Further thought on Islamic emasculation...

The first Crusades were successful for the Western powers, but were not especially significant in the scope of the Islamic world of the day. The Islamic culture had established the largest empire the world had ever seen, though it was not centrally run, as the Roman, or the Greek, or the Persian, so in that sense, it was not a unified empire. The fact of brittle and separate Muslim fiefdoms was primary in the Western Crusaders success in taking Jerusalem.

The Crusaders took a critical city, to be sure. Jerusalem was one of the key centers of Muslim culture of the day, along with Baghdad, Mecca, Cordoba, but it was merely one city, merely one fiefdom. The rest of the Muslim world was aware of the atrocity in Jerusalem, but was largely unaffected, and life went on. I suppose a parallel could be drawn with the current occupation of Baghdad: significant, to be sure, but not especially affecting on a day to day basis for the average Muslim in Jakarta.

The Muslim empire was established by conquest in some parts, but by ideological spread combined with ossified imperial dynasties on others (the Byzantines, Sasanian Iranians, etc). In general (though certainly not universally) the Muslim empire spread by the willingness of populations to be joined to the philosophy or imperical master; it was not generally foisted upon people. By and large, the average peasant of the Muslim empire was perfectly content with Islamic rule, and was not necessarily chomping at the bit for release. It was a liberal empire in the truest sense: people were free to worship as they wished (though frequently taxed for being non-Muslims); trade was not just promoted, but was held in high regard (Muhammed was a trader); science was preeminent. The Muslim empire was atypical as compared to most early empires in that it was not founded upon military prowess alone. The Muslims laid seige to Constantinople long after the empire owned Cordoba. At this point in history, they were young, and not especially tough.

Because the Muslims were fractured, and weren't the greatest military power in the world, the Crusaders bit hard, and deeply into the Muslim world, and took Jerusalem. The Crusaders came after Al-Hakim, the sheikh of Jerusalem burned the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to the ground, without cause. The Muslims had no idea there was a Western Europe that was so pissed off (even though Al-Hakim's successor rebuilt the Church), and they were unprepared for an onslaught far greater than the Byzantines could muster. So the Crusaders slaughtered men women and children in the streets of Jerusalem, and held the city for over 100 years, until Sala Huddin.

The Crusades weren't as significant in its own time as they seem in modern world culture, and that is for a good reason... The greatest violation of the Islamic empire was to be struck by the Mongols from the East. The Mongols took the entire eastern Muslim empire, including Baghdad, and took Islam to the brink of extinction. That would have been the great catastrophe spoken of today and shouted from rooftops, were it not for one unexpected development: after conquering the Muslims, the Mongols converted to Islam. After the invasion, the Ottoman Turks established themselves as regional lords, and eventually the imperical power.

The Ottomans brought true military prowess to the Muslims, and that is the great and unified Muslim empire we think of today. Until the Ottomans, the Muslims were primarily statesman and scientists, now they were warriors too.

Why the history lesson? The emasculation of the Arab Muslims of today is far more significant when one realizes the scale of the tragedy. In the 13th century, Muslims were the most advanced, sophisticated, dominant population on the planet, today, they are mostly poor, mostly ignorant, mostly backwards. The Muslims of the 13th century planted the seeds of the European Rennaisance that would eventually lift the West so far above the Arabs and Turks.

What a loss to see their own culture and populace so devoid of influance and education.

I'll continue later, when I've got some time...

//

Sadly, I'm back on Blogger.

Morning ya'll, I'm back blogging.

Too much news to single anything out, other than to say that we're looking at a possible incursion into Iran, a crackdown in Iraq, an attempt by the Saudis to replace Iran as the primary funding source of Hamas in order to create a new Israeli/Palestinian peace accord, a new electoral system in Bangladesh, the collapse of Equador's new Presidency and a return to leftists populism, and Hugo Chaves sans check or balance.

An excting time! I'll be examining each of these developments and what they mean in a braoder context. All coming soon, so please come on back!

Are we starting to actually win the war?

A first hand account of the battle for Ramadi would indicate that, at least from one man's educated POV, the Iraq war is winnable. Long article, must read...

Upside to losing.

George Allen has conceded, so it's official, the Dems run both houses. Regular readers know that I'm pretty pleased we lost. There may even be a silver lining for GWB... Immigration.

GWB, by all accounts, was pretty pissed at congressional reps for refusing a good immigration plan, one of the few good plans (along with Social Security) put forward by GWB. Recent news has higlighted GWB's meetings with incoming Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Could Bush and Calderon put together a good immigration plan along the lines put forward by GWB earlier in the year, and then get enough Democratic congressional support to puch it through congress? This could be the upside to losing for GWB. Keep your eyes open for it!

//

Emasculation of the Arabs

New theory: the problem in Arab countries is one of emasculation and humiliation.

Not entirely new, I understand, but I think looking at the problem through the lens of emasculation can offer a resolution to the problem not only of Iraq, but of the Arab middle east as well.

What we've seen is increasing identification with a religion that was originally designed as a method of bonding a disparate group of infighting tribes. We've seen a longing for the strongman from Saddam to Osama; characters that exude male violence and strength. We've seen an increasing use of the hijab and other forms of the headscarf, possibly as a sign of further identification with the culture and as a sign of pride and subservience to men who feel emasculated.

The desire to reclaim the manhood of the fomerly great culture is bred from not just the loss of the dominance of the 12th-14th centuries, but also to the regional loss of dominance. For 200 years, the Jews were a regional afterthought; the Jews were never dominant, and were always servile to the regional power of the day, most recently the Ottoman Turks and Arabs. Now, the Jews are the regional military power. The loss of both the 1948 and 1967 wars (along with arguably the 1973 war) has brought the realization of weakness and decay home to the Arabs. It was okay not to be the strongest in the world, so long as they could run their own homes, but when they found themselves unable to rule even their own neighborhoods, their humiliation was impossible to mask.

The Arabs are now looking for the shortest path to the reestablishment of their dignity and power. That path is perceived to be meaningless wars of attrition against the great powers of the world, merely to show they can fight. Losing isn't important, so long as they are perceived to fight valiently. This is the reson behind the adoration of hirribly violent men, worth nothing but good in a brawl.

The Arab world is in the throws of adolesence. The Muslim faith is now 1374 years old. In the year 1374, the Byzantine Empire was in its death throws and Europe languished in the violence of the dark ages. Now, the Muslims are struggling with their emergence into adulthood, and are deciding whether they will be an educated, decent society striving for betterment, or an ignorant, brooding loser dreaming of what could have been.

The Arabs must choose the long road of respectibility, rather than the short road of respect through destructiveness. It's college v. ghetto king. Let's hope they choose wisely.

In the short term, what can we do to ameliorate the situation in Iraq and the region in general while the Arabs choose their path? Well, disengagement is probably wise. Let the Arabs show their muscle against one another rather than against us. A civil war in Iraq would eventually include sunni money from the Saudis and Egyptians, and Shi'i money from the Iranians. This would allow the Arabs (and Persians, and maybe the Turks) to set their own house in order. The problem is that once their house was set straight, the first order of business would be to rid the region of the Israelis. This is why it is a good idea for the Israelis to keep their nukes. Only mutually assured destruction can settle that situation.

The path of disengagement would allow the Arabs to claim a victory, reclaiming some self respect. Allowing the Arabs (and Persians + Turks) to fight it out might give rise to a reevaluation of their political systems (though let's not hold our breath).

Anyhow, just a theory.

//

Our man in charge!

Schwarzenegger is kicking ass. Angelides is down by somewhere between 10 and 15 points and is flailing.

This points towards two key trends that if they hold steady, will mean President McCain in '08 and a renaissance of reasonable politics. This trends are:

1. A reassertion of the business wing of the Republican party along with a reevaluation of the value of reason.

2. The continuing self-destructiveness of the Democrats.

Let's remember that Schwarzenegger is whooping a Democrat in a highly Dem state. This highlights the power of the center, even for Republicans. If a Republican can take California, there is almost no purpose in running a campaign for a Democrat. This will become clear even to the theocratic wing of the Republican party. A reasonable centrist Republican can waltz to a victory if point number two stays firm.

The Democrats are idiots right now. You've heard me bemoan that fact many times recently. I believe in two strong parties, and the Democrats, though stronger than the Reps right now, are a weak party. The best thing for the Republicans is if the Dems whoop ass in November with a bunch of half-wit lefties at the helm. In 2008, the Dems would then think they can win by running left and put up Feingold or someone rediculous like that (I think that Gore or Clinton could win, and Biden could lose with respect), the Reps then put forward McCain or someone perceived as honest, and then trounce the Dems.

//

Maybe Nasrallah has won, with the aid of the UN.

According to Debka, Kofi Annan, the prince of peace, is refusing to honor the UN resolution insisting upon the disarming of Hizbullah. Let the war reignite. It looks as if the "force" won't be ready until mid Septenber at the earliest, so the Israelis will attack before then.

Thank you UN. You've saved us again.

It is time to can Kofi, and kick the UN out of New York. The UN has single handedly assured the world that Hizbullah will rearm with a UN shield, and reignite the Lebanese war.

The double tragedy is that the "international community" (read: leftist victimology practitioners) has been scolding Bush for his horrible ignorance and callousness in not calling for an immediate ceasefire from day one of the conflict. His reasoning was that any ceasefire would not hold because Hizbullah wouldn't abide by its terms. Now, the UN has assured that Bush was absolutely right. Hizbullah is rearming via Lebanese ports in the North, and the UN has bought time for them to rearm, assuring more death and destruction for the Lebanese people.

Another job well done by the UN.

//

The Economist: Nasrallah won.

It's not just the Economist. It seems everyone is on the Hizbullah bandwagon. I think it is far to early to declare a winner in this conflict for two reasons:

1. This conflict may burst open again at any moment, especially if people keep looking to the French to help in any situation under any circumstance.
2. This war is about the future, not the present, and only the future will tell who won.

I will grant that I haven't read The Economist article yet... just got it in the mail, and I will update this post if it goes contrary to the headline, however... The reason Israel invaded Lebanon was not because two soldiers were taken hostage, it was an attempt to cripple the Iranian vanguard of foreign policy in the middle East.

This war was an attempt to remove or limit to functionality of Hizbullah as a thorn in the side of anyone who would limit the hegemony of Iran, and to limit the ability of Iran to dissuade seriousness in the attempt to stop a militant theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons. With that in mind, it is next to impossible to determine who has won this engagement.

The true battle is taking place right now in the debate and effort to disarm Hizbullah. If the attempt fails, Nasrallah and Iran have won, if it succeeds, Israel and the non-dark age world has won.

Many talking heads assert that the political capital won by Nasrallah has shown Hizbullah to be the winner of the confrontation, but to my mind, a swing toward Nasrallah is only valuable to him if the overall power-pie increases within the Iran/anti-Israeli block. If Iran loses Hizbullah as an effective tool, a swing toward Nasrallah has hurt Iran and the Arabs.

For a more nuanced view from the Iranian perspective, look at this Debka article.

//

Update on what's wrong with the Dems.

So the Dems voted for Ned Lamont, a man about whom they know nothing, but at least he has never agreed with GWB... yet. In so doing, they have ditched one of the three or four most powerful Democrats in Washington, and that Democrat is now running an independent campaign for the Senate. People that I respect, such as David Brooks, have said that this shows the power of the anti-war left, and that the Dems could win on that passion. I suppose it's possible, but the fact of the matter is taht there are more self-defined Conservatives than Liberals in this country. What that means is that unless the Dems can get a hugely disproportionate turnout, they cannot win by running left.

I'm glad there is an anti-war lobby. It's good to have policy debates. The problem for the Dems is that in order to win, they will have to convert moderate anti-war voters to their list. So long as the winners are flanked by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (as Ned Lamont was in this hilarious picture on his own site... note Jackson and Sharpton peeking out from behind him. Eerie view of things to come.), the Dems will not convert moderates. Most moderates think Sharpton is a cartton character based upon the corrupt victimology espoused by lefties and Euros.

What does all this mean? Well, it means that the Dems could ride to a victory in '06 if they get good turnout while GWB is still in office. It also means that the party will tilt seriously leftward, and if it fails to right itself, the Dems have no shot at winning against a decent Republican in '08.

It's a shame really. Great that you've got an anti-war lobby. Heart-breaking that it has become stupid and populist, and merely a proxy vote against GWB. Run to the left and doom your party.

Need evidence (usually you folks on the left don't require it, but here ya go...)? This week, VP Cheney came out of self-imposed recluse in WY, and bemoaned the loss of Liberman as support for Al-Qaeda. Say what you will about Cheney, he is not stupid. Note that the link is to a leftists screed that has taken this bait hook, line, and brown bobbing material that floats. Man extremeists are suckers. The lefties need to learn to bait the righties this well.

What Cheney knows that "think progress" and other lefty crazies don't is that Americans, by and large, like moderation. We like a guy that says "I see your argument and respect it, but I disagree for the following reasons..." What the lefties forget is that the first time GWB was elected, that is what he did, but behind the scenes whispered sweet nothings to the Ralph Reeds and Jerry Falwells of the world. Cheney has succesfully baited the far left to the vanguard of the Democratic party. What the country sees as the mouthpiece of the party is Ned Lamont, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and only the rediculous portion of John Murtha. The point is that GWB has tricked the Dems into running left (well much of it they did to themselves, but some portion has been encouraged by the Bushies). The Dems are now yelling what they should be whispering and whispering what they should be yelling.

All this means that the Dems only win in '06 if the Bush strategy is too late. It is no coincidence that top generals are putting together pullout plans if a civil war strts in Iraq. That is the Republican withdrawl strategy, and you'll be seeing more of it. It is the moderate alternative to the Dems. If it catches hold, the Dems can't win in '06, and they are likely to lose in '08.

The most interesting possibility: Liberman wins in the general election. Laughing? Don't. Read this from Dick Morris, a former consultant to Ned Lamont. What would an independent Liberman do in the Senate? well, probably continue to to be Joe: be a hawkish Democrat, and a guy most moderates can support. Look out Democrats. an independent Liberman could really stick it to you in interesting ways... imagine him exposing your secrets for programatic benefit. Imagine a Liberman free to support McCain for president... Interesting.

Pull it together lefties!

//

Why the Democrats will lose in 2008, and why they may even lose in 2006.

The Democrats love a loser. Rather than gathering their strength in the center, the only place they can win, they toss their few remaining centrists to the wind. Ditching Joe Lieberman? Rediculous. He is one of the few Democrats that Americans outside of New York and San Francisco like.

The Guardian rightly points out that this election and perhaps the 2008 election are the Democrat's to lose. And lose it they may. Why do I bemoan the ailments of the Democrats? Well, I believe in having strong parties that fight out ideas, not just political strategems. If the Democrats are mindless bunglers, as they have proven, the Republicans can keep on ignoring conservative ideals and good policy without accountability.

Democrats, please, nominate Hillary, Joe Biden, or someone in the center with equally well-considered ideas, and bask in the White House. Nominate Russ Feingold, give heed to Cindy Sheehan, and continue to cry from the corner.

//

Why Europeans Suck.

This week, the UN undersecretary for douchebaggery, Mark Malloch Brown, essentially told American conservatives to suck it, and the European press lost their hair by nodding so damn hard.

Am I the only one who gets sick and tired of people and organizations coming to our shores with their hands out for our cash, and their mouths open to tell us we're idiots?

Brown essentially said that the UN is an incompetent crap-hole, and it is the fault of the US because we're constantly saying what an incompetent crap-hole it is. Also, everyone in middle America is an idiot.

Thanks Mark.

It's not that he doesn't have a point. To some extent, he does. The truth is that we attempt to use the UN when it is convenient, and bash it at all other times. One of the many problems with Brown's commentary is that he is trying to get us to engage MORE, but reform LESS.

Perhaps I'm too stupid to understand because I didn't go to a suave European college (only three of which are on the world's top 20, while the US has 15, according to a Chinese university), but isn't that a bit self-defeating? The US is supposed to give our share to the UN this month, so this statement seems focused on making us look stupid so that we feel forced to give money and stop insisting upon reform.

At some point, we as a country need to respectfully insist that if the UN doesn't start representing democracies worldwide, rather than appointing the biggest offending autocracies to its boards, we would rather just start a club for democracies, and the rest can start their own club. We'll just go back to the mindset of NATO v. Warsaw Pact. That is what we're trying to do, we're trying to shame the UN into changing, and they're trying to shame us for not being elitist enough to simply trust that they'll do a good job, despite all evidence.

The UN does some things well. It's doing a good job in Haiti, after the US cleared out the big guns. It's doing a passable job in the Balkans, after NATO cleared out all the big guns. It generally does a pretty good maintenance job after the heavy lifting is done. It is also a decent job of diplomatic mediation, which is a valuable service.

The problem is that the UN thinks it is a world government in practice. The UN seems to believe it is uniquely placed to do most every job in the world, just like a good socialist government should. The inconvenient fact is that they have a shabby track record. All the US wants is for the bureaucratic corruption to end, for representative governments to hold more weight than autocracies, and for the UN to stick to what it does well rather than what it does poorly.

These all seem like good goals to me. If Mr. Brown disagrees, let him say so, but to bash the US for not being an effective PR department for the UN, is to act a bit grandiloquently. We are not a sub-directorate of the UN, we are a sovereign nation, and if the UN feels put upon by its largest donor country demanding performance over rhetoric, we must just apologize for not being French.

//

Immigration and Chavez.

Two immigration bills will enter the Congressional caucus for compromise this week. If the House version (security and felony status) rules over the Senate version (security + worker program), Mexico is likely to join Chavez, Castro, and Morales, in the populist, leftist, anti-American surge in Latin America. If the Senate version rules, and illegals are given a path to legalization, the pro-American PAN party of Vicente Fox is likely to win, and the insane Chavistas may be stopped, and reversed.

Is it that dramatic? Absolutely. Enrique Calderon, the PAN candidate has just passed the crazy Chavista candidate, Manuel Lopez-Obrador, in the polls. Obrador led in the polling for two straight years. The reason for the surge is a smart campaign linking Obrador to Chavez, who most non-Venezuelans despise.

If the Senate version of the bill rules, Vicente Fox and the PAN party will take credit. If the House version rules, the PAN will take the blame. Considering this is the most talked about political topic in a political country (Mexico), this will absolutely tilt the polls.

Bottom line: the House version is a silly, idealistic, pipe-dream. The Senate version is unworkable, but great rhetoric. As I've said many times, the biggest problem with Republicans is a lack of rhetorical flair (i.e. sweet nothings to people who don't care about facts anyway... most voters). If we can push this Senate version through, a rational enforcement and legalization regime may emerge. Either way, it would be a significant turning point as per the authoritarianism and anti-Americanism of Chavez, Castro, and Morales.

The polling data in Mexico and Peru are beginning to turn in our direction. Let's not ruin it by passing a stupid, angry, racists bill that won't work and will piss off most of our neighbors needlessly. Call your congressman and tell her/him that you support the Senate version.

//

Teddy Kennedy's son continues to live in his father's shadow...

Patrick Kennedy nearly hit a police car, then crashed into a barrier at 2 am. He then proceeded to tell the police that he was "late for a vote." The House was not in session. A supervisor arrived, prevented the police from giving a sobriety test to the schwerving youngster, and drove him home without punishment.

ah, we should all get permanent get out fo jail free cards.

When reached for comment, Teddy Kennedy said "It's embarrasing. I mean, when I crash, I kill. This kid has been half-assing it for years." Ignorant Kennedy worshippers worldwide were heard to exclaim: "The curse is alive! Ah the tragedy of rich kids who never had to work for anything, then nearly killing cops while drunk driving. Those poor Kennedys. Such horrible things happen to them." The officer who was nearly run over by Mr. Kennedy agreed, while rolling his eyes "Yes, that poor drunk bastard missed me by an inch."

Oil "crisis"

Congress should be shot, starting with the "conservatives", for calling for windfall taxes and tax rebates, and all other stupid, harmful pandering ideas. The oil companies are making a 10% margin. Microsoft makes a 35% margin. This is just supply and demand.

BTW, aren't we supposed to be FOR high gas prices, as it should stimulate alternative energy sources? I can't even write about this I'm so disgusted.

More Afghan insite from Mark Steyn

Everyone ought to be reading Mark Steyn. Love him or hate him, he is one of those few acute minds that can encapsulate a widely-held POV in a short, well informed article. Read this.

Iran: the Europeans are "idiots".

Two pieces of insider information have been inadvertently leaked from the depths of the fundamentalist pseudo-Islamic control center of Iran which highlight not only Iran's problems, but ours as well.

When a 27-4 UN IAEA vote threatened to send Iran to the Security Council, President Amedinejad was quoted as saying "We thank God our enemies are idiots." He went on to imply that there is nothing the outside world can do to stop Iran going nuclear because Iranians are simply too clever. Saddam thought so too. The sad truth is that now that Bill Buckley, the grand old man of the conservative movement, has said of our intervention in Iraq: "It didn't work", we are not going to perform a rebuilding in any unfriendly nation for decades to come. The miscalculation the Iranians may make is simply that because we won't rebuild a hostile nation, doesn't mean we won't just attack it and leave it unstable.

So who are the idiots to whom Amedinejad was referring? The Americans? Likely he was referring to all Westerners, however, in another leak, former Iranian nuclear negotiator Rowhani has given us more of an insight as to who the Iranians think are idiots and why. They believe the Europeans can be played against the Americans (who the Iranians regard as right, but impotent due to Iraq) for an indefinite period, until the Iranian nuclear capability is in place.

What is that capability? Most informed people seem to think that the goal is to have a "nuclear ready" capability. In other words, the ability to go nuclear rapidly, in response to any provocation, which the Iranians think will come from Israel. The Israelis, the only power over the past ten years who have been right, self-interested, and successful, agree with that assertion, and have increased the speed with which their unilateral withdrawals are taking place, and have sped up the building of their separation wall. Why? Can't a missile go over a 30 foot high wall? Of course, but what the Israelis are attempting to stop is Iranian sponsored terrorists (Hizbullah and Hamas) from mounting suicide attacks within Israel. The Israelis will put up with crude Hamas/Islamic Jihad projectiles over the wall, but anything more significant could easily be tagged as an Iranian attack.

In essence, an Israeli wall will make any Iranian attack obviously Iranian, rather than a proxy attack. This is advantageous to Israel because when the price of oil goes down (Hopefully as a result of a President McCain Manhattan Project on renewable power) Iran will be susceptible to outside sanctions, and unwilling to attack Israel when the sanctions that result will crush Iran.

what does all of this mean? Firstly, that the Europeans are naive by nature. Secondly, that Americans are so aggressive that nobody takes them seriously anymore. Thirdly, the Iranians, and Arab regimes, are taking short-term advantage (oil price, Hamas victory, Iraq quagmire) as an opportunity to ratchet themselves up a notch in world power.

Long term, unless Arabs and Persians make actual improvements to their economic structures, especially property law, government detachment from the private sector, and global integration this is ONLY a short-term advantage. America has learned its lesson in spreading democracy (even if the president hasn't), Europe is on the verge of learning its lesson on "soft power" as an exclusive remedy, and the Atlantic rift is closing (as evidenced by the Iranian situation itself).

Muslim power is rising, but it will only rise permanently in Indonesia, Malaysia, and portions of India. The use of this short-term advantage for short-term goals, will end in long term misery for the Arabs and Persians (with the notable exception of the UAE, Morocco, and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia who are all reforming their economies to join the modern world). The permanent rise is due to wise modernization, not deeper fundamentalism.

Boehner (no, bane-er) wins!

So John Boehner wins, mostly just to spite my prediction of a Shaddegg second to a Blunt first. Fine.

Prediction: likely to be biz as youzh (figure it out). One interesting piece of inspiration for RR fans... In 15 years as a House member, Boehner has NEVER inserted an earmark. As we've said before: reform K street all you want. They're not the problem. So long as the Constitution assures the right for the redress of grievances (as it should), the only reform that will matter is a reform of earmarking.

The reform ought to be simple: tag the member's name onto every single earmark. Allow two weeks for debate and approval, allow line item veto for every earmark. simple. Won't happen.

Neither party is pushing very hard for true reform. Both prefer window dressing. Every time the Dems claim to be the party of lily-white, cherry-tree, honesty, remember that their "reform" plan is nearly exactly the same as the Reps they accuse of corruption.

The correct reform is simple to design. Getting the crack-heads off the earmark wagon is more of a challenge.

//

Hamas = honesty over corrupt but pleasing rhetoric

The latest polling numbers show that the Palestinians voted for less corruption, rather than ideology. Two thirds of Palestinians completely disagree with Hamas on their two main foreign policy goals: the destruction of Israel and Islamization.

While the average Palestinian agrees with the goals of Fatah, the fact that Fatah has stolen 90.5% of the $7 billion in aid given to it since 1993, means that the Palestinians had given up on Fatah structurally, not ideologically.

Going forward, Hamas will likely focus on domestic issues and on the Israeli impact on those domestic issues: healthcare, jobs, and schooling. So what does this mean for the future? It depends on Hamas' pragmatism.

They will likely do well on healthcare, as there is no real idological demension to it. The cloud on the horizon is that with so many nations saying they will no longer offer aid to a government led by a party who advocates the destruction of Israel via terrorist attacks on civilians, combined with Hamas' refusal to change their charter advocation the destruction of Israel, means Hamas may not have enough money to provide decent healthcare. Likely outcome: donors will step forward to offer funds for healthcare and Hamas will be more successful than Fatah.

In jobs, there isn't a heck of a lot they can do. Israel won't even speak to a Hamas led government (why? Just because they like to kill Israeli babies?). Joblessness in the Palestinian territories was caused largely by the second Intifada, and the resulting border closures to Israel, where many Palestinians work. The only other option would be to open more trade with other Muslim countries, but the Palestinians don't have much to offer and with less discretionary aid in the government, they can't buy much. Their homeland of Jordan doesn't offer much in the way of economic opportunity.

In education lies the most volitile possibility. Hamas is an Islamic fundamentalist organization. They like religion more than education, and, like so many other Arab-Muslim countries, they think the two are interchangeable. Look for more madrassas than schools. Look for the separation of male and female students. Look for pissed-off Palestinian moderates (i.e. 66% of the country).

In general, we can expect a more competent, less corrput government that will throughly piss off the country as it tries to turn Palestine into Talabania.

I predict two years of Hamas rule which teaches Fatah to can it's aging revolutionary thieves, and brings in a new generation of well-educated tecnocrats with the moderate outlook favored by the populace. If Hamas doesn't try to entrench themselves like despots, Fatah will be back and better than ever in two years.

//

Alito deserves his spot.

I'll keep this as painlessly short as I can. Much doggy doo has been flung about Alito, a right of center judge, nominated by a socially conservative, and fiscally liberal President. So the debate begins on the Senate floor.

Alito got out of conference 10-8, with every one of the Democrats voting against. Our own genius Senator Feinstein said that the only reason she's voting against is because in her heart of hearts, she knows Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade... This begs for a couple of comments, the first most accurately posed by Lindsey Graham:

1. Justice Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, replaced Justice White, a man who voted AGAINST Roe. Ginsberg said explicitly during her hearings that she would uphold Roe. Only two Republicans voted against her. Graham voted for her.

2. If Roe is overturned, abortion is NOT illegal. The decision is simply shifted to state legislatures.

3. If the Dems uniformly vote against a nominee even they admit is well-qualified (except Feingold, who is SPRINTING to Hillary's left), what do they expect the Reps to do to the next Dem nominee? Are we to the point where "advise and consent" means that the Senate will hold every nominee hostage if the nominating president isn't of the Senate's controlling party?

The Dems should bite the bullet, vote for Alito since they're going to lose anyway, defuse that issue, and focus their fire on Abramoff. Learn something from the Canadian Conservatives.

//

This is what RR is all about.

Rational, well-considered, small-government solutions. Peggy Noonan gets it right on... Please read!

Bush administration: not conservative; far smarter than the Dems.

So Karl Rove has gotten the fight he wanted... the Democrats took the bait. Next week, Rove and the Bush political machine will begin the defense of their eavesdropping program. Will the Democrats abandon all political intelligence and fight it out? I hope so. I don't want the Dems to be beaten in this case, but they will be.

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interests to know who they're calling and why." That was Karl Rove's comment the other day. He will paint a picture of: well, we may have over-stepped, but we did it not for political purposes, but to protect your children. The Dems will likely respond with: well, okay, but you don't have that right, and this is truly a slippery slope toward a police state.

The Dems will be right, and they will look soft on defense (which they are) again. This is the best thing that could happen to the beleaguered Republicans up for reelection this year. This will distract from the rampant corruption scandals, and put the focus back on the War Against Terrorism, and how weak the Dems (with the notable exceptions of Lieberman and Clinton) are.

On "This Week", George Will has made the point several times that this scandal which will affect both Reps and Dems, but will disproportionately smack the Reps, not just because we house most of the corruption, but because Reps are supposed to be above this kind of thing. The Dems are FOR big government and a gov't solution for all social ills, so if they expand their own power, it's corrupt, but ideologically consistent. When Reps accept lobbyist cash in order to expand regulation, legislate morality, and gov't power, it is corrupt and ideologically inconsistent. George Will is right. This is the basis of this blog...

We rebel against the idea that Reps can be conservative, but either for or against big government. If you are for big government and the legislation of morality, you are not a conservative, you are a borderline fascist. Conservatives are for constrained government, expanded personal liberty, and the application of private sector solutions whenever possible.

The battle for Rep leadership...

In the struggle for Republican leadership, it sometimes seems as if RR has no horse in the race. Well, we will likely lose, but we may have a horse or two in the race after all. David Drier of California, and John Shadegg of Arizona would both represent the reform movement, both are centrists, both are for ideas over political power. Roy Blunt will still probably win, but the rise of moderates continues.

With Frist stepping down this year for his run for the Presidency, which he will lose, hopefully to McCain/Rice (oh please, God), or Giuliani/Rice, RR sees Roy Blunt winning the leadership struggle in the House, and Mitch McConnell as the new Majority Leader. This is more or less an orderly succession of similarly-minded people from the social conservative wing of the party (McConnell is so bad, but still socially obsessive). The next generation is almost entirely moderate (Drier, Shadegg, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Rice). If the Republicans take a thumping in '06 or '08, you'll see the new generation of moderates come to the fore. Let that day come ASAP.

//