Here’s an awesome map that depicts each U.S. state as the country whose GDP it most closely resembles:

In short, the U.S. has the economic power of all of these nations combined! Not to minimize the stress that has been placed on those who have lost jobs or 401ks, but overall we’re still doing pretty well as a nation.  Our economy - measured in purchasing power parity - is still almost double that of China’s!  While not all things are rosy, things are not all bad either.  Even the poor in the US have cell phones and satellite television.

Here in Washington DC, specifically all over Union Station (near my home), countless signs with images of Bigfoot, Martians and mermaids declare “There is no such thing as clean coal.”  Several yards away are signs of windmills and solar panels and an Obamian catch phrase: “Clean energy can repower our economy.”  It’s a cute advertising gimmick, but it’s missing a key reality.   While it is true that “clean coal” is somewhat of a mirage - it should really be defined as “not as dirty” coal - at present, so are sustainable wind and solar energy programs powerful and cheap enough to power the nation.  So in the interest of environmentalism, the ad campaign simply displaces one “myth” with another one that appeals to its sensibilities and supports its call for increased funding for “renewable” energy programs.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t pursue revolutionary technologies that would eliminate our need for oil and coal based fuel.  But, half of the nation’s electricity is powered by coal.  Until some genius develops sustainable wind and solar energies, what else are we supposed to use?  The best option is nuclear energy, the cleanest, cheapest and most sustainable energy yet known to mankind.  But environmentalists and peaceniks also hate that option due to unfounded fears - particularly in the 21st century - of reactor meltdown and soil toxicity and because the term “nuclear” simply causes them to break out in cold sweats.  Even France, one of the most Liberal nations on earth (arguably second to Sweden) heavily relies on nuclear power, yet nuclear plants in the United States are being closed down due to age with no intention to replace them.

Perhaps “absolute clean” coal does not exist.  But neither does large scale and sustainable wind or solar energy.  In the short-term why don’t we use the resources that actually work and minimize pollution while we work on another solution.  Methods that produce no pollution, but are not yet feasible do not benefit anyone (except those individuals who can afford them).  After all, poverty-stricken nations like Botswana don’t have carbon footprints, but they can’t feed their people either.

The fact is that Liberals are simply using their blind, cultist faith in global warming to ignore the realities of feasible energy solutions - coal, nuclear, oil or otherwise - for today.

Global warming is no different than the alarmist movement in the 1970s caused by the publication of a book in 1968 called The Population Bomb.  The theory was that as worldwide population increased the world would run out of the agricultural resources necessary to feed everyone resulting in widespread famine and the extinction of entire peoples.  Scientists the world over rang the alarm; those selfish enough to have children were condemned; worldwide socialism was called for to regulate the food supply and address the emergency.  Then, nothing happened.  The population boomed, but so did the food supply due to technological improvements, innovation and new discoveries unforseen by the omniscient scientists.  The issue simply became obsolete.

The same is happening today:  scientists, Al Gore and Prius owners the world over are predicting that the world’s icecaps will soon melt and California will become part of the Pacific Ocean’s Continental Shelf.  They show pictures of cute polar bears (who can swim mind you) stranded on lonely chunks of ice floating out to sea and blame economic success and industrial progress for its plight.  They sound the alarm, demand that every nation (except China and India) sign the feckless Kyoto Treaty (to which half of the signatories don’t even abide), pillory those, namely the United States, who refuse to sign and guilt Middle America into buying compact cars while they use their private jets to fly cross-country to attend the next global warming conference cancelled due to snow, all the while decrying the poverty in sub-Saharan Africa (which as previously noted has zero carbon footprint).

Don’t buy into the hype.  Like the economic plight, Liberals are simply using global warming to consolidate power and socialize the country.  Fortunately, according to Powerline a pluarality of Americans now believe global warming is not caused by human activity, but rather planetary weather cycles.  And according to one scientist, we’re actually entering an age of global cooling.  Oh no! Begin hording fur coats and hand warmers!  Rally for electronic heaters!  Protest ice rinks!  Shut down Dairy Queen!

I recently had a rather enlightening conversation that confirmed the foundational truth of (capital L) Liberalism:  It views the world as a fictional realm that works itself out on paper.  As such, the world can be changed by simply altering a sentence here and there, whether or not those sentences represent actual people.

For example, most Liberals, at best, take a postmodern approach to religion: whatever works for you.  Thus, in the public square, they have no problem with communities displaying crosses and nativities so long as they are forced to also display menorahs, crescents, wiccan symbols or atheist screed, et. al.  To them, it’s an issue of equality.  If the community is going to represent one belief, it must represent all beliefs.  That’s only fair, right?

I suppose it would be fair in a vacuum where people’s beliefs did not influence their life choices and thereby did not influence the community in which they live; however, in reality it is the exact opposite of fairness.  The United States is not perfectly divided between Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists and Wiccans where “equal representation” actually reflects the reality of the community (the same is true racially: the US is not perfectly divided between the races so a commericial with one black, one white, one Latino and one Asian is not equally representing the US, but rather over-representing minorities and under-representing whites).  So mandating fairness from above actually results in unequal representation.  In the US, a lawn featuring a cross, a menorah, a crescent and a declaration that their is no God is not representative of the realities of the US.  It actually distorts the fact that the US is predominantly Christian.  It is a farce that attempts to create a false reality “more perfect” (under the Liberal definition) than our present reality.  In reality, it’s ridiculous (as would be a nativity display in Saudi Arabia) because it presumes that the American public is equally split between the religions.

Furthermore, such an obsession with “fairness” suggests that every belief system is perfectly equal in creating/maintaining the society that we in the United States value.  This is patently false:  as any passing glance at world news can attest, Christian nations, defined broadly (The West), are more peaceful than Muslim nations (Africa, the Middle East, SE Asia); Christian nations are economically better off than Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist nations (India, Nepal, SE Asia); and Christian nations are far more accepting of “free expression” (art, etc.) than Muslim and Atheist nations (Cuba, China).  This isn’t coincidence! In fact, nations not rooted in some version of Christian principles (love they neighbor, grace, forgiveness and a personal responsibility to the rule of law) have had to align themselves closer to such ideals in order to move past the barbarism of old (eg. China & India).

This is not to say that Christian nations are perfect or that they even model themselves after Christ (Western Europe is becoming largely Atheist as it declines), but they certainly have been more successful by any worldly definition (or any definition of social justice).  Under the simplest metric: not only do they feed their people, but in fact, their people feed the world (both literally and figuratively).

Thus, conservatives view it as a good thing that the US is a Christian nation rooted in Christian principles.  To alter this is to destroy the national fabric and usher in the nation’s decline.  However, to Liberals all of this is blasphemy.  To Liberals, the United States is nothing more than one big canvas upon which the world is invited to draw (for better or worse).  As all cultures and religions are equal (in the absolute) then it does not matter if the US is Christian, Muslim or Wiccan, so long as it “fairly” represents all ideas and people groups.  Thus, “freedom of religion” does not mean that people can worship as they please (as this would result in more public nativities and less crescents), but rather that in no way should people in any way be pressured, even indirectly, to adopt any religion.  “Separation of church and state” does not mean, simply, that church and state are separate entities with separate authority structures, but rather that the church should not (and constitutionally - even though the statement never appears in the Constitution - cannot) influence society in any meaningful way.

This example, applied to all areas, explains the Liberal mindset:  fairness means every possibility is represented, rather than representation proportionate to reality; elimating racism means preferring minority groups over whites, rather than merit-based advancement regardless of skin color; economic equality means robbing from those who start their own businesses and work hard, sacrificing time with their families to do so, to give to those who have little, if any, desire to work and have no ideas to bring to that process; love means allowing everyone to do whatever they want, rather than advising people to make good decisions that benefit their future.  Up is down, forward is backward and falsehood is passed off as truth.

I don’t really have anything awe inspiring to write about the conflict in Israel, other than it’s more of the same:

1.) Hamas and Co. fire rockets at Israel’s civilian centers.

2.) Israel puts up with it for months and then finally answers back.

3.) The world condemns Israel.

I do not believe this will ever change and thus, it does not surprise me or shock me when it occurs.  However, the conflict does touch on something that interests me and that was an issue during the Presidential campaign: negotiating with rogue regimes and their leaders.

During the Presidential campaign, Obama stated repeatedly that he didn’t see the big deal in sitting down and talking with our enemies.  His supporters often contend that this is one of the reasons the world no longer respects us, because of our “you’re either with us or against us” mentality.  This type of thinking is standard on the Left: if only our enemies really knew us, they’d like us more; if we could just sit down and talk with them, everything would be okay.  (This is in the same league of delusion as “you fear what you don’t understand.”  As Reagan said of Communism, we fear it because we understand it all too well.)

Don’t get me wrong, diplomacy is very important - vital in fact - but it is not the panacea for world peace that liberals often make it out to be.  Diplomacy is simply a means to an end.  It is not the end itself.  Meeting together and discussing peace or even signing a deal dedicated to peace means nothing unless both signatories have the intention of holding themselves (and each other) to that agreement.  Often, diplomacy is simply used as a stall tactic to buy time to gain the upper hand or as a way of blackmailing the world.  History is rife with examples of such tomfoolery.  Three off the top of my head:

1.)  The USSR repeatedly signed arms control treaties with the US only to violate them from day one of the treaty.  In the mind of the Soviets, arms control treaties were a good way to halt US arms production and therefore provide time to increase its own arms superiority.

2.)  North Korea on several occasions has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for tangible benefits.  Each time the US has agreed and some bright leader (often Jimmy Carter) comes home declaring “peace in our time,” only to be surprised a year later when the North Koreans renege on their commitment.

3.) During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese (and their communist sponsers in China and the Soviet Union) pushed for negotiations and conferences in order to end the violence.  When it was agreed to meet with them, the North Vietnamese simply used the time to lick their wounds and reconstitute the war effort, continuing the war once the negotiations were over.

In any of these instances, the question is always the same: why would the hostile party agree to a deal that is in exact opposition to its desired (and often stated) ends?  Why would Hamas actually commit to the Western definition of peace when the stated purpose of its organization is to eliminate the state of Israel?  Why would North Korea commit to give up its nuclear weapons program when it is the only thing that demands respect from the outside world and can be used every few years as a negotiating tool to receive things from the West that it otherwise could not hope to receive?  Why would Iran, a state whose leaders have stated their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, not want the most destructive weapon on earth?

It is also important to consider what is meant by “peace.”  Peace is not simply the absence of armed conflict.  Whereas to communism peace was defined as living in a world without capitalist oppression of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, to the Palestinians peace is defined as living in a world without Israel.  By these definitions, the West could not actually be “at peace” with the Soviet Union nor could Israel ever be “at peace” with the Palestinians.  Any deal suggesting otherwise is fools gold.  Unless there is a concrete reason to hope that the ends of a particular country will change, there is simply no point in discussing the matter with them and negotiating a peace settlement.  In fact, its actually dangerous to do so because it gives the appearance of peace where no peace actually exists.  Rather, the enemy is using your delusion to improve his ability to kill you or otherwise achieve his ends.  It is false peace, more dangerous than no peace at all.

The main issue to understand is that the world is not like the United States and most of its citizens do not think like Americans.  Americans value law and order, negotiating in good faith and the importance of a man’s word.  However, most societies around the globe do not value any of these ideals.  When Americans sign something, it means they agree to adhere to it; if they do not, the other party can take them to court and force them to adhere to it.  However, in most societies corruption is the norm and bribes are simply viewed as a necessary step in accomplishing something.  Contracts are as flexible as the relationship between the two parties and generally speaking, there is no legal system to enforce the letter of the law.  So to the non-Western world, why not sign a treaty with the United States or Israel if it means a few months or years of being able to pursue one’s goals without the economic and military pressure to cease?  History shows us that in such cases the burden of proof is on the accuser to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that said nation is violating the treaty.  Even with today’s technology, this is not easy to do.

Those who subscribe to the peace delusion were defined by Lenin as “useful idiots,” blind to the real intentions of the Soviet Union, but useful in allowing the USSR to achieve its ends.  Sadly, the West is still populated with “useful idiots,” the majority of whom reside squarely on the Left of the political spectrum (see: Carter Jr., James Earl; Kennedy, Edward M.; Biden Jr., Josesph R.  The list is endless.)

Adding on to Walter’s point below, the myth of the government being able to “create jobs” is the “broken window fallacy” where the focus is on what is seen instead of what is unseen.

Paraphrasing, it goes as follows: if a store owner accidentally breaks his window, he must hire someone to fix it, thus providing that man with work. So it creates jobs right? Why not break more windows and thus, create more work for the populace? Because the store owner who is paying to have his window fixed cannot use that money for something else. As Stossel writes:

A broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn’t have to replace the window.

In other words, if the store owner hadn’t broken his window he would’ve spent that money at lunch in a restaurant across the street or maybe bought his wife flowers on the way home or even put it in the bank to one day purchase a new home. As he spent his money on the window, he cannot spend it elsewhere.

Breaking proverbial windows to create jobs is the solution for failure. Only business owners can creates jobs that push the country forward. America did not become the world’s largest economy by having the government shuffle money around. Eventually, the electric car and alternative forms of energy will become realities because of human ingenuity improving technology to the point where it becomes profitable, not because the government raised taxes in order to subsidize the creation of the electric car or because the environmental lobby guilted the American people into taking public transportation. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the government setting goals for private industry or for the nation in general; however, to demand technological ingenuity with one hand while bailing out the auto industry with the other is utter foolishness. Would your teenager improve his grades if you bought him a car for getting a D on his report card?

A common fallacy on the Left is that the United States has never fought wars for humanitarian purposes, but rather only cynically goes to war when its national interests are at stake. This type of thinking results in “blood for oil” rhetoric that still has traction in many circles and is the primary complaint of those who wear Save Darfur t-shirts and blame the US for not stopping the genocide in Rwanda. Disregarding the question of whether or not it is ever prudent to go to war when it does not involve one’s national interests, the claim that the US has not is patently false. US History, particularly since World War II, presents countless examples:

The Iraq War/Persian Gulf War: If the US is as evil and manipulative as the Left seems to think, then why didn’t we just ally ourselves with Saddam? Why did we even have differing interests in the first place? After all, we were his allies in the 1980s when he was at war with Iran. Why wouldn’t we have simply allowed him to overrun Kuwait in 1990, benefiting handsomely from those actions? Because our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

Kosovo, et. al.: If our UN-backed foray into former Yugoslavia was not a humanitarian mission, than what is? Serbian Christians under Milosovic were exterminating Bosnian Muslims. Under Clinton, we bombed Milosovic into submission by targeting his energy resources in the middle of winter. Then UN/US troops were sent in to restore order. (Yes, this was not entirely a US affair, but the UN has never acted militarily without the United States. Do you really think the UN would’ve sent troops had the United States not been the primary actor?) But what does Yugoslavia have to do with US national interests? Nothing, but our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

Somalia: A small US force was sent in to stabilize the country and root out a few drug cartels. True, the horn of Africa is close to the world’s primary oil supply, but why not just let the country fall into disarray and deal with the victors like an 18th century European power would have done? Because our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

Vietnam/Korea: While the US entered these wars (the latter backed by the UN) in order to “contain communism,” how was it in the US interest to draw the line at Vietnam and Korea? They are not great powers. They have few natural resources. One could argue that they are in semi-strategic locations, but they are not geopolitical necessities where spending 13 years, billions of dollars, soft power reserves and hundreds of thousands of lives could make sense in light of the national interest. Even if the Domino Theory was proven true (which history proved otherwise), why not cede Indochina and Korea to Communism and draw the line at Japan or India, countries far more vital to US national security? Because our foreign policy has never been as simple as pursuing the national interest.

And this is only since World War II, arguably the only war in US history, other than the wars for independence (1776 and 1812) and the Spanish-American War (1898), that revolved around the national interest. I am not suggesting that the U.S. has only operated out of humanitarian motives. But to suggest that it has only acted out of selfish motives (to gain/secure territory, to gain/secure resources or to simply increase its power) is not true and vastly distorts the character of the United States. It is a myth perpetrated by those who believe:

A.) the United States is an imperialist nation that is the primary obstacle to world peace

B.) the United States is no more moral than any other state actor, the former Soviet Union included

C.) war is always wrong

D.) pursuing the national interest except when preserving the existence of the state is immoral

E.) A combination of A, B, C and/or D

If the United States believed in Realpolitik or Raison d’Etat, whatever is in the best interests of the state is moral, it surely would not operate in the manner it has/does. It would not have entered into conflicts in far off places for supremely moral objectives that have little impact on the national interest. It would not have limited its own power and freedom of action by creating an international body designed to oversee world affairs and eliminate the outbreak of war. It would not have attempted to “democratize” nations with large oil reserves, it would have either taken them over or simply dealt with whomever happened to be in power, regardless of his human rights record. Russia and China operate in this manner. For all their preening, the nations of Europe generally operate in this manner. The United States does not and never really has. We fight on principle, more often than not, to our own detriment.

The first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief led the newly-arrived English colonists to a grassy slope along the James River and instructed them to drop to their knees and pray in thanks for a safe arrival to the New World. It was December 4, 1619, and 38 men from Berkeley Parish in England vowed:

“Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrivall at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually keept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God.”

Thank God always for his provision.  We have been truly blessed.

A Russian analyst has predicted that in addition to handing the reigns of the global economy to Russia and China, the United States will be so divided that it will actually break up into six states, separated as follows:

the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.

While the economic aspect of this projection is probably more accurate than I would like to believe (although I don’t why China, a burgeoning economic powerhouse, would allow the Russian mafia state with no manufacturing or technological capability to be part of its global domination), regarding geopolitics, I think the Russian analyst is confusing US history with his own. While regionally divided on many social and economic issues (although in many ways the division is more urban/rural than east/west), the United States is not the Soviet Union.

The “stan” countries of the former USSR had absolutely nothing to do with Russia. They were simply colonized by the tsar and forced to speak his language. The first real chance they had to separate - when Russia was absolutely at its weakest point militarily - they ran. (And the running is not yet over as Chechnya has sought independence since 1991.) They became Soviets by brute force.

While cynics (and liberals) argue that the United States was colonized in a similar manner, its not as if there are smoldering pockets of natives around the country that are simply waiting for their chance to overthrow the state and return to their nomadic way of life. Whatever else it is, the United States was founded primarily on an idea. Nothing has shown that the regions of the country are no longer committed to the basics of that idea. While the US does have regional, social, religious and economic fault lines, it has always had these fault lines (that’s one reason why we have two houses of Congress). One could argue that these divisions are growing, but I do not believe they are growing to the extent that the central states, for example, will all of the sudden secede and form their own country. Despite our differences, the regions truly have too much in common and too much at stake to break apart. I have absolutely no doubt that, when tested, we’ll bind together.

At minimum it will not occur because the six-state arrangement would place Los Angeles and New York (the only two cities that liberal elites on either coast really care about) in different countries. That alone would cause riots in Hollywood.

Interesting commentary over at Powerline regarding whether or not Obama’s cabinet appointments, thus far give evidence of his intention to govern as a centrist. The main point:

It is fun to throw back at Obama certain of his quotes about bringing in new players, and it is even more fun to chide Obama’s less astute lefty supporters to the extent they complain about a “betrayal.” But it is quite premature to infer from the selection of Clintonists that the left gained little by working to elect Obama or that Obama will serve up a third Bill Clinton term.

My two cents: I believe that Obama will go as far left as the country will allow. While I believe he is a strange mix of leftist ideologue and pragmatic realistic, I believe first and foremost (like most politicians) that he is a popularity hound. Thus, I believe he will govern primarily based on opinion polls and approval ratings more than anything else. In that way I do think his term will appear like Clinton’s (unprincipled); however, I think there’s much more of a calling for a far-left agenda (anti-market, wealth redistribution, pacifism at all costs, environmentalism uber-alles) now, on the eve of Obama’s reign, than there ever was under Clinton in the “vacation from history” known as the 1990s.

Thomas Sowell has a new article up at National Review regarding the new American right: the right to win. It covers a nice smattering of issues all relating to the leftish notion that if someone isn’t happy, then somehow injustice has been done.

As the election approached, pundits warned that, if Obama lost, there would be riots in the ghetto. We will never know. But since when does any candidate have a right to win any office, much less the White House?

The worst of all the reactions from people who act as if they have a right to win have come from gay activists in the wake of voter rejection of so-called “gay marriage,” which is to say, redefining what marriage has meant for centuries.

It’s good stuff. The Liberal/Libertarian notion that “you can do anything you want until it begins to invade my rights” doesn’t really work in a reality where we all generally have to share the same streets (and neighborhoods and schools and land). At some point, in areas where people’s lives intersect, society as a whole must decide between what behaviors it believes are detrimental and those that it believes are beneficial to the common good.