"A wire-to-wire victory for the Lakers"
Predictions of the demise of the Lake Show have been greatly exaggerated.

Ahem
The Lakers are spanking the Kings right now. For an online update of the game in progress, go here.

True story?
I received this email forward, and I was wondering if it's true. It's certainly entertaining either way. Check it out:

"A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars then insured them against fire, among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires.' The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be 'unacceptable fire' and was obligated to pay the claim."

"Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars in the 'fires.' After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!! With his own insurance claim, and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced him to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine."

"This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest."

Overlawyered, Instapundit--over to you guys. Is this even possible?

What's the deal
A few days after Pyra announces a major partnership to improve the site is on the horizon, I keep experiencing repeated delays and technical difficulties while trying to post stuff. What's the deal guys?

Kashmir and Kurdistan
A couple posts ago, I referred to the Turkish fear of a Kashmir-like situation developing in the mostly Kurdish region in southeast Turkey if an autonomous Kurdish authority was formed out of northern Iraq. It's not a cut-and-dry comparison, but the basic similarity is that Kashmir is a majority Muslim-populated part of India that borders on an Islamic state (Pakistan) which funds insurgencies and causes India (a multiethnic, multireligious state) a giant headache trying to control. Turkey doesn't want the same thing, the legitimacy of the Kurds' complaints that they got screwed out of their own state way back after WWI aside (there are some 30 million Kurds in the Middle East, all divided between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran). For more information on the Kashmir tensions, check out Joe Katzman's post. He provides tons of links to relevant sources, so go there and be educated.

The important thing to remember is that, just as India fears the loss of Kashmir would be the unravelling of the entire Indian state (see Katzman), so Turkey also has fears that Kurdish autonomy would mean massive destabilizing problems.

By the way, I took a class in college titled "Global Ethnic Politics," taught by the immortal (long may he live!) Dr. Dekmejian, and I can tell you firsthand (well, secondhand actually) that if you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only major world problem, you've got another thing coming. Northern Ireland is still not fixed, neither are the Balkans.... Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other over the Ngorno-Karabakh (sp.) issue. There's Kashmir, and Sri Lanka has her own infighting problems. Don't forget Chechnya and Cyprus. Last time I checked, the ETA was still blowing stuff up in Madrid over the Basque issue. I won't even touch Africa, because this post would end up going on forever. South America has a few problems of its own, while Mexico has never quite dealt with the Zapatistas' demands. And to top it off, those pasty whities to the north of us--yeah, up there, the Great White North, the Maple Leaf State--keep demanding something called "respect" from her neighbors to the south. Whatever that's aboot, eh?

I hate Islam
If this is true to the teachings of the Quran, then I hate Islam. Read:

"The man Ms. Zafran accused, Jamal Khan, was set free without charges. A case against him would have been a waste of the court's time. Under the laws of zina, four male witnesses, all Muslims and all citizens of upright character, must testify to having seen a rape take place. The testimony of women or non-Muslims is not admissible. The victim's accusation also carries little weight; the only significant testimony she can give is an admission of guilt."

"'The proof is totally impossible,' said Ms. Naz. 'If a woman brings a charge of rape, she puts herself in grave danger.' If, on the other hand, the woman does not report the rape and becomes pregnant out of wedlock, her silence can be taken as proof of guilt."

"It is not only women but also young girls who are at risk, Aurat says. If girls report a rape, they face the same prospects of punishment as women."

"A man can deflect an accusation of rape by claiming that his victim, of any age, consented. If the victim has reached puberty, she is considered to be an adult and is then subject to prosecution for zina. As a result, the Aurat report says, girls as young as 12 or 13 have been convicted of having forbidden sexual relations and have been punished with imprisonment and a public whipping."

This, from the Muslim religious culture that brings us honor killings, female genital mutilation, acid attacks, the burqa (or whatever it's called), and virtual domestic enslavement of women. Sick sick sick sick sick!

I'm sorry, but not all religions are good until proven bad, and even if that's the case, this is all the proof I need.

So why don't we fire anybody?
That is Michael Ledeen's question on the current flap concerning intelligence failures pre-9/11. I have heard Ledeen speak numerous times in person, and each time he's been very clear that we can't pretend we're demanding responsibility from government agents when we're afraid to fire people for incompetence.

Think again
I like Rich Lowry's take on what could be a current anti-Iraq coalition, but I have just one major beef: his inclusion of Turkey.

Yes, reasonable people might think Turkey, a reliable NATO ally and friend of Israel, would be on the anti-Saddam ticket, come hell or high water. Plus, it is vital we have Turkey in the coalition for many reasons--some covered by Lowry, some not. Lowry cites this as proof of why Turkey will want to side with us:

"Turkey should want to secure its southeastern border with a peaceful and prosperous Kurdish autonomous area in Northern Iraq, and with a decent government in Baghdad."

Lowry continues,

"The Turks, meanwhile, continue to pay the price for the economic sanctions on Iraq, which have cut it off from what had been its biggest export-import partner...."

"Joining the coalition will allow Turkey to step up into the (well-deserved) leadership role in the region that the U.S. has in mind for it. An indication of this new role is Turkey's impending takeover of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan."

A few observations:

First, Turkey is a reliable ally and will be with us when we take out Saddam, no question, but she will no doubt push for some concessions. One of them may very well be on the touchy Armenian genocide issue, which is a sometime favorite for Western peacenik activists to harp on and has been a point of friction between Turkey and the European states.

Second, Turkey is in fact scared to death of Kurdish autonomy; she fears above all else that if the Kurds gain autonomy in Iraq, that the ethnic group will demand greater autonomy within Turkey's borders, too. This may not seem a big deal, but think Kashmir and you have an idea of what the Turks are afraid might happen. (Incidentally, Iran is also afraid of this because she, too, as a sizable Kurdish population.)

Third, although Turkey is Muslim, it is not Arab, and the Arabs and Turks have a long history of enmity going back to the days of the Ottoman Empire (the Turks think Arabs are backward, and the Arabs think the Turks are bad Muslims--among other things). So, any talk of Turkey as a token Muslim country to appease surrounding Arab countries (and Iran) who aren't too thrilled with the idea of the US taking over Iraq is foolishness.

Finally, even though Turkey has had its problems with Saddam, it has been more than willing to trade with him. Iraq and Turkey were strong trading partners before the sanctions, and they still do a lot of dealing under the table now.

In sum, getting Turkey on board--well, it will definitely happen sooner or later, but expect a lot of negotiations and eventually some key concessions on the part of Bush. Turkey is not quite Britain yet; she'll expect some quid pro quo.

Great legal coverage
I applaud Roger Clegg's coverage of the Sixth Circuit's decision on racial preferences, and what the future holds for further litigation/appeals on that case. The Bush administration will have to step up to bat soon on affirmative action and take one side or the other.

[Picking myself up off the floor]
Sorry about that--I was knocked unconscious reading this NY Times editorial. I mean, how often do I agree with Times editorials? Um, just about never. The money shot (yes I am aware of the porn entendre there):

"Until someone produces evidence that the Bush administration received and ignored information pointing directly to the suicide hijackings, the country will have to live with the much messier and no less disturbing fact that the government as a whole dropped the ball and even now is not doing nearly enough to ensure that it doesn't happen again."

Daschle, Gephardt, McCain, Lieberman, Leahy--are you guys listening? Brendan, are you?

Oops
Sometimes in life, there are no second chances.

The real worrisome conflict
No, it's not in the Middle East, and it has nothing to do with Jews or holy sites. I'm talking about Kashmir, which, if it interrupts into a full-scale war, could lead to a nuclear showdown between India and Pakistan.

Bush was prepared
To defend the president, the White House now has released new information that Bush was in the midst of approving a plan to go after bin Laden before September 11.

Hey Clinton, where were you on that one huh?

Reader response
My friend Brendan writes in to chide me for my illegitimate ire over the Democrats' "partisan maneuver:

"Of *course* it's a partisan maneuver on the part of the Democrats... but it's no less 'sick' or partisan than those ads the GOP ran a while back in South Dakota and other key states, surrounding Bush with American flags and firefighters and condemning those gosh-darn obstructionist Democrats for supporting Al Qaed....uh....I mean, opposing Bush's DOMESTIC policies. Ah yes. Not to mention the sale of that Sept. 11 photograph as a party fundraising tool, and various other incidents where the Bush Administration has blatantly used the war on terrorism for partisan, political gain. Both types of partisanship are equally cynical. The last time I raised this point, you said I was being a sore loser, that the Democrats were just saying 'boo hoo' because their opponent is so damn popular, and is using his popularity against them. Well, by that logic, you're just being a crybaby now. 'Don't attack my popular president! He is unassailable!' Sorry. I *wish* there was a moral high ground on this point, but there isn't. The Republicans sacrificed it months and months ago."

I see a big difference between the GOP using the Bush ads in South Dakota and what the Dems are doing now.

There was nothing inherently nonfactual about those ads; they may have used patriotic imagery to capitalize on Bush's popularity, but the message was nevertheless accurate that the Democrats were obstructing Bush's agenda. This is becoming especially the case with his judicial nominees, to an unprecedented degree. And what is wrong with the Bush picture? I think that's much ado about nothing. I mean, what if the picture was taken September 10 and Bush was actually saying into the telephone, "Look, I want a Large, with pepperoni and sausage, and it better be hot and ready when I get there, got it?!? No Dick, you can't have any, you have that heart condition! Alright, well I'll tell Rummy that two slices are reserved for Condi. Okay, bye Karl." The image is still of the president talking into the phone--it's not one of him standing with firefighters at Ground Zero (and that wouldn't bother me either, but at least then I'd say you have a case).

The Democrats latest demagoguery though is ridiculous because it's pure posturing, as they are misconstruing the facts to make themselves appear righteously indignant. As we found out yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee got the same report and saw the same information that Bush did, and both the Dems and the Republicans on the committee said, "Gee, this isn't really helpful, and we can't really do anything with this info. I mean, what are we going to do, shut down the entire aviation system because Al Qaeda might be planning a hijacking? Still, thanks for sharing." For the Democrats to now act like they've been betrayed and kept in the dark is hokey baloney.

I would have no problem with the Democrats trying to assail Bush's popularity by running ads attacking his handling of the war or other issues, but when you are making shit up or pretending you didn't know something that you already did, then I get peeved.

Mr. Loy continues,

“None of which means that I like this current controversy. It's mostly bull. The only legitimate question I see is, why didn't the Bush Administration talk about this warning a long time ago, without a CBS News scoop and a Clintonesque dragged-kicking-and-screaming sort of admission? It all would have seemed far less sleazy if Condy or Karen Hughes or somebody had said something about what they knew on Sept. 11 or 12... or Sept. 21, or Oct. 30, or Dec. 31 even!! Whenever!! But May 16? A major P.R. blunder. The press will *always* jump on a story (whether the target is a liberal or a conservative) if it has even the slightest whiff of a cover-up.”

It might have been a slight PR blunder, but I don't think the White House counted on the Democrats pretending that they didn't know what the report said when they were briefed on the same information around the same time that Bush was. And obviously, this information barely even newsworthy--once you see all the details and read them in context. Hence, if the White House legitimately saw no reason to warn the public before 9/11, and furthermore had no preference one way or the other on when to release the documents, which is why it took so long to come out.

Incidentally, I don't blame the press for making a big flap out of this because for one, that's there job, and two, they didn't know, so to them it was a big deal. The rest is just Democratic manipulation of the press to paint the president in a bad light.

A while later, Brendan sends me this qualification:

"I disagree with the level of implied indignation over all this. But I don't disagree with the idea of having a Congressional investigation. Isn't it Congress's job to investigate things, to find out what works and what doesn't, to deal with matters of grave importance to the nation, just like this? I realize that in the post-Sept. 11 world, it's tempting to say, 'Oh, we don't need to investigate this -- Rummy and Condy said it's okay, so it must be okay.' But I don't buy it, and I don't think you would have bought it under the Clinton Administration. Congress *should* investigate -- in an even-handed, reasonable way -- to find out what was known, by whom, when, to find out what improvements could and should be made."

A Congressional investigation wouldn't bother me if it happened like this: Daschle and Lott announce that the American people are demanding that Congress look into it; Congress investigates; Congress determines that the information wasn't much helpful at the time and was not worthy of a public notification; Congress reveals that its own intelligence committees were briefed on the information back in August; Congress closes the investigation by concluding the president did nothing wrong. Cut out the posturing, cut out the righteous indignation, and Congress is doing its job. But when Daschle, Gephardt, et al stand in front of the cameras and announce with superfluous sanctimony, "What did the president know, when did he know it, and why didn't he tell us and the American people about it? Tsk Tsk!", that just pisses me off.

Breaking news!
Congressional Republicans are launching an investigation into why the Democrats are not asking for a Congressional investigation concerning a 1999 report that revealed suicide terrorists may try to hijack planes and crash them into federal buildings!

Oh wait, I was dreaming there for a second...nevermind.

Good advice for graduates...sorta
My commencement speech was good (David Halberstam spoke), but Dave Shiflett's is even better.

It used to be called New Amsterdam ya know
The comparison between Fortuyn and Giuliani is an interesting one:

"Rudolph Giuliani was a social liberal but a reformist, law-and-order Republican for whom many New York Democrats voted because they were sick and tired of the urban, welfare liberalism that had turned their city into a dirty, crime-ridden, ungovernable mess. Quality-of-life issues mattered more to them than Giuliani's personality or party affiliation. He delivered, and he was reelected in a landslide. What few traditional conservatives there are in the city may not have approved of Giuliani's adultery, his pro-gay views, and his pro-abortion policies, but Giuliani was making New York a safe place to live one's life, which is what ultimately mattered."

"So: If I were living in Holland, and I paid 50 percent of my income in taxes, welfare abuse was rampant, large parts of the cities were turning into "no-go" zones ruled by immigrant Islamic gangs, at a time when Muslim radicals worldwide were making war on the West — and it was unofficially forbidden to discuss this in public — you'd better believe I would vote for the only candidate who stood alone against these things. Wouldn't you?"

Yes actually, but mostly because I can't stand leaving the elephant in the room untouched, and I'll throw my support behind the first person who will bring up the subject, even if I disagree with him on lots of other issues. That's why I'm such a fan of guys like Matt Welch and Andrew Sullivan--because in certain areas, they get it, and I'm right there with them.

On a related note, I saw this quote somewhere (I forget the author, so somebody can email me and remind me): "I can always recognize a well-informed man because he has the same opinions as me."

Late-night feline entertainment
I don't know why my cats choose to get all feisty and playful at 4:30 in the morning, but it sure is fun to watch them antagonize each other.

Useful but tardy
I could have used this information back when I was a teenager looking for excuses to goof off. Something tells me the adolescent in me will rear it's playful, immature head real soon and I'll end up doing this Ninja stuff at a party--much to the dismay/amusement (take your pick) of whoever I am with.

Preach the Word--Lego style!
One wiseguy has found a unique way to illustrate the Gospel and other biblical stories using Legos. For those of you not amused by Bible stories reconstructed in little plastic pieces, there are some other great Lego sites. Check out Lego Death and this site, where you can fashion your own Lego humanoid to look just like you (or as close to you as is possible with pictures of plastic in cyberspace).

Disgusting SFSU poster paid for in part by MY TAX DOLLARS
On the eve of Shavuot, how refreshing to see that after 500 years we in the West are still funding the use of the age-old Jewish blood libel. Pretty sick. And Gray Davis wants to raise our taxes even more? How about some accountability on how our money is spent first.

Turning 9/11 failures into partisan attacks
Nobody should be surprised by the news that the FBI had information on possible hijackings but didn't correctly predict the type of terrorism that occurred on September 11. Nobody should be surprised that people are getting upset over this information. However, the hearings and probes that leading Congressional Democrats are calling for constitute a direct partisan attack on the president and an attempt to bring down his popularity. It's a sick maneuver.

What happened to the David Duke article?
Arab News has apparently removed the David Duke article from the Saudi English daily's website. Now, the link leads to a "test" page. I guess this means they figured out that having David Duke represent your cause probably isn't the smartest way to garner positive press. On another note, this is yet further evidence of Andrew Sullivan's power to effect change from atop his throne in the Blogdom. The man links to a site, adds a negative comment, and less than 24 hours later the offender is extricated. Somebody find some kryptonite for this guy!

Updated election results
According to Yahoo, the new numbers are:

Christian Democrats--43 seats
List Pim Fortuyn--26 seats
Liberal Party--23 seats
the socialist parties (Social Democrats and Labor?)--23 seats

My prediction: the Christian Democrats will form a coalition with List Pim Fortuyn and the Liberals. That's a majority of 92 seats--well more than half of the 150 seats in parliament available.

The people have spoken
The assassination of Pim Fortuyn has shocked The Netherlands, and now the Dutch have given a jolt have given a jolt to their democracy. The early exit polls show 41 seats of 150 for the Christian Democrats, followed by 24 seats for List Pim Fortuyn. The coalition government's main parties, the socialists and the Liberal Party, each have been reduced to around 24 seats.

If the numbers hold up, the most likely scenario would be a coalition between the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, and List Pim Fortuyn, although the Christian Democrats may seek to make alliances with smaller and less influential parties to help secure a parliamentary majority. If List Pim Fortuyn becomes part of the governing coalition though, I wonder if the liberal European press will continue to dip Fortuyn's name and followers in the catch-all color of right-wing fascism. They just might; Italy's Burlesconi still gets tarnished as an extremist by many on the left.

Zionism and the Christian Right
Peter Beinart makes a compelling case for why American Jews shouldn't be quick to rush into an alliance with evangelical Christians. Essentially, Beinart says that evangelicals see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a Manichaean struggle between the "good" Israel and the "bad" Palestinians and therefore embrace radical solutions such as transferring Palestinians to Jordan or elsewhere instead of allowing them to form their own state on the West Bank. This, Beinart argues, is counter to the Zionist morality, which affirms secular democratic justifications for Israel's existence. He concludes,

"What will people like Armey and Parshall do when Israel takes actions--such as leaving much of the West Bank--that undermine the biblical justification for its existence? Ultimately, if you don't love Israel for what it is, you can't be trusted to love it at all."

Of course, I am inclined to agree with his assessment. It's logical and addresses political reality without simplifying the facts to suit his purpose, yet still asserts a strong position in opposition of Jewish-evangelical rapprochement.

However, I disagree that American Jews should reject aligning with Christian conservatives simply because a few of them interpret the Bible literally or accept flawed notions of theology that assert Israel's right to exist in what historically is considered Judea and Samaria. By that logic, American Jews should shun many of their own--the Zionist Orthodox--who also fervently believe in the Jewish repopulation of Judea and Samaria and ignorantly support policies of pseudo-apartheid or transfer to fit this end. Furthermore, it's a sad excuse to say, "Well they might turn against us in the future, so we should maintain our antagonism with them now." A better idea would undoubtedly be to establish connections with the Christians who strongly support Zionism and use the relationship to build trust and affect the beliefs that Christians hold about Israel. Instead of fatalistically accepting that religious right-wingers will eventually abandon Israel on the altar of theological misconceptions, why not approach the hurdle positively and work to enlighten evangelicals and win them over to the moral cause of secular Zionism?

Headline of the week
Sunbather Mistaken for Kournikova Due to Nipples

The heart of the matter
Great post at Andrew Sullivan's site today, quoting Michael Elliott. Elliot digests the Fortuyn phenomenon in a letter to Sullivan and wraps up his analysis thusly:

"Which brings us back to the question that you (and many others) have asked since Sept. 11: what are the conditions in which large numbers of Islamic immigrants to western nations can be persuaded to accept western political and social values, without being asked to disavow their religious faith? We need to find the answer. Fast."

If somebody can find that answer, I'm sure Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a host of others also would be interested in the solution.

Doing what it takes to win
(This should be a nice addendum to my response to Douglas posted below.) Apparently some documents have come to light that show the US was preparing to use toxic gas on the Japanese if the atomic bomb failed to end the war. Strategypage.com notes,

"The plan called for US heavy bombers to drop 56,583 tons of poison gas on Japanese cities in the 15 days before the invasion of Kyushu, then another 23,935 tons every 30 days thereafter."

The attack would have been a full-scale genocide ("An estimated ONE THIRD of the Japanese people (25-30 million) would have died of starvation, disease, poison gas and conventional weapons during a prolonged ground conquest of Japan."), and what convinced American military planners that the ferocious assault was necessary "was the prospective casualties of a prolonged ground conquest of Japan against suicidal resistance, after Japanese Kamikaze attacks and suicidal ground resistance elsewhere had thoroughly dehumanized them to us."

This may shock some people, and it certainly is horrifying to know that we contemplated ruthlessly annihilating millions of Japanese civilians (beyond the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were unknown at the time these documents were written), but it doesn't surprise me at all. Like I said in the Douglas post, mass killing is the only way to deal with people who are that societally depraved.

The possibility of democracies committing genocide in a time of war while fully realizing the immense evil of such an action cannot be automatically precluded. Read the words of Robert Saunby, Deputy Air Marshall at Bomber Command (Royal Air Force), on the decision to bomb Dresden:

"That the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden."

Still, even though the writer at strategypage.com thinks the American people would've supported such a ruthless attack, I'm not convinced. Of course, we didn't know much about the Holocaust by then so we didn't know what genocide looked like yet, but it's very probable that we would have settled for less than complete and unconditional surrender before initiating a genocide.

That is also why I am convinced we will settle for less than total victory in the war on terrorism, because I don't think our leaders--let alone our people--can stomach the bloody actions that would be necessary to completely eradicate terrorism.

Ashcroft v. ACLU
The Supreme Court handed down it's decision on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) yesterday. Essentially, the ruling was a cop-out, and the opinion hinted at a fractured court.

When the Court struck down the Communications Decency Act (CDA) a few years ago, they relied heavily on the distinction that the internet is not like broadcasting and is therefore not subject to the same regulations on indecent speech as is that medium in order to strike down the CDA as overbroad and unconstitutional because it regulated speech beyond the standards of obscenity. COPA, however, is only modestly different than CDA, and the lower courts therefore struck it down with the CDA precedent in mind. Thus, I expected the Supreme Court to follow their own logic and kill COPA off as well.

The only way the Supreme Court could escape its own logic, as I saw it, would be to renege on its previous appraisal of the internet and its communicative qualities and find that the web's invasive aspects (increasingly apparent in these days of instant, high-speed internet access) merit the allowance of content-based restrictions on indecent speech. Then, I imagined, the Court could allow similar restrictions on internet porn as it does for "dial-a-porn" or George Carlin radio broadcasts (See FCC v Pacifica). Even though COPA is virtually unenforceable from a practical government standpoint, this would be a major advancement for those pragmatics who believe that pornography is not speech and shouldn't be automatically protected as such.

Instead of either of these choices, though, the nine justices recognized the jam they were in and--consistent with its temperament--couldn't produce the cajones to overturn language from a fairly recent opinion and finally get it right. Instead, they vacated and remanded the court of appeal's decision in order to buy some more time, since the Supreme Court as currently constituted can't come to sufficient agreement to make progress on the issue. Maybe in a few years Justice Stevens and some of the other liberals will be gone and replaced by more rational individuals, and the Court then can do the right thing and articulate a decent defense of government restrictions on internet porn.

Frankly, I'm just glad Justice Thomas stopped watching his porn videos long enough to come down on the right side of the debate for once.

Hanson on Occidentalism
I think the real conclusion that should be drawn from Hanson's piece is that the Arabs are failing at modernization, and badly.

Obstructionist Dems
Ann Coulter tips a cow on Leahy's weak excuses for not confirming Bush's presidential appointments. When it comes to judicial confirmations, the Senate displays partisanship at its worst--and the Dems are the sickest ideological hit team of the two by far.

Are you serious?!?
Sometimes I don't believe my own eyes. Here it says the Spanish government is selling candy syringes to British children.

PETA is wrong
Some animals are evil and must be killed; there's no escaping that fact.

Shockwave games
Now here's a way to pass the time at work. Whoever created this site and these games must work at Boeing.

Bias in science
Say it ain't so:

"Like all other human pursuits, the pure quest for scientific knowledge is still a hostage to the attitudes of faulty humans with personal agendas."

I think me and JunkYardBlog are on the same wavelength.

Tal G. on Bibi and Likud
Tal G. has a good blog on the Likud resolution debacle.

We are no better than the French
This is disturbing.

Apology
Sorry for the tardiness with my last post--I had a busy weekend, causing me to miss two full days of blogging. I'll try to finish the open letter to OxBlogger Chafetz soon and get that posted.

Response to AC Douglas’ "The Only Lasting Solution"
Various parts of me instinctively want to agree with AC Douglas’ cynical appraisal of the Israeli-Arab conflict, but my education and better judgment tell me his analysis leaves much to be desired.

Douglas argues that the “bottom-line nature of the conflict is the manifest and incontestable circumstance that the Arab world (and, again, the Palestinians in particular) will accept as lastingly satisfactory no solution to the conflict that includes the continued existence of a sovereign State of Israel." No peace is possible because at the moment, the "Arab world's ultimate, intractable and uncompromising goal [is]: The State of Israel's total dissolution."

I agree that this is indeed part of the problem, but it’s just one part. He says the solution is this:

"We back Israel to the hilt against all her enemies with whatever is necessary. We could do no less and still preserve even a shred of moral or practical authority…."

"If things ever came to such a pass, and if the position of the United States were made clear, unambiguous, and in earnest, the intention and show of force would be more than enough. The rest of the world would stand back, much of the Arab world included, and offer no more than loud, aggrieved and condemnatory clucking noises at the U.N. and in the world press. Realistically, they could not do much more than that, the so-called, and mostly illusory, Arab ‘oil weapon’ notwithstanding. They would, of course, hate us for our show of power in behalf of Israel, certainly, but they couldn't hate us more than they already do, or be more contemptuous of us, and so we would not only lose nothing by taking such a position, but would actually stand to gain in terms of respect/fear (the same thing in the geo-political arena) from other nations."

Douglas concludes by referring to the truism that "He who carries, and shows a willingness to wield, the biggest stick wins."

I am thoroughly skeptical that brute force alone will change the Arabs’ attitudes towards Israel; however, the use of such force is absolutely a key ingredient to progress in the region. I’ve commented elsewhere on the need for massive "attitude adjustment" (I mention Hiroshima and Dresden as examples) when it comes to peoples who are so stiff-necked and messed up in their thinking that only brute force will change them, and this applies to the Arabs as well. I should note that two famous "attitude adjustments"--the 1967 "Seven Day War" and the 1973 "Yom Kippur War"--had such an effect on Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (but unfortunately, not on Syria), causing him to seek peace with his Jewish neighbor. In an email to my despondent liberal friend Brendan Loy a while back, I mentioned that

"Just like the Hitlers, Nazis, Communists, and Japanese Imperialists before them, their totalitarian mindsets can only be changed through crushing defeat. You can’t appeal to reason, nor emotion (unless it has to do with why they should kill more Jews). It’s Islamo-fascism, Brendan. Terrorism works, and they know it. If we’re going to win the war on terrorism, we’re going to have to defeat the Islamo-fascist mindset."

But this is not possible with the Palestinians without massive ethnic cleansing or some other similarly harsh measure, and nobody in the world will allow that to happen. More importantly, there’s no way that Israeli Jews, who have very strong recollections of the Holocaust, would perpetrate such a thing.

To clarify, my objection to Douglas’ solution is that war won’t work because there is nobody for Israel to go to war with; the enemies of peace in the region are the Palestinians (and Arabs) themselves. So removing Arafat won’t solve the problem.

It’s quite the paradox that in the Middle East, it is sometimes the undemocratic rulers who are more levelheaded (Sadat and Mubarak in Egypt, King Abdullah, King Hussein, and King Abdullah, the grandson and current ruler, in Jordan) than the people they rule. With the Palestinians, the problem is magnified because the leadership also encourages and promotes this hatred. Thus, any "war" to fix the situation really would have to be a massive military action killing lots of people with brute force to serve as an "attitude adjustment." For Israel, this would mean (quoting myself):

"completely massacring the Palestinians; you can’t have a Palestinian problem if there are no hyper-fertile Palestinians. And really, they could get away with it. What are we going to do, invade Israel? As morally reprehensible such a course of action would be, there’s pretty much nothing we or the Arab states could do to stop it if Israel decided to do it. And it would end the problem once and for all. Of course, Israel would be ostracized and there would be other political fallout, but I don’t think any of the fallout would be of the existential threat variety. But could Israel stomach it? Some on the right can, but the overall majority could not, and if one considers worldwide Jewry…it’s obvious such a course of action would never be agreed upon. The army itself, one made of conscripted citizens, would likely not follow through. Indeed, the IDF has a ‘black-flag’ policy, wherein if a commander orders a soldier to do something the soldier is morally in disagreement with, the soldier can disobey. I’m not aware of such a clearly articulated policy in any other army in the world, even for the lovey-dovey anti-war Frenchies or the neurotic Germans. So, while such a policy would work, implementing it would be a bitch and impossible under a democratic Israeli state. However, should Orthodox parties gain control and turn Israel into a theocracy, such an event could conceivably occur. But even then I doubt it."

Similarly, we can invade Iraq, we can invade Saudi Arabia, we can take over Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and the rest, but we can’t force the inhabitants of the region to believe in Israel’s right to exist without killing lots of people. Maybe we can implement democracy and a free press, and maybe that will alleviate some of the hatred, but it will be decades before it really begins to disappear (Exhibit A to prove my point: the simmering but evolved forms of anti-Semitism practiced by the Euro-elites today; and even the "attitude adjustment" of WWII didn’t completely rid Europe of that disease).

This, then, is the quandary we (and Israel) face: Do we dish out the harsh medicine now, or do we hope we’re wrong and avoid such gross bloodletting by attempting various peace plans? All signs point to a reluctance to try the former, and the continued tendency to the latter.

So what do we do to promote real tranquility in the interim period? Barak and others suggest (again, quoting myself) "unilateral withdrawal, [which] seems to be in vogue among the Israeli left, and if a Labor-Meretz coalition wins control of the Knesset, this could happen." But, I argue,

"this won’t actually work. First, the logistical problems: how are you going to keep Palestinians out? Erect a fence? Barak and others say sure, it can be done [nevermind it's resemblance to the Berlin wall and everything that stood for]. Yet large centers of Israel’s population, at its skinniest point, would be especially vulnerable to rocket and other munitions attacks. And they will occur in such a scenario. Same with Gaza. Plus, walling off the West Bank and Gaza doesn’t solve the Jerusalem issue, or the ‘Right of Return’ issue, only the borders issue. By definition, unilateralism doesn’t bring agreed-upon peace. It doesn’t create a democratic-oriented peace partner on the other side, and it does nothing for the Palestinian economy. The authoritarian, anti-peace Palestinian regime constructed in the aftermath of unilateral Israeli withdrawal would be hostile to Israel, a terrorist state, and would foment instability in Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. War would be inevitable, leading to an Israeli reoccupation. You now have gone in a circle, fought a war, erected and then torn down fences and walls, accomplished nothing, wasted time, energy, and resources, and for what? It’s not strategically feasible for the Israelis to withdraw."

Recognizing this, the Likud party in Israel has decided that Palestinian statehood is not a legitimate goal in the near future.

Here is my suggestion:

"[The] best option is to wait. Let Arafat die, or better yet, help kill him. Let the Palestinians fight for control of the PA, and reassess the situation then."

The fact is, peace is not coming to the Middle East anytime soon. This is mainly because the Middle East is lagging in modernization, and modernization has always been a bloody, messy process. Perhaps Israel and/or the US killing thousands upon thousands of Arabs would help speed up the process, but isn’t the whole point of learning history an effort to avoid repeating it? I mean, if it took Europe WWI, WWII, and the Holocaust to reach a stable level of modernity, is that any reason to conclude that’s the only way to go and stop hoping for a better, less bloody way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? But I think that’s the only way to expedite peace; otherwise we must content ourselves with a simmering level of asymmetrical, nonstop warfare aimed at the West.

Clearly I am agreeing somewhat here with those who argue that there are root causes of terrorism, but I still agree we need to be aggressive in pursuing the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of taking out regimes that harbor terrorists. This, however, will not eliminate the threat of terrorism, only greatly diminish it. The seeds of hate will remain until the Islamic world figures out how to adapt to modernity and even then we can expect Arab Timothy McVeighs.

Ultimately, what each of us should be concerned about is Israel’s security and her portrayal by the world media. How the media portrays Israel and the Palestinians directly affects Israel’s existential dilemma. Israel can defend herself, and the Israelis are a "sabra" people--very tough and resilient to the forces that come against them. However, if the Palestinians succeed with their lies and propaganda and turn world opinion against Israel, there will be solid reasons to fear that Israel will be destroyed. Remember the IDF using uranium bullets and poisoning Palestinians’ water? The massacre of 3000 in Jenin is only the latest Big Lie, and the global media fell for it hook, line, and sinker. This is ultimately what I fear, because we can occupy and re-colonize the Middle East--but we can’t go to war against journalists. We can only speak the truth louder and louder and fight for our voices--the voices of truth and reason--to be heard.