Well, He's Got the Right Idea...

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the following at the World Economic Forum at Davos today...

"We are not asking ourselves what we will replace capitalism with, but what kind of capitalism we want?" he said.

"We must re-engineer capitalism to restore its moral dimension, its conscience,"

Ok, he's got the right idea here. Just because we hit an economic downturn does not mean we should start pushing towards socialist policies. In fact, moving away from such policies seems to be working in other places.

Now, what we need is not more regulation, but "good" regulation. We need current regulation to be simplified, clear, and transparent. The more you convolute something like this, the more loopholes you create for those who don't want to play by the rules to worm their way around the regulations in place. Both of our political parties seem to back regulation that apparently is too clouded in legalities that loopholes seem to be at every turn. Make it simple, make it clear, and make it so there is no doubt about what you are trying to accomplish.

This also naturally reduces and limits the amount of regulation you can implement, which is conducive to a well-oiled capitalist economy. You can only go so far without arousing protest from investors, businesses, banks, and the public at large (who probably does not understand a lot of the regulation to begin with, I know I have problems understanding some of the regulations I've looked up).

Granted, I would prefer minimalizing regulation, but since I have to play within the system (let's face it, most good revolutions do not happen overnight...unless you're talking Eastern Europe in 1989, but I digress), let's start by simplifying regulation first, then we can talk about what (if any) regulations are really necessary.

Also, taxing banks and big business as punishment will not be conducive to anything positive for the economy. If you thought big banks weren't lending before, watch what happens when you start penalizing them. If other states starting pulling moves like the state of Oregon just decided to do, you're going to see the leaders and drivers of free enterprise and industry start "going Galt" in huge numbers.

Artillery Fire Exchanged Between North and South Korea

Apparently, there was a little skirmish between North and South Korea. The two nations are disputing their sea border, and it appears that North Korean forces fired towards South Korean coastal positions along the coast with their own land-based artillery. No casualties have been reported, as it seems both sides simply fired into the air near each other with shells landing harmlessly in the water. A bit of a "pissing contest", to say the least.

Both sides have been provocative in their statements and actions lately. North Korea has tested missiles and atomic devices in recent years. South Korea came out and said that if they are aware of an imminent nuclear strike, they would launch pre-emptive military action, which the North Koreans stated was a provocation of war. However, I would be inclined to believe that the their statements are more of a warning, as South Korea is suited for defensive purposes, not offensive.

Needless to say, things may be getting a little testy in the Korean penninsula.

Israel About To Go It Alone?

Apparently, Israel has pulled all of their diplomats from foreign nations, and making them attend a conference with Israeli leaders. Apparently, Israel's top nuclear officials will be in attendance, as well. The conference is currently going on, but nobody knows the true meaning of this.

One can only guess what they could be discussing that required all of their foreign diplomats and top nuclear officials. I imagine they may be discussing this or this with these guys. I believe that things are about to get a little dicey in the Middle East.

(h/t Smash Mouth Politics)

Hugo Chavez Gets Mocked by Colombian Defense Minister

I love seeing Hugo Chavez get dissed. Warms my heart to no end, as he is just the latest in a long line of socialists who have preyed upon the poor in Latin America for votes, but do nothing for them.

Chavez recently accused Colombia (then the U.S.) of flying spy drones over his nation of Venezuela. Colombia's response to these accusations (from the WaPo article)...

Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva and armed forces commander Freddy Padilla told reporters Monday that Colombian aircraft couldn't fly the kind of espionage mission described by Chavez.

"Colombia doesn't have that capability," said Silva. He quipped that perhaps "Venezuelan soldiers mistook Father Christmas' sleigh for a spy plane."

Mwahaha, it was Santa Claus! I love that kind of dismissal, because I know it burns the heart of those who feast upon attention...which Chavez certainly does.

Another Lefty Attempts to Set Back U.S./British Relations

Pop singer/rocker-wannabe Pink compares British royalty to "rednecks" from the South due to their penchant for fox hunting.

Pink is a lefty (vocal in her anti-Bush sentiments during his 2nd term), and she follows the typical celebrity leftist line of being against hunting/fur use. That's fine that she doesn't believe in these things, but to call the British royal family "rednecks" and say that the Brits should replace the fur hats on the palace guards with designs from Stella McCartney shows a blatant ignorance about how the world outside of the celebrity bubble actually works.

Honestly, I'm confused as to how the hunting habits of the British royal family have to do with an American pop singer who has entered the downside of her career. I also wonder why she thinks that they will listen to her...does she think that her opinion will carry that much weight with the royal family?

This is the second time this year that a high-profile lefty has dissed the Brits. Remember, it was back in March that the highest-profile lefty of them all, Barack Obama, decided that 25 DVDs that won't even play on European DVD players was a perfect gift for Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Brits did not agree.

Compassion Is Not Socialism...

...but the forcible redistribution of someone else's wealth that they have earned, and the punishment of self-made success, IS socialism.

Period, end of story, it's part of the definition of socialism. C'mon lefties, let's call things for what they are.

Fred Thompson on the Bhutto Assassination

View it here. Good answers from Fred.

A Little Speculation Over Bhutto's Assassination

Two thoughts that have come to mind with the sound and the fury going on in Pakistan...

- Is anyone else reminded of the assassination of Ahmad Masood (a leader Afghan rebels against Taliban and Al-Qaeda) that occurred 2 days before 9/11 occurred? Now, here we are, only a few days from New Years Eve...

- If further insurrection/violence/civil war occurs in Pakistan, who will be watching the nukes? Al-Qaeda would love to get their hands on a few nuclear weapons, I'm sure...and Pakistan is the only Muslim nation that we know has them in their arsenal.

Just some random thoughts.

BREAKING: Benazir Bhutto Assassinated, UPDATE: Al-Qaeda Leader Admits They Were Behind It

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, and the first female leader of a Muslim nation, Benazir Bhutto was killed this morning in an attack by a suicide bomber.

Bhutto was shot in the neck and chest by the bomber, seconds later the bomber blew himself up and killed 20 others in the process. This attack comes with only a little over a week before the January 8th Parliamentary elections in Pakistan, where Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party was expected to do well because of their wide base of support throughout the country.

This bloody massacre is the latest in a string of events that has left Pakistan teetering on the brink of chaos and anarchy. Pakistan is a key ally of the United States in the Global War on Terror, especially in neighboring Afghanistan, and a nuclear weapon-possessing country.

This event will have global repercussions, as Bhutto was a key figure in the Muslim world and this will surely upset those who supported her and galvanize those who opposed her.

UPDATES...

- Minutes after Bhutto was announced dead, Bhutto supporters at the hospital erupted in anger and changed "Killer, Killer, Musharraf" in reference to Bhutto's political opponent, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

- The last photo taken of Bhutto before her death.

- There was also another attempted attack today against another anti-Musharraf leader, Nawaz Sharif, that was thwarted by police. Also revealed in this article is the fact that Islamic militants have had it out for Bhutto, due to her support for women's rights, secular politics, and the American war on terror.

- State Department, President Bush both condemn the slaying of Bhutto.

- Live coverage on Sky News. The scene can only be described as mass anger and violence.

- Some blog reactions, courtesy of the Times Online. Also, a list of the main suspects who could be behind this.

- Reactions from 2008 Presidential hopefuls.

- AP: Musharraf administration states Al-Qaeda is behind attacks. Musharraf also makes a plea for peace in the nation.

- Al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid claims that they indeed were behind this attack.

- D.J. McGuire has an excellent analysis regarding Bhutto's assassination, how things got to this point, and what it means for Pakistan in the future.

How Many Disagreements Does it Take Before it's No Longer a Consensus?

A report by Sen. James Inhofe contains the names of over 400 scientists who dispute many of the claims about global warming made by Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, many of these scientists were members, or former members, of that very same panel. The report also states that many of the scientists keep silent due to fear of retribution for speaking their own disputes of the supposed "consensus".

And they say Republicans use politics of fear...

In a display of typical left-wing response, an Al Gore spokeswoman tried to claim that 25 to 30 of those scientists were or are funded by ExxonMobil. That claim has since been dismissed.

French climatologist Marcel Leroo described the enviro-activist movement by people like Al Gore very well, "Day after day the same mantra — that 'the Earth is warming up' — is churned out ... Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen is bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance."

Nobody has yet to explain why Mars has been warming up at a similar rate as the Earth over the past 40 years, but yet the enviro-activists want to disconnect and/or ignore the global warming that occurs on Mars because it goes against their agenda.

So...how many scientists does it take to stop a consensus?

TIME's "Person Of The Year" is...Vladimir Putin

Actually, I found this to be a bit of a surprise. I expected Putin to be 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Runner-up...but the actual "Person Of The Year", quite a surprise. The Russian President is, however, a very noteworthy individual on the world stage, even though he does butt heads with the American government on several issues.

TIME did explain their reasoning for choosing Putin rather well, especially in these two paragraphs.

When this intense and brooding KGB agent took over as President of Russia in 2000, he found a country on the verge of becoming a failed state. With dauntless persistence, a sharp vision of what Russia should become and a sense that he embodied the spirit of Mother Russia, Putin has put his country back on the map. And he intends to redraw it himself. Though he will step down as Russia's President in March, he will continue to lead his country as its Prime Minister and attempt to transform it into a new kind of nation, beholden to neither East nor West.

TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership. Putin is not a boy scout. He is not a democrat in any way that the West would define it. He is not a paragon of free speech. He stands, above all, for stability—stability before freedom, stability before choice, stability in a country that has hardly seen it for a hundred years. Whether he becomes more like the man for whom his grandfather prepared blinis—who himself was twice TIME's Person of the Year—or like Peter the Great, the historical figure he most admires; whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression—this we will know only over the next decade. At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the table of world power. For that reason, Vladimir Putin is TIME's 2007 Person of the Year.

The runner-ups were interesting, if not slightly predictable.

1st Runner-Up - An Inconvenient Former VP, Al Gore (if anyone saw this as a surprise, they should be smacked for false ignorance, I'm just glad he didn't win).

2nd Runner-Up - Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, whose fame is pretty much up now that the Potter series is over and done with.

3rd Runner-Up - Chinese President Hu Jintao

4th Runner-Up - General David Petraeus, who should honestly be flipped with Gore, because Petraeus managed to forge success when the new Congressional majority (Democrats) tried to give him every conceivable path to failure.

UPDATE: Henry Ryto brings up an EXCELLENT point in the comments below...where is Nicolas Sarkozy on this list??? That man may single-handedly change European-American relations, and actually has been a catalyst for the rapid improvement of Franco-American relations. Good call, Henry.

Chavez Concedes Defeat: Socialism Squashed in Venezuela

By a 51-49 cumulative vote, Venezuelan voters voted against proposed constitutional amendments that would have turned Venezuela's current democracy into a socialist state.

The measures were backed by Venezuelan President (and resident anti-American) Hugo Chavez. Among the proposed amendments were an attempt to abolish presidential term limits, an increase in the presidential term from 6 to 7 years, changes to the national administrative structure, an end to the autonomy of the national bank, and the placement of the President in charge of international reserves.

Basically, it would have granted Chavez incredible power over the nation itself.

Even Chavez stated that these measures were an attempt to turn Venezuela from a democracy to a "socialist republic." Chavez had previously stated that only "traitors" would vote against these amendments.

Chavez admitted that he may have been too ambitious to ask the people of Venezuela to leap into socialism and allow him to run for President indefinitely. Chavez also called for nationwide calm and civility in the wake of the pre-vote violence and protest that had been going on in the days leading to yesterday's elections.

President Chavez was also contrite enough to state that this vote has taught him that "Venezuelan democracy is maturing", and that his respect for the vote means he's a true democratic leader (well, that last part remains in doubt). Chavez's current, and final, term is up in 2012.

Nonetheless...score one for democracy and freedom!

Sarkozy 1, Old Socialist Ways 0

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is emerging as victorious in his standoff with the striking rail and subway workers of France.

The strike was a protest against Sarkozy, who was abandoning the current entitlements and generous pay for early retirement and pension for rail workers. Sarkozy's belief is that the government payouts for these benefits is part of the reason that France is not competitive economically.

Sarkozy is in the midst of a dynamic attempt to revitalize a French economy that has been plagued by an unemployment rate that was over 8% as of 2006, and slow or stagnant growth since the increased socialism and nationalization of industry and banks during the 1980's under Francois Mitterrand.

The initial tide of popularity for the strike amongst the rail and subway workers has "collapsed", as many union representatives have stated, and the workers are returning in droves.

Of the 45 rail union committees in France, 42 have already voted to abandon the strike and return to work.

Brazil Moving Forward With Nuclear Sub Program to Protect Offshore Oil Reserve

Brazil is looking to build a nuclear submarine (or two) to protect the recently-discovered Tupi offshore oil reserve that has been described as "a massive find".

President Lula da Silva authorized $540 million in funding for the nuclear submarine program, which has been talked about for years, but never pushed as hard as it is now. Silva has also been trying to push forward with restarting the building of nuclear power plants as a cleaner, more efficient way of producing energy.

Nonetheless, this oil find is big news for South America's largest and strongest economy, especially considering that they are a key U.S. ally in the Western Hemisphere.

Sarko The Rejuvinator

(h/t And Rightly So!)

To quote French President Nicolas Sarkozy from his dinner toast on Tuesday evening at the White House, “I’ve come to Washington to bear a very simple, straightforward message … I wish to re-conquer the heart of America. I want to re-conquer the heart of America in a lasting fashion.”

Sweet. I liked this man before, and he impresses me more and more each day. This man will prove to be an important ally as we move forward into the future. He's improving his country's industrial productivity, stimulating the economy, rebuilding Franco-American relations, and fortifying France against terrorism. The man is single-handedly breathing fresh, new life into his nation.

All this because he's moving the country away from the socialist government that American liberals idolize, but had caused France to suffer from a long period of economic and social malaise.

Trying to do the Right Thing

When it comes to the Middle East in general, America has done a lot to attempt to bring order and some amount of social freedom not granted to the people by the governments of that region. True, we always had our interests in mind to varying extents, but I believe that our attempts to simply democratize the region for the sake of providing freedom to those who never had it before have been genuine to at least some degree.


I've come to believe that true stability may never be reached in the Middle East...but you can't fault the U.S. for at least trying. The problem is, you have the roots of almost half of the world's religious beliefs set in this general region. You also have some of the most extreme tribalistic societies in this region. Combine that with a willingness to die for your beliefs because the man next to you does not believe what you believe...and by killing them and yourself, you get 72 virgins and an eternity in paradise...well, I guess personal freedom and democracy now can't compare with those kinds of promises that can be achieved by simply killing "infidels" in the name of Allah.

The worst part of it all is that most Muslims do not believe in these acts. However, their religion has been so hijacked by these extremists that they feel powerless to stop them. The other roadblock is the different sects of Islam refuse to coexist, much like the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, even though they read from the same book of beliefs.

However, I've read a few reports that state that Al Qaeda has lost a lot of influence in Iraq in recent months. Most of this loss of influence is due to these non-extremist Muslims standing up and refusing to give shelter to Al Qaeda terrorists, and not just U.S. military force alone.

Maybe we can end this occupation on a positive note, after all.

Weekly Podium: "Ending The Occupation"

(Cross-posted at The New Dominion)

Recently, I've been thinking about how our government can best wrap up the occupation in Iraq. I know that the popular cry from the left (and the Ron Paul camp) has been "just get up and leave!" However, I think many would agree that making the region more stable than it is now would be the "best-case scenario" of any exit strategy.

We're a nation that likes "best-case scenarios", we like things to go our way. That's about as obvious a statement as one could ever make. My question is, why are so many people avoiding the possibility of leaving Iraq with the best-case scenario?

The answer is simple...for many people, the "pack up and leave now" option is the most instantly-gratifying, soul-assuaging, "light at the end of the tunnel" scenario out there. We get the troops home, no more soldiers die, and we stop spending billions of dollars on this occupation.

Before I go further, we have to evaluate what the current situation in Iraq actually is. I do not consider the current situation in Iraq the "Iraq War". The "Iraq War" ended when the socialist Ba'ath Party government was toppled and Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. Right now, we are in the midst of a post-war occupation, with civil war being fought between various factions who have differing opinions on the direction of Iraq's future.

It's just like the Marshall Plan and the post-World War II occupation of Europe...except this time, there wasn't a unified appreciation and assistance of our efforts by the Iraqi's to rebuild their war-torn nation. In post-WWII Greece, Italy, and West Germany, our occupation and presence was well-received, and that is what led to the successful re-emergence of these nations from the ashes of war.

Even though things are uncertain and unstable in Iraq at this moment, we must realize that certain concessions must be made. I believe that, if a few forward-thinking plans are implemented, we can be out of Iraq (minus a base like what we have in Germany and other nations) within a year...give or take a few months.

So here is my personal opinion of what America and Iraq need to do...

The first thing that needs to happen is the Iraqi government needs to be structured so that the Kurds, the Shi'as, and the Sunnis have equal representation in governing the nation. The 3 factions already have, for the most part, geographically divided themselves into different areas. My suggestion is that, below the federal level of government in Baghdad, there is a regional government for each of the 3 areas. After that, each of the provinces within these regions should have their own level of government, then it continues from there to the more local levels.

Granted, this plan is a little more bureaucratic than I would prefer for our own nation...but when you have warring religious factions, a bit more control is necessary until tensions are reduced to minimal levels.

How these various factions can be quelled is through invoking a bit of pro-Iraqi patriotism amongst Iraqi civilians in regards to this new government. Broadcast it loud and clear that the new government will create one Iraq that will end the violence, and bring prosperity to the Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds. While these groups are split among religious lines, they are all Muslims, and to create a great new pro-Islamic state in Iraq would be beneficial to them in the long run.

I think a lack of psychological warfare against the extremists and terrorist groups that are fueling the flames of civil war has been part of our nation's problem in getting our of Iraq. We haven't emphasized the benefits of a mutually-beneficial government in terms of the general promotion of Islam within Iraq's borders. We (the United States) are still seen as the secular/Christians, and many Iraqis believe we're trying to distance them from Islam. While we've attempted to build as close to a secular government as possible in the past...it just cannot be done.

While the federal government should lean secular, the regional and provincial governments will obviously have to cater to that region's particular Islamic sect (to a certain extent) in order to get this new government off the ground. These governments will also have to govern within certain limits of power, just as the federal government will have to do the same. However, the regional/provincial governments will be more involved with the day-to-day governing of the people compared to the federal level.

Next, the rebuilding of the Iraqi army and police needs to be sped up. It's their nation, they need to protect and defend it, as well as enforce their own laws. Once the above government is formulated and the main religious groups are pacified a bit, start enlisting these various militias into the ranks of the Iraqi military and police.

American forces would withdraw, with the exception of a single base, which will keep our presence in the region visible, but light and with as little imposition as possible. With this new government, the most federally-regulated sections of government will be the military and the importing/exporting of goods, such as oil...as well as the equal redistribution from profits made off of exports.

Oh yes, and there is a timetable for this. If this plan were to be implemented today, we would expect the Iraqi government to be fully operational, and the military/police in full working order, by July 31, 2008. Sometime before that date, we would make a decision as to where we go from there.

If the Iraqi government mobilizes into operation well ahead of schedule, we can start the gradual withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. As their military takes over defending the country, ours will then begin leave at the same rate. The further ahead of schedule they get, the sooner we are done and gone in regards to our continued military occupation of Iraq.

If the Iraqi government is uncooperative, refuses to work within this framework, and cannot come together...we leave. It is as simple as that. We're not going to simply sit around and let soldiers die while the Iraqi government refuses to function adequately (as has been the case). If the new Iraqi government can't (or won't) get their act together, or procrastinates in doing so for too long, they're going to have to clean up this mess on their own.

If things are close to completion, but the Iraqi's need a few more months to get things finally in order, we may stay and help finish things up if there is good reasoning for it. The effort on all parts must be evident in order for us to stay.

While the current strategy is already somewhat related to this, my idea involves heavy pressure on the Iraqi government. In fact, if we were to lay this out to our allies, I believe that we could create heavy international pressure from places far more influential (and investment-minded) than the extremists and terrorists that currently thrive on this conflict.

As far as Iran goes, that's a different story. I do believe that the growing public insurrection within Iran will cause them to focus enough of its energy inward that it's influence on neighboring countries with decrease substantially, even for a short period of time. Stabilization in Iraq, in my opinion, would further increase the appetite for change that the Iranian public has shown.

What is interesting is that despite the bickering between Democrats and Republicans over the issue over this messy occupation, I can't think of one person who wouldn't want to see our troops come home. I think that is the common goal that gets lost in all of the partisan fighting. Some Dems think Republicans are warmongering oil hogs, while more than a few GOP supporters see the Democrats as white flag-waving apologists for Islamic extremists.

What we need to realize is that both sides don't want to be in Iraq any longer than necessary. The disagreement is over what constitutes "necessary". Personally, I can see why both sides have their own definitions of "necessary". However, given our long-term interests as a leading member of the global society, to end this occupation with a more stable Iraq would make sense...as long as the Iraqi government gives us full cooperation.

To say "we've lost the Iraq War" is a complete misnomer. We won the war, we won that war a long time ago. The history books should reflect this as time goes on. However, in order to prevent future conflicts that will result in greater bloodshed; we need to leave this situation in a better condition than when we entered into it.

Why? To be honest, I don't think any of us want to go through this again anytime soon.

Palestine is Getting Uglier

So Hamas has taken control of the Gaza Strip, and has effectively cut themselves off from the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a member of Fatah, has now resigned himself to controlling only half of Palestine, while the glorified terrorists in Hamas celebrate their victory in Gaza. Citizens poured out into the streets after the end of 5 days of fighting. One would be led to believe that the citizens are fully behind the extremist movement.

However, maybe they're not behind Hamas because they believe in what Hamas is attempting to accomplish. I found this quote by a man, who only goes by "Yousef", very fascinating, because it explains why normal citizens are apparently behind Hamas at this point.

"'Today everybody is with Hamas because Hamas won the battle. If Fatah had won the battle they'd be with Fatah. We are a hungry people, we are with whoever gives us a bag of flour and a food coupon,' said Yousef, 30. 'Me, I'm with God and a bag of flour.'"

That says a lot about the situation in Palestine right now.

All Is Abnormally Quiet in Israel Right Now

Because Palestine has erupted in civil war...which means that instead of the factions attacking Israel, they're attacking each other.

Militants from both Hamas and Fatah are fighting in the streets, and Hamas has captured Fatah headquarters in two cities.

It's gotten to the point that President Mahmoud Abbas is going to dissolve the Palestinian National Authority's government and declare a State of Emergency. Abbas is also going to call for the deployment of a multinational force in Gaza, and will appoint an independent politician to take the place of Prime Minister Ismail Hamiyeh, who is part of Hamas.

Hamas is the most rabidly anti-Israeli faction in the Palestinian government. They are driven by their religion, and are also against the secular Palestinian National Authority. Their goal is simple...to eradicate the Israeli state and spread the "banner of Islam" over all of Palestine. While they claim to be a "liberation movement", their tactics of suicide bombs, car bombs, and the like have earned them the designation of an indentified terrorist faction.

Things have gone beyond dicey over there, it's all out war now.

If You Ever Doubted Iran's Intentions...

...you should probably silence those doubts now.

Iran was caught shipping arms to the Taliban. Not just guns, either. We're talking heavy arms, more than 1,650 pounds of C4, advanced roadside bombs. Also seized were RPG rockets and mortar rounds. Kudos to NATO for catching this.

What's surprising is that Iran and the Taliban have never gotten along, especially since Iranian muslims are generally Shi'a, while the Taliban are Sunni muslims. However, given that Iran and the Taliban have a much bigger common cause (destroying America and the rest of western civilization)...I guess they've put their differences aside for the time being.