Leak

Leak

The one thing President Obama did not need following the resignation of General McChrystal was another scandal in Afganistan. And yet, with the unearthing of thousands of wartime documents from 2004 onwards that paint a bleak picture of the war and tell of a double-dealing Pakistani government, it seems that the tide will turn rapidly against the already unpopular war, both at home and with the "shocked" Afghan leaders.
Although the Pakistani Intelligence officials have already refuted the yet-unconfirmed documents that detail alleged exchanges with the Taliban where the Pakistanis conspired against American forces, including attempts to assassinate Afghan officials. The American government has been careful when dealing with the Pakistani officials in the past, and there is a serious risk of diplomatic problems if these documents turn out to be legitimate. If the Pakistani government is as close to the Taliban as the documents imply, the American government could find itself in a dangerous position.
The Obama Administration has stayed firm on its decision for an end date in Afghanistan. Today, especially in the face of these new materials that show a war that, if to end with America's goals completed, is far from over, the Obama Administration faces criticism of the 2011 end date from both sides. At the same time, Americans are growing more distasteful of the war that seems endless and increasingly useless.
Popularity should not define a president's decisions, especially in terms of foreign policy. Still, when the midterms are so close, it's likely that the pubic's opinion will influence the President's- and Congress'- choices.
The Obama Administration has already begun to feel the public pressure to extract the American forces from Afghanistan, and, if not to completely leave, also extreme pressure to reexamine the counter-insurgency strategy President Obama reaffirmed his belief in by nominating General Petreus for the vacancy left by General McChrystal. The doubt in the current path is not just from the outside- Administration insiders are beginning to question the policy.
Now, President Obama has two options. He can either move the exit date up and remove forces from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, or he can impart, somehow, knowledge to the American people that refutes or overrides these documents, proving the Afghan war successful and moving in a positive- and eventually terminable- direction.

Read more »

Excess

Excess

Last year, failing banks handed out billions in bonuses to executives after taxpayers had bailed them out, rationalized by politicians calling these banking conglomerates 'too big to fail'. Now, the Obama Administration and Congress have taken a major, sweeping step towards ensuring that no bank is to big to fail and that never again will a late-night vote taken by Congress lead to taxpayer dollars being shoveled into the pockets of bloated banks.
The banking regulation reform bill orchestrated by Senator Chis Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, for whom the bill is named, will protect American consumers more than any financial regulations in history. In the past, nearly a dozen shrunken agencies were tasked with protecting consumers in different areas of the complex financial market. Resultantly, some areas were overprotected, with the bureaucratic mess making true consumer advocacy nearly impossible, while other sectors of the market were left completely untouched. Now, one reaching organization will protect Americans from all practices in the financial markets. Additionally, tough restrictions will provide new stability in the markets while pruning practices that endanger Americans.
Still, this bill is not quite as reaching as it ought to be. While in theory banks may now be 'too big to fail', this only applies to taxpayer bailouts. Banks can still combine and bloat, becoming impossible to regulate by any agency. Gramm-Leach-Blily, the law that allows consumer banking to meld with banking insurance companies and insure themselves is still enacted, creating a dangerous investment for consumers who assumed their finances were protected. Also, though regulation is now tougher than ever, the government is still unable to insure against taxpayer-hurting practices, like Wall St. banks frivolous handling of the TARP funds last year.
Even though the new law is far from perfect, it offers protection to consumers like never before. If the current regulations had been enacted a few years ago, the Goldman-Sachs fraud case would have been either more sparse or would have not happened at all, due entirely to the creation of the new protection agency.

Read more »

What Happened to Muckraking?

What Happened to Muckraking?

At the turn of the twentieth century, journalists in America began to reassess their role as a check on the federal and state government. Reporters who once wrote straight news were rapidly evolving into investigative journalists, and corruption in American governments was starved of power by this new, nosier version of journalism. Starting in the early 1920s, the work of these investigative journalists began to have a measurable impact on Americans, if not the impact they assumed their work would have.
Upton Sinclair, who was privy to the disgusting standards of living of immigrants in the early 1900s, wrote The Jungle in effort to raise the overall humanity of these worker's lives and to minimize the impact political corruption had on their voting. However, the horrifying conditions in meat packing factories detailed in Sinclair's story disgusted Americans. Resultantly, the Food and Drug Administration was created (FDA), and the struggling immigrants were left behind for years later. Sinclair's work was the symbol of early twentieth century 'muckraking'- a term used for those who were willing to sift through America's dirt to expose social or political injustice.
Later in the century, The Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were assigned to what originally seemed a simple break-in story at the Watergate Hotel. Quickly after the arrest of the men involved, the mundane crime mutated into a series of investigative pieces that led to the indictment and resignation of former President Richard Nixon, changing the way Americans look at the role of reporters and the purpose of transparency in political affairs forever.
These men were the American media at its best. The true purpose of the press- beyond simply providing information for all Americans- is to act as the people's check on the government. The media is average Americans' eyes and ears; the reporters go the places the constituants cannot.
So where are the muckrakers today? In 2010, there are plenty of reporters and political commentators trying to stir up dirt (because, after all, dirt is what sells papers), but how many of them are actually muckraking, actually exposing social injustice?
Very few reporters truly expose injustices today, mostly due to the extremely small range of topics that are featured on mainstream news shows and in popular papers. The Rachel Maddow Show, however, often produces stories that are under-reported on and presents them in a muckraking-like way that focuses on the injustices being occurred. Still, even such an investigative program is unable to go all the way for these human-rights pieces, which are often reduced to short features directly before or after a commercial break. Other programs that attempt to muckrake almost always fall into a yellow-journalism trap, sensationalizing any bit of kicked up dirt in the name of scandal.
Muckrakers are rare, but the practice must be preserved if the press is to continue to carry out its most important role: that of a check on power, a noose for corruption.

Read more »

Friday Feature: World Cup

Friday Feature: World Cup

By Sports Analyst Dylan M.

Why the Favorites Lost
No one could have predicted this year’s World Cup outcomes. Italy, France, and Brazil’s early eliminations left fans shocked; Italy was the 2006 World cup winner and some thought a contender. In 2008 with almost the same team, they struggled in the Euro Cup and scraped past mediocre teams in qualifying for the 2010 World Cup. In the group stages they looked lackluster and scored late in the games if at all. Their performance was almost as bad as France’s.

France had issues on and off the field, and when the entire team went on strike, the French team almost sealed their fate. In the past, teams that go on strike before the World Cup rarely go past the group stages. For example, Portugal, before the 1986 World Cup, went on strike and, right after, lost to Morocco who currently is 70th all time, as compared to Portugal’s 3rd place ranking.
Brazil, on the other hand, did nothing wrong until the Quarter Finals. They played with style, passed the ball, well and potentially had the players to win the tournament. Unfortunately, Brazil had one problem and it showed in the Netherlands game. They became frustrated and actually conceded an own goal, letting the Dutch team slowly amass pressure on the defense.
Who Will Win

The Spanish will have their work cut out for them when they play a Netherlands team that beat Brazil. The Spanish scrape by in each game. They won by a score of 1-0 against Portugal, 1-0 against Paraguay, and 1-0 against Germany. The Netherlands have a high scoring offence that has been more creative and less selfish frontline that has a even distribution of goals while the Spanish only have three goal scores. My prediction is a 2-1 Netherlands win in the 2010 World Cup.

Read more »

Forcing Peace

Forcing Peace

America is heavily invested in the stability of the international community. If the world’s peacefulness didn’t impact America, frankly, the US government wouldn’t be involved in worldwide conflicts. Because the search for American safety often leads to US participation in the affairs of other nations, the US has taken up an almost formulaic strategy of imposing peace on world powers. During the Cold War, the US attempted to create a peaceful situation in Korea by using military force, but instead brought about one of the most volatile stalemates of all time along the 38th parallel, where any amount of sparks could reignite the conflict. In Israel, American diplomacy efforts have tried to force peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, similarly to the reason there is conflict in that area of the world in the first place- the complete disregard for social and tribal boarders after World War One by the allies- Americans, who, as a whole, do not understand the ethnic divides in the Middle East, cannot hope to force a simple solution as a one-size fits all promise of peace and democracy, nor can they just ‘send in the troops’ to battle out Israel’s problems.
Today, Korean diplomacy efforts are more dangerous than ever. The recent ship-bombing incident may have set back North and South Korean relations years, and the US has few options if peace is a goal for Americans in Korea. Military action didn’t work the first time in Korea, and it won’t work if tried again. The UN could employ economic sanctions against North Korea, but that would require the compliance of the Chinese, who have- if not a complete supportive stance- a vested economic interest in North Korea. While it may be completely unwise for the American government to just allow the nations to work it out on their own, perhaps a second look needs to be taken at how the US helps forge peace. Currently, there is no diplomacy between North and South Korea- or North Korea and nearly any other nation, for that matter. The US’s priority should be resuming talks directly with the North Korean government, not getting the UN to send out nuclear sanctions the Korean government ignores. Peace may be far off in Korea, but it is achievable. America cannot simply force the North Korean government into a peaceful situation, they have to be willing to work for it as well, and their willingness can be incentivized by economic sanctions, but only with the support of the Chinese.
The same is true in Israel. No matter how many times the US attempts to spark peace talks between the Israel and Palestinian people, no true peace is achieved. The atmosphere in the area has only worsened over the last few years, and, somehow, America must gain the support of both parties if the US wishes to be the leader in peace talks. Once again, the use of military- either by the US or Israel- only hurt the situation: peace is not something that an army can shoot into people.
Military force is often the US’s go-to answer. While it can be highly helpful as a final solution, military action is not usually best for building a path to peace. Partial military missions, like counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, can be a step in the right direction. The same is true for peace talk in Israel and sanctions in North Korea. Not every problem can be answered with military force.

Read more »

600

600

In May, over 600 people were reported as dead in Darfur. This number, while among the most massive for the conflict, discounts the innumerable deaths the Sudanese government cannot or chooses not to record. The intense fighting and conflict barrs most aid groups from providing assistance to displaced and hunted Darfurians.

It is unacceptable for the American government to not be more public in their condemnation of Sudan. It is unacceptable for the US to provide no aid to a suffering people. It is unacceptable for the US to continue on the silent path they are on when it comes to Sudan.
The Sudanese government is ruthless. The international community: quiet. We said 'never again' after the Holocaust. Never again will we allow human suffering to occur on such a large scare. We said 'never again' after Rwanda. Never again will we ignore the pain of legions of humans. We haven't yet said never again for Darfur. We haven't even noted that Darfur is 'again'.
America doesn't always have the best track record on actually standing up for human rights. However, this can change. The American government can promote prompt and effective action in Darfur and against the regime in Sudan, possibly ending this genocide before it gets any worse. For years, no action has been taken, and no action today can make up for the lives already lost in the conflict. Still, some lives can be saved if America acts now.
Ignoring your problems doesn't solve them. So why is that the American strategy in Sudan? 600 lives were lost two months ago. How many more people must die before the US can help the international community in bringing an end to the terror in Darfur?

Read more »

Conflicting Goals

Conflicting Goals

“We must be wary of the steel vise in which many governments are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Georgia recently. As the United States has begun to engage more with Russia following the capture of the twelve accused Russian spies, eastern European nations have grown wary of the double-talk coming from the Administration about Russian actions. On June 24, President Obama met with Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev in a 'hamburger summit' which the Georgian government took as a bad sign of relations to come.

Georgia, whose poor relations with Russia have been marked by the Russian occupation of Georgian territory, hopes to rely on the United States' sphere of influence-type control in the area to push back against Russian involvement. Georgia is still involved in regular skirmishes with Russian forces along the borders.
The double-edged rhetoric coming out of the Administration in terms of Russia is unfortunately similar to that used when discussing issues like Israel. While the US has always taken a shyly pro-Israel stance, American politicians are always quick to condemn any Israeli violence. However, any condemnation on the part of Americans means absolutely nothing unless it is echoed in talks with Israel and unless action is taken.
The same is true for Russia. While Americans may be hesitant to criticize Russia due to the long history of volatile relations, perhaps simply telling Georgians that the US is sympathetic is not enough. If the US wishes to continue to refer to itself as a beacon for human rights worldwide, then some actual standing up for human rights may be necessary. It is possible to both be allies with Russia and Israel while taking realistic action to suport Georgia or the Palestinians. Unfortunately, today the US says they do both, but leaves the struggling people of Georgia and the non-existant state of Palestine behind.
There is no 'quick fix' for standing up for human rights while being allied with nations who don't always do the same. But there is a middle ground that could be reached by America when it takes the role of the more impartial supporter of people in general as opposed to the agenda of a single country.


Pool photo by Irakli Gedenidze via the New York Times

Read more »