The Noble Pundit

A Followup

This will probably make no sense to anyone except the person whom it is directed towards.

Posting will probably be light this weekend as I need some time to unwind a bit. It's been a very, very stressful couple of weeks.

I thought that it might be good to write some of this. It is usually much, much cleaner than when I try to verbalize it.

You already have some of the background and basics. I want to look more at what has brought me in this direction and some of the other factors that might be important.

That feeling. The one that I tried to explain. It is incredible; unique. It pulls at you, tries to bring you closer, but at the same time keeps you away. You get close enough to know it is there; to want to reach out to touch it. But it is just far enough away to be out of physical reach. It leaves you wanting. Wanting to find it again. Wanting to understand it. Wanting to feel it. It is at once both a deep-felt pain and an absolute elation. Unlike many other feelings, though, it has no fear associated with it. It is unknown, unseen, and unbelievably powerful, but it does not instill fear. Instead it envelopes with an odd warmth.

It is indescribable with mere words. What I have above is but a small fraction of what it is truly like.

I have sensed it in many places. Canterbury was the first and most powerful sensation. St. Paul's in London, Lincoln, Sacre Coeur in Paris, Jerusalem, Bethlehem - almost as strongly as in Canterbury. Also at home, in stores, around town, driving alone through the backwoods, driving around town - but never at work, oddly enough.

It is incredible. Never there when I expect it. When I think I need it the most, it is not there then either. Only when things appear to be beyond pale, or when I least expect it, that is when it appears.

It is my confirmation. It is the justification for my personal belief. And it keeps coming to me, especially recently.

I have always enjoyed teaching, at least those who want to learn. I have often thought about going back to school to get an advanced degree and to teach something like economics or investment theory. But both of those, while being interesting and useful, leave me lacking somewhat. I just need to feel as though I'm doing something more than teaching someone how to balance a portfolio.

Many things will be changing over the next few years. I have no choice on that. The status quo cannot continue. If I'm going to be making significant series of changes, might as well make sure that I’m happy when I'm done.

Email me at blog-at-cbnoble.com with any comments.

Bin Laden's Strengthening Of America

Dean Esmay has accused me of being a "worried paranoid" about the threat posed by terrorism (ok, so that wasn't exactly what he said, but it sounds good). I don't think that the issue is one of the degree of worry, but rather is one of being able to comprehend the threat that we're facing.

Pre 9/11 everyone knew that the terrorists could hit us. But no one expected the WTC style attacks. No one could comprehend the evil being planned.

Today, we think of ourselves as being more "with it." We "understand" the threat of Bin Laden & Friends. We pretend that nothing he can concoct could possibly be so evil, so beyond comprehension as to be a surprise to us.

I'm not saying that it will happen, but it could. How many people have thought about a situation in which the Air Force is forced to actually shoot down a civilian airliner? What would the effects of that be like?

First, it would demoralize the Air Force. The pilots don't want to be taking off on each sortie fearing that they will have to pull the trigger and kill 200 innocent Americans. They don't want every call to escort a civilian airliner to be a potential heart-wrenching event. Our Air Force will begin to fear their job, not because of the threat to the fighters, but because of the threat that they are forced to pose to civilians.

Second, if one or two airplanes had to be shot down, it would create an incredible level of fear among the American public. What if the next flight I'm on is one that for some reason, valid or not, gets shot down? How can I even attempt something like passengers of Flight 93, when I'll probably still get shot down? The fear and trepidation would be enough to shut down the American domestic airline industry for quite a while.

Now, here's a real stretch, what if that was actually a good thing for the nation?

Everything bad and evil has to have a little good in it somewhere. Economically, shutting down domestic air travel would be crushing to the airlines and their support structure, but for business, we already have the technology to communicate without the benefit of airlines. We can hold virtual meetings instead of real ones. We can sign deals via fax. Everything that can be done in person can be done electronically, except to shake a hand. Short term there would be an economic setback, but long term, it really wouldn't hurt us too much.

Tourism would suffer more as it would take longer to get to a destination. But is that all that bad a thing either?

Too much of the American lifestyle is go-go-go-go-go. Everything is fast paced. Vacation isn't so much the trip itself, but how much can I get crammed into it. We don't take the time to get to know each other. As our lives have sped up, we have started to lose the sense of community that can come only from spending the time to get to know each other.

With the airlines, you get in an aluminum tube and for maybe 2 hours, maybe 4, you can get to know the person next to you. It's hard to get to know the guy three rows up or the girl five rows back. The time and space just isn't there. There isn't a community, just 200 random people going to the same place.

Getting out of the air would mean more human contact. To travel, we would have to drive (where we could meet fellow travelers in restaurants or at rest stops), ride a bus (similar effects to driving), or ride a train.

Last May, I went to Illinois to help my sister move back home. One of the days we were there, me and my mother decided to take a day trip up to Chicago. We chose to get there via Amtrak's City of New Orleans.

Other than my sister, I knew no one in Illinois. In the three hours it took to get to Chicago, we met folks on their way back from the New Orleans Jazz Festival, a single mother in the process of moving to Minnesota, and many other interesting people. These are people that I never would have met any other way. We didn't form any lasting friendships, but for three hours, I got to learn more about what life is like in Middle America.

I also was able to see what small town America actually looks like. Small towns of 20 homes, all cookie cutter homes from the turn of the century, along the main street; corner grocery store. It was just like it is always described. They are a kind of town that we don't have in Florida. It was something new and different.

An evil and despicable act by a Saudi terrorist could be one of the best things to happen to this nation. It would force us to slow down our lives; give us an opportunity to meet our fellow Americans. It would bring us closer together as a nation, as a people.

And this is why I don't "worry" about a terrorist attack, no matter how evil or incomprehensible. The great irony of Bin Laden's attempts to destroy us is that he succeeds only in making us stronger. 9/11 did, and whatever he comes up with next will do the same.

Israeli Suicide

There are a lot of really bad ideas floating around the world today. The worst of the worst has got to be Israel weighing EU membership.

Israel joining the EU would be the equivalent of national suicide. The EU is no friend of Israel. If Israel were to join, the neo-appeasers would sell them up the river in no time. Probably in some kind of a Munich summit, knowing their grasp of their own history.

Joining the EU would take away the Israeli right of self-defense. Should there be an attack from the newly formed Palestine (that will be a requirement of membership), the Israelis won't be able to counter-attack or even to mount a self-defense. They will have to wait for permission and authorization from Brussels.

They'll end up with French "military advisors" advising them on the proper methods and techniques for surrendering. They'll end up with German bureaucrats deciding their fate. Maybe the Germans will be nice enough to set up some UN style concentration refugee camps for the Jews to stay in after they get displaced from Israel.

Joining the EU and subjecting themselves to the whim and folly of Brussels bureaucrats will, in the end, only open up a new terrorist front. No longer will Arafat have to be content with sending in the dumb bombs. He (or his successor in terror) will be able to prod, goad, and bully the EU into surrendering the Israeli territories.

Then after the terrorists have won and the Jews have left the Holy Land again, the farms will turn brown and the cities will fall into disrepair. Why? Because the terrorists are good only at destroying, they know not how to build. The EU and the US will end up supporting what is currently a fairly self-sufficient land. And the anti-Semites of the world will blame the Jews for the decline.

Israel needs to make sure that it does not give up the dream of two millennia. For over fifty years they have been building a real civilization out of the dust, dirt and despair of Judea. There is no reason for them to sacrifice it all for the illusion of peace.

Terror? What Terror?

Venomous Kate has been putting together an interesting story Al-Qaeda May Be Shopping But Americans Aren't Buying, in which she combines the desire for chemical weapons, the increased "chatter" from al-Qaeda, and the apparent lack of interest on the part of ordinary Americans. All in all it paints a pretty worrisome picture.

I have to admit that I haven't been following the shenanigans of Bin Laden and company all too much. This provided a good overview to get me caught up and her analysis is pretty solid.

Especially the part about the recent attacks possibly being designed to distract us. If that was the design, it has been pretty effective. The conventional wisdom now says that al-Qaeda is on the ropes; that they're incapable of mounting a large-scale attack on the US.

Before 9/11 that was the prevailing CW then, too. We thought that they might be able to pull off a truck bomb or maybe even a small bio/chem attack. Never did we imagine something on the scale of 9/11.

And that is the secret to the success of al-Qaeda. They are audacious beyond our comprehension. We think they're capable of a car bomb; they come up with airplanes into the WTC. Right now we think that they're only capable of overseas attacks. al-Qaeda might just be bold enough to try to pull something here. They just might be.

And we'll play right into it. We can't prepare for an attack because it is likely to not happen. We can't completely ignore the threat. So Americans acknowledge that al-Qaeda is still out there, but we pretend that they aren't a real threat to us. Hence our lack of concern, despite the obvious clouds on the horizon.

Someone Understands

Looks like someone in power is staring to catch on that France is not our friend, anymore.

Maybe this will be the message that Jacques needs to make him wake up and see the new world order. We train with just about everyone, except our diehard enemies, like Iran and North Korea. The sight of F-15s and F-16s training against tri-color Mirages should get the attention of Paris.

This decision should have been made quite a while back. It's been pretty clear that we weren't going to be working with the French anytime soon anyway (unless we want to invade some civil-war torn African nations for fun). I only wish that a bigger deal had been made of this.

That might have shocked the French population into understanding the depth of the damage done by Jacques.

He Never Seems To Learn

It looks like our good friend Jacques Chirac is up to his old tricks again. This time he has set out to try to embarrass Bush at the G8 meeting coming up in June. I'm really beginning to think the Wile E. Coyote was a quicker study than Jacques.

He's planning on taking advantage of his role as host to promote an Internationalist agenda. He wants to build a stronger world democracy. He wants to try to embarrass the US into accepted the Kyoto protocols. He plans to lecture us on "the principles of the responsible market economy" (???). He wants us to "build solidarity" with the poor nations of the world.

It is his goal to try to pretend on a grand scale that France is still a world power.

But we have, what, at least seven bombings worldwide in the last week? Moroccans were planning a 9/11-style attack on the Saudis. Palestinians are still plotting the death of as many Israelis as possible. al-Qaida appears to be attempting to regroup and to reassert itself as a "player."

Terrorism, in all its wondrous guises, is still the biggest threat to world security - and in turn to the world economy. Addressing economic issues is the purview of the G8, not social engineering on a worldwide scale.

But Jacques, being the host of this illustrious summit, really doesn't want to discuss terrorism. He fears that doing so would remind the rest of the G8 that rather than discuss, dither and debate, Bush took action. Bush made a difference in the fight against terrorism. How can Jacques counter that? Will he remind everyone that he stood steadfastly for the status quo - no matter how bad it was?

Jacques knows that any discussion of security will doom him to irrelevance - even with the summit being in his own nation. He knows that he has no credibility whatsoever for discussing terroristic threats.

So instead he, the leader of one of the largest socialist experiments outside of the Soviet Union, will lecture the rest of us on the market economy. Maybe Germany will learn something, but Jacques would do well to listen to the rest of us if he wants to know something about the free market.

French diplomats remain baffled and exasperated at how the Americans have frozen them out since the Iraq war.

Jacques is already starting to learn about the free market. Lesson #1 to be discussed at Evian - national choices can have great consequences in the free market of the world economy.

Jacques is finding out that a free market means that there isn't always a quota or protection from self-stupidity (and tweaking the nose of the US for spite or show is pretty stupid).

In a way though I hope that Jacques pulls this publicity stunt off. Because the only way it will work is no one dies from a terrorist bombing during the summit. If Bush wins the summit, it will only be because we all lost.

The Siren Call

The world is a dangerous place today. Bombings in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, at Yale. Attempted hijackings. Suicidal maniacs. Osama at large; his friends making tapes. Strength is required; cowardice abounds. Our "friends" willingly ship us up the river; our enemies want nothing less than our total annihilation.

And what's that sound we hear, faintly, off in the distance?

It is the clarion call of the siren Isolationism.

Tempting us in to the "peaceful bliss" like we had during the 1920s. Calling us back to the calm of the early history of our nation, before foreign adventures were a part of our history. Reminding us of Washington's admonition to avoid "foreign entanglements."

It promises us peace. It promises us untold prosperity. It promises us security.

Forget the lessons of the past. This time is different. There is no Treaty of Versailles to create another Hitler. There is no chance of a world economic depression. Everything will be peaceful and safe in the American cocoon.

Close the borders. Stop immigration. America for Americans only. That is the only true path to security from terrorists.

And in the other ear, we hear another sound.

It is the quiet whisper of the nymph Internationalism.

We must subjugate the United States to the UN, as it is the only true government. The day of the nation has passed us by. The United States is itself archaic and in need of being given a proper burial.

We don't know how to deal with other people, as we are not diverse enough. Our government is ill equipped to balance the needs of all. Only an international organization can ensure the proper distribution of resources so that no one is left behind. Only when we have worldwide equality will the terrorism end.

Forget the lessons of the past. This time is different. The UN won't abdicate its responsibility again. There is no hope of a world economic recovery without a redistribution of the worldwide wealth so that everyone can enjoy the same standard of living. Everything will be safe and secure in the cocoon of the international community.

And as we look ahead, what do we see? We see the path of Americanism.

It is through turbulent waters. There is a fog in the distance. It seems as though it is brighter than the other choices; maybe there is something better out there. Maybe not. We won't know until we get there.

But we know there is no voice calling us. There is no promise of anything at the end of our journey. We know not what is there; we only know that getting there won't be easy.

It is a path that requires us to be strong. Not for others, but for us. It is a path that requires us to be thoughtful. Not to be smarter, but to overcome the impediments to our progress. It is a path that requires us to be true to our principles. Not because they are perfect, but because to stray from them would take us into the clutches of Isolationism or Internationalism.

We cannot forget the lessons of the past. They are the map that we must follow to stay on the path. Our Founders and our ancestors passed many of the same obstacles that we face. We have much to learn, but the lessons have already been taught.

There is no cocoon. There is no guarantee of safety. There is only the promise of America.

We already know what awaits us at the "end" of our journey. It is more of the same. Our journey is one that will end only when we allow it. It will end only when the path becomes "too difficult" for the American people.

The easy way out will always be there. At any time we can choose Isolationism or Internationalism. But they mean certain destruction of the American path. Once we fall into the clutches of either, we lose the choice to go forward our way, the American way.

If we choose Isolationism foreign enemies will destroy us as they gain sufficient strength to overwhelm us. It might be militarily; it might be politically. But our ultimate destruction will come from outside.

If we choose Internationalism we will be destroyed from within. We will give away all of our rights to be American.

If we look ahead on the American path, it looks difficult and fearsome. No one is promising anything. But we will still be American.

If we turn around and look back, we will see a path every bit as difficult as the one that faces us, maybe even more so. We will the bright light of hope that is the illumination for the way forward.

And we will hear a cry. We will hear the cry of millions as they encourage us on the American path. They know that they cannot promise an easy path or a safe future. They know that they can only impart to us knowledge of overcoming significant and minor obstacles. But only when we're willing to listen.

Those who have come before have faith in us. They have entrusted us with the greatest experiment in human history. They deemed us worthy of their gift. They await, but not too anxiously, the day when we join them in helping our descendents on the same path. They alone believe that we can complete our portion of the journey.

The twin temptations have no such faith. They pray for our failure, yet gird themselves for our success in staying the course.

We are at a decision point in our history as a nation. The temptations are sensing victory. They are grasping at the American miracle, trying to rip it asunder. It has been nearly 80 years since they have been this close to defeating us.

Our history is watching closely, hoping we make the right choice. The light of hope has faded, beaten back some by the evils of the sirens, but it still illuminates the path of the American people.

Are we willing to follow it, despite the trials and tribulations ahead?

Or will we take the easy way out?

The Islamic Threat In America

Cal Thomas has a pretty good commentary in the Jewish World Review in which he discusses what he sees as the coming Islamic threat to America. The threat that he foresees is real and the first step towards its implementation of being worked on right now. But I don't agree with the basic premise that it is necessarily a bad thing.

Thomas sees the Islamists invading America through immigration and naturalization in order to take over our political system and to eventually turn the US into an Islamic theocracy. And there is a movement afoot to accomplish just that goal.

But, so what?

The Islamists have figured out how the US political system works. They intend to try to use it to their advantage to change how the United States operates and lives.

That's what the US political system is for. It gives a voice to those who care enough to exercise it. The majority of Americans like to complain about the political system, but they aren't willing to go out there and vote. During the election of 2000, one in which the potential importance of every single vote was reinforced, there was a huge number of registered voters who chose not to vote.

It really makes you question whether or not we deserve the system we have been bequeathed. The liberty that was given to us by the Founding Fathers requires a certain amount of responsibility on our part.

It is our responsibility to be informed. It is our responsibility to participate. It is our responsibility to care enough to defend the liberty we enjoy.

If we don't care, we leave open an opportunity for someone who does to come in. We allow someone who cares to modify our government. If we don't care about our liberty, we will willingly allow someone to take it from us.

Right now, many Americans don't care. Many Americans don't know enough to want to participate. We are willingly giving up our rights.

Perhaps the Islamic invasion is exactly what we need to get more Americans to care. Perhaps defending our liberty and ideals will be the impetuous that will get more Americans to participate in their own government.

If not, we deserve to lose our nation to someone who does care.

Mr. Thomas' warning is well intended. His desire is to try to mobilize the American people to take action, to learn more and to participate in the system. Cal Thomas cares.

Does anyone else?

Last Hurrah For Al-Qaida?

Amir Taheri has an interesting op-ed in tomorrow's Times in which he theorizes that the recent spate of terrorist attacks is an indication of desperation on the part of the terrorists. I tend to agree with the basic premise.

The pressure is mounting on the terrorists. They are losing their funding, their safe harbor, and much of their support. They are losing their relevance in the world.

Which is exactly why they have to prove themselves as being relevant. The more it appears to the Arab Street that the infidels are winning the war on terror, the less influence the nutcases will have.

The terrorists are the failures of their society. They are the people who cannot build, they can only destroy.

The Arab world is at a crossroads in its history. It can either build itself to the level of the West, or it can try to destroy the West down to the level of the Arab world.

The moderates, like Turkey and Jordan, want to build up a new Arab world. They have not been perfect, but they have been working on normalizing relations with the West. Through their relations with Israel they show more tolerance than their neighbors. They are trying to learn from and work with them West.

Hizbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaida want to destroy the West. They fear change so much that it is more palatable to drag the world back to the 7th century than it is for them to try to move into even the 19th century. The Enlightenment that their culture so desperately needs threatens the terrorist’s importance. So they resist.

The terrorists don't particularly believe in their religion. They use it as an excuse for their behavior. They don't believe in any particular cause. Infidels in Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians, economic sanctions - they are ever morphing excuses for cultural impotence.

The events of the last few days are nothing more than a cultural temper tantrum. They are a cry for relevance. They are proof that the war on terror is working.

But we are not out of the woods, yet. The war is still yet to be won.

Ignorant Terrorists?

I've always wondered why some people feel a need to defend the actions of terrorists. The reasons that I usually see thrown about including oppression, diversity, understanding, empathy for their situation or some new age psychobabble like that. How do they reconcile that belief with the truth on the ground: the terrorists are ignorant.

Just look at the understanding of others exhibited by the bombers in Morocco.

They attacked a Jewish community center - on Friday. On Saturday the center would have been packed. The residents of the city knew this. Anyone with any knowledge of the Jewish faith could have figured it out. But the terrorists didn’t. Why not? A little effort would have gone a long way to making a successful terrorist attack.

Of course, the guy going after the Jewish cemetery wasn't much better. It doesn't take too much going on upstairs to be able to tell where a cemetery is. But this genius got within 150 feet - and then picked a fountain outside the cemetery. Then he blew himself up, killing only one person - himself. He didn't even cause any damage to the cemetery. He managed to miss one of the easiest targets to identify.

Did these guys care about cultural diversity? Did they care to learn about the ways of the people they were about to kill? Or were they just blinded by their hatred and contempt for the Jews?

The terrorists had no desire to learn anything about those that they were about to kill. They didn't feel that the Jews were worthy of their time. They had no concern for the feelings of those they wanted to blow up. Infidels are to be killed, not to be concerned for. They didn't want to live in peace with their neighbors. They didn't value diversity of culture. Instead of people, they saw targets.

The terrorists are beyond indefensible. Everything about them is anathema to cause of the diversity crowd. The terrorists are the anti-diversity crowd.

Which still leaves my question: how can people justify defending them?

Blog At Your Own Risk?

Donald Sensing over at One Hand Clapping is commenting on a NYT article about the perils of blogging.

Now I'll admit that there is a certain cheap thrill to getting a link from another blogger and this could be perilous to friendships if they are shallow (or the blogger is).

But bloggers, like everyone else, need to realize that there is a certain level of responsibility that has to be maintained. A blog can be personal, but you have to be ready for the consequences if you spread stories that shouldn't have been spread. A blog is no excuse for ignoring basic human decency.

I have to agree completely with Mr. Sensing on this point:

This is probably the most superficial look at blogging I have ever seen. We are informed, mostly through implication and insinuation, that bloggers can't be trusted because we don't have editors........

Actually, I can't be trusted because I just make this stuff up as I go along.

So we can't trust bloggers because we don't have editors. We can't trust the NY Times because they do have editors - that don't do their job. So who can we trust?

What ever happened to independent thought? Neal Boortz puts it pretty well: "Don't believe anything you read or hear unless it is consistent with what you already know to true or you have taken the time to research it." (I might be off a little, but it gives you the idea.) If you don't want to be an intellectual lemming, a little effort is required.

Trust yourself. To trust anyone else without verification is to abdicate your responsibility.

Besides, how could you ever trust a bunch of ego-trippers like the blogosphere? Our only goal in life is to get blogrolled by Glenn Reynolds. It's not like we might have any personal knowledge, experience or insight that might be useful, informative or correct.

After all, we don't have editors to make us smart or honest.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Great news! Some Arabs are now expressing their displeasure at the recent spate of bombings.

At first glance this is wonderful news. It appears to be indicative of their culture starting to understand the value of human life. But looking just under the surface, we can see how it is actually just another expression of the same Arab position.

This week's terrorist attacks have angered millions across the region not just because of their brutality, but because innocents — including Arabs and Muslims — were caught up in the violence.

"If those people want to harm the Americans, let them target military locations, but never civilians," said Palestinian Awni Shatarat, speaking from a Jordanian refugee camp.

.....................................

A leader of Egypt's largest Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, said the entire Islamic community was opposed to suicide bombings targeting civilians.

So the Arabs aren't upset with bombings per se, just ones that kill Arab and Muslim civilians. In other words, they acknowledge that they have been prosecuting a war against the US and the Jewish populations around the world. If they're not at war, why aren't they condemning all bombings? Why they distinction about bombings of civilians?

They, of course, fear provoking the US (or Israel) into a real war. 9/11 woke them up to the fact that a determined and focused United States is the most fearsome opponent the world has ever seen. A real war against the United States (or Israel) will mean annihilation or permanent displacement. Bin Laden and Saddam have already proved the folly of direct confrontation with the US.

So they work through pinprick attacks. A bomb kills five, ten, twenty-five people. Then the terrorists come out and condemn the bombings, if they kill only Arabic or Muslim civilians, and praise it if the succeed in killing any Americans or Jews.

The result is that the Arab Street celebrates the successes and the apologists defend them in the aftermath of their mistakes. And as long as we look at the bombings as an annoyance, and not a threat, then everything is fine.

But with success being dependant on our not recognizing the attacks as a threat anything that serves to raise our awareness would is itself a threat to the terrorist's plan.

Right now, it is only the apologist media's glossing over of threatening comments that is keeping us from realizing the depth of the threat. The Arab Street is acting arrogant and boastful. The media cannot squash all of the comments made against us. But they try to ignore the ones that slip through. As a result, most of the American people go along every day happy and ignorant of the world around them.

The main difference between the attitude of the Israelis and the Americans is due to proximity to the terrorists. The Israelis deal with the threat every single day and have realized the hatred of the Arab Street. The US, far away from a direct threat, downplays the significance of the terrorists’ actions. It is only because of our attitude that Israel has not attacked the terrorists with extreme prejudice.

Eventually the terrorists will tweak us a little too hard. When the giant turns its attention to them, they will rue the day that their wish of all out war with the US was granted.

US Oppression In Iraq

Read or watch the news these days and you'll certainly hear about how America is losing the peace in Iraq. We have oppressed the people, encouraged them to loot, and lied about our reasons for the war. But you almost never see articles like this one talking about political freedom unless you go searching them out.

It's significant that 1000 people came out to support a party who is openly calling for the end of the US military presence in Iraq. Saying the wrong thing during Saddam's reign would have gotten your tongue cut out. Criticizing the US is not only allowed, but accepted and encouraged.

This is not exactly the trademark of an oppressive occupier. We're supposed to be cracking heads and performing summary executions. We're not supposed to be allowing new political parties, especially not ones that are opposed to us. Even our administrator in Iraq is being called "nice."

Someone here has a lot to learn. Either we need to be more violent and oppressive in our occupation or the media and the Iraqis need to be more understanding that we are there to liberate them - the ultimate goal being to turn the government over to an Iraqi government.

At least they've already figured out that they don't want the UN running the show. Progress is being made.

Three Months?

The Palestinian Authority is claiming to need at least three months to establish some sort of security in the territories. They claim that Israeli interference has degraded their security force to the point that is has to be rebuilt in order to perform its job.

Israel asked them provide security along one border within one month if Israel promised to withdraw from the area. One border. Not the entire territory, mind you. One single border, the northern Gaza-Israeli border, that isn't all that long.

And the Palestinian Authority says it needs three months. Why?

It's not like they don't have the weaponry to arm a security force. How many police forces really need to arm every officer with AK-47s? Do they not have enough missiles? Do they need a few more Scuds to secure the border?

Or maybe the three months is a crock. Maybe it's going to take three years or even three decades.

Maybe they've understood that they won't be able to provide real security until the Palestinian people learn the basics of self-government.

Why is it that in the US we have relatively safe cities and yet the standard officer on the beat is armed with only a 9mm pistol while the Palestinian's feel that they need to arm their cops with military style weapons?

It's a basic cultural difference. In the US we are, to a large extent, self-policing. Not self-policing like a Stalinist society, but more along the lines of peer pressure. Our society values the ideas of private property and personal rights. We also put enormous pressure on those who violate those ideas. It isn't so much the official sanction that keeps people in line; it is the societal pressure that keeps us in line.

In regions like those under the control of the Palestinian Authority, there is no value to private property, personal rights, and to an extent human life. In order to bring real security to the area, they would have to bring about a reeducation of the people in the territories. The only alternative is to impose a martial law type of regime like Israel has done. But since that would be politically unacceptable to the PA, it won't be done.

With the alternatives being Israeli occupation, reeducation of the population (and the PA itself), or imposition of martial law, the PA has come up with a fourth alternative: lie.

What will happen in three months? Will there be real security? I don't think so. I think in three months we'll hear about how the evil Israelis haven't properly supported the PA in setting up a security force based around the concept of armored warfare, or some such thing. And then we'll hear about how they need three more months or six more months or more money or more weapons, anything but the truth that they are incapable of providing security.

It wouldn't matter if they had asked for three years instead of three months. They're really asking for the impossible.

Expel Arafat?

After the "summit" yesterday and the bombing in Jerusalem, some members of the Israeli government are talking about seriously considering expulsion for Arafat. For his part, Arafat has come out today and said that, for him, expulsion would be unacceptable. As far as I know, the Israeli cabinet hasn't made any great decisions on Yassar quite yet.

As I said earlier, I don't think that Arafat is going to be a true partner for peace. If anything, he's going to be a significant obstacle to the process as he, more than anyone else in the region, stands to lose tremendously in the event of a real peace.

So expulsion of Arafat will likely be one of the necessary, if unwritten, steps in the peace process. If it’s got to happen at some point, and there is political cover to protect Israel from the EU, why not go ahead and do it now? Get past the painful part and get started on building a real basis for moving forward.

Sure, Arafat will sit there and scream, whine and complain, but what can he really do about it? He is truly in a position of weakness. Israel has the power, maybe not the authority, but they certainly have the power, to remove Arafat by force, if necessary. If they decide that his removal is needed, there isn't a thing that he can do about it.

And doing so would put everyone else on the spot. Who would accept him? Certainly not Jordan or Iraq. Probably not Syria or Iran. Most every Arab nation will support him as he "fights" Israel, but they are deathly scared of the instability and corruption that he brings. So he would probably end up in Europe somewhere, most likely in Paris with some of the other members of his family.

At that point, the Israelis and a hopefully reformed Palestinian Authority could get started on building a lasting peace.

Although if there were one attack by Arafat's cronies, we might have to declare Paris a state sponsor of terrorism.

Sounds like a no lose situation for us.

Israeli Appeasement

I've generally respected Shimon Peres. Don't agree with him too often, but he's generally always struck me as somewhat respectable. Until these comments proved him to be the worst appeaser since Neville.

I would like to know what the difference is between terror and a suicide bomber. I was always under the impression that the goal of a suicide bomber was terror. So how can the two really be separated?

I also have a big issue with the idea that making concessions to Abu Mazen now - before he has actually done anything - would be a mistake on an incredible scale. Concessions should be given only when something has been done to warrant them. Israel has given concessions in the past never with any reciprocation. Concessions only bring more demands.

What makes Peres think that this time will be any different? What has changed to make concessions a real alternative? It certainly isn't Abu Mazen, so what is it?

More Evil From Iraq's Occupiers

Now we all know how evil and vile the occupation of Iraq has been. The coalition forces are quite obviously out to ensure the complete annihilation of everything Iraqi. It is what we are constantly told so it must be so.

I mean just look at this article describing how we are torturing Iraqi children. I mean, how could we do such a thing?

Tradition is a very important part of culture. The tradition in Iraq, perpetuated by Saddam, is that children in this condition are allowed to die. Only in the decadent West would we have the technology and desire to make sure that this child could live a full and prosperous life. How dare we impose that on the innocent Iraqi children!

If this is an example of what we do in the evil, decadent West, then count me as part of the problem. I can only hope that the figure out how to get the girl's parents to London to be with her.

The true miracle, however, will be when this kind of surgery becomes a routine event in Iraq also.