The Solid Surfer.com

Pluto's Demotion and the Flaws in Speculative Science

A major flaw in the world of science was unexpectedly but blatantly uncovered yesterday. For apparently astronomers have decided that Pluto is no longer a planet.

Are they incorrect? Perhaps, perhaps not; frankly I have no idea. But the flaw involved has nothing to do with Pluto's actual classification. Rather, the error is in the height of the pedestal on which so many people place scientific judgement. The Pluto decision demonstrates that accepted scientific conventions are not always set in stone and can even be flat-out wrong.

For the past 76 years, leading astronomers have proclaimed Pluto a planet. Now they don't. Clearly both views cannot be correct. How different is this from debates in the 1600s over the shape of the earth? At one point scientists thought the earth was flat. Then they realized it's round.

The point is, even the most brilliant groups of scientists can make mistakes. They can also, as we see, quickly change their minds. We should hence recognize that many standard scientific views are not necessarily correct merely because intelligent scientists say so.

So when groups of scientists declare, purely on speculation, that global warming is the world's greatest threat, that intelligent design is bunk, and that DDT is dangerous, we should resist the impulse to believe them simply because they are scientists. Scientific conclusions need true evidence, not majority opinions.

Thanks to a 76-year old scientific misjudgement (if, at least, you believe in the new solar system categorization), our former ninth planet may have lost its hierarchy in the cosmos. But it has actually done the world a great favor, by providing a promiment demonstration that scientific paradigms are not automatically sacred and that scientists do commit mistakes and disagree.

Regardless of how the debate over Pluto concludes, the process involved appears to be the most revealing portion. Science is a powerful tool, but like all fields, it relies heavily on a human element which we must consider when examining its findings.

TheSolidSurfer.com Interview at The Beak Speaks

Dear Readers,

In lieu of a regular post today, I sat in the "hot seat" for an interview at a fantastic blog called The Beak Speaks. Here is the link to Beak's interview questions; scroll down to the comments section (below the main post) for my answers.

Of particular note, Question #6 asks what foreign countries are vital to America's economic future, and I replied China, India, Brazil and Mexico, with a brief explanation concerning retiring baby boomers and their upcoming need to find younger buyers for their accumulated assets. This is an important issue that all Americans should become aware of, and I'd like to credit the man responsible for the insight, Dr. Jeremy Siegel of the University of Pennsylvania. For more information, this article well explains the situation.

Thanks, and hope you enjoy the interview.
-TheSolidSurfer.com

The Left's Guiding Principle And Where It Goes Wrong

Many prominent leftist actions often seem puzzling to the rest of us. When leftwingers ally, for example, with Islamists against America, their position is so recklessly shortsighted that we wonder just how they can act so blatantly against themselves. Islamists in power would completely destroy everything the left holds dear, from freedom of speech to gay rights to feminism, but that doesn't stop groups like the employees of San Francisco's City Lights Books (as mentioned in my previous post) who have openly sided with the jihadists by refusing to sell Oriana Fallaci's pro-Western text The Force Of Reason. That this stance contradicts the leftists' own interests is quite obvious. But why can't they seem to see it? How blinded by ideology can one possibly be?

This same quandary also pops up frequently when encountering leftist political thought, from Jimmy Carter's peace-at-all-costs support of Hugo Chavez to European elites welcoming radical Muslim immigration to American university professors defending the motives of the 9/11 terrorists. Each time, we wonder: What can they possibly be thinking? Of course they must believe in their actions, but how can they not recognize such blatant missteps?

There probably isn't a definitive one-size-fits-all answer, but I'd like to offer an explanation that may account for much of it. Leftwingers believe, as Dennis Prager has touched on in the past, that all people are inherently good.

So what's the problem? In reality, being good is a choice, and while many people indeed act as such, others unfortunately choose to act evilly. But if you believe everyone is inherently good, then evil cannot truly exist and evildoers are not wrong but misunderstood. Therefore, instead of trying to defeat evil, you're always explaining it away, and thus unchecked the evil only grows worse.

Sadly in many cases, this is exactly what leftism has done. How many times have we heard statements such as the following: The terrorists aren't evil but are responding to legitimate grievances. Therefore, we shouldn't judge them, but must apologize for our own actions which must have provoked them. Crime is not the criminal's fault, but a result of his poor economic situation and oppression by society. Palestinian suicide bombers are not evil, just desperate because Israel has left them with no other choice. Muslims in Europe aren't wrong to be violent, just angry over unemployment and discrimination. It's okay for Hugo Chavez to suppress freedom; he has no other choice because of Venezuela's rich-poor gap. Saddam and bin Laden are not truly bad guys; they became dictatorial to rebel against the modern culture that threatened their traditional ways of life. The list goes on and on. Each time, the leftists see no evil because their belief in humanity's 100% goodness does not allow for the possibility.

Seen from this point of view, then, their actions no longer seem quite so ridiculous. These people naively believe that evil isn't real and proceed to act accordingly.

Look, for example, at a popular review of Steven Spielberg's film Munich by well known movie critic Harry Knowles. A self-confessed bleeding heart liberal, Knowles is clearly a nice guy and obviously well intentioned. But look at what he says about America's enemies:

[Munich] doesn’t just humanize the assassins, but the targets. Not only that - Steven dares to put them in the same room, to find a music they can both stand. To have the leader of a PLO group talk with a leader of an Israeli group about the resolve and hopelessness of either's situation...

We like to think of those on the other side as inhuman retches of society. They probably eat animals raw – or even fetid rancid with maggots. They spend all their time sharpening knives and acting like crazed madmen frothing at the mouth. They hate life and go around slapping anyone that looks at them.

In the 40s when we went to war with Japan, Italy and Germany – we made them inhuman monstrosities. It’s easier to kill an animal, than a man. Here, Spielberg attempts to defuse that by making these plotters of the unthinkable… just men. Intellectuals that would translate books to further their culture. That have cute children and loving wives. That appreciate a night sky and young love. That dream of living where their fathers lived and raising an olive tree. A people that dream of a better tomorrow, but dedicated to die for that dream. Same as the men that are hunting them.

Notice the review's key points? Like many leftists, Knowles simply can't acknowledge the presence of evil. We didn't make Japan, Italy, and Germany out to be monstrosities during World War II; they WERE monstrosities. It's not wrong to demonize the PLO terrorists; they DID act like inhuman retches of society. The hard left just doesn't get it.

But as events have played out over again ad infinitum, appeasing evil in the name of understanding never works and only emboldens the evildoers. Until the left recognizes this, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Albert Einstein once said that "the world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." This advice is well worth heeding.

Economics and Taxes: The Laffer Curve Explained

In his recent interview on our site, Texas congressional candidate Van Taylor raised an important economic point that I'd like to clarify for anyone who may be unfamiliar: the phenomenon of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased, and not decreased, government revenue.

As Mr. Taylor mentioned, when President Bush's lowered our nation's capital gains tax by 25%, federal government revenue from that tax doubled from $300 million to $600 million. But how can this be, you might be thinking; given that taxes are the primary source of government income, wouldn't higher taxes logically lead to more money in federal coffers?

In reality, the answer is sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. And the explanation behind this apparent contradiction is best demonstrated through a graph called the Laffer Curve, which plots government revenue from maximum to minimum along a scale of taxation from zero to 100%.

So how do we make sense of it? Let me explain with an example. Say you have a hypothetical nation that has no taxes. Naturally, this means the government receives no tax revenue. But our government doesn't like having no money, so it decides to raise the tax rate on its citizens' incomes to 1%. Now, all of a sudden, the government has some funds, and it is happy. So it decides to raise the rate again to 10%. And now the government makes even more money and is happier still.

So far so good, but now the government gets greedy. It decides to raise the tax rate all the way to 100%, thinking it will maximize revenue. But all of a sudden, the nation's citizens decide to stop working, because what use is work if they don't get to keep any of their money? Government revenue hence plummets back to zero, and the government is as broke as when it charged no taxes at all.

As we can see, then, taxing people both too little and too much can hurt government revenue. Tax too low and you won't receive enough from each citizen, but tax too high and you'll disincentivize people to work and invest, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers available to fund you.

The optimal tax rate that maximizes government revenue, then, is somewhere between these two high and low extremes. It is this relationship, as expressed on a chart, that we notate as the Laffer Curve.

Being only a representation of data, the curve cannot by itself determine the optimal tax rate (the sample curve above may appear to be maximized at 50%, but this is only a random example); only real-life data can do so. And according to it, the optimal tax rate is very low - perhaps 15% or 17% on income tax.

But whatever the actual optimal rate, if your current tax rate lies above it, lowering taxes will move you towards the optimum and will increase government revenue. If, on the other hand, your current tax rate lies below the optimal rate, raising taxes will move you towards the optimum and therefore increase government revenue. The tax cut to which Mr. Taylor referred raised government revenue precisely because the original tax rate lay above the optimal rate, and cutting it helped bring it closer to maximization.

The question the federal government should ask itself, then, is not whether to raise or lower taxes purely to achieve a rise or cut, but how to adjust taxes accordingly so that they reach the optimal revenue-maximization point on the Laffer Curve. Right now, America's tax rates seem to be above the optimal rate, so cutting taxes toward that rate (but not overshooting it by reducing taxes too much) is quite certain to increase the government's pockets. Given that tax cuts also greatly boost private-sector economic performance, they seem in this situation like a win-win proposal for all involved.

Mark Steyn and Western vs. Muslim Demographics

I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.

In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.

This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.

Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.

But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.

On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.

At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.

I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.

Despite Cartoon Riots, Moderate Islam Still the Answer

A common view on the problem of radical Islam holds that the solution is simply moderate Islam. According to those who espouse this theory, most notably Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, only a bit of Western pressure is needed, and then the militants will be defeated ideologically by the silent majority of moderates in their midst.

In light of the violent reactions to the recent Danish cartoons, however, many have begun to reconsider this belief. As Jim Geraghty of National Review today discussed, many of the Muslim protestors appear to be not just fundamentalists, but ordinary run-of-the-mill folk as well. Furthermore, very few self-professing moderate Muslims have condemned the violence. Unsurprisingly, many Westerners are now starting to consider whether the idea of Islamic moderates is just a myth, and that Islam itself, rather than just "radical" Islam, is the true problem.

Could this all possibly be? I agree that Islam itself is indeed the problem, but nevertheless, moderate Muslims remain the solution.

Radical Islam (or Islamism or Islamofascism or whatever you want to call it), as we all know, is the religion's fundamentalist strain. And as religious fundamentalism by definition equals a return to a faith's core observances, fundamentalist Islam is a throwback to the initial Islam that was practiced back in the 7th century.

This essentially means, then, that fundamentalist Islam is not "radical" per se - it is the true Islam as practiced by the first Muslims. If fundamentalism has caused the religion's problems, then the real culprit is indeed authentic Islam itself.

While that conclusion may seem sobering, nevertheless I don't believe that it disqualifies moderate Muslims (and by this I mean only true moderates, not pseudo-moderates who call for peace in English and jihad in Arabic) from being the solution. Literalist Islam clearly contains many violent elements, but still, certainly not all Muslims believe in or practice them. Indeed, many born Muslims have become apostates, while others live only by the religion's peaceful aspects while conveniently ignoring the violent ones. Exclude the apostates from the discussion if you want (they too are part of the solution but technically are no longer Muslims), but the latter group still can truly be defined as "moderate Muslims." The cartoon reactions have demonstrated that perhaps this group's numbers are slightly smaller than we thought, but nevertheless the group firmly exists.

In addition, we must recall the difference, as brilliantly eloquated by Natan Sharansky in his book The Case For Democracy, between free societies and fear societies. In open, free, democratic societies, people can voice their minds without worry of censure. In fear societies, however, where most Muslims live (including many Muslim neighborhoods in Western countries), this is not the case. Legions of moderate Muslims may want to speak out, but the radicals pressure them into staying silent. Look how apprehensive certain newspapers have become in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon affair. Moderate Muslims live under a similar fear (likely to an even greater degree) every single day.

So while the violence problem may stem from Islam itself, the solution indeed remains the same. We must empower moderate Muslims to the point where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisal by fundamentalists. Many moderates may seem to passively endorse the radicals, but remember that in the 1950s, virtually no Russians spoke out against the horrors of the Soviet regime. Only when the West began to encourage them did the moderates' genuine voices finally emerge.

I believe the same holds true with Islam today. While we must certainly still take further steps to stop the jihadists (such as continuing counterterrorism efforts, limiting Muslim immigration to the West, and deporting those who encourage violence), supporting the moderates also remains key to our success.

Israel's Demographic Non-Crisis

With all the recent hoopla over Muslim vs. Western demographics in Europe, public discussion of a similar situation in Israel has been pushed slightly to the backburner. But within Israel itself, this issue has continued to dominate the political landscape, as successive leaders from Barak to Sharon and now Olmert have based key foreign policy decisions on the premise that Palestinian population growth rates far outstrip Jewish increases.

According to Palestinian Authority-provided statistics, 3.8 million Arabs live in the West Bank and Gaza. Add in Israel's 1.4 million Arab citizens, and it appears that 5.2 million Arabs live west of the Jordan River, as compared with only 5.3 million Jews. Factoring in the Arabs' higher natural growth rates, an Arab majority in the region would seem almost certain to occur within a few years.

Believing these numbers, Israel's government has postulated that a long-term Jewish majority can be achieved only by ceding Gaza and most of the West Bank to the Palestinians. And thus Sharon withdrew from Gaza, and now Olmert intends to destroy Jewish settlements throughout Judea and Samaria.

But what if the numbers are actually wrong? In early 2005, an Israeli demographic study found that the Palestinians had far inflated their population count and growth rates, and that the actual number of Arabs in the disputed territories is only 2.4 million. Furthermore, so many Palestinians are emigrating from the territories in the wake of the intifada that Israel's share of the overall population may even increase. Going by this study, Israel has no demographic problem at all.

Both sides claim to be right; Israel stands by its numbers while the Palestinians stand by theirs. So who is telling the truth?

Until recently, it may have been difficult for an outside observer to know. But now that Palestinian election returns have come in, we have a definitive answer: Israel.

According to official polling station counts, there were 1.3 million eligible Palestinian voters, a number that corresponds only with Israel's findings of 2.4 million Palestinians. (Here is a thorough analysis of why.)

Just as the Palestinian leadership has always lied about its intentions and its true goal of destroying Israel, we see once again that they have spread deliberate falsehoods in order to advance their political cause. By emphasizing a phony demographic threat, they conned Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and threaten to do the same for most of the West Bank.

We must spread the truth before it is too late. Ceding land to terrorists is a terrible idea, and Israel must not fall into such a trap again.

Europe, Islam, and Demographics

Last week, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a dire-sounding piece in the Wall Street Journal expressing a fear that declining Western fertility, combined with rapid Muslim growth, will eventually lead to a radical Islamic takeover of the West (especially Europe) and the decline of our modern liberal society. Steyn backs his claims with numerous alarming statistics, such as Western fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman; Muslim rates far higher (over 6 children per woman) in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Niger; continued Muslim immigration into Western nations; and those Muslims' propensity towards extremism. Islamic dominance, according the piece, is practically inevitable; as Steyn writes, "It's the demography, stupid."

But I wouldn't be so sure. Steyn is usually on the mark geopolitically, but here I believe his conclusions are premature.

Why? Factually, the numbers he cites are correct. But upon closer examination, he actually leaves out a number of key points that reveal a far weaker Islam than he describes.

First, Western nations aren't the only ones with falling birthrates. The Muslim world is seriously declining as well. Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Lebanon, and Malaysia are all below the 2.1 replacement line, while Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, and the Muslim parts of India are close behind and falling rapidly. A few Muslim nations do indeed have high fertility, but the common denominator is not Islam itself, as Steyn implies, but a lack of modernization. Many non-Muslim countries that also haven't fully modernized have high rates as well, such as Laos, Uganda, and Paraguay.

Steyn mentions that developed nations have declined from 30% to 15% of the world's population in the last 35 years, while Muslims have increased from 15% to 20%. True enough, but that also means the non-developed, non-Muslim world has increased its share at a greater rate: from 55% to 65%. And this growth has come largely at Muslim, and not Western, expense.

You see, Islam's recent growth has come almost fully from natural increase (which is now falling), and not from conversions. On the other hand, Christianity is growing just as fast by gaining far more converts. These aren't coming from the developed world, which is already predominantly Christian, but from places like China, India, and especially Africa, where over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year.

Muslims will not overwhelm the world demographically; if anything, the world will grow less Muslim in the forseeable future.

Europe, on the other hand, is admittedly a trickier case. Native fertility is indeed low, while Muslim growth rates and levels of extremism have remained high. Over the next 50 years, Europe projects to lose about 100 million people, while European Muslims will double their numbers to about 20% of the total European population. If Turkey joins the EU, Muslim numbers will rise even further.

But will this bring Sharia law, as Steyn fears? I don't think so. Even under the most high-growth projection (which is by no means certain), Muslims will remain a minority on the Continent. Their radicals may want Sharia law, but they won't get it at the ballot box.

Much more worrisome, though, is the prospect of increased terror and violence as the Muslim population expands. Best case, they'll assimilate smoothly, but based on recent history, I'm concerned that Europe could end up in a horrible civil war. A war, I might add, that radical Muslims will most certainly lose, but a war nevertheless, with possibly devastating loss of life and destruction.

Europeans can, of course, easily avoid this scenario by taking a few basic steps: limit Muslim immigration, export radicals who preach violence, and cut off the Saudi petrodollars financing extremism. These actions alone won't solve the Continent's fertility-based worker shortage problem (although this might), but should at least prevent Islamists from taking advantage.

Steyn's conclusions may be flawed, but his urgent advice that the West must awaken to this problem is nevertheless entirely on the mark.

Isaac Asimov's Foundation Novels and the War On Terrorism

Notwithstanding my previous post, I believe America (and the West in general) should remain optimistic that true freedom will eventually saturate the Middle East. On that token, and continuing the theme of re-posting certain older essays for the benefit of newer readers, I'd like to present a piece I wrote a couple months ago that discusses the relationship between Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of novels and events in the real world (both Middle East and elsewhere). As it turns out, the books contain striking parallels to our current geopolitical state of affairs, but not at all in the way that might seem most obvious.

The Foundation novels take place in the distant future, when man has colonized the stars and created a giant galactic empire. This empire has reigned for thousands of years, but crippled by its vast size, is beginning to decline and decay. The Emperor and his subjects are fully oblivious to this slide, but a scientist named Hari Seldon, who has created a novel science of prediction called psychohistory, has mathematically forseen the impending collapse leading to a 30,000-year dark age of war, ignorance, and barbarism. To save mankind from these horrors, Seldon gathers the best and brightest from around the galaxy, and creates a colony on a faraway planet called the Foundation. This, as his psychohistorical calculations predict, will shorten the dark ages to a 1000-year period, at the end of which the Foundation will rise to form an enlightened and peaceful Second Empire.

But, of course, the Foundation must first survive the interim with its wars, political instability, and other myriad obstacles. Psychohistory predicts that the Foundation will do so, based upon the colony's nature as opposed to that of the empire (don't worry, this isn't a plot spoiler). But the Foundationers have no idea how they will actually make this occur.

Asimov wrote the original Foundation novels (a trilogy) after having read Edward Gibbon's The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. Now based on this, it is entirely forgivable if you are thinking that surely the books must parallel America and its current "empire." And indeed the stability of the post-Cold War "pax Americana" -- what Francis Fukuyama referred to as the "End of History," with liberal democracy emerging as the winner -- has come under serious strain as of late, with unrest in the Middle East, China, Venezuela, and elsewhere.

But such a comparison, in my view, is not really accurate. For Asimov's fictional empire is a true colonizing power, led by corrupt, unelected officials with an all-powerful Emperor at the helm. This empire indeed epitomizes the hallmarks of ancient Rome, with its hereditary leadership, few (if any) checks and balances on power, and numerous bloody palace coups. America is nothing like this.

Rather, the Foundation novels mirror current events via the science of psychohistory. Just as Hari Seldon predicts with virtual certainty that the Foundation will ultimately win, the nature of radical Islam predicts with virtual certainty that it will ultimately lose.

Now I know a lot of people probably aren't so confident of this. But I am. And I will explain Hari Seldon-style why this is so.

Psychohistory is, of course, a made-up science. But in Asimov's fictional world, Hari Seldon uses it to mathematically analyze the entirety of possible galacticopolitical stimuli that humankind may encounter, and then, based on the known reactions of mass behavior to these stimuli, predict the outcomes to about 99% accuracy. (Once again, none of this is a plot spoiler.)

Unlike Seldon, I'm not using any formal science here, and I doubt the word "galacticopolitical" is even in the dictionary. But based on a general knowledge of certain broad characteristics of radical Islam versus those of competing cultures, I believe that the outcome of the jihadists' current conflict with the rest of the world (and yes, it certainly is against the rest of the world) can be predicted just as accurately as that of the war between the Foundation and the empire. And radical Islam will not win.

Why? In a nutshell, for two overarching reasons. First, unlike all other world powers today and in the past, radical Islam's strength is entirely artificial and dependent on the West. And secondly, the jihadists have an insurmountable weakness in their absolute refusal to question or compromise any of their core goals.

Let's touch on both points. Radical Islam is an anomaly among powerful movements in that it created virtually none of its strength on its own. All other nations that have ever achieved a modicum of power, from ancient Greece to the colonial British to modern-day America, and even evil powers such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, did so by developing their own governments, economies, and militaries. Whether good or evil, they all conquered and/or influenced mighty swaths of territory primarily due to the fruits of their own internal labor and developments.

The Islamists, on the other hand, have never developed a successfully functioning government, economy, or military. And in fact, the ultra-authoritarian nature of radical Islam utterly prevents them from doing so. Any society that does not allow any questioning of authority and any true freedom of any kind cannot possibly function as a modern society. And as we can see, every terrorist-sponsoring country is mired in dire poverty, a weakly functioning government, and weak militaries. Their only strengths are in ideological radicalism and terrorism, which are funded and permitted entirely by oil money and foreign aid, neither of which the Islamists produced themselves.

So the only way for the Islamists to advance are to 1) fundamentally change so that they can indeed produce a modern successful society, or 2) defeat the West as they surely aim to do so. The problem for them is that if they choose Option 1, they will no longer be Islamists. And if they begin to make any real headway in Option 2, they will lose the source of their strength far before they can come close to completing the job.

Now the second reason for the Islamists' eventual defeat, their refusal to question or compromise anything, is related to Option 2 above. Because the jihadists won't budge from their all-or-nothing position, there is no room for the enemy (i.e. the rest of us) to negotiate anything with them. And this will inevitably lead to all-out war, where it is virtually certain that the West, which built itself up via its own internal strengths, will soundly win. Once again, the Islamists face an insurmountable choice - either change themselves and compromise, which they cannot do without losing their core identity, or fight the West and lose.

This also answers the question of whether the Islamists can exploit the West's one key weakness, which is the left-leaning infatuation with multiculturalism and relative values that allowed radical Islam to emerge as a threat in the first place. And the answer is yes they can, but not indefinitely. Right now, many voices in America and in Europe continue to delude themselves that they can negotiate with the jihadists, that our enemies have placable goals, and that by helping and understanding them we can calm them down. This continues because, by and large, we have been very military successful against them in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the leftist relativist element always feels guilty about being ahead. But anytime the jihadists commit acts of terror, tougher Western voices always emerge, and at some point (and I pray this occurs sooner than later), we will take no more and finally clamp down to utterly defeat them.

So there you have it - due to their very nature, the Islamists have no way to win. Ultimately, their only option is to lose.

But wait, you might be thinking, the Islamists acted the same way and yet carved out a mighty empire in the Middle East for a thousand years; how can you say this won't happen again? Well, the comparison may seem apt initially, but in reality the Islamic empire of old was very different than the jihadists of today. Back then, bloodthirsty and uncompromising as they were, they at least built up their own militaries, and while their their governments and economies were poor, so were everyone else's. Today the jihadists have none of these strengths.

No, the jihadists will not be successful and the rest of the world will ultimately come out victorious. Unfortunately this does not mean that the battle will be a cakewalk; just as Hari Seldon can predict only mass behavior and not the actions of any one individual, the Islamist-defeat model as presented here can forecast only the eventual outcome of the war at large. Very likely, there will be a number of challenges in the interim, which we must face and overcome strong and vigilantly. It is tragic that we have had to suffer even a single terrorist attack, and undoubtedly the jihadists are planning more evil actions as we speak. But make no mistake - in the end, we will win and they will lose.

John Lennon - Republican?

Next week sadly will be the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shocking murder. And as we recall and commemorate the ex-Beatle's all-too-short life, we fondly remember him as a colorful figure, husband and father, standout musician, and international celebrity.

Many mainstream media outlets, though, also remember Lennon the political activist, and assume that if alive today, he would have continued the radical leftist bent he displayed in the late '60s and early '70s. To mark what would have been Lennon's 65th birthday, for example, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates that John would be at the forefront of leftwing activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.

Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.

Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.

Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)

Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers leftist, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the Let It Be album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with wife Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his 1980 assassination.

Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.

Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."

*note: This essay is adapted from a piece I wrote back in October on the occasion of Mr. Lennon's would-have-been 65th birthday.