism. This is not to say Roe vs. Wade is entirely irrelevant, but with America under threat from rogue states and fanatical terrorist organizations, national defense clearly should be a more important consideration. If these liberals could only shift some of their Roe-focused energy onto security concerns, both they and all Americans should benefit immensely.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Asimov and al-Qaeda?
A few minutes ago, I decided to check if my recent post comparing Isaac Asimov's Foundation novels with current events was listed on search engines, and in the process came across a fascinating article from 2002 that, believe it or not, claims that Osama Bin Laden was inspired by Foundation.
According to the piece, the terrorist kingpin believes that America and Western Civilization represent the fading empire of the novels, while he and al-Qaeda are the scientists of the Foundation, aiming to build a new, enlightened Second Empire on the ashes of the old. Bin Laden views himself as a Hari Seldon-like figure who has predicted the future, and indeed, just like Seldon, he transmits messages to his followers via pre-recorded video clips. On top of this, the term "The Foundation" is translated into Arabic as - you guessed it - "al Qaeda."
Could all this actually be true? The article also presents ample evidence against it, so perhaps the best we can say is that the jury is still out.
But whether the books influenced Bin Laden or not, I still fully stand by the prediction (as espoused in my piece) that radical Islam will not win. And in fact, my piece specifically analyzes the America-as-empire possibility and demonstrates its inaccuracy. The fictional scientists of the Foundation are all about technology, freedom, and peace. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, on the other hand, are all about terrorism, lack of freedom, and war.
No matter what Bin Laden thinks, the fact remains that he is a terrorist who has committed horrible acts of evil. And in the end, he will lose.
According to the piece, the terrorist kingpin believes that America and Western Civilization represent the fading empire of the novels, while he and al-Qaeda are the scientists of the Foundation, aiming to build a new, enlightened Second Empire on the ashes of the old. Bin Laden views himself as a Hari Seldon-like figure who has predicted the future, and indeed, just like Seldon, he transmits messages to his followers via pre-recorded video clips. On top of this, the term "The Foundation" is translated into Arabic as - you guessed it - "al Qaeda."
Could all this actually be true? The article also presents ample evidence against it, so perhaps the best we can say is that the jury is still out.
But whether the books influenced Bin Laden or not, I still fully stand by the prediction (as espoused in my piece) that radical Islam will not win. And in fact, my piece specifically analyzes the America-as-empire possibility and demonstrates its inaccuracy. The fictional scientists of the Foundation are all about technology, freedom, and peace. Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, on the other hand, are all about terrorism, lack of freedom, and war.
No matter what Bin Laden thinks, the fact remains that he is a terrorist who has committed horrible acts of evil. And in the end, he will lose.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Isaac Asimov's Foundation Novels and the War on Terrorism
Some time ago, I promised that this blog would touch upon the relationship between Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of novels and events in the real world. As it turns out, the books contain striking parallels to our current geopolitical state of affairs, but not at all in the way that might seem most obvious.
The Foundation novels take place in the distant future, when man has colonized the stars and created a giant galactic empire. This empire has reigned for thousands of years, but crippled by its vast size, is beginning to decline and decay. The Emperor and his subjects are fully oblivious to this slide, but a scientist named Hari Seldon, who has created a novel science of prediction called psychohistory, has mathematically forseen the impending collapse leading to a 30,000-year dark age of war, ignorance, and barbarism. To save mankind from these horrors, Seldon gathers the best and brightest from around the galaxy, and creates a colony on a faraway planet called the Foundation. This, as his psychohistorical calculations predict, will shorten the dark ages to a 1000-year period, at the end of which the Foundation will rise to form an enlightened and peaceful Second Empire.
But, of course, the Foundation must first survive the interim with its wars, political instability, and other myriad obstacles. Psychohistory predicts that the Foundation will do so, based upon the colony's nature as opposed to that of the empire (don't worry, this isn't a plot spoiler). But the Foundationers have no idea how they will actually make this occur.
Asimov wrote the original Foundation novels (a trilogy) after having read Edward Gibbon's The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. Now based on this, it is entirely forgivable if you are thinking that surely the books must parallel America and its current "empire." And indeed the stability of the post-Cold War "pax Americana" -- what Francis Fukuyama referred to as the "End of History," with liberal democracy emerging as the winner -- has come under serious strain as of late, with unrest in the Middle East, China, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
But such a comparison, in my view, is not really accurate. For Asimov's fictional empire is a true colonizing power, led by corrupt, unelected officials with an all-powerful Emperor at the helm. This empire indeed epitomizes the hallmarks of ancient Rome, with its hereditary leadership, few (if any) checks and balances on power, and numerous bloody palace coups. America is nothing like this.
Rather, the Foundation novels mirror current events via the science of psychohistory. Just as Hari Seldon predicts with virtual certainty that the Foundation will ultimately win, the nature of radical Islam predicts with virtual certainty that it will ultimately lose.
Now I know a lot of people probably aren't so confident of this. But I am. And I will explain Hari Seldon-style why this is so.
Psychohistory is, of course, a made-up science. But in Asimov's fictional world, Hari Seldon uses it to mathematically analyze the entirety of possible galacticopolitical stimuli that humankind may encounter, and then, based on the known reactions of mass behavior to these stimuli, predict the outcomes to about 99% accuracy. (Once again, none of this is a plot spoiler.)
Unlike Seldon, I'm not using any formal science here, and I doubt the word "galacticopolitical" is even in the dictionary. But based on a general knowledge of certain broad characteristics of radical Islam versus those of competing cultures, I believe that the outcome of the jihadists' current conflict with the rest of the world (and yes, it certainly is against the rest of the world) can be predicted just as accurately as that of the war between the Foundation and the empire. And radical Islam will not win.
Why? In a nutshell, for two overarching reasons. First, unlike all other world powers today and in the past, radical Islam's strength is entirely artificial and dependent on the West. And secondly, the jihadists have an insurmountable weakness in their absolute refusal to question or compromise any of their core goals.
Let's touch on both points. Radical Islam is an anomaly among powerful movements in that it created virtually none of its strength on its own. All other nations that have ever achieved a modicum of power, from ancient Greece to the colonial British to modern-day America, and even evil powers such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, did so by developing their own governments, economies, and militaries. Whether good or evil, they all conquered and/or influenced mighty swaths of territory primarily due to the fruits of their own internal labor and developments.
The Islamists, on the other hand, have never developed a successfully functioning government, economy, or military. And in fact, the ultra-authoritarian nature of radical Islam utterly prevents them from doing so. Any society that does not allow any questioning of authority and any true freedom of any kind cannot possibly function as a modern society. And as we can see, every terrorist-sponsoring country is mired in dire poverty, a weakly functioning government, and weak militaries. Their only strengths are in ideological radicalism and terrorism, which are funded and permitted entirely by oil money and foreign aid, neither of which the Islamists produced themselves.
So the only way for the Islamists to advance are to 1) fundamentally change so that they can indeed produce a modern successful society, or 2) defeat the West as they surely aim to do so. The problem for them is that if they choose Option 1, they will no longer be Islamists. And if they begin to make any real headway in Option 2, they will lose the source of their strength far before they can come close to completing the job.
Now the second reason for the Islamists' eventual defeat, their refusal to question or compromise anything, is related to Option 2 above. Because the jihadists won't budge from their all-or-nothing position, there is no room for the enemy (i.e. the rest of us) to negotiate anything with them. And this will inevitably lead to all-out war, where it is virtually certain that the West, which built itself up via its own internal strengths, will soundly win. Once again, the Islamists face an insurmountable choice - either change themselves and compromise, which they cannot do without losing their core identity, or fight the West and lose.
This also answers the question of whether the Islamists can exploit the West's one key weakness, which is the left-leaning infatuation with multiculturalism and relative values that allowed radical Islam to emerge as a threat in the first place. And the answer is yes they can, but not indefinitely. Right now, many voices in America and in Europe continue to delude themselves that they can negotiate with the jihadists, that our enemies have placable goals, and that by helping and understanding them we can calm them down. This continues because, by and large, we have been very military successful against them in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the leftist relativist element always feels guilty about being ahead. But anytime the jihadists commit acts of terror, tougher Western voices always emerge, and at some point (and I pray this occurs sooner than later), we will take no more and finally clamp down to utterly defeat them.
So there you have it - due to their very nature, the Islamists have no way to win. Ultimately, their only option is to lose.
But wait, you might be thinking, the Islamists acted the same way and yet carved out a mighty empire in the Middle East for a thousand years; how can you say this won't happen again? Well, the comparison may seem apt initially, but in reality the Islamic empire of old was very different than the jihadists of today. Back then, bloodthirsty and uncompromising as they were, they at least built up their own militaries, and while their their governments and economies were poor, so were everyone else's. Today the jihadists have none of these strengths.
No, the jihadists will not be successful and the rest of the world will ultimately come out victorious. Unfortunately this does not mean that the battle will be a cakewalk; just as Hari Seldon can predict only mass behavior and not the actions of any one individual, the Islamist-defeat model as presented here can forecast only the eventual outcome of the war at large. Very likely, there will be a number of challenges in the interim, which we must face and overcome strong and vigilantly. It is tragic that we have had to suffer even a single terrorist attack, and undoubtedly the jihadists are planning more evil actions as we speak. But make no mistake - in the end, we will win and they will lose.
The Foundation novels take place in the distant future, when man has colonized the stars and created a giant galactic empire. This empire has reigned for thousands of years, but crippled by its vast size, is beginning to decline and decay. The Emperor and his subjects are fully oblivious to this slide, but a scientist named Hari Seldon, who has created a novel science of prediction called psychohistory, has mathematically forseen the impending collapse leading to a 30,000-year dark age of war, ignorance, and barbarism. To save mankind from these horrors, Seldon gathers the best and brightest from around the galaxy, and creates a colony on a faraway planet called the Foundation. This, as his psychohistorical calculations predict, will shorten the dark ages to a 1000-year period, at the end of which the Foundation will rise to form an enlightened and peaceful Second Empire.
But, of course, the Foundation must first survive the interim with its wars, political instability, and other myriad obstacles. Psychohistory predicts that the Foundation will do so, based upon the colony's nature as opposed to that of the empire (don't worry, this isn't a plot spoiler). But the Foundationers have no idea how they will actually make this occur.
Asimov wrote the original Foundation novels (a trilogy) after having read Edward Gibbon's The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. Now based on this, it is entirely forgivable if you are thinking that surely the books must parallel America and its current "empire." And indeed the stability of the post-Cold War "pax Americana" -- what Francis Fukuyama referred to as the "End of History," with liberal democracy emerging as the winner -- has come under serious strain as of late, with unrest in the Middle East, China, Venezuela, and elsewhere.
But such a comparison, in my view, is not really accurate. For Asimov's fictional empire is a true colonizing power, led by corrupt, unelected officials with an all-powerful Emperor at the helm. This empire indeed epitomizes the hallmarks of ancient Rome, with its hereditary leadership, few (if any) checks and balances on power, and numerous bloody palace coups. America is nothing like this.
Rather, the Foundation novels mirror current events via the science of psychohistory. Just as Hari Seldon predicts with virtual certainty that the Foundation will ultimately win, the nature of radical Islam predicts with virtual certainty that it will ultimately lose.
Now I know a lot of people probably aren't so confident of this. But I am. And I will explain Hari Seldon-style why this is so.
Psychohistory is, of course, a made-up science. But in Asimov's fictional world, Hari Seldon uses it to mathematically analyze the entirety of possible galacticopolitical stimuli that humankind may encounter, and then, based on the known reactions of mass behavior to these stimuli, predict the outcomes to about 99% accuracy. (Once again, none of this is a plot spoiler.)
Unlike Seldon, I'm not using any formal science here, and I doubt the word "galacticopolitical" is even in the dictionary. But based on a general knowledge of certain broad characteristics of radical Islam versus those of competing cultures, I believe that the outcome of the jihadists' current conflict with the rest of the world (and yes, it certainly is against the rest of the world) can be predicted just as accurately as that of the war between the Foundation and the empire. And radical Islam will not win.
Why? In a nutshell, for two overarching reasons. First, unlike all other world powers today and in the past, radical Islam's strength is entirely artificial and dependent on the West. And secondly, the jihadists have an insurmountable weakness in their absolute refusal to question or compromise any of their core goals.
Let's touch on both points. Radical Islam is an anomaly among powerful movements in that it created virtually none of its strength on its own. All other nations that have ever achieved a modicum of power, from ancient Greece to the colonial British to modern-day America, and even evil powers such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, did so by developing their own governments, economies, and militaries. Whether good or evil, they all conquered and/or influenced mighty swaths of territory primarily due to the fruits of their own internal labor and developments.
The Islamists, on the other hand, have never developed a successfully functioning government, economy, or military. And in fact, the ultra-authoritarian nature of radical Islam utterly prevents them from doing so. Any society that does not allow any questioning of authority and any true freedom of any kind cannot possibly function as a modern society. And as we can see, every terrorist-sponsoring country is mired in dire poverty, a weakly functioning government, and weak militaries. Their only strengths are in ideological radicalism and terrorism, which are funded and permitted entirely by oil money and foreign aid, neither of which the Islamists produced themselves.
So the only way for the Islamists to advance are to 1) fundamentally change so that they can indeed produce a modern successful society, or 2) defeat the West as they surely aim to do so. The problem for them is that if they choose Option 1, they will no longer be Islamists. And if they begin to make any real headway in Option 2, they will lose the source of their strength far before they can come close to completing the job.
Now the second reason for the Islamists' eventual defeat, their refusal to question or compromise anything, is related to Option 2 above. Because the jihadists won't budge from their all-or-nothing position, there is no room for the enemy (i.e. the rest of us) to negotiate anything with them. And this will inevitably lead to all-out war, where it is virtually certain that the West, which built itself up via its own internal strengths, will soundly win. Once again, the Islamists face an insurmountable choice - either change themselves and compromise, which they cannot do without losing their core identity, or fight the West and lose.
This also answers the question of whether the Islamists can exploit the West's one key weakness, which is the left-leaning infatuation with multiculturalism and relative values that allowed radical Islam to emerge as a threat in the first place. And the answer is yes they can, but not indefinitely. Right now, many voices in America and in Europe continue to delude themselves that they can negotiate with the jihadists, that our enemies have placable goals, and that by helping and understanding them we can calm them down. This continues because, by and large, we have been very military successful against them in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the leftist relativist element always feels guilty about being ahead. But anytime the jihadists commit acts of terror, tougher Western voices always emerge, and at some point (and I pray this occurs sooner than later), we will take no more and finally clamp down to utterly defeat them.
So there you have it - due to their very nature, the Islamists have no way to win. Ultimately, their only option is to lose.
But wait, you might be thinking, the Islamists acted the same way and yet carved out a mighty empire in the Middle East for a thousand years; how can you say this won't happen again? Well, the comparison may seem apt initially, but in reality the Islamic empire of old was very different than the jihadists of today. Back then, bloodthirsty and uncompromising as they were, they at least built up their own militaries, and while their their governments and economies were poor, so were everyone else's. Today the jihadists have none of these strengths.
No, the jihadists will not be successful and the rest of the world will ultimately come out victorious. Unfortunately this does not mean that the battle will be a cakewalk; just as Hari Seldon can predict only mass behavior and not the actions of any one individual, the Islamist-defeat model as presented here can forecast only the eventual outcome of the war at large. Very likely, there will be a number of challenges in the interim, which we must face and overcome strong and vigilantly. It is tragic that we have had to suffer even a single terrorist attack, and undoubtedly the jihadists are planning more evil actions as we speak. But make no mistake - in the end, we will win and they will lose.
Thursday, September 8, 2005
Leftism and Hollywood's Downturn
As many of us know, Hollywood in 2005 has experienced its worst downturn in recent memory, with box office takes plunging, fewer films becoming blockbusters, and many expensively produced movies becoming major flops. Studios have largely fingered as the culprit the increasing abundance of other entertainment options, such as home theater and DVDs, video games, and the Internet.
But are these really to blame? Entertainment choices actually have been increasing for many years, starting with radios and television sets in the 1950s. Video games went mainstream in the '80s, while the Web has been around for a decade and DVDs for nearly as long. Certainly these may play a partial role in the Hollywood downturn, but I believe that the primary cause is a different beast altogether - bad movies. And are these related to the Tinseltown crowd's leftwing tendencies? You bet.
To most Hollywood actors and filmmakers, achieving artistic credibility among their peers is of paramount career importance, even more so than earning large sums of money. (Just to point out, this is no different than artists in fields from painting to poetry; hence the term "starving artist.") That's why you see directors like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, neither of whom have scored a hit in many years, continue to attract top acting talent and generous studio funding for films that are almost assured to pull great reviews but poor box office results. As the Hollywood crowd sees it, who cares how many people actually watch the movie; it's Woody Allen and he makes great art.
Thing is, when most of your peers have political and cultural values far different than most Americans, you may be impressing your friends but you're also alienating most of your audience. This, I believe, is why moviegoers shunned well reviewed films with ultra-liberal viewpoints like Kinsey and The Interpreter, but flocked to critically savaged yet family-friendly movies like Napoleon Dynamite.
Now certainly this is not the only cause of bad-movie syndrome; Hollywood has in recent years relied far more on formulaic sequels, remakes, and TV adaptations than on fresh and original scripts. But the confluence of leftism and artistic peer-review has no doubt played a significant role.
But are these really to blame? Entertainment choices actually have been increasing for many years, starting with radios and television sets in the 1950s. Video games went mainstream in the '80s, while the Web has been around for a decade and DVDs for nearly as long. Certainly these may play a partial role in the Hollywood downturn, but I believe that the primary cause is a different beast altogether - bad movies. And are these related to the Tinseltown crowd's leftwing tendencies? You bet.
To most Hollywood actors and filmmakers, achieving artistic credibility among their peers is of paramount career importance, even more so than earning large sums of money. (Just to point out, this is no different than artists in fields from painting to poetry; hence the term "starving artist.") That's why you see directors like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, neither of whom have scored a hit in many years, continue to attract top acting talent and generous studio funding for films that are almost assured to pull great reviews but poor box office results. As the Hollywood crowd sees it, who cares how many people actually watch the movie; it's Woody Allen and he makes great art.
Thing is, when most of your peers have political and cultural values far different than most Americans, you may be impressing your friends but you're also alienating most of your audience. This, I believe, is why moviegoers shunned well reviewed films with ultra-liberal viewpoints like Kinsey and The Interpreter, but flocked to critically savaged yet family-friendly movies like Napoleon Dynamite.
Now certainly this is not the only cause of bad-movie syndrome; Hollywood has in recent years relied far more on formulaic sequels, remakes, and TV adaptations than on fresh and original scripts. But the confluence of leftism and artistic peer-review has no doubt played a significant role.
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Where Is Everyone?
Did you know that just a few days ago, a Palestinian Muslim mob attacked a Christian village as retaliation for a woman having had an affair with a Christian resident of the village? You probably didn't, because as expected, the mainstream news media barely reported it. But wait, you might be thinking, what about the UN, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, and similar organizations? Surely they must be concerned for the welfare of the victims.
But nope, these leftwing groups (who most certainly would be livid had the attackers and victims been reversed) were nowhere to be found. It is clear that these organizations don't truly care about universal human welfare; they help others only when it benefits their political agendas. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the Palestinian incident and order has been restored. But there is no excuse for these groups' utter silence on the situation. All of these organizations are in serious need of reform, and we can all make a difference by continually pressing the matter until it spurs them to action.
But nope, these leftwing groups (who most certainly would be livid had the attackers and victims been reversed) were nowhere to be found. It is clear that these organizations don't truly care about universal human welfare; they help others only when it benefits their political agendas. Fortunately, no one was hurt in the Palestinian incident and order has been restored. But there is no excuse for these groups' utter silence on the situation. All of these organizations are in serious need of reform, and we can all make a difference by continually pressing the matter until it spurs them to action.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
European Immigration Solutions
There is an interesting article in the New York Times today that discusses Europe's problems with immigration, multiculturalism, and Muslims who have failed to assimilate into mainstream society. The gist of the piece is that Europe (and by this they mean Western Europe) is in a seemingly unsolvable dilemma, because it needs immigrants more than ever due to declining natural population growth, and yet many immigrants have not and don't seem to be able to integrate into the rest of society, with disastrous results. The article offers no solutions and appears pessimistic that an answer will be found anytime soon.
Now I don't know why Europeans (and the piece's author) consider this to be an unsolvable problem, because there is indeed an easy solution: encourage immigration from countries other than the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of people from China, India, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America who would love to live in First World Europe, and who would very likely become hardworking, productive members of society. Sure, many of these countries are farther away than the Muslim world (except for Eastern Europe, which to be fair, does contribute a decent number of immigrants to the West), but that never stopped tens of millions of these people from immigrating to America, which is farther off still.
Europe's immigration problems do not stem from letting in too many immigrants; they stem from letting in too many radical Muslim immigrants. If the immigrants come from elsewhere, the problem is solved before it even begins.
Of course, this is not the only potential solution; immigration would not be needed at all if Europeans decided to have more babies and create more productive economies. But given the Continent's quasi-socialist welfare states that depress economic growth and make it expensive to raise kids, this scenario is unlikely to occur anytime soon. And as such, non-Muslim immigration appears to be the best answer.
Now I don't know why Europeans (and the piece's author) consider this to be an unsolvable problem, because there is indeed an easy solution: encourage immigration from countries other than the Muslim world. There are millions and millions of people from China, India, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America who would love to live in First World Europe, and who would very likely become hardworking, productive members of society. Sure, many of these countries are farther away than the Muslim world (except for Eastern Europe, which to be fair, does contribute a decent number of immigrants to the West), but that never stopped tens of millions of these people from immigrating to America, which is farther off still.
Europe's immigration problems do not stem from letting in too many immigrants; they stem from letting in too many radical Muslim immigrants. If the immigrants come from elsewhere, the problem is solved before it even begins.
Of course, this is not the only potential solution; immigration would not be needed at all if Europeans decided to have more babies and create more productive economies. But given the Continent's quasi-socialist welfare states that depress economic growth and make it expensive to raise kids, this scenario is unlikely to occur anytime soon. And as such, non-Muslim immigration appears to be the best answer.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Middle East History
As a follow-up to the previous post, I want to address another issue - where did the Palestinian Arabs indeed come from? If they weren't inhabitants of ancient Israel, how did they get where they are now?
First, about Arabs in general. Many people have the misperception that the entire Middle East and North Africa is made up of "Arab countries" - nations where virtually the entire population are ethnic Arabs who speak the Arabic language. In reality, this is not so. Just for starters, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey are not and have never been Arab countries. Israelis are predominantly Jews who speak Hebrew, Iran consists mainly of ethnic Persians who speak Farsi, Turks are their own ethnic group who speak Turkish, and Afghanistan consists of numerous non-Arab tribes (the largest being the Pashtuns) who have their own languages and cultures.
Furthermore, even within countries that are actually considered to be Arab nations, the label is often quite superficial. The majority populations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya are Berbers who were conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages and forced to accept Arab language, culture, and religion. (More on that subject here.) Throughout most of its history (until the 1975-1990 civil war that saw millions of Christians flee to other countries), Lebanon was a Christian-majority state descended from the ancient Phoenicians. Iraq, meanwhile, contains a substantial minority of non-Arab Kurds, while Egypt is home to a sizeable number of Christian Copts (the descendents of the original ancient Egyptians).
Arabs, in fact, are not indigenous to any of the above countries; they initially came from the Arabian Peninsula, and from there only. That's why they're called Arabs to begin with - because they're from Arabia. The only true native Arab countries are those within the peninsula: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
As for the rest of the "Arab" countries, they were forcibly conquered in the name of Islam during the Middle Ages. Think the European powers were the only colonizers back in the day? These two maps show the reality:
Arab Conquest of North Africa
Arab Conquest of Middle East
So that's how so much of the Middle East became "Arab" - through colonization little different than that of the European and other empires. A conquest, I might add, that took place about two thousand years after the first Jewish kingdom in Israel.
First, about Arabs in general. Many people have the misperception that the entire Middle East and North Africa is made up of "Arab countries" - nations where virtually the entire population are ethnic Arabs who speak the Arabic language. In reality, this is not so. Just for starters, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey are not and have never been Arab countries. Israelis are predominantly Jews who speak Hebrew, Iran consists mainly of ethnic Persians who speak Farsi, Turks are their own ethnic group who speak Turkish, and Afghanistan consists of numerous non-Arab tribes (the largest being the Pashtuns) who have their own languages and cultures.
Furthermore, even within countries that are actually considered to be Arab nations, the label is often quite superficial. The majority populations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya are Berbers who were conquered by Arabs in the Middle Ages and forced to accept Arab language, culture, and religion. (More on that subject here.) Throughout most of its history (until the 1975-1990 civil war that saw millions of Christians flee to other countries), Lebanon was a Christian-majority state descended from the ancient Phoenicians. Iraq, meanwhile, contains a substantial minority of non-Arab Kurds, while Egypt is home to a sizeable number of Christian Copts (the descendents of the original ancient Egyptians).
Arabs, in fact, are not indigenous to any of the above countries; they initially came from the Arabian Peninsula, and from there only. That's why they're called Arabs to begin with - because they're from Arabia. The only true native Arab countries are those within the peninsula: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
As for the rest of the "Arab" countries, they were forcibly conquered in the name of Islam during the Middle Ages. Think the European powers were the only colonizers back in the day? These two maps show the reality:
Arab Conquest of North Africa
Arab Conquest of Middle East
So that's how so much of the Middle East became "Arab" - through colonization little different than that of the European and other empires. A conquest, I might add, that took place about two thousand years after the first Jewish kingdom in Israel.
Archaeology the Palestinians Don't Want You to See
A big item in the news this past week was the discovery in Israel of what appears to be the Biblical palace of King David. An archaeologist digging in East Jerusalem uncovered the 3000-year old building, along with pottery shards and the government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.
But from the moment the discovery was announced, Palestinian Authority representatives immediately denounced the find as bogus and are desperately trying to downplay its importance. What's the big deal, you might wonder?
The answer is that it scares the PA to death. For years, the official PA party line has been that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel and that they, the Palestinians, are the true indigenous population. According to their beliefs, the Jewish temples never existed and modern day Jews are European colonialists who came to oppress the native Palestinian Arabs and steal their land.
But each archaeological discovery in Israel just keeps on testifying to the historical Jewish presence (and lack of an Arab presence) in the land, and there's nothing the PA can do about this except to deny reality.
But from the moment the discovery was announced, Palestinian Authority representatives immediately denounced the find as bogus and are desperately trying to downplay its importance. What's the big deal, you might wonder?
The answer is that it scares the PA to death. For years, the official PA party line has been that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel and that they, the Palestinians, are the true indigenous population. According to their beliefs, the Jewish temples never existed and modern day Jews are European colonialists who came to oppress the native Palestinian Arabs and steal their land.
But each archaeological discovery in Israel just keeps on testifying to the historical Jewish presence (and lack of an Arab presence) in the land, and there's nothing the PA can do about this except to deny reality.
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Gaza Disengagement = A Terrible Idea
The battle over disengagement from the Gaza Strip has been raging for months in Israel, and with the planned evacuation set to take place in just a couple weeks, TheSolidSurfer.com wishes to state unequivocally that this is a terrible idea for Israel.
There is no logical reason or justification for expelling your own people and giving land away to an enemy who openly declares its desire to destroy your country. Ariel Sharon is making a grave mistake, although the more Israelis that turn against it (and many are doing so every day), the greater the hope that the government will change course at the last minute.
The pro-disengagement rationale is that Israel can't afford to continue devoting massive amounts of resources and soldiers (whose lives are at risk) to defend 8000 Gazan Jews against the hostile Palestinians who surround them. And so, the rationale goes, Israel would be better off by separating entirely and removing its people. Furthermore, the Palestinians keep saying that their terrorism is a result of the "occupation" and so this is the first step toward ending it. Sounds all nice and dandy, right?
Wrong - this explanation is pure sugar coating and denial. In reality, the "occupation" that the Palestinians rail against is not just Gaza and the West Bank; it's all of Israel. Palestinian terror attacks against Israel took place far before Israel ever had a presence in the territories. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan, and yet the PLO formed in 1964 with the stated goal of liberating the "occupied land of Palestine." Hmmm, wonder what that could be referring to? (Hint - it wasn't the West Bank or Gaza.)
Giving Gaza to the Palestinians, then, would be perceived as completely capitulating to their terrorist attacks, just as PLO and Hamas leaders have of course repeatedly expressed in celebration. This is not exchanging land for peace; it's exchanging land for more terrorist attacks and war, which is nothing but outrageous. Most of Sharon's top advisors were naturally against this, and so he fired them and replaced them with new ones. It'd be one thing if giving away Gaza would truly lead to peace, but in this case it's virtually 100% certain that it won't.
This further exposes the ineptness of the pro-disengagement thinking as well, because Israel will still have to devote the same amount of soldiers and resources to defending Jews; only this time, the soldiers will have to be stationed deeper inside Israel. Right now, they're protecting Gush Katif, but after a disengagement, they'd be protecting Ashkelon and Sderot.
So, as you can see, the logic behind the disengagement really makes no sense at all. And that's without even getting into the tragedy that Israel's government plans to uproot 8000 peaceful citizens from their homes simply because they live amongst a hostile Palestinian population. That's not the Jews' fault - it's the Palestinians', completely. If the Palestinians want a state of their own, they should be prepared to accept a Jewish minority population. If Israel can do it (one fifth of Israel's citizens are Arabs), then it's totally outrageous and anti-Semitic for Palestinians to claim that they'll only accept a state free of Jews. Until the Palestinians can do this, they're not ready for a state, period.
The rationale behind disengagement is pure lunacy, and Israel needs to turn the situation around quickly. For more resources on the subject, Israel Insider is an excellent place to start.
There is no logical reason or justification for expelling your own people and giving land away to an enemy who openly declares its desire to destroy your country. Ariel Sharon is making a grave mistake, although the more Israelis that turn against it (and many are doing so every day), the greater the hope that the government will change course at the last minute.
The pro-disengagement rationale is that Israel can't afford to continue devoting massive amounts of resources and soldiers (whose lives are at risk) to defend 8000 Gazan Jews against the hostile Palestinians who surround them. And so, the rationale goes, Israel would be better off by separating entirely and removing its people. Furthermore, the Palestinians keep saying that their terrorism is a result of the "occupation" and so this is the first step toward ending it. Sounds all nice and dandy, right?
Wrong - this explanation is pure sugar coating and denial. In reality, the "occupation" that the Palestinians rail against is not just Gaza and the West Bank; it's all of Israel. Palestinian terror attacks against Israel took place far before Israel ever had a presence in the territories. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank part of Jordan, and yet the PLO formed in 1964 with the stated goal of liberating the "occupied land of Palestine." Hmmm, wonder what that could be referring to? (Hint - it wasn't the West Bank or Gaza.)
Giving Gaza to the Palestinians, then, would be perceived as completely capitulating to their terrorist attacks, just as PLO and Hamas leaders have of course repeatedly expressed in celebration. This is not exchanging land for peace; it's exchanging land for more terrorist attacks and war, which is nothing but outrageous. Most of Sharon's top advisors were naturally against this, and so he fired them and replaced them with new ones. It'd be one thing if giving away Gaza would truly lead to peace, but in this case it's virtually 100% certain that it won't.
This further exposes the ineptness of the pro-disengagement thinking as well, because Israel will still have to devote the same amount of soldiers and resources to defending Jews; only this time, the soldiers will have to be stationed deeper inside Israel. Right now, they're protecting Gush Katif, but after a disengagement, they'd be protecting Ashkelon and Sderot.
So, as you can see, the logic behind the disengagement really makes no sense at all. And that's without even getting into the tragedy that Israel's government plans to uproot 8000 peaceful citizens from their homes simply because they live amongst a hostile Palestinian population. That's not the Jews' fault - it's the Palestinians', completely. If the Palestinians want a state of their own, they should be prepared to accept a Jewish minority population. If Israel can do it (one fifth of Israel's citizens are Arabs), then it's totally outrageous and anti-Semitic for Palestinians to claim that they'll only accept a state free of Jews. Until the Palestinians can do this, they're not ready for a state, period.
The rationale behind disengagement is pure lunacy, and Israel needs to turn the situation around quickly. For more resources on the subject, Israel Insider is an excellent place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)