It Was A Very Good Year

If Frank Sinatra was alive today, he might have updated the lyrics to one of his most popular songs to read: " In 2005 / It was a very good year / It was a very good year for the United States / Despite what's on the news / You shouldn't get the blues / We're gonna win not lose / It was a very good year."

My rhyming ability aside, 2005 has been quite a successful year in America. Despite what you hear from the mainstream meda, our economy is rolling, consumer confidence is up, and standards of living have risen to record heights. Meanwhile, we have prevented terrorist attacks on our own soil, while our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so phenomenally successful that it's easy to almost take them for granted.

Of course not everything is rosy - no nation is perfect, and the U.S. has continuing issues with illegal immigration, rebuilding New Orleans, energy prices, and Islamofascists who still aim to terrorize us. But unlike the depressing picture we regularly see in the media, 2005 has been quite good to the USA. Ol' Blue Eyes would be proud.

Hollywood and Leftism - Part II

I didn't originally intend to focus this blog so heavily on movies and entertainment, but perhaps it was inevitable given how recent Hollywood events have so characterized the key problems with today's American leftism.

That's also the topic of a hard-hitting editorial in the L.A. Times which sharply criticizes leading filmmakers for their inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the morality of the war on terror.
Says the article:

When you think about it, World War II was far from black and white. Sure, the German and Japanese militarists were evil, but Britain and the United States did terrible things too. They killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians, and they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, which was every bit as awful as the Axis. The outcome was ambiguous because, although Germany and Japan were defeated, the Iron Curtain descended from Eastern Europe to North Korea.

Yet for 60 years, Hollywood has had no problem making movies that depict World War II as a struggle of good versus evil. Rightly so. Because for all the Allies' faults, they were the good guys.

For some reason, Hollywood can't take an equally clear-eyed view of the war on terrorism. The current conflict, pitting the forces of freedom against those of Islamo-fascism, is every bit as clear cut as World War II. Yet fashionable filmmakers insist on painting both sides in shades of gray, as if Israeli secret agents or American soldiers were comparable to Al Qaeda killers. Two of the most serious holiday flicks — "Syriana" and "Munich" — are case studies in mindless moral relativism and pathetic pseudo-sophistication.

That's right - Hollywood can't seem to tell the good guys from the bad, which of course is a direct result of its immersion in hard-left values and attitudes.

According to the far left, there is no objective good and bad; only different viewpoints which must be understood. With beliefs like this, it's no surprise that Hollywood can't distinguish responders to terrorism from the terrorists themselves.

The article concludes:

The lesson of World War II still stands: Civilized countries must use violence to defeat barbarians. Why is that so hard for Hollywood to understand?

The solution is for Hollywood to turn away from this ultra-leftist nonsense and return to the senses it had in the past. This probably won't be easy, but with box office sales declining and a vocal minority of Tinseltownites beginning to press for change, a much needed turnaround could finally be in the cards.

Democracy in the Arab World

Columnist Diane West is pessimistic about the success of democracy in the Arab world. Citing recent examples in Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, she worries that electoral freedom has failed to transfom the Middle East as intended, because majority votes have primarily supported Islamist parties. Secular candidates have not fared well, and in Ms. West's opinion, America's efforts to promote democracy have seemingly worked against us.

These ballot results may indeed seem daunting, but I must respectfully disagree with Ms. West's conclusion. Regardless of who wins the elections, as long as the democratic process itself is safeguarded (something the U.S. is ensuring in Iraq) I believe things will eventually tilt in America's favor.

No matter which party holds power, democracy dictates that a nation's government is responsible to the people. If the government fails to act in public interest, the citizens can always vote it out of office. So even if Islamist parties assume power, they won't stay there unless they improve people's lives. And given Islamist regimes' propensity to achieve only widespread misery (Afghanistan and Iran are the two primary examples), their tenures will likely be short unless they drop the Islamist platform.

This democratic principle, in fact, rather than support for fundamendalist Islam itself, is why I believe the Islamist parties have been so successful in Iraq, Egypt, and among the PA. Recent secular rulers (Hussein, Mubarak, and Abbas) have spectacularly failed to improve their people's lots, so naturally voters have chosen the opposition. Just the same, if the Islamist parties don't deliver (which they almost certainly won't), they too will be consigned to the ballot dustbin.

It may take several voter cycles, but as long as electoral freedom remains, well-functioning parties should eventually emerge in all of these governments. And history tells us that in Muslim-majority democracies (Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, and recently Afghanistan), only secular-leaning parties end up fitting the bill.

Egypt, of course, is no real democracy (Mubarak still retains full control), but among Iraq and the PA, free elections should soon produce leaders more attuned with U.S. interests. Once again, the key is to maintain the democratic process, and as long as America continues to accomplish this, we should expect gradually favorable election results.

Happy Holidays Edition

It's unusual to be able to say this on the same day, but to all readers of this website: Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas!

For anyone unfamiliar, Hanukkah (and all other Jewish holidays) occurs on different dates on the secular calendar each year because the Jewish calendar follows the 354-day lunar cycle. Rarely, if ever, does a Jewish holiday fall on the same secular date two years in a row, and this is the first year in decades that the first night of Hanukkah has exactly coincided with Christmas. Of course, Christmas ends tonight while Hanukkah has seven more days to go, but for today the holidays entirely coincide.

On that note, I also want to express my diagreement with the mixed term "Chrismukkah" (or "Chrismukwanzakuh") The term, popularized by the intermarried Jewish-Christian household in the TV show "The O.C." may sound all-inclusive, but in reality we're talking about two different holidays from two different religions, so I prefer to call them by what they actually are.

So on that note, once again, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

-TheSolidSurfer.com

China vs. India

Conventional wisdom states that China will become the next world superpower. The billion-strong nation has been rapidly modernizing, consolidating its manufacturing base, building a high-tech economy, and educating its youth. The result has been unprecedented productivity growth, with China recently becoming the world's fourth largest economy. Some Americans are genuinely concerned that soon it will overtake even the U.S., both economically and militarily. But by and large, most Americans view China as an opportunity on the rise, and many are scrambling to invest in its markets, learn its language and history, pursue its entrepreneurial opportunities, and immerse themselves in its culture.

Now at this moment, it probably seems I'm at the point in this essay where I'm about to state that I disagree with the above assessment.

But this time I don't. Everything I mentioned has either already occurred or stands a great likelihood of occurring.

But while I certainly can't deny China's upward trajectory, I believe that another nation will ultimately overtake it: India. Why? For the simple reason that China is a Communist dictatorship while India is a democracy.

Like China, India is home to a billion plus, has experienced rapid GDP growth, features a burgeoning high-tech sector, and is rapidly modernizing. But unlike its Far East neighbor, India lives with American-style capitalism, free elections, intellectual property rights, and an unrestricted press. In combination, these create opportunities that China cannot hope to match under its current governmental structure.

China certainly has opened its doors to greater capitalism in recent years (and, in fact, this has been a primary driver of its extraordinary growth). But it still suffers greatly from socialist misunderstandings of people's self-earning motivations, lax intellectual property rules that stifle entrepreneurship, economic centralization that adds inefficiencies to markets, and a government whose draconian one-child policy has played havoc on the nation's future social fabric and workforce.

India, on the other hand, faces none of these issues, and sits on a wide-open path to national prosperity. China may be a good place to invest, but as I see it, India is even better.

Israel and Steven Spielberg's Munich

Steven Spielberg's upcoming film Munich, about the 1972 Olympic massacre of Israelis by Palestinian terrorists, unfortunately looks like typical leftist pandering to moral equivalency. Apparently, Spielberg and co-writer Tony Kushner (a well-known leftist himself) have portrayed both the Palestinian murderers and the Israeli vengeance squad who hunted them down equally as "bad guys."

Now I haven't seen the film, so I can't speak entirely objectively about it, but one fact is crystal clear - only one of those parties can truly be called "bad guys," and it sure isn't the Israelis. If Spielberg is attempting to show otherwise, then his filmmaking has sunk greatly from the heights he achieved with intellectually honest masterworks like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

Perhaps Spielberg needs a refresher course from one of the best Israel-themed filmmakers out there today.

News and the Middle East

Iraq's historic elections commence tomorrow, and this insightful commentary explores what it means for Iraqis and the Middle East at large.

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey explains the insidious nature of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam and lays out a clear plan for fighting it. Meanwhile, Paul Sperry of Front Page Magazine discusses the Pentagon's strategy. I don't agree with Sperry's implication that most Muslims are fundmentalists, because clearly most are not. Nevertheless, Sperry's conclusions are entirely correct because radical Muslims hold most political control within the religion and act as though they represent the entire faith. In order to fully defeat them, the U.S. must recognize this and act accordingly.

Here is a very interesting group: Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation. This may not be the first thing that comes to mind among most Jewish people, but go through the site and you'll see exactly why this is an important organization and cause. As the group's founder Don Feder states - just remember that Hitler didn't have a Pope, but he had a Mufti.

Yet another article on why we need to bring back DDT. Contrary to recent popular wisdom, this chemical actually saves lives!

Did you know Ray Charles passionately supported Israel? I certainly didn't until I heard about Blue Star Public Relations. These guys promote Israel with catchy (and, of course, entirely factual) poster and ad campaigns. They also target those who perhaps need to hear the message most - college students, leftwingers, and other assorted liberal types. This company does a wonderful (although sadly, much needed) job, and I encourage anyone to explore their website and poster gallery.

Blog of the Day: Freedom Now

In Memoriam - John Lennon

I'd like to thank both WSJ's Opinion Journal and Instapundit for including links to my John Lennon - Republican essay on their sites today.

As glad as I am that this blog has reached a wider audience, though, I want to pause and reflect on the fact that this cannot truly be a celebratory moment, for the essay is interesting only because John Lennon is no longer with us.

John's murder was a terrible loss not only for his millions of fans, but most of all to his family and close friends. As sad as we all feel about his absence, it is surely scant compared to what Yoko, Julian, Sean, et al must be going through.

So on this 25th anniversary of his passing, let's all remember that behind the larger-than-life celebrity, there was also John Lennon the man, and it is tragically sad that he is gone. John - rest in peace.

Kinky Friedman for Governor (and other tidbits)

As his official slogan proudly states: "Why the hell not?" Tomorrow, Kinky Friedman plans to submit his Declaration of Intent to run as an Independent candidate for governor of the State of Texas. That's right, the cowboy hat-wearing, cigar-chomping country singer and mystery novelist is taking his first steps into the political fray.

But lest Mr. Friedman be dismissed as a flash-in-the pan celebrity cashing in on the success of Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, his platform actually contains many sensible ideas. Kinky favors low taxes and renewable energy (especially to reduce our dependence on OPEC and Middle Eastern oil), is against big government and corruption, and perhaps best of all wants to campaign against political correctness.

A couple potential downsides, however - apparently he wants to legalize casino gambling to fund education and wishes to appoint both Willie Nelson as head of the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement group, not the baseball team) and his Palestinian hairdresser Farouk Shami as Texas's ambassador to Israel. I'm not sure how serious these particular claims are (they come from quotes on his website and not part of an official platform), but casinos can be a mixed bag, Willie Nelson certainly doesn't seem to be a law enforcement type of guy (if anything, he's the opposite!), and who knows about this Palestinian hairdresser. (Do states even have official ambassadors to other nations?)

But whether the above is real or merely tongue-in-cheek, Kinky Friedman's presence will certainly make the 2006 Texas governor race much more interesting. See his official website at www.kinkyfriedman.com for more details and to follow his campaign.


Also, in other news:

Inclined to believe Howard Dean, John Murtha and the like on Iraq? James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation presents a must-read fact-based document dispelling all of their antiwar myths.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia says that "extremists have hijacked Islam" and vows to fight them. I guess he's going to start by looking in the mirror? The Saudi government has financed fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam, which has inspired tens of thousands of terrorists (at least), around the world for years. Extremists haven't hijacked Islam; Saudi Arabia has. This country is no U.S. ally, and our government must toughen up on them immediately.

For Jewish people in America: Time to get busier in the bedroom. (This is actually a serious and important article.)

Battle at the Box Office: Hollywood's Holiday Season

Today I read a news article which argues that the box office results of two upcoming high-profile films, Brokeback Mountain and The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, will be an excellent barometer of America's current political and cultural direction.

The two movies could not be more different: Brokeback Mountain is a love story involving gay cowboys played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, while Narnia is a celluloid adaptation of C.S. Lewis's Christian-allegory fantasy novel. Certainly each film has its core audience, but the article posits that if either or both break into the mainstream, it will greatly indicate America's preference regarding public expressions of Christianity and/or homosexuality.

Is this an accurate assessment? And if so, how will these films likely fare?

First of all, I strongly believe that Narnia will top the charts in the $300 million range, while Brokeback will greatly flop. Not only are Americans far more Christian (about 80% of the population) than gay (perhaps 3%), but as I have discussed before, they overwhelmingly prefer family-friendly movies over edgy leftist films. Furthermore, Narnia's PG rating appeals to kids (something Brokeback's R does not), while its swords-and-sorcery setting will draw many Lord Of The Rings fans who savor such content regardless of religious underpinnings.

This same crowd, though, will likely inflate Narnia's box office take to such a degree that the final dollar amount probably won't be a truly exact measure of the acceptance of public-sphere Christianity. But regardless of how much overstatement it contains, many more Americans will almost certainly prefer Narnia over Brokeback, and Hollywood should well take that as a broad indication of the greater moviegoing public's general tastes.

Abiotic Oil Updates

More news on the fascinating possibility of abiotic fossil fuels:

NASA confirms abiotic natural gas on Saturn's moon Titan.

Dr. Jerome Corsi with another update on the theory.

And another book on the subject: The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth Of Fossil Fuels by Dr. Thomas Gold.