Happy Martin Luther King Day to all. Many news pieces commemorating the holiday have floated across the Web today, and Carolyn Garris of The Heritage Foundation has written one of the best of the bunch. Let's all remember Dr. King's Conservative Legacy.
An interesting battle between liberals and conservatives has been brewing at Amazon.com over Kate O'Beirne's book Women Who Make The World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports. In only a few days, the book has garnered hundreds of emotionally charged reader reviews, virtually all of which either highly praise or completely trash it. I haven't read the book, but numerous leftwingers clearly seem to hate it with a passion, which leads me to assume Ms. O'Beirne really must have struck a tough chord into their core beliefs. Scroll through the reviews to see everything for yourself.
Older, but unfortunately not wiser: Walter Cronkite calls for U.S. defeat in Iraq. Either Mr. Cronkite wishes to relive his 1968 moment of glory, when he announced America had lost the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive (a battle U.S. forces had actually handily won), or he simply just doesn't get it. Either way, good thing the mainstream media no longer has a stranglehold on wartime reporting.
Victor Davis Hanson explains why Iran must be confronted before it's too late.
Also, TheSolidSurfer.com wishes a hearty thanks to:
RealClearPolitics.com for reprinting my post Europe, Islam, and Demographics via pen name on their fine website.
And The Million Dollar Homepage, for hosting the first Solid Surfer advertisement. For anyone unfamiliar, The Million Dollar Homepage consists of one million on-screen graphical pixels split into 10,000 small blocks of 100 pixels each. The site's owner, British student Alex Tew, sold each block to advertisers (including yours truly) for $100 each (i.e. $1 per pixel), eventually filling the site and, yes, raising a full million dollars. The site has now closed to new advertisers, and Tew, who originally launched the venture to help finance his university education, has become a minor celebrity, appearing in The Wall Street Journal, the BBC, Yahoo! News, and many other prominent publications. TheSolidSurfer.com's purchased pixel block (which links here to this site) is located just above a green sign marked "GET FREE PIXELS" on the upper-middle right side of the page. We have a black-colored block with a white-colored letter "S" on it.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Saudi Arabia: Lacks Credibility, Needs Reform
The latest issue (January 23, 2006) of Business Week Magazine contains a full-page advertisement for a Saudi Arabian-based global investment firm called Kingdom Holding Company (KHC). Unlike most ads, however, which virtually all exist to promote a specific product or service, this page seems to do little more than acknowledge KHC's contributions to the global economy by listing an impressive string of multinationals in which it has invested: PepsiCo, Apple Computer, eBay, Amazon.com, Hewlett Packard, Citigroup, Time Warner, Motorola, Procter & Gamble, Eastman Kodak, and many more. Given Business Week's ad rates, surely it seems that KHC cannot possibly muster a financial return on its media spend.
So what's the point of the ad? KHC's motive may at first seem strange, but a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page reveals all. Kingdom Holdings Company, as it turns out, is owned and controlled by a Saudi Prince named Alwaleed Bin Talal. That's right, the same Prince bin Talal who has donated money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, whose $10 million donation to New York City after 9/11 was rejected by Rudy Giuliani, and who recently donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies.
As a Saudi royal family member, Bin Talal doesn't need to advertise to solicit new capital for his fund; petrodollars have given him more than enough. But with America waking up to Saudi Arabia's internal problems and promotions of Wahhabist jihadism, the prince desperately wishes to attain some credibility to help him cover his tracks and get the terrorism investigations off his back. Through this ad, hence, he desperately wants to convey the message that like anyone else, he's just a normal guy who invests to make money and help the global economy. For Prince bin Talal, this ad is a PR centerpiece.
But you know what - it's not going to work. For all the prince's attempted sugarcoating, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia is a repressive dictatorship that promotes jihadist ideology, offers few real freedoms to its citizens, and has resisted almost all attempts at true reform. If Prince bin Talal really wants to be known as just a regular guy, he could start by encouraging his homeland to allow free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the emancipation of women, and an end to the support of terrorism. No PR campaign, no matter how slick, can cover up the truth.
So what's the point of the ad? KHC's motive may at first seem strange, but a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page reveals all. Kingdom Holdings Company, as it turns out, is owned and controlled by a Saudi Prince named Alwaleed Bin Talal. That's right, the same Prince bin Talal who has donated money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, whose $10 million donation to New York City after 9/11 was rejected by Rudy Giuliani, and who recently donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies.
As a Saudi royal family member, Bin Talal doesn't need to advertise to solicit new capital for his fund; petrodollars have given him more than enough. But with America waking up to Saudi Arabia's internal problems and promotions of Wahhabist jihadism, the prince desperately wishes to attain some credibility to help him cover his tracks and get the terrorism investigations off his back. Through this ad, hence, he desperately wants to convey the message that like anyone else, he's just a normal guy who invests to make money and help the global economy. For Prince bin Talal, this ad is a PR centerpiece.
But you know what - it's not going to work. For all the prince's attempted sugarcoating, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia is a repressive dictatorship that promotes jihadist ideology, offers few real freedoms to its citizens, and has resisted almost all attempts at true reform. If Prince bin Talal really wants to be known as just a regular guy, he could start by encouraging his homeland to allow free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the emancipation of women, and an end to the support of terrorism. No PR campaign, no matter how slick, can cover up the truth.
Friday, January 13, 2006
K-Swiss: Ban Iran From The World Cup
Dear Readers,
I'd like to introduce TheSolidSurfer.com's new Washington, D.C. correspondent "K-Swiss". K-Swiss currently works on government contract projects, and has previous experience both as a congressional aide and on the team of a highly prominent lobbyist. He brings a key insider perspective on global politics to TheSolidSurfer.com, and we welcome his exclusive guest commentary.
K-Swiss reports today on an idea for punishing Iran: ban its soccer team from the World Cup.
With each passing day, as the hapless diplomats of the EU negotiate (i.e. trade pleasantries) with the Mullahs of Iran, the Islamic Republic continues to develop its nuclear program with the ultimate goal of producing atomic weapons. While it seems ever more likely that Iran will be referred to the United Nations Security Council, does anyone in their right mind really believe the UN will take action? This is the same UN that stayed silent during the genocide in Rwanda, appointed Libya to chair its Commission on Human Rights, and has proven itself morally bankrupt time and again on virtually every issue relating to Israel.
If the world really wants to get serious with Iran and the ruling Mullahs, an effective way to punish the pariah nation could be to ban it from the 2006 World Cup. This would be a large slap in the face to the dictatorial Mullahs, and a message that Iran can no longer defy international law without penalty. Iran is a soccer-crazy nation of 68 million people filled with national pride. What better way to punish it than to ban it from the ultimate world sporting event?
Some may say politics and sports should not mix, but Iran obviously saw it differently during the 2004 Athens Olympics. An Iranian judo athlete drew as his initial competitor a Jewish wrestler from Israel. Rather than compete against the Israeli, at the behest of his government the Iranian avoided the competition altogether and dropped out of the Olympics.
Banning Iran from the World Cup will not create an economic boycott nor sanctions, and most likely it will not directly end the Iranian nuclear program, but it will certainly hurt the national pride that Iran values so dearly. Although the majority of Iranians do not support the government, these people must recognize the downward spiral into which their leadership is dragging them. Banning Iran from the World Cup (and preferably all international sporting events until it gives up its nuclear ambitions) could help spur popular anger at the regime and become an important step towards a democratic revolution.
In fact, why not hasten things and really drive the Mullahs insane by letting Israel take Iran’s place? That would quickly show the Iranian regime that intimidating the West just won't work anymore.
TheSolidSurfer.com responds: K-Swiss, thank you for the piece and it's great to have you as a member of the team.
I'd like to introduce TheSolidSurfer.com's new Washington, D.C. correspondent "K-Swiss". K-Swiss currently works on government contract projects, and has previous experience both as a congressional aide and on the team of a highly prominent lobbyist. He brings a key insider perspective on global politics to TheSolidSurfer.com, and we welcome his exclusive guest commentary.
K-Swiss reports today on an idea for punishing Iran: ban its soccer team from the World Cup.
With each passing day, as the hapless diplomats of the EU negotiate (i.e. trade pleasantries) with the Mullahs of Iran, the Islamic Republic continues to develop its nuclear program with the ultimate goal of producing atomic weapons. While it seems ever more likely that Iran will be referred to the United Nations Security Council, does anyone in their right mind really believe the UN will take action? This is the same UN that stayed silent during the genocide in Rwanda, appointed Libya to chair its Commission on Human Rights, and has proven itself morally bankrupt time and again on virtually every issue relating to Israel.
If the world really wants to get serious with Iran and the ruling Mullahs, an effective way to punish the pariah nation could be to ban it from the 2006 World Cup. This would be a large slap in the face to the dictatorial Mullahs, and a message that Iran can no longer defy international law without penalty. Iran is a soccer-crazy nation of 68 million people filled with national pride. What better way to punish it than to ban it from the ultimate world sporting event?
Some may say politics and sports should not mix, but Iran obviously saw it differently during the 2004 Athens Olympics. An Iranian judo athlete drew as his initial competitor a Jewish wrestler from Israel. Rather than compete against the Israeli, at the behest of his government the Iranian avoided the competition altogether and dropped out of the Olympics.
Banning Iran from the World Cup will not create an economic boycott nor sanctions, and most likely it will not directly end the Iranian nuclear program, but it will certainly hurt the national pride that Iran values so dearly. Although the majority of Iranians do not support the government, these people must recognize the downward spiral into which their leadership is dragging them. Banning Iran from the World Cup (and preferably all international sporting events until it gives up its nuclear ambitions) could help spur popular anger at the regime and become an important step towards a democratic revolution.
In fact, why not hasten things and really drive the Mullahs insane by letting Israel take Iran’s place? That would quickly show the Iranian regime that intimidating the West just won't work anymore.
TheSolidSurfer.com responds: K-Swiss, thank you for the piece and it's great to have you as a member of the team.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Europe, Islam, and Demographics
Last week, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a dire-sounding piece in the Wall Street Journal expressing a fear that declining Western fertility, combined with rapid Muslim growth, will eventually lead to a radical Islamic takeover of the West (especially Europe) and the decline of our modern liberal society. Steyn backs his claims with numerous alarming statistics, such as Western fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman; Muslim rates far higher (over 6 children per woman) in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Niger; continued Muslim immigration into Western nations; and those Muslims' propensity towards extremism. Islamic dominance, according the piece, is practically inevitable; as Steyn writes, "It's the demography, stupid."
But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.
Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.
First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.
Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater number: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.
You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.
Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.
Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.
But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.
Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.
Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.
Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.
But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.
Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.
First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.
Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater number: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.
You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.
Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.
Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.
But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.
Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.
Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.
Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.
Monday, January 9, 2006
Favorite Writers Series: Victor Davis Hanson
I'd like to take an opportunity to introduce readers of this blog to one of my favorite writers on the Net, Dr. Victor Davis Hanson. In addition to penning regular columns on geopolitics, sociocultural trends, military strategy, and much more, Dr. Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor of Classics at UC-Fresno, a full-time farmer, and the author of 16 full-length books. He frequently emphasizes rural American values, greatly supports the U.S. and its military, and advocates freedom and democracy for all. Although I've never met him personally, I've long been a devoted reader of his works, and he probably has been the single greatest influence on my political writing style.
Dr. Hanson maintains a website at VictorHanson.com that, among its many treasures, contains his extensive archive of columns. Most recently, his writings have included pieces on U.S. policy in the Middle East and on why we need Europe as an ally, not an enemy.
I encourage everyone to peruse his website; you will likely find it well worth the time. And for any liberal-leaning reader ready to dismiss Dr. Hanson as a "typical conservative," know too that he is a registered Democrat.
Dr. Hanson maintains a website at VictorHanson.com that, among its many treasures, contains his extensive archive of columns. Most recently, his writings have included pieces on U.S. policy in the Middle East and on why we need Europe as an ally, not an enemy.
I encourage everyone to peruse his website; you will likely find it well worth the time. And for any liberal-leaning reader ready to dismiss Dr. Hanson as a "typical conservative," know too that he is a registered Democrat.
Sunday, January 8, 2006
Israel, Energy Policy, and a Conspiracy Theory
Ted Belman over at Israpundit reports on an investigative journalist named Dr. Francisco Gil-White who, writing from his website Hirhome.com, advances the theory that the American ruling elite secretly hates Israel and wants to destroy it.
Of course conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but Belman seems to hesitantly endorse Gil-White's conclusions, stating that the evidence actually seems quite solid. This has led to a very engaging discussion on the "Comments" section of Belman's post.
I believe, however, that Gil-White's conclusions are mistaken. He has indeed produced noteworthy evidence of U.S. efforts to oppose Israel, but we must remember that America's foremost priority (like that of any nation) is to act in its own interests. Supporting Israel certainly coincides with these interests given Israel's status as the Middle East's only true liberal democracy. But America also needs the region's oil and as such has been forced to placate Arab nations as well.
This delicate balancing act, in my opinion, better explains the zigzag nature of America's Israel policies. If anything, the momentum has tilted more in Israel's favor, as President Bush has shoved aside the old policy of appeasing Arab dictators in favor of a democracy-promoting approach. Of course, many hurdles still remain, as the U.S. economy continues to crave the black gold. But as we become more energy independent, OPEC's grip on us lessens.
We can help Israel, then, by working towards freedom from Middle Eastern oil, beginning with allowing drilling in Alaska, creating more domestic refineries, mining oil shale rock in Colorado, and transitioning some of our power needs to alternative energy sources. This, as I see it, will produce a much more favorable outcome than the one feared by Gil-White and Belman.
Of course conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen, but Belman seems to hesitantly endorse Gil-White's conclusions, stating that the evidence actually seems quite solid. This has led to a very engaging discussion on the "Comments" section of Belman's post.
I believe, however, that Gil-White's conclusions are mistaken. He has indeed produced noteworthy evidence of U.S. efforts to oppose Israel, but we must remember that America's foremost priority (like that of any nation) is to act in its own interests. Supporting Israel certainly coincides with these interests given Israel's status as the Middle East's only true liberal democracy. But America also needs the region's oil and as such has been forced to placate Arab nations as well.
This delicate balancing act, in my opinion, better explains the zigzag nature of America's Israel policies. If anything, the momentum has tilted more in Israel's favor, as President Bush has shoved aside the old policy of appeasing Arab dictators in favor of a democracy-promoting approach. Of course, many hurdles still remain, as the U.S. economy continues to crave the black gold. But as we become more energy independent, OPEC's grip on us lessens.
We can help Israel, then, by working towards freedom from Middle Eastern oil, beginning with allowing drilling in Alaska, creating more domestic refineries, mining oil shale rock in Colorado, and transitioning some of our power needs to alternative energy sources. This, as I see it, will produce a much more favorable outcome than the one feared by Gil-White and Belman.
Monday, January 2, 2006
Myths and Facts About Iran
Recently, Iran has been all over the news as an avowed enemy of America and the West. Many still don't seem to take this seriously, though, so in the answer style of Mitchell Bard's Guide To The Arab-Israeli Conflict, I'd like to address a number of common misperceptions about the nation:
Myth: Iran is an Arab country.
Fact: Iran is a Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East, but it is not populated by Arabs. Iran's majority population is Persian, with significant minorities of Kurds and Azeris (a people ethnically native to Iran's neighbor Azerbaijan).
Myth: Iran has a democratic government.
Fact: The government consists of elected officials, but the system is far from democratic. Iran's ruling Islamic clerics control everything, and routinely ban candidates not to their liking.
Myth: Iranians predominantly support their government.
Fact: While no percentage of exact support for or opposition to the government can be accurately ascertained, a large number of Iranians clearly detest the rulling Mullahs and wish for freedom. Less scientifically, but still noteworthy, virtually every Iranian I have ever met here in America (and I know many) both considers him/herself as "Persian" (rather than the regime-favored "Iranian") and strongly opposes radical Islam.
Myth: Being Shiite, Iran does not support Sunni Muslim terrorism (such as Al Qaeda and Hamas).
Fact: Notwithstanding such religious differences, Iran's government has supported terrorism ever since it came to power in 1979. Iran has been consistently observed to have provided manpower, training, weapons, and financial support for Sunni terrorists all over the world. Sunni and Shiite radicals may hate each other (the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s being a culmination of such feelings), but they hate the West even more.
Myth: Iran wants nuclear weapons only for peaceful purposes.
Fact: Iran's nuclear program clearly is a military strategy and poses an increasing danger to the entire world. The words and actions of the country's top policymakers have clearly dictated as such, and we have no reason not to take them at face value.
Iran clearly is a dangerous nation with a threatening military agenda. We must address this issue immediately, before they can develop any sort of nuclear capability. For more information, and most importantly to help, start with the Iran Freedom Foundation.
Myth: Iran is an Arab country.
Fact: Iran is a Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East, but it is not populated by Arabs. Iran's majority population is Persian, with significant minorities of Kurds and Azeris (a people ethnically native to Iran's neighbor Azerbaijan).
Myth: Iran has a democratic government.
Fact: The government consists of elected officials, but the system is far from democratic. Iran's ruling Islamic clerics control everything, and routinely ban candidates not to their liking.
Myth: Iranians predominantly support their government.
Fact: While no percentage of exact support for or opposition to the government can be accurately ascertained, a large number of Iranians clearly detest the rulling Mullahs and wish for freedom. Less scientifically, but still noteworthy, virtually every Iranian I have ever met here in America (and I know many) both considers him/herself as "Persian" (rather than the regime-favored "Iranian") and strongly opposes radical Islam.
Myth: Being Shiite, Iran does not support Sunni Muslim terrorism (such as Al Qaeda and Hamas).
Fact: Notwithstanding such religious differences, Iran's government has supported terrorism ever since it came to power in 1979. Iran has been consistently observed to have provided manpower, training, weapons, and financial support for Sunni terrorists all over the world. Sunni and Shiite radicals may hate each other (the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s being a culmination of such feelings), but they hate the West even more.
Myth: Iran wants nuclear weapons only for peaceful purposes.
Fact: Iran's nuclear program clearly is a military strategy and poses an increasing danger to the entire world. The words and actions of the country's top policymakers have clearly dictated as such, and we have no reason not to take them at face value.
Iran clearly is a dangerous nation with a threatening military agenda. We must address this issue immediately, before they can develop any sort of nuclear capability. For more information, and most importantly to help, start with the Iran Freedom Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)