Sunday, December 31, 2006

The Last Post (For Now)

Well folks, this is it. The SolidSurfer.com's last post...for now at least. (For anyone unaware, I announced several weeks ago that I was leaving the blogosphere for family and job reasons; here is the goodbye letter.)

Thanks to everyone for reading this blog. I just checked the site visitor tracker, and it has registered over 30,000 unique hits. Not a large number compared to, say, Little Green Footballs, but a very welcome count for the past year and a half.

So what will happen to the site in the future? TheSolidSurfer.com will stay online for the time being. Unfortunately, because our web host (Typepad) is a paid service, I can't guarantee this indefinitely, and so I have passed the website editorship onto a friend who will continue to maintain the Typepad account (i.e. pay the bills) while leaving the content alone for now. Longer term, he may have different plans, including blogging here himself, turning the site into a commerical entity, or any number of other possibilities.

That said, I do wish to preserve the site's content, and have created a new archival site at http://solidsurferarchive.blogspot.com/ (the site you're on right now, for those of you reading this post in its archived version). It's a free site and should remain online indefinitely.

Please feel welcome to browse the current site's archives as well; links to my entire post history can be found in the column at right, including the most relevant posts sorted by category. (Here is a quick link to the very most popular pieces.)

For more news and blogs, see the links in the column at left on the original site; all are excellent sites. If you have time to visit only a few, sites I'd recommend for regular reading, divided by topic, are:

Israel News: The Jerusalem Post, Israel National News, Israel Insider

Israel/Jewish Blogs: Lazer Beams, Mad Zionist, Israpundit

Political News: Fox News, National Review, Front Page Magazine

Political Blogs: Little Green Footballs, The American Thinker, Michael Freund

Pundits: Victor Davis Hanson, Michelle Malkin, Rabbi Shea Hecht

Middle East Focused Sites: Daniel Pipes, Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna

Great site with a combination of all of the above: Jewish World Review

Thanks again, and best wishes to you all for a wonderful 2007 and beyond. I have greatly enjoyed running TheSolidSurfer.com, and I hope you have enjoyed reading it just as much.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Odds, Ends, and Advice

Hope everyone has been having a wonderful holiday season. Time now to wrap up a few remaining odds and ends (along with some advice) that hadn't yet been covered by the previous few posts.


Key Reading For Leftists
First, I'd like to spotlight a recent Victor Davis Hanson essay on America's future in Iraq. The piece concerns persevering in the face of criticism, and is well worth reading simply for that. But although not its primary focus, the article also contains an essential deeper message. In stating his case, Dr. Hanson includes a particular pair of paragraphs that reveal perhaps the fundamental problem with today's political far-left and mainsteam media elites. In Dr. Hanson's words:

The truth is that wealthy Western elites in the media have evolved beyond worry over the basics of their civilization. They are so insulated, even after September 11, that they don’t believe there is much connection between liberty, freedom, consensual government, freedom of expression, and the everyday mundane things they depend on — whether excellent medical care, clean water, nice cars, neat electronic gadgets, eating out, or safety in their streets. A nuclear Iran, a missile-laden North Korea, a theocracy in oil-rich Iraq, an unleashed terrorist-sponsoring Syria, and an emboldened Hezbollah — all these still could still never quite take away their good life, so strong is the assurance of their never-ending comfort zone that they could not conceive of ever losing it.

And thus the most vehement and angry critics find it possible, even desirable, to nibble away at their own civilization’s efforts, on the understanding that a loss in Iraq would be only an apparent loss. That defeat would not entail any material detriment to themselves, but surely would enhance their own sense of contrarian self-righteousness and self-worth, as they boldly caricature the very culture that so empowered them.

This point could not be more on-the-mark. The left has another key, related problem as well, but Dr. Hanson's insight is just as revealing. It's so easy to take modern civilization for granted, but no matter our technological progress, human nature has always remained the same, and we must never forget the possibilities (both good and bad) contained in this.


Mainstream Media: Hysteria Sells News
In addition, I strongly believe we should beware of overly pessimistic predictions from the mainstream media. Not that the world is always cheery, but hysteria sells news, and many predictions simply don't hold to scrutiny.

One key recent example is the notion that Muslims (and particularly fundamentalist Muslims) will overwhelm the Western world demographically. Mark Steyn and ilk have grabbed many headlines by declaring this a virtual certainty, but the truth is - their predictions rely on numerous faulty and unknown assumptions, and their conclusions are far from definite (or even likely). Such fearmongering may sell articles, but by no means does it assure statistical accuracy.
Similarly, global warming is not the media's first environmental scare issue. Back in the 1970s, the name of the game was......global cooling. That's right, only thirty years ago many pundits believed another ice age was on the horizon. Didn't quite happen that way, did it?

So how do we discern the genuinely worrisome from the faux doom-and-gloom? Look for counterpoint arguments and see if they make more sense. In the demographics case, Steyn's conclusions simply sounded wrong compared to an opposite persuasion analysis of the same numbers. I then confirmed this by checking both sides' statistical sources, and went even further by discussing the issue with many others, including those agreeing with Steyn (I debated for days in particular with a reader from Alaska), to try and discern additional insights.

Of course, sometimes hysteria can be mixed in with plenty of truth; for example WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah runs a subscription-only intelligence service called the G2 Bulletin. Many of its reports are highly sensationalist, but some are actually very good, particularly Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein's Israel-focused Galil Report articles. Just the same, Mark Steyn has written numerous excellent essays on many other topics. Differentiating the wheat from the chaff is often just a matter of reasoning, knowledge, and experience.


Odds and Ends
Here are a few excellent links from the past couple weeks:

Want to know how to defeat jihadists attacking your country? Fight back, as Ethiopia has done against Somalia. Israel's government should pay close attention to Ethiopia's success.

Writer Yashiko Sagamori, meanwhile, responds to a Malaysian Muslim about the true meaning of jihad. One of the best pieces out there on Islam and its role in the world.

David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, has written a short but highly direct rebuttal of Jimmy Carter's disgustingly titled (and disgustingly contented) recent book.

Blog of the Day: The 910 Group Blog

Think Tank of the Day: National Center for Policy Analysis

Website of the Day: Israel National News

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Geopolitical Recommendations (Continued)

Continuing the geopolitical predictions and recommendations from the previous post:


Israel
In addition to halting the Iranian threat, Israel must strengthen itself internally by fully embracing its Jewish identity. Above being a state for its citizens, above even its democracy, Israel is first and foremost a Jewish nation, and it must never forget this.

At the same time, meanwhile, the Jewish state must remain unified. Religious or secular, Sephardic or Ashkenazic, resident proper or settler, Israeli Jews are one and the same. United together, the Jewish people are far stronger than when divided into factions. (And this of course goes for Diaspora Jews, as well).

These principles, I believe, are a recipe for success. For more information, see TheSolidSurfer.com's extensive Israel archive.


U.S. Politics
America also must reclaim its unity, and focus on maintaining and strengthening its role as world superpower. If America were to stumble, nations that operate under far lesser ethical and moral standards (China, Russia, Iran, the EU) would rush to full the void.

To that end, the U.S. must succeed in Iraq, help Israel halt Iran's nuclear development, and stand strong against the ultra-corrupt United Nations.

The recent elections which handed the House and Senate to Democratic control might possibly harm these objectives, but I believe it unlikely. President Bush is still in office, and the elections were far more a repudiation of Republican corruption and ineffectiveness than a genuine popular leftward shift. Indeed, most of the newly elected Democrats are moderates, and America as a whole has shifted noticeably rightward from decades past.

Strong American support for Israel, meanwhile, should also continue. For all her leftism, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is actually pretty pro-Israel, and if Democrats ever choose an anti-Israel stance on any issue, Joe Lieberman will probably caucus with Republicans (hence giving them a winning majority) against it.

Of course, though, Israel should never take U.S. support for granted, and we should all support the best efforts of groups like AIPAC and Washington PAC to help make a difference.


U.S. Economy
One other aspect of keeping America strong is maintaining a strong economy. This entails keeping taxes low, reducing governmental regulation (the government should provide an even playing field, and that's all), and encouraging the nation's entrepreneurial culture. I have written several essays on such topics, but to get a much fuller understanding, read material by such economic greats as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, both of whom write for and have archived columns at Jewish World Review (Sowell's latest article in particular is an essential primer on wealth and economic disparity). Also to note is the pioneering economic work by the late, great Milton Friedman.


Science
Economic productivity, meanwhile, depends vitally on scientific and engineering breakthroughs and innovations. And the most pressing issue in these areas, I believe, is achieving energy independence. Both our clean air and (especially) our national security desperately depend on it. I have also written extensively about this topic (see here, here, here, and here), but check the news regularly as new technologies seem to constantly emerge. So what should America's strategy be? I say just try everything: new energy sources, experimental technology, drilling our own oil reserves - you name it. The more we try, the greater the chances of success.

One thing to beware, however, is the lure of politically motivated science. Global warming as a catastrophe is still unproven, but that hasn't prevented it from becoming the buzzword of the decade. This is not to say global warming is a hoax, but facts are still facts, and we should always pay them attention regardless of hype.

Purely speculative science, meanwhile, can also lead to errant conclusions. Only months after reversing 75 years of research by declaring Pluto a non-planet, scientists have now decided that the Earth's continents looked far different in the past than previously believed. So what does this mean? Simply more proof that no matter how popularly accepted, science of a speculative nature (i.e. science without direct here-and-now verification) can be only just that - speculative. Hundreds of years ago, scientists speculated that the earth was flat; obviously they've since been proven wrong. And just the same, current speculative theories like Darwinian evolution cannot be proven correct; hence genuine challenges to them should not be rejected, but rather seriously entertained.


World Politics and Trends
The world right now is in a great state of transition (when is it not?). It is difficult to summarize complex global trends in only a few sentences, but I believe a number of key outcomes will become quite clear in the upcoming years: America will maintain its superpower status. China and India will continue to rise, and eventually China will democratize. Western Europe will continue to slide into mediocrity, burdened by its welfare states and unassimilated Muslim immigrants, but ultimately things will get so bad that they'll have no choice but to finally right the ship. Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa will continue to emerge as part of the global economy, despite many bumps along the way. The Muslim world, meanwhile, will reveal itself as the paper tiger it is once Western countries achieve energy independence and cut off their petrodollars. This will transform most non-Arab Muslim states into moderate governments, but the Arabs themselves will have a much more difficult time. They will probably continue to blame everything on Israel, but in the end Israel will succeed. The Jewish people are eternal, and as the faith has long maintained, Israel is but the first flowering of our return to the Holy Land.

Friday, December 15, 2006

Geopolitical Recommendations: Defeating Iran

Before leaving the blogosphere, I'd like to offer predictions and recommendations concerning some highly pressing geopolitical issues. Analyzing and forecasting global affairs can be notoriously difficult (we all remember huge whiffs like The Population Bomb), but I believe that certain trends point in very particular directions, and would like to address them here.


Iran
First and most immediately, the civilized world must quickly act to defeat the Mullahcratic regime in Iran. History has shown that when dictators threaten war and genocide, they certainly mean it, and Ahmadinejad clearly is no exception. And lest Americans think the tyrant of Tehran is only Israel's problem, he actually despises and wants to destroy the United States just as much, if not more.

So what can be done? Halting Iran's nuclear program is not enough; the regime must be quickly overthrown or militarily defeated. Unlike many prominent columnists, I don't believe Ahmadinejad intends to use nukes the moment he can. Yes, he certainly aims to "wipe Israel off the map", and yes, he wants to create worldwide destruction to bring back Shia Islam's twelfth imam. But although his rants may sound delusional to Western ears, he is actually very rational, and while he may certainly be willing to lose half the Iranian populace in a counterattack just to destroy Israel, this doesn't mean he'd prefer to. Surely he would rather conquer Israel (and then the rest of the Middle East and beyond) without suffering large losses. Not, of course, that Ahmadinejad cares about the Iranian people as individuals, but as a Shiite leader surrounded and outnumbered by Sunni neighbors, he can't expect to lead the world's Muslims with most of his denomination wiped out by Israel's response.

As a result, I strongly feel that Iran intends to launch not a nuclear bomb, but rather a conventional military assault against Israel, using the nuclear threat primarily to deter the Jewish state's own presumed atomic arsenal. Ahmadinejad clearly believes he can win such a war, particularly if he involves Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas in an all-sides attack.

It is not enough, then, for Israel and/or America to simply halt Iran's nuclear development. Doing so, of course, is still paramount (Ahmadinejad may be rational, but he's also extremely overconfident and could easily panic with his regime in danger), but the entire Mullahcratic government must be defeated as well. With or without nuclear weapons, Iran plans to attack Israel, and this threat, in addition to the nuclear program (which of course still makes things far more dangerous), must also immediately be countered.

So how can Israel do it? Act now to overwhelmingly defeat Iran's terrorist proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Judea/Samaria, and Gaza. Quickly doing so will not change Ahmadinejad's evil ambitions, but it should erode his confidence enough that he'll think twice before using Iran's own soldiers. Feeling hemmed in without yet having nukes (if Israel acts in time), he'll likely crack down even harder on internal dissent as most dictators do in such situations. At this point, Israel can, under the cover of its own military power, help the Iranian people, who already hate the regime, to overthrow it similar to the Eastern European anti-Communist revolts of 1989-1990.

A tall order? Of course. But the alternative of letting Iran attack first is far far worse.

To be continued on other topics shortly...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute offers a different strategy: immediately bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. As outlined above, I don't believe this is fully sufficient; the regime must also fall. But Mr. Muravchik's piece is an interesting counterpoint view. Victor Davis Hanson, meanwhile, believes Ahmadinejad is actually much weaker than advertised. I agree. And Aish.com's Sara Yocheved Rigler tells what the Jewish response to the situation should be. Just read it.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

(Soon To Be) Leaving The Blogosphere

Dear all,

After the past year and a half of writing on this site, I have decided to leave the blogosphere. I know this announcement is entirely out of the blue, but I have actually been considering it for quite some time. Certainly, it has not been an easy decision, as I have greatly enjoyed blogging and feel privileged to have met so many friends, readers, and fellow bloggers online.

However, I am about to assume some major lifestyle changes (impending fatherhood and newly increased career responsibilities), and after much thought and family discussion, have chosen to hang up the spikes. Running this website has been a true joy and passion, and I had hoped to continue it indefinitely, but unfortunately this option does not appear realistic.

As a result, I intend to wrap things up shortly. There is much backlogged content that I'd like to post before leaving, but expect the blog to wind down in the near future. The site itself will remain online for the time being, although that may change at some point because Typepad (our web host) is a paid service. I would like to preserve the site's content, though, and am working on several options, including creating an archival site through a free hosting service such as Blogger. (More info on this to come.)

I also don't plan to leave the online space entirely; time permitting, I certainly hope to still comment and write letters on other blogs and sites, as well as offer the occasional freelance piece. And please stay tuned for all the wrap-up material on this site. But in the meantime, thank you all very much. It has been a real pleasure running TheSolidSurfer.com, and I certainly will miss it.

-Solid Surfer

Monday, November 27, 2006

Western Writers and Muslim Demographics Part II

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving holiday. I had planned to move beyond the topic of the previous post, but instead feel compelled to return to it by a new Mark Steyn doom-and-gloom piece.

In the latest of his Western demographic disaster articles, Steyn compares Palestinian and Episcopalian birthrates to once again advance his thesis of high-fertility Muslim immigrants taking over low-fertility Europe. Furthermore, he writes a rejoinder to a strong opposing piece by columnist Ralph Peters, who feels that Europe will soon awaken and expel the Muslims.

So who is correct? I'm still undecided on Peters (although I do have some thoughts in the comments section of a post on Israpundit covering the debate). But as usual, Steyn's demographic analyses are largely off the mark. Similar to with his previous Europe-is-a-goner conclusions (debunked here and here), he simply ignores significant factual data.

In his current article, Steyn is absolutely correct that Europe has low fertility. What he doesn't mention, though, is that most Muslims today also have low fertility, and the Muslims still at high rates are dropping rapidly. Steyn cites a Palestinian grandmother with nine children and 41 grandchildren as a high-birthrate Muslim example. But really, her fertility is irrelevant. You see, her childbirths already occurred in the past; the real number to be concerned with is not her fertility, but the fertility of those grandchildren who are *currently* of reproductive age. And on average, this generation is having not nine children, but only one or two each. This is right in line with European fertility levels, and does not at all lead to the type of demographic takeover that Steyn envisions.

Mark Steyn is a fine writer in many other regards, but his demographic projections simply don't gel with statistical reality. And given the disastrous policies that can proceed from faulty demographic knowledge (i.e. Ehud Olmert's continuous call for Israel to withdraw from settlements), I believe it is strongly necessary to correct such misunderstandings.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Western Writers and Muslim Demographic Exaggeration

Before reading this post:

If you haven't done so already, please visit the previous post to see how you can help save the life of Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who has been arrested for speaking out against fundamentalist Islam and supporting Israel, America, and other religious faiths. It's a real must, and takes only a moment.


And now, onto the main content:

In the recent past, many Muslim communities in non-Muslim countries have exaggerated their demographic numbers, often wildly, for political gain. Among other places, they have done so in America, in France, and in Israel. Certain Western writers, meanwhile, particularly Mark Steyn, have taken these numbers at face value, and have scared the daylights out of Westerners by projecting a population-based Islamic takeover of the world. In reality, however, statistics that Steyn excludes from his analysis largely debunk his thesis (as I have demonstrated here and here), and the Muslim threat to the West, while clearly real, is far from the certainty he claims.

Lest such journalistic predictions remain a Western phenomenon, however, a researcher in Estonia named Paul Goble now claims a similar situation for Russia. According to Goble, current Russian population trends indicate that by mid-century, over half of that country's citizenry will be Muslim. Worrisome? Of course. But true? Almost certainly not.

Goble bases his projection on three apparent indicators - low Russian fertility, high Muslim fertility, and Muslim immigration from other Soviet republics. Taken at face value, the combination of these indeed points to a Muslim population takeover.

Thing is, however, only one of these indicators is actually correct. Russians indeed have few children (about 1.3 per woman), but the Muslim numbers are enormously exaggerated.

Goble claims that the primary Muslim groups in Russia, the Chechens and Ingush, average ten children per woman, while the Tatars (at least those living in Moscow) average six. He also states, meanwhile, that several hundred thousand Muslim immigrants arrive each year from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.

Now I don't know where Goble found this ten-children number, but rest assured, it is most certainly false. It is difficult to find exact fertility numbers for ethnic/religious populations within Russia, but the state of Chechnya itself claims a crude birthrate of 24.9 per 1000 women, which translates to a fertility rate of about three children per woman. This number may or may not be accurate for all Muslims in Russia, but for comparison, we must note that not a single nation on Earth averages close to the ten-children mark. (The highest-fertility groups worldwide -- certain African tribes, desert Bedouins, and Hasidic Jews -- max out at about seven.) The world fertility average is 2.5, and the Muslim nations bordering the parts of Russia where the Chechens, Ingush, and Tatars reside range from 1.8 (Iran) to 1.92 (Turkey) to 2.46 (Azerbaijan). Most likely, the overall Russian Muslim rate lies somewhere within this span, and whatever it is, it's not remotely close to ten (or even six).

Of course, a fertility rate between 2 and 3 is much higher than the ethnic Russians' 1.3, but there are also about 130 million ethnic Russians and perhaps only 15 million ethnic Muslims. At current rates, it will take Muslims almost two centuries to catch up. Furthermore, if rates (and/or the political situation) change, something that's virtually guaranteed to occur to some degree, they will likely favor the Russians, as their birthrates probably can't sink much lower and have actually slightly risen over the past few years.

At the same time, meanwhile, Goble's other Muslim source, immigration numbers, is also likely misrepresented. Many migrants have indeed moved to Russia from surrounding nations, but their religion has not formally been tracked, and chances are, a large portion are actually returning ethnic Russians.

For all his assumptions, Goble does attempt to support his claim with some genuine hard evidence, such as increased mosque construction and Islamic religious practice over the last twenty years. But these too can be explained. In Soviet times (i.e. before 1989), religion was almost entirely suppressed. Today it is not. The mosque construction and religious practice, hence, reflects not necessarily an absolute population rise, but a return to observance by a portion of the already existing population. Very similarly, many more churches and Christian worshippers (and synagogues and Jewish worshippers) exist compared to 1989, even though the absolute numbers of ethnic Russian Christians and Jews have not increased.

Whatever his motivations, Paul Goble follows Mark Steyn in using exaggerated Muslim numbers to predict the downfall of other nations. This threat, however, does not stand to genuine statistical scrutiny. The fundamentalist Muslim threat to the free world, once again, is very real. But non-Muslim nations should be much more optimistic about their relative demographic situations than much of the media has led us to believe.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Help Save Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury - Friend of Israel and America


Tons to catch up on...where can we even start? There has been plenty of important news from the past week, but first and foremost, we can help save a life.

Anyone here heard of a Bangladeshi journalist named Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury? Mr. Choudhury has been arrested by the Bangladeshi government on charges of sedition, treason, and blasphemy, having committed the "crime" of speaking out against fundamentalist Islam and advocating peaceful relations with Jews and Christians. His trial is set for January 2007 under an Islamist judge who intends to apply capital punishment.

As outrageous as this is, however, American pressure can almost certainly convince the Bangladeshi government to dismiss the charges. Such a threat has previously convinced Bangladesh on other matters, and their economy is largely dependent on American garment purchases. To help Mr. Choudhury, read this article and visit this website.

It will take only a minute or two of your time, and you can help save a person's life. As the linked article says, "Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has stood up for us at considerable peril; now it is up to us to stand up for him." Let's do it.

-TheSolidSurfer.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update - a reader writes:

"I would like people to know that a bipartisan resolution has been introduced in the House of Representatives in support of Mr. Choudhury. It calls upon the government of Bangladesh to drop all charges against him, return his confiscated property and prosecute the individuals who attacked him. Please ask your readers to call their representatives in Congress and ask them to support House Resolution #1080. This is an urgent matter, since Congress will adjourn in another week or two at the most, and it is important that the resolution pass with a huge majority before that. The European Parliament passed a resolution in support of Mr. Choudhury last week. It's our turn."

Well, there you have it - let's call our Congressional representatives. If you don't have their contact information, you can also reach them via email through the American Jewish Committee's website (and don't worry - it's pre-formatted so you don't have to compose anything original if you don't want). Here is the direct link.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Update: David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, has penned an essential article on Mr. Choudhury's situation.

Friday, October 27, 2006

America's Creative Class, VDH, Malaysia, Fjordman

Time for yet another roundup of pertinent news and commentary.

Many American city planners have been influenced by Richard's Florida's seminal book Rise of the Creative Class, which postulates that "creative" groups of individuals, such as architects, engineers, artists, and (especially) gays are the true driver of urban economic growth. WorldNetDaily's Jack Cashill, however, suspects a major flaw in Dr. Florida's thesis, on the principle that when creative folks number one too many, things can start to quickly move downhill. A fascinating analysis that could have major implications for city-dwellers everywhere.

Another must-read article is a piece by Victor Davis Hanson on the frighteningly barbaric and pre-modern behavior of so many in the fundamentalist Islamic world. This should serve as a stark reminder (espcially to liberals) that, no matter how technologically advanced the world has become, human nature has always remained the same, and the survival of the modern Western world is never a given. Only by actively defending our values can America and the West overcome the enemies of civilization.

VDH also discusses the war in Iraq...and why we must stay the course.

Meanwhile, both Front Page Magazine and noted Norwegian blogger Fjordman offer sensible prescriptions for winning the war on jihad overall. Anyone interested in Western civilization prevailing over Islamofascism (and I certainly hope that includes all of us) should find these pieces absolutely essential.

On a similar note, Malaysian civilization is fighting back as well; in wake of pressures to introduce Sharia law to the historically moderate Muslim state, many Muslims have simply decided to opt out of the faith. And the numbers are increasing.

Blog of the Day: I'd give it to Fjordman himself, but he no longer posts at his own site. Therefore, it'll have to be a prominent site where he guest blogs, the Brussels Journal.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Leftism and Hollywood's Unprofitable Business Model

For the first time in recent memory, the upcoming holiday season will feature few big-name Hollywood films. Apart from a new James Bond title (which, with unknown actor Daniel Craig debuting as 007, is no certain hit), the Tinseltown slate appears quite low-key, with the young adult fantasy Eragon, Sylvester Stallone's Rocky sequel Rocky Balboa, and the animated penguin comedy Happy Feet emerging as the most prominent of an otherwise unassuming bunch.

Some may call this an anomaly (blockbusters did, after all, reign last year with King Kong, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and The Chronicles of Narnia all grossing upwards of $200 million), but a growing cadre of industry insiders actually believe it is the wave of the future. No less an authority than George Lucas, for example, has announced plans to save large sums of money by producing only smaller films.

So what is the Star Wars head honcho thinking? Larger productions are riskier because most Hollywood films actually lose money. The studios' hit-miss ratio is so poor, in fact, that fully 90% of all theatrical motion pictures fail at the box office. Profit comes only from the other 10%, which perform so stunningly well as to (ideally) both cover the other films' losses and generate profitable additional revenue. Sound like a solid business model? Countless spurned film investors would argue a resounding "no".

But while Hollywood has accepted this financial model for many years, it was not always the name of the game. Before the mid-1960s, a far larger percentage of films made money, primarily because many more Americans regularly attended screenings. In 1960, for example, fully 45% of all Americans went to the movies weekly.

Alas, however, this was not to last, as moviegoing nosedived dramatically in the late '60s to about 10% of Americans each week, a level that has remained consistent to the present time. Resultingly, most films can no longer command the audience numbers required to turn a profit. Even today's blockbusters depend largely on high ticket prices for much of their revenue; adjusted for inflation, the box office grosses of the modern era's most popular films lag far behind those of classics like Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz .

So what happened? Why have audiences deserted theaters in droves? Some blame the rise of alternative entertainment such as video games, DVDs, and the Internet. But really, the box office exodus began long before those media became popular (or were even invented).
The answer I believe, rather, is that starting in the late '60s, Hollywood films began to assume a leftist bent far out of touch with the average American's sensibilities. Industry critics loved it, but most moviegoers simply felt shunned and tuned out. This pattern has continued to the present day, with numerous leftist darlings (to name merely a recent few, the gay cowboy story Brokeback Mountain and the anti-Iraq war polemic Jarhead) regularly winning heaps of critical acclaim but flunking at the ticket counters.

Finally, however, it seems filmmakers and producers are taking note, and perhaps the tide is at last turning the other way. In addition to Mr. Lucas's new direction, family-friendly Disney has achieved tremendous recent popularity, certain production houses (such as billionaire Philip Anschutz's Walden Media) now specialize only in morally upright films, and conservative filmmakers have even launched their own festival. It's far from a complete makeover, but signs of a Hollywood renaissance certainly exist.

If the studios want to continue creating elaborate productions, then they must mitigate risk by catering to mainstream American tastes. Otherwise, the era of smaller films appears here to stay. And Luke Skywalker would not be happy.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

North American Union? Terrible Idea.

Want to hear something crazy? Not just a little crazy, but something so outrageous and ridiculous it's hard to even believe?

Get this: Serious plans exist to merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a single North American entity a la the European Union.

(Here's a pause for everyone's jaws to drop.)

Yes, that's right - our national sovereignity is in potentially serious danger right under our noses. The proposal, devised at American University (or should we now call it North American University?) by faculty subsidized by the U.S. State Department, calls for a similar entity to the EU, with a united economy, new currency (the Amero, which would replace the dollar), and collaborative militaries. This would not, of course, happen overnight, but rather over a gradual fifty-year integration process, similar to the beginnings of the EU.

This all may sound too far-fetched to be true, but be assured - it is genuine. Earlier this year, top American officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey met with similarly high-ranking counterparts from Canada and Mexico to discuss the issue. Furthermore, American University's website exposes the agenda for all to see.

Now you may be asking yourself - what's the big deal? Surely such a move could not occur without majority voter consent in all three nations.

But while that is certainly true, the plan could sneak by more easily than perhaps thought. This point also reveals why such a merger would best benefit Mexico and most hurt the United States. America's per capita GDP stands well above Canada's and towers over Mexico's. And because the plan intends to achieve North American economic integration by funneling money from wealthier areas to poorer regions, hundreds of billions of our tax dollars will be taken to fund development in Mexico and Canada. Quite naturally, then, both Canadian and Mexican citizens may be inclined to vote for such a bill.

For ordinary Americans, however, it would be a tremendous loss. In addition to higher taxes, we would face an even larger government bureaucracy and all its significant shortcomings. Such an entity is currently ruining Europe, and it could easily drag down the dynamic individualism and grass-roots work ethic that largely underlie America's optimistic exceptionalism and phenomenal general success.

Nevertheless, a massive media campaign will no doubt be prepared in order to sway American voters. It worked in Europe, and like them, we could fall under the sway of a North American Union almost before we know it.

The battle, however, is far from lost. These developments can easily be halted in their tracks if the American people reject them. Given that the plan, if implemented, would erode our national identity at our own cultural and financial expense, I certainly believe most Americans would vote against it. And if we spread the word early enough, we can perhaps even prevent it from becoming a possibility.

A North American Union might work as, say, a sports league, but not as a political entity. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have all functioned plenty well as separate countries, and there's no need to fix what isn't broken. Long live America...the United States of America.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Condi Rice: Leftist Approach to Israel and Palestinians

From her own mouth, it's official. Condi Rice has apparently become a serious leftist. Because after all the terrorism, violence, and refusal to recognize Israel that the Palestinians have perpetrated, virtually no one but a leftist could have issued a statement like the one she unleashed this week to a Palestinian-American audience (Hat Tip: Meryl Yourish):

"The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation. I believe there could be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state for people who have suffered too long, have been humiliated too long."

That's right, all this came from our United States of America's Secretary of State. Just unbelievable.

Well you know what? I must admit that I agree with her. The Palestinians indeed deserve a life unburdened by their own violence, their own terrorism, their own corruption, their own misrule, and their own humiliation of others created by their occupation of Jewish/Israeli land. They also indeed ought to get a state as well, given to them by their fellow Arabs and called Jordan.

If the Palestinians actually wanted to live in peace, recognize Israel, and quit the terrorism, then perhaps things could be different. But as long as the majority of their people refuse to do so, it's outrageous to demand that Israel offer them yet more concessions in exchange for purely empty promises (that in all likelihood will lead simply to more terrorism). Condi Rice's idea is disgustingly wrong, and as a high-ranking U.S. cabinet member, she should know better.

Israel must take all necessary steps to survive and thrive as a strong Jewish nation. No matter what Ms. Rice or any other left-leaning thinkers believe, this is the effective way to create a better, more peaceful Middle East.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

North Korean Nuclear Test and Defeating Iran

As the world now knows, North Korea has openly conducted a nuclear test. Some experts have questioned its success, but whether fully accomplished or not, the Communist state's intention is clear - to brandish nuclear bombs as an offensive weapon.

Writers from around the web have commented on the launch, from those who worry greatly, to others who virtually discount it, to yet others who write about larger implications and its relevance to American politics. Collectively, it seems, almost every viewpoint can be found.

Without too much rehashing, then, I'd like to offer my own perspective. America, I believe, can live with a nuclear North Korea. It's far from ideal, but we can likely manage the situation with proper deterrents, similar to those used against the Soviet Union.

What the U.S. also *must* do, though, is learn from its North Korea mistakes, so to stop a much more dangerous repeat with Iran.

Throughout the 1990s, as North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il announced his nuclear aspirations, President Clinton responded diplomatically, signing a non-nuclear pact with him that naively demonstrated America's trust in his promises of peaceful intentions. Of course, however, Kim lied through his teeth, commencing atomic development the moment the ink was dry. The end result, to say the least, has been that a vicious anti-American state has gained power, its democratic neighbors Japan and South Korea feel existentially threatened, the entire region risks an unstable nuclear arms race, and terrorists have gained a potential WMD supplier. To call these developments a gigantic risk to the free world is an understatement.

And if we think that's bad, we could be headed for deja vu all over again with Iran, unless America and the West approach the fanatical Mullahs much more strongly. We cannot risk such weapons in the hands of rulers who aim to be even more tyrannical than Kim.

The lesson, therefore, couldn't be more clear: Autocratic regimes cannot be trusted in negotiations, and any ruler who openly declares a desire to attack the United States holds a perfectly serious intent. Negotiating with Iran is an absolute capitulation to the Mullahs' goals. America's only choice is to push for regime change and/or attack the Islamic republic's nuclear facilities. These measures may seem harsh and risky, but they utterly pale compared to the world war that could occur otherwise.

President Clinton's foreign policy greatly failed with North Korea. President Bush has the chance to correct such mistakes. For the sake of the entire free world, he must immediately get moving.

Friday, October 6, 2006

National Intelligence Estimate - Correct on Iraq?

This past week, newspapers reported that a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) had concluded that the Iraq War has created more terrorists and hence has contributed to endangering the United States.

Naturally, supporters of the war have doubted the claim, while opponents have largely trumpeted it. These positions, of course, are to be expected, but beyond them, a very serious objective question must be answered - is the report correct? If the Iraq war has indeed created more terrorists, then perhaps it's time to update our strategy there. If, on the other hand, the report erred, then our Armed Forces may be best off by continuing in their current direction. How can we properly evaluate the claim?

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer has reached an unexpected conclusion to this question in a recent essay. His answer: We don't know if the report is correct or not. But regardless, wars make us less safe, and the only way to restore that safety is through victory.

I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's contention. Taking his outcome further, in fact, I'd argue that the report's accuracy is irrelevant. Regardless of how many jihadists the Iraq war may or may not have created, the fact remains that they fight primarily in Iraq and not in America or anywhere else. The Iraq war, then, prevents terrorism nonetheless by forcing would-be perpetrators to fight our army as opposed to our civilian population elewhere. No matter the NIE report's accuracy, this principle clearly stands.

As a result, no matter how we view the report, we must for the sake of all Americans continue our Iraqi efforts. Ultimately, doing so should create not additonal terrorism, but victory and success.

In related news:

Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald believes in withdrawing from Iraq. As you can probably guess, I certainly disagree, but I'd like to present his essay due to the remainder of its content - speculation on how to divide and conquer our jihadist enemies. One suggestion: encouraging non-Arab Muslims to reclaim their pre-Islamic cultural identities. Here, I fully agree, and actually wrote an essay arguing this very point several months back. Not sure if Mr. Fitzgerald happened to see it, but it's great to see others on the same strategic page.

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Washington PAC and the 2006 Senate Elections

For all Americans who support Israel, an excellent resource is the Washington PAC, a political action committee founded by former AIPAC executive director Morrie Amitay. While less publicly known than AIPAC, Washington PAC well holds its own as one of Israel's strongest political supporters in America. At the same time, the organization is important not only to the Jewish state; Mr. Amitay clearly recognizes, as per his group's mission statement, that "a strong and secure Israel is in America's best interest" as well.

I have written about Washington PAC before (I met them through TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", and their website is a "My Heroes" link at left), but I'd like to showcase them again due largely to a recently updated document on their site.

Every quarter, Washington PAC publishes a newsletter that compares Israel support amongst upcoming Senate election cycle candidates and their opponents. Many, of course, are well known such as Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. But beyond this, a large number of Senators remain largely unknown outside their home states, and it is very informative to see details and analyses of their Washington PAC support.

The newsletter provides an excellent barometer of how the 2006 political races could potentially impact the Jewish state. No matter where in America one lives, your Senatorial (and Congressional) elections highly matter.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Van Taylor, Chavez and Democrats, Israel News, more

As the November congressional elections near, TheSolidSurfer.com would like, once again, to express our support for Republican candidate Van Taylor, who is challenging Democratic incumbent Chet Edwards for the Texas District 17 seat. Earlier this year, we posted an exclusive interview with Mr. Taylor, and now I'd like to call everyone's attention to a series of his campaign ads posted on the You Tube video site. There are ten videos in all, some of which promote Mr. Taylor and others (the more recent ones) that attack Mr. Edwards's record. I have not watched them all, but the ones about Van himself well describe his background, platform, and vision. For more information as well, visit http://www.vantaylor.com/.

And a note on the political race overall: Anyone pay close attention to the specifics of Hugo Chavez's Bush-bashing UN speech? Seems like he ripped his insults straight from the pages of the Democratic party playbook. The politicans who inspired Chavez should be ashamed of themselves.

In other news:

Israel has long been noted as the only key Middle East state without oil, but finally this may be about to change. Yes, many are skeptical, but oil extraction technology has improved so greatly that the prospectors' claims must be taken seriously. Of course, alternative energy remains directly in the mix; both China and India are exploring it and perhaps Israeli technology can help them.

Energy, however, is not the only prominent science emerging from the Jewish state; Israeli scientists recently developed a mosquito-control system to help fight malaria in the developing world. This innovation, if applied worldwide, could save many millions of lives.

Both of these examples, meanwhile, are prominent ammunition against doomsday environmentalist predictions. Just as with the advances in oil drilling technology, human ingenuity has plenty of power to change the status quo.

One part of the world, however, sadly continues to produce little change; rather than reflecting inward, many Muslims violently keep demanding that the Pope apologize for his inflammatory comments about Islam. In reality, though, the Islamic world itself must change, and it is indeed they who owe everyone else an apology.

And lest anyone think that only Israelis would argue this (as per the above quoted article), more and more Americans are noticing it too. Just for starters, Victor Davis Hanson explains why President Bush's definition of our enemies as "Islamic fascists" is highly justified. Furthermore, another American named Gamaliel Isaac (whom I happen to personally know) completely shatters the assumption that the surrounding Arabs wish to live in peace with Israel. For true peace to emerge both in the Middle East and around the world, Muslim jihadists clearly must change their ways.

At least, though, it's great to see Israelis standing together. As the day of Yom Kippur approaches, both religious and secular groups are joining together in prayer. Let's hope such unity can be further projected onto the entire nation.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Rosh Hashanah, Jews and the Democratic Party, Israel

Happy New Year! Nope, it's not January 1st, but starting tonight is the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah. That's right, we are officially about to enter year 5767. The holiday is probably one of the most well known of those in the Jewish calendar, but if anyone wants to learn much more about it, fellow blogger MadZionist has posted an excellent summation on his website.

In other news, some of it related:

Ed Lasky of the American Thinker discusses why the Democratic Party is longer a welcome home for American Jews. This is a very important article that all Americans, no matter political affiliation, should find relevant. It's not just about Democratic vs. Republican support for Israel; the piece delves greatly into leftist goals, potential Congressional committee directions, and anti-Semitism. Read this brief correction from a section of it, too.

The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick, meanwhile, analyzes the Pope's recent comments about Islam and discusses its implications for the Jewish people as well. On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, this is a highly inspirational piece.

Want to understand the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict in twenty lines or less? Here it is.

And finally, yet another Rosh Hashanah primer, this one straight from Israel itself. As the word goes in Hebrew, Shana Tova!

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Rabbi Hecht, New Site Poll, More on U.S. and Taliban

Posting this week has been tough, but the cloud does have a silver lining in that material intended for publication has been building up. And I'd like to present much of it in the next few upcoming posts. Before then, though, some quick items:

First and foremost, please join me in wishing TheSolidSurfer.com guest contributor Rabbi Shea Hecht a hearty Mazel Tov on the recent engagement of his daughter! We are thrilled for Rabbi Hecht and his family, and wish his daughter and soon-to-be son-in-law all the best in their upcoming marriage!

Secondly, the website has been updated. Please feel free to check out our new poll feature, at the bottom of the righthand column (you may have to scroll down a bit to reach it). This particular poll will remain for some time, and I plan to introduce new poll questions in the future.

Also, with regards to a recent previous post, information has surfaced which reveals that the U.S. military's decision to not attack a vulnerable Taliban force may actually have been a sound judgement, and not simply capitulation to political correctness. Bloggers over at The Autonomist (a blogroll link at left) contacted an officer at CENTCOM, who proceeded to completely dismiss the PC/cultural sensitivity theory. This is fantastic to hear, and for our nation's sake, I surely hope it's fully correct. (Hat Tip to Kuhnkat for the link.)

Blog of the Day: Planck's Constant. And the site covers far more than just science.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Jihadist Violence Validates Pope Benedict's Words

As most of us probably have already seen in the news, Pope Benedict recently inflamed Muslims worldwide when, in a speech in Germany, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who declared Muhammad's teachings "evil and inhuman", particularly the command to spread the faith by the sword.

Of course, many Muslims immediately called this a heinous insult, and demanded an apology. The pope, however, has stuck to his guns, expressing regret that the statement caused offense and differentiating it from his personal beliefs, but still stopping short of genuinely repudiating it.

So who is correct? Was the Pope's use of quotation appropriate, or are Muslims justified in their opposition? I'd venture to say that fundamentalist Muslim actions in the event's aftermath largely answer the question.

In response to the comments, jihadist groups have plotted to kill the Pope himself, murdered a nun, bombed multiple churches, threatened entire Christian populations, and begun preparations to wage war on the Western world (something which, to a large extent, has already been happening for years). And that's only what was reported in the news. Just as the Pope strongly condemned Islam's propensity for violence, Muslims themselves have all but confirmed the necessity to do so.

Now do Muslims have a right to be offended? Of course. The Pope's quote did indeed insult their religion; the words were very harsh, and even quite exaggerated, as certainly not all of Islam is evil or inhuman.

But feeling hurt by no means whatsoever gives them the right to act violently and commit murder. This is not remotely debatable; such barbaric reactions to a mere verbal insult can indeed be described only as evil and immoral. And yet fitting the Pope's quote to the letter, many Muslims clearly felt religiously justified in acting as such. Furthermore, most Islamic leaders have refused to condemn the violence, which certainly hints that they silently condone it.

As much as Muslims want to deny Pope Benedict's statement, too many of them have succeeded in validating it. If they truly wish to prove the pontiff wrong, they can begin only by renouncing such violence and responding in a civilized manner. If this were to genuinely occur, I can imagine the Pope would be happy to retract his statement. Otherwise, forget about it.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

America Refuses to Attack Taliban - Awful Decision

Want to know why America still struggles to win the war on terror? This story tells all we need to know.

And yes, believe it - the U.S. military identified a gathering of over one-hundred Taliban terrorists, had the chance to bomb or otherwise attack them, and refused to do so because the men were standing in a cemetery, and this would have violated Afghanistan's cultural sensitivities. A military spokesman confirmed the decision, explaining that our coalition forces "hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies."

This decision is simply outrageous. It pains me to criticize our armed forces in this war, as they risk their lives daily to protect our freedom, something for which I am grateful and supportive to the utmost. But here, I do feel compelled to speak out, because this instance demonstrates the unfortunate degree to which political correctness has penetrated our society, to our significant civilizational risk.

The men the army spared are enemy combatants, not civilians. They are evil terrorists who fight in order to massacre as many innocents as possible. They have killed American soldiers without mercy, and given the opportunity would murder or enslave every last non-Muslim. Indeed, their vile opposition is the main reason we're still *in* Afghanistan, and attacking them, really, is a matter of self defense.

Refusing to strike them may save their lives, but it places the lives of our own soldiers at much greater risk. This is not moral and ethical, but quite the opposite. A legitimate argument may have been over the method of attack, as a surprise conventional strike might have captured them alive at little risk to coalition troops (assuming they weren't armed due to the funeral), while a bombing attack probably would have killed them. But regardless, to simply let them escape means only to allow them further chances to attack our troops. Doing so, hence, was a colossal mistake. For anyone wondering why the Taliban keeps regrouping, the answer is simple - because we let it.

To put things into proper perspective, would the U.S. have spared a Nazi officer gathering at a German cemetery during World War II? I certainly don't think so. And why? Because they were Nazis and they were evil. If we didn't stop them, they would have continued their mass genocide and their plans to take over the world.

The Taliban terrorists may lack the Nazis' power, but their murderous intentions are just the same. These people cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, only defeated. Letting them escape now will only make the fight against them more difficult down the line.

The military's awful decision has already been made and cannot be reversed. But if America wants to defeat the jihadists, we must learn from such mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future. Our freedom and civilization depend on it.

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

K-Swiss: Political Insider Report from Washington

News from the Middle East has recently dominated headlines, both in the general media and here at TheSolidSurfer.com. But at the same time, our own national political affairs remain highly pertinent. To cover such developments, we turn once again to our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", who checks in for a brief discussion.


Solid Surfer: What is the political climate in Washington like at the moment? Have the recent thwarted airline terrorist attacks changed the mood there?

K-Swiss: The climate is still as bipartisan as ever. The Democrats are focused on all negative aspects of the American strategy in Iraq as a means of taking over the Congress, whereas the Republicans are focused on keeping the voters thinking about the war on terrorism, rather than Iraq, and staying in power.

Solid Surfer: Who do you see coming out on top in the November congressional races - Democrats or Republicans?

K-Swiss: Polls have shown that Democrats have a much better chance at taking over the House rather than the Senate. However, I believe that at the end of the day, the American voter will realize that appeasement does not work, and hence the Democrats focusing their campaigns on the Iraq War will not win over enough voters to replace Republicans. I see the Republicans staying in control of both the House and Senate.

Solid Surfer: Who wins the Connecticut race - Lieberman or Lamont, and why?

K-Swiss: Lieberman. Many Republican voters sympathize with Lieberman, and traditionally during primaries, the fringe left for Democrats and the fringe right for Republicans are overrepresented. It would truly be a shame if Lamont were to win, and his victory would show how far left the Democratic party has moved. Allowing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stand on the podium behind him during his primary victory speech should be enough to turn the average Connecticut voter away from Lamont.

Solid Surfer: What do you see the U.S. doing in response to Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment?

K-Swiss: I think President Bush's recent, more aggressive language toward Iran has been positive. But the EU's typical call for more negotiations shows that the Europeans remain in the business of appeasement. I do not believe Iran will ever agree to halt its nuclear weapons program, regardless of any sanctions against it. So at the end of the day, it appears Israel once again will be forced to do the world's dirty work, and will attack Iran.

Solid Surfer: On a similar note, knowing that Iran and Hezbollah are gearing for more attacks, what should Israel's next move be?

K-Swiss: Continue the air and sea blockade until the kidnapped soldiers are released. If Lebanon continues to violate Resolution 1701, I think Israel will be forced to re-enter and finish the job. Next time, Israel should pursue not just Lebanon, but also Syria. Arabs understand force and strength, and so Israel needs to send a signal to Lebanon that the "divine victory" allegedly achieved by Hezbollah was not so divine after all.

Solid Surfer: Looking forward to 2008, who do you see each party's presidential nominees being? Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani? Russ Feingold vs. John McCain?

K-Swiss: For the Democrats sake, I hope it is not Hillary. And I think Feingold has about as good a chance of being nominated as I do. He isn't nearly as popular as the media makes him out to be, and being twice-divorced badly hurts his image among social moderates. I think the nominees will be Evan Bayh vs. McCain...but of course a lot can happen in the next two years.

Solid Surfer: K-Swiss, thank you for the perspectives and analysis. Barring an unlikely Dick Cheney change of mind, 2008 will be the first presidential race in 80 years to feature no incumbents (president or vice president). The implications of that race, as well as the upcoming congressional elections, will largely shape America's direction over the next few years. Let's all hope it turns out well.

Sunday, September 3, 2006

Misleading Statistics and the War on Poverty

Statistics can be very misleading. According to numbers newly released by the Census Bureau, the U.S. poverty rate stands at 12.6%, a virtually unchanged number from last year, and an increase from the record-low 1973 rate of 11.1%.

So does this mean Washington has utterly failed at its long-term efforts to reduce poverty? The numbers sure appear so, but in reality, that's the absolute wrong conclusion. Rather, as political economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute explains, the material lives of the American poor have been bettered dramatically.

Yes, 12.6% of the populace may be considered poor, but the definition of "poor" has greatly changed from 1973 to today. Today's poor may earn lower incomes compared to others, but the overall standard of U.S. living has risen so highly that even most people under the poverty line have plentiful food, sizeable homes, televisions, telephones, dishwashers, computers, microwaves, DVD players, motor vehicles, access to quality health care, and so on. This is a striking difference from 1973, when even many affluent people could not access certain of these items.

Now that's not to say poverty has been eliminated; there are indeed many people out there who, sadly, still need help. But we shouldn't let statistics mislead us into believing that nothing has been accomplished. America has been winning the war on poverty, and as our capitalistic economy continues to grow, our success should only increase.

Friday, September 1, 2006

Terrorism, Stockholm Syndrome, and America

Stockholm Syndrome appears to be a serious disorder, among those victimized both as children and adults. Recently, news came to light of an Austrian girl who still sympathizes with a man who kidnapped her at age ten and held her prisoner for eight years. As strange as this may sound to those unfamiliar with the condition, it is apparently quite common among such traumatized victims. This is truly a sad story, and we should all hope and pray that the girl fully recovers from her ordeal and resumes a normal life.

At the same time, Fox News cameraman Olaf Wiig and correspondent Steve Centanni, who were kidnapped and help by Palestinian terrorists for 13 days last month, also sympathize with their captors. On a recent Good Morning America interview, Wiig admits that despite the kidnapping, he will not condemn the terrorists and indeed finds great sympathy with their cause and actions.

I hope too that Centanni and Wiig recover from their ordeal. And as disgusting as Wiig's words sound, I won't at this point criticize someone who has undergone such a horrendous episode.

But Wiig's experience should be a huge warning sign to the civilized world about the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Too many people, when faced with a terrorist threat to their very existence, will likely respond similarly - by defending the terrorists' evil actions and sympathizing with their twisted causes. And as long as the threat continues, the Stockholm Syndrom will still remain, as the victims use such sympathy as the only defense they can muster against a clear existential danger. Even worse, furthermore, this Stockholm Syndrome can engulf entire societies.

We should recognize, hence, that unless checked, repeated terrorism can psychologically hold a society captive. Even if the terrorism causes little actual physical destruction, the damage to its victims' psyches and resultingly to the functioning of the larger society can be far, far worse.

If we want to win the war against Islamic fascism (yes, President Bush was absolutely correct to use the term), we must end the terrorist threat as quickly and as efficiently possible. That means not giving up in Iraq. Not yielding to Iran's nuclear desires. And not allowing Western Muslims to be influenced by fundamentalist Saudi teachings. America has the ability to accomplish this entire lot. We just need to demonstrate the will.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Rabbi Hecht on Muslims, Airports, and Profiling

It's been only a couple weeks since his most recent guest contribution, but Rabbi Shea Hecht is back with another excellent article that I'm pleased to feature on TheSolidSurfer.com.

Little is needed by way of introduction; the essay is on a controversial topic, but very clearly speaks for itself:


Is Racial Profiling Necessary?
by Rabbi Shea Hecht

Recently, some of Britain's 1.7 million Muslims have accused police of using tough anti- terrorism laws that target their communities. In what I find to be a fascinating little news piece, now 10 British Muslims are considering suing the British government for racial profiling of young Muslim men. This hasn't stopped British police chief John Stevens from calling for more checks of "young Muslim men" saying similar methods have been effective in Israel.

Being that the Muslim population is complaining that they don’t want to be singled out, my question is this: Is racial profiling necessary?

Let’s take a look at the facts and work from there.

The fact is that many young Muslim men say that their religion requires them to force their way of life onto the rest of the world’s population under the threat of death.

The fact is that many young Muslim men have been trying to do just that creating chaos in many countries and continents all over the world.

The fact is that all the young school children shot to death in Beslan, Russia were killed by young Muslim men.

The fact is that the railroad bombs in London and Spain that killed hundreds of people were detonated by young Muslim men.

The fact is that young Muslim men flew the airplanes into the twin towers killing thousands of people.

The fact is that the 12 people caught planning to blow up airplanes en route from Great Britain to the USA were young Muslim men.

The fact is that if you know there is a group of young Jewish men or young Christian men flying on the same aircraft as you, you know you are safe and have nothing to fear.

The fact is that if you know there is a group of young Muslim men flying on the same airplane as you, you will reconsider flying and be thankful that the airline security does a very thorough job.
The fact is that young Muslim men are threatening the peace and stability of so many countries all around the world.


The fact is that every person regardless of nationality or race has a will to live and a right to live in serenity without being threatened.

The fact is, that as John Stevens the British police chief pointed out, the Israelis do use racial profiling of Muslims quite successfully - and they’ve lowered the rate of deaths in their country due to homicide bombers.

The fact is that El Al was the only airline to fly on September 11, 2001 when every other airline was grounded.

The fact is, that after the recent fright in England, El Al’s security measures didn’t change.

The fact is that every country has a right to defend itself both in and out of its borders.

The fact is that - with an apology to all peaceful male Muslims that don’t plan on forcing their way of life onto others or killing them out because of their heretical beliefs - the logical conclusion to all of this is that if a person wants to live in peace and freedom they are best to keep an eye on young male Muslims.

The fact is that racial profiling is wrong when it’s based on anything other than hard fact - but unfortunately in today’s day and age the facts call for it - and not just in England.

The fact is that most people are happy with the extra security - peaceful Muslims included - because they are not interested in becoming a memory and a statistic.

The fact is that if racial profiling of young Muslim men hurts, I’m sorry. I, for one, would like to be able to live and practice my religion - in peace.


The SolidSurfer.com responds: Rabbi, thank you again for such an excellent thoughtful piece. Any sort of profiling should never be undertaken lightly, but as unfortunate as it is, the facts of terrorism simply require it.

Just to add my two cents - profiling actually occurs far more frequently than many may realize. For example, police officers regularly conduct age- and sex-related profiling on young men, because statistically young men are far more likely than other demographic groups to commit crimes. Most young men, of course, are not criminals. But at the same time, most criminals are by far young men. Just the same, most young Muslim men are not terrorists. But virtually all terrorists are young Muslim men, and so profiling the overall Muslim male demographic clearly makes sense.

Yes, it's true that this will inconvenience many innocent Muslims. But that's a small price for the thousands of lives it will likely save, Muslims and everyone else.

Monday, August 28, 2006

David Warren on the West, Islam, and Liberalism

Real Clear Politics has published an excellent piece by writer David Warren arguing that Islam's threat to the Western world has been realized not due to Islamic strength, but because of the West's moral and intellectual decline. (i.e. because the West has become too leftist.)

I don't know much about Mr. Warren, but he has really hit the nail on the head. The West has the power to thoroughly defeat jihadism this very moment, but restrains out of a supposed moral "sensitivity" that resultingly allows our evil enemies to fight another day. In order to win the war, we must shed this ultra-liberalism and return to the principles that allowed us to win World War II and the Cold War. As Warren concludes,

It is the recovery of our own sense of what we are, what we believe, and what we are about, that would defeat Afghan cave-dwellers and shrieking ayatollahs fairly quickly.

I agree, and let's hope this happens soon.


Coming up on TheSolidSurfer.com: Look for new site features, plus a brand new report from our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", who will keep us up-to-date on the political, military, and cultural winds from our nation's capital.

Friday, August 25, 2006

British Poll on Islam, Israel, Wal-Mart's Critics, more

Plenty of interesting news heading into the weekend:

According to a new poll, 53% of the British public considers Islam a threat to the West. That's a big jump from after 9/11, when only 33% felt endangered by the "religion of peace". It's good to hear people are finally waking up to the problem, but a bigger question is - what the heck are the other 47% thinking? Ignoring a problem never makes it go away.

At the same time, the Israeli public has also awoken to recent events: Polls indicate that a majority believe their government failed in handling the Hezbollah war and that Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz should resign. I agree. American Thinker, meanwhile, outlines a similar argument. Ideally, of course, it's always preferable that a nation's leadership learns from mistakes and changes its positions. But failing that, replacement is often a necessary measure.

And speaking of the war, take a look at HonestReporting.com's compendium (courtesy of Front Page Magazine) of blatant media bias against Israel. By and large, the mainstream media simply supported the terrorists, and that's exactly why it can't whatsoever be trusted. Visit alternative media such as talk radio and blogs (many fine examples of which are listed on the Blogroll at left) for much more generally honest coverage.

Meanwhile, on the domestic front, National Review's Rich Lowry slams Democratic party opponents of Wal-Mart. The megaretailer's critics, Lowry states, have no reason to complain simply because Wal-Mart performs better than the competition.

A couple great columns appeared in the news as well. Thomas Sowell explains how leftist policies have caused major crime rate increases in Britain, while Victor Davis Hanson declares that President Bush has a communiction problem and offers solutions. Both editorials offer fascinating insights, and I highly recommend them.

Blog of the Day: Hugh Hewitt. Hugh often writes excellent posts, while Dean Barnett of Soxblog fame is his new guest blogger.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Pluto's Demotion and the Flaws in Speculative Science

A major flaw in the world of science was unexpectedly but blatantly uncovered yesterday. For apparently astronomers have decided that Pluto is no longer a planet.

Are they incorrect? Perhaps, perhaps not; frankly I have no idea. But the flaw involved has nothing to do with Pluto's actual classification. Rather, the error is in the height of the pedestal on which so many people place scientific judgement. The Pluto decision demonstrates that accepted scientific conventions are not always set in stone and can even be flat-out wrong.

For the past 76 years, leading astronomers have proclaimed Pluto a planet. Now they don't. Clearly both views cannot be correct. How different is this from debates in the 1600s over the shape of the earth? At one point scientists thought the earth was flat. Then they realized it's round.

The point is, even the most brilliant groups of scientists can make mistakes. They can also, as we see, quickly change their minds. We should hence recognize that many standard scientific views are not necessarily correct merely because intelligent scientists say so.

So when groups of scientists declare, purely on speculation, that global warming is the world's greatest threat, that intelligent design is bunk, and that DDT is dangerous, we should resist the impulse to believe them simply because they are scientists. Scientific conclusions need true evidence, not majority opinions.

Thanks to a 76-year old scientific misjudgement (if, at least, you believe in the new solar system categorization), our former ninth planet may have lost its hierarchy in the cosmos. But it has actually done the world a great favor, by providing a promiment demonstration that scientific paradigms are not automatically sacred and that scientists do commit mistakes and disagree.

Regardless of how the debate over Pluto concludes, the process involved appears to be the most revealing portion. Science is a powerful tool, but like all fields, it relies heavily on a human element which we must consider when examining its findings.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Defeating Iran No Matter What Ahmadinejad Thinks

August 22 has come and gone (well, it's still the 22nd here, but already the 23rd in the Middle East), and much of the Western world appears to be sighing in relief. Many promiment Iran watchers had speculated that the Mullahs, in response to a UN offer of incentives for ending its nuclear program, intended to cataclysmically attack the West to coincide with a Muslim holy day. But instead Ahmadinejad merely stalled for more time. (I can't fully verify this news since it's from China's state-run Xinhua outlet, but even a Communist mouthpiece is probably more accurate than al-Reuters these days.)

Iran's hesitation is welcome news, but by no means does it diminish Tehran's nuclear threat. Ahamdinejad clearly still intends to develop the weapons and has continued his evil genocidal threats against Israel.

But I'm beginning to wonder, contrary to popular opinion, just whether Ahmadinejad is as undeterrable as believed. Yes, he's still a jihadist fanatic, happy to kill millions of his own people to bring back the 12th century Mahdi. But is he willing to sacrifice himself or his family? I'm not so sure.

Plenty of terrorist groups spout self-sacrificial rhetoric, and indeed often follow through by dispatching suicide bombers. But do the terror leaders ever volunteer for such missions, or send their own children? No, virtually never. Rather, they maintain power and force others to do the dirty work. The leaders never admit it, but they value their own lives much more highly than they let on. Chances are, Iran's prime minister feels this way too.

This insight, assuming it's accurate, reminds us that we still retain the full opportunity to defeat Iran. Like his mentor Hitler, Ahmadinejad may sacrifice himself if cornered. But as long as he maintains his confidence in Iran's ultimate aims, he likely wants to live and won't risk an attack bold enough to provoke an American response until he feels sufficiently strong to counter it. This should occur only if he develops nuclear armaments.

Therefore, Western powers must destroy Iran's nuclear program immediately. The Mullahs are determined to ignore the UN Security Council, brush aside sanctions, and partner with Russia and China in order to complete its weaponry. Diplomacy has already failed, and we must take action before it's too late. Any negative consequences from doing so (i.e. France and Saudi Arabia giving us lectures on "proper morality") are peanuts compared to the problems we'll face if we let Iran continue.

Iran's nuclear feet-dragging has granted the Western world a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Now we must take advantage and use it.