Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/27/2002 10:46:00 AM (Archive Link)
Yesterday, I was at the family plot at the cemetary. The sun was shining and there was a warm breeze blowing which was caused all the small American flags marking the graves of veterans to billow. And a thought occurred to me. The sun and the breeze are courtesy of God. My freedom to enjoy them are courtesy of all those those little flags.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/23/2002 11:21:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ve mentioned before the cases of Neville Chamberlain dealing with dictators. It got me thinking about dictators in general and I have a theory on them. I’m of the opinion that any aggressive dictator will pursue world domination to whatever extent is practical for them at a given time. If they can take over a neighboring town, they’ll do it. A neighboring country, they’ll do it. Whatever domination in which they can succeed, they will do it. I think it best to make it so they cannot succeed in any aggression.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/23/2002 11:21:00 PM (Archive Link)
Not too long ago, there was the big revelation that there was pre-9/11 information floating around concerning the terrorist threat to America. The immediate reaction among many Democrats and liberals was to attack Bush for failing to act on the information. However, it soon became clear to them that this tact wasn’t going to work. Bush is still too popular, the office of the president still too important to denigrate in this regard, and, of course, nobody could come up with a good argument that Bush actually did know anything solid, or at least anything on which to take action. So instead, they’ve stepped back and have started taking shots at the more obvious target… the intelligence community. The blame more properly belongs here as they’re the ones who have to interpret and act on information. Still, it’s no surprise crucial memos were ignored. Bureaucracies tend to do that.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/23/2002 11:21:00 PM (Archive Link)
Terrorism and anti-American feelings tend to flourish in countries where poverty is the norm. Or so say some. They contend that the extreme despair and hard lives they face breed resentment toward the decadent West that seems to have everything. Thus they lash out at the supposed brutal king taskmaster who keeps them down. The pundits then say that the obvious solution is to drag these people out of poverty. The U.S., the nation so hated for its wealth, must bestow some of that wealth on the less fortunate. Then these poor counties will be filled with gratitude and will come to love America for its graciousness and generosity. This is a horrible idea. While I will agree that, in some cases, terrorism and anti-Americanism is exacerbated by poverty, the mistake is thinking there is a corollary to this that says bringing them out of poverty will eliminate those feelings. The Left sometimes likes to treat world problems as if they were logic problems. Poverty causes terrorism so eliminating poverty will eliminate terrorism. If people were logic problems, then this just might work. However, as has been noted over the centuries, humans are not logical. The anti-American attitudes which are so prevalent in these societies will not just decrease in inverse proportion to their standard of living. We can give all the foreign aid we want to some countries, but the people will still hate us. Empirical evidence supports this. Surveys have shown that the far majority of Saudis have a vehement dislike for the U.S. Saudi Arabia is not a poor country. As the world’s largest oil exporter, they have a tremendous amount of money. And yet, they are anti-American so the poverty argument doesn’t work here at all. Egypt receives more foreign aid from us than any other country. Yet they are anti-American. The Kuwaitis are not only wealthy, but the United States saved their country from being absorbed into Iraq. Yet they are anti-American.

Wealth and aid don’t change the attitudes of these peoples because once a world view has been ingrained in a populace, is supported by the state and religion, it stays there. Aid from the people you hate will be accepted only with shame and will deepen your hate and resentment for their insulting condescension towards you. Liberals often chide the right for taking a too simplistic view of things. That’s why I find it so surprising that they think terrorist tendencies are only a matter of money. There are many factors involved and you can’t hope to address them all.

Trying to eliminate threats through money and bribery doesn’t work. It only serves as encouragement. In the late 18th century, America grew weary of paying the North African pirates tribute in return for safe passage of its trading vessels. Instead of persisting with the convenient method of monetarily supporting their attackers as so many other countries did out laziness, we attacked them and won. I like history.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/09/2002 12:47:00 AM (Archive Link)
Does this quote sound familiar?

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."

It's not from a current day pundit. It's from our good buddy Neville Chamberlain shortly after he sold out the Sudetenland (and thereby Czechoslovakia) to Hitler in 1938. The parallels are frightening, aren't they? Let's hope we learn from this little piece of history.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/09/2002 12:39:00 AM (Archive Link)
I have noticed a tendency among many to go out of their way to make things easier on themselves. What’s interesting is that these people often expend more time and energy in their effort to be lazy than taking the seeming path of most resistance. I will refer to this phenomena as Misapplied Laziness. To better illustrate, I will provide some examples.

At the college from which I graduated and which I occasionally visit, there is a parking garage connected to one of the dorms and this garage lies between the dorm and the dining hall. The most direct path from the cafeteria to the dorm entrance takes you up two flights of stairs. However, many times I have witnessed students avoiding these stairs and going around to the car entrance ramp which curves back around to the dorm. There are several oddities to this. First, going the ramp route takes about 2 minutes longer than the stairs because it is a more roundabout path. Second, I can’t see that you’re conserving any energy with the ramp as opposed to the stairs. With the stairwell, you’re using your energy in one concise moment. With the ramp, however, you’re making the same amount of effort if not more, it’s just extended over a little more distance. And third, these people are always about to get run over by cars entering the garage.

Another instance of Misapplied Laziness involves something we’ve all seen in the great parking lots of America. Drivers will circle a parking lot several times in the seemingly eternal quest to find the spot closest to the door. I have even watched as drivers have passed up spaces because they think somebody leaving the store is about to vacate another space 20 feet ahead. And so they will sit there for 1 or 2 minutes waiting to park. So in their effort to save time and energy by way of a shorter walk from car to store and back, they have taken up to five minutes or more than if they had just taken one of the first spots they came upon and walked the few extra yards.

These are just two instances of people taking what they think is the easiest path but is actually contradictory to the goal they are trying to achieve: being lazy. I'm sure most can think of plenty of other examples. However, it occurs to me that aside from these more common comic shows of Misapplied Laziness, the phenomena exists in far more serious arenas. If you look at a great deal of liberal ideas that have been generated over the years, they fit the pattern. Cases in which individuals choose the path of least resistance and then later cause problems that require far more effort to fix than if the more difficult, narrow path was chosen the first time. European appeasement of the Nazis during the 1930's for example. I still get a morbid, disgusted kick out of seeing British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving around the little piece of paper with his and Hitler's signatures and declaring, "Peace in our time." However, you can find many instances like this. The American isolationists before WWI and WWII, the give peace a chance folks before we commenced operations in Afghanistan, and now those who want us to leave Iraq alone. In all these cases, prolonged hesitation created or most assuredly would have created more problems down the line. So many people think that certain countries or groups are just acting out when they show hostility. The proper response, they say, is sympathetic understanding and giving them what they want so they'll be satisfied good, happy countries. Although, much as the spoiled, bully children these liberals think the countries resemble, the hostilities continue and they want more and more. A hostile nation doesn't change its spots or it methods when it gets one thing it wants. After the first desire is fulfilled, it will want something more. And then something will follow after that. Eventually, they'll become a true problem child that must be dealt with seriously. You'll quickly discover that you would have been better off spanking the country to begin with instead of handing it the lollipop because now you have to administer a far worse spanking and ground them... only you have to wait until daddy comes home because you've lost control of the situation. I'm tired of American realists always having to be daddy. At any rate, it's pure Misapplied Laziness. In trying to avoid trouble, you only create more for yourself.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/07/2002 12:42:00 AM (Archive Link)
Well, I again had a little lapse in posting in the past week, but I have plenty to say today! Read all that which is new to you.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/07/2002 12:29:00 AM (Archive Link)
When it comes to Middle-East peace process (a phrase which I increasingly think is a true oxymoron), the pundits always talk about the actions of Israel. They say it’s the responsibility of Israel to form a peace with the Palestinians and that Israel needs to do this or Israel needs to do that. What of the Palestinian side? What do they have to do for peace? You don’t really hear that much about it. Whenever such things are mentioned, they’re usually in the form of Israeli conditions and even then they’re put in the context of harsh, unreasonable demands meant to derail the peace process altogether. As if demanding that the Palestinian factions stop blowing up your citizens is too unreasonable a thing to make a precondition for peace. But again, it’s rarely brought up that the Palestinians need do much of anything. There seems to be this widespread opinion that the Palestinians are entitled to their own state just ‘cause, the Israelis should hand it to them, and any reluctance or stalling by the Israelis is nothing but intransigency on their part.

Israel, however, has very good reasons for not wanting to free up the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem to full Palestinian rule and autonomy. Before the Israelis occupied these territories in 1967, they were only used as launching pads for Arab forces and terrorists to attack Israel. They’ve never stopped producing terrorists, but at least armed forces have stopped coming from them. And now there is virulent Jew-hatred being preached throughout these areas, enflaming the passions of terrorists and many of the people. It is the constant prayer of the Palestinians and all of Arabia that Israel be destroyed. Let’s say that Israel agrees to the “peace plan” recently floated by Saudi Arabia in which the Arab world would recognize Israel and its right to exist in return for Israel enabling a Palestinian state. Let’s imagine this fine fantasy for a moment. Does anyone really believe that peace would be achieved? It is absurd to think so. Instead, more terrorists would pour from these uncontrolled areas, and then it would be soldiers, and it would only be a matter of time before a full war again erupted. Not so many years ago, Israel agreed to a land for peace deal with Lebanon. Lebanon got the land, but Israel’s been shorted. The land they gave up is now used to launch shells from the hills on the farmers down below. What it comes down to is that Israel can make all the concessions and nice gestures it wants, but the attitude of the Arabs will still be the same: the Jews are an unholy evil race that defile the land of Mohammed and must be eradicated. Because this opinion will still be present, Israel will always be in danger. The Israelis are far better off taking the hard-line course of action. At least then they will survive.

It’s clear that Israel has plenty of reasons for not wanting a Palestinian state. Furthermore, they’re under no obligation to give one. Underdog lovers may not like this but the Israelis are in the more powerful position. There is not a pressing necessity for them to make concessions and nothing about potential concessions will work in their best interests. The only thing the Palestinians have to offer is this nebulous peace and under current conditions, that will never be delivered even if Israel does bend. (Personally, I find it disgusting that the Palestinians’ big bargaining chip is violence.) Furthermore, the Palestinian Authority and Yassar Arafat have demonstrated a continual inability or unwillingness to quell the violence. So what reason have the Israelis to make concessions? There are none. It is entirely up to the Palestinians. If they hope for and expect to have their own nation, then they must show good faith towards Israel in providing the one thing they have to offer: peace. Not just words or pleasant rhetoric for the European newspapers, but real solid substantial actions. The PA must crack down on the outlaw groups that threaten peace. They must stop issuing and encouraging the hate-mongering speeches and anti-Semitic teachings that give rise to violence. They must do everything possible on their end to ensure peace. They must meet all Israeli demands because they are in the weaker position in which that is what they must do. Doing so would leave the Israelis with no excuses for denying them a state.

In order to achieve the above goals, the Palestinians need a true government. By this, I don’t mean the sham that is the Palestinian Authority. They had one big election thoroughly controlled and manipulated by Arafat and then went about the usual business of terrorism and anti-Israel rants. Old habits die hard and the PA liked using the Israel as their lightning rod of blame. The people are sure to like you when you’re sticking it to “the man.” What the Palestinians need is an honest, democratically elected government that is ruled by law… an Arab government that is completely unlike any other Arab government in the region. Such a government must adhere strictly to the laws it has created, it must honestly assess the problems of the people and take blame for them, it must have open dialogue with Israel, and it must forcefully assert itself against the factions which threaten both it and its goals. These factions include all the militant groups that produce suicide bombers, gunmen, and Islam twisting, Jew-hate spewing imams. This government needs to lead its people to a better future instead of following the passions of the people and continue on its old bitter course of ineffectiveness.

Unfortunately, this will never come to pass. The Palestinian leadership and the militants are one in the same. There’s nobody who is able to take control and do what must be done. Nobody possesses the intelligence, the bravery, and the life to do so. Anybody who had the first two qualities was or would be quickly deprived of the third by the stupid and cowardly. Nothing will change in Israel unless and until the Palestinians have a sea-change in their thoughts and actions. Given that, it appears nothing will change in Israel for a long time.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/07/2002 12:28:00 AM (Archive Link)
Something that I think is odd is the complaint some have about one side being overpowering in a battle. For example, a self-designated human rights group said the Israelis may have committed the rights violation of “disproportionate use of force” in Jenin. Since when is it a violation of human rights for one side to use the full abilities it has at its command? It is the nature of warfare that each side seeks to destroy the enemy while preserving their own forces. Frankly, doing so results in less loss of life overall. Your own soldiers aren’t being killed and the enemy is demoralized to the point that they give up sooner than would otherwise be expected. A battle of two equals is one that rages on and on until sheer attrition forces victory one way or another. However, this is how some people would prefer war be waged. There is this romantic notion of a fair fight. War is about overpowering and defeating your enemy… you don’t strip your forces of their capabilities in order to that goal more difficult. That’s ludicrous. It reminds me of the old movie cliché in which the good guy throws down his gun and joins in fisticuffs with the bad guy. I always think about how… well… dumb that is. Only a fool gives up his advantage. In the movie case, the good guy is only risking his own safety. In the real world, a general is risking the lives of the soldiers he has been entrusted to lead and the civilian population he has been entrusted to protect. In a military operation, whatever force that is necessary should be used and should be used judiciously.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/07/2002 12:27:00 AM (Archive Link)
The Palestinians will sing the praises of those 50 or so who stayed in Jenin fighting the Israelis. They'll never mention that the damn fools let the entire camp be destroyed because of their obviously losing and futile battle.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/07/2002 12:26:00 AM (Archive Link)
Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Not entirely true. Equally possible that those who do remember the past are doomed to repeat it as is evidenced by Yugoslavia and Israel. The parties involved in those conflicts remember the past all too well. In fact, their memories stretch back a thousand years or more of the same old scenarios being played out. What should be more properly said is that those who do not learn from the past and who cannot forgive it are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 5/07/2002 12:23:00 AM (Archive Link)
I read some who consider the "Bushies" (Bush and his advisors) to be simple-minded folk because they tend to form very black and white policies and leave out the gray. Simple—minded? Not true. Sometimes, things are more basic than they seem and clear policy is always needed. When people say that such and such issue is so complex, they are already setting themselves up for failure in that they have already deemed things too difficult for solutions. A consensus is always difficult to reach when multiple parties are involved as each has their own interests. Similarly, when you make a problem made out to be exceedingly complex, you have multiple angles with each one seeming to require an independent solution that is mutually exclusive and in contradiction to the solutions of other angles. You've lost sight of the main goal by staring at piddling details. It's better to keep the big, holistic picture in your sights while keeping the nuances and their affects in mind.