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.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Defeating Jihadism by Encouraging non-Arab Muslims
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.
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.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Remember: America Supports Itself First, Then Israel
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.
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.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Israel, Iran, Port Security, Stock Picks, and more
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.
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.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Purim and Today's Iran; Wafa Sultan Interview
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.
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.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
On Academic Radicals: David Horowitz's The Professors
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.
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.
Friday, March 10, 2006
America and the Dubai Ports Deal: The Aftermath
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.
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.
Sunday, March 5, 2006
Oscar Nominations & Hollywood's Anti-American Bent
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 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.
Thursday, March 2, 2006
The Left's Guiding Principle And Where It Goes Wrong
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)