With his decision to use force against the violent extremists of the Islamic State, President Obama is doing more than to enter a quagmire. He is doing more than play with the fates of two half-broken countries-Iraq and Syria-whose societies were gutted long before the Americans appeared on the horizon.

Obama is stepping into the chaos of an entire civilization that has broken down.

Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism-the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition-than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago.

Every hope of modern Arab history has been betrayed. The promise of political empowerment, the return of politics, the restoration of human dignity heralded by the season of Arab uprisings in their early heydays-all has given way to civil wars, ethnic, sectarian and regional divisions and the reassertion of absolutism, both in its military and atavistic forms.

With the dubious exception of the antiquated monarchies and emirates of the Gulf-which for the moment are holding out against the tide of chaos-and possibly Tunisia, there is no recognizable legitimacy left in the Arab world.

Is it any surprise that, like the vermin that take over a ruined city, the heirs to this self-destroyed civilization should be the nihilistic thugs of the Islamic State? And that there is no one else who can clean up the vast mess we Arabs have made of our world but the Americans and Western countries?

If a politician or government official takes a direct monetary bribe for granting a favor or sweetheart contract, do you think he should be sent to prison?

Such an illegal activity is despicable, but it is usually far less costly to society than the legal forms of corruption, which undermine the integrity and respect for government that is necessary for a civil and prosperous society. Most legal corruption is all about increasing power for those in government.

This past Friday (2/28), the following amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It was to prevent "Intentional discrimination by employee of the Internal Revenue Service."

It is hard to imagine anyone interested in good government being against such an amendment, because it is clearly designed to help prevent those in the IRS from abusing their power -- which many have done. Yet 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against it. They were:

Responding to Moses in Mecca, TTP member "Marco" has asked about the historical lineage of the ancient Philistines and their connection to modern-day Palestinians after whom they are named.  OK, Marco, here goes.

The origins of the Philistines are unclear.  Genesis 10:14 lists the Pelishtim as among the sons of Ham, shorthand for the Hebrews' traditional enemies which also included Egyptians and Canaanites, while Amos 9:7 claims they come from "Caphtor." 

At least two things about them are clear.  They are not aboriginal to the Levant (east coast of the Mediterranean) and they are not Semitic.

Hardly a week goes by without some Democrat Party hack putting finger to iPad and swiping out a screed about the Republican Party's problem with women or minorities.

This time it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz with "The GOP's Woman Problem." Schultz claims that the Republican Party was "rejected again by a bloc of voters that make up more than half of the electorate." That claim is as real as Schultz's hair color.

The Republican Party doesn't have a "woman problem." Romney in 2012 won the votes of white women in every age group; including young women. And Obama lost white women as he did all white voters.

He lost white voters by 59% to 39%. He lost white voters of every age and gender. His loss among white voters was completely unprecedented for any winner of a presidential election.

The GOP doesn't have a "woman problem," but the Democrats have a "white woman problem" and a "white man problem."

The articles about the GOP's problem with minority voters blame the Republican Party for alienating minority voters. But shouldn't the Democrat Party be held accountable for alienating white voters?

This is about more than just numbers.

Few express opinions different from what they are paid to say, and such is equally true for those who work for government. On an almost daily basis, the world is treated to presidential spokespeople denying what most people understand to be true.

Last week, Jason Furman, President Obama's chief economic adviser, who used to have a reputation as a competent economist, embarrassed himself by trying to deny - in response to a Congressional Budget Office report - that the president's proposal to increase the minimum wage would cost jobs.

All too many professionals are willing to ignore empirical evidence when it conflicts with their beliefs or those of their employers. Perhaps in no place do we see greater evidence of this than in the field of climate science.

If the climate scientists who produced their grossly defective, predictive models had been employed by private companies that depended on the accuracy of their predictions, they would have been fired.

Private economic forecasters who are consistently wrong tend to lose their credibility and at least some of their income.  There is one group of economic forecasters, though, who suffer very little loss of prestige or income, even though they may often be wrong. They are those who work for the Federal Reserve and other government agencies.