Tom Friedman's right again

Typically, I don't trust the New York Times about anything ever. The whole Howell Raines disaster that believed in journalistic crusades at the expense of Truth (read "Jayson Blair") and who's unabashed hatred of the Republicans in general and President George Bush in particular set my teeth on edge. Not that Republicans or Mr. Bush are infallible -- they're not -- but the assertion that they're always on the wrong side of any issue is absurd. The arrogant condescension that dripped from their Op-Ed page every day from every article reminded me of Pravda in the Bad Ole' Days of the Soviet.

So suprise, surprise, the Times ace foreign affairs writers Tom Friedman writes honest truth about Lebanon and Syria all the while sidestepping the official Times line that Bush 43 is puppet of the evil genius, Karl Rove. In a beautiful summation, Friedman credits the Iraqi people -- and sort of by extension, the Bush Doctrine -- with inspiring the Lebanonese people to throw off the yoke of Syrian oppression.

Nothing drives a dictatorship like Syria's more crazy than civil disobedience and truth-telling: when people stop being intimidated, stand up for their own freedom and go on strike against their occupiers. The Lebanese can't play by Hama Rules [Friedman's term for all out war with maximum collateral damage] and must stop playing by the old Lebanese Rules. They must start playing by Baghdad Rules.

Baghdad Rules mean the Lebanese giving the Syrian regime - every day, everywhere - the purple finger.

He makes his point as clear as a Polaroid and he's basically right. As much as it pains the left, George Bush was right about Iraq even if all the WMDs ended up in a cave in the Bekaa Valley of Syria. I just find it amusing that some of the left are actually starting to admit it.

About immigration

I have a idea that may fix the problem of illegal immigration and I'd like as much feedback as possible. My fix is simple: treat illegal immigration as we would treat a really serious traffic violation.

Okay, that sounds like I'm belittling an astonishing dangerous problem but, trust me I'm not. As I understand the problem, the big issue isn't so much that people come in to The States illegally, but that they stay here. Moreover, even if we catch them, these illegals just skip out on their court mandated hearing and simply vanish. And every one of them (except for the terrorists) want a Green Card and /or Citizenship. How can we incent these people to 1) play by the rules and 2) show up at the hearings designed to see if they really are political refugees?

Here's the simple part and it mimics the procedure used if you commit a serious moving violation like passing a stopped school bus: if you don't show in court, you are presumed guilty. This is where the heavy incentives for playing fair come in. If you are found guilty, the illegal immigrant immediately forfeits permanently the right ever apply for a Green Card and /or for Citizenship. The next time one of these people is caught, out they go without a hearing once identity is proven. Then, over the border they go.

No waiting for hearings, and no chance to disappear. Immediate deportation.

My guess is that we'd see a massive flood back over the border if these people ever thought that sneaking into the country would permanently prohibit them from ever living here. Couple this with batallions of border guards and we should be okay.

This is Good

From the AP:

Beirut, Lebanon -- In an unprecedented outpouring of grief and anger, mourners shouted "Syria Out!" as they crowded Beirut's streets Wednesday to bury their former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Lebanon's pro-Syrian president stayed away, warned not to come by Hariri supporters who blame Damascus for his death.

Mark my words, the Syrians are next.

I love Mark Steyn

This is a bit dated but still great:

As for the notion that this or that people "deserve" a state, that's a dangerous post-modern concept of nationality and sovereignty. The United States doesn't exist because the colonists "deserved" a state, but because they went out and fought for one. Were the Palestinians to do that, they might succeed in pushing every last Jew into the sea, or they might win a less total victory, or they might be routed and have to flee to Damascus or Wolverhampton.

But, whatever the outcome, it's hard to see that they would be any less comprehensively a wrecked people than they are after spending three generations in "refugee" "camps" while their "cause" is managed by a malign if impeccably multilateral coalition of UN bureaucrats, cynical Arab dictators, celebrity terrorists and meddling Europeans whose Palestinian fetishisation seems most explicable as the perverse by-product of the suppression of their traditional anti-Semitism.