Kill Bill and Save Jobs

The "jobs bill" that was recently passed in the Sennate, with the help of a few Rebpublicans, will probably not do much of anything. But it does contain some good elements. Among other things, it aims to stimulate employment by removing payroll taxes. Payroll taxes (aka Social Security, Medicare-Medicaid taxes) are the worst taxes we have. They hurt low income earners most. Removing them could be a great boost to jobs. It reduces the cost of employment.

Of course, since the removal is only temporary, it is doubtful that it will have any permanent effect. Its impending reversal will inhibit even a short-run response. But its a great idea. Problem - how would we pay social security if we abolished the tax. Only one way. We'd have to reduce government expenditure elsewhere sufficiently to do so. A simple 10% cut accross the board would do it. Don't hold your breath.

You have to admire Obama's perseverance and tennacity. He refuses to allow his health bill to die. One may wonder: is there is any way to finally Kill Bill? The latest round, while tossing a lot of back-dealing baggage, maintains the universal insurance mandate and introduces a new doozy. Price controls on insurance premiums! Insurance premium prices will now be suject to government fiat - like a price board during war-time.

Economics 101 - lesson 2 or 3 - price controls cause shortages or surpluses and a lot of pain and often corruption and other things. They are the crudest, most primative types of interventionist economic policy. I know that some law-students do take elementary economics courses. Evidently this one didn't. So why should we suffer?

Illegal Immigration - Ivry Man (IM) asks Dr. Know (DK) for Guidance

         At the appointed time Ivry finds Dr. Know seated on his usual park bench. Ivry extends his hand.

IM.    Greetings Dr. Know. So nice of you to take time out of your busy ego-boosting schedule to talk to me.

DK.   [Warm smile] Oh it’s my absolute pleasure. How can I help you?

IM.    Well, I see the immigration question is on the agenda again.

DK.   Really, I hadn’t noticed.

IM.    Angry eyes] So I am wondering what the debate is about. Surely its straight-forward. These people break the law to come here and then they take away American jobs. We just need to plug the holes – step up enforcement, stop the buggers from coming in. Right?

DK.    [Looking thoughtful] Maybe we should look at this a little more carefully. Why do you     suppose they break the law to come here?

IM.     To get work obviously, our work.

DK.    Yes, but why not simply stay home, in Mexico say, and work there?

IM.    The jobs in the U.S. pay more.

DK.    Indeed, probably a lot more. Else it would not be worthwhile to go to the trouble – the     time and effort – and undertake the risk of an illegal immigration, right?

IM.    I suppose so.

DK.  Well that is what the evidence (and the logic) suggests. As menial and low-paying as these jobs are, they pay a multiple of what the illegal migrants could earn at home. They are very low wages in the U.S. context but much higher than the alternative for them. It’s all relative.

This being the case, there is evidently a very strong economic pull fueling the flow of illegal immigration. It’s like two connected water tanks, in which the level of water in one is higher than the other. There is an inexorable tendency for the water in the tank with the higher water level to flow into the other tank until the water levels are equal. The only way to stop this is to sever the link between the tanks. With water tanks this may be easy (inexpensive). With labor flows it is likely to be prohibitively expensive – to plug the holes, as you say. Every dollar spent chasing illegal immigrants is a dollar that could be spent somewhere else. And even if we doubled, or tripled, the money, people and equipment devoted to it, we could probably not stop it completely. Our borders are too long and too porous.

IM.    So what are we to do? There are an estimated 13 million illegals in the country and although the flow has slowed now during the recession, it is bound to pick up when our economy does. We have to do something.

DK.   Maybe. Consider, however, the costs and benefits of immigration in general. Immigration is a kind of trade and trade is invariably mutually beneficial. The immigrant adds value to the product she produces and receives a part of that value in a wage that is attractive to her. The employer receives the other part of the added-value. Both parties gain. What is the problem?

IM.    [Looking peeved] Of for goodness sake, have you gone soft in the head.? The problem is that the immigrant is taking away a job that a good American citizen could be doing for a higher wage.

DK.  [Looking earnest] Are you sure about that? The evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, suggests otherwise. It suggests that illegals overwhelmingly do jobs that Americans will not – do not have to – do.

         But let’s assume you are correct, just for a moment. Am I to understand that the job lost by a good-citizen-American worker is self-evidently more important than the job gained by the immigrant? Change the terms in the previous sentence from “American” to “white” and “the immigrant” to “a black worker” and what do we have? Good old-fashioned racism. Hullo! I thought that immigrants were also human beings. Their alternative is often extreme deprivation or starvation. But its self-evident that we ought to send them back in pursuit of saving low-paying jobs for Americans who frequently have other alternatives?

         And let’s not forget the interests of the employers. Is it self-evident that their decreased cost of labor is not worth the alleged loss to the American workers? And consumers also gain because of reduced product prices.

IM.    [Indignant] Now wait a minute! Are you suggesting that we should be the economic savior of poor workers of the world. Why is it our problem? If they are going to starve it’s the fault of their government and it's bad economic policies.

DK.  How convenient. So whatever happens to them our conscience is clear?

         It’s not a question of being the savior of the world. It’s a question of trying to carefully weigh all the aspects of the issue, all of the costs and benefits broadly understood. Do we really want to put such a high weight on protecting domestic jobs that most Americans probably would not want anyway when the human cost to the immigrants is so great? Immigrant workers want to work. Employers want to employ them. The harm to third parties is dubious to say the least. The value-added exceeds the value-lost. This country was, and continues to be, built by immigrants – legal and illegal.

         It seems to me that increased enforcement is a solution in search of a problem.

IM.    [Incredulous] So we don’t have a problem with immigration?

DK.   Not really, no. We have an opportunity.

IM.    How so?

DK.  Immigration is selective. For the prospective immigrant immigration is a form of investment. It takes initiative, courage, persistence and motivation to succeed at it. Immigrants often have these characteristics. They are mostly young, family-oriented, hard-working people. They are prepared to do what it takes to provide their children with opportunities they did not have. They do the jobs that established Americans will not do. They save, they have babies, and they contribute to our social security and Medicare-Medicaid.

IM.    [Red in the face] Oh no, excuse me. That’s another problem you are neglecting. Isn’t it true that these illegals come here and use our social services – our public schools, our hospitals – at the taxpayer’s expense and, because they are illegal, they don’t contribute anything? They become expensive free riders. Also, they add to the crime rate.

DK.    [Sad, concerned] Another set of myths, harmful myths I am afraid.

         I really doubt that the evidence can support this conclusion. It is likely that immigrants are law abiding in general – being immigrants they are more careful to obey the law for fear of being deported.

        On the question of social services, many illegal immigrants have fake IDs. So they pay social security and income tax, etc. but will never collect a dime of social security. The potential problem of genuine free riders is worse in states, like California, who have extensive welfare systems, than in states like Texas, who do not. It seems to me the problem there is the bankrupt welfare system not the illegal immigration. It is more logical to reform welfare than to attempt to close the immigration hole.

         Californians know they have to reform their state’s finances. If you offer something for nothing you invariably attract free riders, legal and illegal. You produce dependency. That is the problem and that is what needs to be fixed.

         In any case, if we could resolve the illegal status of these workers we could fix this problem.

IM.    [Eyes light up] Aha! So how on earth do we do that? We are dealing here with criminals by definition – people who broke the law. Are you suggesting that we simply forgive them with some sort of amnesty? Is this not unfair to those millions of legal immigrants who got in line and followed the law, rather than trying to evade the line. Now the illegals will reap the reward of their criminality.

DK.   [Somewhat exasperated] So dramatic. Why do you want to call them criminals? If they are guilty, they are guilty of a victimless crime. I tried to explain this to you.

         Not all laws are good laws. There are many examples of laws in history that are bad laws (by my morality and I suggest by yours). I am not advocating breaking the law – though some laws are clearly worth breaking – like some of the laws that existed in Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa. But, we could remove this bad law and forgive its violators. Maybe we could specify that in order to receive amnesty, proof of gainful employment is required or at least one-year’s residence. We needn’t give them an automatic passage to citizenship, we could provide (what is now being provided to Haitians) immediate permanent residence – like guest workers. Though I personally see no harm in allowing them on to the citizen track. What’s the big deal? The right to vote?

         And yes, those who went the legal route may feel cheated. They are cheated by a bad law that some people disobeyed. Their outrage is worth the benefits of the reform.

IM.    [Horror and disgust] Ugh. This just gets worse. Don’t you realize that if we do what you suggest there will be a lot of new Hispanic, and other foreign, voters? It will upset the balance of power and over time threaten domination of the American culture by foreigners. Even the status of English as an official language is threatened.

DK.  [Disguised disgust] Hmm. Forgive me but do I see racism in another form here? What makes you think these new Americans will be any less committed to the American culture (and our Constitution) than the old Americans. This is and has always been the strength and the uniqueness of America. To be an American is, more than anything, to embrace the ideal of universal individual freedom. These people understand that better than many Americans by birth. They have often lived in oppressive police states. They understand the source of the opportunities they are pursuing. Their children will speak English and they will be Americans in every sense. Paranoid ethnocentrism is an unworthy and baseless norm on which to base any American policy. We should embrace the diversity of cultures that embrace us – as we always have.

IM.    You are breaking my heart Dr. Know. What about the terrorists? And the Moslem extremists? Are we not sending an open invitation?

DK.  I suppose a reformed, streamlined, more liberal immigration policy might make it easier for potential terrorists to come here. I am not sure about this though. With less resources devoted to the general apprehension of illegal immigrants more resources could be targeted to terrorists in particular.

IM.   So what exactly are you advocating.

DK.  I am advocating amnesty for illegals – immediately – and a reform of immigration law that pretty much moves us to more open borders. I think the EU has it right in this respect. I also think we should look carefully at the highly skilled end of the spectrum. Most of our software engineers, many of the academics, doctors, paramedics, nurses, etc. are immigrants. We should open this door wider. We need their human capital. If politically necessary we could ask them to pay for their Green Cards. But, this seems to me a no-brainer.

         However, let me be clear about one thing. In suggesting that we welcome diverse cultures and ethnicities to America to participate in the “American dream” I am absolutely not suggesting that we tolerate cultures that are by their nature intolerant of or inimical to American values. On the contrary that is another aspect of our legal environment that needs to be reformed. We need to be less tolerant of intolerance. Those groups that advocate an overthrow of Western civil society and the imposition of one true religion, in America and in the world, ought to be able to use the first amendment right of free speech. But they ought not to receive any government, taxpayer funds, and they ought not to receive any protection against the free speech of others to expose their noxious message. Right now we are so sensitively politically correct that we provide these people all manner of funds and protections that ought to be withdrawn immediately. We have to fight darkness with light, searing light. And when they are exposed and we see them for what they are, we can challenge them, we can shun them, we can monitor them and defend ourselves against them.

        But this has very little to do with the immigration question in general.

IM.   [Frustrated resignation] OK, OK, but listen, what about drugs? Don’t narcotic traffickers produce some of the illegal immigrants. How would you handle the drug problem.

DK.  I am glad you asked. I would decriminalize drugs of course. But that is a matter for another discussion another day. Have to go.

        He rises and ambles off in the direction of … .

Only some things considered.

NPR's All Things Considered read a letter today about a story they ran in which an economist suggested that creating jobs in the government costs about $200,000. The letter writer disputed the number quoting a rival economic study saying it was "only" $92,000. The NPR anchor opined, "it all depends which economist you listen to."

Could they really have missed the point so badly? Lets assume the lower number is right. Do you think the average employee in these "created jobs" is going to be paid $92,000? Is that what the jobs are worth? Or just what they cost? If they are worth less than what they cost, who is paying the difference? Taxpayers right? How many jobs does this extra tax burden destroy?

And of course, since the government seldom really produces anything, whose jobs are paying for these new ones? Would we not have been better off if we required these employees to get a real job?

I guess they don't pay radio reporters to think.

A mirror for the nation

A little more good news for a change.

The Republican victory in Massachusetts is significant and ironic.

It is significant, as everyone knows, because it means that the Republicans may now be able to block passage of the Obama health bill in the Senate. Hopefully they will not break ranks. They need every Republican senator on board. The Democrats want this so badly who knows what they will offer to any would-be defector. We will find out.

It is ironic because it is Ted Kennedy's seat in the senate and he was a lifetime proponent of this type of health-care legislation. The vote indicates more than dissatisfaction with the Democratic candidate. It indicates dissatisfaction with the recent health-care legislation in Massachusetts, which resembles in many ways, at the state level, the bill currently in Congress. Voter interviews revealed dissatisfaction with the mandate to buy health-insurance and escalating costs and taxes associated with the new setup. And this is the most liberal state in the country. In many ways it is a mirror for the nation.

Anticipating the sins of [the] Commission

This is a mystery for me: how do ideas and theories once considered disproved get revived and embraced?

I mean, can you imagine if suddenly, as a result of some scientific discovery, we decided to reinstate Newton's theory of gravity and mechanics and discard Einstein's. It is conceivable but barely. Accumulating knowledge usually consigns early theories to history and supersedes them with better ones.

Not so in economics. The recent downturn episode convinces me that economics should probably not be called a science. At least not the way it is practiced now. This is partly a philosophical-methodological question and partly a sociological one. Inquiry in the social sciences (economics, sociology, history, psychology, anthropology, etc.) seems to be fundamentally different from inquiry in the natural sciences. The interpretation of "data" is much more difficult in the social sciences. The isolation of cause and effect is not nearly so straight-forward and human intention and purpose plays a crucial role.

So maybe I should not be surprised to find economists and politicians embracing the once defunct theories of John Maynard Keynes and his followers when interpreting and responding to the crash of 2008. I have explained the nature of this once-defunct theory and recorded my dismay at its resurrection here. It became defunct when Americans experienced stagnation at the same time as inflation in the 1970's and decades of demand-management policies similar to the current stimulus and other government spending programs were judged a failure. The theories that were embraced in its place were those articulated as early as 1912 by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and refined later by both Mises and his younger colleague Frederick Hayek. Hayek was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 for this work first presented in the 1930's.

It's not a complicated story. Expansive economic policy is fueled by government expenditure in the form of easy credit (low interest rates). Interest rates are kept low by the Fed expanding bank reserves. Loans for private business investment expands. But these investments are unsustainable at higher interest rates. When higher interest rates threaten to choke off an incipient boom the Fed opens the credit tap a little wider – who wants to be a party pooper? But, this means that the extent and type of business investment that occurs is more and more dependent on low interest rates. Eventually interest rates must rise and/or many of these investments are revealed to be unsustainable (even at lower interest rates). A bubble is really a large overinvestment boom – or, more accurately, a malinvestment boom. The bubble must eventually burst.

There are many such examples of credit driven boom-busts in economic history. Each one has its own particularly history. Many are initiated on the back of a technology driven expansion in certain sectors – prime examples being the crash or 1929-1933 and the recent dot-com bust. The even more recent crash of 2008, the bursting of the housing and financial-derivatives bubble is a credit-induced boom-bust that was propelled mainly by a reckless Congressional initiative to expand home ownership by dramatically reducing the approval standards for mortgage approval. Interest rate and risk structures became increasingly distorted as the stock of housing and housing values expanded beyond any sustainable limit. The inevitable bursting eventually arrived as many of us knew it must.

The story is not over. Commercial real estate values are still too high and we may soon see a smaller bubble burst there. Unemployment, the result of the necessary reallocation of resources away from overinvested areas, will not come down any time soon. And policy responses, far from recognizing the need for resource reallocation, seem fixated on the desire to reignite the bubble by trying to revive the housing market or by employing people in other unsustainable ventures.

Now comes the appointment of a Congressional commission of inquiry into the causes of the crisis. Hullo! We know what caused the crisis. It was government policy hubris. It was a housing expansion policy preventing the housing and financial markets from working properly, from sending the right signals and providing the necessary financial brakes (as opposed to breaks).

This commission will now waste more taxpayer money to conclude, contrary to the above story, that it was financial greed and deceit and lack of regulation that caused the crisis and that what is now needed is more regulation and more expansion and government stimulus. The conventional wisdom is an illusion and a lie and it will now be underlined by the imprimatur of a government commission. George Orwell could not have written it better.

Three Cheers for Zionist Capitalism

Friday, January 1, 2010

Here is some good news to end 2009 and begin 2010.

This last decade was one of solid and healthy economic growth for Israel. Israel has emerged as the leader (together with the U.S.) in technological innovations and their applications. As a result the people of Israel have experienced a steady improvement in their standards of living. Israel in now in the top-ten per capita economies in the world!

Understand clearly, this is a recent phenomenon. Israel's economic performance from statehood until about 20 years ago fluctuated from mediocre to abysmal. What changed?

What changed was its connection to Zionist Socialism and central planning. With great courage and determination a series of political reformers, notably including Bibi Netanyahu, reduced the power of the unions and the Jewish Agency, privatized companies, removed onerous regulations and, most importantly, reduced taxes. The result: more tax revenue, less corruption and tax avoidance, and spectacular economic growth. There is a lot more still to be done, but the results so far are very impressive. Though provocative, perhaps we should embrace a new label - "Zionist Capitalism."

This development may also prove to be a valuable approach to conflict in the region as the Arabs witness these achievements and Israel offers opportunities for mutually valuable trade. It’s happening already, quietly.

And, just this week, an announcement of further tax reductions.

Is Barak Obama paying attention?

Violent Liberals

And now for something completely different.

Which means I am going to complain about something else besides the health-care bill.

The D-O-T, which is the affectionate name for the Department of Transportation, has issued a new directive for Airlines. Responding to the demands for a "passenger bill of rights" the DOT has now mandated, compelled, forced and otherwise required all Airlines to return passengers to the terminal when the wait on the tarmac exceeds 3 hours. In addition all airlines must provide food and drink and functioning toilets for passengers on-board on the runway when the wait exceeds two hours. And, in addition, all airlines must devote at least one full-time employee to the business of scheduling in order to try and avoid long delays.

So what's the problem? Isn't this a good thing? Don't these measures have value for consumers?

Sure they do. But, who is going to pay for this? The reflex answer is "the Airlines." The correct answer is "mostly the passengers – you and me, the travelling public - and those who supply the airlines."

Yes, but maybe it's worth it. Says who? Says the DOT. As I never tire of saying, the issue is not "what should be done?"; rather it is "who should decide?"

It is amazing to me that open-minded, open-hearted, "liberals" are so comfortable with coercion. As long as the cause is worthy in their eyes they are happy to tell other people what to do under pain of state-compulsion. They see the state at their instrument for the achievement of the society they want. In this case it is the instrument for forcing the airlines to bend to their will and to punish them for the suffering they have "caused" passengers.

Does it not occur to them that the Airlines themselves intensely dislike the long waits to which they sometimes (not that often) fell compelled to subject their customers? Does it not occur to them that if they could do so cost effectively the Airlines themselves would adopt measures to avoid these onerous delays? Does it not occur to them that maybe the problem is with the air traffic control system and how it allocates places in line to take-off using an antiquated computer system? Does it not occur to them that maybe the problem is insufficient take-off facilities, which is the result of the public ownership of airports? More airports and privatization of the system could bring competition and innovation. This does not occur to them because their mindset is to blame all the world's ills on the large companies that create value for them.

This clumsy, intrusive fix will have unintended consequences. It will cause more onerous delays and increases in already rising ticket prices. If a flight delay goes over three hours by even five minutes the flight will have to return to the terminal and will lose its place in line. The multiplying controls and regulations on air-travel are pushing up prices and this will make it worse.

Fundamentally these liberals are really thugs dressed up in the clothing of the compassionate. They are arrogant and incorrigible, so certain in the righteousness of their cause. And they are coming for you and me.

Schadenfreude Masquerades as Moral Action

It’s true that one’s perspective, one’s framework, limits one’s thinking.

For the life of me, I have not been able to understand how the “liberals” – many of them my friends – are not bothered by the exploding of government expenditure, deficits and national debt that we are witnessing. It seems self-evident to me that this is not only economically catastrophic, but also patently immoral. Why do they not share my concern and my moral outrage at the shouldering of future workers and future generations with mountains of debt? What am I missing?

I think it's not only stupidity on my part, it’s basically a lack of imagination. I don’t see things the way they do because I do not share their framework of resentment, their commitment to the notion of “equality of outcomes” – commitment to the eradication of social disparities – of gaps. An editorial in today’s WSJ suggested to me the answer.

Unconsciously or consciously this may be a strategy to increase taxation. First you lead with spending, then you follow with the unavoidable requirement to raise taxes to pay for it. “Don’t worry, government will take care of it. As long as the right people are in charge. They will tax the rich to pay for the these important social programs. Taxing the rich is a good thing!” Where I feel moral outrage, they feel the assuaging of their resentment against wealth. Taxing the rich brings a nice warm feeling. Schadenfreude masquerades as moral action.

It's maddening, but it’s also stupid. The “rich” are the only ones who really create jobs – by creating value. Government creation of jobs is an illusion. Government is a parasite. It cannot exist unless the private sector creates value that can be taxed. Taxation is the manifestation of the parasitic relationship. What happens when the parasite grows too big? Yes, Johnny it kills or debilitates the host. Not rocket science.

The evidence is overwhelming, despite those of you who want to deny it. Those economies with high levels of taxation have low rates or growth, high rates of unemployment, low rates of innovation, high rates of welfare-dependency and poverty, low levels of direct capital inflow, etc. High levels of taxation nearly destroyed the British economy prior to Thatcher and threatens to do so again. High levels of taxation WILL destroy the American economy as we know it. For God’s sake wake up!! This is no small matter.

Its not even Climate Science!

With the gathering of tens of thousands of politically-correct scientists, journalists, politicians, tourists, and other assorted groupies in Copenhagen this week, the relatively new religion of Green (God is Green!) has reached a new peak in ostentation. Even as it does so, however, the struggling voices of heresy and dissent have recently been given an important boost with the publication of emails strongly suggesting that the high priests of Global Warming are more interested in prestige, power and money, than in scientific truth. In the short run this will not deter them. The show must go on – more show than substance! But that is the nature of religion after all – the show is the important part. The established religions are honest about this – ritual is important, is essential. But the Global Warming Greens do not realize that they are part of a religion, so they find themselves acting out a particularly distasteful type of hypocrisy. Mouthing the language of disinterested science, they are really dogmatic believers who refuse to be confused by the facts or by the logic.

And just this week, as if to counter the force of the discovered emails, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared its intention to act on an existing finding of the agency that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. This finding is based on its alleged affect on the global climate. In itself this is a ludicrous idea (see here), but when adopted by the EPA as a basis for action, it portends massive interference in the economy and in the private lives of Americans.

The good news is that the conference is unlikely to come to any far-reaching agreement and the EPA is likely to encounter resistance from Congress when the constituents of the affected states make their indignation known to their representatives. Let us hope so.

In the meantime we should consider once again the basic logic exposing this façade. Its not rocket science, its not even climate science.

In order to make a case for government policy to mitigate Global Warming all of the following questions have to be answered in the affirmative:

1. Is the global climate warming?
2. If yes, is this (partially) caused by CO2 emissions?
3. If yes, is there anything we can do to significantly slow this down or even reverse global warming?
4. If yes, is it worth the effort?

Ponder these four questions. They are sequential. You cannot move to the next one unless the answer is “yes.” Answer “no” to any one of them and the case for climate activism is dead. The first three have to be addressed by climate experts, but the last is something about which climate scientists have no expertise. This has not deterred them from giving an affirmative answer. They presume not only to divine natural causes and consequence but also to pronounce on their value to those affected. This is typical arrogance – the arrogance of the social engineer promising a better world.

Considered in an economic framework, the policies proffered by the climate gurus are not worth considering; they are outrageously expensive, way beyond the cost of adapting to the climate change. To be sure, such estimates are notoriously difficult to make, mostly because they almost always underestimate the costs involved and the ability of average people to adapt. Given the extent of the interventions proposed, the climate alarmists ought to have to shoulder a very heavy burden of proof, to show that they are right beyond a very small degree of doubt. They propose to interfere in people’s lifestyles on a grand scale and if they are wrong we will have paid a heavy price for nothing. Why are they not being held to account on this?

Regarding the first three questions there is considerable doubt about all of them. There is mounting evidence that the climate may actually not be warming. We certainly can’t be sure. Many qualified observers are not sure. There are also those who doubt the connection between CO2 and global warming. But, most importantly, there is widespread acknowledgement that even if there is global warming and it is caused by CO2 emissions the amount of difference that we humans could actually make is insignificant. In order to make any real difference we would have to dismantle fortunes of productive activities all over the planet. It would be insanity – and even then it might not work. This is not science, it is more like non-science (aka non-sense and other nouns not suitable for polite conversation).

There are so many real problems facing the world, it is almost criminal to focus so much attention on this charade. HIV/AIDS prevention, property rights for water, eradication of malaria, opening markets for developing countries agricultural products, stopping genocide in Africa, the list is long. All of these are causing more certain and more remediable damage than any alleged climate change.

Let's get real.

Calm down on Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday.

Tranquility, family, friends and great food – what is not to like? Time out to be thankful- I actually prefer the word "appreciative."

So when I was thinking about what it is that I have to appreciate, I realized that the most powerful emotion I was feeling these days was anger.

I am angry so much of the time. Mostly I am angry with the President and the Congress and the idiots who elected them. I am angry with those who continue to worship President Obama – witness the latest extravaganza that is nauseatingly perseverating on HBO. I am angry at stupidity and even more angry at hypocrisy.

Anger can be useful if channeled productively, but it is so often a destructive emotion. Better to appreciate what I have and find the good, than to fixate on the bad. At least I live in a country where one is permitted to express one's anger without fear. Good that many people seem to share my anger at the mounting deficits, and growing intrusions. Good that some people seems to have been enlightened by my messages, however small the number - from small things ... .

Maybe in the bigger picture this will turn out to be a short historical episode. Maybe the American spirit that I so much admire will, in the end, prove to be indomitable. Find some calm, if only for a moment, on this Thanksgiving day.

How stupid do they think we are?

The spin of the Obamites on the stimulus has reached such absurd proportions that it is actually funny.

Witness- the unemployment rate is north of 10% and rising, aka, there has been a loss of more than 6 million jobs, most of it since the stimulus package was enacted.

In the face of this how can you claim to have “created” jobs? It seems you count any spending that results in the “creation” of a job.

Dare one ask how that spending was, and will be, financed, and, how many alternative jobs were, and will be, displaced in the process?

Even so, the number of jobs they can come up with is a few hundred thousand here and there.

How stupid do they think we are? Probably at least as stupid as they are.

Take the Israel Test Today

See the book review found here. I am reading this book now. It is fascinating. I am enjoying it immensely, no doubt because I find myself in agreement with almost every word I have read so far.

For those with different presumptions – most of the rest of the world – it will be a less satisfying experience. But it is a book I cannot recommend highly enough, especially for those who disagree – if only they will read it carefully and agree, at least, to think about his assertions, which may strike many, at first, as preposterous.

The things that Gilder says could probably only be said by a non-Jew. He is uncompromising in the extreme. But, although his Judaophilia may strike some as excessive (even to me in his obsession with the likes of John von Neumann), his ideas, his historical characterizations, his economic insight need to be carefully considered.

Of particular value to me was his clear statement of the connection between the two major causes of my life – a connection I have been struggling to make clear and that Gilder has done masterfully. Namely, the connection between Israel and America is a connection based on achievement through economic freedom.

This is the reason they are connected in the minds of their many enemies who hate them both. It is what connects dubious bed-fellows like Chavez and Ahmadinhejad (a socialist dictator and a religious-fanatic dictator). It is what motivates the effete European intellectuals who love to sneer at America and politely vilify Israel and the Jews, looking on in silent satisfaction while Moslem immigrants vandalize Jewish property and terrorize European Jews.

Read the book, but if you don’t, at least read the review.

PL.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~plewin/The-Israel-Test-by-George-Gilder.pdf

The First Amendment is Inconsistent with Islam

Speech given recently by Dutch fim maker Geert Wilders MP at Columbia University  

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honor for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.

I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech. Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech: A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary 'Fitna'. Because of 'Fitna' the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55.000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.

In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.

But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more: The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called 'Danish cartoon crisis'. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book 'The Rage and the Pride'. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.

Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords - Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox - to show 'Fitna' in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security. Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show 'Fitna' and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kick the British out.

Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show 'Fitna' in the House of Lords, next March. But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: "Shariah for the Netherlands", "Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment", "Freedom go to hell" and "Islam will dominate the world". Welcome to Europe today!

You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose Shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of Shariah law. Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.

What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in het world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma Bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad's word or actions. Free speech is Islam's enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo. As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam's heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder - Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism - Sura 8, Verse 60 - and war - Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs - Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.

The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, too many `Muslims, Muhammad is 'the perfect man', whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him jihadists with the promise of a carnal paradise slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai. Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: "Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by Shariah law", and "we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose Shariah law upon all its citizens, and "we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar". End of quote.

Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography. For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.

In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women". End of quote. And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent". End of quote.

Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration - called Al Hijra - Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent. In the UK, by now 85 Shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims.

In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as "Allah Akbar" and "Little Muslim, do you pray?" In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II.

The rise of Islam also means the rise of Shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, Shariah mortgages, Shariah schools, Shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 Shariah courts. Islam regards Shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, Shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion. According to Shariah law, killing apostates is a 'virtue', but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of Shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening.

Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for Shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don't act now, Shariah will be implemented more en more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.

And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organized by Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under Shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight "until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt". When asked: "Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for Shariah?" he answered: "Yes, The Constitution would be gone".

America is facing a 'stealth Jihad', the Islamic' attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States: Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations - indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe. It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf the new Koran of faith and war.

But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.

To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government. It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!

President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians. The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama's remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.

In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members. The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.

As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society" - end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country. I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area - the Middle East - that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships. I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill's 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.

The so-called 'Middle East conflict' is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too. Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.

Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe. During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: In the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK. But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.

Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom:

• First. We have to end all forms of cultural relativism. For this purpose we need an amendment to our Western constitutions stating that our cultural foundation is the Judeo Christian Humanistic culture, and not Islam./font>
  
• Second. We have to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. Because more Islam means less freedom. 
  
• Third. I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: If you subscribe to our laws, our values and our constitutions you are very welcome to stay and we will help you to assimilate. 
  
• But, if you cross the red line and commit violent crimes or the implementation of Shariah law and start practicing jihad, you are not welcome anymore, then we will expel you if possible the same day.
  
• Fourth. We have to strengthen our laws regarding freedom of speech. In Europe we urgently need some kind of American First Amendment. And we have to resist UN-resolutions that intend to weaken our right of free speech in another attempt to appease the Islamic world. 
  
• Fifth, last but not least. We have to elect brave leaders. Real leaders. We enjoy the privilege of living in a democracy. Let us use that privilege by replacing weak leaders with heroes. Let us have fewer Neville Chamberlains and more Winston Churchills! In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defense, but offence. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough. 
  

Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win! Thank you very much.

Live and let live

I hesitated to write this blog. It involves venturing into an area beyond my expertise – foreign policy.

On the other hand, how can a blogger stay silent on the most relevant issues of the day?

I offer these comments with uncharacteristic humility.

I refer to U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, to a lesser extent, other places). This involvement is very costly – in terms of dollars and lives (even though modern technology has limited the loss of life in comparison to past wars, resulting, however, in a larger incidence of serious injury with enormous costs in dollars and pain and suffering). Like all government programs, military involvements must be financed by taxation and/or borrowing (future taxation). Like all government programs they are essentially parasitic on the productive efforts of private Americans – they result in a smaller and less productive private sector. Like all government programs they involve huge bureaucracies vulnerable to corruption and institutional inertia – they establish vested interests in their continuation. And like all government programs they have unpredictable unintended consequences.

The justification for all military projects is protection. In order to function a civil society must have secure property rights protected by the rule of law, which guarantees freedom of non-coercive action. With these basic, but elusive, institutions, any society will prosper, regardless of its circumstance or natural resources. But prosperity breeds resentment and envy which often results in foreign threats. There are few, if any, examples of democracies going to war with one another. Threats from outside are invariably from repressive dictatorships or fanatical revolutionary movements. The biggest threat facing the United States today is the one from Islamic fanatics who regard the existence of free societies as an unacceptable threat to their religious mission to impose Sharia law on the whole world.

This is the justification that was used for the invasion of Iraq (bolstered by the bogus accusation of weapons of mass destruction) and Afghanistan. Clearly the case for the latter is much stronger than the former, Afghanistan being the source of the 9/11 attacks. But both cases deserve further scrutiny.

The argument for military expenditures rests on the assertion that they are necessary to keep us safe from those who would destroy us. The most basic level of protection is protection from foreign invasion. One can, therefore, credit the need for an effort designed to identify and apprehend terrorist attacks on American soil. The argument extends, however, to efforts to root out terrorism abroad, before it becomes stronger and to establish "democracy" so as to export freedom and to deny the fanatics environments in which they may grow and expand. In other words, foreign military initiatives are seen as ideologically congenial preemptive efforts. But how is one to weigh the substantial costs of these efforts against the alleged benefit that they keep us safe for the long term?

One reason for skepticism is an evaluation of the results that have been achieved or could be achieved. Are these goals achievable by military efforts? Consider the establishment of "democracy." It is not clear what is meant by this term – hence the scare quotes. In practice it often seems to mean the establishment of open and free elections. This has proven very difficult to achieve, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Free elections often give way to predatory behavior based on deep seated tribal/ethnic rivalries. The kind of "democracy" we are seeking goes much deeper that the showcasing of people voting. It involves the acceptance of private property, protected by a viable legal system, one based on the rule of law, not the rule of a dictator or a privileged group. Without this, elections could not be free for very long.

But this kind of civil society cannot be imposed by military effort. It can only be the result of the voluntary efforts of the indigenous population over a long period of time. To imagine the emergence of a free and open society overnight in societies with centuries of tradition alien to such ideas, is an exercise in foolish wishful thinking.

Let me be clear. I am not defending some sort of moral or cultural relativism. I regard these systems as primitive and I would like to see them replaced so that more people could reap the substantial fruits of the prosperity that comes from Western (Classical) Liberalism – free trade, freedom of expression freedom of movement, and the explosion of options that this brings. What I am saying is that these things cannot simply be planted wherever we think they ought to be. Where they do emerge they are always the spontaneous flowering of local initiatives based on local conditions. I am not aware of any really successful exercise in the forceful imposition of democracy (in this broader sense) by a foreign power.

And if we fail in this "nation building" exercise we find ourselves in a prolonged and increasingly futile struggle that must ultimately be abandoned at great cost to those we leave behind, the best of intentions notwithstanding. (Of course, for many the intentions are not so good – being the protection of a reliable flow of oil – but I speak here of the widespread acceptance of military missions by the public at large being based on moral values).

How likely is it that viable durable democracies will be established in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the answer is not very likely at all, then what are we doing there and how and when will it end? Would we, and they, not be better off with a much more limited effort, one aimed at containing the export of nefarious ideas and actions. America has no imperialistic ambitions, yet we are continually being drawn into military adventures in far off places, often as a result of the past colonial screw-ups of the European governments who are now our biggest critics. Less idealism and more realism would result in more limited aims. We cannot save the world. And we cannot repair all the wrongs of the past. If we are to win this battle against terrorism it will only be because enough people in Moslem countries have rejected them and their message in favor of something more peaceful and tolerant of us. For the rest we have to be less ambitious.

Supporting Israel and Pakistan may, indeed, make sense, for different reasons. These are indigenous democracies and their collapse would credibly threaten the free world as a whole. In the case of Israel more effort should be involved in persuading Middle Eastern governments to help the Palestinians move beyond grievance to the pursuit of prosperity - by encouraging open institutions of learning, of trade, of development – but his will only happen when the Moslem world gets comfortable with the existence of a Jewish state, a free democratic state.

In the case of Pakistan, much depends on how far the Pakistani people are prepared to go to rid themselves of the Taliban. The Taliban are not going away. They have infinite patience and when suppressed simply fade away only to emerge another day. But they do rely on local support and that will be the key. In the meantime the U.S. is just pursing a holding action and maybe that is the best we can do.

So, thinking it through, I wonder if, instead of debating the commitment of more troops, we should not be pulling back, focusing on the possible and leaving the rest for another kind of fight, the battle of ideas. Having achieved unprecedented and unimagined freedom and prosperity, America is now in danger of destroying it at home by unrealistically attempting to impose it elsewhere. Live and let live.

And, by the way, we should abandon the terrible and costly "drug-war." But that is a subject for another day.

Israeli scientist Ada Yonath wins the Nobel Prize

Israeli scientist Ada Yonath wins the Nobel Prize

A Prize Embarrassment

What can one say about the imbecilic decision to award the Nobel Peace prize to Barak Obama?

On the one had one should not be surprised. After all this is the same crowd that awarded the prize to Yasser Arafat, one of the world's most accomplished and cynical murderers. Or to Jimmy Carter, perhaps the world's most influential anti-Semite. Yet, it strikes me there is something different about this one – it is more than just the usual hypocrisy and naiveté. This time there is an added dose of arrogance and smugness.

What the Nobel committee seems to be saying this time around is:

"Here is a prize for thinking and talking like us. We know you have not really achieved any of your stated aims for international peace, but you have acknowledged that our approach is right, that America has been mistaken and that you intend to make amends. And for this, for your enlightened contrition, we are going to give you this important prize. We hope it will help you achieve your noble (no pun intended) aims."

Most people realize that this award is so stupid that it is an embarrassment – and this includes many Obama supporters. A sample from the European press suggests however that the Europeans are not at all embarrassed. They think it fitting to reward Obama in a very public way for becoming more like them, for validating their worldview – including the denial of American exceptionalism. And they see nothing wrong in using this august prize as a political instrument, an instrument of propaganda to try and bolster a political agenda of which they approve. Their arrogance defies imagination.

The committee praised Mr. Obama for believing that "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts" and also for believing in the seriousness of climate change! (I am reminded of Ayan Hirsi Ali's good friend Teo Van Gogh who was brutally stabbed to death for making a movie about the subjugation of Muslim women. While his crazed fanatical attacker was stabbing him Van Gogh turned to him and said, "Can't we talk about this?" Maybe he should have been awarded a posthumous peace prize, were there such a thing.)

The Nobel citation declares further that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." As today's WSJ editorial notes, where is this majority? Most of the world lives in poverty under the rule of brutal dictatorships. The Western Europeans are in danger of being overrun by these cultures but for the power and vigilance of the United States of America whom they love to despise. They are so arrogant that they don't even realize they are not in the majority.

The unfortunate part of it is that the Obamananiacs have convinced many Americans that the Europeans are right. And when we become like Europe who will watch our back?