ThePoliticalReview

There is no country in the world that frustrates me quite as much as Israel. I want to like it, I really do, but every time I find myself gaining a healthy respect for it, it finds a new way to disappoint. In a region that is potentially on the brink of chaos, Israel stands defiant time and time again.

There's a lot to be admired about Israel, not the least of which is its resiliance in the face of innumerable foes. It is no surprise that many enemies of Zion are simply militant anti-Semites hellbent on killing all the Jews in the Promised Land (if not beyond), and no amount of restrained foreign policy will be able so appease many of these extremists. The Israeli Defense Force, and in particular their Air Defense Force, have proven equal to the task of protecting their homeland.

However, the problem isn't with most of the Middle East; the problem is usually with Palestine, a geographic manifastation of moral and political ambiguity. While the United States and other Western allies are likely to stand up and protect Israel against attacks from the likes of Ahmadinejad's Iran, more and more people and nations are being left cold by the Israeli strategy of development in contested Palestinian regions. (The New York Times recently featured a fantastic article here about a simulated US-Iran-Israel armed conflict, which I cannot recommend highly enough.)

Of course, nothing represents this changing mood quite so well as the US/UK response to Israel's recent decision to pursue settlement construction in the contested East Jerusalem region. It was widely reported how insulted the Obama administration was when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the new settlements while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, but even this over-reported "slap in the face" was not enough to severely undermine the established alliance between America and Israel which has stood since the nation's founding after World War II. What it did manage to do was severely piss off the West, to the point that the UK actually expelled Israeli diplomats (albeit for a separate incident), while simultaneously driving Palestinians away from the table over peace talks that were finally set to make some small improvements to the area.

Now, I understand that Israel and Palestine have a long and very complicated history with each other. I know that both sides have been in the wrong several times, and that for every Israeli checkpoint set up in Palestinian territory there are more than ten rockets fired at innocent Israeli civilians. But I'm absolutely amazed at oblivious the current Israeli leadership seems to be to the gravity of their situation. Netanyahu insists that the developments harm nobody, but can he seriously not grasp that for every new Israeli house built, some Palestinian family could lose their home or their land?

I know that the Hamas-sponsored terrorists plan and execute constant attacks against unarmed civilians, and that their failure to kill effectively is no defense against a justified counterattack. I also know that a nuclear Iran gives Israel good reason to fear extinction, but with so many real threats and problems to face, why is it that the Israeli government seems so set on creating new problems while scoffing at the very allies they expect will do the heavy lifting for them in any real war?

The Verdict: The Glass Is Half Full

I know this might seem unexpected, but ultimately, I really am optimistic about Israel, not just as an American strategic ally in the biggest war-zone of the decade, but as a legitimate national society that has earned its place in world affairs. The problem is that its political leaders are of the worst, unreliable kind, harvested from a hopelessly convoluted electoral system. In time, I truly believe that Israel can prosper peacefully with at least its nearest neighbors, and thrive even as other powers continue to threaten it for years. All Israel needs to do is to survive without so terribly alienating its Western allies that they overthrow the Israeli government themselves, and that seems like challenge enough for now.

Bryan Baird can be contacted at bryanbaird [at] wustl.edu

I'll be frank: Sarah Palin needs to shut the hell up.

Alright, I admit that might not be quite fair. Although I happen to think she is an incompetent political figure that is trying too hard to fit in on the national stage, she represents a certain intangible something that resonates with a lot of Americans. While I'm not a fan of her as a politician, I can appreciate that she is an inspiring image for people who disagree with me on core issues.

So I'll rephrase my earlier statement: Educated people who support Sarah Palin need to shut the hell up.

I'm standing by this one. It's one thing to view Palin as a beacon of representation for your interests as a "common man" (I refuse to indulge in the term "Joe Six-Pack", lest I encourage such drinking habits). It's quite another thing entirely to have a college degree and not be bothered by the fact that this woman needs crib notes to help her remember to "lift Americans [sic] spirits".

Few stories show this problem of incomprehensible defensiveness more than the recent hullabaloo over jokes recently made on the Fox animated show Family Guy, in which a character with Down's syndrome noted that her mother is "the former governor of Alaska". Now understandably, Palin was none too pleased about this, as the gag was an obvious reference to her two-year-old son, who also has Down's syndrome. People may accuse Palin of overreacting, but I can definitely see how her maternal instincts would want her to protect her children from such high-profile, low-brow humor.

What is much less excusable is the reaction of her supporters. Take this article by nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr., in which he seems to believe that Family Guy is the voice of the Democratic Party. He argues that liberals who are downplaying the joke would not be so complacent if their idol Bill Clinton were targeted with the same malicious humor, despite the fact that the show had an entire episode dedicated to him.

I am extremely disinclined to give any leeway to public victimization here. Palin was too eager to cry foul on the "liberal media" during her failed VP bid for me to feel sorry for her now, especially since she is now a paid member of the media herself. I can understand why she may want to fight against perceived attacks on her family, and I can even grudgingly accept that her politically removed supporters will instinctively rise to arms to defend her at every opportunity.

But what I can't stand is when smart, educated people say things that do not meet the standards of scrutiny imposed by their privileged place in society. All such argumentation does is to remove rational discourse from discussion and replace it with emotion-fueled name-calling. It gives easy fodder to Palin and others like her so that they may parrot the conclusions of others and sound slightly less moronic because they have a source to cite.

So if you support Sarah Palin, and you consider yourself to be in any way more intellectual than those Americans who have no leisure time to spare for intellecualism, stop and think. Does this make any sense? Is Family Guy really doing anything worse than it has done to countless other celebrities? And does this woman have the skills required to be successful in the political realm?

Think hard, and then please, kindly, shut the hell up.

The Verdict: No surprise here. The Glass Is Half Empty.

Bryan Baird can be contacted at bryanbaird [at] wustl.edu

If there's one thing I learned when a cold kept me in this New Year's Eve, it's that people really love to reflect on the same events each year. Well, that and having all three seasons of Arrested Development on DVD is much better than any New Year's Party. Besides that, though, I can tell you how pretty much every single end-of-the-year montage went this last December 31st:

1) Obama becomes President

2) The economy sucks

3) OMG MJ DIED

4) The economy still sucks

5) A smattering of mildly entertaining pop culture references which none of us will remember one year from now

5.1) YO LIST I'M REALLY HAPPY FOR YOU, AND IMMA LET YOU FINISH, BUT 2008 HAD ONE OF THE BEST END OF THE YEAR MONTAGES OF ALL TIME. OF ALL TIME.

6) A different part of the economy sucks

7) The last of the Kennedy brothers dies

8) Something about health care

9) The goddamn economy sucks

Obviously, it isn't the most inspiring of lists. Ignoring the fact that, of all the things that happened, Michael Jackson somehow continued to get the most coverage again, (as well as the despicable lack of tribute to that brilliant jewel of cinema called Zombieland), it certainly doesn't seem like there was much worth celebrating in this country since late January of last year. The best news we got all year was the balloon boy was safe the whole time, and frankly that kind of made a lot of us want to cause him physical harm, or at least hurt Wolf Blitzer for wasting so much of our time on it. "At least be happy this year is over," said all the broadcasters. "Now starts the decade when Twitter and internet ADD will solve our problems at the price of our souls."

But I look back on this year that just passed (three days after all the cool people did it) and I say to hell with it. As I've pointed out over the course of this year, very important people have been very wrong and very unwilling to admit it. The space programs of the world saw small victories that were well below what we could achieve if anybody had thoughts to spare for what lies beyond our atmosphere. The Republicans still don't seem to have any great leaders. Almost a year in, President Obama still hasn't made a few key staff appointments in the intelligence and legal communities. In spite of all that, my verdict on this year is that The Glass Is Half Full.

For every seemingly catastrophic problem we faced as a nation and as a species in the last year, we seemed to move quickly on to the next. While some people see this as a limitless supply of problems, I see it as an almost endless defiance of pessimism. The luxury to focus on new problems means that we either survived the old ones, solved them, or that they were never really as bad as we thought. Where others have seen endless trials I see endless triumphs, like how many have forgotten that the Dow Jones Industrial Average made it's way back over 10,000 and rose higher still, a sign that market health is in fact on course to return. Or that even at our most battered hour in living memory, 9 in 10 Americans still had a job. Or that in spite of all well-founded doubts, American casualties in Iraq fell more than 50% to levels less than 1/6 what they were just two years ago. And in spite of all problems in Afghanistan, the American military remains the strongest and most influential in the world.

So yes, a lot of things sucked in 2009. But if anything, all it has done is shown us that we are indeed very successful and blessed to consider such things to be so important.

And if you don't agree. Well, hey. At least it's over.

Bryan Baird can be contacted at bryanbaird [at] wustl.edu

Let me be the first to say how thrilled I am about this new website, a new forum for intelligent political discourse within the university community. It marks the latest in a string of campus political programming that makes me undeniably (and uncharacteristically) optimistic. From the well-attended Campus Crossfire debate between College Democrats and Republicans to the encouraging success of the first ever Hip-Hop Week, this last semester has been full of events that make me glad to be part of this university, where the student body can maintain this level of engagement during a time that lacks the excitement of last year’s Vice Presidential Debate and national elections.  So… thank you for that.

More specifically, I want to talk about a lesser-known group on campus that has grabbed my attention lately. The Conservative Leadership Association has somewhat won me over the last two months or so, although far be it from me to agree with them on just about anything. To be sure, the latest edition of their own magazine The Witness left a lot to be desired, but then again everything somewhat pales in comparison to the latest editions of your own Political Review. (Seriously, have you seen the most recent editions? If not, you can find them in our online archives.) I was one of maybe twenty students who attended one of their recent presentations, an outside professor speaking of the merits of a distributist economic system. While I was certainly not convinced by the time I left, a found the discourse to be of a level that I doubt I would be able to find in a non-academic setting and, in fact, probably far superior to the vast majority of even collegiate political discussions I’ve witnessed. I think that, if you can get over the dirty word “conservative” appearing in their title, this group may have a lot to offer for politicos of every persuasion.

Sure, there is a lot of room for improvement. The recent faux-gulag fiasco, while entertaining, has shown a certain level of absurdity in public debate. Also, despite the vocal outrage at the university smoking ban, little more than a handful of WashU students turned out to vote on Election Day (yes, there was an election this year), so the proposed smoking ban passed by an extraordinary margin. Still, things have been much better than I would expect in an off year, and I hope this trend of discourse continues to flourish.

Verdict: The Glass is Half Full!



WUPR can be contacted at WebEditor [at] wupr.org