On several past occasions, I have analyzed and discussed varied forms of alternative energy, from refining oil shale to producing synthetic petroleum created via thermal conversion to drilling homegrown oil under the assumption of it being a renewable resource.
All these techniques are excellent paths towards achieving independence from Middle East oil, but as I recently learned (hat tip to Israpundit), an even better method exists: alcohol-based fuel. That's right - a combination of ethanol (the stuff you drink) and methanol (wood alcohol that you should never ever drink) is an excellent subsitute for gasoline.
According to the above sentence's linked piece, written by aerospace researcher Dr. Robert Zubrin, America can already produce oil-less electricity through nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. What we haven't done yet on a large scale, though, is achieve a petroleum-free gasoline substitute. Many alternative methods have been proposed, the most popular being hydrogen fuel cells, but until technology improves, these will largely remain inefficient. Alcohol-based fuel was rarely considered in the past, but with rising oil costs and the increasing dangers of depending on energy from the Middle East, the article claims that now is a perfect time to switch.
Is this truly realistic? Naturally I'd tend to be skeptical, the logic being that if it worked, we'd have attempted it already. And except for occasional users such as the Indycar Series, America obviously hasn't done so.
But another country has.
Though virtually unreported in the mainstream news media, Brazil in the past few years has transitioned almost entirely from gasoline to alcohol. Tired of rising oil prices, Brazil invested heavily in ethanol-based cars and fueling stations over, and today the country has become entirely energy independent. Most of the fuel comes from homegrown cane sugar, and Brazilians have benefited triply from lower prices at the pump, increased agricultural output, and lower pollution. Now, India, China, and other nations with soaring energy needs are carefully eyeing the Brazilian model and planning accordingly.
If Brazil can throw off the chokehold of Middle East oil, America certainly can too.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Jimmy Carter: Worst U.S. President Supports Hamas
Jimmy Carter has demonstrated, once again, why he is undoubtedly the worst ex-president America has ever had. Immediately on the heels of the US and EU cutting their financial support to the Hamas-led Palestinians based on the principle of not supporting terorrists, Carter has called for the funding anyway, because in his view, the Palestinian people are still economically suffering.
Does this man have any practical intelligence? Seriously - how can someone possibly be that naive? Carter says he hopes that Hamas will become more moderate now that it's in power, but there is zero evidence of such a trend. Just listen to Hamas leaders themselves; they all say that their goal remains the destruction of Israel through terror and violence. These are the people Jimmy Carter wants to support.
If this sounds overly critical of Carter, it's fully intentional. There are many American politicians with whom I disagree and yet still respect, but I can't hold an ounce of respect for someone who wants to financially support an evil terrorist group. No matter how nobly intentioned Carter may be in his own mind, sympathy for Hamas is entirely inexcusable.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg of Carter's actions; in addition to his rainy day presidency in which America both suffered its worst economic downturn since World War II and failed to confront adversaries in the Middle East and Latin America, he has continually opposed American foreign policy and frequently apologized for numerous dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and (what a surprise) Yasser Arafat.
Want to know, Mr. Carter, why the Palestinian people indeed are economically suffering? Because rather than building his people a nation, your man Arafat stole billions from them. If you truly want to help the Palestinians, try working instead towards ending the vile hatred against Israel that their leadership instilled in them over the past decade.
As Israeli prime minister Golda Meir once said, "peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Until Jimmy Carter recognizes that and quits apologizing for terrorists, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Does this man have any practical intelligence? Seriously - how can someone possibly be that naive? Carter says he hopes that Hamas will become more moderate now that it's in power, but there is zero evidence of such a trend. Just listen to Hamas leaders themselves; they all say that their goal remains the destruction of Israel through terror and violence. These are the people Jimmy Carter wants to support.
If this sounds overly critical of Carter, it's fully intentional. There are many American politicians with whom I disagree and yet still respect, but I can't hold an ounce of respect for someone who wants to financially support an evil terrorist group. No matter how nobly intentioned Carter may be in his own mind, sympathy for Hamas is entirely inexcusable.
Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg of Carter's actions; in addition to his rainy day presidency in which America both suffered its worst economic downturn since World War II and failed to confront adversaries in the Middle East and Latin America, he has continually opposed American foreign policy and frequently apologized for numerous dictators such as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and (what a surprise) Yasser Arafat.
Want to know, Mr. Carter, why the Palestinian people indeed are economically suffering? Because rather than building his people a nation, your man Arafat stole billions from them. If you truly want to help the Palestinians, try working instead towards ending the vile hatred against Israel that their leadership instilled in them over the past decade.
As Israeli prime minister Golda Meir once said, "peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Until Jimmy Carter recognizes that and quits apologizing for terrorists, he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Palestinian Election Update
Shockingly, it appears Hamas has won the PA elections. Notwithstanding yesterday's post, I certainly didn't expect this to actually occur; as of last night, Fatah seemed to hold a clear lead in exit polls.
But once again, I believe this result helps Israel significantly. Terrorism should not increase, as Hamas already committed as much as it could muster under Fatah rule; indeed, now that Hamas must focus on governing, terrorism could even decline.
Furthermore, Israel now has no illusions over Palestinian desires - Hamas's victory is the most clear indication yet that the Palestinians don't care about the so-called occupation; they want Israel itself. This does not additionally hurt Israel, because the Palestinian leadership has always desired as such; the difference now is that Israel can no longer fool itself and must act accordingly with strength.
In addition, Hamas must now actually govern its people. Some people understandably have expressed alarm that the Palestinians have elected an Islamist party; here, they say, is a clear example of why democratizing the Middle East will not work. But I disagree - most Palestinians likely voted for Hamas simply because it was the only alternative to a corrupt Fatah that failed to improve their lives. And now Hamas too must properly govern (something I believe will not occur), or else it will be shown the door as well.
Hamas's victory has shown the true nature of the Palestinian side. Now Israel must succeed by demonstrating its own true nature as a strong, confident, Jewish nation that refuses to buckle to terror and is determined to exist on its own terms and not on those of any other nation or international group.
But once again, I believe this result helps Israel significantly. Terrorism should not increase, as Hamas already committed as much as it could muster under Fatah rule; indeed, now that Hamas must focus on governing, terrorism could even decline.
Furthermore, Israel now has no illusions over Palestinian desires - Hamas's victory is the most clear indication yet that the Palestinians don't care about the so-called occupation; they want Israel itself. This does not additionally hurt Israel, because the Palestinian leadership has always desired as such; the difference now is that Israel can no longer fool itself and must act accordingly with strength.
In addition, Hamas must now actually govern its people. Some people understandably have expressed alarm that the Palestinians have elected an Islamist party; here, they say, is a clear example of why democratizing the Middle East will not work. But I disagree - most Palestinians likely voted for Hamas simply because it was the only alternative to a corrupt Fatah that failed to improve their lives. And now Hamas too must properly govern (something I believe will not occur), or else it will be shown the door as well.
Hamas's victory has shown the true nature of the Palestinian side. Now Israel must succeed by demonstrating its own true nature as a strong, confident, Jewish nation that refuses to buckle to terror and is determined to exist on its own terms and not on those of any other nation or international group.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
A Hamas Victory Would Be Good For Israel
Yes, you read the title correctly. A Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections would, in my opinion, benefit Israel in this situation. No, I don't suddenly believe elections have granted the Islamist party legitimacy; they are still a terrorist organization openly devoted to goals of pure evil such as Israel's destruction.
But Israel for years has been dealing and getting absolutely nowhere with the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah Party, which believes the exact same thing and hides it. Fatah, the party of Arafat and Abbas, has never truly wanted peace with Israel, never kept a peace-related agreement (such as disarming terrorists), and even sponsors its own terrorist group, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. But because Fatah tantalizingly keeps promising a wishful peace in exchange for Israeli concessions (land and otherwise), Israel continues to negotiate itself practically out of existence for the smallest glimmer of hope.
But as we have seen, this dynamic has utterly failed to achieve peace. Even after Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinian Authority merely demanded more, and declared their intention to take Jerusalem. Such actions (not to mention the terrorism and their talks in Arabic to Arab-only audiences) communicate strikingly clearly that Fatah wants a state not beside Israel, but in place of it.
Hamas's intentions, of course, are no different. They too desire not peace, but to conquer Israel. But the difference once again is that Hamas openly admits it. No promises, no negotiations, no illusions - Hamas expresses its intentions loud and clear, front and center.
And for an Israel that certainly can't afford any more concessions without endangering its viability as a state, this would be a much needed reality shock; no more delusions of having a potential peace partner. And with the non-existent option of a political agreement hence finally removed, Israel will at last be free to pursue a realistic and sensible strategy: peace through strength.
A Hamas victory should change nothing on the ground between Israel and the PA, but now Israel can finally move ahead from its longtime policy of wishful but unsuccessful thinking.
But Israel for years has been dealing and getting absolutely nowhere with the Palestinian Authority's ruling Fatah Party, which believes the exact same thing and hides it. Fatah, the party of Arafat and Abbas, has never truly wanted peace with Israel, never kept a peace-related agreement (such as disarming terrorists), and even sponsors its own terrorist group, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. But because Fatah tantalizingly keeps promising a wishful peace in exchange for Israeli concessions (land and otherwise), Israel continues to negotiate itself practically out of existence for the smallest glimmer of hope.
But as we have seen, this dynamic has utterly failed to achieve peace. Even after Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinian Authority merely demanded more, and declared their intention to take Jerusalem. Such actions (not to mention the terrorism and their talks in Arabic to Arab-only audiences) communicate strikingly clearly that Fatah wants a state not beside Israel, but in place of it.
Hamas's intentions, of course, are no different. They too desire not peace, but to conquer Israel. But the difference once again is that Hamas openly admits it. No promises, no negotiations, no illusions - Hamas expresses its intentions loud and clear, front and center.
And for an Israel that certainly can't afford any more concessions without endangering its viability as a state, this would be a much needed reality shock; no more delusions of having a potential peace partner. And with the non-existent option of a political agreement hence finally removed, Israel will at last be free to pursue a realistic and sensible strategy: peace through strength.
A Hamas victory should change nothing on the ground between Israel and the PA, but now Israel can finally move ahead from its longtime policy of wishful but unsuccessful thinking.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Canada, Iran, Jonathan Pollard, and Spengler
Polls indicate a Conservative Party win in Canada. After 13 years of Liberal Party rule, it appears our northern neighbor's pendulum finally has swung in the other direction. President Bush certainly must be pleased, as Conservative Party leader (and prime minister front-runner) Stephen Harper has pledged to work more closely with the U.S. if elected.
Meanwhile, the pseudonymous "Spengler" of the Asia Times has written an insightful column on why Western nations are all but certain to attack Iran. Of course, the Islamic republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons is the main reason, but Spengler also explains it from an energy perspective. Thanks to shoddy refining infrastructure and rising internal energy demands, Iran is projected to run out of oil to export in less than 20 years. The Mullahs hence need access to their neighbors' reserves, and desire a nuclear arsenal to back themselves on the quest. The West can't let Iran control the surrounding nations (including Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and hold the world hostage to its oil output, so the only choice (barring the unlikely event that Ahmadinejad backs down) is to attack.
I don't think Spengler's analysis quite covers everything - his explanation makes plenty of sense and leans on solid facts, but he passes over Ahmadinejad's openly megalomaniacal tendencies. Not that I doubt nukes will help Iran control its neighbors' oil, but when the country's president denies the Holocaust and declares his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," you have to worry about much more sinister intentions. Nonetheless, my conclusion and Spengler's are the same: America and/or Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Spengler, by the way, has quite a fascinating archive of essays primarily on geopolitics. Not sure why he writes anonymously given the Asia Times's large readership (the secret identity is plenty eye catching - perhaps it's a marketing hook), but he (or she) always seems to have a phenomenally unique take on his chosen issues, quite similar to Malcolm Gladwell on social and business topics. I seriously doubt Gladwell actually is Spengler, but one thing is for certain - whether you agree with his views or not, the fellow certainly writes some interesting columns.
In other news:
Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst convicted of passing classified information to two AIPAC officials regarding Israel, was sentenced last week to 12 years in prison. And now it's time for the AIPAC staffers themselves, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, to stand trial.
Are they also guilty? Rosen and Weissman claim they did not know the information's classified status; if this is indeed the case, they should certainly be exonerated. We'll have to see what happens in court.
Franklin's sentence, meanwhile, also brings to mind the utter injustice of the Jonathan Pollard case. Pollard, as many know, was convicted in 1985 of spying for Israel, and has remained in prison on a life sentence. Yes, Pollard committed a crime (spying for an ally), but his sentence has been far disproportional to the offense. Offenders of the same act have received, on average, two- to four-year sentences, and Pollard is the only one to have received life imprisonment. He should have been released long ago. Visit http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ to see how you can help.
Meanwhile, the pseudonymous "Spengler" of the Asia Times has written an insightful column on why Western nations are all but certain to attack Iran. Of course, the Islamic republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons is the main reason, but Spengler also explains it from an energy perspective. Thanks to shoddy refining infrastructure and rising internal energy demands, Iran is projected to run out of oil to export in less than 20 years. The Mullahs hence need access to their neighbors' reserves, and desire a nuclear arsenal to back themselves on the quest. The West can't let Iran control the surrounding nations (including Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and hold the world hostage to its oil output, so the only choice (barring the unlikely event that Ahmadinejad backs down) is to attack.
I don't think Spengler's analysis quite covers everything - his explanation makes plenty of sense and leans on solid facts, but he passes over Ahmadinejad's openly megalomaniacal tendencies. Not that I doubt nukes will help Iran control its neighbors' oil, but when the country's president denies the Holocaust and declares his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," you have to worry about much more sinister intentions. Nonetheless, my conclusion and Spengler's are the same: America and/or Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Spengler, by the way, has quite a fascinating archive of essays primarily on geopolitics. Not sure why he writes anonymously given the Asia Times's large readership (the secret identity is plenty eye catching - perhaps it's a marketing hook), but he (or she) always seems to have a phenomenally unique take on his chosen issues, quite similar to Malcolm Gladwell on social and business topics. I seriously doubt Gladwell actually is Spengler, but one thing is for certain - whether you agree with his views or not, the fellow certainly writes some interesting columns.
In other news:
Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst convicted of passing classified information to two AIPAC officials regarding Israel, was sentenced last week to 12 years in prison. And now it's time for the AIPAC staffers themselves, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, to stand trial.
Are they also guilty? Rosen and Weissman claim they did not know the information's classified status; if this is indeed the case, they should certainly be exonerated. We'll have to see what happens in court.
Franklin's sentence, meanwhile, also brings to mind the utter injustice of the Jonathan Pollard case. Pollard, as many know, was convicted in 1985 of spying for Israel, and has remained in prison on a life sentence. Yes, Pollard committed a crime (spying for an ally), but his sentence has been far disproportional to the offense. Offenders of the same act have received, on average, two- to four-year sentences, and Pollard is the only one to have received life imprisonment. He should have been released long ago. Visit http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ to see how you can help.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Deciphering Iran's Nuclear Strategy
Many of us in the West desperately have been trying to decipher Iran's military/nuclear strategy. Just what are Ahmedinajed and the Mullahs trying to accomplish by announcing their nuclear intentions to the world?
Are they trying to develop a nuclear blackmail option, a la North Korea, so to consolidate their hold on power? Are they attempting a brilliant diplomatic strategy aimed at expanding their influence in the Middle East? Or are they truly insane, trying to goad Israel or America into a nuclear face off?
All these scenarios sound plausible on paper, but I'm not sure I agree with any of them. The first two possibilities would clearly befit a rational decision maker, but Iran's leaders are far from rational. No, they're not crazy either, but like many power-hungry autocrats, they possess a reckless megalomania to the point of delusion. Just listen, for example, to the way Ahmadinejad speaks. Addressing the U.N. in September, he believed a light surrounded him as though he carried a divine message.
This leads me towards only one conclusion: Iran's leaders are so confident in their mission and abilities that they sincerely believe they can conquer the West. They don't care what we know or think of their plans (and if anything, they'll brag about it); they see the result as inevitable, and nothing else matters.
Yes, they are entirely deluded from reality, but that is exactly the danger. The Mullahs believe so strongly in their ultimate victory that, in all likelihood, they could care less about being counterattacked. If they develop nuclear weapons, they most certainly plan to use them because they sincerely believe they'll win through such an attack.
Iran's nuclear program must be stopped immediately, before it's too late. Visit the Iran Freedom Foundation for ways to help.
Are they trying to develop a nuclear blackmail option, a la North Korea, so to consolidate their hold on power? Are they attempting a brilliant diplomatic strategy aimed at expanding their influence in the Middle East? Or are they truly insane, trying to goad Israel or America into a nuclear face off?
All these scenarios sound plausible on paper, but I'm not sure I agree with any of them. The first two possibilities would clearly befit a rational decision maker, but Iran's leaders are far from rational. No, they're not crazy either, but like many power-hungry autocrats, they possess a reckless megalomania to the point of delusion. Just listen, for example, to the way Ahmadinejad speaks. Addressing the U.N. in September, he believed a light surrounded him as though he carried a divine message.
This leads me towards only one conclusion: Iran's leaders are so confident in their mission and abilities that they sincerely believe they can conquer the West. They don't care what we know or think of their plans (and if anything, they'll brag about it); they see the result as inevitable, and nothing else matters.
Yes, they are entirely deluded from reality, but that is exactly the danger. The Mullahs believe so strongly in their ultimate victory that, in all likelihood, they could care less about being counterattacked. If they develop nuclear weapons, they most certainly plan to use them because they sincerely believe they'll win through such an attack.
Iran's nuclear program must be stopped immediately, before it's too late. Visit the Iran Freedom Foundation for ways to help.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Daniel Pipes and the Pope: Can Islam Change?
In reponse to recent comments by Pope Benedict that Islamic tradition does not allow itself to change and modernize, Daniel Pipes has written an interesting article arguing the contrary. As Pipes sees it, Islam can indeed change via reinterpreting the Koran, and small efforts to do so are already in place, the implication being that Islamic radicalism can eventually be tamed through this method.
Needless to say, Pipes has taken a lot of heat for this view, as expressed in many comments on his website and elsewhere. But is he correct, or is Islam truly doomed to long-term stagnation?
Regarding Islam itself, I happen to agree with Pope Benedict and Pipes's detractors; as the religion's history has shown, its core tenets certainly have not proved very adaptable to change. But I think the question we must ask is actually a different one: Not whether Islam can change, but whether Muslims can change.
And the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding yes. It has happened, in fact, all throughout history.
Radical Islam in itself is merely a religious-based ideology; without its practitioners, it threatens no one. Only when large numbers of Muslims live their lives according to its fundamentalist sway does it become dangerous. But history has shown that, by and large, most Muslims do not enjoy living in this manner. Most of today's Muslim nations were originally conquered and settled by Arabs who practiced fundamentalist Islam, but over time the people living in these regions moved away from the orginal religion. Of course they still practiced Islam in general, but by no means did they live fundamentalist-style. Outside Arabia (and even within it to a degree), this occurred all around the Muslim world, from West Africa to Central Asia to Indonesia. Fundamentalist Islam itself may not have changed, but most of its practitioners certainly did.
Today we are seeing a resurgence of the old Islam, but that's only because certain nations (primarily Saudi Arabia and to a lesser degree Iran and Pakistan) are deliberately spreading it for their own gain. Most Muslims still don't like being governed by it (some in the West may notably advocate it, but ask those who have truly lived under it -- such as in Iran -- how they feel), and if groups like the Saudis would let up, I believe the number of practicing fundamentalists will rapidly shrink just as it did in the past.
On that note, then, the best way to curb radical Islam is not to change the religion itself (which probably won't work), but to stop the Saudi fundamentalist propaganda and to grant Muslims freedom so that they, rather than be controlled by oil-rich sheiks and autocratic dictators, can live the way they choose.
America has certainly made much headway on the freedom front, but on Saudi Arabia, much remains to be done. Daniel Pipes is certainly right about one thing - we need to get moving.
Needless to say, Pipes has taken a lot of heat for this view, as expressed in many comments on his website and elsewhere. But is he correct, or is Islam truly doomed to long-term stagnation?
Regarding Islam itself, I happen to agree with Pope Benedict and Pipes's detractors; as the religion's history has shown, its core tenets certainly have not proved very adaptable to change. But I think the question we must ask is actually a different one: Not whether Islam can change, but whether Muslims can change.
And the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding yes. It has happened, in fact, all throughout history.
Radical Islam in itself is merely a religious-based ideology; without its practitioners, it threatens no one. Only when large numbers of Muslims live their lives according to its fundamentalist sway does it become dangerous. But history has shown that, by and large, most Muslims do not enjoy living in this manner. Most of today's Muslim nations were originally conquered and settled by Arabs who practiced fundamentalist Islam, but over time the people living in these regions moved away from the orginal religion. Of course they still practiced Islam in general, but by no means did they live fundamentalist-style. Outside Arabia (and even within it to a degree), this occurred all around the Muslim world, from West Africa to Central Asia to Indonesia. Fundamentalist Islam itself may not have changed, but most of its practitioners certainly did.
Today we are seeing a resurgence of the old Islam, but that's only because certain nations (primarily Saudi Arabia and to a lesser degree Iran and Pakistan) are deliberately spreading it for their own gain. Most Muslims still don't like being governed by it (some in the West may notably advocate it, but ask those who have truly lived under it -- such as in Iran -- how they feel), and if groups like the Saudis would let up, I believe the number of practicing fundamentalists will rapidly shrink just as it did in the past.
On that note, then, the best way to curb radical Islam is not to change the religion itself (which probably won't work), but to stop the Saudi fundamentalist propaganda and to grant Muslims freedom so that they, rather than be controlled by oil-rich sheiks and autocratic dictators, can live the way they choose.
America has certainly made much headway on the freedom front, but on Saudi Arabia, much remains to be done. Daniel Pipes is certainly right about one thing - we need to get moving.
Monday, January 16, 2006
MLK, Feminism, The Million Dollar Homepage and more
Happy Martin Luther King Day to all. Many news pieces commemorating the holiday have floated across the Web today, and Carolyn Garris of The Heritage Foundation has written one of the best of the bunch. Let's all remember Dr. King's Conservative Legacy.
An interesting battle between liberals and conservatives has been brewing at Amazon.com over Kate O'Beirne's book Women Who Make The World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. In only a few days, the book has garnered hundreds of emotionally charged reader reviews, virtually all of which either highly praise or completely trash it. I haven't read the book, but numerous leftwingers clearly seem to hate it with a passion, which leads me to assume Ms. O'Beirne really must have struck a tough chord into their core beliefs. Scroll through the reviews to see everything for yourself.
Older, but unfortunately not wiser: Walter Cronkite calls for U.S. defeat in Iraq. Either Mr. Cronkite wishes to relive his 1968 moment of glory, when he announced America had lost the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive (a battle U.S. forces had actually handily won), or he simply just doesn't get it. Either way, good thing the mainstream media no longer has a stranglehold on wartime reporting.
Victor Davis Hanson explains why Iran must be confronted before it's too late.
Also, TheSolidSurfer.com wishes a hearty thanks to:
RealClearPolitics.com for reprinting my post Europe, Islam, and Demographics via pen name on their fine website.
And The Million Dollar Homepage, for hosting the first Solid Surfer advertisement. For anyone unfamiliar, The Million Dollar Homepage consists of one million on-screen graphical pixels split into 10,000 small blocks of 100 pixels each. The site's owner, British student Alex Tew, sold each block to advertisers (including yours truly) for $100 each (i.e. $1 per pixel), eventually filling the site and, yes, raising a full million dollars. The site has now closed to new advertisers, and Tew, who originally launched the venture to help finance his university education, has become a minor celebrity, appearing in The Wall Street Journal, the BBC, Yahoo! News, and many other prominent publications. TheSolidSurfer.com's purchased pixel block (which links here to this site) is located just above a green sign marked "GET FREE PIXELS" on the upper-middle right side of the page. We have a black-colored block with a white-colored letter "S" on it.
An interesting battle between liberals and conservatives has been brewing at Amazon.com over Kate O'Beirne's book Women Who Make The World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. In only a few days, the book has garnered hundreds of emotionally charged reader reviews, virtually all of which either highly praise or completely trash it. I haven't read the book, but numerous leftwingers clearly seem to hate it with a passion, which leads me to assume Ms. O'Beirne really must have struck a tough chord into their core beliefs. Scroll through the reviews to see everything for yourself.
Older, but unfortunately not wiser: Walter Cronkite calls for U.S. defeat in Iraq. Either Mr. Cronkite wishes to relive his 1968 moment of glory, when he announced America had lost the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive (a battle U.S. forces had actually handily won), or he simply just doesn't get it. Either way, good thing the mainstream media no longer has a stranglehold on wartime reporting.
Victor Davis Hanson explains why Iran must be confronted before it's too late.
Also, TheSolidSurfer.com wishes a hearty thanks to:
RealClearPolitics.com for reprinting my post Europe, Islam, and Demographics via pen name on their fine website.
And The Million Dollar Homepage, for hosting the first Solid Surfer advertisement. For anyone unfamiliar, The Million Dollar Homepage consists of one million on-screen graphical pixels split into 10,000 small blocks of 100 pixels each. The site's owner, British student Alex Tew, sold each block to advertisers (including yours truly) for $100 each (i.e. $1 per pixel), eventually filling the site and, yes, raising a full million dollars. The site has now closed to new advertisers, and Tew, who originally launched the venture to help finance his university education, has become a minor celebrity, appearing in The Wall Street Journal, the BBC, Yahoo! News, and many other prominent publications. TheSolidSurfer.com's purchased pixel block (which links here to this site) is located just above a green sign marked "GET FREE PIXELS" on the upper-middle right side of the page. We have a black-colored block with a white-colored letter "S" on it.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saudi Arabia: Lacks Credibility, Needs Reform
The latest issue (January 23, 2006) of Business Week Magazine contains a full-page advertisement for a Saudi Arabian-based global investment firm called Kingdom Holding Company (KHC). Unlike most ads, however, which virtually all exist to promote a specific product or service, this page seems to do little more than acknowledge KHC's contributions to the global economy by listing an impressive string of multinationals in which it has invested: PepsiCo, Apple Computer, eBay, Amazon.com, Hewlett Packard, Citigroup, Time Warner, Motorola, Procter & Gamble, Eastman Kodak, and many more. Given Business Week's ad rates, surely it seems that KHC cannot possibly muster a financial return on its media spend.
So what's the point of the ad? KHC's motive may at first seem strange, but a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page reveals all. Kingdom Holdings Company, as it turns out, is owned and controlled by a Saudi Prince named Alwaleed Bin Talal. That's right, the same Prince bin Talal who has donated money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, whose $10 million donation to New York City after 9/11 was rejected by Rudy Giuliani, and who recently donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies.
As a Saudi royal family member, Bin Talal doesn't need to advertise to solicit new capital for his fund; petrodollars have given him more than enough. But with America waking up to Saudi Arabia's internal problems and promotions of Wahhabist jihadism, the prince desperately wishes to attain some credibility to help him cover his tracks and get the terrorism investigations off his back. Through this ad, hence, he desperately wants to convey the message that like anyone else, he's just a normal guy who invests to make money and help the global economy. For Prince bin Talal, this ad is a PR centerpiece.
But you know what - it's not going to work. For all the prince's attempted sugarcoating, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia is a repressive dictatorship that promotes jihadist ideology, offers few real freedoms to its citizens, and has resisted almost all attempts at true reform. If Prince bin Talal really wants to be known as just a regular guy, he could start by encouraging his homeland to allow free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the emancipation of women, and an end to the support of terrorism. No PR campaign, no matter how slick, can cover up the truth.
So what's the point of the ad? KHC's motive may at first seem strange, but a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page reveals all. Kingdom Holdings Company, as it turns out, is owned and controlled by a Saudi Prince named Alwaleed Bin Talal. That's right, the same Prince bin Talal who has donated money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, whose $10 million donation to New York City after 9/11 was rejected by Rudy Giuliani, and who recently donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies.
As a Saudi royal family member, Bin Talal doesn't need to advertise to solicit new capital for his fund; petrodollars have given him more than enough. But with America waking up to Saudi Arabia's internal problems and promotions of Wahhabist jihadism, the prince desperately wishes to attain some credibility to help him cover his tracks and get the terrorism investigations off his back. Through this ad, hence, he desperately wants to convey the message that like anyone else, he's just a normal guy who invests to make money and help the global economy. For Prince bin Talal, this ad is a PR centerpiece.
But you know what - it's not going to work. For all the prince's attempted sugarcoating, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia is a repressive dictatorship that promotes jihadist ideology, offers few real freedoms to its citizens, and has resisted almost all attempts at true reform. If Prince bin Talal really wants to be known as just a regular guy, he could start by encouraging his homeland to allow free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the emancipation of women, and an end to the support of terrorism. No PR campaign, no matter how slick, can cover up the truth.
Friday, January 13, 2006
K-Swiss: Ban Iran From The World Cup
Dear Readers,
I'd like to introduce TheSolidSurfer.com's new Washington, D.C. correspondent "K-Swiss". K-Swiss currently works on government contract projects, and has previous experience both as a congressional aide and on the team of a highly prominent lobbyist. He brings a key insider perspective on global politics to TheSolidSurfer.com, and we welcome his exclusive guest commentary.
K-Swiss reports today on an idea for punishing Iran: ban its soccer team from the World Cup.
With each passing day, as the hapless diplomats of the EU negotiate (i.e. trade pleasantries) with the Mullahs of Iran, the Islamic Republic continues to develop its nuclear program with the ultimate goal of producing atomic weapons. While it seems ever more likely that Iran will be referred to the United Nations Security Council, does anyone in their right mind really believe the UN will take action? This is the same UN that stayed silent during the genocide in Rwanda, appointed Libya to chair its Commission on Human Rights, and has proven itself morally bankrupt time and again on virtually every issue relating to Israel.
If the world really wants to get serious with Iran and the ruling Mullahs, an effective way to punish the pariah nation could be to ban it from the 2006 World Cup. This would be a large slap in the face to the dictatorial Mullahs, and a message that Iran can no longer defy international law without penalty. Iran is a soccer-crazy nation of 68 million people filled with national pride. What better way to punish it than to ban it from the ultimate world sporting event?
Some may say politics and sports should not mix, but Iran obviously saw it differently during the 2004 Athens Olympics. An Iranian judo athlete drew as his initial competitor a Jewish wrestler from Israel. Rather than compete against the Israeli, at the behest of his government the Iranian avoided the competition altogether and dropped out of the Olympics.
Banning Iran from the World Cup will not create an economic boycott nor sanctions, and most likely it will not directly end the Iranian nuclear program, but it will certainly hurt the national pride that Iran values so dearly. Although the majority of Iranians do not support the government, these people must recognize the downward spiral into which their leadership is dragging them. Banning Iran from the World Cup (and preferably all international sporting events until it gives up its nuclear ambitions) could help spur popular anger at the regime and become an important step towards a democratic revolution.
In fact, why not hasten things and really drive the Mullahs insane by letting Israel take Iran’s place? That would quickly show the Iranian regime that intimidating the West just won't work anymore.
TheSolidSurfer.com responds: K-Swiss, thank you for the piece and it's great to have you as a member of the team.
I'd like to introduce TheSolidSurfer.com's new Washington, D.C. correspondent "K-Swiss". K-Swiss currently works on government contract projects, and has previous experience both as a congressional aide and on the team of a highly prominent lobbyist. He brings a key insider perspective on global politics to TheSolidSurfer.com, and we welcome his exclusive guest commentary.
K-Swiss reports today on an idea for punishing Iran: ban its soccer team from the World Cup.
With each passing day, as the hapless diplomats of the EU negotiate (i.e. trade pleasantries) with the Mullahs of Iran, the Islamic Republic continues to develop its nuclear program with the ultimate goal of producing atomic weapons. While it seems ever more likely that Iran will be referred to the United Nations Security Council, does anyone in their right mind really believe the UN will take action? This is the same UN that stayed silent during the genocide in Rwanda, appointed Libya to chair its Commission on Human Rights, and has proven itself morally bankrupt time and again on virtually every issue relating to Israel.
If the world really wants to get serious with Iran and the ruling Mullahs, an effective way to punish the pariah nation could be to ban it from the 2006 World Cup. This would be a large slap in the face to the dictatorial Mullahs, and a message that Iran can no longer defy international law without penalty. Iran is a soccer-crazy nation of 68 million people filled with national pride. What better way to punish it than to ban it from the ultimate world sporting event?
Some may say politics and sports should not mix, but Iran obviously saw it differently during the 2004 Athens Olympics. An Iranian judo athlete drew as his initial competitor a Jewish wrestler from Israel. Rather than compete against the Israeli, at the behest of his government the Iranian avoided the competition altogether and dropped out of the Olympics.
Banning Iran from the World Cup will not create an economic boycott nor sanctions, and most likely it will not directly end the Iranian nuclear program, but it will certainly hurt the national pride that Iran values so dearly. Although the majority of Iranians do not support the government, these people must recognize the downward spiral into which their leadership is dragging them. Banning Iran from the World Cup (and preferably all international sporting events until it gives up its nuclear ambitions) could help spur popular anger at the regime and become an important step towards a democratic revolution.
In fact, why not hasten things and really drive the Mullahs insane by letting Israel take Iran’s place? That would quickly show the Iranian regime that intimidating the West just won't work anymore.
TheSolidSurfer.com responds: K-Swiss, thank you for the piece and it's great to have you as a member of the team.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Europe, Islam, and Demographics
Last week, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a dire-sounding piece in the Wall Street Journal expressing a fear that declining Western fertility, combined with rapid Muslim growth, will eventually lead to a radical Islamic takeover of the West (especially Europe) and the decline of our modern liberal society. Steyn backs his claims with numerous alarming statistics, such as Western fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman; Muslim rates far higher (over 6 children per woman) in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Niger; continued Muslim immigration into Western nations; and those Muslims' propensity towards extremism. Islamic dominance, according the piece, is practically inevitable; as Steyn writes, "It's the demography, stupid."
But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.
Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.
First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.
Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater number: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.
You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.
Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.
Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.
But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.
Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.
Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.
Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.
But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.
Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.
First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.
Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater number: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.
You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.
Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.
Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.
But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.
Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.
Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.
Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.
Monday, January 9, 2006
Favorite Writers Series: Victor Davis Hanson
I'd like to take an opportunity to introduce readers of this blog to one of my favorite writers on the Net, Dr. Victor Davis Hanson. In addition to penning regular columns on geopolitics, sociocultural trends, military strategy, and much more, Dr. Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor of Classics at UC-Fresno, a full-time farmer, and the author of 16 full-length books. He frequently emphasizes rural American values, greatly supports the U.S. and its military, and advocates freedom and democracy for all. Although I've never met him personally, I've long been a devoted reader of his works, and he probably has been the single greatest influence on my political writing style.
Dr. Hanson maintains a website at VictorHanson.com that, among its many treasures, contains his extensive archive of columns. Most recently, his writings have included pieces on U.S. policy in the Middle East and on why we need Europe as an ally, not an enemy.
I encourage everyone to peruse his website; you will likely find it well worth the time. And for any liberal-leaning reader ready to dismiss Dr. Hanson as a "typical conservative," know too that he is a registered Democrat.
Dr. Hanson maintains a website at VictorHanson.com that, among its many treasures, contains his extensive archive of columns. Most recently, his writings have included pieces on U.S. policy in the Middle East and on why we need Europe as an ally, not an enemy.
I encourage everyone to peruse his website; you will likely find it well worth the time. And for any liberal-leaning reader ready to dismiss Dr. Hanson as a "typical conservative," know too that he is a registered Democrat.
Sunday, January 8, 2006
Israel, Energy Policy, and a Conspiracy Theory
Ted Belman over at Israpundit reports on an investigative journalist named Dr. Francisco Gil-White who, writing from his website Hirhome.com, advances the theory that the American ruling elite secretly hates Israel and wants to destroy it.
Of course conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but Belman seems to hesitantly endorse Gil-White's conclusions, stating that the evidence actually seems quite solid. This has led to a very engaging discussion on the "Comments" section of Belman's post.
I believe, however, that Gil-White's conclusions are mistaken. He has indeed produced noteworthy evidence of U.S. efforts to oppose Israel, but we must remember that America's foremost priority (like that of any nation) is to act in its own interests. Supporting Israel certainly coincides with these interests given Israel's status as the Middle East's only true liberal democracy. But America also needs the region's oil and as such has been forced to placate Arab nations as well.
This delicate balancing act, in my opinion, better explains the zigzag nature of America's Israel policies. If anything, the momentum has tilted more in Israel's favor, as President Bush has shoved aside the old policy of appeasing Arab dictators in favor of a democracy-promoting approach. Of course, many hurdles still remain, as the U.S. economy continues to crave the black gold. But as we become more energy independent, OPEC's grip on us lessens.
We can help Israel, then, by working towards freedom from Middle Eastern oil, beginning with allowing drilling in Alaska, creating more domestic refineries, mining oil shale rock in Colorado, and transitioning some of our power needs to alternative energy sources. This, as I see it, will produce a much more favorable outcome than the one feared by Gil-White and Belman.
Of course conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but Belman seems to hesitantly endorse Gil-White's conclusions, stating that the evidence actually seems quite solid. This has led to a very engaging discussion on the "Comments" section of Belman's post.
I believe, however, that Gil-White's conclusions are mistaken. He has indeed produced noteworthy evidence of U.S. efforts to oppose Israel, but we must remember that America's foremost priority (like that of any nation) is to act in its own interests. Supporting Israel certainly coincides with these interests given Israel's status as the Middle East's only true liberal democracy. But America also needs the region's oil and as such has been forced to placate Arab nations as well.
This delicate balancing act, in my opinion, better explains the zigzag nature of America's Israel policies. If anything, the momentum has tilted more in Israel's favor, as President Bush has shoved aside the old policy of appeasing Arab dictators in favor of a democracy-promoting approach. Of course, many hurdles still remain, as the U.S. economy continues to crave the black gold. But as we become more energy independent, OPEC's grip on us lessens.
We can help Israel, then, by working towards freedom from Middle Eastern oil, beginning with allowing drilling in Alaska, creating more domestic refineries, mining oil shale rock in Colorado, and transitioning some of our power needs to alternative energy sources. This, as I see it, will produce a much more favorable outcome than the one feared by Gil-White and Belman.
Monday, January 2, 2006
Myths and Facts About Iran
Recently, Iran has been all over the news as an avowed enemy of America and the West. Many still don't seem to take this seriously, though, so in the answer style of Mitchell Bard's Guide To The Arab-Israeli Conflict, I'd like to address a number of common misperceptions about the nation:
Myth: Iran is an Arab country.
Fact: Iran is a Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East, but it is not populated by Arabs. Iran's majority population is Persian, with significant minorities of Kurds and Azeris (a people ethnically native to Iran's neighbor Azerbaijan).
Myth: Iran has a democratic government.
Fact: The government consists of elected officials, but the system is far from democratic. Iran's ruling Islamic clerics control everything, and routinely ban candidates not to their liking.
Myth: Iranians predominantly support their government.
Fact: While no percentage of exact support for or opposition to the government can be accurately ascertained, a large number of Iranians clearly detest the rulling Mullahs and wish for freedom. Less scientifically, but still noteworthy, virtually every Iranian I have ever met here in America (and I know many) both considers him/herself as "Persian" (rather than the regime-favored "Iranian") and strongly opposes radical Islam.
Myth: Being Shiite, Iran does not support Sunni Muslim terrorism (such as Al Qaeda and Hamas).
Fact: Notwithstanding such religious differences, Iran's government has supported terrorism ever since it came to power in 1979. Iran has been consistently observed to have provided manpower, training, weapons, and financial support for Sunni terrorists all over the world. Sunni and Shiite radicals may hate each other (the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s being a culmination of such feelings), but they hate the West even more.
Myth: Iran wants nuclear weapons only for peaceful purposes.
Fact: Iran's nuclear program clearly is a military strategy and poses an increasing danger to the entire world. The words and actions of the country's top policymakers have clearly dictated as such, and we have no reason not to take them at face value.
Iran clearly is a dangerous nation with a threatening military agenda. We must address this issue immediately, before they can develop any sort of nuclear capability. For more information, and most importantly to help, start with the Iran Freedom Foundation.
Myth: Iran is an Arab country.
Fact: Iran is a Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East, but it is not populated by Arabs. Iran's majority population is Persian, with significant minorities of Kurds and Azeris (a people ethnically native to Iran's neighbor Azerbaijan).
Myth: Iran has a democratic government.
Fact: The government consists of elected officials, but the system is far from democratic. Iran's ruling Islamic clerics control everything, and routinely ban candidates not to their liking.
Myth: Iranians predominantly support their government.
Fact: While no percentage of exact support for or opposition to the government can be accurately ascertained, a large number of Iranians clearly detest the rulling Mullahs and wish for freedom. Less scientifically, but still noteworthy, virtually every Iranian I have ever met here in America (and I know many) both considers him/herself as "Persian" (rather than the regime-favored "Iranian") and strongly opposes radical Islam.
Myth: Being Shiite, Iran does not support Sunni Muslim terrorism (such as Al Qaeda and Hamas).
Fact: Notwithstanding such religious differences, Iran's government has supported terrorism ever since it came to power in 1979. Iran has been consistently observed to have provided manpower, training, weapons, and financial support for Sunni terrorists all over the world. Sunni and Shiite radicals may hate each other (the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s being a culmination of such feelings), but they hate the West even more.
Myth: Iran wants nuclear weapons only for peaceful purposes.
Fact: Iran's nuclear program clearly is a military strategy and poses an increasing danger to the entire world. The words and actions of the country's top policymakers have clearly dictated as such, and we have no reason not to take them at face value.
Iran clearly is a dangerous nation with a threatening military agenda. We must address this issue immediately, before they can develop any sort of nuclear capability. For more information, and most importantly to help, start with the Iran Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)