Today may witness two turning points in the world.

As I type this, I'm following the news in Israel where the IDF has begun its incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. Instead of the usual "thank you sir, may I have another" attitude that has permeated the halls of the Knesset in the last 13 years, the Jewish government said "ENOUGH!"

It's about time.

Now comes word that another soldier has been kidnapped by The Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) terrorist group.

I can't speak for the Arabs, but I have to wonder what the hell they're thinking. With the first kidnapping - okay, I get it. Not that I, G-d forbid, approve of it - but it's the Arab response to the hated Jewish presence. But now that you have seen that Israel has taken notice, what idiot thought up kidnapping another Jew?

Once again proving - for the 100 billionth time - that the PA and Hamas and all the rest of them are liars, criminals and psychopaths. Their claims have no validity and they have nothing to offer to the world other than hate and death.

Prime Minister Olmert apologizes to the Arabs for the killing of a family by an errant missile - keeping in mind that there remains a number of investigations that question whether it was staged by the Arabs - and what does the "religion of peace" members do?

Understand that there would have been no errant missile - and I again stress there's excellent reason to suggest there wasn't one then either - had Hamas not been lobbing Kassam rockets into Sderot.

As Reuters and other trash rags fall all over themselves with stories of "cycle of violence" rhetoric, it shouldn't be hard to understand which is the good side.

The second turning point is about who the bad guys are.

The New York Times has finally gone over to the dark side (they had been putting there toes in the water for a long time, but never jumping completely in).

We (meaning all of us who don't spend our days caring about the latest Bradgelina or TomKat rumor) have long recognized the huge liberal slant in their reporting - that is on the rare happenstance that it's actually factual). We've long known that stories that put the White House in a positive light have been ignored completely or relegated to page 31, while even the most ludicrous rumors and half-truths that attack the Administration are front page headlines.

But it seems that any last beacon of hope that the Times could pull back from the brink of sanity has now been laid impossible.

Their disclosure last week of a secret program to investigate and track terrorists through an international database was nothing more than treasonous. To make matters worse, did anyone read Bill Keller's response (he's the executive editor of The Times)?

"Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight."

Say what??? That's his reason for spilling the beans?

Excuse me, Mr. Roosevelt, but I question the oversight and legality of invading Normandy, so I just had to tip off my friend Adolf!

Treasury Secretary John Snow said in a letter to the York Times that over the past two months he and other administration officials had engaged in a "vigorous dialogue" with reporters and editors at the newspaper trying to persuade them to refrain from revealing the program:

"In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counterterrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trail."

But Keller countered with a brilliant comeback:

"I believe they genuinely did not want us to publish this. But I think it's not responsible of us to just take them at their word."

I am astounded by Keller's logic.

The fact that John Murtha criticized the "newspaper of record" shows just how utterly clueless Keller is. On Monday night, the Los Angeles Times Web site posted a letter explaining its rationale for reporting the story. Editor Dean Baquet wrote:

"We considered very seriously the government's assertion that these disclosures could cause difficulties for counterterrorism programs. ... In the end, we felt that the legitimate public interest in this program outweighed the potential cost to counterterrorism efforts."

Basically, that means "If it sells papers, we don't give a f*** if it causes more American deaths.

This, I believe may just be the two turning points in the war against terror. First, the Israeli's say "ENOUGH" and second, the New York Times finally proves its allegiance. We will look back at this day as the "Day The World Woke Up".

Or, it could all blow over tomorrow. I guess all we need is for Tom Cruise to show off how intelligent he isn't (again).