Solid Surfer Archive

Welcome to the Solid Surfer Archive

2007-01-01T21:25:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the Solid Surfer Archive. This site contains much of the relevant material from TheSolidSurfer.com. Please feel free to browse through the content (it's all listed chronologically; the posts have been arranged by and marked with their original publication dates), and hope you enjoy!

-Solid Surfer

The Last Post (For Now)

2006-12-31T21:21:00.000-08:00

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.

Odds, Ends, and Advice

2006-12-30T21:18:00.000-08:00

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

Geopolitical Recommendations (Continued)

2006-12-20T21:11:00.000-08:00

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.

Geopolitical Recommendations: Defeating Iran

2006-12-15T21:09:00.000-08:00

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.

(Soon To Be) Leaving The Blogosphere

2006-11-28T21:08:00.000-08:00

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

Western Writers and Muslim Demographics Part II

2006-11-27T21:05:00.000-08:00

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.

Western Writers and Muslim Demographic Exaggeration

2006-11-22T20:59:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2006-11-21T20:57:00.000-08:00

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.

America's Creative Class, VDH, Malaysia, Fjordman

2006-10-27T20:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Leftism and Hollywood's Unprofitable Business Model

2006-10-26T20:52:00.000-07:00

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.

North American Union? Terrible Idea.

2006-10-17T20:51:00.000-07:00

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.

Condi Rice: Leftist Approach to Israel and Palestinians

2006-10-12T20:49:00.000-07:00

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.

North Korean Nuclear Test and Defeating Iran

2006-10-10T20:47:00.000-07:00

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.

National Intelligence Estimate - Correct on Iraq?

2006-10-06T20:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Washington PAC and the 2006 Senate Elections

2006-10-03T20:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Van Taylor, Chavez and Democrats, Israel News, more

2006-09-29T20:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Rosh Hashanah, Jews and the Democratic Party, Israel

2006-09-22T20:39:00.000-07:00

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!

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

2006-09-21T20:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Jihadist Violence Validates Pope Benedict's Words

2006-09-18T20:34:00.000-07:00

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.

America Refuses to Attack Taliban - Awful Decision

2006-09-14T20:33:00.000-07:00

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.

K-Swiss: Political Insider Report from Washington

2006-09-06T20:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Misleading Statistics and the War on Poverty

2006-09-03T20:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Terrorism, Stockholm Syndrome, and America

2006-09-01T20:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Rabbi Hecht on Muslims, Airports, and Profiling

2006-08-30T20:17:00.000-07:00

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.

David Warren on the West, Islam, and Liberalism

2006-08-28T20:13:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2006-08-25T20:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Pluto's Demotion and the Flaws in Speculative Science

2006-08-24T20:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Defeating Iran No Matter What Ahmadinejad Thinks

2006-08-22T20:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Amazing - Hollywood Comes Out Against Terrorism

2006-08-18T20:05:00.000-07:00

There are many things in the world I thought would never occur. The Red Sox winning the World Series. Democratic governments in former Soviet states. A live action movie of the Transformers. And yet while these have all, indeed, recently taken place (or, in the Transformers case, soon to take place), nothing - nothing - could have prepared me for the shock of seeing what appeared in the news yesterday.

Ready? A host of Hollywood stars, including some names you'd never expect like Nicole Kidman, Michael Douglas, Don Johnson and Danny DeVito (plus some you would expect - Sly Stallone, Bruce Willis, Dennis Hopper), took out a full-page advertisement in the Los Angeles Times supporting democracy and strongly condemning the terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

Wow. Just wow. I'm still astounded. Even Hollywood is finally starting to get it. There's still a long way to go, of course, but this is quite a refreshing blast of air. If such a bastion of far-leftism can recognize the dangers of Islamic terrorism, then America's future looks a lot sunnier.

Now Tinseltown just needs to convince its comrades in the media, academia, and (especially) the judiciary to do the same thing. If that occurs, perhaps we won't even have to refer to them as comrades anymore.

Outrageous: The ACLU's Attack on Terror Prevention

2006-08-17T20:04:00.000-07:00

Does leftist idiocy have no end? A mere week after surveillance and wiretapping greatly contributed to the thwarting of a major terrorist attack, a federal judge ruled against America's conducting such methods. The ACLU, which brought the suit, argued that wiretapping without a warrant violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

Well, guess what - that's exactly the point. Wiretapping certainly does violate privacy, and that's precisely what's needed against would-be terrorists. These aren't ordinary Americans; they are jihadists who wish to destroy this nation and replace it with a Taliban-style theocracy. Anyone holding these aims deserves to be expelled from the country, much less have their privacy respected. The ACLU's disgusting lawsuit does nothing but aid America's genocial enemies.

Don't get me wrong - government wiretapping powers must always be watched to ensure that bounds aren't overstepped; the warrantless taps should certainly be limited only to jihadist terrorists. But to eliminate it entirely is idiocy bordering on treason. The ACLU should be deeply ashamed of themselves, and the suit thrown out immediately. (The U.S. government has appealed it to a higher court, with the outcome to be determined.)

For anyone who opposes wiretapping, imagine the privacy constraints the government would impose if another massive terror attack (one which likely could be prevented by surveillance) occurs. Suddenly, wiretapping doesn't seem so bad after all.

Rabbi Hecht on the Folly of Israel's Ceasefire

2006-08-16T20:01:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks, this blog has focused very primarily on the Israel-Lebanon war. I certainly plan to continue such coverage, but with so many pertinent political, cultural, and economic events also occurring in the world, I do intend to accordingly re-expand this site's scope. Look for such content to appear in the upcoming days.

Meanwhile, though, guest contributor Rabbi Shea Hecht checks in with his thoughts about Israel's ceasefire:

Accepting Defeat Over Victory
by Rabbi Shea Hecht

I am pained by the recent events in the Middle East. Truly so. The Israelis were provoked to go to war against Hezbollah and did so with a purpose. Missiles were routinely fired on Israeli towns indiscriminately. Their land was invaded, their soldiers were kidnaped and they fought back to make a point that they are a country that cannot be invaded. They wanted to disable the terrorists from being able to carry out these provocations and send a clear message to the citizens of surrounding countries that they shouldn’t think they could attack Israel, kill and kidnap their soldiers and get away with it.

Yet, against all logic and to the dismay of a public that was staunchly behind its government and hoping that the Hezbollah would be wiped out, Israel accepted a cease-fire before all the stated goals of the war were met - especially the return of the soldiers. This is embarrassing and it hurts. If Israel could not disarm Hezbollah, I’m not sure anyone could or would hold it against them. The USA didn’t disarm the terrorists in Iraq in the years since they entered and they are working at it diligently. But to leave the protection of the Israeli public in the hands of a UN peacekeeping force without the return of their soldiers - that hurts.

To add fuel to that fire, the rest of the residents of the Middle East are overjoyed at Israel’s acceptance of the UN cease-fire, calling it an Israeli "surrender” which can further encourage the Arab states to attack Israel.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamida-Reza said, “After one month of war against Lebanon's resistance, Israelis are the absolute losers and Hezbollah is the absolute winner of the war. The occupiers of Jerusalem failed, despite their military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic backings.”

Hezbollah central council member, Ahmed Barakat, told Qatari newspaper, al-Watan, that Hezbollah’s attack was a success. None of Hezbollah’s leadership was injured in the scuffle and the group still possesses thousands of rockets and other weapons for use in the days following the UN cease-fire. He added that those weapons will allow Hezbollah to hit Israel from further away so Hezbollah will not have to be near Israel’s border.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, Nasrallah seems quite happy, boasting that Hezbollah has earned a “strategic, historic victory ... We came out victorious in a war in which big Arab armies were defeated.” In what can’t be called a very big surprise, Nasrallah showed very little enthusiasm for disarming his group, declaring that to do so would be “immoral, incorrect and inappropriate. It is wrong timing on the psychological and moral level.”

Incredibly, Hezbollah’s Nassrallah feels so confident from this attack on Israel that he said he is now ready to take on the USA, too.

A few weeks ago, the talk was of what would happen if Hezbollah was crushed by Israel, its military capacity demolished and its supply lines destroyed. Some said that it would lead to a civil war in which rival militias tried to cut into Hezbollah turf and continue their fight. Today, the same people are talking about the problems posed for the other Arab nations because of Hezbollah's increased popularity. Other Arab states have their own armed Islamic groups and they are afraid of the problems that can come if the rebels in their own countries become emboldened by what is perceived as Hezbollah’s success.

Pictures of Hezbollah-leader Hassan Nasrallah “hang everywhere in Ramallah,” according to Al- Jazeera, “covering the walls and shop fronts and plastered across T-shirts and demonstration banners. Secularists, Christians and Muslims alike refer to the Hezbollah leader as Palestine's newest and truest hero.”

Before the war, or even in its early days, people paid Sheik Nasrallah scant attention. But after weeks of fighting, the leader has won over new supporters, far from his usual power base among Lebanon's poor and rural Shi'ite Muslims.

It’s frightening that Israel accepted a cease-fire before crushing Hezbollah; it’s sad that it was before their soldiers were freed. It’s common knowledge that this permanent cease fire will not hold up - in fact it has shown signs of crumbling before it was signed. It has just become another opportunity for the terrorists to declare victory. By accepting it, Israel has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Only crushing the terrorists would have been an acceptable end and if Israel couldn’t do that the least they could have done is negotiated the return of our soldiers - which is why they went to war in the first place. Honestly, what pains me most about the cease-fire that Israel accepted is this: I wonder if loss of the Israeli soldiers who gave up their lives so their brethren can be freed was worth it.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Rabbi, thank you for contributing this insightful piece. It's always a pleasure to feature your words of wisdom on this site. I am very pained as well by Israel's disastrous handling of this war. Thousands of soldiers risked their lives (and sadly, as you mentioned, dozens gave their lives entirely) to defend the Jewish people, and Olmert's government seemingly did everything possible to reduce their heroic efforts to naught. Allowing a ceasefire without completely defeating Hezbollah is the absolute wrong move; Israel cannot, under any circumstances, tolerate next door a terrorist group committed to its destruction, and I fully agree that Hezbollah plans to attack the Jewish state yet again.

I am optimistic, though, that Israel will turn the tide. Hezbollah may consider merely surviving to be a "victory", but in reality Israel damaged them quite greatly. This, I believe, will greatly benefit the IDF in the next round, as long as the government no longer restrains it. If Israel can achieve this objective, it should be in far better shape next time.

Thanks again for the essay, and look forward to posting more of your work in the future!

Israel's Path To Victory Still Exists

2006-08-14T19:59:00.000-07:00

What is Israel's government possibly thinking? The ceasefire with Lebanon and Hezbollah is just not going to work. Sure, there might be a few weeks of peace and quiet, but terrorists commited to Israel's destruction don't just roll over and decide to go home. Heck, they've already started firing again at IDF troops.

No, Hezbollah will quite predictably exploit the quiet and re-arm with the help of Iran and Syria. Then, when the UN "peacemaking" force arrives, they'll attack Israel again while the UN troops glance the other way.

Of course the ceasefire would be wonderful if it actually worked. But the history, actions, and openly declared objectives of Iran, Hezbollah, and the UN virtually guarantee that the war will continue. These entities all wish to destroy Israel, and Prime Minister Olmert and his government are playing right into their hands. Barring any shocking developments, Hezbollah will almost certainly mount another offensive, and this time the newly emboldened Iranian and Syrian armies may also enter the mix. If Israel continues its hands-off military strategy, it could be in serious trouble.

So how can the Jewish state extract itself from this mess? First, there is some good news. While Western analysts consider Israel to have lost the battle by not defeating Hezbollah entirely, Iran apparently believes the IDF won by destroying the terrorists' weapons capabilities. It took Iran six long years to arm Hezbollah, and now the terror group's function as a deterrent to Israel (and/or the U.S.) attacking Iran's nuclear plants has been seriously degraded. Hezbollah won't return to its former strength anytime soon.

But that said, it still plans to re-attack Israel as soon as possible. And to properly defend itself, Israel needs new leadership immediately. Olmert has proved himself unwilling to change, and a stronger PM must take over. (At the very least, someone who will allow the IDF to operate unencumbered.) Israel also must capitalize on Iran's difficulties and quickly destroy its nuclear facilities. This is an absolute must - Iran will likely attack Israel conventionally as a result, but its troops are no match for a non-restrained IDF, and Israel cannot allow the alternative, a nuclear Iran, to occur.

Furthermore, Israel must remember that it draws great strength from its Jewish nationhood and identity. Appeasing the "world community" is unnecessary and often dangerous. Rather, the Jewish state should look to its own political and spiritual leaders, such as Natan Sharansky and Rabbi Lazer Brody (whose website is a TheSolidSurfer.com blogroll link), for far better guidance.

This war is very winnable. Israel only needs to be up for the task.

Terrorist Plot Thwarted; Improving Airline Security

2006-08-10T19:58:00.000-07:00

Thanks to excellent counterterrorism and surveillance, America and Britain narrowly avoided what looked to be a horrendous terrorist attack. Details are still surfacing, but signs point to Al Qaeda as the likely plotters.

We should all applaud the efforts of the CIA, British intelligence, and other parties who played a role in exposing the would-be jihadists. Thousands of lives likely were saved due to their collective action. At the same time, this should greatly quiet the leftist voices clamoring against counterterrorist measures such as the Patriot Act. Of course individual rights must be protected, but not to a complete libertarian extent that thwarts all efforts at preventing mass murder. Wiretapping and intelligence gathering clearly works, and the Western world has become resultingly safer.

On a related note, though, I strongly disagree with the new safety measures just implemented by the major airlines. Not that the new measures (no carry-on luggage whatsoever allowed in Britain, and no carry-on liquids allowed in America) won't work. But they turn flying into an extreme hassle, whereas a much easier and far more effective terrorist-prevention method indeed exists: profiling passengers for jihadist tendencies.

Let's face it - for non-jihadist travelers, very few security measures are actually needed. There could be no security checkpoints, no identification needed to fly, planes with fully open cockpit doors, and plenty of plastic knives in cabin service, and yet non-Islamofascists would still present almost no terrorist risk whatsoever. Why? Because jihadist beliefs are essentially the sole catalyst.

So instead of wasting time screening the carry-on luggage of people with virtually zero chance of committing attacks, the airlines could prevent terrorism simply by identifying jihadists via targeted pre-boarding questions. Of course, no system is perfect, and hence additional safety measures are needed. But there are plenty such procedures that add significant security without ridiculously inconveniencing passengers: X-ray baggage screening, locked cockpit doors, shoe inspections, passenger bag matching, and the like.

But to create major traveler difficulties by banning carry-ons, all while avoiding the much better tactic of profiling jihadists due to PC concerns, is a very poor way to respond. America needs to follow the lead of Israel's national airline, El Al, which has profiled potential terrorists for years with outstanding success. For truly safer skies, airlines must ignore political correctness and simply choose a strategy that works.

Reuters Photos, Blogs, and Israel's Media Strategy

2006-08-07T19:57:00.000-07:00

Well, what do you know? Reuters News Service has admitted that it published at least two doctored photographs of the Israel-Hezbollah war. Both images were altered by the photographer, Lebanese cameraman Adnan Hajj, to portray Israeli attacks on Beirut as far more destructive than in reality. After public outcry, Reuters fired Hajj and withdrew his entire photographic output from its articles.

Retraction notwithstanding, mainstream media reporting on Israel is in a truly sorry state. Any discerning editor could have noticed Hajj's cheap Photoshop effects, and yet Reuters newsrooms remained fully silent and likely complicit. Of course this hardly feels as a surprise, given the media's general anti-Israel bent. But I didn't think Reuters would sink quite this low.

And yet indeed they have, which has prompted a few thoughts that I'll outline here:

First, the scary one. If Reuters doctors photographs, what's the chances it also doctors text? I'd place good odds on 100%. The news service has proven to be untrustworthy, and if its images lie, the content of its Israel articles must be suspect as well. Reuters pieces are frequently flagged by HonestReporting.com for anti-Israel bias, and it's often a very short path from unjust slant to outright fakery. The collective damage from such unbalanced reporting is incalculable.

On the flipside, however, the episode has clearly demonstrated the power of blogs and alternative media. The doctored photos were exposed not internally, but by well-known blog (and TheSolidSurfer.com Blogroll link) Little Green Footballs. And not only did the quackery go public, the public forced Reuters to take action. Just a decade ago, this likely never would have been possible. The blogosphere's ascent has mirrored the mainstream media's decline.

Finally, the incident has only confirmed how I believe Israel should conduct its media strategy. Tell the truth and only the truth. Don't sink to the enemy's desperate level. As long as Israel properly spreads the message, the truth will speak for itself. This should be an effective component of the Jewish state's plan for victory.

Israel Prime Minister Speech - Must Read!

2006-08-06T19:53:00.000-07:00

I'd like to reproduce below an excellent speech that, according to Internet rumor, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert delivered on July 31. Unfortunately the hearsay was unfounded, as further investigation has yielded that the talk was actually written by an Israeli named Ben Caspit, who proposed what he would say in the Prime Minister's place.

But it's an excellent speech, and in my opinion, would have been Olmert's best had he delivered it. (Heck, he should hire Caspit as an official advisor - this guy seems much more confident and realistic than the PM himself.)

We Will Not Capitulate
by Ben Caspit
July 31, 2006

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world. I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel.

We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere. The children ofKfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon. We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish race off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers. Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction - those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility. Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack. This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all. You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us. The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya? What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly.We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.

And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. What did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent. And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya. And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent. What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't?

In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle. I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.

Israel, Mel Gibson, Google Earth, Vinod Khosla & more

2006-08-04T19:51:00.000-07:00

Good to hear that Mel Gibson apologized sincerely for his drunken anti-Semitic outburst. This time his words sound genuine, as opposed to the slick "not enough" feel of his earlier PR statement. Let's hope he follows this remorse with heartfelt penitent actions; if he indeed demonstrates true change, the Jewish community should hold no grudge and forgive him.

It's very disappointing, however, to see so many Jewish Hollywood leaders remain silent on the issue. I don't know them personally, but come on folks - stand up for yourselves. Fortunately Gibson seems genuinely remorseful, but it's outrageous that these bigwigs simply brushed off the incident before hearing his apology. Well, at least one actor should be commended for his stance: No films with Mel says Rob Schneider.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Daniel Lapin agrees with my own statement that Gibson's ouburst is exponentially minor compared with the Jew-hatred in the Arab/Muslim world. Rabbi Lapin, in my opinion, goes too easy on Gibson, but his piece is still well worth reading.

In other news:

Victor Davis Hanson examines Western appeasement to today's Islamofascist threats, and directly compares it to that of the 1930s. This is an extremely important essay. Dr. Hanson's analysis is spot-on, and we *must* learn from our prior mistakes so to avoid them today. Anyone who values freedom, heed the warnings of this piece.

On a similar note, meanwhile, Caroline Glick analyzes Israel's lea
dership's mistakes over the past few weeks, and suggests a corrective course of action.

The Middle East, though, may not be the only source of international peril; ABC News reports on a German user of the Google Earth program who discovered a replication at a Chinese military base of the China-India border terrain. Could this mean China plans to someday attack India? It's no definite, but I certainly wouldn't discount it, given China's known expansionist ambitions. Of course, typical for a mainstream news outlet, ABC all but declares China's fully peaceful intentions. But naturally, they ignore the common sense question - if China won't attack, what's the point of the land? It's not as if, say, American military bases include terrain models of the U.S.-Canada border.

And speaking of the home front, here is a very encouraging article on alternative energy and ending America's addiction to oil. Sure, these articles are a dime a dozen, but this one is co-authored by Vinod Khosla, a founder of Sun Microsystems and partner in famed Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers. If you want a track record for results, Khosla is your man. I'd take his words very seriously.

Blog of the Day: Jewish Irani. Written by a Persian Jew who now lives (I believe) in the United States, this site is a strong advocate for Israel, freedom in Iran, and peace in the Middle East.

2006-07-31T19:49:00.000-07:00

Looks like Mel Gibson's real personality has come out. And the survey says: Anti-Semite.

Not as if this wasn't suspected before, what with the arguably anti-Jewish scenes in his film The Passion, as well as his refusal to denounce his father's bizarre Jewish conspiracy theories. But now "Mad Max" has drunkenly laid the truth bare - he just doesn't like Jews.

Gibson has since apologized for his remarks, calling them despicable and not representative of his true beliefs. He has also entered a rehab facility. But while I'd certainly like to think his apology was heartfelt, the accumulated evidence suggests he's just trying to save face. Millions of other people get plenty drunk, but they don't start spouting lines about Jews controlling the world. Furthermore, he never even specifically mentioned Jews in his apology.

So what to do about it? Just as Gibson is entitled to his views, we're all entitled to ours. And in my opinion (something I probably share with countless others), he has completely lost my fandom. Until he demonstrates genuine change (and we should certainly forgive him if he does), I'm quite happy to shun his celebrity and ignore his films. (Not that he's starred in anything I've liked recently, but still.)

Of course, the good thing is that perhaps Gibson will overcome his biases. He has completely embarassed himself, and such incidents often act as catalysts for people to learn their lessons. Indeed, even at its very worst, his anti-Semitism is nothing compared to that of hardcore Jew-haters like Ahmadinejad. Mel Gibson is small fry. Iran's leadership is evil and must be stopped.

The terrorist Mullahcracy, then, along with worldwide jihadism, should still be the primary target of efforts to fight anti-Semitism. Not that I'm defending Gibson; his comments were indeed sick and disgusting, and he should be held fully accountable. But if a drunken rant is the extent of his bigotry, I wouldn't write off his chances for repentance and change.

Israel, meanwhile, faces an existential threat from an evil foe determined to destroy it. Everyday prejudice such as Gibson's should always be countered, but let's not lose sight of the more overarching goal - throwing a murderous enemy off of our backs. That's something with which, of all people, the star of Braveheart and The Patriot should truly sympathize. If Gibson wants to stay honest to his greatest films' principles, he should love and admire the Jewish people.

Jihad Terrorism: Against Israel and America

2006-07-29T19:48:00.000-07:00

Far too many people still haven't grasped the connection between the Hezbollahamasyriairanistan war on Israel and America's fight against terrorism. Israel's fight, they say, is a regional territorial conflict that has nothing to do with Islam and can be resolved through negotiations. Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers, according to the party line, are a completely different entity that simply wants the U.S. out of the Middle East.

This school of thought has been wrong for a long time, but nevertheless, many Americans have continued to cling to it. But as of today, the myth has been shattered.

For today, a Muslim Pakistani, claiming to be angry about Israel, pulled a gun and started shooting workers at a Seattle Jewish Federation building. The gunman killed one person and injured five before being captured into police custody.

That's right - a terrorist doesn't like Israel so he chooses a Jewish target and indiscriminately aims to murder Americans. Need any more proof that Israel and America are fighting the same enemy? Didn't think so.

The United States, as well as all nations, should never tolerate this outrageous act of terrorism. This shooting was no ordinary crime, but a well planned jihadist attack tied specifically to a hatred of Israel, Jews, and America. All Americans must recognize the gunman's motive, and the government must specifically act to ensure that such terrorism never occurs again - directly by treating the shooting as a terrorist hate crime, and broadly by continuing the fight against jihadism until we win it.

Meanwhile, we should all mourn for the victim, a mother of two, and hope and pray that the wounded heal speedily and completely.

The last vestiges of the illusion have been shattered; Israel and America fight the same jihadist enemy, and must utterly and completely defeat it. Teaming up for that purpose would benefit not only our two countries, but the entire world.

UN and Media Silent on War: Ethiopia and Somalia

2006-07-26T19:47:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, a sovereign country decided to fight back against Islamic terrorists firing weapons at it from a neighboring nation. The terrorists completely instigated the war, but the sovereign country rightfully feels that it must respond as a matter of self defense. The battle has been difficult, and innocent civilians have been killed on both sides, but the sovereign country cannot allow its people to be continually attacked by terrorists. And so the war rages on, with the sovereign country aiming to defeat the terrorists and protect its people.

Anyone know which country I'm talking about? Here's a hint - it's not Israel.

The answer, rather, is Ethiopia. That's right, another nation is involved in a highly similar war to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Jihadist terrorists who took over parts of Somalia have massed at the Ethiopian border and fired weapons into Ethiopian territory. In response, Ethiopia has sent its army into Somalia to crush the attackers.

Did you know all of this? I sure didn't until I read this article by WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah discussing the conflict and its likeness to that in the Middle East.

But why hasn't the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict been publicized? The Israel-Hezbollah war has remained the centerpiece of every mainstream media outlet for weeks, but practically nothing has been written about the almost parallel clash in the Horn of Africa.

According to Farah, the media and "international community" just don't care about Ethiopia, because it isn't a conflict they can blame on Jews, Zionists, and America. Therefore, they simply ignore it altogether.

At first glance, this conclusion seems almost too far-fetched to be true, but you know what - I think Farah has hit the nail upon the head. The Ethiopian situation seems almost tailor-made for international sympathy (war in Africa, civilians under attack, humanitarian concerns), but the UN and the leftwing-led media have barely even mentioned the conflict let alone attempted to resolve it. Clearly, it appears that they genuinely don't care.

But regardless of world opinion, the conflict rages on, and we must fully support Ethiopia in its efforts. Israel, Ethiopia, the United States, and many other nations are all fighting the same war against Islamic jihadism, and the sooner we all unite, the more quickly victory will be achieved. It's time the mainstream media joins the team as well.

It's More Than Just Israel: Iran's Threat To America

2006-07-20T19:41:00.000-07:00

Given the current conflict between Israel and Iran-supported Hezbollah, along with Iran's Ahmadinejad openly wishing to destroy Israel, many Americans likely believe that Iran's key grievance remains the Jewish state.

But while the Mullahs' threat to Israel is very real, it would be highly erroneous to assume Iran has limited its ambitions to the Middle East. Indeed, from firsthand reports from Americans who traveled to Iran, its primary target is none other than the United States. Iran has long declared this - they call America the "Great Satan" and Israel only the "Little Satan" - but largely it has been dismissed as mere rhetoric.

Plenty of evidence has arisen, however, that Iran takes these words very seriously. Ahmadinejad has supported Iraqi terrorist insurgents against American troops, and has taunted Americans at home both economically and militarily.

Furthermore, in an additional escalation, (as hinted in the previous post) Iran's government has been actively propagandizing its people against the U.S. Recently at a private Israel-support event, I met several archaeologists who had just returned from Iran on a search for the current whereabouts of Noah's Ark. This group had traveled through several Iranian cities, and were able to glimpse a much more authentic view of the nation than the typical polished image fed to Western media. And what the group saw was this: pure unadulterated government hate for America.

All over town centers, official signs and billboards proclaimed "Death to America" and similar slogans. The archaeologists saw virtually nothing directed at Israel, but plenty of large anti-U.S. images such as the Statue of Liberty with a skull for its face. Almost everywhere, the government seemed to blame America, President Bush, and Western freedom/capitalism for the ills of the world.

Most Americans know very little about the extent of this hatred, but it is the absolute genuine face of the Iranian leadership. Ahmadinejad is not simply a nut and his anti-American rhetoric no mere hyperbole. This man and his government seriously intend to defeat the United States, and they clearly believe they can do so.

To stop him, America must absolutely take Iran's intentions at face value and respond accordingly. This means one thing: Under no circumstances can we allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Unlike the Cold War-era Soviet Union (and even North Korea today), Iran likely will hardly hesitate to use them. This cannot whatsoever be permitted to occur.

No more dillydallying. No more accepting Iran's own timetable. Now is the time to act. Iran must be stopped.

I can't wait to see one of these in Ahmadinejad's front yard:

(photo of American flag missing)

(Yep, it's a 6.65-acre floral flag. Photo credit: Bill Morson and Lompoc.com. Hat Tip: Rabbi Shea Hecht)

Dennis Prager on the Middle East Conflict's Root Cause

2006-07-19T19:40:00.000-07:00

Want to know the root of the Middle East conflict? Dennis Prager explains:

"The Arab and other Muslim enemies of Israel (for the easily confused, this does not mean every Arab or every Muslim) want Israel destroyed. That is why there is a Middle East conflict. Everything else is commentary."

As downbeat as this reality may sound, the truth doesn't get much more direct. The Arab-Muslim world never accepted Israel from the beginning, and largely continues to oppose its existence. That, and only that, is the primary the reason for the conflict. In the current war, hence, Israel has no choice but to overcome its enemies' position.

Unfortunately I only have time now for this brief post, but coming very soon, I'd like to elaborate on it further, particularly on what it means for America and the threat from Iran. I recently met some Americans who returned from a visit to Iran (I was astounded that they went, but they had a good reason, which I'll also touch upon), and they noticed many revealing aspects of the nation almost wholly unreported by the international mainstream media. In the meantime, feel welcome to check our Jerusalem Post ticker at left for continuous real-time updates, and hope you enjoy our site.

Prime Minister Olmert Declares His Leadership

2006-07-18T19:39:00.000-07:00

Wow. I'll have to admit, I certainly didn't see this one coming. But it's been a phenomenal turn for the better from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Just weeks after pledging to withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and days after appearing wobbly in his resolve against Israel's enemies, Olmert has finally changed course to a far tougher direction. Enough is enough, he has declared, Israel must eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas.

Way to go Mr. Prime Minister! Israel has long desired and offered peace, but these terror groups have never accepted it and have always aimed to destroy the Jewish state. For years, Israel wishfully ignored this reality and allowed terrorism to fester. But finally the naivety is no more. As Olmert stated,

"It is of regional and international interest to control and dismantle the terror organizations and remove this threat from the Middle East. We intend to do so....We will attack every terrorist staging area, destroy every terrorist base and liquidate members of the terror groups. Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of the threat of missiles and rockets on its citizens."

Now there's a workable plan. For the first time in his tenure, I'd like to raise many cheers to Israel's Prime Minister! With this type of attitude, Israel is in great shape!

And I'm sure many Israelis also agree with Olmert's firm conclusion:

"I am more proud today than any other day in my life to be a citizen of the State of Israel. We will not surrender and we will not back down."

L'Chaim!

Weekend News Update

2006-07-14T19:38:00.000-07:00

Just reported today, Israel's Air Force has destroyed the home of Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. While perhaps not quite as satisfying as lighting a Menorah in Saddam Hussein's captured palace, the operation was highly justified and Nasrallah absolutely deserved it. Let's hope this is just the tip of the iceberg in Israel's offensive; Hezbollah needs to learn as firsthand as possible that attacking Israel is always a losing proposition.

Meanwhile, Israel has also discovered that the rockets launched on Haifa were made in Iran. No surprise there, of course; it's been clear that Iran has supported the terrorists from the beginning. But this should also directly signal America that Iran's ambitions include the entire Middle Eastern region, which is yet more evidence of the danger its nuclear program poses to the world.

Israel is also all over the blogosphere:

Columnist Tammy Bruce slams international critics of Israel for their weakness and hypocrisy.

The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill (that's the name of the blog) explains the Islamic impetus behind Israel's attackers' intentions. I disagree with the post's contention that the jihadists' aims would be different were Israel not a Jewish state -- fundamentalist Muslims hate everyone else, but Jews in particular -- but overall it very astutely analyzes the situation.

Front Page Magazine's David Horowitz tells why the Western world should absolutely support Israel. (Technically this is a regular article and not part of his blog, but it's highly worth reading in all shapes or forms.)

Blogger MadZionist lays down the truth: Disengagement and appeasement have failed, and now it's time to unite and support Israel together.

And briefly, in other news:

Check out Victor Davis Hanson's new piece on President Bush and "Cowboy Diplomacy." As per Dr. Hanson's usual output, this essay is par exellence.

Israel's Mission Must Be To Win

2006-07-13T19:36:00.000-07:00

Good news on the technical front - Typepad recovered part of my erased post, and I reconstructed the remainder and posted it all a few moments ago. (I also set it to display the date it was written, July 12.)

Unfortunately, though, that's been only a small personal ray of light in what has become a very difficult day for Israel and the entire free world. Hezbollah rockets have struck Haifa, Tzfat, and many smaller towns and kibbutzes in northern Israel. Several soldiers and two civilians have been killed, with hundreds more wounded. Furthermore, Iran and Syria have all but admitted their roles in sponsoring the terrorists.

Israel has thankfully responded with more force, but I'm still concerned that it's not nearly enough. Recent events (and those not-so-recent) have clearly proved that appeasing terrorism never works and instead only further encourages the perpetrators. But instead of unleashing the full might of the IDF, Israel still seems so concerned with international opinion that it practically fights with one hand tied behind its back.

To this, I say screw the EU, the Arab nations, and the UN. (Pardon my choice of verb, but it's necessary.) They always condemn Israel regardless of circumstances, and Israel should just flat-out ignore them and concentrate on the task at hand.

Israel didn't want this war, but Iran, Syria, and their terrorist proxies have handed it over. These enemies cannot be appeased, only defeated, and Israel must be willing to act on this notion. Failure is not an option.

For more on how we can all help, two excellent resources are the Simon Wiesenthal Center on the political side, and Rabbi Lazer Brody from a more spiritual perspective. (Rabbi Brody, a former IDF commando who lives in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod, has also been providing regular Israel news updates; here is his frontpage link.)

Israel - Time To Forcefully Strike Back

2006-07-12T19:35:00.000-07:00

It's time for Israel to quit restraint and strike hard to devastate Hamas and Hezbollah. Both terror organizations have all but declared war on the Jewish State, and quite frankly, enough is enough. Israel clearly prefers peace with its neighbors (as it should), but when you are repeatedly attacked, sometimes you just have no choice. Restraint and appeasement have only emboldened Israel's enemies, and now Israel must respond with appropriate force.

Olmert's government has held back for far too long, even limiting its recent military incursions. But no nation should have to live under a constant cloud of terror, especially one that is so utterly preventable.

Israel has reached a crossroads. No more empty "tough" promises. No more appeasement. No more naively wishful thinking. Hamas and Hezbollah have left Israel with little alternative, and now it's time for action. Defeat these evil terrorists once and for all.

News From The Mexico Election

2006-07-07T19:34:00.000-07:00

In news from Mexico, conservative presidential candidate Felipe Calderon narrowly won the presidential election over leftist rival Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Center-left candidate Roberto Madrazo placed a distand third.

This victory is excellent news for both Mexico and the United States. As a center-rightist from current president Vicente Fox's National Action Party, Calderon has pledged to support business and free trade, two primary drivers for lifting Mexico further out of poverty. Calderon also intends to broaden relations with the U.S. and form a stable coalition government. Lopez Obrador, on the other hand, favors heavy government social spending and turning farther away from American relations. He is no Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales, but nevertheless his populist governing approach seems almost straight out of the welfare-state playbook that has failed so many European nations in recent years.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, meanwhile, Lopez Obrador has alleged election fraud and resultingly is threatening street protests. This, despite a recount which once again confirmed Calderon as the victor. Lopez Obrador may be understandably upset, but publicly becoming a sore loser is, in my opinion, a poor way to respond. Al Gore acted similarly in 2000 and his career has yet to recover. Calderon has offered his rival a place in his cabinet; unless Lopez Obrador has a soft spot for politicians-turned-global-warming-advocates, I think he'd be smart to drop the protests and accept it.

North Korea's Missile Test and Stopping Kim Jong-Il

2006-07-05T19:32:00.000-07:00

Another day, another missile. That's apparently what Kim Jong-Il and the fanatics in North Korea want the rest of the world to fear, having just launched seven Taepodong 2 test missiles into the Sea of Japan.

As such, both East Asia and the United States are on high alert, with the U.N. Security Council (who somehow found time away from their disgustingly continuous Israel-bashing) condemning the launch and America scrambling to activate its missile-defense system.

Given North Korea's confirmed possession of nuclear weapons, this is a clearly a serious issue. But also given the nation's small size and limited non-nuclear offensive capabilities, we must ask ourselves - just what are their intentions? The Communist state's strength is miniscule compared to both the U.S. and its surrounding neighbors (China, Japan, South Korea, Russia), and even a dictator as unstable as Kim likely favors self-preservation enough to avoid tempting bigger powers with a nuclear exchange.

So why the missile launch? Could Kim merely be delusionally overconfident like Iran's President Ahmadinejad? Is he genuinely just bonkers as many have claimed? Perhaps he pines to recapture Communism's glory days of the Soviet Union years? Or does he have something truly sinister in mind, such as an EMP attack over the American heartland?

North Korea's government has hinted at very little, but I believe the answer is actually none of the above. Rather, Kim's regime feels pressured by the capitalistic successes surrounding it (particularly South Korea and Japan), and merely wishes to remain in power via nuclear deterrent. Hence, unlike with Iran (where any nuclear possesion is a grave danger that must not be allowed), the North Korean threat to America (and everyone else) can be minimized if properly managed. But poorly handled, it could become disastrous.

Now I know this conclusion may sound naively optimistic, and certainly it is not ideal. (An exponentially better situation would have been Bill Clinton stopping a pre-nuclear Kim when he had the chance.) But after examining the range of possibilities, I do feel it is likely. First, while Kim clearly rules the state fanatically, he is not insane and indeed appears to quite intelligent and rational. Wikipedia reports, for example, that Kim holds an economics degree, systematically consolidated his hold on power, and controls every major detail of North Korea's government operations. Furthermore, he probably doesn't overconfidently aim to defeat the U.S.; unlike Ahmadinejad, Kim is no Muslim utopian (nor, by most accounts, a religious person at all), and as such would not likely risk his life for a war or nuclear brinksmanship. Finally, as the ruler of a small nation surrounded by larger powers, Kim surely must realize that he has virtually no chance of replicating the Soviet Union's past success.

So what's left as an explanation? Protecting his hold on power. Kim is an international pariah, his state is dirt-poor, and his people despise him. What better way to stay on top than with nuclear weapons? North Korea's missile tests, then, are Kim's attempt to remind the world that he's still in charge.

Knowing this, I believe the conflict can be managed the same way the U.S. deterred the Soviets - via mutually assured destruction. America must give Kim an ultimatum that if he launches (or gives to terrorists) a single nuclear missile, we will bomb him back to the stone age. At the same time, just as with the Soviets, we must pressure Kim with economic incentives to free his people. These strategies together can help stabilize North Korea's offensive capabilities while gradually enticing it towards capitalism and democracy.

The bad news, of course, is that Kim has already developed nukes, which presents an instant inherent risk. For this reason, appealing to the U.N. Security Council is a terribly wrong response. China and Russia regularly support Kim specifically to oppose the U.S., and including them in discussions will only prolong the crisis and perhaps even embolden Kim to pull further stunts.

America has one clear way to solve this standoff: Force North Korea to play by our rules rather than playing by theirs. The sooner we do it, the safer we'll be and the sooner the North Korean people will finally receive their much needed freedom.

Happy 4th Of July!!

2006-07-04T19:29:00.000-07:00

Hope everyone has been enjoying a great 4th of July! It's fantastic to celebrate 230 years of the USA! Got to love a day off work, fireworks, barbecues, and fun!

In addition, I'd like to discuss the holiday's deeper meaning. Often it's all too easy to take for granted our uniquely American freedoms, successes, and opportunities, and each year our nation's birthday happily reminds us of these wonderful privileges. So along with today's celebrations, let's also feel thankful that we live in what our national anthem so excellently defines as the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Much excellent writing about this day has also surfaced on the Internet, and here are some of the best that I have enjoyed:

Celebrate the Majesty of America

Enjoy Memories of the 4th

Salute the Troops

And to put things into perspective, imagine A World Without America.

I'd also like to relate a personal note by quoting one of my wife's favorite songs. More than anything else, her experiences as an immigrant from a third-world country have shown me just how privileged Americans stand compared to most everyone else on the globe. We really should be ever-more thankful indeed.

G-d Bless the U.S.A.

By Lee Greenwood
© MCA Music

If tomorrow all the things were gone I’d worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away.

And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land G-d bless the U.S.A.

From the lakes of Minnesota, to the hills of Tennessee,
across the plains of Texas, from sea to shining sea,

From Detroit down to Houston and New York to LA,
Well, there’s pride in every American heart,
and it’s time to stand and say:

I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
And I won’t forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I’d gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land G-d bless the U.S.A.

More Israel News: Olmert, Settlers, Friends in Africa

2006-06-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

Military operations continue in Israel, but The Jerusalem Post's incomparable Caroline Glick lays down the unfortunate reality: Olmert Still Refuses To Get It. Palestinian factions including both Hamas and Fatah, plus much of the surrounding Arab world (not to even mention Iran), all want to destroy Israel, and Olmert responds by laying blame on the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria.

This boneheaded thinking must stop immediately, or else Israel could face ever greater dangers to its populace. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Jewish settlers in the territories are a vital part of the nation, and Israel is exponentially stronger united than divided.

On a similar token, meanwhile, the Jewish state should welcome its allies across the globe with open arms. In particular, many millions of such friends (now famously including Ghana's John Paintsil) reside in Sub-Saharan Africa, and now it's time, a Jerusalem Post writer argues, for Israel to fully embrace them. I couldn't agree more. Cheers to such a relationship!

Israel News: The Best Defense Is A Good Offense

2006-06-29T19:26:00.000-07:00

Finally, even Olmert and the peaceniks could take it no more. After countless Palestinian terror and rocket attacks, Israel has at last undertaken some offensive measures, striking Hamas in Gaza primarily through aerial attacks. According to the IDF, the strikes will continue until the terrorists release kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

This is certainly a good start, but Israel needs to continue the assault far beyond its stated objective. Of course Cpl. Shalit's safety is without question of the utmost importance, and we should steadfastly hope and pray for his quick return. But once this occurs, Israel mustn't relax its offensive and should instead continue to press against the terrorists with overwhelming force. These evil enemies of the Jewish state have repeatedly demonstrated their genocidal intentions, and clearly cannot be appeased by concessions and negotiations. Only utter defeat will stop them, and Israel must accomplish this immediately and overwhelmingly.

Other Israeli news:

One of the original investors in a Palestinian power plant destroyed in the recent Gaza operations was none other than disgraced U.S. company Enron. Even in the unlikeliest of ways, the Palestinian propensity for criminality still astounds.

Meanwhile, away from the conflict, Israel continues to be a hotbed of technology and innovation. Notably in recent days, software company Tuval Industries developed a program to simulate human speech in Microsoft Power Point presentations. Now just type in sentences and your slideshow can chatter away.

Also last night, two Israeli players were drafted into the NBA: Lior Eliyahu by the Orlando Magic (who subsequently traded him to the Houston Rockets) and Yotam Halperin by the Seattle Supersonics. No Israeli has ever played an NBA regular-season game (Doron Sheffer was drafted in the mid-Nineties, but opted to return to Israel), and it appears this will be a first in 2006.

Israel News, Women Vote in Kuwait, Roger Waters

2006-06-27T19:22:00.000-07:00

Israel's government must wake up immediately. Palestinian terrorists just announced that they have created an arsenal of WMDs. That's right - chemical and biological weapons with which they surely plan to attack. And what has Israel done in response? Practically nothing. Olmert's leadership has taken a dangerous and disturbing turn, and his government must either assume the offensive or cede power to a new leadership that will. Read fellow blogger Mad Zionist's analysis of the situation for more details and insight. Columnist Diana West, meanwhile, offers very similar advice to America in its fight against Islamic jihadism and terror.

On a similar note, in complete violation of the World Trade Organization agreement, Saudi Arabia has announced that it will continue to economically boycott Israel. And at the same time, its school textbooks still refer to Jews and Christians as "apes and "swine". Real "friendly" country they are. The fact that they've had the gall to offer a "peace plan" while simultaneously trying to undercut Israel from all directions is just outrageous.

Of course, though, ridiculous one-sided criticism of Israel continues among the clueless leftist crowd. After performing a concert at a joint Jewish-Arab village (the circumstances surrounding which I previously covered on this site), former Pink Floyd leader Roger Waters compared Israel's life-saving security barrier to the Berlin Wall, and urged its removal in the name of "peace". Apparently some people just never learn. Israel Insider sums it best: Just another prick at the wall.

Speaking of leftism, meanwhile, fellow blogger Beakerkin, writing over at The Beak Speaks, has penned a hard-hitting, insightful piece on why Communism has been particularly terrible for the Jewish people. Read the comments at the bottom of the post as well; it's a fascinating discussion.
Fortunately not all is bad in the Middle East, though: Women in Kuwait finally have been permitted to vote. This is a powerful step towards modernization and rejection of Islamic fundamentalism, and we should all encourage such further reforms in the region.

Meanwhile, in other news:

Take that, North Korea! U.S. missile defense system completes successful testing.

Real Clear Politics' Jack Kelly explains why America's war in Iraq has greatly benefited from the mainstream media's decline and the rise in alternative news outlets.

And finally, it's a couple weeks old, but rock musician Seth Swirsky (he's probably not a household name but wrote huge hits for Taylor Dayne, Al Green Tina Turner, Celine, Dion, and many others) lays out why he abandoned the Left and became a political conservative. In Swirsky's words, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan: "I didn't leave the party - It left me!" Visit his website at http://www.seth.com/ (which is pretty neat in itself - of all the people out there named Seth, he's the one with the site name) for more information.

New Sports Hero: Footballer John Paintsil of Ghana

2006-06-20T19:20:00.000-07:00

TheSolidSurfer.com would like to present our new sports hero: Ghanian soccer player John Paintsil. After scoring two goals in a key World Cup win over the Czech Republic, Pantsil, who plays professionally in Israel, waved an Israeli flag to the cheering crowd. (Photo credit: AP)

Naturally, Paintsil's gesture has thrilled many Israelis, many of whom warmly celebrated Ghana's victory. Just as unsuprisingly, though, a number of Arab countries have erupted in fury, and as usual, the conspiracy theory allegations are already on the table. (And yes, you read that correctly - Egyptian newspapers think Paintsil is a Mossad agent. What next - an editorial claiming he's the Mayor of Tel Aviv in disguise?)

So why did Paintsil do it? In his own words, because he is a religious man who holds a special place in his heart for Israel. Also, as a foreign resident, he greatly enjoys living there, and wanted to show some appreciation for his many Israeli fans.

Sadly, Ghana's Football Association then succumbed to political correctness and apologized to those "offended" by the flag-wave. But Paintsil said he didn't care about political implications; he only wanted to support Israel and its people. And plus, he continued, many Ghanians agreed with him: "Everyone was very proud of me for bringing a little happiness to Israel."

Count me in among that crowd. That's why Mr. Paintsil is TheSolidSurfer.com's first official Sports Hero of the Day.

Reducing Oil Dependence: Clean Energy From Algae

2006-06-18T19:17:00.000-07:00

As previously discussed on this blog, America has numerous options for reducing its unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol, for one, has been a recent newsmaker, and hydrogen fuel, oil shale, tar sand extraction, synthetic petroleum, and even nuclear fusion have entered the possibility mix.

But while all of these techniques show great promise, they face the overwhelming downside of high costs. In time, innovation should lower these expenses, but this provides little consolation to our immediate needs, given the petrodollars that continuously flood into terror-supporting regimes.

So what should America do? A Cambridge, Massachusetts start-up called GreenFuel Technolgies Corporation has an exciting answer: Start collecting the seaweed from our sushi rolls.

Well, not quite that nitty gritty, but algae is indeed the name of the game. GreenFuel has developed a unique bioreactor system that stimulates the marine weed to convert the carbon dioxide from smokestack emissions into clean-burning biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, and methane. Just grow the algae, place it in the smokestacks, apply GreenFuel's conversion process, and presto: the emissions are soaked up and transformed into energy.

This is accomplished, meanwhile, without creating substantial additional costs; algae growth is inexpensive, and little fossil fuel power is required beyond the coal already burning beneath the smokestacks.

GreenFuel's process is quick, handy, and can be implemented on a large scale almost immediately. For the time being, this technology really does appear to be the answer. It may not supplant foreign oil entirely, but until the costs of ethanol, oil shale, and fusion decline dramatically, it is an excellent and highly welcome alternative.

Rabbi Hecht on Fences and Borders

2006-06-15T19:15:00.000-07:00

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Besides being the centerpiece of a famous Robert Frost poem, this line often accurately applies to international relations. Nations have a right to protect their sovereignities and defend their populations, and border fences frequently provide a handy solution. In just recent years, countries from India to Morocco to Spain to Botswana have employed walls and fences to successfully demarcate territorial lines and block out would-be invaders.

During construction of these fences, the world has collectively yawned, tacitly understanding the purpose of the barriers and muting any criticism. This large-scale acceptance of fences, in fact, has been so widespread and unremarkable that it would almost escape notice.

But in all this agreement, one striking anomaly stands out: Israel. The moment the Jewish state began constructing a fence to block out Palestinian terrorism, the international community erupted in anger. Hypocrisy? As is usual with hyper-critics of Israel, of course.

So what can Israel do? Guest contributor Rabbi Shea Hecht has an excellent answer: Expose the critics, and their hypocrisy will fall.

People Who Live in Glass Houses
by Rabbi Shea Hecht

Recently, native Hawaiians began struggling with the United States for autonomy. In another part of our country, a barrier is being built along the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants out. These two current event issues don’t really have much to do with each other. However, they do mimic events in the Middle East. Since these events are so similar to events in the Middle East one would think that American reaction to the issues at home would be similar to their reaction of events in the Middle East.

Americans backed the overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1893, annexed the country to ours in 1898 and Hawaii gained statehood in 1959. All of this was done because in that imperialist era many countries were vying for colonies and Americans were not the only ones who had plantations and farms in Hawaii. Being that its ruler, Queen Liliuokalani, was weak it was only a matter of time before some other country took Hawaii if the USA didn’t. Once the USA acquired Hawaii they assured themselves that the produce and taxes of the country remained in their hands and that no other country can take Hawaii over and push the American sugar planters out.

Now, less than 100 years later, some Hawaiians claim that what transpired back then was illegal, and they want self government. Though one solution that’s been offered is separate land and government for the Natives, many native Hawaiians aren’t satisfied and want complete secession from the USA.

The Middle East has a similar problem and based on American feeling there I feel Americans should give the Hawaiians their complete freedom. Israel is being urged to give away land to pre-war borders. Because of this American attitude I would think that Americans are aware that just because you lived in the land and have papers stating that it’s yours - or you won it through a revolution or war - doesn’t mean the land is yours. So perhaps the USA should go back to pre-war borders, too, and give the Hawaiians their complete freedom.

Furthermore, I didn’t hear any major protest by Americans when the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, or NATFHE, the largest teacher’s union in Great Britain passed a vote to boycott Israeli academia because of Israeli "apartheid" policy - policy that is not meant to separate but to protect. To me the lack of loud protest means what the British did is just fine. The solution that is on the table with Hawaii right now, to give the Hawaiians their own land and government within Hawaii, is similar to the two-state solution in the Middle East which is being dubbed apartheid. If Israel shouldn’t go there, I don’t think the USA should be either.

As for the issue of building fences to protect a country as the USA is doing at the Mexican border: when the House of Representatives voted in late May to tighten sanctions on Palestinians it drew the displeasure of the Bush administration because the legislation "went too far." Can a law that protects the victim from the aggressor go "too far?" The USA certainly doesn’t feel that way about the illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico. The news articles over the past few weeks reflect anger by Americans who feel their quality of life is being ruined by outsiders. When Israelis’ feel their very lives are in danger should they not have the support of nations that feel this same way? Mexicans are hurting the USA monetarily; they aren’t threatening American lives. Building a fence to take such a strong stand against people who are looking for a better life, seems like things are going "too far." When President Bush spoke at the graduation at the Military Academy at West Point, he told the cadets that ignoring the lack of freedom in the Middle East has not made America safer. I’m sure he can understand that it hasn’t made Israel safer either and they must protect themselves - just as the USA should.

Additionally, when Mexican President Vincente Fox said that the USA and Mexico must work together to manage immigration or Mexico will sue the US over immigration he became a laughing stock. You are hurting us and suing us? Yet, terrorists enter Israel under many different guises, hurt the citizens, kill people cause mayhem and they sue for damages and freedoms! Why is it different?

"People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones" is an old and overused adage. Nonetheless, it fits snugly into current events. If the USA isn’t vigorously protesting the British Academia boycott they shouldn’t be setting up a separate state for the indigenous native Hawaiians, because that would be the same apartheid set up in their own land. If the USA supports a wall between the USA and Mexico to protect the American population from the "invading" Mexicans who are hurting the "flavor" of our country and our finances, they certainly should not be complaining about any similar steps taken to protect Israeli citizens. Perhaps the USA should look into their own backyard before they throw stones.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Rabbi, thank you for the excellent piece. I couldn't have said it better myself. Hopefully the "glass houses" will crumble as more and more people recognize the folly of unfairly singling Israel for criticism.

Everyone please note also that the article is available as well on Rabbi Hecht's own website. If you enjoy reading TheSolidSurfer.com, I highly recommend paying him a visit. And, of course, stay tuned for more of his writing and that of our other guest contributors alongside our main content.

Cheering For Iran At The World Cup

2006-06-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

I'm going to cheer for Iran in its next World Cup soccer game.

Yep, you heard that correctly - I hope Iran wins its upcoming match against Portugal. No, I have nothing against the Portuguese, and I mean no disrespect to the thousands of protestors demonstrating against Iran at the tournament. (In fact, I quite sympathize with them.) But this weekend, I'll be thrilled to see an Iranian victory.

Why? Because if Iran advances to the competition's second round (and they need a win to stay alive, having lost their opener to Mexico 3-1), President Ahmadinejad will likely visit the tournament site in Nuremberg, Germany to watch his team. And once he steps onto foreign soil, the chances of his being arrested for genocidal intent increases dramatically.

True, Germany has cowardly declared that it won't do so due to Ahmadinejad's diplomatic passport. But let's see whether they'll actually keep this promise in light of such massive external pressure. And even without the host nation, I'm willing to bet that America, Israel, and/or other allies have sent agents to the tournament to pounce upon the Iranian leader at the first possible opportunity.

Sixty years ago, some of the world's worst war criminals were convicted at Nuremberg. It's time to add another to the list.

So here's a huge cheer for Iran. First for its soccer team. And then for its freedom.

Conservative Rock Songs, Reagan's Children, and more

2006-06-06T19:13:00.000-07:00

Lots of interesting happenings to catch up on:

The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick hammers Western leftists who ignore and/or appease Muslim jihadism. And she's absolutely correct to do so.

WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah questions the wisdom of President Bush's choice of Goldman Sachs boss Hank Paulson for U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. I don't know enough about Paulson to properly comment on Farah's particular worries (Paulson's ties to the Chinese government and to leftwing environmental groups), but I'm concerned about something else - can a career dealmaker handle the Treasury post as well as the prominent economists who recently preceded him? Only time will tell.

National Review has chosen a list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs of all time. At Number One - The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again". Never realized until now how anti-leftist the lyrics are, but it's a fantastic song all the way. My personal choice for most conservative tune, the Beatles' "Taxman", sits at Number Two. Check out the whole list - plenty of classics, and more than a few surprises.

Have the recent illegal immigrant marches persuaded Americans to assume more hardline views on the issue? A small clue may have come from a Michigan GOP straw poll, which immigration hawk Tom Tancredo surprisingly won by a healthy margin. Granted, straw polls are greatly limited by small sample size, but it's an interesting development to watch.

Victor Davis Hanson explains the reasons behind Europe's widespread general sense of unease. Unsurprisingly, of course, the primary culprits are leftism, the welfare state, and Muslim radicalism. But as always, Dr. Hanson injects unique perspectives into his analysis that result in typically fascinating reading.

Blog of the Day: Reagan's Children. No, this isn't a family journal by Michael, Ron Jr., and Patti, but rather a blog about today's Generation Y, who were born during Reagan's presidential years (1981-1989) and have largely inherited his conservative legacy. Two of my favorite Internet columnists, Ben Shapiro and Hans Zeiger, are prominent contributors.

Back Online at TheSolidSurfer.com

2006-06-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

Dear all,

I'm back in town, and TheSolidSurfer.com is again up and running! Many thanks to the guest contributors from the past week; it's great to have your writing on the site. I plan to resume regular posting shortly, but in the meantime, I'd like to mention that on my trip I met fellow blogger MadZionist, and we had a great time hanging out! More on this later, but check out his blog for the scoop.

Hope everyone has had a great week, and I look forward to resuming content on this site.

-TheSolidSurfer.com

K-Swiss on Jewish Liberalism

2006-05-30T19:08:00.000-07:00

Hope everyone had a great Memorial Day. It's easy to view this holiday as just another vacation day from work (and don't get me wrong, that's a wonderful thing too), but we should also remember just how much it means to honor our soldiers who gave their lives to protect our nation.

I am traveling this week, so posting will be light for several days. In the meantime, though, our Washington correspondent "K-Swiss" checks in with a reflectively hard-hitting essay on the seemingly paradoxical axis of American Jews and leftist liberalism.

Jewish Liberalism in America
by K-Swiss

Last month in Washington D.C., as in many other cities around the nation, rallies were held urging the Bush administration and Congress to help end the genocide taking place in Sudan's Darfur region. While news of the actual genocide has received only occasional media attention (and in these few instances, it is very seldom mentioned that Arab Muslims are the perpetrators), the “Save Darfur” rally did attract significant coverage from both the local and national media. In the days leading up to the rally, I read many articles and watched numerous TV pieces about the timing of the rally, the purpose, the location, the celebrity speakers, etc. And within this media space, one thing in particular stood out to me: the number of Jews and Jewish organizations helping to organize the rally and in attendance at the rally. Ranging from the keynote speakers to the participants being interviewed on TV (many Jewish-sounding last names) to my own circle of Jewish friends in D.C., it seemed as though Darfur was a specifically Jewish cause.

Now in itself, this is a truly great thing. Rallying to end genocide is a noble cause and a moral obligation, and it takes on special importance to Jews in particular because of the Holocaust. But during post-rally coverage, I could not help but wonder to myself - how many of the Jews at the Darfur rally had ever attended an Israel rally? How many of them denounced President Bush at the rally even though he has arguably been the most pro-Israel President in Israel’s 58 year history? How many of these people would give anything to save Darfur, but ignore the genocidal remarks made against Israel by Iran's President Ahmadinejad?

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be too many. Having lived in D.C. the past few years, I have seen a disproportionate amount of Jews leading rallies and at the forefront of liberal causes such as abortion rights, gay rights, feminist rights, saving the rainforests, stopping the Iraq war, etc. Jews, more than any other people, seem the need to flaunt their liberal credentials at every turn. But if something is considered "non-liberal", such as the Republican Party, many of these same Jews will turn completely against it, even if that non-liberal institution greatly supports Israel.

While in the past, it was the liberals and the Democratic Party who most supported Israel, the tables have turned in the 21st century, and it is now the conservatives and the Republican Party who most vociferously support the Jewish state. Yet a majority of Jews in America have either not woken to this realization or have not bothered to pay attention to it.

Jews here in the U.S. are at a crossroads, and we must ask ourselves where our priorities lie. Does saving the rainforests take priority over supporting a strong and secure Israel? Is rallying for abortion rights more important than rallying for freedom in Iran? How Jews answer these questions and other similarly pressing quandaries will likely determine the future of the Jewish people in this country.

Let's make the right decisions.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: K-Swiss, thank you for the piece and for your astute insights and analysis. Jews in America are indeed quite liberal as a whole, and I also feel that the community's support for Israel (as well as its general vitality) could be greatly strengthened by adopting more "conservative" positions and values. This can be accomplished, in my opinion, my addressing the root causes of this ultra-liberalism, something Dennis Prager often discusses in his writings.

Hope everyone has a great week, and I look forward to resuming regular posting once I return from my trip. (And look for other guests to potentially appear soon on the site as well.)

Update on Israel Conflict at Brandeis University

2006-05-26T19:07:00.000-07:00

Arguments over the controversial removal of Palestinian artwork at Brandeis University have continued into recent days, with Law and Politics professor Jeffrey Abramson supporting the artwork and University President Juhuda Reinharz defending his decision to take down the exhibit.

Abramson rests his support on the contentions that 1) it doesn't matter that the artwork wasn't balanced, as this should not be a requirement for free expression, 2) the exhibit was indeed educational, and 3) the exhibit was not hate speech against Israel. Reinharz, however, while generally agreeing with Abramson's first two assertions, strongly disagrees with him on the third, and defends his actions as such.

So where do I stand? I fully agree with Dr. Reinharz. Student artwork need not always present counterbalancing points of view, and one could certainly argue that the piece was educational. But as for not being hate speech - that's pure hogwash.

Take a look at one of the drawings in the exhibit. The map of the state of Israel is dripping in blood and represented with a Palestinian flag. It is clearly symbolic of the Palestinian desire to violently destroy Israel and kill Jews.

Not hate speech? Message to Dr. Abramson: This drawing could stand in as the direct definition of "hate speech" in the dictionary. Dr. Reinharz and his administration made the absolutely correct decision in removing the artwork.

Brandeis University should be proud of its decision. Now if only they could get better graduation honorees than Tony Kushner. My suggestion for next year: passionate Arab Zionists (yes, they do exist) Walid Shoebat and Brigitte Gabriel.

Israel and Alternative Energy

2006-05-23T19:04:00.000-07:00

Plenty of interesting news from the past few days. First and foremost, efforts are ramping up to stop Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's suicidal withdrawal plan from the West Bank. As the Gaza debacle has shown, withdrawal has led not to peace, but simply to more terrorism, and this disaster must not be repeated. To that end, Israel's Center For Security Policy (CSP) has launched an advertising campaign against the withdrawal on U.S. national television. Accompanying the spot, CSP's Mideast Fellow Caroline Glick (who is also the Deputy Managing Director of the Jerusalem Post) has written an excellent analysis of the situation. (It's a 20-page PDF, but is a quick read and very well worth seeing.)

On a related note, progress continues toward creating viable energy alternatives to Middle Eastern oil. WorldNetDaily reports on a start-up company called Hydrogen Technologies Applications that claims, unbelievably, to have created a method of powering motor vehicles using only water. Yep, you heard that correctly - the company's machine runs on pure H2O. Skeptical? So are many others, according to the article. But the company's founder and president insists on legitimacy, and given that they provided a thorough demonstration (note: video link) for Fox News, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

Meanwhile, an even greater energy source could be arriving soon as well: Scientists clear major technical hurdle in generating nuclear fusion.

And in more sci-tech news, Israeli researchers have invented a hemispheric force field to protect tanks against enemy fire from all directions, even if the tank is moving. I was just as astounded to hear this too (you'd almost think it came straight out of Star Wars), but rest assured, it's very real (note: another video link).

Warren Buffet Invests in Israel

2006-05-12T19:02:00.000-07:00

Kudos to billionaire investor Warren Buffett and his company Berkshire Hathaway, who recently purchased Israeli machine tool maker Iscar Metalworking and several other local businesses. The Iscar investment, valued at over $4 billion, spurred an immediate boost to Israel's business climate, as both the Tel Aviv stock exchange and the value of the shekel subsequently hit record highs.

At a time of such great political uncertainty, the Buffett investments show some much welcomed (and in many ways, much needed) confidence in the future of the Jewish state. Furthermore, the "Sage of Omaha" isn't the only backer of Israeli ventures; computer chipmaker Intel, for one, recently announced plans to build a new hi-tech microchip factory in the nation as well.

Israel's economy and its people are alive and kicking, and regardless of what certain anti-Semitic Iranian nutcases may think, the Jewish nation will surely remain that way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: If you're interested in learning more about Israel's vibrant business, medical, and technology sectors, Israel21c is a superb and fascinatingly interesting resource.

TheSolidSurfer.com Interview at The Beak Speaks

2006-05-10T18:54:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers,

In lieu of a regular post today, I sat in the "hot seat" for an interview at a fantastic blog called The Beak Speaks. Here is the link to Beak's interview questions; scroll down to the comments section (below the main post) for my answers.

Of particular note, Question #6 asks what foreign countries are vital to America's economic future, and I replied China, India, Brazil and Mexico, with a brief explanation concerning retiring baby boomers and their upcoming need to find younger buyers for their accumulated assets. This is an important issue that all Americans should become aware of, and I'd like to credit the man responsible for the insight, Dr. Jeremy Siegel of the University of Pennsylvania. For more information, this article well explains the situation.

Thanks, and hope you enjoy the interview.-TheSolidSurfer.com

Here is the text of the interview:

1. I see that Freedom Now and MZ post on your blog. I am also a huge fan of Pam of Atlas in NYC. Are there any other blogs of note that you read regularly that we should take a look at?

Of the relatively larger blogs, my regular reads include Little Green Footballs, Israpundit, Jihad Watch, Captain's Quarters, and The Autonomist. I'm also a big fan of a few perhaps lesser-known ones, like Hispanic Pundit, The Only Republican In San Francisco, and Meryl Yourish.

2. You read FPM on a regular basis who is your favorite regular contributor?

That's a tough question since the whole site is great, but if I have to name a favorite, I'd say a tie between Don Feder and Jamie Glazov.

3. Compare my two favorite Pro Israel blogs the Mad Zionist and Pam of Atlas Shrugged? I think I get nastier trolls then MZ but some of Pam's trolls are really nasty.

These two blogs come from somewhat different perspectives (Atlas Shrugs more secular and MadZionist more Jewish), but both are fantastic, and it's wonderful to see such strong Israel-support.

4. How do you view China - as an asset, ally, foe or none of the above?

In some ways, all of the above. China's people are certainly an ally in that they generally love America, and an asset because they produce so many of our goods and invest large sums into our economy. At the same time, though, it does have a Communist government that's a natural rival to U.S. power, and I can see our government clashing even more with theirs on key issues like Taiwan, North Korean, Iran, access to oil and energy, etc.

5. Should we be more concerned with Russia or China as a potential enemy?

I think both about equally. China probably presents more of a direct danger, given its growing economic clout and potential influence over the U.S. economy. But Russia has lots of oil, possibly unsecured nuclear weapons, and influence over enemy states in the Middle East, which we can't count out. Hopefully both countries will become more free, but in the meantime, we should be concerned with both.

6. What countries do you see as vital to America's economic future?

Most prominently - China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. Over the next few decades, the U.S. (and Europe and Japan) will face population aging, and we'll see a whole bunch of baby boomers retiring with large amounts of assets built up in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. These retirees will want to cash out on their assets in order to enjoy retirement, but in order to do so, someone has to be around to buy the assets. And in the developed world, there are fewer younger people around to do so. This has the potential to drive the value of the assets way down (and hurt plenty of would-be retirees financially), unless younger buyers come from other nations. And most likely, they'll come from China, India, Brazil, and Mexico; the economic development of these nations in the next few decades could be as vital to the U.S. economy as it is to these nations' own economies.

7. Will India surpass China economically?

Yes, I think it will, as long as China remains Communist, because the free market will ultimately triumph. (China has semi-free markets, but not fully). However, if China becomes a democracy, I think it will hold onto its current lead.

8. We have a set of clowns that refer to Israel's apartheid wall. What is your response to criticism of Israel's security perimeter?

These critics are apologists for a system that built walls to keep people in.Most of this criticism comes from people who would criticize Israel no matter the situation. They're so concerned with harm to the Palestinian economy but could care less about the Israeli lives it saves. To them, I'd say just one thing - go about anywhere else in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc.) if you want to see what real apartheid is. If you're not Muslim, for example, you can't become a Saudi citizen, period. Contrast this with 20% of Israel's citizenry being non-Jews. As for the security wall itself, by the way, most of it is actually just a fence, with only about 5% being a true wall. (I went to Israel last year and saw this myself.)

9. Do you find that the far left is obsessed with who is a Jew? I have maintained that the Jewish critics of Israel produced by the far left are almost entirely Communist and Anarchists. What is your view of Jewish critics of Israel?

I don't know that the far left is obsessed with specifically who is a Jew, but they're certainly obsessed with Jews in general to a far disproportionate degree.As for Jewish criticism of Israel, there are two main types. One is legitimate criticism of the state, which is good and healthy and a hallmark of any functioning democracy. On the other hand, there is the predominantly leftist criticism of Israel that singles it out in particular (i.e. those who question Israel's basic right to exist). Among Jews who do this, many are indeed Communists and Anarchists, as one thing they virtually all have in common is that they don't generally practice Judaism religiously, and have substituted leftist ideas for it. (So the solution to this problem, as I see it, is to get Jews more Jewishly involved.)

10. Is the notion of a distinct Palestinian ethnicity a huge scam? What is the basis of this ethnicity language, religion, history?

Yes, it basically is. The Palestinian Arabs are no different than the surrounding Arabs in terms of all the above categories, and they never even called themselves Palestinians until about 1967. The notion of the Palestinians as a distinct people was created by their Arab leaders in order to undermine Israel. But as much as they want to fake history, their own name belies them. Think about why Arabs are even called "Arabs" (as opposed to any other name). Because they originally came from the Arabian Peninsula. And that piece of land is not in Israel.

11. Do you watch professional sports? If so what teams do you root for?

Huge fan of the Dallas Mavericks (basketball), Cowboys (football), Stars (hockey), and Texas Rangers (baseball). If the Mavs can beat San Antonio this round, I think they'll take it all the way!

12. Have you driven a motorcycle?

No, never have.

13. Did you read Comic books as a kid? If so which ones were your favorite? Are you familiar with the Silver Surfer?

I read them a little bit, but was more into collecting baseball cards. Don't know the Silver Surfer, but I liked Spiderman, Captain America, Iron Man, and the Hulk.

14. Are user fees and licenses another form of taxation?

If imposed by the government, I'd say yes, more or less. But if imposed privately, then I'd say no.

15. Are cigarette, alcohol and gas taxes more odious because they disproportionately affect lower income people?

I wouldn't think lower-income people necessarily purchase more cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline, but in general, I think all taxes are odious if they get too high.

16. What are your views on the ACLU?

For the most part, I'm very against them. Occasionally they might argue something worthwhile, but mostly they seem dead-set on undermining everything that's great about America and turning it into a completely ultra-leftist society with no dissent allowed from their particular views. This type of thing has happened before - in Soviet Russia.

17. Does this country need tort reform?

In certain areas, I think we do - it's far too easy for people to get away with frivolous lawsuits and exaggerated medical malpractice claims. But that said, we should definitely tread carefully in these areas, as we need to make sure that all genuine claims are still taken very seriously.

18. Have we arrived in an era where unions have outlived their usefulness?

No, I think unions are still useful, as they do bring needed benefits to their members. Unions originally formed because big business often exploited workers, and there's no guarantee that situation wouldn't happen again. At the same time, though, certain unions have amassed so much power that they're hurting their own industries (teachers unions, in particular, are greatly harming our educational system), and I feel this type of monopoly should should be challenged the same way a large company's monopoly in an industry would be.

19. Should people have a right not to join a Union if they choose?

Yes, they should absolutely have a choice.

20. Are movie prices too high and quality of film produced way too low?

The prices are a bit high for my own tastes, but there's nothing wrong with this, since it's just based on supply and demand.Film quality, meanwhile, highly varies in my opinion. Sure, there are plenty of bad movies out there, but some good stuff is out there too. Hollywood has had a poor past couple years, but I'm excited about some movies this summer - the new Superman, Nacho Libre (Jack Black comedy), Cars (new Pixar film), a couple others.

21. Are there too many sequels?

It sure seems that way lately. As long as the sequels are good, though, I don't mind.

22. What was the best and worst films you have seen? The worst films I remember were Battlefield Earth and Yentyl.

That's a tough one. For the best ever, I'd say the original Star Wars trilogy. Worst - hard to say...to name a recent one, I saw a movie called "Failure To Launch" that wasn't too good.

23. Whose outfits are tackier Bowlers or golfers?

Bowlers.

24. What Blogger that you read would make a great candidate for Survivor? Warren would make a great candidate but Mr. Beamish would generate ratings.

Good question. Beak, you'd probably be great at it - I don't think anyone would mess with you once they saw your cool Rambo-like avatar! :-)

25. Pick one Horror Films or Sci Fiction/Fantasy.

Well, I already named Star Wars, so I'll say Lord Of The Rings. Unless you count home videos of me and my brothers as kids - we behaved so badly in them that it definitely classifies as a horror film!

Support Both Darfur And American Troops in Iraq

2006-05-09T18:53:00.000-07:00

Do you support the people of Darfur? If so, excellent. But at the same time, it's highly hypocritical to do so without also supporting American troops in Iraq. That's what National Review's David Frum argues in a recent article, and he certainly has some highly valid points.

Both conflicts involve protecting a Muslim-majority population from vicious Islamic terrorists and murderers. The only difference is that the American military is (currently) uninvolved in Darfur, whereas in Iraq it fights side-by-side with the citizenry against the terrorists. But as Frum states, how can one, "condemn jihad in Sudan as the equivalent of genocide in our time--and pardon an even crueler jihad in Iraq as legitimate national resistance?"

The answer is - you honestly can't. Whether one supported the Iraq war at the outset or not, the current reality is that an evil insurgency is committing terror against the Iraqi people, and abandoning them to it would be immoral and unjust. No doubt, helping to save Darfur is our clear obligation. But doing the same in Iraq is as rightful a duty as well.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict at Brandeis University

2006-05-07T18:51:00.000-07:00

Brandeis University, located in suburban Massachusetts, has somewhat unexpectedly found itself at the center of the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After the university decided to pull a bloody one-sided pro-Palestinian art exhibit that had been displayed on the campus, Israel supporters cheered while anti-Israel radicals came out to demonstrate.

Was Brandeis correct to shut down the artwork? New guest contributor "Mini-Me", a student at the university (and a familiar name on this site thanks to his many fine reader comments), checks in with a first-hand report:

The past few days have been quite interesting here at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. For those who have not yet heard, Brandeis has recently been in the news as a result of the administration's decision to pull an art exhibition entitled “Voices of Palestine,” ending the scheduled two-week exhibition just four days in. The exhibition was not organized by the University, but rather by Lior Halperin, a Brandeis sophomore who is both Jewish and Israeli. To set the scene: the artworks were located in the school’s library, not in the on-campus prestigious Rose Art Museum. Also, because this was simply a class project, and not a school sponsored event, the exhibition, consisting of seventeen paintings by Palestinian children, was not publicized on campus. For this reason, neither I nor most other students actually saw the paintings in person. However, in an article by the Boston Globe’s article, three of the works are detailed as follows:

"A bulldozer menaces a girl with ebony pigtails, who lies in a pool of blood. A boy with an amputated leg balances on a crutch, in a tent city with a Palestinian flag. A dove, dripping blood, perches against blue barbed wire."

According to the article, shortly after the works were hung Brandeis received up to a dozen complaints, and school officials reacted by taking down the art. Brandeis official Dennis Nealon explained the reasoning behind the University's actions: “It was completely from one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we can only go based on the complaints we received…'People were saying: (a) what is this; (b) what is it trying to say; and (c) should there be some sort of balancing perspective here?"

While the majority of the student body is oblivious to the situation, some who are aware staged a protest on Saturday, which approximately fifty students attended, insisting the artworks stay. Art critic Tyler Green, one of those against removing the exhibition, stated on his Modern Arts Blog: “Memo to university officials: Art does not equal journalism. An art exhibit is not a newspaper story. It is not required to present ‘both sides’ of a story.”

I couldn’t disagree with him (or the views of the protesting students) more.

While I agree that artwork does not need to tell both sides of a story, I do strongly feel that an academic institution is responsible for telling both sides of a story. Brandeis, however, does not have in its possession paintings by Israeli children that depict Palestinians violently hurting or killing Israeli children. Consequently, Brandeis feels that it wouldn't be appropriate to display the Palestinian artwork without also exhibiting the opposing (Israeli) viewpoint.

When a university displays an art exhibition, the contents of the exhibition reflect upon the school. Brandeis is a Jewish-sponsored college. A Palestinian art exhibition that depicts children being tortured by Israeli soldiers not only distorts the truth, but it runs in contradiction with the beliefs at the basis of the school's origin and establishment. If Brandeis does not wish to be associated with the contents of such extremely politically-charged artwork, it should certainly have the right to pull the exhibition.

Halperin has since lent the 17 paintings to an Arab student organization at MIT, which plans on displaying them in the near future.

My Memo to MIT: Keep Em!

TheSolidSurfer.com comments: Mini Me, thank you for the excellent report and analysis. I fully agree with you - the Palestinian artwork is not a mere presentation of the Palestinian "side", but a blatant distortion of the truth that entirely contradicts Brandeis's founding values. Furthermore, presenting only one perspective of the conflict is quite dishonest intellectually, and I'm glad to hear the administration has had the good sense to recognize this. Now that Brandeis has made it's decision, I hope MIT goes even further and throws the art in the trash!

Jail for Moussaoui, United 93, Spengler on Iran, Jay-Z and Ray Charles, and much more

2006-05-05T18:50:00.000-07:00

Convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison without parole for his role in the 9/11 attacks. Moussaoui acted defiantly throughout his trial, expressing no remorse, claiming he would commit terror again if given the chance, and stating that he "won" and America "lost." Many feel that even a life sentence is too lenient, considering the pure evil of his crimes. But Moussaoui's new home is far from a picnic, as he'll spend his life in total solitary confinement at the maximum security Supermax Prison.The reality is, America won and Moussaoui lost. Good riddance.

On a somewhat related topic, National Review tell us why we should see the movie United 93.

Victor Davis Hanson has written two excellent recent articles: a summary of America's astounding accomplishments in the Middle East, and a reminder to immigrant protestors that U.S. citizenship carries responsibilities as well as rights.

The pseudonymous Spengler over at the Asia Times employs a comparison with World War I to explain why the U.S. must attack Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program. This piece caters somewhat more to the history buffs, but like virtually all of Spengler's essays, is a must-read for all.

Jewish World Review reports from last week's Washington rally against genocide and for the people of Darfur.

News from the music world: Hip-Hop superstar Jay-Z is starring in a new TV commercial against anti-Semitism. I don't know much about Jay-Z's music (I mainly listen to rock), but he's instantly become one of my favorite celebrities. (Hat tip: Meryl Yourish)

On a similar note, did anyone know that Ray Charles also greatly supported Israel? Despite Hollywood's trendy leftist (read: anti-America, anti-Israel) bent, many other non-Jewish pro-Israel celebs probably exist as well; I'll mention them if I hear of any, and readers, feel free to pass on any names you know.

Blog of the Day: Lawrence Kudlow

And coming soon on TheSolidSurfer.com: An insider report on the Israeli/Arab debate as currently unfolding at one of America's most prominent college campuses...from a longtime reader and student at the university.

2006-05-04T18:48:00.000-07:00

In celebration of Independence Day on the 5th of Iyar, we'd like to present some big-time digital fireworks! (photo missing)

What, haven't heard of the date? Well, it's not July 4th, but yesterday was Israel's Independence Day, and the Jewish state just put 58 candles on its birthday cake! Israel Insider provided some excellent coverage, plus a heartfelt assessment of Israel's past, present, and future.

Meanwhile, for the first time in about 2000 years, more Jews live in Israel than in any other nation. This trend, as I see it, is both welcome and troubling for the Jewish people. On the plus side, the Israeli population grows due to aliyah (Jewish immigration) and high birth rates. On the other hand, however, the Jewish population has fallen in America and other nations, as many Diaspora Jews intermarry and fail to raise Jewish children. At current rates, demographers estimate that within 25-30 years, the majority of *worldwide* Jewry will reside in Israel. This too is not unprecedented, as most Jews lived there throughout Biblical times. But it's far better to enter such a position through strength (i.e. aliyah) than even partially through weakness (Diaspora ultra-assimilation).

On a similar note, by the way, a new study of American Jews has found a highly expanding Orthodox contingency. In light of the above information, this should be quite expected, as the Orthodox virtually never intermarry and frequently have large families.

In other Israel-related news:

Hebron community leader David Wilder rightfully explains why the existence and location of his community (considered by Israel's government to be a settlement) is entirely legal.

Pundit Ilana Mercer defends Israel's security wall.

And finally, give a great big Mazel Tov to huge Israel supporter (and one of TheSolidSurfer.com's favorite fellow bloggers) MadZionist, who's wife is expecting a new little tot.

Iran + Al Qaeda = Nuclear Attack on America?

2006-04-28T18:46:00.000-07:00

According to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin (a premium intelligence newsletter that's part of WorldNetDaily), Iran plans to respond to any American attack on its nuclear facilities by deploying Al Qaeda sleeper agents to detonate Soviet-era suitcase-size nuclear devices (purchased on the black market) in American cities. This information, as reported by G2 contributor Paul Williams (himself the author of a book on the same topic), comes from Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, who heard it directly from an Egyptian engineer who worked on nuclear tests for Osama Bin Laden.

Is this credible? If so, it's mighty scary stuff, especially since Mir claims that the sleeper agents and nukes are already in America, with the agents simply waiting for orders.

I'm not quite sure, though, that I buy the theory. Certainly the intention exists - Iran and Al Qaeda would nuke America in a heartbeat if they had the capability. But this also pokes a great hole in Mir's claims, because if the weapons have already been smuggled into our cities, then why wait? If Iran wants to defeat the U.S. (and no question, it does), then it would make full sense to attack first, before America could strike back, rather than responding only after absorbing a hit.

Williams has responded to this in the past by claiming that Al Qaeda is simply patient, as Bin Laden prefers to wait so he can attack on meaningful dates. But even if that's true, every new day increases the possibility of any plot being discovered, which strongly points against waiting. Indeed, Williams has been advocating his theory for several years, which is more than enough time for Bin Laden's favored dates to occur, and yet nothing happened.

So no, I don't believe that suitcase nukes have already been deployed to America. Admittedly I can't declare this with full certainty, but the evidence certainly seems to point against it. Nevertheless, we absolutely shouldn't get comfortable, as the terrorists are no doubt trying, and if Iran succeeds in creating nuclear weapons themselves, the risk will increase dramatically. (I think, in fact, that Iran could be spreading the sleeper agent rumors as misinformation, to try and deter the U.S. from attacking while the Mullahs are still pre-nuclear and vulnerable.)

Our best course of action, then, remains as it has been: pursue and defeat all terrorists, and stop Iran's nuclear program ASAP. They're moving full speed ahead, and we're the ones who can't afford to be patient.

Rabbi Shea Hecht on Iran and the Inept United Nations

2006-04-26T18:44:00.000-07:00

I'd like to welcome a new guest contributor to TheSolidSurfer.com, Rabbi Shea Hecht. Rabbi Hecht, a New York community activist and the Chairman of the Board at the National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education (click here for a full bio), writes regular columns at his own site (which I've also added to the "My Heroes" section in the left column), and occasionally we will feature them here as well.

Rabbi Hecht's latest piece covers Iran and the continuing ineptitude of the United Nations:

A UN Folly

I was recently reminded of the folly and the lack of common sense of the UN by my friend U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

Senator Santorum said: "I am extremely disappointed that member nations of the United Nations have elected the Islamic Republic of Iran to serve as the Vice-Chair of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. Electing Iran, a country that has demonstrated no sign of abandoning its pursuit of enriching uranium, is ludicrous. Iran is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world, and this vote by a group of U.N. member states is simply non-sensical."

Senator Santorum's comments refer to a recent UN development. Iran won a seat on the United Nations' Disarmament Commission which is charged with promoting the disarmament of nuclear weapons and reviewing treaties that deal with nuclear energy. Iran on the UN Disarmament Commission? How ludicrous!

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently announced that he has successfully enriched uranium in order to produce nuclear fuel, in violation of a call by the UN Security Council to end the project. He has also publicly stated his repeated threat to wipe Israel off the map. This is who is sitting on the UN Disarmament Commission?

Over the years, many have spoken about the outright, inane absurdity of the UN and its appointments, but this is totally outrageous. Iran does not even hide their nuclear plans and plans of destruction! Will this help people see the blatant insanity of the UN? Maybe now US citizens will wake up from their complacency and pressure US to leave the UN. There is nothing in the global rule book that says the United States must be part of the United Nations.

The US actually tried recently to force some changes at the UN. For a while, there was hope that US Representative Henry Hyde's (R-IL) ultimatum calling on the United Nations to reform would be successful. Yet, even when the UN was given the choice to make some reforms or lose funding from the USA - its host nation and largest financial and physical benefactor - it allowed sadistic, autocratic regimes onto commissions designed to battle their negative and dangerous conduct.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has also spoken out against the appointment of Iran to the UN Disarmament Commission. He wants the Bush administration to withhold dues for the United Nations Disarmament Commission now that Iran was elected to a leadership position on that commission.

"The election of Iran as a vice-chair of the UN Disarmament Commission at the same time as Iran clandestinely pursues its own nuclear ambitions provides yet another example of the UN's inability to establish credible institutions to deal with global issues," Senator Coleman said in a statement Wednesday. "Having the Iranians serve on this commission is like asking the fox to guard the hens, and will only ensure its ineffectiveness. Iran says its program is peaceful, but the United States and dozens of other countries fear it wants the technology to make the core of nuclear warheads."

Some of our politicians in Washington are also to blame as they have watered down the reform legislation and the United Nations is once again back to its old games; it seems that the subject of UN reform is not only out of sight it's also out of mind. We need more leadership like that of Senators Santorum and Coleman.

Let us use our own common sense and heed the words of our Senators. The fox should not guard the hen house, the inmates shouldn't be holding the keys to the asylum, nor the bank robbers the key to the vault. The US has enough clout to force a change in the UN or leave the UN altogether. We, as citizens of this country, should demand that the USA bring the UN issue to the forefront and force some change.

Rabbi, thank you for the piece, and I look forward to featuring more of your work in the future. I fully agree that the UN desperately needs to be reformed, and now that John Bolton is America's representative, perhaps it finally has a chance. Of course, as evidenced by the subject matter of your essay, it has a long way to go. But as you also say, American pressure can accomplish much - we just need to keep it up.

Holocaust Remembrance Day

2006-04-25T18:40:00.000-07:00

This past day was Yom Hashoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. In it, we remember the 6 million Jews and 5 million others who were brutally murdered by the evil Nazi regime.

More than just a memorial, however, Yom Hashoah also stands to perpetuate the notion of "Never Again". It serves as a continual reminder to always ensure that the Holocaust's horrors are never repeated.

To this end, we must stand strong on the side of freedom and morality, and forcefully oppose those who wish to create genocidal horrors of their own. Tragically, regimes with Nazi-like goals still exist (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran's Mullahcracy, the Sudanese Arab militias), and we must dedicate the full resources necessary to stop them immediately.

The great Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once famously observed that "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Let's heed his advice, and work to end these genocidal regimes.

Here are some ways to do it:

1) Help save Darfur
2) Support the Iran Freedom Foundation
3) Support the Palestine Solidarity Movement (hint: it's not what you think)
4) Buy Israeli products

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: Fellow blogger Madzionist has written an excellent piece on Yom Hashoah. Read it, and know how Israel can strengthen itself only through its Jewish essence.

Roger Waters: Comfortably Numb (to Terrorism)

2006-04-18T18:38:00.000-07:00

Roger Waters once wrote a song for Pink Floyd called "Brain Damage". Apparently it was autobiographical.

That's about the only way to explain the former Floyd bassist's lunkheaded decision to move a scheduled Israel concert from Tel Aviv to a joint Jewish-Arab village in response to Palestinian protests. Waters' comments regarding the incident are even worse; on the day an evil and horrific suicide bombing occurred in the very city he rejected, Waters was quoted as having recently said: "Being an Israeli does not disbar from being a human being."

Yeah, as if Israel's actions are really to blame for the whole situation. What Waters really should have said is "Being a radical leftist indeed disbars one from thinking logically." Because any way you look at it, Waters is an ultra-leftwinger and probably a socialist as well. Not only has he publicly supported a pro-Palestinian movement to remove Israel's life-saving security barrier, but he has often railed against against President Bush and the war in Iraq, and once even recorded an entire album protesting the British government's wartime policies. The other members of Pink Floyd didn't exactly agree with him either, jettisoning Waters from the band shortly after he released his politicized music.

I probably wouldn't go quite so far, as the Atlas Shrugs Blog has done, to call Waters a Jew-hater, as he sounds like he does indeed want peace in the region and did after all support his Israeli fanbase. But like most naive leftists, he's completely oblivious to the fact that Palestinian terrorism, and not Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, is the root cause of the unrest. This moral blindness places Waters square in the camp of senile terrorist apologists like Jimmy Carter, and unless he changes, Waters too is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If I were in Israel, I'd tell Waters and his leftist cohort just one thing: "We don't need no education!"

Will the U.S. Really Attack Iran?

2006-04-12T18:36:00.000-07:00

Will the U.S. really attack Iran? That's the word from investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who reports that President Bush has drawn up plans to destroy the Islamic Republic's nuclear program through tactical nukes of America's own. Bush administration officials, however, deny the plans and insist that they will continue to pursue a diplomatic approach.

So what's actually going on?

Now that Iran has successfully enriched uranium, U.S. war planners certainly must have considered numerous scenarios, including, yes, a nuclear strike on their weapons facilities. This doesn't mean, however, that a nuclear attack is the most likely option, no matter what "proof" Hersh claims to have. This same man, after all, has carved a career out of delivering sensational reports on the U.S. government and military, and he often relies on anonymous and unsubstantiated evidence.

At the same time, though, we shouldn't rule a nuke strike out. Many prominent analysts (including the pseudonymous Spengler of the Asia Times) do believe that Iran threatens only its immediate neighborhood in pursuit of regional hegemony, and does not necessarily aim to attack America. But I wholeheartedly disagree. Not that Iran doesn't want regional hegemony (something the U.S. would need to address in any case), but based on certain statements by their president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they seem cocky enough to believe that they truly can defeat America as well.

Sure, Ahmadinejad may be nuts, but when evil rulers say such things, we should absolutely believe them. No one took Hitler seriously when he announced plans to conquer the globe and kill Jews, and the world suffered through World War II as a result. No one took the Soviets seriously when they vowed to crush the West, and America endured a lengthy cold war. Ahmadinejad has made his intentions to destroy Israel and take down America no less clear, and we would be fools to ignore him. Allowing this madman to possess nuclear weapons would be the height of folly.

Given this, it is imperative that the U.S. and/or Israel destroys Iran's nuclear program before it's too late. No matter how it's done -- whether through diplomacy (which becomes unlikelier by the day), an internal Iranian revolution, targeted airstrikes, or full-scale war -- stopping their entrance to the nuclear club is America's, and the world's, most vital security concern.

Illegal Immigrants and the U.S. Economy

2006-04-10T18:35:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager has written an insightful article explaining why, contrary to popular perception, illegal immigrants have not actually taken jobs away from most Americans. America's economy, Prager demonstrates, has been so strong that regardless of immigration numbers, virtually anyone searching for a job will eventually find one. This essay is not a blanket support of illegal immigration (Prager worries about properly assimilating them and recommends building a fence between the U.S. and Mexico), but it raises some excellent points that should allay certain economic fears.

On a similar note, I'd like to refute another common misperception - the belief that illegals are necessary to perform certain jobs that Americans refuse to do. Quite simply, it's not true. Illegals indeed comprise a large percentage of workers in relatively menial fields such as housecleaning, construction, farmwork, and (NY mayor Michael Bloomberg's favorite) golf course maintenance. But they occupy these jobs not because Americans flat-out refuse such positons, but because Americans refuse such positions at current wage rates.

This is a highly important distinction. The problem with housekeeping is not that we Americans consider the work beneath us; it's that the work generally pays less than $10/hour. If cleaning homes paid, say, $50/hour, we'd be lining up to do it by the thousands.

For many illegals, however, $10/hour is a large sum compared to salaries back home. These people hence certainly don't mind (and are often quite thrilled at the prospect of) working such jobs. The presence of so many illegals in these low-wage positions is not evidence that Americans have lost their work ethic, but rather a function of basic economics.

So what would happen if the illegals weren't here? Americans would, of course, perform these jobs, but the wage rate would rise to meet their higher salary demands. This in turn would drive employers to compensate at first through cost-cutting measures (primarily layoffs and outsourcing), but later through innovation and increased productivity. Reducing illegal immigration, then, will likely hurt our economy in the short run, but greatly help it long term.

The Key to Israel's Success: Judaism & Jewish Identity

2006-04-06T18:30:00.001-07:00

British journalist Melanie Phillips, in commenting on Emanuele Ottolenghi's analysis of the Israeli elections, concludes pessimistically that the Jewish state seemingly has no way to achieve peace. Whatever Israel tries (strong defense, counterterorrism, negotiations, dialogue, goodwill, etc.), the Palestinians and the Arab world rebuff, and whenever a breakthrough seems set to appear, the "international community" somehow flutters it.

Ms. Phillips laments:

A more insanely optimistic people cannot also be imagined: seizing upon every hope of peace, every scrap of evidence, however slender, that the Arabs may not really want to kill them or destroy the Jewish state. But it is in fact the optimism born of the deepest possible despair, clutching at any straw in order not to face the possibility that is simply too terrible to be even contemplated -- that there really is no end to this Arab hatred, and that there is no end to the state of siege that Israel has been forced to endure since its inception.

...The election result is irrelevant to the issue of peace in the Middle East. That is because what the Israelis do cannot affect whether peace comes to the Middle East, because what the Israelis do is not the cause of war in the Middle East. The cause of that war is the fact that Israel exists at all and the drive by the Arab world to eradicate it – and the fact that the free world has refused to acknowledge that simple fact for the past half century is the most important reason why this murderous impasse still continues.

Sadly, these statements convey some pretty dire hopelessness. But with all due respect to Ms. Phillips, I strongly beg to differ. Her global analysis is certainly on target; the surrounding Arab nations continue their neverending attempts to destroy it, while the world always turns a blind eye. But Israel itself is not nearly so powerless.

Israel can indeed achieve peace in its greater region, but not through negotiatons, summits, or most of the possibilities Phillips discusses. Rather, Israel can achieve peace through strength, and as Daniel Pipes writes, this will come when the country overwhelmingly defeats the Palestinians and destroys the surrounding Arabs' war morale.

How so? Pipes doesn't definitively say. But Israel can start by fully asserting its Jewish identity. Many of the country's troubles have come precisely from not doing so, and in order to impose its will on enemies, Israel must regain that will itself. Once this occurs the path to victory becomes much more straightforward.

Without Judaism, Israel seems doomed to struggle mercilessly against the Arabs. With it, the country can achieve anything. Let's ensure that Israel retains and strengthens this vital part of its being.

Washington PAC, Israel Elections, Immigration and more

2006-03-28T18:25:00.000-08:00

Thanks to a connection through TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss", I had the pleasure of recently meeting with pro-Israel lobbyist and former AIPAC executive director Morrie Amitay. Mr. Amitay now runs his own organization, Washington PAC, which functions similarly to AIPAC but with more of a grassroots focus.

On the topic of Israel, meanwhile, the Kadima party has garnered the most Knesset seats in the just-completed election, with Labor, Shas, Israel Beitenu, and Likud following in decreasing order. Overall, center-left parties, excluding Arab parties, have gained 52 seats, while center-right parties have gained 51.

What does this mean? Most likely, Kadima leader Ehud Olmert will be able to form a majority government, but the coalition could be weak if the center-right opposition unites against it. Assuming this occurs, Olmert will likely face great difficulties in implementing his planned West Bank disengagement, which, as the Washington Times' Frank Gaffney notes, is a terrible idea based on faulty wishful thinking. Olmert wants to finalize the plan by 2010, but if enough opposition gridlock occurs, Kadima just might be forced to scrap the plan and declare new elections sometime in 2007. This party needs to learn very quickly that, just as with Gaza, withdrawing in the face of a hostile enemy (i.e. Hamas) never works.

In other news:

An estimated 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles over the weekend to protest a proposed federal crackdown on illegal immigration. National reaction has been mixed; the protestors have garnered significant support among some quarters, while others have vehemently opposed them.

Personally, I feel somewhat split on the matter. In the illegals' favor, most are good people who have moved to America simply to pursue better opportunities. No one can fault them for such aspirations, and indeed apart from Native Americans, we all have ancestors who arrived seeking the same thing. A large majority of illegals most certainly would prefer to reside lawfully, but obtaining official permanent residency is often difficult and frustrating (something I can verify firsthand, as my wife immigrated here and went through a 10-year green card process), and many quite logically choose to circumvent the system altogether.

On the other hand, though, as much as America prides itself as a land of immigrants, we still possess finite carrying capacity and would be overwhelmed to unconditionally accept everyone who wishes to enter. Furthermore, illegals benefit from our public services without paying taxes (which unfairly hurts all tax-contributing citizens), and a small number are even hostile to our government and wish to reconquer the Southwest states for Mexico. (Yes, as unbelievable as that sounds, you heard it correctly.) Clearly, we must control the general immigration flow, while absolutely keeping out would-be revolutionaries along with criminals and terrorists.

On that note, I support the government's proposed bill to accept most of the current illegals while taking stronger measures to keep new ones out. The plan may not be ideal (these people did break the law, after all), but deporting 12 million people (their estimated number) would be difficult beyond belief, and apart from a few bad apples (who will indeed have to leave), most are proud to reside here and should willingly become fine, productive, taxpaying Americans. At the same time, resticting new illegals from this point forward will give America the breathing room necessary to fully integrate the new citizens. This is how immigration successfully functioned for most of our nation's existence, and hopefully we can repeat the model par excellence.

Defeating Jihadism by Encouraging non-Arab Muslims

2006-03-27T18:17:00.001-08:00

Defeating global jihadism is certainly a matter of utmost importance. Some say that this can be accomplished by empowering moderate Muslims, but given the difficulties in identifying many moderates, certain evangelical Christians have stepped up efforts to convert Muslims to Christianity. Towards this aim, Mark Krikorian of National Review has suggested that an effective strategy for doing so would be to concentrate on Muslim ethnic groups oppressed by other Muslims. These groups, Krikorian believes, will have a natural attraction to religions other than the one dominating them (even if it's their own faith), and will be welcome to other possibilities.

Successfully accomplished, this plan certainly would reduce jihadism, as virtually all jihadists-turned-Christians have utterly renounced terrorism and violence. Thing is, the chances of such an implementation look exceedingly low. Even supposing many Muslims wish to become Christians, Islamic-ruled governments aren't exactly known for permitting religious freedom, as we can see with the Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan and an Algerian example given by Krikorian.

In an ethnocultural sense, however, Krikorian's basic idea may yet work. Just substitute Arab culture for Muslim religion, and politically encourage non-Arab Muslims to reject jihadist Islam in the name of their own heritages. The words Arab and Muslim are often regarded synonymously, but while Islam is indeed an entirely Arab-centered religion, most of today's Muslims are non-Arabs whose ancestors were forcibly conquered and converted. These Muslims' histories and cultures largely have been trampled over, and similar to what Krikorian suggests religiously, they may be highly amenable to moderating Sharia and jihadism merely as a rejection of the beliefs of their Arab dominators.

Some may feel this is unrealistic, but it has actually occurred all throughout the past and into today. Historically, Islam greatly moderated itself the further it moved beyond its Arab roots, and today, the least radical followers of Islam are those who have been most oppressed by their fellow Muslims: Kurds, Turks, Berbers, Bangladeshis, Central Asians, and the vast majority of Persians. The less Arab influence, the more moderate they get. At the same time, exposure to Arab-backed Wahhabism has inspired many formerly moderate/secular Muslims to turn jihadist. Clearly, weakening the Arab influence can drastically reduce radicalism.

Implemented successfully, this plan would isolate fundamentalist Islam to its Arab heartland, where it could be more easily contained and changed. The majority of Muslims worldwide would shed jihadism in favor of moderation, which would dramatically reduce the number of global terrorists. Unlike with Christian evangelism, the Islamic governments in question will have no reason to reject such a movement, and indeed, they may even join it in solidarity with their own non-Arab ethnic backgrounds.

Is this a tall order? Absolutely. But the Islamic world's current totalitarianism is unacceptable, and democracy-building, while an excellent strategy that should certainly be continued, has hit many snags and could use some help. So an alternative solution for moderating the Muslim world away from jihad is this - support the native cultures of the non-Arabs so to restore their ethnic pride and shake off the dusts of Arabization.

Remember: America Supports Itself First, Then Israel

2006-03-23T18:13:00.000-08:00

Should we believe President Bush's statement, as discussed in the previous post, that the U.S. will defend Israel against Iran? His words seem very straightforward, but certain pundits nevertheless see reason to doubt.

I feel that the President is fully sincere, although unfortunately his words aren't quite as pro-Israel as they may seem. How can that be? Let's re-examine his key point, as quoted in the previous post:

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace."

This statement is certainly true, but just as notable is what's left out. Iran isn't after only Israel; it has directly threatened America as well. As president of the United States, Bush's responsibility is first and foremost to his own nation, and although he mentions defending Israel, his warning's real impetus is to advance America's interests, and not necessarily those of Israel (or anyone else). Protecting America comes first.

This is, of course, no surprise; the leader of any nation will defend his own land before that of others. But Bush's words are actually troubling in a deeper sense. He presents America as doing Israel a favor, one which presumably must be repaid in the future. This could prove harmful if Israel's interests fail to align with America's in such manner, and in any case, Israel shouldn't owe the U.S. for really protecting its own neck. Furthermore, Bush's words unintentionally give fodder to those who outrageously believe that Israel controls America; here is more "evidence," such bigots and crackpots would say, that Israel's interests dictate U.S. foreign policy.

America's plans to support Israel against Iran are wonderful, but we must remember that like all nations, the U.S. places its own goals first. America sat idly during World War II until its own shores were attacked, and it hardly counteracted international terrorism until the 9/11 tragedy. America is highly pro-Israel, but above all it is simply pro-America. Israel should certainly welcome U.S. assistance, but would be wise to always remember this point.

In other news:

Israel may have little of the black gold, but blue gold is another story: Jewish state poised to be a water technology superpower.

While Harvard's faculty may lean leftist, the student body, thank goodness, does not. WorldNetDaily's Hans Zeiger reports on the Ivy League generation gap.

Amazingly, the Basque terrorist group in Spain, ETA, has agreed to a permanent cease-fire. The group's motive, most suspect, is that Al Qaeda has so turned the world against terror that the tactic has lost its effectiveness for everyone else. I'm not so sure, however. In general, terrorist groups can never be trusted, and ETA has broken numerous cease-fires in the past. News of this latest truce is certainly welcome, but I would view it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

CAMERA has provided yet another rebuttal to the disgraceful Harvard study on the Israel lobby.

Israel, Iran, Port Security, Stock Picks, and more

2006-03-17T18:11:00.000-08:00

It's great to see such strong reader response concerning the Iran Freedom Foundation. On a similar token, here is another site supporting democratic change in Iran: Foundation For Democracy In Iran. Want to know, by the way, how Iran got its name, given that the country was called Persia for most of its history? Because its leaders supported Nazi Germany. Iran is simply the Persian word for "Aryan".

Israel advocacy site Israpundit has posted several excellent recent articles. First and foremost, Yoram Ettinger explains why, contrary to the Kadima Party platform, retreating from the West Bank and Gaza is the worst thing Israel can do demographically. Studies have shown that the Jewish population is in no danger of being overtaken by Palestinians, unless it relinquishes border control of the territories, which would allow the Palestinians to invite any and all Arabs to move into the area.

Also, contributor Israel Zwick has penned a campaign speech that Israel's political candidates really should have given, while Mark Gold explains how to define true Israel supporters. I don't know that I agree with quite everything Gold says (I think many strong Israel supporters, for example, might not own many Israeli products and investments simply due to lack of knowledge of their availability), but in general he is very on target.

Front Page Magazine, meanwhile, has published an open letter to all American Muslims.

Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) has introduced legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to screen 100% of inbound shipping containers at our ports. I haven't heard much about the bill other than through this article and similar news sources, but it is clearly vital to our national security, and we should do everything we can to support its passage.

Recently, I wrote an essay on the film industry demonstrating how leftist-driven movie content, and not the rise of DVDs and home theaters, has been behind Hollywood's recent downturn. Industry pundits, of course, have continued to blame home entertainment, but now, official moviegoer surveys are in. And the result: DVDs clearly are not the culprit.

Recommended Investment of the Day: Alternative Energy. I'm no stock guru, but Jim Cramer, the author of the linked article, most certainly is.

Purim and Today's Iran; Wafa Sultan Interview

2006-03-13T18:08:00.000-08:00

Tonight and tomorrow is the Jewish holiday of Purim.

For anyone who doesn't know, Purim commemorates a time when the Jewish people of ancient Persia (the historic name for Iran) were saved from destruction. A wicked king's adviser named Haman had plotted their extermination, but ultimately the Jews were saved and Haman lost his life instead.

Hear that, Mr. Ahmadinejad? The track record of evil Persian leaders who want to kill Jews is not in your favor.

Also: It's been forwarded all over the internet, but if you haven't seen it, here is a link to a transcript of the Al-Jazeera interview with Arab-American psychologist Dr. Wafa Sultan, who defines the Western-Islamic conflict as not a clash of civilizations, but a clash between the mentality of the 21st Century and that of the Middle Ages. Among other strong statements, Dr. Sultan slams the Muslim world for its barbaric practices, and praises Judaism and Buddhism over Islam:

The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

Dr. Sultan is absolutely right. In contrast to practitioners of all other religions, only Muslims have acted violently in large numbers in response to perceived slights. If Islam wants respect, it must respect others first. For Muslims who consider themselves moderate, now is the time to follow Dr. Sultan's lead and speak out as well.

As Edmund Burke famously said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Let's all ensure that the former part of this statement never comes true.

On Academic Radicals: David Horowitz's The Professors

2006-03-12T18:07:00.000-08:00

I'm not quite trying to start an Oprah-style book club, but in light of the leftwing faculty attack on Harvard president Lawrence Summers that spurred his resignation, I'd like to suggest a book to all who are interested: The Professors by David Horowitz. Subtitled "The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America", the publication discusses the most prominent of the radical university professors who support and teach the worst of leftist causes including Soviet Communism, terrorism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism.

I haven't actually read the book, so I can't directly comment on its quality, but the author's stature as the editor of the excellent online publication Front Page Magazine should testify to the accuracy of his research and reporting. Furthermore, given the Summers episode and the multitude of infamous rants from leftist profs like Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers, the book's chosen topic is clearly important. These radicals have politically indoctrinated countless college students, and their outrageous falsehoods must be exposed. The professors' personal beliefs would matter far less if they left the politics out of the classroom, but all too often, this is far from the case.

Fortunately, I believe, most students can see through the leftist deceptions. The majority of the time, the professors' rhetoric so contradicts reality that even the most naive classroom attendees will dismiss it as nonsense. Back in my college days, for example, I had an American History professor who, bar none, blamed all of America's problems on Ronald Reagan. No matter the ailment -- poverty, inner city crime, high unemployment, drug abuse -- it was all the fault of the Gipper and his Republicanism. Hardly anyone in the course, though, took this ranting seriously; even those who detested Reagan knew that most social and economic problems have various causes unrelated to the legacy of a single president.

Problem is, a handful of students each year do fall prey to the indoctrination. I doubt my professor made Horowitz's book (his beliefs were quite mild compared to nuts like Duke's Miriam Cooke who supported the Taliban and excuses Palestinian terrorism), but I did know several people who became hardcore anti-American leftists by graduation, most likely as a result of similar teaching. Perhaps these classmates have since shed the identity, but the leftist academics clearly made their mark.

This, I feel, is why The Professors is so important. Until tenured academics shed the warped political slants from their teaching, we need writers like David Horowitz to alert us to the dangers. See Horowitz's website for the book, as well as Daniel Pipes's Campus Watch for more information. The book is available from, among other places, Front Page Magazine and Amazon.com.

America and the Dubai Ports Deal: The Aftermath

2006-03-10T18:06:00.000-08:00

The Dubai ports crisis is finally over. After large-scale public outcry and strong Congressional opposition, the deal which would have allowed a UAE government-owned company to manage six key U.S. ports has been canceled, and the company has agreed to transfer the management to an American entity to be named. At the same time, President Bush has avoided what surely would have been a nasty showdown with a large part of his political constituency.

So where do we, the American people, stand in the aftermath of the deal gone bad?

Most importantly, our national security has been strengthened. Before this issue came to light, hardly anyone was even aware that foreign companies managed most of our ports. Now, the operation of such an essential aspect of our border security will increasingly lie in American hands. It's also wonderful to see so many of us remaining skeptical of government officials who say "trust me" without providing full information, such as President Bush in this case. Of course these officials are our elected representatives, but they too can make mistakes, and we should always take proper action if necessary.

Some say that rejecting the deal sends the wrong message to our Arab allies, but let's not kid ourselves - the UAE is no true ally. Any nation with links to Al Qaeda and Hamas is fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests, no matter how much superficial support (such as airbases) its government has given us to save itself from a terrorist takeover.

Economically, meanwhile, the impact is neutral. Some pundits worry that we've hurt ourselves by sending a protectionist message to other nations, but the port cancellation clearly was a security-motivated isolated incident and by no means points to an overall protectionist trend.

The big question is the political fallout. President Bush championed a highly unpopular stand, and anger has run high, from all-time low poll support to even calls for impeachment. I don't think the latter will actually occur, but a much larger risk is the Republicans losing control of the House and/or Senate in 2006. If the GOP is no longer perceived as the party that can keep America secure, it will likely take a tumble.

The danger of this would lessen, of course, if the opposing Democrats had better national security ideas themselves, but as we have seen, for the most part they do not. The upcoming elections will be an essential judge of where Americans stand on this issue. Personally, I think the ports matter will quickly become old news a la the Harriet Miers Supreme Court episode, and while Republicans may lose a few seats, they'll still maintain control of both lawmaking bodies.

The ports crisis could have been avoided by some sharper moves from the get-go (such as considering only American companies for the management contracts), but once it occurred, our only option was to resolve the situation satisfactorily and build upon what we learned from the mistake. Having just completed the former, it is essential that we Americans continue on the path of the latter.

Oscar Nominations & Hollywood's Anti-American Bent

2006-03-05T17:59:00.000-08:00

Tonight is Oscar night and Osama bin Laden would love it. So says Charles Krauthammer, who rightfully hammers Hollywood for the pro-terrorist, anti-Western bent of many of the nominated films. From Steven Spielberg's paean to appeasement Munich, to the terrorist-sympathizing Paradise Now, to the blame-the USA oil conspiracy tale Syriana, this year's Academy Award showcases are textbook examples of leftist anti-Americanism. A large portion of Tinseltown has sunk farther than ever into radical leftwing beliefs, and it's no surprise that mainstream America continues to ignore their work.

The article linked immediately above, meanwhile, provides some perhaps unintended insight into the roots of the doldrums. Written by prominent film critic Richard Schickel, the piece acknowledges Hollywood's downturn, but refuses to admit any liberal culpability. Says Schickel:

I'm convinced that last year's downturn in attendance is almost completely attributable to the fact that it is cheaper and more convenient to wait and see routine films at home, on DVD, than it is to see them theatrically.

Moreover, it has never been proved that the perceived liberality of Hollywood's morals or politics has any large effect on movie going. Decades ago, people went right on seeing racy movies, no matter how much the religious fundamentalists railed at Mae West.

Well, he may think there's no correlation, but reality dictates otherwise. Having been around for almost a decade, DVDs are not just a suddenly popular phenomenon, and over the past year, sales have actually begun to slow. Furthermore, racy films and anti-American films are two very different beasts; filmgoers may have flocked to see Mae West in a bikini, but you can bet they would have been repulsed by a story sympathizing with Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia against America.

Schickel's article is highly symptomatic of the mainstream movie industry's problems; faced with a clear decline largely due to their out-of-touch politics, they merely attempt to deflect the blame.

If Hollywood wants to recapture its former box office gold, it needs to move more in line with its target audience's tastes. Here's to Superman Returns for Best Picture in 2007.

The Left's Guiding Principle And Where It Goes Wrong

2006-03-02T17:54:00.000-08:00

Many prominent leftist actions often seem puzzling to the rest of us. When leftwingers ally, for example, with Islamists against America, their position is so recklessly shortsighted that we wonder just how they can act so blatantly against themselves. Islamists in power would completely destroy everything the left holds dear, from freedom of speech to gay rights to feminism, but that doesn't stop groups like the employees of San Francisco's City Lights Books (as mentioned in my previous post) who have openly sided with the jihadists by refusing to sell Oriana Fallaci's pro-Western text The Force Of Reason. That this stance contradicts the leftists' own interests is quite obvious. But why can't they seem to see it? How blinded by ideology can one possibly be?

This same quandary also pops up frequently when encountering leftist political thought, from Jimmy Carter's peace-at-all-costs support of Hugo Chavez to European elites welcoming radical Muslim immigration to American university professors defending the motives of the 9/11 terrorists. Each time, we wonder: What can they possibly be thinking? Of course they must believe in their actions, but how can they not recognize such blatant missteps?

There probably isn't a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but I'd like to offer an explanation that may account for much of it. Leftwingers believe, as Dennis Prager has touched on in the past, that all people are inherently good.

So what's the problem? In reality, being good is a choice, and while many people indeed act as such, others unfortunately choose to act evilly. But if you believe everyone is inherently good, then evil cannot truly exist and evildoers are not wrong but misunderstood. Therefore, instead of trying to defeat evil, you're always explaining it away, and thus unchecked the evil only grows worse.

Sadly in many cases, this is exactly what leftism has done. How many times have we heard statements such as the following: The terrorists aren't evil but are responding to legitimate grievances. Therefore, we shouldn't judge them, but must apologize for our own actions which must have provoked them. Crime is not the criminal's fault, but a result of his poor economic situation and oppression by society. Palestinian suicide bombers are not evil, just desperate because Israel has left them with no other choice. Muslims in Europe aren't wrong to be violent, just angry over unemployment and discrimination. It's okay for Hugo Chavez to suppress freedom; he has no other choice because of Venezuela's rich-poor gap. Saddam and bin Laden are not truly bad guys; they became dictatorial to rebel against the modern culture that threatened their traditional ways of life. The list goes on and on. Each time, the leftists see no evil because their belief in humanity's 100% goodness does not allow for the possibility.

Seen from this point of view, then, their actions no longer seem quite so ridiculous. These people naively believe that evil isn't real and proceed to act accordingly.

Look, for example, at a popular review of Steven Spielberg's film Munich by well known movie critic Harry Knowles. A self-confessed bleeding heart liberal, Knowles is clearly a nice guy and obviously well intentioned. But look at what he says about America's enemies:

[Munich] doesn’t just humanize the assassins, but the targets. Not only that - Steven dares to put them in the same room, to find a music they can both stand. To have the leader of a PLO group talk with a leader of an Israeli group about the resolve and hopelessness of either's situation...

We like to think of those on the other side as inhuman retches of society. They probably eat animals raw – or even fetid rancid with maggots. They spend all their time sharpening knives and acting like crazed madmen frothing at the mouth. They hate life and go around slapping anyone that looks at them.

In the 40s when we went to war with Japan, Italy and Germany – we made them inhuman monstrosities. It’s easier to kill an animal, than a man. Here, Spielberg attempts to defuse that by making these plotters of the unthinkable… just men. Intellectuals that would translate books to further their culture. That have cute children and loving wives. That appreciate a night sky and young love. That dream of living where their fathers lived and raising an olive tree. A people that dream of a better tomorrow, but dedicated to die for that dream. Same as the men that are hunting them.

Notice the review's key points? Like many leftists, Knowles simply can't acknowledge the presence of evil. We didn't make Japan, Italy, and Germany out to be monstrosities during World War II; they WERE monstrosities. It's not wrong to demonize the PLO terrorists; they DID act like inhuman retches of society. The hard left just doesn't get it.

But as events have played out over again ad infinitum, appeasing evil in the name of understanding never works and only emboldens the evildoers. Until the left recognizes this, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Albert Einstein once said that "the world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." This advice is well worth heeding.

K-Swiss, Taliban at Yale, Prager, Ali Sina, and more

2006-02-28T11:06:00.000-08:00

TheSolidSurfer.com's Washington correspondent "K-Swiss" checks in with a suggestion to link to a new column written by Israel lobbyist Morris "Morrie" Amitay. In the piece, Mr. Amitay explains that despite threats from Iran, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas, Israel and America have many reasons for optimism in the war on terror. For more information, visit Amitay's website, Washington PAC. Stay tuned also for a new political insider report from K-Swiss in the near future.

On a related note, William Kristol spells out what America must do to defeat the jihadist enemy.

Is Yale University insane? A former government ambassador for the Taliban, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, is a freshman at the school on a U.S. student visa. University officials have expressed their delight at having accepted a foreign student of his caliber. Apparently good grades and strong SAT scores are no longer enough; the true ticket to Yale admission is work experience with an evil regime that oppressed its people and sheltered terrorists. What's next - inviting the Iranian Mullahs as visiting professors?

Muslim apostate Ali Sina has written a highly insightful primer on fundamentalist Islamic society's Achilles' heel: its sense of shame. Sina's feelings toward his former faith are quite harsh and spare no wrath, but despite the unkind terms, his principal argument is both solid and revealingly eye-opening.

Dennis Prager on why the Left never blames Muslims for jihadist violence and instead always targets America and the West as causing the world's problems. A case in point: City Lights Books in San Francisco, which throughout its history has famously sold banned books in the name of free speech, refuses to carry a new work by Orianna Fallaci that criticizes Islam. Why? Because she's a "fascist" for claiming that Western civilization is superior, and City Lights won't carry books by "fascists." Typical of the far-left, they truly care about free speech only when it suits their political views.

Victor Davis Hanson has returned from a trip to Iraq and is wowed by America's stunning successes.

Blog of the Day: Meryl Yourish

Economics and Taxes: The Laffer Curve Explained

2006-02-27T11:02:00.000-08:00

In his recent interview on our site, Texas congressional candidate Van Taylor raised an important economic point that I'd like to clarify for anyone who may be unfamiliar: the phenomenon of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased, and not decreased, government revenue.

As Mr. Taylor mentioned, when President Bush's lowered our nation's capital gains tax by 25%, federal government revenue from that tax doubled from $300 million to $600 million. But how can this be, you might be thinking; given that taxes are the primary source of government income, wouldn't higher taxes logically lead to more money in federal coffers?

In reality, the answer is sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. And the explanation behind this apparent contradiction is best demonstrated through a graph called the Laffer Curve, which plots government revenue from maximum to minimum along a scale of taxation from zero to 100%.

So how do we make sense of it? Let me explain with an example. Say you have a hypothetical nation that has no taxes. Naturally, this means the government receives no tax revenue. But our government doesn't like having no money, so it decides to raise the tax rate on its citizens' incomes to 1%. Now, all of a sudden, the government has some funds, and it is happy. So it decides to raise the rate again to 10%. And now the government makes even more money and is happier still.

So far so good, but now the government gets greedy. It decides to raise the tax rate all the way to 100%, thinking it will maximize revenue. But all of a sudden, the nation's citizens decide to stop working, because what use is work if they don't get to keep any of their money? Government revenue hence plummets back to zero, and the government is as broke as when it charged no taxes at all.

As we can see, then, taxing people both too little and too much can hurt government revenue. Tax too low and you won't receive enough from each citizen, but tax too high and you'll disincentivize people to work and invest, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers available to fund you.

The optimal tax rate that maximizes government revenue, then, is somewhere between these two high and low extremes. It is this relationship, as expressed on a chart, that we notate as the Laffer Curve.

Being only a representation of data, the curve cannot by itself determine the optimal tax rate (the sample curve above may appear to be maximized at 50%, but this is only a random example); only real-life data can do so. And according to it, the optimal tax rate is very low - perhaps 15% or 17% on income tax.

But whatever the actual optimal rate, if your current tax rate lies above it, lowering taxes will move you towards the optimum and will increase government revenue. If, on the other hand, your current tax rate lies below the optimal rate, raising taxes will move you towards the optimum and therefore increase government revenue. The tax cut to which Mr. Taylor referred raised government revenue precisely because the original tax rate lay above the optimal rate, and cutting it helped bring it closer to maximization.

The question the federal government should ask itself, then, is not whether to raise or lower taxes purely to achieve a rise or cut, but how to adjust taxes accordingly so that they reach the optimal revenue-maximization point on the Laffer Curve. Right now, America's tax rates seem to be above the optimal rate, so cutting taxes toward that rate (but not overshooting it by reducing taxes too much) is quite certain to increase the government's pockets. Given that tax cuts also greatly boost private-sector economic performance, they seem in this situation like a win-win proposal for all involved.

News Roundup: Lawrence Summers, Free Speech, more

2006-02-26T10:59:00.000-08:00

Plenty of important news from over the past few days:

In a sad blow to academic freedom, Harvard president Lawrence Summers has resigned from the university under heavy pressure from ultra-liberal faculty members. While Summers had butted heads with many left-leaning professors during his tenure, the turning point came when he dared to utter the politically incorrect statement that male dominance in science and engineering could contain a genetic component.

Regardless of whether Summers is correct (and let's be honest - he certainly might be; men and women are obviously physically different, so the possibility of innate gender differences in other areas at least exists), it is outrageous that these faculty members booted him for merely expressing the opinion. This is a clear demonstration of the lack of intellectual diversity at many of our top universities, and the biggest losers will be the schools themselves, as such episodes can only diminish their reputations for quality education.

More on free speech and its limitations: Notorious British anti-Semite David Irving pleaded guilty in Austria to charges of denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to three years in prison. Many conservative writers, however, have posited that no matter how vile his statements, Irving's jail sentence is unwarranted due to freedom of speech. I understand these writers' concerns, but I must respectfully disagree with their assessments. I am, of course, a vigorous advocate of free speech of all sorts, but even in a free society, hate speech concerning genocide must not be tolerated. Perhaps Irving's sentence was too harsh, but formally denying the Holocaust should certainly be illegal.

This, by the way, is very different than the free speech issues involving the Danish cartoons. Yes, they may have been offensive and distasteful, but in no way were they hate speech on the level of denying the Holocaust. On the same token, if someone denied a genocide involving Muslim or any other victims (such as those in Sudan today), I would equally support prosecution of that person under hate speech crimes as well.

More on the cartoons as well: In light of recent violence in Nigeria and around the world, here is an insightful allegory that sharply exposes the outrageous Muslim hypocrisy that has continued into this past week.

But good news confirmed: Europe is finally starting to awaken to its large problem of hostile Islamic immigrants within a multicultural society. Of course, the linked reference being a mainstream media article, the writer tries to portray Europe's reaction as almost a bad thing. But the truth nevertheless emerges that the Continent has at last begun to respond to the increasingly violent Islamofascists in its midst.

On a related note, an L.A. Times columnist demonstrates just how mainstream media-reported news fails to accurately reflect trends in the real world.

And finally, some heartwarming news, as sent in by a reader.

Exclusive Interview: Van Taylor, Iraq War Veteran and Republican Candidate for the House of Representatives

2006-02-23T10:49:00.000-08:00

Texas Congressional District 17 (based in Waco, TX) looks to be the site of one of 2006's most competitive political contests. Several prominent Republicans are vying neck and neck to win a crowded primary for the right to challenge the seat of eight-time Democratic incumbent Rep. Chet Edwards.

TheSolidSurfer.com recently caught up with perhaps the most prominent of these challengers, recent Iraq War veteran Van Taylor. A 7th generation Texan running in his first national election at age 33, Mr. Taylor is a former U.S. Marine Captain and intelligence officer, Harvard graduate, independent business owner, and husband and father. In an exclusive interview for this site, he spoke candidly about the congressional race, his views and positions, Iraq and the war on terror, and what needs to be fixed in America.

TheSolidSurfer.com: Van, thank you very much for joining us. Let's start out by discussing the coming elections. You're facing a very tough primary race against some conservative Republicans with similar positions on many issues. How do you stand out?

Van Taylor: Thank you, glad to be here. Around the district, people are really excited to support someone whose life experience as a marine and as a businessman speaks to the challenges of our times. My focus is on issues that truly affect our lives, such as winning the war on terror, securing our borders, restoring fiscal discipline to Washington, growing our economy, and fighting for traditional family values.

Solid Surfer: Sounds great. Let's discuss some of these positions. On supporting traditional families, what specific ways do you have in mind?

Taylor: I believe in the sanctity of marriage and will vote to support it. I'll support a constitutional amendment for that as well. I'll also work to eliminate the marriage penalty and the alternative minimum tax, and increase the per-tax child credit, and I'm going to vote for traditional family values, defend faith in public life and won't attack it, and defend religion.

Solid Surfer: How about taxes in more detail? I know you want to cut taxes in general, but any specific tax or taxes that especially stand out?

Taylor: It's really important to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, particularly the capital gains tax. Clearly it was too high, and cutting it has given both taxpayers a lower tax rate and the federal government more revenue. When we lowered it by 25%, revenue from it doubled from $300 billion to $600 billion in two years, and I think we should cut it down even further. This is what I like to call the Wal Mart strategy – lower prices every day. When your prices are too high for capital gains, people are afraid to take profits on long term investments, and fortunately the president stood up for it and voted for it, and everyone has been a winner.

I'm shocked and appalled, though, that certain Democrats want to raise the tax rate despite knowing all this evidence. The returns are indisputable - there is no question that lowering the tax rate on the capital gains tax has pushed revenue up. But for partisan reasons, a lot of Democrats want to charge higher tax rates and lower our treasury revenue, and this is a sad statement on politics in Washington today. But I'm going to fight for the right thing, which is to lower tax rates to benefit us all.

Solid Surfer: On a similar note, where do we have opportunities to eliminate wasteful spending, and what is your strategy?

Taylor: Unfortunately, there is a culture in Washington of wasteful spending, i.e. vote for my wasteful project and I'll vote for yours. Due to this, we've seen many significant wastes of money like a bridge built to nowhere, $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, half a million dollars to paint a fish on the side of an airplane, and so on. Those are galling examples of bad spending policy, and as a member of Congress I'll fight to root that out and to say, look let's be careful here and spend this money as if it's our own personal savings. Part of that means reforming how we do earmarks, if not eliminating them completely; that’s a path of corrupting power and wasteful spending that we should avoid.

Solid Surfer: What about border security? How should we beef it up?

Taylor: We need to implement the physical infrastructure necessary to secure our borders, shift the focus of the border patrol away from interdiction and towards prevention, and reform our immigration code internally inside the U.S. We should also work to replace our illegal labor force with a legal labor force. The problem on our U.S.-Mexico border is accelerating; as a Marine, I served on that border eight years ago, and not only did we not control it then, but it's worse today than it has ever been. Last year, one million people crossed our southern border illegally, which is a very serious problem that must be fixed. Without border security, you can't have national security.

Solid Surfer: Speaking of that, as a former soldier you have a significant insider perspective on the war on terror. How, in your view, is America is doing? Do you think we’re winning, and what can we improve?

Taylor: I have tremendous confidence in our men and women in uniform as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world defeating terrorists wherever they may be. I am concerned, however, about opportunistic politicians trying to implement bad military strategy and practice on the troops on the ground, such as tying their hands with benchmarks, milestones, and timelines. This really only serves to encourage and help the enemy, and it won't help keep America safe or free. I intend to make sure that our troops don't have their hands tied by politicians in Washington, and that they receive the latitude they need to successfully accomplish their mission, which is to provide for our common defense.

Solid Surfer: On a similar token, having been in Iraq, do you think the mainstream American media has been reporting the war fairly and accurately?

Taylor: Well, newspapers do what they do – they report exciting stories that are going to sell. Same with the broadcast media. But look at what happened (last) Friday. Iraq officially announced the successful conduct of its elections, released the results, worked out all the corruption issues, and not a single reporter showed up. Here is one of the great moments in Iraqi history, and not a word about it in the newspaper.

Of course the papers had plenty of words instead about a terrorist massacring eight innocent civilians in a mosque, but the media often tends to gravitate towards shocking stories and ends up missing the big story. And the big stories in Iraq over the last year have been three successful elections, the creation of a strong Iraqi military which by this June will control half the country, and the courage of the brave young men and women who serve every day in the war on terror with tremendous success.

Solid Surfer: How do you feel about America's prospects for achieving President Bush's goals of energy independence from Middle East oil? Is it realistic and how can we as Americans contribute to that effort?

Taylor: I think ultimately the market will solve this problem, just as it did in the 1970s, when we actually faced a much more severe energy crisis than we do today. High oil prices meant for high profits, and that prompted entrepreneurs to come in and create more supply, as well as causing consumers to consume less. As a result we have become twice as efficient with each unit of energy as we were 30 years ago.

The best thing the government can really do is to stay out of it. Every president since Richard Nixon had his own plan to reduce energy dependence through some kind of progressive new fuel or new technology, and they all failed completely. That said, we should always continue to keep trying. The federal government does have a small role to play, but the private sector’s role should be much larger, as ultimately they will be the ones to solve this problem. I don't agree with people who say the federal government should solve everything; I think they should create a level playing field and let the rest of us play on it.

Solid Surfer: Any other issues or positions you want to discuss, or more on the campaign itself?

Taylor: In my own story, people have come up to me and said, "Van we're excited to support you, not only because we share your beliefs and not only because you have real world experiences and will work to make Washington more responsive, but because you have a lifetime of leadership, from being an Eagle Scout and Senior Patrol Leader in Boy Scouts, sports team captain in school, Marine Officer, building and running your own company, bringing together business deals, and now running a political campaign."

I think when you talk with people involved in the campaign or who served with me in Iraq or have been in business with me, you’ll find a consistent theme that I have always sought out the opportunity to lead, and have been blessed with success in doing so and in helping others to be successful and developing themselves as well.

Solid Surfer: That all sounds great. To conclude, what's in store for you leading to the election, and how do you feel about your chances for success?

Taylor: I've been overwhelmed by the tremendous support across the district and really across the country as well, from small campaign contributions to emails on my website saying 'keep going'. I just talked to my platoon sergeant from Iraq ten minutes ago and he said, "My wife and I are going to be walking blocks for you on Saturday. We’re there for you. You kept me alive in Iraq, and I’m going to work to get you elected to Congress." And it's wonderful having people I've never known before come off the street and say "I want five Van Taylor bumper stickers and two yard signs, and how can I help and what can I do?" It's great to see such response to our message that experience matters, that experience can make a difference in your life. It's resonating across the district in a meaningful way, and I'm very excited.

Solid Surfer: Van, thank you very much again. It’s been a pleasure to speak with you and to have you on TheSolidSurfer.com.

Taylor: Thank you too, and I appreciate it.

Mark Steyn and Western vs. Muslim Demographics

2006-02-19T10:47:00.000-08:00

I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.

In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.

This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.

Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.

But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.

On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.

At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.

I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.

Iran's Oil Bourse: A Threat To America?

2006-02-17T10:09:00.000-08:00

In addition to nuclear weapons threats, Iran apparently has begun an economic offensive against America. According to Israel Insider (and several other publications), the Mullahs plan to open an international oil bourse (a European term for trading exchange) on March 20 that would trade petroleum using euros as currency. Currently the entire world uses American dollars for such trading, and Iran believes a euro-based exchange will encourage other nations to withdraw their ample dollar reserves involved. This, the Mullahs hope, would trigger massive dollar inflation and greatly increase the cost of and risk of default on foreign debt, sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

The article's author believes America is vulnerable both because foreign nations have accumulated large dollar reserves to help finance petroleum purchases and because America borrows large sums from these same nations to support its own budgetary overspending. With the euro available as an alternate currency, the foreigners will want to diversify so to hedge against any dollar depreciation, and the necessary dollar dumping will flood the U.S. market causing hyperinflation. Furthermore, without such high reserves, the foreigners will become less inclined to lend to America, and the cost of said borrowing (and hence the default risk) will rise. Collectively, the author predicts, this will lead to long term stagflation and the end of American economic dominance.

So now we must ask - is this threat legit? Does Iran really have such power over us? The possibility certainly seems alarming, but I wouldn't be so sure. Surely Iran aims to harm us, but whether their plan will succeed is another matter entirely. I believe Iran's strategy will fail due to several key factors the article's author overlooks.

First, oil trading is not a large part of our economy. Even if foreigners decide to trade oil entirely in euros, they are still likely to maintain their dollar reserves as backup for their enormous investments in U.S. stocks, funds, real estate, and other equities.

Secondly, even if they do begin to dump dollars, long-term inflation is no sure bet. America can always counter by lowering the cost of using dollars on its own NYMEX exchange, and naturally the foreigners will return to greenbacks to get a better deal. (See the first comment at the end of this article.)

In addition, a rise in the cost of foreign debt (unlikely anyway due to the two above principles) would have far less impact on the economy than the author conveys, because compared to GDP the debt itself is actually minimal. As long as GDP growth keeps up with debt percentage-wise (and we have little reason to believe it won't), we should run no greater risk of default than ever before.

Iran may intend to undercut the U.S. economy, but I don't believe their strategy will work. That's not to say they won't hurt us at all, but it shouldn't be nearly as catastrophic as they hope. The Mullahs may be overconfident as always, but then again, they haven't exactly been known for levelheaded political thinking. America must monitor this situation intently and respond as necessary, but market principles and our internal productivity should allow us to strongly pull through.

If we attack Iran, it will be motivated not by oil or economics, but to stop a fanatic regime from threatening the world with WMDs. As opposed to the oil bourse situation, on this issue we must hurry and act accordingly.

Sorry Norway and Denmark? Not Sorry Enough.

2006-02-14T10:06:00.000-08:00

Happy Valentine's Day! Hope everyone has had an enjoyable February 14, and let's all be glad we don't live in Malaysia, where the government has come out against the holiday. (Take just one guess why before clicking on the link.)

On a similar note, anyone seen this website yet? SorryNorwayDenmark.com. It is a perfect example of radical-supporting Muslims pretending to be moderate.

The site contains a letter from certain Muslims apologizing for their co-religionists' violent outbursts in wake of the Danish cartoons. The letter affirms free speech and condemns the murderous incitement and vandalism that have occurred.

So what's wrong? Read the letter more closely:

When confronted with such a situation, we deplore the use of violence in all its forms, as well as threats of violence and derogatory and racist remarks being thrown in the opposite direction. We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.

So that's the real reason behind the apology. Not because they believe violence is morally wrong, but because it tarnishes their image. Read further:

There is a strong tradition of friendship and cooperation between the Norwegian and Danish people and Arab people. Of most note is the continued support that these governments give to the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and the brave stance that these governments have often taken to defend Palestinian rights. We sincerely hope these special bonds will not be broken. We hope that our Scandinavian friends would not be convinced by the actions of a few to believe that this is how Arabs and Muslims feel about them. There are racists, bigots and criminals in all countries, and it is the duty of the respectful and reasonable to reach out to each other.

In other words, the writers of the letter could care less about the actual citizens of Denmark and Norway; they apologize only because it hurts their own cause of supporting Muslims and Palestinians. And for good measure, they throw in a bit about extremists "on both sides," as if the Scandinavians were also threatening violence.

Nowhere in the entire letter do the authors condemn the violence simply for being immoral or against their religion. (Perhaps because the violence is indeed permitted by their religion?) A truly moderate Muslim certainly would have done this, and as such, we can see that those who penned the letter are, at best, passive supporters of the radicals' goals.

In other news:

Who else is glad Al Gore didn't become president? I think we all should be, considering his shameful apology to a Saudi audience for supposed American abuses after 9/11. So Saudi Arabia produces 15 of the 19 hijackers, bans all non-Muslim religions, grants its people few freedoms, treats women like property, regularly denounces America, and Al Gore thinks America owes them an apology? Just awful.

But good news from America too: Support for Israel highest since 1991. Let's keep it up.

Danish Cartoons and Moderate Islam: Reader Responses

2006-02-13T10:04:00.000-08:00

Several readers have written in response to my recent essay on the Danish cartoons and moderate Islam, and after conversing with one, I'd like to reprint his words, along with my own commentary. Straight from the Comments section comes this letter from reader Verdant:

I don't believe the problem is Islam or Radical Islam. The problem is fascism.

As you allude to in a portion of your article, much of Islam currently exists in a fear society. In a fear society, physical strength, as opposed to democratic values, is ascendant. Physical strength, through intimidation, prevails, and is eventually idolized and worshiped, initially by younger idealstic generations but eventually be a majority of the population. This worship ostensibly takes the form of extreme nationalism, racism, religiousness, etc. but it is fundamentally bottomed by a powerful group-oriented narcissistic fervor that produces an overwhelming feeling of superiority coupled with anger in the affected group. This feeling of superiority overwhelms what often were previous feelings of inferiority felt by members of the group caused by actual physical events, and is perceived as a catharsis or transformation in the identity of the previously downtrodden group. The problem is that most members of the group, even apostates, at least secretly badly wish for and want the emotional release and identity reversal, even if those members rationally know their ostensible cause is immoral.

Islam is therefore not the problem in my opinion. Radical Islam is simply a form of fascism. Like Nazism, which a form of facism based on the narcissistic ideals of racist nationalism which dehumanizes members of other races, Radical Islam is based on the narcissistic ideals of religious nationalism which dehumanizes members of other religions. The problem is that stopping fascism requires destroying it. And destroying fascism requires inflicting sufficient pain upon it adherents that they become disabused of the notion that they are superior. Once fascism has reached a level of infection within the populace, its destruction can only be accomplished by force. Iran is becoming close to that level of infection and may have indeed reached it.

To summarize...any religion or philosophy can be twisted to accomodate fascism. Islam is simply the current superficial carrier of the fascist disease. The secret is to recognize the disease and not confuse it with its current manifestation.

TheSolidSurfer.com responds: Verdant, thank you for writing. I fully agree with your analysis on how fear societies fascistically emerge, and as you point out, they are sadly very difficult to stop without using military force. Hopefully we can reform Iran before it reaches this point; from all indications, we have only a short window of time before the military option becomes necessary. American support of Iranian opposition groups in the coming weeks and months will be essential to the hope for a peaceful democratic revolution.

At the same time, while I agree with you as well that any philosophy or creed can be twisted towards fascism, I also believe that some religions by their very nature are far more susceptible than others. And Islam appears to fall squarely into this category. As Pope Benedict recently remarked, for example, Islam greatly differs from both Judaism and Christianity (and, indeed, from almost all other religions) in that it believes its holy book (the Koran) was written without human assistance and is hence unadaptable to new situations. (Contrast this, for instance, to Judaism's Torah, which has always been accompanied by an Oral Tradition that elaborates how the written scriptures can continually apply to a changing world.) The result is that unlike practitioners of other faiths, observant Muslims live by a set of 7th century mores that naturally clash quite heavily with modernity. Unable to adapt, they react by building up anger in the manner you describe, and in the worst cases this has lead to fascism where they lash out at more successsful societies (i.e. everyone else).

Notice that other religions have not turned fascistic; the world's other prominent faiths (such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism) have also interpreted their core texts in light of modernity and resultingly have none of the Muslims' pent-up anger. Indeed, the only modern comparisons to radical Islamic rage have been that of the Nazis and Communists; unable to cope with their failed political and economic systems, they too turned to attacking more successful others (such as Jews and Westerners).

In summary, then, while we disagree over the source of the Islamists' fascism, we both know that it is a great danger to the world and must be fully defeated. Thanks again for the letter, and I appreciate the welcome contibution to the site.

Krauthammer, Putin and Hamas, Patriotic Videogames

2006-02-12T10:00:00.000-08:00

Russia's increasingly authoritarian president Vladimir Putin has long been known as a leading far right figure. But his latest move to legitimize Hamas by inviting its leaders to Moscow shows a striking parallel to only those on the far left: a willingness to stupidly unite with one's natural enemies purely to oppose America. Just as the left's core principles (abortion, secularism, gay rights, etc.) would be outlawed if Islamists were to actually gain power, Russia's overtures will surely backfire given how such rewarding of terror could motivate the country's own Islamist Chechen rebels to become even more violent. Legitimizing terror never pays, and unless Putin backs down, he will most certainly learn this lesson the hard way.

Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent column slamming so-called moderates, both Islamic and Western, for condemning the Danish cartoons while continually ignoring the Islamic world's constant barrage of anti-American and anti-Semitic content. I agree entirely. As I mentioned in a recent essay, the West certainly should reach out to *true* Muslim moderates, but those who claim to be moderate while acting as jihadist apologists are nearly as bad as the terrorists themselves.

Anyone else tired of the anti-American Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days? If so, you might enjoy revisiting an old classic: the 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System. Even non-videogamers can't help but marvel at a console featuring games where you can take on the Soviets (the not-so-subtly named Rush 'n' Attack); fight against a stand-in for Libya's Col. Gadhafi (Metal Gear); destroy the "ultra-sheik nuclear attack tank" of Higharolla Kockamamie (i.e. Ayatollah Khomeini) (Snake's Revenge); and save Ronald Reagan from a gang of armed thugs (Bad Dudes). The NES may have originated in Japan, but it was proudly pro-American to the core.

Want to know why the West should be secure while the Islamists should not be? Because they're totally dependent on us. An in-depth analysis by Victor Davis Hanson.

Also, TheSolidSurfer.com wants to give a special thanks to RealClearPolitics.com for including our recent essay on moderate Islam in its February 10th blog coverage, and to fellow blogger Madzionist for kindly plugging last week's piece on phony Palestinian demographics on his site.

Madzionist also earns today's Blog of the Day designation; check out his many essential essays and article links on Israel, especially a recent post advocating a Jewish State of Judea in the territories beyond the green line.

Despite Cartoon Riots, Moderate Islam Still The Answer

2006-02-08T09:58:00.000-08:00

A common view on the problem of radical Islam holds that the solution is simply moderate Islam. According to those who espouse this theory, most notably Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, only a bit of Western pressure is needed, and then the militants will be defeated ideologically by the silent majority of moderates in their midst.

In light of the violent reactions to the recent Danish cartoons, however, many have begun to reconsider this belief. As Jim Geraghty of National Review today discussed, many of the Muslim protestors appear to be not just fundamentalists, but ordinary run-of-the-mill folk as well. Furthermore, very few self-professing moderate Muslims have condemned the violence. Unsurprisingly, many Westerners are now starting to consider whether the idea of Islamic moderates is just a myth, and that Islam itself, rather than just "radical" Islam, is the true problem.

Could this all possibly be? I agree that Islam itself is indeed the problem, but nevertheless, moderate Muslims remain the solution.

Radical Islam (or Islamism or Islamofascism or whatever you want to call it), as we all know, is the religion's fundamentalist strain. And as religious fundamentalism by definition equals a return to a faith's core observances, fundamentalist Islam is a throwback to the initial Islam that was practiced back in the 7th century.

This essentially means, then, that fundamentalist Islam is not "radical" per se - it is the true Islam as practiced by the first Muslims. If fundamentalism has caused the religion's problems, then the real culprit is indeed authentic Islam itself.

While that conclusion may seem sobering, nevertheless I don't believe that it disqualifies moderate Muslims (and by this I mean only true moderates, not pseudo-moderates who call for peace in English and jihad in Arabic) from being the solution. Literalist Islam clearly contains many violent elements, but still, certainly not all Muslims believe in or practice them. Indeed, many born Muslims have become apostates, while others live only by the religion's peaceful aspects while conveniently ignoring the violent ones. Exclude the apostates from the discussion if you want (they too are part of the solution but technically are no longer Muslims), but the latter group still can truly be defined as "moderate Muslims." The cartoon reactions have demonstrated that perhaps this group's numbers are slightly smaller than we thought, but nevertheless the group firmly exists.

In addition, we must recall the difference, as brilliantly eloquated by Natan Sharansky in his book The Case For Democracy, between free societies and fear societies. In open, free, democratic societies, people can voice their minds without worry of censure. In fear societies, however, where most Muslims live (including many Muslim neighborhoods in Western countries), this is not the case. Legions of moderate Muslims may want to speak out, but the radicals pressure them into staying silent. Look how apprehensive certain newspapers have become in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon affair. Moderate Muslims live under a similar fear (likely to an even greater degree) every single day.

So while the violence problem may stem from Islam itself, the solution indeed remains the same. We must empower moderate Muslims to the point where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisal by fundamentalists. Many moderates may seem to passively endorse the radicals, but remember that in the 1950s, virtually no Russians spoke out against the horrors of the Soviet regime. Only when the West began to encourage them did the moderates' genuine voices finally emerge.

I believe the same holds true with Islam today. While we must certainly still take further steps to stop the jihadists (such as continuing counterterrorism efforts, limiting Muslim immigration to the West, and deporting those who encourage violence), supporting the moderates also remains key to our success.

Israel's Demographic Non-Crisis

2006-02-07T09:55:00.000-08:00

With all the recent hoopla over Muslim vs. Western demographics in Europe, public discussion of a similar situation in Israel has been pushed slightly to the backburner. But within Israel itself, this issue has continued to dominate the political landscape, as successive leaders from Barak to Sharon and now Olmert have based key foreign policy decisions on the premise that Palestinian population growth rates far outstrip Jewish increases.

According to Palestinian Authority-provided statistics, 3.8 million Arabs live in the West Bank and Gaza. Add in Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens, and it appears that 5.2 million Arabs live west of the Jordan River, as compared with only 5.3 million Jews. Factoring in the Arabs' higher natural growth rates, an Arab majority in the region would seem almost certain to occur within a few years.

Believing these numbers, Israel's government has postulated that a long-term Jewish majority can be achieved only by ceding Gaza and most of the West Bank to the Palestinians. And thus Sharon withdrew from Gaza, and now Olmert intends to destroy Jewish settlements throughout Judea and Samaria.

But what if the numbers are actually wrong? In early 2005, an Israeli demographic study found that the Palestinians had far inflated their population count and growth rates, and that the actual number of Arabs in the disputed territories is only 2.4 million. Furthermore, so many Palestinians are emigrating from the territories in the wake of the intifada that Israel's share of the overall population may even increase. Going by this study, Israel has no demographic problem at all.

Both sides claim to be right; Israel stands by its numbers while the Palestinians stand by theirs. So who is telling the truth?

Until recently, it may have been difficult for an outside observer to know. But now that Palestinian election returns have come in, we have a definitive answer: Israel.

According to official polling station counts, there were 1.3 million eligible Palestinian voters, a number that corresponds only with Israel's findings of 2.4 million Palestinians. (Here is a thorough analysis of why.)

Just as the Palestinian leadership has always lied about its intentions and its true goal of destroying Israel, we see once again that they have spread deliberate falsehoods in order to advance their political cause. By emphasizing a phony demographic threat, they conned Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and threaten to do the same for most of the West Bank.

We must spread the truth before it is too late. Ceding land to terrorists is a terrible idea, and Israel must not fall into such a trap again.

More on Danish Cartoons, American Mainstream Media

2006-02-05T09:54:00.000-08:00

As an addendum to the previous post, here is a link, supplied by a reader, to the actual Danish cartoons that have aroused so much Muslim anger. Are they offensive? Of course. And Muslims have every right to feel upset and to protest them peacefully. But once again, those who have threatened violence and murder have clearly stepped way over the line that divides civilized behavior from fanatical barbarism. These radicals have no respect for human life, and their only moral code is that any action that benefits Islamo-fascism is good.

As the world can see, this, along with the actions of Hamas and Iran's Mullahs, represents the true face of radical Islam. In order to defeat it, we must stand up ever more strongly against it. But while many other European newspapers have expressed free-speech solidarity with the Danes by reprinting the cartoons, I am sad to say that very few American publications have done so as well.

Particularly compared to Europe, you would think American media outlets would be the first ones to stand up for such vital freedoms. But apart from the New York Sun, virtually no major newspapers have picked up the cartoons. Most of these, of course, wouldn't hesitate an instant to print cartoons mocking other religions, especially Christianity. But once again, the left-leaning mainstream media is entirely silent (read what CNN has to say at the very end of this article and prepare to be completely disgusted) against a threat not deemed politically correct by their own elites. (If anyone wants to comment to CNN about its egregious decision, by the way, click here.)

Western civilization and values must not be taken for granted, and to paraphrase Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, the opposite of freedom is not tyranny, but indifference. We in the West must refuse to buckle to pressure and must stand up for our cherished beliefs.

Danish Cartoons and Muslim Intolerance

2006-02-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

The Muslims who are protesting and threatening violence in response to Danish cartoons of Mohammed are acting at the absolute height of hypocrisy. You never hear a peep from them when Arab presses regularly publish deeply anti-American and anti-Semitic content, but when a Danish newspaper prints a few drawings they dislike, they threaten to kill Westerners all over the world for it. They feel content to trash everyone else at will, but can't accept the slightest offense to themselves.

It is vitally important that the newspapers who printed the cartoons stand up and defend themselves. Free speech is a basic hallmark of Western society and must be protected. Of course these Muslims have the right to feel offended, but threatening violence in response is absolutely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. We need to say "no" to this attempted suppression of freedom, and lend our full support to these newspapers in the name of basic rights.

A reader also offered an excellent recommendation, to which I give an enthusiastic thumbs-up: Buy Danish products!

Israel's Home Demolitions in Amona are a Huge Mistake

2006-02-01T09:49:00.000-08:00

Israel's government, I hate to say, is making a huge mistake in tearing down Jewish settlement homes in the outpost of Amona.

Sure, the few homes in question may have gone against Israel's previous land promises to the Palestinians, but at this point, so what. It'd be one thing if the Palestinians had actually held up their end of the peace talks, but for crying out loud - they just elected to be led by a terrorist organization devoted to Israel's destruction. Removing your own people for the benefit of a genocidally minded enemy is the height of poor thinking and a waste of precious resources.

According to many observers, a key reason behind the home demolitions is the left-leaning Israeli government's opposition to the more religious settler movement. Other factors likely include Prime Minister Olmert's attempt to score political points with his Kadima party base and with the international community.

But regardless of any seeming justifications, the Israeli government is picking the wrong fight. Whatever their differences in politics and/or religious observance, the settlers are fellow Jews who believe in a strong, secure state of Israel. Instead of opposing them, the government should treat them as its closest friends. Especially in the face of true enemies like Hamas, internal fighting is the last thing Israel needs.

As I predicted before it occurred, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza led not to peace, but to more Palestinian terrorism and violence. On the same token, disengaging from Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) would only bring more of the same. The Jewish residents of those regions are doing Israel a huge favor by living there, and the Jerusalem government should maximally support them.

Particularly in these difficult moments, it is imperative that Israel remains a unified nation. Religious or secular, resident proper or settler, Israeli Jews are one and the same. We should all hope and pray for the speedy recovery of all those who were wounded in the clash over Amona, and we must always support Israel's character as a strong and united Jewish state.