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.)

Big apologies for the lack of content of the last week or two. Strangely enough, we all got hit with fairly large things at the same time: finals, illness, crushing workloads, etc. For now, here is some excellent reading to tide you over. Some of it is a bit older (from a few weeks ago) but all relevant/interesting.

“Jolting” the Economy by Thomas Sowell, from TownHall.com

Peter Wallison on how the government created the financial crisis, from Instapundint.com

Why Reporters — and Judges and Professors — Are Biased by Dennis Prager, from TownHall.com

Iraq’s New Dawn: Victory Across The Board by Michael Yon. From the New York Post.

Guy who predicted the financial meltdown: Obama’s only making it worse, from HotAir.com

Scientists urge caution on global warming, from Politico.com

Tracking ‘The Gore Effect’, from Politico.com

The Barack-Blagojevich Stand Off, from The Weekly Standard Blog.

The Employee Free Choice Act Is Unconstitutional, from The Wall Street Journal.

Channeling Jimmy Carter, by Stephen Moore. From The Wall Street Journal.

Quantum of Solis, from the Wall Street Journal.

Obama Administration: Too Many Cooks? from the Weekly Standard Blog.

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?

On Saturday President-Elect Obama gave us for the first time some details from his forthcoming economic plan. While we all can appreciate his well meaning intentions, his rhetoric seemed to be displaying the same enormous deficiency that should have derailed his entire campaign: a complete disregard for historical precedent. Obama intends to “save or create at least two and a half million jobs, while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil, and saving billions of dollars.” And he’s going to do this by investing (taxpayer) dollars in infrastructure construction and repair- rebuilding roads, retrofitting government buildings and schools to be more energy efficient, and installing the internet in schools and hospitals. (The careful observer will notice that Obama’s promise of 5 million jobs made repeatedly in the campaign has now been scaled down to 2.5 million jobs.) Unfortunately, this proposal seems to be suggesting a warm and fuzzy sounding band-aid to a cancer patient in need of serious chemotherapy. What he is presenting is a re-packaged New Deal/Great Society government solution to a problem government created in the first place. It has never worked before, and it won’t work this time. Just ask FDR and LBJ. History shows that government intervention turned a recession into the Great Depression. As Reagan said in his first inaugural address, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” In a great article entitled “Green Jobs“, John Stossel points out the fatal flaw in the “government created jobs” idea:

The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects…. Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there.

Obama said in his address that one of the measuring sticks he will use to determine the success of these programs is “whether America is more competitive in the world.” It’s really much more simple to do than he thinks. Forget this “new” job investment idea. Cut business/corporate tax rates, of which America currently has the 2nd highest in the world. Why would business people want to invest in a financial environment like we have now? Make income tax cuts permanent. Cut capital gains taxes. Wealth cannot be created by the government, it can only happen in the private sector. So set the American entrepreneur free- let us keep our own money and invest it back into the market, or wherever we see fit. That is how jobs are created, and they will be created here, on our own soil. The stock market, which thrives on stability, would sky rocket knowing exactly where its money will remain. The only way to fix this economy is to allow the private sector- the American people- to fix it themselves. The government can only get in our way.

The Democratic hopes of having a filibuster proof super majority (60 seats/votes) in the United States Senate was dashed when Saxby Chambliss won re-election in his runoff election with Jim Martin.  This is good news for conservatives–thank you Georgia voters.  Before President Obama can sign legislation into law it must pass both the House and Senate.  This means that some ultra-liberal legislation can be blocked my a minority of conservative Republicans in the Senate.  I hope they use this power wisely–with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid they will need it.

I’d like to elaborate a on a great point brought up by The Professor. In an Iowa campaign speech Obama said “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.” Obama’s “change we need” campaign slogan was as inescapable as it was vague. In a brilliant Wall Street Journal article Fouad Ajami discussed how Obama’s personality and promises were ambiguous enough as to allow any member of his adoring crowd to project their own individual needs and expectations upon him, knowing their own personal version of him would fulfill their every heart’s desire. Comparing Obama’s crowds to the ones Ajami has spent much of his career documenting in the Middle East, he says “A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination.”

Obama’s promise of “change” is vague in the same way. Can anyone identify exactly what it means? It obviously means many different things to many different people. To Obama, (at least for the past year), the primary definition of change is “Not Bush.” By that same token, anyone elected would represent change, so Obama spent the campaign comparing McCain to Bush, and it worked. McCain seemed to have not even noticed the comparison until midway into the third debate.

But for the voter, it meant something on an emotional level. Things are not “going well” now, so change is needed. War is universally bad and we only do it to kill innocent people, but Obama will change that. Bush gets some of his words mixed up on TV and therefore is a complete idiot, but Obama will change that. The environment is being destroyed and bunnies are being driven from their homes on a daily basis, but Obama will change that. Evil greedy Wall Street people are stealing money from my paycheck daily to provide padding for the seats of their golden sofas, and Obama will change that. Only rich, old, white men are involved in our government, so Obama will definitely change that. Washington DC has probably never even seen a black guy before he came into town. Above all, Obama understands me where Bush never could, so that’ll be a change too. All of this gives me hope. Hyperbole? I wish.

Now the happy feelings are starting to fade, the tears of joy have dried up, and we are looking face to face with reality. Change has come, and so far, Obama has evidently completely forgotten his own talking points. I have heard pundits and lay-people on both sides say “it’s not fair to criticize him yet, he’s not even into office!” To which I say: excuse me, I was under the impression that change is coming. That gave me hope. I was led to believe that change and hope radiated from every pore of Obama’s being. The words “change and hope” accounted for 87% of his speeches for the past year. So I expect change from minute one. Aren’t I entitled to it? I don’t believe change comes a week, a month, a year, or even a 2nd term after he is elected, I think it began on Nov. 4th.

So where’s America’s change so far? He’s well into his most important pre-inauguration step, setting up his teams. Unfortunately for the “change and hope” crowd, nearly every member of his cabinet shows that despite a year’s worth of saying the contrary, he is indeed planning on “playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and [will be] expecting a different result.” Let’s step back a few months, to his first pick, VP. Who does he pick? Joe Biden, the most insider of insiders, a guy who has never held a single non-government job in his life. Biden has been in the Senate for 30+ years, since Nixon was in office. Nice one there. Rahm Emanuel? Greg Craig? Clinton hacks. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Are you kidding me? Every single one, a complete and total government/Washington insider, through and through. None of them have brought any kind of noteworthy (read: beneficial) change to our country so far, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get there this time, right? Perhaps my favorite appointment was that he has decided to keep Robert Gates on as Sec. of Defense. The only issue I heard mentioned about it on the news today was how incredible is it that Obama’s keeping a Republican on staff. Which is completely missing the point- why is the agent of change, who has been talking about Bush’s “failed war strategies” and “failed foreign policy” choosing to keep Bush’s Sec. of Defense? Wouldn’t that imply that Obama thinks Gates is doing a good job? But I thought the definition of “change” was “not Bush?”

If I were an Obama fan I’d be pretty confused right now. You know that cliché, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results? Apparently Obama thought it was a prescription for how to pick his cabinet members. Now that’s change I can believe in! Or not.

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.

Myth #1:  Huge voter turnout
The fact is we did have a large voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election just like we did for the 2004 election.  However, the turnout numbers were nearly identical to the 2004 election.  The estimate is that around 60.7 percent to 61.7 percent of the eligible voters cast ballots this year.  In 2004, that number was 60.6 percent.

Myth #2:  The media was not biased in favor of Obama
The Center for Media and Public Affairs conducted a survey to find out how the media covered both campaigns.  The results?  65% of news stories showed Obama in a positive light while only 31% of news stories showed McCain in a positive manner.

Myth #3:  Obama is a champion of change
Jim Geraghty has a rundown of some of the recent people that Obama has tapped to be advisers or Secretaries in his new administration.  Some of the people Obama has tapped either served in Bill Clinton’s administration or have been in politics forever:  Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle, Greg Craig, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Peter Orszag, and more.

These individuals are prime examples of Washington and political insiders that seem to diverge from Obama’s pre-election rhetoric of: “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result” - Barack Obama, December 27, 2007.  So much for “change.”  I guess we’re just left with “hope.”

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.